"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring)
So Osama bin Laden is dead. After 10 years, we've finally tracked the bastard down and killed him (maybe: people have been claiming he's been "dead" since at least 2006).
And all it took was the destruction of two nations, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost, millions become refugees, turning the Middle East and neighboring regions into a free-fire zone, setting up a concentration camp in Cuba, giving Israel even greater opportunity to oppress the Palestinians (see the latest outrage here), and the continued erosion of our civil rights and the on-going militarization of our country.
And then there're the self-righteous congratulations that our state-sponsored terrorists and their political allies are spouting.
Are we getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan? How much deeper are we going to get in Libya? When's Guantanamo closing? When's habeas corpus going to be restored? When is the "defense" budget going to be reduced?
When any of these things happen, then I may consider celebrating.
Showing posts with label Iraq war/occupation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq war/occupation. Show all posts
11 November 2010
Happy Armistice Day 2010
Happy Armistice Day!
I remain "old school" when it comes to remembering the past. Instead of celebrating state-sanctioned killers we should be celebrating the restoration of peace (a semblance at any rate - the years between 1918 and 1939 were far from peaceful for far too many people).
It's tragic but not unexpected that on this day we learn that the deadline for withdrawing US troops from Iraq has been extended to 2014.
Vae victis and sieg heil, comrades!
"It is right that the murder of many people
be mourned and lamented.
It is right that a victor in war
be received with funeral ceremonies." (Tao te ching, Ursula Le Guin, translator)
I remain "old school" when it comes to remembering the past. Instead of celebrating state-sanctioned killers we should be celebrating the restoration of peace (a semblance at any rate - the years between 1918 and 1939 were far from peaceful for far too many people).
It's tragic but not unexpected that on this day we learn that the deadline for withdrawing US troops from Iraq has been extended to 2014.
Vae victis and sieg heil, comrades!
"It is right that the murder of many people
be mourned and lamented.
It is right that a victor in war
be received with funeral ceremonies." (Tao te ching, Ursula Le Guin, translator)
11 April 2010
America's Army - Now we know what those video games are for
In case you've missed it, here's the link to WikiLeaks.org, where you can watch the U.S. Army's own footage of the murder of Iraqi civilians by "our boys." (Don't worry, the gunship's camera is too far away to detail anything graphic so it's a PG-13 on the rating scale.)
Anyone who has followed these infrequent posts knows my attitude toward the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, and to the military in general, so I'm not going to belabor the point beyond observing, sadly, the utter disregard for the lives these "patriots" are stealing displayed on this tape. (Catch the crack about bringing kids into a war zone or the mirth when a tank driver runs over one of the Iraqis. Do we even need to mention the firing on the van that was picking up wounded?)
This joins the myriad examples of the bankruptcy of the "war on terror" and our campaign to bring "democracy" to the Middle East.
And, please, don't tell me these men were in immediate fear of their lives. There was no "fog of war," no justification for firing weapons on a group of men openly gathering in the middle of a public square. If that's the quality of the insurgents, then why haven't we quashed them?
If we're incapable of prosecuting our war criminals for the crimes they've committed (are committing), at the very least can't we prosecute the military leadership displayed here for gross incompetence?
Anyone who has followed these infrequent posts knows my attitude toward the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, and to the military in general, so I'm not going to belabor the point beyond observing, sadly, the utter disregard for the lives these "patriots" are stealing displayed on this tape. (Catch the crack about bringing kids into a war zone or the mirth when a tank driver runs over one of the Iraqis. Do we even need to mention the firing on the van that was picking up wounded?)
This joins the myriad examples of the bankruptcy of the "war on terror" and our campaign to bring "democracy" to the Middle East.
And, please, don't tell me these men were in immediate fear of their lives. There was no "fog of war," no justification for firing weapons on a group of men openly gathering in the middle of a public square. If that's the quality of the insurgents, then why haven't we quashed them?
If we're incapable of prosecuting our war criminals for the crimes they've committed (are committing), at the very least can't we prosecute the military leadership displayed here for gross incompetence?
01 February 2010
Why we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan
I quote from the Jan. 28 Tomgram from Anand Gopal:
An officer who has worked in the Field Detention Sites says that it takes dozens of raids to turn up a useful suspect. “Sometimes you’ve got to bust down doors. Sometimes you’ve got to twist arms. You have to cast a wide net, but when you get the right person it makes all the difference.”
For [Rodrigo] Arias, [a Marine based in the northeastern province of Kunar], it’s a matter of survival. “I want to go home in one piece. If that means rounding people up, then round them up.” To question this, he says, is to question whether the war itself is worth fighting. “That’s not my job. The people in Washington can figure that out.”
The first quote illustrates at the macro level why we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. The second shows how we failed at the micro level. Not only has Arias been successfully conditioned to see everyone as the enemy but he's also a poster child for 30 years of Civics-less education.
"That's not my job"?! - As an American citizen that's exactly your job, Mr. Arias!
An officer who has worked in the Field Detention Sites says that it takes dozens of raids to turn up a useful suspect. “Sometimes you’ve got to bust down doors. Sometimes you’ve got to twist arms. You have to cast a wide net, but when you get the right person it makes all the difference.”
For [Rodrigo] Arias, [a Marine based in the northeastern province of Kunar], it’s a matter of survival. “I want to go home in one piece. If that means rounding people up, then round them up.” To question this, he says, is to question whether the war itself is worth fighting. “That’s not my job. The people in Washington can figure that out.”
The first quote illustrates at the macro level why we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. The second shows how we failed at the micro level. Not only has Arias been successfully conditioned to see everyone as the enemy but he's also a poster child for 30 years of Civics-less education.
"That's not my job"?! - As an American citizen that's exactly your job, Mr. Arias!
12 November 2009
Armistice Day - 2009
Another Armistice (aka Veterans) Day and another year where America and her legions appear to have gone out of their way to make the world a more violent place.
I tried to find something positive to mention here and this is the best that I could do:
MIA dog found in Afghanistan after 14 months
And as for the continued insanity of the Long War:
Britain's last WWI veteran shuns Remembrance Day (the UK's equivalent of Veterans)
And remember, Next Wednesday, Nov. 18, is the second anniversary of Collateral Damage Day!
I tried to find something positive to mention here and this is the best that I could do:
MIA dog found in Afghanistan after 14 months
And as for the continued insanity of the Long War:
Britain's last WWI veteran shuns Remembrance Day (the UK's equivalent of Veterans)
And remember, Next Wednesday, Nov. 18, is the second anniversary of Collateral Damage Day!
18 November 2008
Collateral Damage Day - November 18
COLLATERAL
DAMAGE
DAY
DAMAGE
DAY
Unfortunately it is all too easy to find images of the people who are paying the price to keep us "free." "Free" being a relative term as Congress and the judiciary has acquiesced over the last 60 years (but particularly in the last 8) in eviscerating the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.
Isn't it great to live in the land of the free, home of the brave?
The image above was lifted from the blogsite Nixon Is In Hell, and the boy's name (at least from what I can tell from the file name) is Ali.
I know that the overwhelming majority of our soldiers are "good" people (heck, my brother was a Marine and he's not so bad) but they're also individuals with a moral conscience. When they surrender that conscience to collaborate in the murderous policies of the Bush (or any other) Administration, then they become culpable in those crimes.
I'll quote again from Ursula Le Guin's translation of Chapter 31 of Tao Te Ching:
"It is right that the murder of many people
be mourned and lamented.
It is right that a victor in war
be received with funeral ceremonies."
16 November 2008
A few books to recommend
I just finished reading two marvelous books and thought I would share:
The first is James O'Donnell's The Ruin of the Roman Empire, which I mentioned in a previous post. The review is still on my GoodReads site here. What I like about it is O'Donnell's attempt to strip away the detritus of historiography and his incorporation of the latest archaeological and prosopographic evidence to create a "truer" picture of the period than any I've read before. It's not perfect and suffers from the author's own prejudices but it shakes up a reader's perceptions of a period that many would think has been mined out.
The second book to recommend this Sunday a.m. is James Wood's How Fiction Works. It's a very readable and interesting look at a noted critic's opinion about what makes good writing, and its review is here.
I've also been directed to a potentially hugely interesting site known as the Internet Archive, and I owe it all to my presence on GoodReads. It came about because someone read my review of J.B. Post's The Atlas of Fantasy, where I mentioned an interest in Thomas Malkin. Thomas was a young prodigy who unfortunately died at the age of six. Before he died, however, he created a fantasy world called Allestone - a history and culture, a calendar and maps, as well as a number of stories. His father wrote a biography, A Father's Memoirs of His Child, in 1806 appending all of the Allestone stories and maps. I despaired of finding a copy of this 200-year-old book but the wonders of modern technology and the Internet came to my rescue. The Internet Archive scans well known and obscure texts, videos, audio, etc. to a common database anyone can access. And there, in a variety of formats, lay A Father's Memoirs. I haven't had the opportunity to read the entire tome; I've only skimmed it since printing it out. From what little I have read, though, I think Post's opinion is sound - we lost a remarkable mind when we lost Thomas Malkin.
On that same site, I've found many of James Branch Cabell's work as well. I've already downloaded Domnei: A Comedy of Woman-Worship. The formatting is straight text, nothing fancy but I'm not interested in Cabell for the packaging so that's not a great impediment.
Finally, I'm taking this opportunity to declare (strictly on my own authority) November 18 Collateral Damage Day (see previous post). I'm working on a suitable memorial for this Tuesday.
In a related vein and before I go entirely today - I was reading a reader's review of Peter Mansoor's Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander's War in Iraq (on GoodReads, where else?) where he (the reviewer) made the comment that Mansoor opposed going to war but believed that, now that we were there, we couldn't leave without victory. This opinion (if it accurately reflects Mansoor's) struck me as another example of the insanity of war. It's as if the Germans overthrew Hitler in 1942 but continued to prosecute the war because they hadn't "won."
The first is James O'Donnell's The Ruin of the Roman Empire, which I mentioned in a previous post. The review is still on my GoodReads site here. What I like about it is O'Donnell's attempt to strip away the detritus of historiography and his incorporation of the latest archaeological and prosopographic evidence to create a "truer" picture of the period than any I've read before. It's not perfect and suffers from the author's own prejudices but it shakes up a reader's perceptions of a period that many would think has been mined out.
The second book to recommend this Sunday a.m. is James Wood's How Fiction Works. It's a very readable and interesting look at a noted critic's opinion about what makes good writing, and its review is here.
I've also been directed to a potentially hugely interesting site known as the Internet Archive, and I owe it all to my presence on GoodReads. It came about because someone read my review of J.B. Post's The Atlas of Fantasy, where I mentioned an interest in Thomas Malkin. Thomas was a young prodigy who unfortunately died at the age of six. Before he died, however, he created a fantasy world called Allestone - a history and culture, a calendar and maps, as well as a number of stories. His father wrote a biography, A Father's Memoirs of His Child, in 1806 appending all of the Allestone stories and maps. I despaired of finding a copy of this 200-year-old book but the wonders of modern technology and the Internet came to my rescue. The Internet Archive scans well known and obscure texts, videos, audio, etc. to a common database anyone can access. And there, in a variety of formats, lay A Father's Memoirs. I haven't had the opportunity to read the entire tome; I've only skimmed it since printing it out. From what little I have read, though, I think Post's opinion is sound - we lost a remarkable mind when we lost Thomas Malkin.
On that same site, I've found many of James Branch Cabell's work as well. I've already downloaded Domnei: A Comedy of Woman-Worship. The formatting is straight text, nothing fancy but I'm not interested in Cabell for the packaging so that's not a great impediment.
Finally, I'm taking this opportunity to declare (strictly on my own authority) November 18 Collateral Damage Day (see previous post). I'm working on a suitable memorial for this Tuesday.
In a related vein and before I go entirely today - I was reading a reader's review of Peter Mansoor's Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander's War in Iraq (on GoodReads, where else?) where he (the reviewer) made the comment that Mansoor opposed going to war but believed that, now that we were there, we couldn't leave without victory. This opinion (if it accurately reflects Mansoor's) struck me as another example of the insanity of war. It's as if the Germans overthrew Hitler in 1942 but continued to prosecute the war because they hadn't "won."
26 October 2008
He's baaack!
After an extended absence, I have returned (hopefully my "follower" will be well pleased; I have a "follower" - I have to be careful I don't develop a messiah complex).
For my loyal fan, my absence was not the result of illness, vacation or any other cause than that I am fundamentally lazy. There's certainly enough "crap" going on right now to raise my ire.
For example, this so-called bailout of Wall Street. I was excited when the House quite properly voted the first incarnation down; but realized it was business as usual when they approved the Senate's version, which added $150 billion in pork and ill-considered incentives.
Had the loyal opposition any backbone or guiding philosophy other than getting re-elected, Congress would have shelved any comprehensive scheme to aid the economy until we knew who would be in the White House come January and what kind of majorities the Dems would enjoy in the House and Senate. In the interim, they could have put a moratorium on foreclosures and, perhaps, granted a small measure of funds to shore up the worst-off investment banks. The latter was floated by Schumer (I believe) but disappeared in the panicky frenzy to be seen as doing "something."
Instead, Congress handed the most incompetent, most corrupt, most power-hungry administration since the Reagans were reading their Tarot cards $700 billion and carte blanche to do anything it wanted with it.
Words continue to fail me.
Speaking of incompetence and corruption, I direct my reader to October 23's Tom Dispatch by Michael Schwartz, Iraq in Hell.
For my loyal fan, my absence was not the result of illness, vacation or any other cause than that I am fundamentally lazy. There's certainly enough "crap" going on right now to raise my ire.
For example, this so-called bailout of Wall Street. I was excited when the House quite properly voted the first incarnation down; but realized it was business as usual when they approved the Senate's version, which added $150 billion in pork and ill-considered incentives.
Had the loyal opposition any backbone or guiding philosophy other than getting re-elected, Congress would have shelved any comprehensive scheme to aid the economy until we knew who would be in the White House come January and what kind of majorities the Dems would enjoy in the House and Senate. In the interim, they could have put a moratorium on foreclosures and, perhaps, granted a small measure of funds to shore up the worst-off investment banks. The latter was floated by Schumer (I believe) but disappeared in the panicky frenzy to be seen as doing "something."
Instead, Congress handed the most incompetent, most corrupt, most power-hungry administration since the Reagans were reading their Tarot cards $700 billion and carte blanche to do anything it wanted with it.
Words continue to fail me.
Speaking of incompetence and corruption, I direct my reader to October 23's Tom Dispatch by Michael Schwartz, Iraq in Hell.
16 August 2008
The Limits of Power
Just a short post to publish links to two essays on TomDispatch taken from Andrew Bacevich's latest book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism:
The American Military Crisis
The Lessons of Endless War
He's also appearing on the Aug 15 episode of Bill Moyer's Journal so you should look him up there as well.
I'm probably (no, definitely) more radical in my solutions to our imperial overreach but even his reasonable, even-handed voice is inaudible in the current discussion about foreign policy and America's future role in the world (from both parties and candidates).
The American Military Crisis
The Lessons of Endless War
He's also appearing on the Aug 15 episode of Bill Moyer's Journal so you should look him up there as well.
I'm probably (no, definitely) more radical in my solutions to our imperial overreach but even his reasonable, even-handed voice is inaudible in the current discussion about foreign policy and America's future role in the world (from both parties and candidates).
26 July 2008
Let's bury the word "warfighter"
Readers (few though you may be) know by now that one of my bete noires is the militarization of this country. Today, I read Lt. Col. William Astore's essay at TomDispatch.com, and urge you to follow the link and read it yourself.
I quote here the colonel's most cogent point since he makes it far more eloquently than I could paraphrase it:
"Being 'the best soldiers' meant that senior German leaders...always expected them to prevail. The mentality was: 'We're number one. How can we possibly lose unless we quit -- or those [fill in your civilian quislings of choice] stab us in the back?'
"If this mentality sounds increasingly familiar, it's because it's the one we ourselves have internalized in these last years [Note: I would argue we've been internalizing it for the last 50 years]. German warfighters and their leaders knew no limitations until it was too late for them to recover from ceaseless combat, imperial overstretch, and economic collapse.
"Today, the U.S. military, and by extension American culture, is caught in a similar bind. After all, if we truly believe our to be 'the world's best military'...how can we possibly be losing in Iraq or Afghanistan? And, if the 'impossible' somehow happens, how can our military be to blame? If our 'warfighters' are indeed 'the best,' someone else must have betrayed them -- appeasing politicians, lily-livered liberals, duplicitous and weak-willed allies like the increasingly recalcitrant Iraqis, you name it.
"Today, our military is arguably the world's best. Certainly, it's the world's most powerful.... But what does it say about our leaders [Note: and our citizenry] that they are so taken with this form of power? And why exactly is it so good to be the 'best' at this? Just ask a German military veteran...in a warrior-state that went berserk in a febrile quest for 'full spectrum dominance.'"
The "best military in the world"? We can't even defeat two third-rate countries who had no significant armies to begin with.
And do we really want to be known for our outstanding ability to bomb civilians back to the Stone Age?
I quote here the colonel's most cogent point since he makes it far more eloquently than I could paraphrase it:
"Being 'the best soldiers' meant that senior German leaders...always expected them to prevail. The mentality was: 'We're number one. How can we possibly lose unless we quit -- or those [fill in your civilian quislings of choice] stab us in the back?'
"If this mentality sounds increasingly familiar, it's because it's the one we ourselves have internalized in these last years [Note: I would argue we've been internalizing it for the last 50 years]. German warfighters and their leaders knew no limitations until it was too late for them to recover from ceaseless combat, imperial overstretch, and economic collapse.
"Today, the U.S. military, and by extension American culture, is caught in a similar bind. After all, if we truly believe our to be 'the world's best military'...how can we possibly be losing in Iraq or Afghanistan? And, if the 'impossible' somehow happens, how can our military be to blame? If our 'warfighters' are indeed 'the best,' someone else must have betrayed them -- appeasing politicians, lily-livered liberals, duplicitous and weak-willed allies like the increasingly recalcitrant Iraqis, you name it.
"Today, our military is arguably the world's best. Certainly, it's the world's most powerful.... But what does it say about our leaders [Note: and our citizenry] that they are so taken with this form of power? And why exactly is it so good to be the 'best' at this? Just ask a German military veteran...in a warrior-state that went berserk in a febrile quest for 'full spectrum dominance.'"
The "best military in the world"? We can't even defeat two third-rate countries who had no significant armies to begin with.
And do we really want to be known for our outstanding ability to bomb civilians back to the Stone Age?
20 April 2008
Bill Moyer's is, like, a GOD!
I can't say how much I respect Bill Moyer's and his Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS.
This week's episode is just another example of his integrity and critical examination of the issues. The guest was Leila Fadel, who's the Baghdad bureau chief for the McClatchy Newspapers (formerly Knight-Ridder).
You should go to the website (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html) to see a full transcript or the video of the interview. Fadel focused on the human beings (both the U.S. forces and Iraqis) who are over there, and its frustrating and heartbreaking to see how many lives are being ruined because our leaders (and theirs) have to make a point, preserve their honor, or some such other rubbish justifying slaughter.
A telling anecdote is one Fadel related about her embedded experience with a U.S. squad that was squatting in an abandoned house in Sadr City. The owner showed up and wanted to move back in but the soldiers wouldn't let him. They wouldn't even allow him to come in to gather some things for his daughter; the translator gathered them and slipped them through the door. When Fadel asked a soldier what he would do if a foreign army occupied his house, the soldier said he would tear down half of it to get back in or take up arms against the occupier. When she followed up by asking him how this was different from what the Iraqis were doing, he replied, "But we're trying to help them." (I paraphrase here but the idea is the same -- we're the good guys and only criminals would even contemplate opposing us.)
It's frightening to see such a disconnect with reality and a lack of empathy.
This week's episode is just another example of his integrity and critical examination of the issues. The guest was Leila Fadel, who's the Baghdad bureau chief for the McClatchy Newspapers (formerly Knight-Ridder).
You should go to the website (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html) to see a full transcript or the video of the interview. Fadel focused on the human beings (both the U.S. forces and Iraqis) who are over there, and its frustrating and heartbreaking to see how many lives are being ruined because our leaders (and theirs) have to make a point, preserve their honor, or some such other rubbish justifying slaughter.
A telling anecdote is one Fadel related about her embedded experience with a U.S. squad that was squatting in an abandoned house in Sadr City. The owner showed up and wanted to move back in but the soldiers wouldn't let him. They wouldn't even allow him to come in to gather some things for his daughter; the translator gathered them and slipped them through the door. When Fadel asked a soldier what he would do if a foreign army occupied his house, the soldier said he would tear down half of it to get back in or take up arms against the occupier. When she followed up by asking him how this was different from what the Iraqis were doing, he replied, "But we're trying to help them." (I paraphrase here but the idea is the same -- we're the good guys and only criminals would even contemplate opposing us.)
It's frightening to see such a disconnect with reality and a lack of empathy.
A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq?
Well, maybe.
While reading the latest issue of The Nation magazine, I came across this website: http://www.responsibleplan.com/. It's a group of Democratic candidates who have devised a strategy for rolling back the worst excesses of the criminals currently running our Executive and their collaborators in Congress.
It aims to end U.S. military action in Iraq, promote diplomatic solutions, restore Constitutional checks and balances, repair the damage to the military, amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and promote energy-independence policies.
I added my name to the list of endorsees because I agree with the general goals of the proposals and it's a good start toward fixing what's wrong with this country but I still think it falls short because it lacks a sense of history and it doesn't even attempt to break out of the fallacious Cold War-era assumptions that have terrorized us for the last 60+ years.
Case in point: The authors write that "the U.S. Military [has] been instrumental in preserving our country's liberty and democracy." From whom? With the exception of the original Revolution, the War of 1812 (when British troops burned the capital), and WW2, this country's existence as a democracy has never been in danger. Prior to WW2, this country's military had always been miniscule. After every large-scale military conflict, the federal government savagely slashed military budgets and reduced troop numbers, even at the expense of economic disruption. Since WW2, unfortunately, we've bought the myth that we are the policemen of the world, that the increasing militarization of our culture is a good thing, and that the Executive needs unfettered hands to deal with all the "monsters lurking in the closet."
The first assumption we have to drop (and which I've mentioned in an earlier post) is that our military has any business intervening in a foreign country.
The author's also have little historical memory for the erosion of congressional checks on executive power. For them, the undermining begins with the war when it's been going on since WW2 (and, arguably, since the Civil War, where Lincoln unfortunately sowed the crop which we're beginning to reap now).
On page 10 of the "Responsible Plan," the authors write about the intervention of Iraq's neighbors in the country. What bothers me in particular about this bit, is that no mention is made of the ur-intervention -- OURS! U.S. policy in Iraq (and the Middle East) was a disaster by any measure before the war but the ham-handed, self-righteous arrogance of the current administration's intervention has demonstrably made it a catastrophe.
The authors set out several bills currently floating around Capitol Hill:
The first is HR 3797 (New Diplomatic Offensive for Iraq Act). Now, beyond the use of the word "offensive," which might not be the best term, it's not a bad bill but it maintains the assumption that foreign countries (i.e., the U.S. and, if necessary, other Western democracies) need to intervene in Iraq, presumably because the Iraqis don't know what they're doing.
HR 3674 and HR 2265 would address the shameful way we've treated Iraqi refugees and those who have collaborated with us (such as translators) and I support that.
Tellingly, they mention on page 16 that the authors support efforts to try war criminals but there's no mention of any congressional effort to do so and there's only vague, "feel good" sentiments about brings such criminals to justice. I wonder what the reaction would be if the Hague brought charges against Bush and Cheney? Or U.S. military personnel?
I like the authors' plans to restore the Constitution (though I think a lot could be done if Congress simply exercised its already delegated powers).
Incorporate the cost of the war into the regular budget. Good move. We should also raise taxes to pay for it. That would bring the troops out real quick.
Eliminate signing statements (my favorite). HR 3045 would prohibit courts from using signing statements as authorities in determining the meaning of an act of Congress.
Restore habeas corpus. HR 1416 would restore the right of habeas corpus to anyone detained by the government -- either military or civil authorities.
End warrentless spying (S 139).
Another favorite: End torture and rendition (HR 1352).
HR 4102 and HR 2740 would prohibit the use of mercenaries and hold contractors accountable for their contracts (there's a novel concept in DoD contracting history!).
HR 2874 would recognize how poor the physical and mental care we give to the men and women whose lives have been destroyed by the admininstration's chickenhawks has been and work to change that.
HR 2247 and HR 2702 would expand educational benefits for veterans. The only problem I have with these last two measures is: Why don't we make education assistance available to everyone? How many studies do we have to fund before we get it through our thick skulls that a well educated population is a fundamental requirement for a well functioning democracy?
HR 400 would amend the contracting process.
S 2332 attempts to diversify media ownership. From the summary presented in this report, I'm not sure it will do much toward that end. It seems to me that we need to repeal the entire Telecommunications Act and start over -- this time, not letting the telecommunications industry write the bill.
HR 2809, which proposes subsidizing plans exploring alternative-energy solutions, sounds like another one of those vague, feel-good, pie-in-the-sky" pieces of legislation that throw money at a lot of people and to which pols can point during the next election to show how concerned they are about the environment. That it would actually lead to anything is doubtful.
As I wrote above, it's a good start but it still falls short of a fundamental rethinking of America's role as a nation and how it should act to restore some measure of peace and stability to this old world.
While reading the latest issue of The Nation magazine, I came across this website: http://www.responsibleplan.com/. It's a group of Democratic candidates who have devised a strategy for rolling back the worst excesses of the criminals currently running our Executive and their collaborators in Congress.
It aims to end U.S. military action in Iraq, promote diplomatic solutions, restore Constitutional checks and balances, repair the damage to the military, amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and promote energy-independence policies.
I added my name to the list of endorsees because I agree with the general goals of the proposals and it's a good start toward fixing what's wrong with this country but I still think it falls short because it lacks a sense of history and it doesn't even attempt to break out of the fallacious Cold War-era assumptions that have terrorized us for the last 60+ years.
Case in point: The authors write that "the U.S. Military [has] been instrumental in preserving our country's liberty and democracy." From whom? With the exception of the original Revolution, the War of 1812 (when British troops burned the capital), and WW2, this country's existence as a democracy has never been in danger. Prior to WW2, this country's military had always been miniscule. After every large-scale military conflict, the federal government savagely slashed military budgets and reduced troop numbers, even at the expense of economic disruption. Since WW2, unfortunately, we've bought the myth that we are the policemen of the world, that the increasing militarization of our culture is a good thing, and that the Executive needs unfettered hands to deal with all the "monsters lurking in the closet."
The first assumption we have to drop (and which I've mentioned in an earlier post) is that our military has any business intervening in a foreign country.
The author's also have little historical memory for the erosion of congressional checks on executive power. For them, the undermining begins with the war when it's been going on since WW2 (and, arguably, since the Civil War, where Lincoln unfortunately sowed the crop which we're beginning to reap now).
On page 10 of the "Responsible Plan," the authors write about the intervention of Iraq's neighbors in the country. What bothers me in particular about this bit, is that no mention is made of the ur-intervention -- OURS! U.S. policy in Iraq (and the Middle East) was a disaster by any measure before the war but the ham-handed, self-righteous arrogance of the current administration's intervention has demonstrably made it a catastrophe.
The authors set out several bills currently floating around Capitol Hill:
The first is HR 3797 (New Diplomatic Offensive for Iraq Act). Now, beyond the use of the word "offensive," which might not be the best term, it's not a bad bill but it maintains the assumption that foreign countries (i.e., the U.S. and, if necessary, other Western democracies) need to intervene in Iraq, presumably because the Iraqis don't know what they're doing.
HR 3674 and HR 2265 would address the shameful way we've treated Iraqi refugees and those who have collaborated with us (such as translators) and I support that.
Tellingly, they mention on page 16 that the authors support efforts to try war criminals but there's no mention of any congressional effort to do so and there's only vague, "feel good" sentiments about brings such criminals to justice. I wonder what the reaction would be if the Hague brought charges against Bush and Cheney? Or U.S. military personnel?
I like the authors' plans to restore the Constitution (though I think a lot could be done if Congress simply exercised its already delegated powers).
Incorporate the cost of the war into the regular budget. Good move. We should also raise taxes to pay for it. That would bring the troops out real quick.
Eliminate signing statements (my favorite). HR 3045 would prohibit courts from using signing statements as authorities in determining the meaning of an act of Congress.
Restore habeas corpus. HR 1416 would restore the right of habeas corpus to anyone detained by the government -- either military or civil authorities.
End warrentless spying (S 139).
Another favorite: End torture and rendition (HR 1352).
HR 4102 and HR 2740 would prohibit the use of mercenaries and hold contractors accountable for their contracts (there's a novel concept in DoD contracting history!).
HR 2874 would recognize how poor the physical and mental care we give to the men and women whose lives have been destroyed by the admininstration's chickenhawks has been and work to change that.
HR 2247 and HR 2702 would expand educational benefits for veterans. The only problem I have with these last two measures is: Why don't we make education assistance available to everyone? How many studies do we have to fund before we get it through our thick skulls that a well educated population is a fundamental requirement for a well functioning democracy?
HR 400 would amend the contracting process.
S 2332 attempts to diversify media ownership. From the summary presented in this report, I'm not sure it will do much toward that end. It seems to me that we need to repeal the entire Telecommunications Act and start over -- this time, not letting the telecommunications industry write the bill.
HR 2809, which proposes subsidizing plans exploring alternative-energy solutions, sounds like another one of those vague, feel-good, pie-in-the-sky" pieces of legislation that throw money at a lot of people and to which pols can point during the next election to show how concerned they are about the environment. That it would actually lead to anything is doubtful.
As I wrote above, it's a good start but it still falls short of a fundamental rethinking of America's role as a nation and how it should act to restore some measure of peace and stability to this old world.
19 February 2008
A Miscellany - 19-Feb-2008
Just a few things on my mind, in no particular order:
1. I urge everyone who may come across this blog to go to the Discovery Channel's web site and register your disgust that they have refused to air the documentary Taxi to the Darkside, which recounts the murder of an innocent Afghani taxi driver in the custody of the U.S. Army.
This is the same outfit that has the Military Channel, which glorifies all things deadly.
2. To get another perspective on just what war/violence costs, go to this latest (Feb 17) dispatch on Tom Engelhardt's page about what's been happening to the women and children of Sierra Leone, Liberia & Cote d'Ivoire -- all countries suspiciously absent from Bush's African itinerary.
[Erratum: I was slightly off in Monsieur Bush's travel agenda - he did go to Liberia, afterall.]
3. And, while I'm thinking about it -- please make Bill Moyer's Journal's homepage one of your favorites, and make a point of watching it on your local PBS station (or get them to carry it, if they don't).
4. Book Recommendations (from the last 6 months or so of my reading schedule):
I just finished Barbara Mertz's popular history of Egypt, Temples, Tombs and Hieroglyphs. It was written a little too "folksy" for my taste but it gives the reader a taste of just how fascinating history is, and it's sobering in just how little we really know about what's gone on in our pasts. Right now, I'm in the middle of Orville Burton's The Age of Lincoln. I was hoping the author would spend more time on the 1840s and '50s because that's a period of U.S. history I'm woefully unfamiliar with. What he did cover, was interesting because it showed that America has never been "united" in the sense the Republicans (and many Dems) would want us to believe. It was only after the Civil War, in fact, that our modern concept of the federal government and its relationship to the states emerged (for better or for worse).
1. I urge everyone who may come across this blog to go to the Discovery Channel's web site and register your disgust that they have refused to air the documentary Taxi to the Darkside, which recounts the murder of an innocent Afghani taxi driver in the custody of the U.S. Army.
This is the same outfit that has the Military Channel, which glorifies all things deadly.
2. To get another perspective on just what war/violence costs, go to this latest (Feb 17) dispatch on Tom Engelhardt's page about what's been happening to the women and children of Sierra Leone, Liberia & Cote d'Ivoire -- all countries suspiciously absent from Bush's African itinerary.
[Erratum: I was slightly off in Monsieur Bush's travel agenda - he did go to Liberia, afterall.]
3. And, while I'm thinking about it -- please make Bill Moyer's Journal's homepage one of your favorites, and make a point of watching it on your local PBS station (or get them to carry it, if they don't).
4. Book Recommendations (from the last 6 months or so of my reading schedule):
- Cultural Amnesia, Clive James. The book is a series of essays about various people James considers important. Not all of the essays were interesting to me, but I did learn things about people I hadn't known before and James introduced me to several interesting figures that my education had neglected.
- The Blood Knight, Gregory Keyes. Book three in his Kingdoms of Bone and Thorn series.
- Reapers' Gale, Steven Erikson. Book seven in his Malazan Book of the Fallen series. I cannot praise this author enough. He's reminiscent of Glen Cook's Black Company and Dread Empire series, but he's a better writer (though it pains me, somewhat to say that since Croaker of the Black Company is my all-time favorite fantasy character; Signy Mallory of CJ Cherryh's Downbelow Station is my SF fave).
- Legacy of Ashes, Tim Weiner. The sad, sad history of the CIA and its "successes."
- Ella Minnow Pea, Mark Dunn.
- Soon I Will Be Invincible, Austin Grossman. A novel in the tradition of The Watchmen but less grim.
- House of War, James Carroll. The sad, sad history of the Pentagon and the erosion of America's democracy.
- Kushiel's Justice, Jacqueline Carey. The second book in her second series set in the alternate Earth of Terre d'Ange. I was disappointed in Carey's second foray into fantasy (Banewreaker, Godslayer); they're decent enough novels but they didn't grab me the way Terre d'Ange has.
- Takeover, Charlie Savage. Another in those sad, sad chronicles of American decline.
- Reading Lolita in Tehran, Azar Nafisi, and Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi. Two incredible chronicles of life in a theocratic dictatorship. On the one hand, they were windows into a world that would be utterly alien to most Americans; on the other hand, they showed just how much every human being has in common with their fellows.
- The Basic 8, Daniel Handler. This is Handler's first novel (as Handler, he's also the guy who writes the Lemony Snicket books) and his best in my opinion (though the others, Shut Your Mouth and Adverbs are pretty good, too). I identified a lot with the main character Flannery Culp.
- Gentlemen of the Road, Michael Chabon. I chose to read this one because it dealt with my favorite, unknown medieval kingdom -- Khazaria -- not because I'm a fan of Chabon. I still have no great desire to read Chabon but I did enjoy this novel, reminiscent of Fritz Leiber's Fahfrd & the Grey Mouser (in fact, it prompted me to reread Leiber).
I just finished Barbara Mertz's popular history of Egypt, Temples, Tombs and Hieroglyphs. It was written a little too "folksy" for my taste but it gives the reader a taste of just how fascinating history is, and it's sobering in just how little we really know about what's gone on in our pasts. Right now, I'm in the middle of Orville Burton's The Age of Lincoln. I was hoping the author would spend more time on the 1840s and '50s because that's a period of U.S. history I'm woefully unfamiliar with. What he did cover, was interesting because it showed that America has never been "united" in the sense the Republicans (and many Dems) would want us to believe. It was only after the Civil War, in fact, that our modern concept of the federal government and its relationship to the states emerged (for better or for worse).
12 February 2008
I Do Not Support the Troops
Yesterday (Feb 11), I heard and read about the Berkeley, Calif., city council's principled stand against the presence of a Marine recruiting office in their city. (Here's hoping they don't back down despite pressure from both state and federal governments to do so.) Like neurasthenic women of the Victorian Era, the Republicans have reacted hysterically. U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is sponsoring legislation that would cut off federal funds for Berkeley (including school lunches) if they don't apologize for their effrontery. Good job, Jim, passing a law that lets kids go hungry because a city council passes a largely symbolic resolution reflecting its disgust and opposition to the Iraq Occupation and the militarization of our country.
Which is as nice as any segue into the topic of this latest post. This is a hard essay to compose because I want to make it clear that I don't hate nor disrespect people who choose to join our military; my brother was a Marine and served in the elder Bush's Gulf foray. I recognize that, unfortunately, some military capacity must be maintained. I even recognize that, on occasion, wars must be fought because there's no alternative (though, to be honest, I'm hard pressed to find any outside of the Civil War and the Second World War that qualify in American history).
That said: I do not support the troops.
Why should I? They persecuted an unjust, unnecessary, immoral and illegal war and are persecuting an equally untenable occupation. Their duty as citizens of a democracy (which they are before they are soldiers) is to refuse to participate in this atrocity, which has (so far) claimed upwards of 1 million Iraqi lives and displaced several million more (the equivalent, in raw numbers, of 50 million Americans forced to flee their homes).
Which troops do I support? The brave handful who refuse to go or refuse to go back.
We have willfully destroyed an entire country (two, if you count Afghanistan, that ugly stepsister or our criminally incompetent "war on terror"). There's nothing that can justify what we have done (and that includes the decade of bombing that preceded the war under Clinton's watch) and damn all we can do to atone for it.
We are become a nation of self-righteous, arrogant bastards so blinded by the "justice" of our cause that we will tear down anyone, anything that dares to oppose us. (A tendency we've been all too prone to since our founding; cf., the "city on the hill," Manifest Destiny, "destroy the village to save it," etc.)
Like Athens in the 5th century BC and Rome in the 1st, the choice of "empire" or "democracy" confronts us. Both Athens and Rome chose "empire" and lost their democracies. Administrations since FDR's day have consistently chosen the burdens of empire and we see its fruits today in the death of democracy: warrantless wiretaps, mercenary armies, loss of habeas corpus, illegal covert ops, the unitary executive, a bloated military, military tribunals, denial of due process, torture, corruption, stifling free speech, preemptive war, signing statements and Executive Orders...and it goes on.
George Bush may just be this republic's Sulla. Before, all the forms of democracy were observed even if the substance advanced the cause of empire. Now, however, the sacred boundaries of the city are breached and troops march on the Capitol. All done, of course, only to restore the republic and protect it from its enemies. If the last century has taught us anything (apparently, alas, it hasn't) it's that the greater enemy to "our way of life" is the oppression of our own government against its own citizens.
I do not support the troops. I oppose any bill that continues to fund the Occupation. I am disgusted at the Congress that supinely bows to the demands of those two sociopaths who stole the election in 2000 (and probably did so again in 2004). I do not "hate America" -- in fact, I kind of like it. At least, I like the America envisioned by the Founders [see Addenda below] and described by Lincoln as the "best hope" to all the nations of the world, which is why I am so troubled and saddened to see us sink so low.
Addenda:
[Yes, I know the Founders had their issues. "Slavery" probably being the worst. But the ideals expressed in the Declaration and their concrete expression in the Constitution are two examples of the best that human beings are capable of.]
[Republicans are vile! No, no -- they aren't. At least not as individuals. I know Republicans, some of them are my best friends, but their party has slipped so far into the Darkside that I find it unfathomable why they cling to it (except, of course, for the fact that we're more or less locked into a permanent two-party system without electoral reform and/or Constitutional amendment -- a problem I face all the time when I try to support the Democrats).
This is the party that, after all, cuts VA funding and demands that soldiers who can't serve out their enlistments because of combat wounds return their signing bonuses. This is the party that, after all, refuses to adequately equip its troops despite having chosen to go to war. This is the party that, after all, cares so little about human life that a prominent member was heard to remark that Hurricane Katrina was actually a "good thing" for the poor and displaced of New Orleans. This is the party, after all, whose Administration drove a man insane (Jose Padilla) with torture and isolation, and continues to do so to I don't know how many others at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and who knows how many other dungeons.
And I'm stuck with a party whose leadership is so spineless that they can't even assert themselves when they're in the majority.]
Which is as nice as any segue into the topic of this latest post. This is a hard essay to compose because I want to make it clear that I don't hate nor disrespect people who choose to join our military; my brother was a Marine and served in the elder Bush's Gulf foray. I recognize that, unfortunately, some military capacity must be maintained. I even recognize that, on occasion, wars must be fought because there's no alternative (though, to be honest, I'm hard pressed to find any outside of the Civil War and the Second World War that qualify in American history).
That said: I do not support the troops.
Why should I? They persecuted an unjust, unnecessary, immoral and illegal war and are persecuting an equally untenable occupation. Their duty as citizens of a democracy (which they are before they are soldiers) is to refuse to participate in this atrocity, which has (so far) claimed upwards of 1 million Iraqi lives and displaced several million more (the equivalent, in raw numbers, of 50 million Americans forced to flee their homes).
Which troops do I support? The brave handful who refuse to go or refuse to go back.
We have willfully destroyed an entire country (two, if you count Afghanistan, that ugly stepsister or our criminally incompetent "war on terror"). There's nothing that can justify what we have done (and that includes the decade of bombing that preceded the war under Clinton's watch) and damn all we can do to atone for it.
We are become a nation of self-righteous, arrogant bastards so blinded by the "justice" of our cause that we will tear down anyone, anything that dares to oppose us. (A tendency we've been all too prone to since our founding; cf., the "city on the hill," Manifest Destiny, "destroy the village to save it," etc.)
Like Athens in the 5th century BC and Rome in the 1st, the choice of "empire" or "democracy" confronts us. Both Athens and Rome chose "empire" and lost their democracies. Administrations since FDR's day have consistently chosen the burdens of empire and we see its fruits today in the death of democracy: warrantless wiretaps, mercenary armies, loss of habeas corpus, illegal covert ops, the unitary executive, a bloated military, military tribunals, denial of due process, torture, corruption, stifling free speech, preemptive war, signing statements and Executive Orders...and it goes on.
George Bush may just be this republic's Sulla. Before, all the forms of democracy were observed even if the substance advanced the cause of empire. Now, however, the sacred boundaries of the city are breached and troops march on the Capitol. All done, of course, only to restore the republic and protect it from its enemies. If the last century has taught us anything (apparently, alas, it hasn't) it's that the greater enemy to "our way of life" is the oppression of our own government against its own citizens.
I do not support the troops. I oppose any bill that continues to fund the Occupation. I am disgusted at the Congress that supinely bows to the demands of those two sociopaths who stole the election in 2000 (and probably did so again in 2004). I do not "hate America" -- in fact, I kind of like it. At least, I like the America envisioned by the Founders [see Addenda below] and described by Lincoln as the "best hope" to all the nations of the world, which is why I am so troubled and saddened to see us sink so low.
Addenda:
[Yes, I know the Founders had their issues. "Slavery" probably being the worst. But the ideals expressed in the Declaration and their concrete expression in the Constitution are two examples of the best that human beings are capable of.]
[Republicans are vile! No, no -- they aren't. At least not as individuals. I know Republicans, some of them are my best friends, but their party has slipped so far into the Darkside that I find it unfathomable why they cling to it (except, of course, for the fact that we're more or less locked into a permanent two-party system without electoral reform and/or Constitutional amendment -- a problem I face all the time when I try to support the Democrats).
This is the party that, after all, cuts VA funding and demands that soldiers who can't serve out their enlistments because of combat wounds return their signing bonuses. This is the party that, after all, refuses to adequately equip its troops despite having chosen to go to war. This is the party that, after all, cares so little about human life that a prominent member was heard to remark that Hurricane Katrina was actually a "good thing" for the poor and displaced of New Orleans. This is the party, after all, whose Administration drove a man insane (Jose Padilla) with torture and isolation, and continues to do so to I don't know how many others at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and who knows how many other dungeons.
And I'm stuck with a party whose leadership is so spineless that they can't even assert themselves when they're in the majority.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)