Leaders lost in Lust
Give us all some fits
But if it is war
Followed by sex
It must be Wolfowitz
Nobody has more ownership for the failed Iraq concept and the failed policies that were executed than comb licking Paul himself. He was then rewarded for the disaster that is Iraq and promoted by Bush to self-service pimp for the World Bank where he assiduously pursued tough love on corruption and simultaneously corrupted the personnel system to reward his girlfriend (Shaha Ali Riza) by doubling the maximum salary increase allowed and pushing her off to the State Department. Is this woman a whore or a spy or both? How does this man maintain a security clearance? How can this man push anti-corruption policies in his rhetoric while simultaneously corrupting the system? Has he no shame or no brains? The woman wanted to stay at the World Bank, so his bribe or fee for services is insufficient to quiet her. We cannot even give Paul credit for satisfying the “victim.” I will grant that even Paul Wolfowitz may have passion, but should taxpayers pay for it?
Lest you think that Mr. Wolfowitz corrupted the system only this once, there is an earlier example that demonstrates that this was more than a temporary lapse in judgment. In 2003, Paul managed to get his squeeze a no-bid consulting contract in Iraq. The World Bank Policy at the time forbid outside consulting, but not to worry, Retired General Jay Garner has stated that he never saw her in Iraq when she supposedly was there. Perhaps she avoided the conflict of interest by merely taking the money and not consulting. Who helped in this “shake and bake” episode of tax dipping? Answer: None other than Dougie Feith, another Neo-Con with special emphasis on Con. There was no shame in the inner circles of the war planners, and not much planning either.
There is some humor in all this, however. The World Bank has labeled Ms. Riza a “domestic partner” which has a familiar ring to it, especially as a right wing pejorative for living in sin. The hypocrisy extends beyond the rhetoric. World Bank senior officials are concerned over the incompetence of Paul Wolfowitz as well as his ability to project credibility while mired in personal corruption. The top 24 leaders have decried the strain that the Wolfowitz affair has put on the entire World Bank staff. If the Wolfowitz domestic partner pulls in $200,000 with her next pay raise, does the World Bank take on the burden of pay equity for the rest of the staff? Riza was shipped off to the US State Department over her objection. What kind of employee does that provide for the State Department? Even if you are not a Condi Rice fan, should Paul’s paramour make more than Condi? How can we keep her in Prada if she is relegated to Secretary of State but could make more sleeping with Paul?
Incidentally, this brilliant analyst that had the Iraqi invasion figured out to the detail of every minor political and economic facet, promised in a letter dated 25 May, 2005 that due to his pre-existing relationship with Riza that he would recuse himself from her personnel actions. Did he lie or does he know what recuse means? Perhaps that was too fine a detail.
Thank goodness that he has received the full support and confidence of GW Bush. Now we can feel vindicated that the world is better off with Wolfowitz in the World Bank. George’s judgment in selections has been perfect…or at least perfectly consistent. Loyalty uber alles. We do have precedent in the Bush White House with the more than 80 visits of Jeff Gannon (James Dale Guckert, male prostitute). At least Jeff advertised on line as a male escort and not as an investment analyst. But then, just who did Jeff visit there? I just hope that it was not Wolfowitz. That would add more complexity than I can handle as a God-fearing conservative and taxpayer.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
25 April 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The costs of War Part 3
Human loss and “humanity” loss ~ they both countSandy Cook – 3/25/07 ~ Part 3 of 3 parts
In the first two parts we discussed the quantifiable losses in the war, open and hidden.In this final part we examine the qualitative costs of the war to all of us.
Beyond the “Human” cost of war is the broader “Humanity” cost of war. Those costs, tangible or intangible, that affect our way of life, our relationships with each other, and our place in the world.
We are losing the strongest elements of our history.
· Our American republic is being replaced by a moneyed aristocracy.
· The doctrine of separation of powers is being replaced by a “unitary executive” that brooks no checks or balances.
· The fundamental doctrine of habeas corpus is being replaced by “secret rendition.”
· The Constitutional provision that treaties are the law of the land is being replaced by the view that they are “quaint.”
· Thus, the Geneva and Hague conventions are now being replaced with “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
· The United Nations which we started and which we need is being replaced by a policy of “full spectrum dominance.”
Civilian control of an apolitical military is being replaced by militaristic civilian leadership of a politicized military.
Defense as a foreign policy imperative is being replaced by preventive war
Shared sacrifice has been replaced by shared greed and shared entertainment.
Space neutrality is being replaced by armed space weapons.
These are frightening losses, nor do I believe that the list is in any way complete. Mischief is afoot and more losses occur almost every day. Our founders believed that sovereignty rested with the people, and that a representative democracy was the practical way to exercise that sovereignty. They believed that the sovereign people’s representatives were first in the hierarchy of Government, thus their position in Article I. They knew that the representatives would need someone to run the place day-by-day, but not a king, thus the President with defined powers in Article II. And, they knew that no one could be trusted who did not have to submit his actions to review, and that the people needed protection from the powerful, thus the independent courts in Article III. They left us a clear message – let each part keep watch over the other parts – oversight, as we would call it today – and it has all but disappeared.
The three things our founders spent the most time cautioning each other on were that: treaties honored were the key to the new nation’s place in the world; massively inherited wealth would lead to a new aristocracy; and, a standing Army would present the temptation to use it.
What can I say about Geneva, The Hague and the use of torture? It appalls me as an American and as a soldier that torture is not only permitted, but in some circles it is lauded. This is a monumental loss for America from which we may never recover.
We built the United Nations, then we undermined it, and now we excoriate it. What we forget is that we need it.
In my experience we have had the least “militaristic” military in the developed world. “Militarism” in a republic most often comes from the power-mad civilian controllers, and they use the military to implement it. It is usually not the generals who want war, but the politicians.
George Marshall, general and statesman, taught us that in a republic there was a “ military ethic”, and that was, “A hatred of war and an avoidance of politics”. That view may be lost.
Surprising to some, “preemptive war” is a well-established principle in international law. Had the Polish Cavalry charged across the German border on 31 August 1939, they would have been conducting preemptive war in the face of an overwhelming and looming threat – a threat that manifested itself on 1 September when the Germans invaded. What is illegal is “preventive war.” Preventive war is the product of a policy best expressed by the Romans after their defeat by the Carthaginians early in the second Punic War, when they announced that no nation or tribe would ever be allowed to compete with Rome for supremacy. Because of that policy, the universal hatred of all people for Rome eventually brought it down. Our current government, unwilling to study history, has adopted the same policy for the United States. Calling “preventive war” “preemptive war” doesn’t change it’s nature any more than my calling you a genius or an idiot makes you one. The fact remains that “preventive war” is illegal.
Sadly, the idea of shared sacrifice has disappeared. We now believe that just thinking about the war, or ranting about it, or grieving over it is somehow sharing. I won’t remark on yellow ribbons other than to say that I never knew that patriotism and brotherhood sold for $2.95.
We are losing the present.
Nothing works better in recruiting opposition, particularly in the Middle East, than kicking down front doors and shaming the head of the family. It is almost as good at recruiting as the second best thing that we do which is to kill the innocent and call it “collateral damage.” We have destabilized the Middle East.
We have lost a sense of fiscal responsibility to our nation and to each other. We have a rigged economy based on the defense industry and foreign borrowing, that favors those who live on unearned income over those who work for a living.
We are losing a free and independent press. We are losing our right to privacy. We are equal before the courts only if we can afford high-ticket representation.
The opportunity costs are staggering. Public education, infrastructure repair, environmental conservation, research in alternative fuels, medical research, libraries, aid to the poor and indigent, and on, and on. Other present losses include 60,000 new military divorces, thousands of lost jobs and businesses, and increased industrial and political corruption.
We are losing the meaning of fundamental concepts such as truth, justice, democracy. In fact, it is our hypocrisy that taints the message of democracy.
The possible losses for the future are almost too frightening and too sad to contemplate.
The loss of manufacturing capability has weakened us strategically. The good “surge” of industrial output that let us win World War II could not be generated today. We would have to conquer or at least negotiate with other countries to regain the manufacturing capability that we have given away.
We are in danger of establishing for all time a government of authoritarian rule, with its associated destruction of civil rights. Along with that may well go our academic and religious freedoms, and freedom to travel.
We can expect increased world and national poverty as “corporatism” (Mussolini’s term for fascism) takes over.
Global warming approaches the tipping point from which mankind may not recover, and because of which world health may crash as tropical diseases invade temperate zones.
We are destroying trust among nations, and engendering international contempt for the rule of law. We are embarking on a period of permanent war – a bellum Americanum – with its accompanying perpetual arms race.
The dollar is sliding, and the international debt is climbing and we are headed for a financial meltdown.
It is hard to admit that I may well be leaving a world to my eleven grandchildren that is worse than the world my father gave me.
The remaining question of course is: did these young Americans in Iraq die in vain? Knowing that I will be attacked by some for saying it, yet I must say that the answer is “YES!”
Those who defend this war would have us believe that they only die in vain if we fail to send more to die after them, and if we do not achieve “Victory” – in whatever definition of “Victory” is in favor today. The President said in a White House news release in October of last year that, “"[r]etreating from Iraq would dishonor the men and women who have given their lives in that country, and mean their sacrifice has been in vain." I say rather that they can only die in vain if they are SENT in vain. Our history and even our political rhetoric supports that definition. And for those serving in Iraq, they have been sent in vain. Because of that, I believe that we can only honor those who have died by not letting their comrades also die. I am confident that that is what those who have died would want.
We have been warned.
"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence...”
Daniel Webster: June 1, 1837
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become victims of the darkness.”
Justice William O. Douglas
Recently in The Guardian Rebecca Solnit gave us all something to ponder. Ask yourself where you sit on this simple scale.
“There is resistance. But if it were enough, the crimes would have stopped, the war would have ended. When it does and they do, some will have been heroes, some will have been honorable but moderate, in times that did not call for moderation, and some will have consented, through inaction, to crimes against humanity.”
Rebecca Solnit: 03/14/07
If you are not yet a hero, begin working on it today.
In the first two parts we discussed the quantifiable losses in the war, open and hidden.In this final part we examine the qualitative costs of the war to all of us.
Beyond the “Human” cost of war is the broader “Humanity” cost of war. Those costs, tangible or intangible, that affect our way of life, our relationships with each other, and our place in the world.
We are losing the strongest elements of our history.
· Our American republic is being replaced by a moneyed aristocracy.
· The doctrine of separation of powers is being replaced by a “unitary executive” that brooks no checks or balances.
· The fundamental doctrine of habeas corpus is being replaced by “secret rendition.”
· The Constitutional provision that treaties are the law of the land is being replaced by the view that they are “quaint.”
· Thus, the Geneva and Hague conventions are now being replaced with “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
· The United Nations which we started and which we need is being replaced by a policy of “full spectrum dominance.”
Civilian control of an apolitical military is being replaced by militaristic civilian leadership of a politicized military.
Defense as a foreign policy imperative is being replaced by preventive war
Shared sacrifice has been replaced by shared greed and shared entertainment.
Space neutrality is being replaced by armed space weapons.
These are frightening losses, nor do I believe that the list is in any way complete. Mischief is afoot and more losses occur almost every day. Our founders believed that sovereignty rested with the people, and that a representative democracy was the practical way to exercise that sovereignty. They believed that the sovereign people’s representatives were first in the hierarchy of Government, thus their position in Article I. They knew that the representatives would need someone to run the place day-by-day, but not a king, thus the President with defined powers in Article II. And, they knew that no one could be trusted who did not have to submit his actions to review, and that the people needed protection from the powerful, thus the independent courts in Article III. They left us a clear message – let each part keep watch over the other parts – oversight, as we would call it today – and it has all but disappeared.
The three things our founders spent the most time cautioning each other on were that: treaties honored were the key to the new nation’s place in the world; massively inherited wealth would lead to a new aristocracy; and, a standing Army would present the temptation to use it.
What can I say about Geneva, The Hague and the use of torture? It appalls me as an American and as a soldier that torture is not only permitted, but in some circles it is lauded. This is a monumental loss for America from which we may never recover.
We built the United Nations, then we undermined it, and now we excoriate it. What we forget is that we need it.
In my experience we have had the least “militaristic” military in the developed world. “Militarism” in a republic most often comes from the power-mad civilian controllers, and they use the military to implement it. It is usually not the generals who want war, but the politicians.
George Marshall, general and statesman, taught us that in a republic there was a “ military ethic”, and that was, “A hatred of war and an avoidance of politics”. That view may be lost.
Surprising to some, “preemptive war” is a well-established principle in international law. Had the Polish Cavalry charged across the German border on 31 August 1939, they would have been conducting preemptive war in the face of an overwhelming and looming threat – a threat that manifested itself on 1 September when the Germans invaded. What is illegal is “preventive war.” Preventive war is the product of a policy best expressed by the Romans after their defeat by the Carthaginians early in the second Punic War, when they announced that no nation or tribe would ever be allowed to compete with Rome for supremacy. Because of that policy, the universal hatred of all people for Rome eventually brought it down. Our current government, unwilling to study history, has adopted the same policy for the United States. Calling “preventive war” “preemptive war” doesn’t change it’s nature any more than my calling you a genius or an idiot makes you one. The fact remains that “preventive war” is illegal.
Sadly, the idea of shared sacrifice has disappeared. We now believe that just thinking about the war, or ranting about it, or grieving over it is somehow sharing. I won’t remark on yellow ribbons other than to say that I never knew that patriotism and brotherhood sold for $2.95.
We are losing the present.
Nothing works better in recruiting opposition, particularly in the Middle East, than kicking down front doors and shaming the head of the family. It is almost as good at recruiting as the second best thing that we do which is to kill the innocent and call it “collateral damage.” We have destabilized the Middle East.
We have lost a sense of fiscal responsibility to our nation and to each other. We have a rigged economy based on the defense industry and foreign borrowing, that favors those who live on unearned income over those who work for a living.
We are losing a free and independent press. We are losing our right to privacy. We are equal before the courts only if we can afford high-ticket representation.
The opportunity costs are staggering. Public education, infrastructure repair, environmental conservation, research in alternative fuels, medical research, libraries, aid to the poor and indigent, and on, and on. Other present losses include 60,000 new military divorces, thousands of lost jobs and businesses, and increased industrial and political corruption.
We are losing the meaning of fundamental concepts such as truth, justice, democracy. In fact, it is our hypocrisy that taints the message of democracy.
The possible losses for the future are almost too frightening and too sad to contemplate.
The loss of manufacturing capability has weakened us strategically. The good “surge” of industrial output that let us win World War II could not be generated today. We would have to conquer or at least negotiate with other countries to regain the manufacturing capability that we have given away.
We are in danger of establishing for all time a government of authoritarian rule, with its associated destruction of civil rights. Along with that may well go our academic and religious freedoms, and freedom to travel.
We can expect increased world and national poverty as “corporatism” (Mussolini’s term for fascism) takes over.
Global warming approaches the tipping point from which mankind may not recover, and because of which world health may crash as tropical diseases invade temperate zones.
We are destroying trust among nations, and engendering international contempt for the rule of law. We are embarking on a period of permanent war – a bellum Americanum – with its accompanying perpetual arms race.
The dollar is sliding, and the international debt is climbing and we are headed for a financial meltdown.
It is hard to admit that I may well be leaving a world to my eleven grandchildren that is worse than the world my father gave me.
The remaining question of course is: did these young Americans in Iraq die in vain? Knowing that I will be attacked by some for saying it, yet I must say that the answer is “YES!”
Those who defend this war would have us believe that they only die in vain if we fail to send more to die after them, and if we do not achieve “Victory” – in whatever definition of “Victory” is in favor today. The President said in a White House news release in October of last year that, “"[r]etreating from Iraq would dishonor the men and women who have given their lives in that country, and mean their sacrifice has been in vain." I say rather that they can only die in vain if they are SENT in vain. Our history and even our political rhetoric supports that definition. And for those serving in Iraq, they have been sent in vain. Because of that, I believe that we can only honor those who have died by not letting their comrades also die. I am confident that that is what those who have died would want.
We have been warned.
"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence...”
Daniel Webster: June 1, 1837
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become victims of the darkness.”
Justice William O. Douglas
Recently in The Guardian Rebecca Solnit gave us all something to ponder. Ask yourself where you sit on this simple scale.
“There is resistance. But if it were enough, the crimes would have stopped, the war would have ended. When it does and they do, some will have been heroes, some will have been honorable but moderate, in times that did not call for moderation, and some will have consented, through inaction, to crimes against humanity.”
Rebecca Solnit: 03/14/07
If you are not yet a hero, begin working on it today.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Human Loss...Part 2
Human loss and “humanity” loss ~ they both countSandy Cook – 3/25/07 ~ Part 2 of 3 parts
Part 1 talked about the quantitative costs of war in bodies and bucks; here we continue the conversation about the hidden costs of the war.
The Army and the Marine Corps are worn out. Their equipment has been ground up by the desert conditions and 72% of army brigades have served multiple tours of duty, some as many as four tours. 84,000 National Guard and Reserves have done multiple tours. Combat stress casualties increase 50% among those on their second or subsequent tour. Two thirds of the active Army regiments are rated “not ready”, and 90% of the Army National Guard units are likewise “not ready”.
Enlistment figures can only be maintained by lowering quotas and soliciting enlistments from sub-standard recruits ~ felons and those with a low IQ. While US unemployment is reported at 4.5%. the unemployment rate for veterans in the 20-24 year age range is over 15%. Is it any wonder that the re-enlistment quotas are being made every quarter? There are no jobs!
In Iraq and Afghanistan mortality rates are up and life expectancy is down. There is no way to know for sure but the estimate of refugees who have left Iraq and Afghanistan are 1.4 million and 2 million, respectively. Internally displaced refugees number at least twice as many, particularly since ethnic and doctrinal cleansing have escalated in Iraq, even if we call it “sectarian violence”.
There is one specific hidden cost that will return to haunt us, just as Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome are now raising the cost of previous wars, even though to date the department of Defense is denying the effects of Depleted Uranium (DU).
DU is a serious internal hazard. Inhalation, ingestion, and wound contamination pose significant and unacceptable health risks due to direct cell damage from alpha and beta particle and gamma ray emissions. Spent penetrators, DU fragments, and contaminated shrapnel can not be touched or picked up without protection. DU is 99.8% by mass U-238, which is made from the by-product of the uranium enrichment process. The United States munitions industry produces the DU munitions in many calibers and for many weapons types. Each time those weapons are fired DU is deposited across the battlefield. For example, one 10-second burst of the GAU-12 Gatling Gun on an AC-130 aircraft deposits 132 lbs of U-238 across a wide area.
In addition, DU weapons have contributed to pollution of Iraq’s land and water, with inevitable spillover effects in other countries. The heavily polluted Tigris River, for example, flows through Iraq, Iran and Kuwait. DU poisoning is producing deformed babies not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in the United States in the families of veterans of this war and of the Gulf War before it.
We have over 800 bases and stations in other countries, and are building more. We are building four “super bases” in Iraq, as well as “Fortress Baghdad”, the billion dollar embassy in the Green Zone of Baghdad which is scheduled to have a staff of 5,000. We are funding “cooperative security locations” – secret prisons to the plain-language addicted. And then there are those “black” operations and installations which are hinted at around the globe.
The greatest hidden cost, both now and in the future, may well be the cost of welfare to include homelessness, although with homelessness we begin to approach those other costs that go beyond dollars and cents. We know that almost 10% of the 22.5 million current veterans are homeless. The reasons for homelessness among veterans vary, matching the broad range of reasons among the general homeless population. The Veterans Administration cites their own figures of soldiers enrolled in their programs to say that homelessness is not as bad from this war as it used to be in previous wars such as Vietnam. Of course the figures they are using don’t include the 400,000-person backlog, so they might be just a tad suspicious.
One contributing cause to homelessness and to PTSD among veterans is that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA) of 1995 is being circumvented regularly and many veterans are not getting their jobs back. Using small-print provisions in the law, many employers are refusing to give back jobs because re-hiring the veteran will “endanger the viability of the business”. Ignoring the provisions of many equal opportunity laws and labor regulations, hiring officials are setting aside and ignoring applications for new hires of those who retain a Guard or Reserve obligation. The result of this “Support the Troops” activity by business is that many veterans are losing their homes and their cars and are ending up on the street. At least 1,000 veterans from this war are believed to be on the street already, perhaps more.
Continued in Part 3 with the qualitative costs of the war.
Part 1 talked about the quantitative costs of war in bodies and bucks; here we continue the conversation about the hidden costs of the war.
The Army and the Marine Corps are worn out. Their equipment has been ground up by the desert conditions and 72% of army brigades have served multiple tours of duty, some as many as four tours. 84,000 National Guard and Reserves have done multiple tours. Combat stress casualties increase 50% among those on their second or subsequent tour. Two thirds of the active Army regiments are rated “not ready”, and 90% of the Army National Guard units are likewise “not ready”.
Enlistment figures can only be maintained by lowering quotas and soliciting enlistments from sub-standard recruits ~ felons and those with a low IQ. While US unemployment is reported at 4.5%. the unemployment rate for veterans in the 20-24 year age range is over 15%. Is it any wonder that the re-enlistment quotas are being made every quarter? There are no jobs!
In Iraq and Afghanistan mortality rates are up and life expectancy is down. There is no way to know for sure but the estimate of refugees who have left Iraq and Afghanistan are 1.4 million and 2 million, respectively. Internally displaced refugees number at least twice as many, particularly since ethnic and doctrinal cleansing have escalated in Iraq, even if we call it “sectarian violence”.
There is one specific hidden cost that will return to haunt us, just as Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome are now raising the cost of previous wars, even though to date the department of Defense is denying the effects of Depleted Uranium (DU).
DU is a serious internal hazard. Inhalation, ingestion, and wound contamination pose significant and unacceptable health risks due to direct cell damage from alpha and beta particle and gamma ray emissions. Spent penetrators, DU fragments, and contaminated shrapnel can not be touched or picked up without protection. DU is 99.8% by mass U-238, which is made from the by-product of the uranium enrichment process. The United States munitions industry produces the DU munitions in many calibers and for many weapons types. Each time those weapons are fired DU is deposited across the battlefield. For example, one 10-second burst of the GAU-12 Gatling Gun on an AC-130 aircraft deposits 132 lbs of U-238 across a wide area.
In addition, DU weapons have contributed to pollution of Iraq’s land and water, with inevitable spillover effects in other countries. The heavily polluted Tigris River, for example, flows through Iraq, Iran and Kuwait. DU poisoning is producing deformed babies not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in the United States in the families of veterans of this war and of the Gulf War before it.
We have over 800 bases and stations in other countries, and are building more. We are building four “super bases” in Iraq, as well as “Fortress Baghdad”, the billion dollar embassy in the Green Zone of Baghdad which is scheduled to have a staff of 5,000. We are funding “cooperative security locations” – secret prisons to the plain-language addicted. And then there are those “black” operations and installations which are hinted at around the globe.
The greatest hidden cost, both now and in the future, may well be the cost of welfare to include homelessness, although with homelessness we begin to approach those other costs that go beyond dollars and cents. We know that almost 10% of the 22.5 million current veterans are homeless. The reasons for homelessness among veterans vary, matching the broad range of reasons among the general homeless population. The Veterans Administration cites their own figures of soldiers enrolled in their programs to say that homelessness is not as bad from this war as it used to be in previous wars such as Vietnam. Of course the figures they are using don’t include the 400,000-person backlog, so they might be just a tad suspicious.
One contributing cause to homelessness and to PTSD among veterans is that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA) of 1995 is being circumvented regularly and many veterans are not getting their jobs back. Using small-print provisions in the law, many employers are refusing to give back jobs because re-hiring the veteran will “endanger the viability of the business”. Ignoring the provisions of many equal opportunity laws and labor regulations, hiring officials are setting aside and ignoring applications for new hires of those who retain a Guard or Reserve obligation. The result of this “Support the Troops” activity by business is that many veterans are losing their homes and their cars and are ending up on the street. At least 1,000 veterans from this war are believed to be on the street already, perhaps more.
Continued in Part 3 with the qualitative costs of the war.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Maybe Bush Disagrees with God
Hail the Kennebunkport Texan
The nation’s ultimate fraud
Who listens to no one
And talks only to God
Somehow I miss the days of yore when presidential scandals were so infrequent that we were able to spend months if not years digesting them. Even Nixon and Watergate, although based on the paranoid weakness of a human in over his emotional head, was a single string of sin wrapped around the fear that if Nixon did not cheat, he could not defeat the Democrats. This single scandal lasted for months in the second term of a brittle president. The plumbers’ revelations dripped slowly into the public view and eventually uncovered a small and venal man who used dirty tricks to feed his fears. He kept an “enemies” list. He was a pathetic and whimpering figure on the American stage from the early days of “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore,” to his exit stage right at his resignation. Nixon never held the nation hostage nor did he threaten the lives of millions across the sea. He may even have meant well, except on a personal level to those whom he saw as competitors for citizen love and respect. Nixon had both grandiosity and littleness simultaneously.
G. W. Bush, on the other hand, has made a career out of demanding personal loyalty resembling worship in order that nobody should ever mistake his authority. He is the first and only president to abolish the military titles for area commanders such as CINCPAC (Commander-in-Chief, Pacific), or CINCSOUTHCOM, etc. His explanation was: “There is only one Commander-in-Chief and that’s me.” In that way, he has outdone Nixon’s paranoia. More, he has virtually made a career out of appearance over substance, perhaps to protect that fragile self. His belief in image is so strong that he has actually hired a PR firm to convince the Iraqis that things are improving there. Loyalty, Extreme Edition then has become his road to the throne and the trail of tears for his minions and eventually for himself. His selection of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld showed both a strength and a weakness in the sense that loyalty was extended to Donald far beyond the time when the rest of the world knew that Rumsfeld was a failure. George wanted the war in Iraq but Donald planned it badly and brow beat the generals that he did not fire. The result was that Bush got his way, but got it badly.
Competence was not in the formula for planning the war or executing the peace. When General Garner began to rebuild Iraq using Iraqis, Rumsfeld and Bush were appalled and demanded the firing of Arabic speaking diplomats and administrators who had decided to limit removal of only the top 3 levels of Baathists. Soon, they replaced Garner with Bremer and enforced a no-Baathist policy that instantaneously placed Iraqi Army colonels on down into the ranks of the unemployed. Thus was born the insurgency that they both denied existed. The error was firing low level Baathists, but the punishment was to disloyal political and military officials who dared to use the word “insurgency.” The criteria for administrators sent to function for the Bush Administration in Iraq were essentially loyalty tests in order to be assigned. The most famous was Jay Hallen, a 24-year-old evangelist college graduate who was given the responsibility to set up the Iraqi stock exchange. He had zero experience or schooling in preparation for the assignment. O’Beirne was Bush’s pick for staffing the recovery program for Iraq and his staff looked for deep Republican roots to make their selections. The candidates were asked questions re their position on Roe v. Wade and how they voted in the 2000 election, but relevant competence was not a priority. As we flooded Iraq with the loyal and incompetent, the constant anthem was to support George Bush’s “vision for Iraq.” They wore Bush-Cheney 2004 T-shirts and swore allegiance to the Mad King George.
Katrina was the pinnacle of loyalty uber alles. We all remember, “You are doing a heck of a job, Brownie!” Since then, we have seen the mysterious disappearance of 364 tons of hundred dollar bills in Iraq, torture scandals beyond Abu Ghraib, Canary Cunningham, Abramoff does DC, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, Pat Tillman mythology, outing of a secret agent, criminal neglect at Walter Reed, firing of US Attorneys and Attorney General Gonzales is changing stories like diapers with similar smells and reasons. Surrounded by both loyalty and incompetence, just who does Bush talk to? It is obvious that he does not listen to anybody having contrary ideas, even if it is the American electorate. Could he be talking to God and not listening when God talks to him? Could it also be that God has a contrary opinion?
Peace,
George Giacoppe
31 March 2007
The nation’s ultimate fraud
Who listens to no one
And talks only to God
Somehow I miss the days of yore when presidential scandals were so infrequent that we were able to spend months if not years digesting them. Even Nixon and Watergate, although based on the paranoid weakness of a human in over his emotional head, was a single string of sin wrapped around the fear that if Nixon did not cheat, he could not defeat the Democrats. This single scandal lasted for months in the second term of a brittle president. The plumbers’ revelations dripped slowly into the public view and eventually uncovered a small and venal man who used dirty tricks to feed his fears. He kept an “enemies” list. He was a pathetic and whimpering figure on the American stage from the early days of “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore,” to his exit stage right at his resignation. Nixon never held the nation hostage nor did he threaten the lives of millions across the sea. He may even have meant well, except on a personal level to those whom he saw as competitors for citizen love and respect. Nixon had both grandiosity and littleness simultaneously.
G. W. Bush, on the other hand, has made a career out of demanding personal loyalty resembling worship in order that nobody should ever mistake his authority. He is the first and only president to abolish the military titles for area commanders such as CINCPAC (Commander-in-Chief, Pacific), or CINCSOUTHCOM, etc. His explanation was: “There is only one Commander-in-Chief and that’s me.” In that way, he has outdone Nixon’s paranoia. More, he has virtually made a career out of appearance over substance, perhaps to protect that fragile self. His belief in image is so strong that he has actually hired a PR firm to convince the Iraqis that things are improving there. Loyalty, Extreme Edition then has become his road to the throne and the trail of tears for his minions and eventually for himself. His selection of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld showed both a strength and a weakness in the sense that loyalty was extended to Donald far beyond the time when the rest of the world knew that Rumsfeld was a failure. George wanted the war in Iraq but Donald planned it badly and brow beat the generals that he did not fire. The result was that Bush got his way, but got it badly.
Competence was not in the formula for planning the war or executing the peace. When General Garner began to rebuild Iraq using Iraqis, Rumsfeld and Bush were appalled and demanded the firing of Arabic speaking diplomats and administrators who had decided to limit removal of only the top 3 levels of Baathists. Soon, they replaced Garner with Bremer and enforced a no-Baathist policy that instantaneously placed Iraqi Army colonels on down into the ranks of the unemployed. Thus was born the insurgency that they both denied existed. The error was firing low level Baathists, but the punishment was to disloyal political and military officials who dared to use the word “insurgency.” The criteria for administrators sent to function for the Bush Administration in Iraq were essentially loyalty tests in order to be assigned. The most famous was Jay Hallen, a 24-year-old evangelist college graduate who was given the responsibility to set up the Iraqi stock exchange. He had zero experience or schooling in preparation for the assignment. O’Beirne was Bush’s pick for staffing the recovery program for Iraq and his staff looked for deep Republican roots to make their selections. The candidates were asked questions re their position on Roe v. Wade and how they voted in the 2000 election, but relevant competence was not a priority. As we flooded Iraq with the loyal and incompetent, the constant anthem was to support George Bush’s “vision for Iraq.” They wore Bush-Cheney 2004 T-shirts and swore allegiance to the Mad King George.
Katrina was the pinnacle of loyalty uber alles. We all remember, “You are doing a heck of a job, Brownie!” Since then, we have seen the mysterious disappearance of 364 tons of hundred dollar bills in Iraq, torture scandals beyond Abu Ghraib, Canary Cunningham, Abramoff does DC, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, Pat Tillman mythology, outing of a secret agent, criminal neglect at Walter Reed, firing of US Attorneys and Attorney General Gonzales is changing stories like diapers with similar smells and reasons. Surrounded by both loyalty and incompetence, just who does Bush talk to? It is obvious that he does not listen to anybody having contrary ideas, even if it is the American electorate. Could he be talking to God and not listening when God talks to him? Could it also be that God has a contrary opinion?
Peace,
George Giacoppe
31 March 2007
Human loss and “humanity” loss ~ they both count
Sandy Cook – 3/25/07 ~ Part 1 of 3 parts
Recently I was asked to talk to a local group about the human cost of war. When first asked, the temptation was to stand up and say, “The total human cost is incalculable” and then sit down. That five seconds would have been more time spent on the subject than most Americans spend on it each week. The statement would also have been true, but just sitting down would have sacrificed an opportunity to contemplate the overwhelming impact of the current war.
There are the quantitative costs in dollars and lives. Those are the easy costs to understand – those figures are limited only by the accuracy or the truth of the reporting.
But there are also qualitative losses – losses to us and the world of large parts of our history, our present condition, and our possible future. These tangible and intangible losses are imaginable, but they are not yet calculable. These are the “humanity” costs of war, and may, in the end, be the most serious. In short, what is the total cost to the individuals fighting the war, to the government that has sent them, to the citizenry who supports them, and to the rest of the world outside the conflict?
Both the loss of life and the loss of the tangible and intangible benefits of our history and our society are truly veterans’ issues in that they reflect not just the fight, but what we fight for.
We need to talk about all of these costs, both “human” and “humanity,” because Congress isn’t. Instead, they and the administration have cut critical social budgets right and left but have been careful to fund the Sparta, NC Teapot Museum, the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative, and the Blue Springs, MO campaign to fight “Goth” culture.
The numbers remain important. These are the best figures that I can find of those killed and wounded – priceless lives, whether they are Americans, Iraqis, or Afghanis:
Americans/Coalition – 66,000; Iraqis –1 ½ million; Afghanis – ¾ million; Journalists – 300; Contractors – 2,600.
As Bob Woodruff, the recently returned and sorely wounded reporter has told us, as of 6 February officially there were 23,417 wounded. Actually – those who have left DoD care and are in the care of VA = 200,000 – almost 34,000 PTSD; over 73,000 injuries; over 21,000 infections and parasitic Disease; and, almost 68,000 “undefined” illnesses.
Also officially as of 28 February there were 1,835 Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) cases. Better sources estimate “closed head injuries” as at least 10% of the 1.5M who have served, or 150,000.
The number of contractors killed is 280 higher than the official number, and has been confirmed by their employers. There is an added tragedy in the number of correspondents who have lost their lives, some at the hands of our forces, and some murdered at the hands of the opposition.
Using a “best-guess,” and “so-far” estimate, we and our partners have spent half a trillion dollars in Iraq,. Including at least 21 billion dollars that has just “disappeared”. We know that there has been more money spent than we can account for, and that the government is spending hidden – “off-the-books” – money.
In any event, and using rough numbers, had we given the head of each Iraqi family $100,000 contingent on their overthrowing Saddam Hussein, they would have a thriving economy, a still cohesive nation, the dead would be alive, AND WE WOULD HAVE SPENT EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT.
There are massive hidden costs, as well.
Although the VA knew in 2003 that hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be deployed to Iraq, no medical or claims-processing staff was added to handle the inevitable influx of wounded soldiers. That staff now has to be found. Thousands of wounded vets have been forced to wait years to receive rehabilitation and mental-health counseling. The VA has a backlog of at least 400,000 disability claims, and with budgets strained, officials have been turning many down. The number of soldiers approved for permanent disability payments fell by two-thirds from 2001 to 2005 in real numbers, even though the number of seriously injured soldiers soared with the Iraq war. Many of those claims will be revisited
In 2005 the hospital commander of Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany reported that 8%-10% of soldiers from the war treated there, had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues”, and so far there is no provision to cover those ultimate costs which may not surface for years.
Continued in Part 2 with more on the hidden costs.
Modified from an editorial in SOUND OFF!, the bi-monthly newsletter of Veterans United For Truth, Inc., www.vuft.org, a veterans’ support charity off which the author is the Vice Chair and the editor of the newsletter. Note: Sandy is a Vietnam era veteran who is devoting time to direct support of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan through Veterans United for Truth..
Recently I was asked to talk to a local group about the human cost of war. When first asked, the temptation was to stand up and say, “The total human cost is incalculable” and then sit down. That five seconds would have been more time spent on the subject than most Americans spend on it each week. The statement would also have been true, but just sitting down would have sacrificed an opportunity to contemplate the overwhelming impact of the current war.
There are the quantitative costs in dollars and lives. Those are the easy costs to understand – those figures are limited only by the accuracy or the truth of the reporting.
But there are also qualitative losses – losses to us and the world of large parts of our history, our present condition, and our possible future. These tangible and intangible losses are imaginable, but they are not yet calculable. These are the “humanity” costs of war, and may, in the end, be the most serious. In short, what is the total cost to the individuals fighting the war, to the government that has sent them, to the citizenry who supports them, and to the rest of the world outside the conflict?
Both the loss of life and the loss of the tangible and intangible benefits of our history and our society are truly veterans’ issues in that they reflect not just the fight, but what we fight for.
We need to talk about all of these costs, both “human” and “humanity,” because Congress isn’t. Instead, they and the administration have cut critical social budgets right and left but have been careful to fund the Sparta, NC Teapot Museum, the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative, and the Blue Springs, MO campaign to fight “Goth” culture.
The numbers remain important. These are the best figures that I can find of those killed and wounded – priceless lives, whether they are Americans, Iraqis, or Afghanis:
Americans/Coalition – 66,000; Iraqis –1 ½ million; Afghanis – ¾ million; Journalists – 300; Contractors – 2,600.
As Bob Woodruff, the recently returned and sorely wounded reporter has told us, as of 6 February officially there were 23,417 wounded. Actually – those who have left DoD care and are in the care of VA = 200,000 – almost 34,000 PTSD; over 73,000 injuries; over 21,000 infections and parasitic Disease; and, almost 68,000 “undefined” illnesses.
Also officially as of 28 February there were 1,835 Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) cases. Better sources estimate “closed head injuries” as at least 10% of the 1.5M who have served, or 150,000.
The number of contractors killed is 280 higher than the official number, and has been confirmed by their employers. There is an added tragedy in the number of correspondents who have lost their lives, some at the hands of our forces, and some murdered at the hands of the opposition.
Using a “best-guess,” and “so-far” estimate, we and our partners have spent half a trillion dollars in Iraq,. Including at least 21 billion dollars that has just “disappeared”. We know that there has been more money spent than we can account for, and that the government is spending hidden – “off-the-books” – money.
In any event, and using rough numbers, had we given the head of each Iraqi family $100,000 contingent on their overthrowing Saddam Hussein, they would have a thriving economy, a still cohesive nation, the dead would be alive, AND WE WOULD HAVE SPENT EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT.
There are massive hidden costs, as well.
Although the VA knew in 2003 that hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be deployed to Iraq, no medical or claims-processing staff was added to handle the inevitable influx of wounded soldiers. That staff now has to be found. Thousands of wounded vets have been forced to wait years to receive rehabilitation and mental-health counseling. The VA has a backlog of at least 400,000 disability claims, and with budgets strained, officials have been turning many down. The number of soldiers approved for permanent disability payments fell by two-thirds from 2001 to 2005 in real numbers, even though the number of seriously injured soldiers soared with the Iraq war. Many of those claims will be revisited
In 2005 the hospital commander of Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany reported that 8%-10% of soldiers from the war treated there, had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues”, and so far there is no provision to cover those ultimate costs which may not surface for years.
Continued in Part 2 with more on the hidden costs.
Modified from an editorial in SOUND OFF!, the bi-monthly newsletter of Veterans United For Truth, Inc., www.vuft.org, a veterans’ support charity off which the author is the Vice Chair and the editor of the newsletter. Note: Sandy is a Vietnam era veteran who is devoting time to direct support of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan through Veterans United for Truth..
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Daylight Scam Time
I don't know about you but I'm having more than a little trouble withthis new three-week-early shift to Daylight Savings Time (DST). My atomic clock hasn't changed automatically, as it should. My computer hasn't changed either, having been programmed in the days when DST occurred three weeks later into the Spring. And I know that if I change my computer clockmanually, it will only advance automatically in three weeks, and I'll be off by an hour again. So far, I'm leaving things be. Unfortunately, those who govern us can't, or won't let things be.
The U.S. Congress in its infinite wisdom decided two years ago that giving us commoners more daylight to play in would be a wonderful gift: not only would we be able to stay out later at night, but the increased hours of daylight would save energy. There would be, experts assured us, less need for electricity in the evening hours. Those in attendance no doubt applauded, congratulating themselves, and America itself, for its practical genius.
Now, however, we learn the real facts behind this tinkering. It turns out that Australia has already tried this for a year or so, and experts there have found that the savings in energy are all smoke and mirrors. In fact, though there is some small reduction in electricity use because of the increased daylight in the evening, there is a corresponding increase in electricity usage in the morning hours, when people must rise in more darkness. Further, due to the increased light in the evening, people are out and about more, and hence use more fuel in their cars to get around. So the energy savings are really a cover story for the real scam. That scam involves commerce. Shopping malls and other retail businesses have long been eager to increase the duration of DST because when there's more light after work, Americans are more likely to stop and shop on their way home.Three weeks at either end may mean billions in increased sales for the useless products retail businesses thrive on. Even more nefarious, among the biggest lobbies pushing for the new bill to increase DST were candy manufacturers. Why? Because the new DST hours will now encompass Halloween!This means that American Mommies will now be able to keep their little darlings out later in the increased light, which in turn will mean that homes will have to buy more candy to accommodate the increased number of trick-or-treaters coming to beg. Candy manufacturers stand to make a killing. And the fact that more candy in little hands will cause more sugar problems in a nation already reeling from epidemic sugar diabetes among children is, of course, beside the point. Concern for the health of Americans seems to be beside the point for the U.S. Congress as well. In fact, this yielding by lawmakers to pressure from business lobbies, in defiance of any concerns about the health or well-being of their constituents, perfectly represents the sickness at the heart of American politics. Instead of casting votes based on what is good or healthy for the people they are paid to represent, American legislators increasingly vote on behalf of those with the money to finance their continuing election. In this case, the money lay in the hands of candy manufacturers and Chamber of Commerce types who represent shopping malls.
In far too many other cases,the money sits in the hands of arms manufacturers and others in the military-industrial complex, or in the hands of polluters like coal-powered energy plants, massive oil companies, and their ilk. The result in almost all cases is a stench of self-serving and wealth-serving corruption emanating from the halls of Congress that now threatens to overwhelm even the sugared justifications of our well-fed lawmakers. Of course, such a revolt would depend on a citizenry with a healthy nose for the stench of excrement, and in America, where the suppression and repression of odors has become an almost religious duty, any hope for therevival of such olfactory acuity might already be drowned...beneath the sickly sweet smell of candy.
Lawrence DiStasi
The U.S. Congress in its infinite wisdom decided two years ago that giving us commoners more daylight to play in would be a wonderful gift: not only would we be able to stay out later at night, but the increased hours of daylight would save energy. There would be, experts assured us, less need for electricity in the evening hours. Those in attendance no doubt applauded, congratulating themselves, and America itself, for its practical genius.
Now, however, we learn the real facts behind this tinkering. It turns out that Australia has already tried this for a year or so, and experts there have found that the savings in energy are all smoke and mirrors. In fact, though there is some small reduction in electricity use because of the increased daylight in the evening, there is a corresponding increase in electricity usage in the morning hours, when people must rise in more darkness. Further, due to the increased light in the evening, people are out and about more, and hence use more fuel in their cars to get around. So the energy savings are really a cover story for the real scam. That scam involves commerce. Shopping malls and other retail businesses have long been eager to increase the duration of DST because when there's more light after work, Americans are more likely to stop and shop on their way home.Three weeks at either end may mean billions in increased sales for the useless products retail businesses thrive on. Even more nefarious, among the biggest lobbies pushing for the new bill to increase DST were candy manufacturers. Why? Because the new DST hours will now encompass Halloween!This means that American Mommies will now be able to keep their little darlings out later in the increased light, which in turn will mean that homes will have to buy more candy to accommodate the increased number of trick-or-treaters coming to beg. Candy manufacturers stand to make a killing. And the fact that more candy in little hands will cause more sugar problems in a nation already reeling from epidemic sugar diabetes among children is, of course, beside the point. Concern for the health of Americans seems to be beside the point for the U.S. Congress as well. In fact, this yielding by lawmakers to pressure from business lobbies, in defiance of any concerns about the health or well-being of their constituents, perfectly represents the sickness at the heart of American politics. Instead of casting votes based on what is good or healthy for the people they are paid to represent, American legislators increasingly vote on behalf of those with the money to finance their continuing election. In this case, the money lay in the hands of candy manufacturers and Chamber of Commerce types who represent shopping malls.
In far too many other cases,the money sits in the hands of arms manufacturers and others in the military-industrial complex, or in the hands of polluters like coal-powered energy plants, massive oil companies, and their ilk. The result in almost all cases is a stench of self-serving and wealth-serving corruption emanating from the halls of Congress that now threatens to overwhelm even the sugared justifications of our well-fed lawmakers. Of course, such a revolt would depend on a citizenry with a healthy nose for the stench of excrement, and in America, where the suppression and repression of odors has become an almost religious duty, any hope for therevival of such olfactory acuity might already be drowned...beneath the sickly sweet smell of candy.
Lawrence DiStasi
Sunday, February 25, 2007
You Can’t Have it Both Ways
George Washington said, “When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.” But the differences between a professional military and a citizen’s army are profound, and each makes its own demands on the nation.
The professional military requires the commitment by the soldier of a significant part of a lifetime to the study of arms, and to the pursuit, at all costs, of national purpose when arms are called upon to effect that purpose. Having a professional military demands of the taxpayers that they pay for the services – all of them – that their hired professionals require.
The citizens’ army counts on a small cadre of professionals to maintain the training and leadership base, and requires of all citizens a commitment to some small portion of their lives to service. Through both taxes and through voluntary associations, they bear the burden of the survivors.
The suspension of the draft in 1973 defined the armed forces pretty much for all time. The American people did not want a citizens’ army – they wanted a professional army, calling it “All-Volunteer” so that it didn’t sound so “professional.”
All administrations have left much of the long-term help for the wounded and disabled soldiers to volunteers. By doing so, they have it both ways. They get the professional army they want and they don’t have to pay full price. They go so far as to re-direct veterans to voluntary organizations for assistance instead of expanding the formal organizations such as the VA to handle the cost. They short-change the formal organizations, and appeal to the patriotism of the citizenry to support the veterans. Instead of buying the wheelchair or the prosthetic, they praise the volunteers who sacrifice to do the government’s job and then take credit for inspiring that volunteerism to cover their own failures.
Those volunteers are disappearing. The large organizations peopled by WW II, Korea and Vietnam War veterans are getting smaller and smaller as fewer people join. Smaller, community-based organizations seem to thrive only when local personnel serve: without that involvement, they tend to die out.
As the true citizen army moves further into the past, so does the willingness of ordinary citizens to volunteer to help the veteran. Citizens who had already served felt a camaraderie for those who also served. Very few citizens serve these days; very few are capable of understanding exactly what price the veteran pays.
With a professional army, the moment that a soldier takes the oath, the government must be committed to continuing care for a lifetime. The professional soldier gives up almost all other possibilities for personal advancement and most possibilities for personal wealth. They also give up some of their rights as citizens. In exchange, they should receive good pay, full medical benefits for life and a respectable pension.
Maybe we should collect a separate sum from each taxpayer that is their portion of the costs of both war and the maintenance of a professional war-making force. The current war is costing $250 M a day; each taxpayer could receive a separate bill for war expenses of $300 per family member. The taxpayer could then receive another separate bill for the maintenance of the armed force. At $481 B for 2008 that would be $1,600 more for each family member as a continuing cost. The bill could be delivered by a disabled veteran.
There are not enough volunteers to handle the problems we are growing daily, and veterans are falling farther behind on the scale of interest of the American people. As an example, at justgive.org. that advertises itself as a gateway to one million charities, there isn’t even a category for veterans.
We need to get things back on track. We need to tell everyone that they cannot have it both ways. If you want a professional force, pay the price. If you don’t want to pay the price, restart the draft.
It is past time for America to pay the complete price for having the military force it wants.
It is also well past time to decide what sort of foreign policy we will have and what the size scope and mission of the force that is called for in that policy will be.
But that is another story.
Sandy Cook
25 Feb 2007
The professional military requires the commitment by the soldier of a significant part of a lifetime to the study of arms, and to the pursuit, at all costs, of national purpose when arms are called upon to effect that purpose. Having a professional military demands of the taxpayers that they pay for the services – all of them – that their hired professionals require.
The citizens’ army counts on a small cadre of professionals to maintain the training and leadership base, and requires of all citizens a commitment to some small portion of their lives to service. Through both taxes and through voluntary associations, they bear the burden of the survivors.
The suspension of the draft in 1973 defined the armed forces pretty much for all time. The American people did not want a citizens’ army – they wanted a professional army, calling it “All-Volunteer” so that it didn’t sound so “professional.”
All administrations have left much of the long-term help for the wounded and disabled soldiers to volunteers. By doing so, they have it both ways. They get the professional army they want and they don’t have to pay full price. They go so far as to re-direct veterans to voluntary organizations for assistance instead of expanding the formal organizations such as the VA to handle the cost. They short-change the formal organizations, and appeal to the patriotism of the citizenry to support the veterans. Instead of buying the wheelchair or the prosthetic, they praise the volunteers who sacrifice to do the government’s job and then take credit for inspiring that volunteerism to cover their own failures.
Those volunteers are disappearing. The large organizations peopled by WW II, Korea and Vietnam War veterans are getting smaller and smaller as fewer people join. Smaller, community-based organizations seem to thrive only when local personnel serve: without that involvement, they tend to die out.
As the true citizen army moves further into the past, so does the willingness of ordinary citizens to volunteer to help the veteran. Citizens who had already served felt a camaraderie for those who also served. Very few citizens serve these days; very few are capable of understanding exactly what price the veteran pays.
With a professional army, the moment that a soldier takes the oath, the government must be committed to continuing care for a lifetime. The professional soldier gives up almost all other possibilities for personal advancement and most possibilities for personal wealth. They also give up some of their rights as citizens. In exchange, they should receive good pay, full medical benefits for life and a respectable pension.
Maybe we should collect a separate sum from each taxpayer that is their portion of the costs of both war and the maintenance of a professional war-making force. The current war is costing $250 M a day; each taxpayer could receive a separate bill for war expenses of $300 per family member. The taxpayer could then receive another separate bill for the maintenance of the armed force. At $481 B for 2008 that would be $1,600 more for each family member as a continuing cost. The bill could be delivered by a disabled veteran.
There are not enough volunteers to handle the problems we are growing daily, and veterans are falling farther behind on the scale of interest of the American people. As an example, at justgive.org. that advertises itself as a gateway to one million charities, there isn’t even a category for veterans.
We need to get things back on track. We need to tell everyone that they cannot have it both ways. If you want a professional force, pay the price. If you don’t want to pay the price, restart the draft.
It is past time for America to pay the complete price for having the military force it wants.
It is also well past time to decide what sort of foreign policy we will have and what the size scope and mission of the force that is called for in that policy will be.
But that is another story.
Sandy Cook
25 Feb 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Money Trumps Peace, Sometimes
Money trumps peace, sometimes
Especially in desert climes
Where the produce is oil
Deep under the soil
And it takes no persuasion
To mount an invasion
And roust out the locals
Except for the moguls
Who help in our desire
To create a new quagmire
Timing is everything in life. George W. Bush chose Valentine’s Day to tell us at a news conference “Money trumps peace, sometimes.” He did this in the context of complaining that Iran was somehow responsible for selling weapons to Iraqis and that they probably did so through Europeans. The implication is that Iran did this for money. What Bush failed to say was that the United States had only stopped selling F-14 repair parts to Iran on 23 January, about 3 weeks earlier, for money. Our Congress found out and stopped the Pentagon practice of selling surplus spares to Iran. This Bush rant is by the same team that years earlier brought us Iran Contra under Reagan’s leadership when we sold weapons to Iran to finance an illegal war in Central America. I sometimes feel that it is disingenuous to complain about Europeans arming a potential enemy when we have been doing it for decades. It is hypocritical to condemn our European friends when the receipts are hardly dry on our own invoices. We are now losing helicopters to MANPADS (shoulder fired anti- aircraft missiles). I have no evidence that these missiles were part of the Ollie North deals with Iran, but since money trumps peace, any sale should be suspect, including those by Rumsfeld and Cheney back in the eighties as well as the ones by Ollie and the more recent ones by the Bush Administration.
Bush dropped a further hint that Iranian Shiites were responsible for soldiers killed in Iraq. These are the sect members that we have supported in the current civil war, incidentally, and they probably are responsible for up to 8% of those killed. Again, what Bush failed to say was that the higher percentage (92%) of our combat fatalities have been caused by Sunnis who are supported by Saudis and even by Jordanians. Why is there no outrage against Saudis to match the rhetoric against Iran? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iranian? How many were Saudi? Oh, there were no Iranians? All but two were Saudi? Maybe that is why Bush would rather glide over that bump. It would appear that Bush is spoiling for a fight again.
Now if Bush had been successful in Afghanistan where our enemy was linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban or in Iraq where neither had prior residence, I could explain this behavior against Iran as immoral but likely to result in a military victory. Unfortunately, there is no rational explanation. This is irrational behavior. Or is it? You and I and millions of hard working, dedicated and patriotic people see this behavior as irrational because it means that we will likely enter another war that we cannot win. You and I have made an unspoken discussion that War is a means to an end. We are fond of quoting Clausewitz and seeing War as an extension of foreign policy where there was a triangular arrangement of nation-states (sovereignties), soldiers and common subjects to the crown (the governed). Governments wage wars using soldiers and the governed have no say in the process. What if Bush could create a sovereignty where the governed have no say in the government? This is where Congress becomes irrelevant and the common people lose power at the fundamental process of a democracy of governing the government. Who needs the FISA courts with the Unitary Executive? The Judiciary becomes irrelevant.
Let me ask just one more very scary question. What if War is not the means to an end, but the end itself? What if winning or losing is less important than selling goods and services to the system of wars? What if Corporatism supporting Halliburton and Parsons is the real reason for war? What if Eisenhower underestimated the Military-Industrial-Complex? Forgive me. I have exceeded my question quota. As others have noted, we should only extend personhood to a corporation on its first colonoscopy. Later we will consider why Ollie North called John McCain and Joe Lieberman liars for stating that the troops support the surge. Somehow those two and colonoscopy go together.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
18 February 2007
Especially in desert climes
Where the produce is oil
Deep under the soil
And it takes no persuasion
To mount an invasion
And roust out the locals
Except for the moguls
Who help in our desire
To create a new quagmire
Timing is everything in life. George W. Bush chose Valentine’s Day to tell us at a news conference “Money trumps peace, sometimes.” He did this in the context of complaining that Iran was somehow responsible for selling weapons to Iraqis and that they probably did so through Europeans. The implication is that Iran did this for money. What Bush failed to say was that the United States had only stopped selling F-14 repair parts to Iran on 23 January, about 3 weeks earlier, for money. Our Congress found out and stopped the Pentagon practice of selling surplus spares to Iran. This Bush rant is by the same team that years earlier brought us Iran Contra under Reagan’s leadership when we sold weapons to Iran to finance an illegal war in Central America. I sometimes feel that it is disingenuous to complain about Europeans arming a potential enemy when we have been doing it for decades. It is hypocritical to condemn our European friends when the receipts are hardly dry on our own invoices. We are now losing helicopters to MANPADS (shoulder fired anti- aircraft missiles). I have no evidence that these missiles were part of the Ollie North deals with Iran, but since money trumps peace, any sale should be suspect, including those by Rumsfeld and Cheney back in the eighties as well as the ones by Ollie and the more recent ones by the Bush Administration.
Bush dropped a further hint that Iranian Shiites were responsible for soldiers killed in Iraq. These are the sect members that we have supported in the current civil war, incidentally, and they probably are responsible for up to 8% of those killed. Again, what Bush failed to say was that the higher percentage (92%) of our combat fatalities have been caused by Sunnis who are supported by Saudis and even by Jordanians. Why is there no outrage against Saudis to match the rhetoric against Iran? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iranian? How many were Saudi? Oh, there were no Iranians? All but two were Saudi? Maybe that is why Bush would rather glide over that bump. It would appear that Bush is spoiling for a fight again.
Now if Bush had been successful in Afghanistan where our enemy was linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban or in Iraq where neither had prior residence, I could explain this behavior against Iran as immoral but likely to result in a military victory. Unfortunately, there is no rational explanation. This is irrational behavior. Or is it? You and I and millions of hard working, dedicated and patriotic people see this behavior as irrational because it means that we will likely enter another war that we cannot win. You and I have made an unspoken discussion that War is a means to an end. We are fond of quoting Clausewitz and seeing War as an extension of foreign policy where there was a triangular arrangement of nation-states (sovereignties), soldiers and common subjects to the crown (the governed). Governments wage wars using soldiers and the governed have no say in the process. What if Bush could create a sovereignty where the governed have no say in the government? This is where Congress becomes irrelevant and the common people lose power at the fundamental process of a democracy of governing the government. Who needs the FISA courts with the Unitary Executive? The Judiciary becomes irrelevant.
Let me ask just one more very scary question. What if War is not the means to an end, but the end itself? What if winning or losing is less important than selling goods and services to the system of wars? What if Corporatism supporting Halliburton and Parsons is the real reason for war? What if Eisenhower underestimated the Military-Industrial-Complex? Forgive me. I have exceeded my question quota. As others have noted, we should only extend personhood to a corporation on its first colonoscopy. Later we will consider why Ollie North called John McCain and Joe Lieberman liars for stating that the troops support the surge. Somehow those two and colonoscopy go together.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
18 February 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
America Psycho
A recent article on truthout.org, “Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions,” by the father-son team of John Briggs Sr. & Jr., provides an uncomfortable insight into the peril America finds itself in. The Briggs team analyzes the now-voluminous information that finds in President George W. Bush a psychologically troubled man, obsessed with the need to at once escape his father’s influence, get his approval, and defeat him all at the same time. Hounded by years of clear failure, and now the stresses of a presidency gone wrong, Bush is portrayed as being at or near a critical juncture where the prospect of failure in Iraq so plays into longtime fears of inadequacy that the wall of defenses designed to disguise that fear seriously jeopardize any ability he may have left to make sound decisions. Thus, though “the Decider” pretends to be certain of the right course to victory in Iraq, in reality this is all bluster, yet another aspect of what Briggs & Briggs call Bush’s “Christian Defense”–i.e., the “perfect defense against any doubts he or anyone else might have” because of the divine hand presumably guiding him. So though on the surface the President’s certainty might seem reassuring, analysis reveals “more and more that, psychologically, he’s defending himself against the very feelings of uncertainty that are the necessary concomitant to making tough decisions. His tough decision-making is a sham.”
This leaves the United States and its people in a perilous position. Having supported Bush in his defenses for so long—most people, after all, have some feelings of inadequacy and so admire someone like Bush who has apparently pulled off a monumental leadership scam by sheer nerve—we are reluctant to confront the disaster we now see in the making. As Briggs & son put it: “We don’t dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone’s uncertainty.”
In fact, to this writer, “facing what it means” is the real point here, i.e., that America itself is in psychological trouble. Consider that three of our last five presidents were either impeached or seriously subject to investigations that could have meant impeachment: Nixon, Clinton, and Reagan (for Iran-Contra). Two others have been Bushes, with all the muck and mire that implies. But it’s not just a question of leadership. America’s standing in the world, despite the fact that it has reigned as the lone superpower since 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed, has been steadily eroding. From our peak of economic power after WWII, we have become the world’s largest debtor nation and that debt is growing. We import far more than we export, producing not so much those famous American-made goods any longer but primarily services and entertainment. Indeed, we find ourselves almost in the position of a third-world country: we import billions of dollars worth of manufactured products from places like China and India and Japan, and export mainly agricultural products like wheat, corn and soybeans. Morally, we no longer lead but resist those forces of reason and sanity which demand a policy on global warming, on the International Court of Justice, and on a fair policy regarding nuclear weapons. In fact, we are the world’s chief supplier of weapons of all kinds, a reality that renders our complaints about Iraq’s WMD (false), and Iran’s possible moves to acquire nuclear weapons (unproven) both hypocritical and impotent. A list of the democratic leaders we have overthrown or assassinated in recent years, added to the list of dictators we have supported and continue to support, is enough to make one wretch with shame.
And yet, all we hear from our leaders, both in the White House and the Congress, is breast-beating about our role as the hope of all the world, the envy of all other nations, the greatest force for good ever to appear on the planet.
In this sense, we are, psychologically, the equivalent of our dysfunctional president. We are riddled with defenses, smug about our chosen role as God’s elect, impervious to criticism from abroad, and constantly ready, like our President, to bully and brutalize any nation that refuses to conform to our demands. Meantime, our role as the world’s chief consumer/polluter and the overwhelming leader in the production of greenhouse gases –with 1/20 of the world’s population, we contribute nearly 1/4 (22%) of the carbon dioxide—and our refusal to do anything about it, suggests that to maintain our illusory self-image (read “lifestyle”), we are willing to undermine life itself.
In short, a psycho president leading a psycho nation. One can only wonder if anything short of a major collapse—either the president’s, or ours—will wake us up.
Lawrence DiStasi
This leaves the United States and its people in a perilous position. Having supported Bush in his defenses for so long—most people, after all, have some feelings of inadequacy and so admire someone like Bush who has apparently pulled off a monumental leadership scam by sheer nerve—we are reluctant to confront the disaster we now see in the making. As Briggs & son put it: “We don’t dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone’s uncertainty.”
In fact, to this writer, “facing what it means” is the real point here, i.e., that America itself is in psychological trouble. Consider that three of our last five presidents were either impeached or seriously subject to investigations that could have meant impeachment: Nixon, Clinton, and Reagan (for Iran-Contra). Two others have been Bushes, with all the muck and mire that implies. But it’s not just a question of leadership. America’s standing in the world, despite the fact that it has reigned as the lone superpower since 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed, has been steadily eroding. From our peak of economic power after WWII, we have become the world’s largest debtor nation and that debt is growing. We import far more than we export, producing not so much those famous American-made goods any longer but primarily services and entertainment. Indeed, we find ourselves almost in the position of a third-world country: we import billions of dollars worth of manufactured products from places like China and India and Japan, and export mainly agricultural products like wheat, corn and soybeans. Morally, we no longer lead but resist those forces of reason and sanity which demand a policy on global warming, on the International Court of Justice, and on a fair policy regarding nuclear weapons. In fact, we are the world’s chief supplier of weapons of all kinds, a reality that renders our complaints about Iraq’s WMD (false), and Iran’s possible moves to acquire nuclear weapons (unproven) both hypocritical and impotent. A list of the democratic leaders we have overthrown or assassinated in recent years, added to the list of dictators we have supported and continue to support, is enough to make one wretch with shame.
And yet, all we hear from our leaders, both in the White House and the Congress, is breast-beating about our role as the hope of all the world, the envy of all other nations, the greatest force for good ever to appear on the planet.
In this sense, we are, psychologically, the equivalent of our dysfunctional president. We are riddled with defenses, smug about our chosen role as God’s elect, impervious to criticism from abroad, and constantly ready, like our President, to bully and brutalize any nation that refuses to conform to our demands. Meantime, our role as the world’s chief consumer/polluter and the overwhelming leader in the production of greenhouse gases –with 1/20 of the world’s population, we contribute nearly 1/4 (22%) of the carbon dioxide—and our refusal to do anything about it, suggests that to maintain our illusory self-image (read “lifestyle”), we are willing to undermine life itself.
In short, a psycho president leading a psycho nation. One can only wonder if anything short of a major collapse—either the president’s, or ours—will wake us up.
Lawrence DiStasi
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Control the Cowboy and Save a Nation
Meanwhile in the saloon
The swinging door is closing
Behind the cowboy buffoon
Who doesn’t know he is losing
A faith, a people, a war
And mothers cry: What for?
And the quagmire only gets deeper
For an incompetent brother’s keeper
Once again, Bush has modeled American foreign policy on a Hollywood B western. As the tough new sheriff in town, he has warned Evil Roy Slade (Iran) to stay out of Dodge (Iraq). He has organized a posse (two aircraft carrier task groups) to control the territory (Persian Gulf) and is ready to get the draw on anybody that raises a hand in question. In fact, his deputies have already put on their star badges and raided a hideout (the Iranian Consulate in Irbil, Kurdistan, Iraq).
Last night’s presidential speech not only defied Democrats, but also most Republicans, virtually 75% of Americans and even higher percentages in nations across the world. Instead of following the Baker-Hamilton Commission advice to negotiate with Iran and Syria, he is threatening them directly with the Eisenhower and the Stennis carrier task forces. To fully understand the enormity of the insanity that is King George, we need to recall that we are losing a war occupying a nation of 25 million souls (minus casualties and escapees) and that Iran has 76 million souls, most of whom are younger than 30. Targets in Iran are hardened. The enemy in Iran is now joined at the hip with the Shiites in Iraq through Muqtada al Sadr and others. The Shiites, including the PM al Malaki, are running Iraq as the armed majority. Iranians have some modern surface-to-surface missiles purchased from China and perhaps Russia. They have Chinese subs. They have speedboat patrols that protect their shores. The Persian Gulf is analogous to the Box Canyon of the spaghetti western and we just had a collision of one of our subs with a Japanese tanker in those tight waters near the Straits of Hormuz. Neither the Iraqi insurgency not the Mahdi Army death squads has ballistic missiles, yet we are deploying Patriot missile batteries to the area. The air war in Iraq is long over. Given the history of utter incompetence of this administration to provide credible intelligence or effective military plans, what are the odds that we will not suffer a shore to ship strike from Iran that will “justify” retaliation? The contest is between Ahmedinijad and Bush. Neither one strikes me as logical yet both strike me as ideologues. That adds up to two strikes. Bush’s strike on a Consulate demonstrates a lack of discipline. Was that the third strike in a no-win contest? Can we expect more from Ahmedinijad than Bush? As a survivor of the Gulf of Tonkin ploy by Johnson, I see this not as blunder but a deliberate provocation aimed at getting us into war with Iran. Iran has surface-to-surface missiles that put our troops in Iraq in great jeopardy, especially when they are canalized in the Bremer Wall Gully that is Baghdad. Even the appointment of a flag level naval aviator to lead the ground forces in the zone must now be questioned. Was it done because we have no competent ground generals or are we opening the (nuclear?) air war? The Eisenhower is due to stay on station through March 2007 and the Stennis just arrived.
When I studied for my MBA, the Finance course made it clear that a sunk cost was never a valid reason for an investment in the future. It is good money after bad. A rational investor knows when to cut his losses. What makes this situation in the Middle East far more threatening is that the losses are calculated in measures of blood not money. Who will stop this reckless cowboy? I am not a supporter of suicide, so if Bush is suicidal, why doesn’t he get counseling instead of condemning our troops to injury and death? I know enough about ideologues to understand that they can have great conviction and even great faith, but when two ideologues confront each other and the world is at risk, it is time to consider a psychiatric removal of the one that reports to us, as the American people. He is our president, and to that extent, we are responsible for him. Let the Iranians take care of their problem. If Bush can no longer act rationally, then our elected representatives should take all steps for a competency hearing for Bush. If they cannot control his foreign excesses like Iraq or his domestic excesses including his signing statements to deprive us from mail and telephone privacy, then perhaps, it is time for a medical intervention. That cowboy is sick and he is a vector that may get us all hurt or killed.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
11 January 2007
The swinging door is closing
Behind the cowboy buffoon
Who doesn’t know he is losing
A faith, a people, a war
And mothers cry: What for?
And the quagmire only gets deeper
For an incompetent brother’s keeper
Once again, Bush has modeled American foreign policy on a Hollywood B western. As the tough new sheriff in town, he has warned Evil Roy Slade (Iran) to stay out of Dodge (Iraq). He has organized a posse (two aircraft carrier task groups) to control the territory (Persian Gulf) and is ready to get the draw on anybody that raises a hand in question. In fact, his deputies have already put on their star badges and raided a hideout (the Iranian Consulate in Irbil, Kurdistan, Iraq).
Last night’s presidential speech not only defied Democrats, but also most Republicans, virtually 75% of Americans and even higher percentages in nations across the world. Instead of following the Baker-Hamilton Commission advice to negotiate with Iran and Syria, he is threatening them directly with the Eisenhower and the Stennis carrier task forces. To fully understand the enormity of the insanity that is King George, we need to recall that we are losing a war occupying a nation of 25 million souls (minus casualties and escapees) and that Iran has 76 million souls, most of whom are younger than 30. Targets in Iran are hardened. The enemy in Iran is now joined at the hip with the Shiites in Iraq through Muqtada al Sadr and others. The Shiites, including the PM al Malaki, are running Iraq as the armed majority. Iranians have some modern surface-to-surface missiles purchased from China and perhaps Russia. They have Chinese subs. They have speedboat patrols that protect their shores. The Persian Gulf is analogous to the Box Canyon of the spaghetti western and we just had a collision of one of our subs with a Japanese tanker in those tight waters near the Straits of Hormuz. Neither the Iraqi insurgency not the Mahdi Army death squads has ballistic missiles, yet we are deploying Patriot missile batteries to the area. The air war in Iraq is long over. Given the history of utter incompetence of this administration to provide credible intelligence or effective military plans, what are the odds that we will not suffer a shore to ship strike from Iran that will “justify” retaliation? The contest is between Ahmedinijad and Bush. Neither one strikes me as logical yet both strike me as ideologues. That adds up to two strikes. Bush’s strike on a Consulate demonstrates a lack of discipline. Was that the third strike in a no-win contest? Can we expect more from Ahmedinijad than Bush? As a survivor of the Gulf of Tonkin ploy by Johnson, I see this not as blunder but a deliberate provocation aimed at getting us into war with Iran. Iran has surface-to-surface missiles that put our troops in Iraq in great jeopardy, especially when they are canalized in the Bremer Wall Gully that is Baghdad. Even the appointment of a flag level naval aviator to lead the ground forces in the zone must now be questioned. Was it done because we have no competent ground generals or are we opening the (nuclear?) air war? The Eisenhower is due to stay on station through March 2007 and the Stennis just arrived.
When I studied for my MBA, the Finance course made it clear that a sunk cost was never a valid reason for an investment in the future. It is good money after bad. A rational investor knows when to cut his losses. What makes this situation in the Middle East far more threatening is that the losses are calculated in measures of blood not money. Who will stop this reckless cowboy? I am not a supporter of suicide, so if Bush is suicidal, why doesn’t he get counseling instead of condemning our troops to injury and death? I know enough about ideologues to understand that they can have great conviction and even great faith, but when two ideologues confront each other and the world is at risk, it is time to consider a psychiatric removal of the one that reports to us, as the American people. He is our president, and to that extent, we are responsible for him. Let the Iranians take care of their problem. If Bush can no longer act rationally, then our elected representatives should take all steps for a competency hearing for Bush. If they cannot control his foreign excesses like Iraq or his domestic excesses including his signing statements to deprive us from mail and telephone privacy, then perhaps, it is time for a medical intervention. That cowboy is sick and he is a vector that may get us all hurt or killed.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
11 January 2007
Monday, January 01, 2007
Palestine: Peace not Apartheid
Former President Jimmy Carter implemented what was perhaps the most important piece of diplomacy between Israel and Palestine in history: the Camp David Accords of 1978. As the mediator between Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, he managed to persuade the leaders of Israel and Egypt into signing an agreement that had seemed impossible, along the way amassing a volume of information and insight about the Middle East’s most enduring conflict that is unrivaled. It is this volume of information, first-hand experience, and keen insight that he brings to bear in his new book
--All of which makes him very hard to refute. And it is for this reason—his authority on this issue—that he has been personally attacked so viciously by the pro-Israeli forces (including most of the media and the U.S. Congress) in the United States. They know that if Jimmy Carter refers to “apartheid” in the title of his book, there must be a basis for that usage.
There is. What Israel has done with its continuing settlements in the occupied territories and with the building of its wall (the wall is not only wholly built on the Palestinian side of the “green line” but also cuts deeply into Palestinian territory in countless places to protect major Israeli settlements and to isolate major Palestinian cities) is to create a de facto system comparable to the infamous one erected by whites in South Africa. One need only look at one of Carter’s maps to see this. The illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in effect carve up the territory supposed to be allotted to a Palestinian state into “bantustans”—small islands of land cut off from each other to the extent that no sane person could call this a unified state. When one adds the separate road system (only Jewish settlers can use the good roads, with Palestinians shunted to their own inferior roads blocked with countless checkpoints), the unequal water system (“each Jewish settler uses five times as much water as a Palestinian neighbor, who must pay five times as much per gallon” p. 121), the fact that the wall cuts off “about 200,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem from their relatives, property, schools, and businesses,” (p. 195), and the fact that “untreated sewage [from settlers’ villages] is discharged onto the surrounding fields and villages” (p. 121) of the Palestinians, one can be in no doubt that this is, indeed, apartheid of a particularly vicious kind. The International Court of Justice has agreed, in a July 2004 ruling “the Israeli government’s construction of the segregation wall in the occupied Palestinian West Bank was illegal.” (p. 193)
Jimmy Carter has pointed all this out in no uncertain terms. His doing so has been taken as a flagrant violation of the unwritten pact governing political and media discourse in the United States, i.e., that no information detrimental to Israeli policy can be publicly aired. To do so, thereby incurring the resultant charges of “anti-Semitism,” is tantamount to political suicide. Given the fact that Carter even more egregiously violated the pact when he was president, by actually, in response to a 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, warning Prime Minister Begin “that if Israeli forces remained in Lebanon, I would have to notify Congress, as required by law, that U.S. weapons were being used illegally in Lebanon, which would automatically cut off all military aid to Israel” (p. 44), whence Israel withdrew, it is not surprising that Carter’s new book would cause such furor.
One can only hope the furor will fail, or better still, backfire. For Carter’s book has done a signal service to the right of free political discourse in the United States. He has hammered away at the central problem preventing peace in the Middle East: that Israel has been in violation of United Nations resolutions almost continuously since its victory in the 1967 war. UN Security Council Resolution 242 refers, without equivocation, to “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,” and states, “fulfillment of Charter principles requires…Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” It also calls for “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem” (all quotes p. 218). This language could not be clearer, and yet, for forty years now Israel has maintained its illegal occupation of Palestinian land, established hundreds of illegal settlements on the best of that land, and is now dividing up what remains into virtually unlivable bantustans. It is also literally starving the Palestinians of resources and everything that makes life even modestly livable. To talk of a two-state solution with these settlements and this apartheid wall in place is to speak nonsense—and Jimmy Carter points this out. For this, for his honesty, his courage, and the measured, authoritative nature of his presentation, we all owe him a debt of gratitude. One can only hope that members of the United States Congress will find even a small modicum of Carter’s courage to demand the fairness, honesty and real American justice that he recommends.
Lawrence DiStasi
--All of which makes him very hard to refute. And it is for this reason—his authority on this issue—that he has been personally attacked so viciously by the pro-Israeli forces (including most of the media and the U.S. Congress) in the United States. They know that if Jimmy Carter refers to “apartheid” in the title of his book, there must be a basis for that usage.
There is. What Israel has done with its continuing settlements in the occupied territories and with the building of its wall (the wall is not only wholly built on the Palestinian side of the “green line” but also cuts deeply into Palestinian territory in countless places to protect major Israeli settlements and to isolate major Palestinian cities) is to create a de facto system comparable to the infamous one erected by whites in South Africa. One need only look at one of Carter’s maps to see this. The illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in effect carve up the territory supposed to be allotted to a Palestinian state into “bantustans”—small islands of land cut off from each other to the extent that no sane person could call this a unified state. When one adds the separate road system (only Jewish settlers can use the good roads, with Palestinians shunted to their own inferior roads blocked with countless checkpoints), the unequal water system (“each Jewish settler uses five times as much water as a Palestinian neighbor, who must pay five times as much per gallon” p. 121), the fact that the wall cuts off “about 200,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem from their relatives, property, schools, and businesses,” (p. 195), and the fact that “untreated sewage [from settlers’ villages] is discharged onto the surrounding fields and villages” (p. 121) of the Palestinians, one can be in no doubt that this is, indeed, apartheid of a particularly vicious kind. The International Court of Justice has agreed, in a July 2004 ruling “the Israeli government’s construction of the segregation wall in the occupied Palestinian West Bank was illegal.” (p. 193)
Jimmy Carter has pointed all this out in no uncertain terms. His doing so has been taken as a flagrant violation of the unwritten pact governing political and media discourse in the United States, i.e., that no information detrimental to Israeli policy can be publicly aired. To do so, thereby incurring the resultant charges of “anti-Semitism,” is tantamount to political suicide. Given the fact that Carter even more egregiously violated the pact when he was president, by actually, in response to a 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, warning Prime Minister Begin “that if Israeli forces remained in Lebanon, I would have to notify Congress, as required by law, that U.S. weapons were being used illegally in Lebanon, which would automatically cut off all military aid to Israel” (p. 44), whence Israel withdrew, it is not surprising that Carter’s new book would cause such furor.
One can only hope the furor will fail, or better still, backfire. For Carter’s book has done a signal service to the right of free political discourse in the United States. He has hammered away at the central problem preventing peace in the Middle East: that Israel has been in violation of United Nations resolutions almost continuously since its victory in the 1967 war. UN Security Council Resolution 242 refers, without equivocation, to “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,” and states, “fulfillment of Charter principles requires…Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” It also calls for “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem” (all quotes p. 218). This language could not be clearer, and yet, for forty years now Israel has maintained its illegal occupation of Palestinian land, established hundreds of illegal settlements on the best of that land, and is now dividing up what remains into virtually unlivable bantustans. It is also literally starving the Palestinians of resources and everything that makes life even modestly livable. To talk of a two-state solution with these settlements and this apartheid wall in place is to speak nonsense—and Jimmy Carter points this out. For this, for his honesty, his courage, and the measured, authoritative nature of his presentation, we all owe him a debt of gratitude. One can only hope that members of the United States Congress will find even a small modicum of Carter’s courage to demand the fairness, honesty and real American justice that he recommends.
Lawrence DiStasi
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Bush in the Bunker
As we come to close the year
It seems the choices now are clear
Iraq is as broken as the glass
That toasted victory so crass
Aboard a ship so close to shore
That Pendleton was at the door
While Neocons so hale and hearty
Sent Marines to their death party
Leave now or double down
And view the blood on Bush’s crown
In this theater of the absurd, we see George W. Bush looking for vindication for a failed preemptive war policy badly handled by like-minded Neocons. This is a war that never should have happened, but for the likes of incompetent ideologues might still have been won. Bush, ever impervious to negative information, sent Paul Bremer, an imperial pro-consul, to administer the destruction of a culture that endured decades of internal differences laid on a history of centuries of rich art, language, and custom. Qualified administrators and soldiers were summarily dismissed and the gates of hell were opened to the New Order now known gently as Disorder.
Today’s theater reminds me of the last days of Hitler in the bunker in Berlin. At that time in late April 1945, the curtain opens on a haggard unitary executive and War Leader swearing vengeance on Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering who has offered to take over the reins of power. Hitler is surrounded by only his most loyal sycophants including Propaganda Minister Goebbels and family, Martin Bormann and Eva Braun, his mistress. He still points to the map and moves his phantom divisions to counter the Russian millions moving west (as the remaining Wehrmacht) and the American and British thousands moving east. Hitler’s reality is the map and the loyalty of the dream weaver Goebbels. The bunker transforms reality from the flesh and blood of soldiers now losing a colossal preemptive war to the two dimensional markers on a map.
Now before anybody attacks me for comparing Bush to Hitler, I know several differences. Bush never used slave labor. He never denied humanity to Jews. He never invaded Poland and he is clean-shaven. I focus on the mentality of the leader in the bunker who lashes out at those who had been his allies and fails to see his own hand in the damage to his homeland and its army. I focus on the absurd creation of a new reality that is unsupported by commonly perceived fact. In November, the nation clearly told Bush to get out of Iraq. Bush saw this as an opportunity to double down his phantom brigades in an all-out attempt to prove that his ideology will provide “victory.” When Hitler finally realized that he was hearing artillery explosions in the garden over the Fuhrerbunker, he put his affairs in order, married Eva and wrote a last will and testament. He also put out an order to arrest Heinrich Himmler for attempting to negotiate with the enemy and blamed “International Jewry” for all the losses. Will Bush awaken from his dream of victory to hear the explosions of the American people over his failed leadership or will he simply dismiss those who disagree with him and continue to deploy his phantom brigades until there is no negotiation possible and no brigade remaining?
In researching for this essay, I read the Kubler-Ross model of five stages of grief (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance). While many of you might speculate as to exactly where Bush is in that model, I have created a new model from my own observations that may provide some insight. Leaders like Bush who are so self-centered tend to move through only three actual stages of redemption. First, they try desperately to save face. They blame everyone else except themselves and surround themselves with propagandists who can paint foreign allies or even homeland Democrats for his failed policy. Next, they try to save ass. They scramble to protect their physical family fortunes as well as their written historical legacies (the Nixon Library?). Finally, much in the model of Vietnam War Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, they try to save their souls with Mea Culpas as though divine guidance suddenly penetrated the bunker. Unfortunately, it took McNamara 25 years to try to save his soul. Bush is still trying to save face. Will it take that long for Bush to come to peace with himself? People in leadership can simultaneously be struggling with the Kubler-Ross model (Denial for Bush) while working through the stages of redemption.
All the families of the soldiers and Marines have been abruptly dumped into the Kubler-Ross model without sharing that sacrifice with fellow Americans. As recently as yesterday, Bush told us to go shopping. That is not sharing the sacrifice. We are a nation in grief and need to share that grief with those suffering the direct losses. It is time to stop ignoring our heroic dead in flag-draped coffins. It is time to put the cost of the war on the budget books and at least let Americans share the cost of the lost lives, limbs and jobs of returning veterans by providing a warm and sincere welcome home to those who have borne the burden of battle.
If Christmas is nothing else, it is the promise of sharing the pain of life and the hope of everlasting redemption. Let us pray.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
22 December 2006
It seems the choices now are clear
Iraq is as broken as the glass
That toasted victory so crass
Aboard a ship so close to shore
That Pendleton was at the door
While Neocons so hale and hearty
Sent Marines to their death party
Leave now or double down
And view the blood on Bush’s crown
In this theater of the absurd, we see George W. Bush looking for vindication for a failed preemptive war policy badly handled by like-minded Neocons. This is a war that never should have happened, but for the likes of incompetent ideologues might still have been won. Bush, ever impervious to negative information, sent Paul Bremer, an imperial pro-consul, to administer the destruction of a culture that endured decades of internal differences laid on a history of centuries of rich art, language, and custom. Qualified administrators and soldiers were summarily dismissed and the gates of hell were opened to the New Order now known gently as Disorder.
Today’s theater reminds me of the last days of Hitler in the bunker in Berlin. At that time in late April 1945, the curtain opens on a haggard unitary executive and War Leader swearing vengeance on Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering who has offered to take over the reins of power. Hitler is surrounded by only his most loyal sycophants including Propaganda Minister Goebbels and family, Martin Bormann and Eva Braun, his mistress. He still points to the map and moves his phantom divisions to counter the Russian millions moving west (as the remaining Wehrmacht) and the American and British thousands moving east. Hitler’s reality is the map and the loyalty of the dream weaver Goebbels. The bunker transforms reality from the flesh and blood of soldiers now losing a colossal preemptive war to the two dimensional markers on a map.
Now before anybody attacks me for comparing Bush to Hitler, I know several differences. Bush never used slave labor. He never denied humanity to Jews. He never invaded Poland and he is clean-shaven. I focus on the mentality of the leader in the bunker who lashes out at those who had been his allies and fails to see his own hand in the damage to his homeland and its army. I focus on the absurd creation of a new reality that is unsupported by commonly perceived fact. In November, the nation clearly told Bush to get out of Iraq. Bush saw this as an opportunity to double down his phantom brigades in an all-out attempt to prove that his ideology will provide “victory.” When Hitler finally realized that he was hearing artillery explosions in the garden over the Fuhrerbunker, he put his affairs in order, married Eva and wrote a last will and testament. He also put out an order to arrest Heinrich Himmler for attempting to negotiate with the enemy and blamed “International Jewry” for all the losses. Will Bush awaken from his dream of victory to hear the explosions of the American people over his failed leadership or will he simply dismiss those who disagree with him and continue to deploy his phantom brigades until there is no negotiation possible and no brigade remaining?
In researching for this essay, I read the Kubler-Ross model of five stages of grief (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance). While many of you might speculate as to exactly where Bush is in that model, I have created a new model from my own observations that may provide some insight. Leaders like Bush who are so self-centered tend to move through only three actual stages of redemption. First, they try desperately to save face. They blame everyone else except themselves and surround themselves with propagandists who can paint foreign allies or even homeland Democrats for his failed policy. Next, they try to save ass. They scramble to protect their physical family fortunes as well as their written historical legacies (the Nixon Library?). Finally, much in the model of Vietnam War Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, they try to save their souls with Mea Culpas as though divine guidance suddenly penetrated the bunker. Unfortunately, it took McNamara 25 years to try to save his soul. Bush is still trying to save face. Will it take that long for Bush to come to peace with himself? People in leadership can simultaneously be struggling with the Kubler-Ross model (Denial for Bush) while working through the stages of redemption.
All the families of the soldiers and Marines have been abruptly dumped into the Kubler-Ross model without sharing that sacrifice with fellow Americans. As recently as yesterday, Bush told us to go shopping. That is not sharing the sacrifice. We are a nation in grief and need to share that grief with those suffering the direct losses. It is time to stop ignoring our heroic dead in flag-draped coffins. It is time to put the cost of the war on the budget books and at least let Americans share the cost of the lost lives, limbs and jobs of returning veterans by providing a warm and sincere welcome home to those who have borne the burden of battle.
If Christmas is nothing else, it is the promise of sharing the pain of life and the hope of everlasting redemption. Let us pray.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
22 December 2006
Sunday, December 17, 2006
The United States of Israel?
Of all the responses to the much-anticipated Iraq Study Group’s report, none is so stunning as that emerging from the Neocon factory that brought us such hits as the Iraq war. In fact, even before the report was issued, neocon organs like the Weekly Standard and the pages of conservative publications like the Wall Street Journal and the National Review were ringing with denunciations of ISG co-chair James Baker. This is the same Jim Baker who engineered George W. Bush’s theft of the 2000 election, the same Baker who served both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan as Secretary of State and Chief of Staff. And yet, he is now characterized as an appeaser in the mold of Neville Chamberlain, someone whom Frank Gaffney, for example, attacks as “hostile towards Jews”:
“Jim Baker’s hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel’s foes in the region,” wrote Gaffney, suggesting that the ISG…would recommend a regional approach that would “throw free Iraq to the wolves” and “allow the Mideast’s only bona fide democracy, the Jewish State, to be snuffed in due course.”
(Jim Lobe, “Neocons Move to Pre-empt Baker Report,” Dec. 6, 2006, Inter Press Service.)
But wait. Why this anti-Israel tirade against Baker? Clearly, it derives from the report’s recommendations 1) that any comprehensive plan for Iraq must include a major American push towards a plan to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; and 2) that a diplomatic initiative must be developed to include talks with Syria and Iran. Both of these recommendations are anathema to Israel, which has long sought to break up any nation in the Middle East that gains even a hint of power that might threaten Israeli dominance. Talk with Syria? Talk with Iran? Israel seeks to cripple both (as the invasion, and now imminent breakup, of Iraq did to that one-time rival. In which regard it is worth noting that that other champion of Israel, Senator Joe Lieberman, both supported the Iraq war in full, and has now attacked the ISG’s ideas about talks with Iran and Syria.). Solve the Palestinian conflict? That could only mean concessions by Israel, something it has vowed never to do.
All of which brings us to the nub of the issue: America’s corridors of power and influence now include large numbers of policy makers and pundits who seem to think—and would like us to think—that Israel is part of the United States. Or vice versa. The Neocons who brought us the Iraq war exemplify this attitude. They have no reservations about arguing, publicly, that a policy such as that suggested by the ISG would be harmful to Israel’s interests. But what about the national interest of the United States of America? Where do American policymakers and elected officials get off arguing for the national interest of a foreign power? Since when does “What’s good for Israel” take precedence over “What’s good for America?” This is precisely the point made by Anthony Sullivan in a December 8, 2006 article in The National Interest online. Commenting on a Foreign Affairs article by neocon Joshua Muravchik urging President Bush to bomb Iran before he leaves office, Sullivan writes:
"But Muravchik deserves our thanks for making the Neoconservative position crystal clear. Some might even conclude that Muravchik’s and the Neoconservative’ real concern is not the United States but Israel. Apparently, American national interests are threatened both by numerous enemies abroad and some fifth columnists at home."
How refreshing that someone finally calls it as it is: “the Neoconservatives’ real concern is not the United States but Israel,” which makes them, literally, “fifth columnists.”
There was a time when “fifth columnists” and those who put a foreign government’s interests above their own would be arrested and tried for treason. Perhaps that day, long overdue, is coming again.
Copyright 2006
Lawrence DiStasi
“Jim Baker’s hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel’s foes in the region,” wrote Gaffney, suggesting that the ISG…would recommend a regional approach that would “throw free Iraq to the wolves” and “allow the Mideast’s only bona fide democracy, the Jewish State, to be snuffed in due course.”
(Jim Lobe, “Neocons Move to Pre-empt Baker Report,” Dec. 6, 2006, Inter Press Service.)
But wait. Why this anti-Israel tirade against Baker? Clearly, it derives from the report’s recommendations 1) that any comprehensive plan for Iraq must include a major American push towards a plan to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; and 2) that a diplomatic initiative must be developed to include talks with Syria and Iran. Both of these recommendations are anathema to Israel, which has long sought to break up any nation in the Middle East that gains even a hint of power that might threaten Israeli dominance. Talk with Syria? Talk with Iran? Israel seeks to cripple both (as the invasion, and now imminent breakup, of Iraq did to that one-time rival. In which regard it is worth noting that that other champion of Israel, Senator Joe Lieberman, both supported the Iraq war in full, and has now attacked the ISG’s ideas about talks with Iran and Syria.). Solve the Palestinian conflict? That could only mean concessions by Israel, something it has vowed never to do.
All of which brings us to the nub of the issue: America’s corridors of power and influence now include large numbers of policy makers and pundits who seem to think—and would like us to think—that Israel is part of the United States. Or vice versa. The Neocons who brought us the Iraq war exemplify this attitude. They have no reservations about arguing, publicly, that a policy such as that suggested by the ISG would be harmful to Israel’s interests. But what about the national interest of the United States of America? Where do American policymakers and elected officials get off arguing for the national interest of a foreign power? Since when does “What’s good for Israel” take precedence over “What’s good for America?” This is precisely the point made by Anthony Sullivan in a December 8, 2006 article in The National Interest online. Commenting on a Foreign Affairs article by neocon Joshua Muravchik urging President Bush to bomb Iran before he leaves office, Sullivan writes:
"But Muravchik deserves our thanks for making the Neoconservative position crystal clear. Some might even conclude that Muravchik’s and the Neoconservative’ real concern is not the United States but Israel. Apparently, American national interests are threatened both by numerous enemies abroad and some fifth columnists at home."
How refreshing that someone finally calls it as it is: “the Neoconservatives’ real concern is not the United States but Israel,” which makes them, literally, “fifth columnists.”
There was a time when “fifth columnists” and those who put a foreign government’s interests above their own would be arrested and tried for treason. Perhaps that day, long overdue, is coming again.
Copyright 2006
Lawrence DiStasi
Saturday, December 09, 2006
You are what you eat
E.coli: A man-made problem
The latest E.coli scare at Taco Bell needs to be put in perspective.Michael Pollan, in his recent book, The Omnivore¹s Dilemma, gives us the information to do just that. Pollan points out that E.coli (Escherichiacoli), a bacterium normally found in the rumen, or gut, of cows, and hence,in their manure, has never been much of a problem for humans. As he says,"most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their wayinto our food get killed off by the strong acids in our stomachs, since they [E.coli] evolved to live in the neutral pH environment of the rumen."However, since industrial agriculture has forced the feeding of surplus corn to cows that evolved to eat grass, today¹s corn-fed feedlot cows not only get sick on their unnatural diet (requiring massive doses of antibiotics),but now have a rumen that is "nearly as acidic as our own." It is in this new environment created by humans, specifically by industrial agriculture,that "new acid-resistant strains of E.coli have evolved." So now, what we have to contend with is a lethal strain of the bacteria, E.coli 0157:H7, that can thrive in an acidic environment. The protection that our stomach acids once provided against E.coli no longer works. Any useof cow manure for fertilizer, or runoff from the massive manure ponds that accumulate on industrial feedlots, can now contaminate the crops we eat, and thereby poison any number of humans. E.coli can also, of course, find its way into our meat supply. In this regard, Pollan points out something even more infuriating. It has recently been learned that most of the problem with E.coli 0157:H7 in meat can be eliminated by the simple measure of allowing each cow to eat hay for a few days prior to slaughter. This reduces the E.coli by nearly 80%. But, Pollan writes, grass is now "considered wildly impractical by the cattle industry and by the USDA. Their preferred solution for dealing with bacterial contamination is irradiation, essentially, to try to sterilize the manure getting into the meat." (all quotes, p. 80, The Omnivore¹s Dilemma). Could anything represent so vividly the insanity of the philosophy that now reigns supreme--not just in American agriculture, but throughout aneconomic system that consistently privileges technology and profit above nature and people.
Copyright 2006
Lawrence DiStasi
The latest E.coli scare at Taco Bell needs to be put in perspective.Michael Pollan, in his recent book, The Omnivore¹s Dilemma, gives us the information to do just that. Pollan points out that E.coli (Escherichiacoli), a bacterium normally found in the rumen, or gut, of cows, and hence,in their manure, has never been much of a problem for humans. As he says,"most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their wayinto our food get killed off by the strong acids in our stomachs, since they [E.coli] evolved to live in the neutral pH environment of the rumen."However, since industrial agriculture has forced the feeding of surplus corn to cows that evolved to eat grass, today¹s corn-fed feedlot cows not only get sick on their unnatural diet (requiring massive doses of antibiotics),but now have a rumen that is "nearly as acidic as our own." It is in this new environment created by humans, specifically by industrial agriculture,that "new acid-resistant strains of E.coli have evolved." So now, what we have to contend with is a lethal strain of the bacteria, E.coli 0157:H7, that can thrive in an acidic environment. The protection that our stomach acids once provided against E.coli no longer works. Any useof cow manure for fertilizer, or runoff from the massive manure ponds that accumulate on industrial feedlots, can now contaminate the crops we eat, and thereby poison any number of humans. E.coli can also, of course, find its way into our meat supply. In this regard, Pollan points out something even more infuriating. It has recently been learned that most of the problem with E.coli 0157:H7 in meat can be eliminated by the simple measure of allowing each cow to eat hay for a few days prior to slaughter. This reduces the E.coli by nearly 80%. But, Pollan writes, grass is now "considered wildly impractical by the cattle industry and by the USDA. Their preferred solution for dealing with bacterial contamination is irradiation, essentially, to try to sterilize the manure getting into the meat." (all quotes, p. 80, The Omnivore¹s Dilemma). Could anything represent so vividly the insanity of the philosophy that now reigns supreme--not just in American agriculture, but throughout aneconomic system that consistently privileges technology and profit above nature and people.
Copyright 2006
Lawrence DiStasi
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The Puppet Cut His Strings
Splinters
The Decider has decided
That we should be divided
Unless you do his will
And swallow all that swill
Of Victory without a win
And justice just as spin
But all that Georgie sires
Is the mother of all quagmires
Even the Malaki puppet
Has told George to stuff it
Again, George W has failed to respond to the will of the people even while citing the will of the people in his press conferences and in his escapes from the homeland to visit Vietnam and Jordan as well as a tense few hours in Malaysia. He is rushing to make judicial appointments for the right wing reactionaries and has ignored Republicans and Democrats alike while talking of bipartisanship. He may not be trainable and has not yet learned that the people want us out of Iraq as quickly as we can leave. He speaks of progress in Iraq but continues to grind away at a “Stay the Course” approach with ever diminishing forces due to accumulating attrition of the Army through back-to-back tours in the hell that is Iraq. Retired General McCaffrey now claims that it will require $60 Billion merely to repair and replace the equipment used in Iraq. McCaffrey is no wild-eyed Socialist, but was the “Drug Czar” under GW Bush.
The platoon of Neocons that engineered this preemptive war is now a chorus of critics claiming that Bush ran the war badly. Bush did run the war badly along with at least some of the same Neocons who sacked Garner and enthroned Bremer thus enabling the insurgency to take root by instantaneously creating jobless Bathists and Iraqi Army veterans at every level who had few choices left. Doug Feith and Richard Perle have not suddenly found religion, but simply want to distance themselves from a failure that has their signatures all over it. Perhaps Paul Wolfowitz has kept his silence since he still has a job at the World Bank, but I would not be surprised if he found a way to disown the Devil Seed that has become Iraq at war with itself. Donald Rumsfeld will probably blame the disaster on “unknown unknowns,” but he is now irrelevant. Incoming Secretary Gates will probably revert to what he knows best and find a way to replicate Iran Contra in the Middle East except that Iran now has other sources for weapons.
Bush still speaks of victory in Iraq as though mere perseverance will save the day and that only a few changes in tactics are needed to turn the tide. Even while in Vietnam in the past few days, when asked to link the loss in Vietnam to the situation in Iraq, he stated that the lesson to be taken from Vietnam is that we should have stayed longer to win. We were there 10 years. Vietnam may not be the showplace of freedom and democracy, but it is now stable. Could it have been stable sooner if we had left sooner? The American people wanted us out of Vietnam and that fact is not some mere accessory to the notion of war, but is integral with waging war. If it is not the will of the people in a democracy such as ours that we wage war, especially a preemptive war, then who should do so? I seriously wonder about those of us who say that we could have won the war in Vietnam if it were not for the fact that the American populace rebelled and stopped the war. In a democracy, the will of the people is needed to wage war.
The man in the bubble lives his FOX News fantasy.
The Bush state of denial includes his insistence that Iraq is not in Civil War despite all the academic and practical evidence to the contrary. I guess that he is waiting for the statues and memorials to be built to acknowledge a civil war. Of course, if he were to admit that we were in the midst of a civil war, even he would not be able to defend the maintenance of forces in Iraq. General Officers who only last week concluded that we were in a civil war have marched about and are saying that it is not a civil war. In fact, the Pentagon (a building, remember) has indicated that we will send an additional 3500 troops to Iraq in January. This may be another sign of chaos at the Animal Farm (White House) with the Animal House Fraternity president. Bush now claims that al Qaeda has caused all this trouble with their attack on a Shiite mosque last spring. That, too, is irrelevant given that they are in their “last throes” anyway (Cheney) and never amounted to more than 3% of the forces facing American and Iraqi troops. As an ultimate sign that the Bush intelligence system is unproductive, today, Malaki refused to meet with Bush in Jordan. The puppet has not only cut his strings, but he has pooped in the lap of the puppeteer. More puppets can be made. Make your predictions.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
29 November 2006
The Decider has decided
That we should be divided
Unless you do his will
And swallow all that swill
Of Victory without a win
And justice just as spin
But all that Georgie sires
Is the mother of all quagmires
Even the Malaki puppet
Has told George to stuff it
Again, George W has failed to respond to the will of the people even while citing the will of the people in his press conferences and in his escapes from the homeland to visit Vietnam and Jordan as well as a tense few hours in Malaysia. He is rushing to make judicial appointments for the right wing reactionaries and has ignored Republicans and Democrats alike while talking of bipartisanship. He may not be trainable and has not yet learned that the people want us out of Iraq as quickly as we can leave. He speaks of progress in Iraq but continues to grind away at a “Stay the Course” approach with ever diminishing forces due to accumulating attrition of the Army through back-to-back tours in the hell that is Iraq. Retired General McCaffrey now claims that it will require $60 Billion merely to repair and replace the equipment used in Iraq. McCaffrey is no wild-eyed Socialist, but was the “Drug Czar” under GW Bush.
The platoon of Neocons that engineered this preemptive war is now a chorus of critics claiming that Bush ran the war badly. Bush did run the war badly along with at least some of the same Neocons who sacked Garner and enthroned Bremer thus enabling the insurgency to take root by instantaneously creating jobless Bathists and Iraqi Army veterans at every level who had few choices left. Doug Feith and Richard Perle have not suddenly found religion, but simply want to distance themselves from a failure that has their signatures all over it. Perhaps Paul Wolfowitz has kept his silence since he still has a job at the World Bank, but I would not be surprised if he found a way to disown the Devil Seed that has become Iraq at war with itself. Donald Rumsfeld will probably blame the disaster on “unknown unknowns,” but he is now irrelevant. Incoming Secretary Gates will probably revert to what he knows best and find a way to replicate Iran Contra in the Middle East except that Iran now has other sources for weapons.
Bush still speaks of victory in Iraq as though mere perseverance will save the day and that only a few changes in tactics are needed to turn the tide. Even while in Vietnam in the past few days, when asked to link the loss in Vietnam to the situation in Iraq, he stated that the lesson to be taken from Vietnam is that we should have stayed longer to win. We were there 10 years. Vietnam may not be the showplace of freedom and democracy, but it is now stable. Could it have been stable sooner if we had left sooner? The American people wanted us out of Vietnam and that fact is not some mere accessory to the notion of war, but is integral with waging war. If it is not the will of the people in a democracy such as ours that we wage war, especially a preemptive war, then who should do so? I seriously wonder about those of us who say that we could have won the war in Vietnam if it were not for the fact that the American populace rebelled and stopped the war. In a democracy, the will of the people is needed to wage war.
The man in the bubble lives his FOX News fantasy.
The Bush state of denial includes his insistence that Iraq is not in Civil War despite all the academic and practical evidence to the contrary. I guess that he is waiting for the statues and memorials to be built to acknowledge a civil war. Of course, if he were to admit that we were in the midst of a civil war, even he would not be able to defend the maintenance of forces in Iraq. General Officers who only last week concluded that we were in a civil war have marched about and are saying that it is not a civil war. In fact, the Pentagon (a building, remember) has indicated that we will send an additional 3500 troops to Iraq in January. This may be another sign of chaos at the Animal Farm (White House) with the Animal House Fraternity president. Bush now claims that al Qaeda has caused all this trouble with their attack on a Shiite mosque last spring. That, too, is irrelevant given that they are in their “last throes” anyway (Cheney) and never amounted to more than 3% of the forces facing American and Iraqi troops. As an ultimate sign that the Bush intelligence system is unproductive, today, Malaki refused to meet with Bush in Jordan. The puppet has not only cut his strings, but he has pooped in the lap of the puppeteer. More puppets can be made. Make your predictions.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
29 November 2006
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Election Season
Splinters
What an October surprise
With Neocons caught in their lies
It’s even more funny
To follow the money
Of payoff to Power
From Florida’s flower
And Abramoff ‘s fling
To buy the West Wing
While a Puppet cuts his string
And the angels sing
The past week or two has seen severe unraveling of the Right Wing propaganda blanket. Despite some ludicrous attempts to blame the unacceptable behavior of Mark Foley on Democrats including Bill Clinton, the facts are clear that Foley used his position to thumb through pages to the point of instant messaging when he should have been voting. Susan Ralston, Rove’s aide, resigned when it became obvious that she and Abramoff had good seats for the best events. Even the venerable “Stay the Course” mantra was sharply demoted when Bush and crew suggested that it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Introduction of “benchmarks” seems to be a prelude to “stride and hide” if not “cut and run.” Al Malaki, the puppet, objected and threatened to cut his strings. Cocaine Brain personally went on the stump for Don Sherwood, who paid a settlement to a former mistress for choking her, saying that he was not trying to kill her. I guess that he is not a killer, but likes rough sex and deserves Bush support for his family values. I had to look twice to believe that Rep. Gibbons (R) of Nevada was caught choking a woman outside a bar in Las Vegas. The woman made 3 calls to 911 and then dropped charges. Maybe Gibbons was testing the emergency system for Homeland Security.
All this has a serious side, however, because it causes us to take our eyes off the tragedy that is Iraq and the fact that we are today organizing a naval exercise in the Persian Gulf that has the obvious potential to draw Iran into a fight instead of talking with our enemies there and elsewhere. Meanwhile, our national reputation for torture is promoted by Cheney’s remarks on dunking detainees as a “no-brainer.” We have a lot of work to do whether these losers lose at the polls or not. No laurels. No gloating. Win at the polls and then roll up your sleeves to put our nation on a road to positive change. Redeploy and rededicate our military to national defense. End the waste, fraud and abuse of outsourcing our logistics in Iraq. Destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Return our right of habeas corpus at home.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
28 October 2006
What an October surprise
With Neocons caught in their lies
It’s even more funny
To follow the money
Of payoff to Power
From Florida’s flower
And Abramoff ‘s fling
To buy the West Wing
While a Puppet cuts his string
And the angels sing
The past week or two has seen severe unraveling of the Right Wing propaganda blanket. Despite some ludicrous attempts to blame the unacceptable behavior of Mark Foley on Democrats including Bill Clinton, the facts are clear that Foley used his position to thumb through pages to the point of instant messaging when he should have been voting. Susan Ralston, Rove’s aide, resigned when it became obvious that she and Abramoff had good seats for the best events. Even the venerable “Stay the Course” mantra was sharply demoted when Bush and crew suggested that it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Introduction of “benchmarks” seems to be a prelude to “stride and hide” if not “cut and run.” Al Malaki, the puppet, objected and threatened to cut his strings. Cocaine Brain personally went on the stump for Don Sherwood, who paid a settlement to a former mistress for choking her, saying that he was not trying to kill her. I guess that he is not a killer, but likes rough sex and deserves Bush support for his family values. I had to look twice to believe that Rep. Gibbons (R) of Nevada was caught choking a woman outside a bar in Las Vegas. The woman made 3 calls to 911 and then dropped charges. Maybe Gibbons was testing the emergency system for Homeland Security.
All this has a serious side, however, because it causes us to take our eyes off the tragedy that is Iraq and the fact that we are today organizing a naval exercise in the Persian Gulf that has the obvious potential to draw Iran into a fight instead of talking with our enemies there and elsewhere. Meanwhile, our national reputation for torture is promoted by Cheney’s remarks on dunking detainees as a “no-brainer.” We have a lot of work to do whether these losers lose at the polls or not. No laurels. No gloating. Win at the polls and then roll up your sleeves to put our nation on a road to positive change. Redeploy and rededicate our military to national defense. End the waste, fraud and abuse of outsourcing our logistics in Iraq. Destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Return our right of habeas corpus at home.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
28 October 2006
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Scott Ritter on Democracy Now’s Oct. 16, 2006 radio broadcast made what should be considered a critical observation. He pointed out that in the runup to the war with Iraq, and now in what he sees as a similar runup to war with Iran, the Bush administration has publicly accused a Middle East nation of having secret programs to build, store and deliver Weapons of Mass Destruction. No certifiable evidence is offered of either nation’s possession of such weapons or the programs to build them. Iraq and Iran are simply accused, with the U.S. President, Vice-President and Secretary of State repeatedly asserting that U.S. intelligence has "proof" of the violations in question. Ultimatums follow: unless the accused can provide satisfactory "proof" to the contrary, they will suffer dire consequences. In Iran’s case, for example, no amount of protestations that their acknowledged nuclear program is meant for peaceful purposes will suffice. United States officials repeat the accusations at every opportunity, insisting that Iran prove its innocence.
This pattern is notable for two reasons. First, the target nation is expected to prove a negative. In Iraq’s case, this was virtually impossible. No amount of evidence by IAEA weapons inspectors (who were, in fact, allowed to inspect Iraqi facilities) and former inspectors like Ritter was able to counter the "proof" the Bush administration claimed to have of hidden weapons. In its view, Iraq had the opportunity to build such weapons, American intelligence agencies were unanimous about its activities, and therefore Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were guilty—which, of course, they proved not to be.
Second, United States policy with regard to "suspect" entities is alarmingly consistent, even as far back as World War II. That is, the above procedure for attacking suspect nations is mirrored by what happens to suspect individuals. Individuals, singly or in whole groups, are targeted because of their affiliation with nations and/or ideologies with which the United States is in conflict. Individuals in the group are then arrested and accused of being, or potentially being "dangerous." The fortunate among them are given the opportunity, or more precisely, the requirement to "prove their innocence." If they cannot, they are incarcerated in some form of internment facility for the duration of the alleged crisis.
During World War II, for example, 600,000 Italian immigrants not yet U.S. citizens were designated as "enemy aliens" by Presidential Proclamation on December 8, 1941. This made them all suspect. Enemy aliens could be arrested for violating a series of restrictions, including movement beyond a 5-mile limit, possession of "contraband" such as short-wave radios, cameras, flashlights or weapons of any kind, and not carrying the required pink booklet identifying them as alien enemies. Their homes could be searched and they could be deported without further authority. But this was only the beginning. Those among them who had been targeted as "potentially dangerous" by the FBI in the years preceding the war were summarily arrested in the days following Pearl Harbor. The Department of Justice offered them hearings before special three-person hearing boards, at which they were expected to "prove their innocence" or face internment for the duration of the war. But these hearings were not conducted according to normal rules of American jurisprudence. The detainee was not told the charges against him or allowed to see any evidence. He or she was not allowed to face any accuser or have a lawyer examine witnesses (no witnesses came forth in any case; accusations were made in secret). The arrestee was allowed to "prove" his innocence only by asserting it, and by offering affidavits of loyalty from employers, friends and relatives. If the evidence did not convince the hearing board, the person’s danger to the public safety was assumed, and the Attorney General issued a formal order of internment. More than 3000 enemy aliens of Italian descent were arrested in this way, and between 300 and 400 interned for the duration.
Ezio Pinza, at that time the first bass at the Metropolitan Opera, was one of those who endured this ordeal. Arrested on March 13, 1942 at his home in Larchmont NY, he was booked at the courthouse in Foley Square, and then detained at Ellis Island. So distraught was he by this humiliation that at his first hearing, and completely in the dark about why he stood accused, he was unable to mount a cogent defense. In spite of letters from the likes of Nobel-prize-winning novelist Thomas Mann and Carlo Tresca, the most prominent anti-fascist of his time, Pinza was ordered to be interned. Pinza’s wife, Doris, however, refused to accept what she knew to be a gross injustice. She mounted a campaign to get her husband a second hearing, and, after five days in the Attorney General’s office, succeeded. With Pinza’s lawyer now able to determine, on the basis of questions at the first hearing, what some of the charges amounted to (the most egregious was the allegation that, in the Met’s Saturday morning radio broadcasts, Pinza had been subtly altering the tempo of his singing to send secret messages to Mussolini), the singer this time mounted a well-reasoned defense, and was paroled.
Years later in his autobiography (Ezio Pinza: An Autobiography, New York: 1958), Pinza wrote pointedly about the plight of the person deprived of his rights:
To understand the full gravity of my situation, you must bear in mind that the Bill of Rights, not always applicable to U.S. citizens in time of war, is nonexistent so far as an enemy alien is concerned. In being summoned to a hearing, he is presumed guilty until he can prove his innocence and he is expected to answer charges of which he is kept in ignorance. It is up to him to refute detractors whose identity and allegations are withheld from him, and to show that his release is not inimical to the best interests of the United States. This at a time when he has no way of knowing whether the evidence he offers is to the point or is utterly irrelevant. (p. 211)
Presumed guilty until he can prove his innocence. As every American schoolchild knows, this completely reverses the fundamental basis of American law—that every accused person must be presumed innocent unless and until he is proven guilty. With regard to individuals whose birth makes them members of suspect groups, however, this cardinal assumption does not apply.
Neither does it apply to American citizens caught in the same net. Yet another program imposed on those of Italian birth during World War II was the one targeting naturalized citizens. Immune from the internment program applicable only to non-citizens, these Italian Americans were targeted by an Army-run program which exiled these "potentially dangerous" individuals from vast coastal areas where it was feared they might commit sabotage or espionage. Several dozen of Italian descent were forced to leave their homes and move inland. Fortunately, Attorney General Francis Biddle disagreed with this program and commissioned the Department of Justice to do a study of its effects and value. Its conclusions, made in a 1943 DOJ report, were stunning. For the most part, the study found, American citizens were targeted for pre-war ethnic affection for their countries of origin. Further, most were removed from areas where opportunities to spy and commit sabotage were minimal, to areas where such opportunities were far greater. The report concluded with a damning indictment of the constitutional violations inherent in the exclusion orders, especially focusing on the term "potentially dangerous:"
Practically, the use of phrases such as this suggests that those who use them hold the view that a subject of an exclusion case must be excluded unless it is clear that there is no reason to exclude him. This is analogous to saying that the burden of proof is on the excludee, although the excludee, of course, cannot meet the burden, since he is not advised of the charges against him. (Preliminary Report on Study of Individual Exclusion Cases, Dept. of Justice, Alien Enemy Control Unit, August 16, 1943, p. 28)
This is the office of the Attorney General of the United States condemning the very procedure at issue here: prove that you are innocent. Innocent not just of action, but of intention; indeed, of being who you are. Though one would like to think that such a condemnation, sixty years ago during a fierce global conflict, would have offered an indelible lesson never to be forgotten by those in government, it did not.
Thus, in the days following the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, we saw the same negative assumptions being made about Americans of Middle Eastern and/or Muslim origin. Thousands were visited by the FBI, arrested, detained and eventually deported. According to a recent article by Martha Mendoza ("One Man Still Locked Up From 9/11 Sweeps," AP, 10/14/06, reprinted on www.truthout.org), over 1200 Arab and Muslim men were rounded up, with hundreds of individuals who were not terrorists, nor associated with terrorists… temporarily taken into city, county and federal custody. They were caught in their bedrooms while they slept, pulled from the restaurant kitchens where they worked, stopped at the border, even federal offices where they had gone to seek help.
Even now, one is still being detained. Ali Partovi, a man who "is not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not considered a danger to society," sits in a detention center in Arizona, unwilling to be deported to his home nation of Iran, seeking asylum which the United States apparently refuses to give, and trying to get justice by suing the U.S. Government over beatings and other tortures he claims to have suffered during his detention. Like most of those arrested in those dark days after 9/11, Partovi was arrested not for terrorism or anything like it; he and most others were jailed, and then deported for immigration violations. As Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch puts it in the Mendoza article:
"Those 1,200 were taken in on pseudo-immigration charges. It really is a black mark on the U.S. and it undermines our intelligence gathering because it creates distrust between law enforcement officials and communities where those officials should be building rapport and trust."
In the end, that undermining of trust may prove to be the bottom line. Even aside from the Constitutional violations suffered by those who are arrested and held on the flimsiest of pretexts, and then forced to prove the negative of those pretexts, there is the question of effectiveness. This is especially true when such methods are applied to nation states. If the United States comes to be seen as a nation that simply acts on the basis of wild presumptions, in the absence of definitive evidence, refusing all information to the contrary in order to "justify" its pre-emptive detentions and invasions, the distrust that Daskal mentions will continue to grow and poison every international forum. Protestations by U.S. leaders about our commitment to democracy and liberty will come to be seen, justifiably, as simply cover stories to hide the true, and truly nefarious ambitions of empire—to subjugate, control and exploit as many of the planet’s people and resources as possible.
Copyright 2006
Lawrence DiStasi
This pattern is notable for two reasons. First, the target nation is expected to prove a negative. In Iraq’s case, this was virtually impossible. No amount of evidence by IAEA weapons inspectors (who were, in fact, allowed to inspect Iraqi facilities) and former inspectors like Ritter was able to counter the "proof" the Bush administration claimed to have of hidden weapons. In its view, Iraq had the opportunity to build such weapons, American intelligence agencies were unanimous about its activities, and therefore Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were guilty—which, of course, they proved not to be.
Second, United States policy with regard to "suspect" entities is alarmingly consistent, even as far back as World War II. That is, the above procedure for attacking suspect nations is mirrored by what happens to suspect individuals. Individuals, singly or in whole groups, are targeted because of their affiliation with nations and/or ideologies with which the United States is in conflict. Individuals in the group are then arrested and accused of being, or potentially being "dangerous." The fortunate among them are given the opportunity, or more precisely, the requirement to "prove their innocence." If they cannot, they are incarcerated in some form of internment facility for the duration of the alleged crisis.
During World War II, for example, 600,000 Italian immigrants not yet U.S. citizens were designated as "enemy aliens" by Presidential Proclamation on December 8, 1941. This made them all suspect. Enemy aliens could be arrested for violating a series of restrictions, including movement beyond a 5-mile limit, possession of "contraband" such as short-wave radios, cameras, flashlights or weapons of any kind, and not carrying the required pink booklet identifying them as alien enemies. Their homes could be searched and they could be deported without further authority. But this was only the beginning. Those among them who had been targeted as "potentially dangerous" by the FBI in the years preceding the war were summarily arrested in the days following Pearl Harbor. The Department of Justice offered them hearings before special three-person hearing boards, at which they were expected to "prove their innocence" or face internment for the duration of the war. But these hearings were not conducted according to normal rules of American jurisprudence. The detainee was not told the charges against him or allowed to see any evidence. He or she was not allowed to face any accuser or have a lawyer examine witnesses (no witnesses came forth in any case; accusations were made in secret). The arrestee was allowed to "prove" his innocence only by asserting it, and by offering affidavits of loyalty from employers, friends and relatives. If the evidence did not convince the hearing board, the person’s danger to the public safety was assumed, and the Attorney General issued a formal order of internment. More than 3000 enemy aliens of Italian descent were arrested in this way, and between 300 and 400 interned for the duration.
Ezio Pinza, at that time the first bass at the Metropolitan Opera, was one of those who endured this ordeal. Arrested on March 13, 1942 at his home in Larchmont NY, he was booked at the courthouse in Foley Square, and then detained at Ellis Island. So distraught was he by this humiliation that at his first hearing, and completely in the dark about why he stood accused, he was unable to mount a cogent defense. In spite of letters from the likes of Nobel-prize-winning novelist Thomas Mann and Carlo Tresca, the most prominent anti-fascist of his time, Pinza was ordered to be interned. Pinza’s wife, Doris, however, refused to accept what she knew to be a gross injustice. She mounted a campaign to get her husband a second hearing, and, after five days in the Attorney General’s office, succeeded. With Pinza’s lawyer now able to determine, on the basis of questions at the first hearing, what some of the charges amounted to (the most egregious was the allegation that, in the Met’s Saturday morning radio broadcasts, Pinza had been subtly altering the tempo of his singing to send secret messages to Mussolini), the singer this time mounted a well-reasoned defense, and was paroled.
Years later in his autobiography (Ezio Pinza: An Autobiography, New York: 1958), Pinza wrote pointedly about the plight of the person deprived of his rights:
To understand the full gravity of my situation, you must bear in mind that the Bill of Rights, not always applicable to U.S. citizens in time of war, is nonexistent so far as an enemy alien is concerned. In being summoned to a hearing, he is presumed guilty until he can prove his innocence and he is expected to answer charges of which he is kept in ignorance. It is up to him to refute detractors whose identity and allegations are withheld from him, and to show that his release is not inimical to the best interests of the United States. This at a time when he has no way of knowing whether the evidence he offers is to the point or is utterly irrelevant. (p. 211)
Presumed guilty until he can prove his innocence. As every American schoolchild knows, this completely reverses the fundamental basis of American law—that every accused person must be presumed innocent unless and until he is proven guilty. With regard to individuals whose birth makes them members of suspect groups, however, this cardinal assumption does not apply.
Neither does it apply to American citizens caught in the same net. Yet another program imposed on those of Italian birth during World War II was the one targeting naturalized citizens. Immune from the internment program applicable only to non-citizens, these Italian Americans were targeted by an Army-run program which exiled these "potentially dangerous" individuals from vast coastal areas where it was feared they might commit sabotage or espionage. Several dozen of Italian descent were forced to leave their homes and move inland. Fortunately, Attorney General Francis Biddle disagreed with this program and commissioned the Department of Justice to do a study of its effects and value. Its conclusions, made in a 1943 DOJ report, were stunning. For the most part, the study found, American citizens were targeted for pre-war ethnic affection for their countries of origin. Further, most were removed from areas where opportunities to spy and commit sabotage were minimal, to areas where such opportunities were far greater. The report concluded with a damning indictment of the constitutional violations inherent in the exclusion orders, especially focusing on the term "potentially dangerous:"
Practically, the use of phrases such as this suggests that those who use them hold the view that a subject of an exclusion case must be excluded unless it is clear that there is no reason to exclude him. This is analogous to saying that the burden of proof is on the excludee, although the excludee, of course, cannot meet the burden, since he is not advised of the charges against him. (Preliminary Report on Study of Individual Exclusion Cases, Dept. of Justice, Alien Enemy Control Unit, August 16, 1943, p. 28)
This is the office of the Attorney General of the United States condemning the very procedure at issue here: prove that you are innocent. Innocent not just of action, but of intention; indeed, of being who you are. Though one would like to think that such a condemnation, sixty years ago during a fierce global conflict, would have offered an indelible lesson never to be forgotten by those in government, it did not.
Thus, in the days following the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, we saw the same negative assumptions being made about Americans of Middle Eastern and/or Muslim origin. Thousands were visited by the FBI, arrested, detained and eventually deported. According to a recent article by Martha Mendoza ("One Man Still Locked Up From 9/11 Sweeps," AP, 10/14/06, reprinted on www.truthout.org), over 1200 Arab and Muslim men were rounded up, with hundreds of individuals who were not terrorists, nor associated with terrorists… temporarily taken into city, county and federal custody. They were caught in their bedrooms while they slept, pulled from the restaurant kitchens where they worked, stopped at the border, even federal offices where they had gone to seek help.
Even now, one is still being detained. Ali Partovi, a man who "is not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not considered a danger to society," sits in a detention center in Arizona, unwilling to be deported to his home nation of Iran, seeking asylum which the United States apparently refuses to give, and trying to get justice by suing the U.S. Government over beatings and other tortures he claims to have suffered during his detention. Like most of those arrested in those dark days after 9/11, Partovi was arrested not for terrorism or anything like it; he and most others were jailed, and then deported for immigration violations. As Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch puts it in the Mendoza article:
"Those 1,200 were taken in on pseudo-immigration charges. It really is a black mark on the U.S. and it undermines our intelligence gathering because it creates distrust between law enforcement officials and communities where those officials should be building rapport and trust."
In the end, that undermining of trust may prove to be the bottom line. Even aside from the Constitutional violations suffered by those who are arrested and held on the flimsiest of pretexts, and then forced to prove the negative of those pretexts, there is the question of effectiveness. This is especially true when such methods are applied to nation states. If the United States comes to be seen as a nation that simply acts on the basis of wild presumptions, in the absence of definitive evidence, refusing all information to the contrary in order to "justify" its pre-emptive detentions and invasions, the distrust that Daskal mentions will continue to grow and poison every international forum. Protestations by U.S. leaders about our commitment to democracy and liberty will come to be seen, justifiably, as simply cover stories to hide the true, and truly nefarious ambitions of empire—to subjugate, control and exploit as many of the planet’s people and resources as possible.
Copyright 2006
Lawrence DiStasi
Monday, October 09, 2006
Nukes, North Korea, and Nausea
The news has elicited protests from leaders worldwide, from the UnitedNations Security Council, and of course from our President: North Korea,that charter member of the "Axis of Evil," on Sunday October 8 defied allthe world and tested a nuclear weapon. Predictably, President Bushre-asserted his longstanding threat: North Korea cannot be allowed to becomea member of our nuclear club.
Despite the fact that no one in his right mind would welcome a NorthKorea (or any other nation) armed with weapons of mass destruction, thecontext of this latest gambit in nuclear gamesmanship, historical, politicaland hypocritical, must be given its due. To begin with the massive hypocrisyinvolved, it is necessary to remember that several U.S. "allies" in the explosive Near and Far East also possess nukes‹with our blessing. Pakistan,India, and little Israel‹none of whom signed the nuclear non-proliferationagreeement which North Korea is accused of violating‹all have nucleararsenals. So the lesson here is a grim one: signing the nuclearnon-proliferation agreement puts a nation at a disadvantage relative tothose nations which simply thumb their noses at the international community.This lesson cannot have been lost on North Korea, or on Iran. Neither canthe lesson that developing nuclear weapons works wonderfully to discouragepre-emptive strikes by the United States‹witness the example of a now-brokenIraq. The historical hypocrisy is even more extreme. Americans would do wellto remember what happened during World War II, when the first atomic bombswere developed. Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin's recent biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, American Prometheus, provides stunning details of this history. First of all, nuclear scientists like Oppenheimer, Fermi and others were persuaded to work on developing this ultimate weapon because of the fear that Hitler's scientists would invent it first, and use it to enslave the world. This rationale for the bomb evaporated even before Nazi Germany surrendered in 1945: intelligence proved that German scientists were noteven close to developing a deliverable weapon. Instead, however, theAmerican military pushed development even harder so they could use the bomb on Japan.
Here is where American Prometheus disabuses us of the commonnotion that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to ŒsaveAmerican lives that would have been lost in a huge American invasion ofJapan.¹ Rather, we learn that ŒMagic¹ intercepts of Japanese communications indicated that Japan's leaders knew the war was lost, and were desperately searching for a way to surrender. Moreover, even finding a target for the ultimate weapon was proving difficult. This is because Japan's major cities and military targets had virtually all been destroyed by firebombing: "On the evening of Mar 9-10, 1945, 334 B-29 aircraft dropped tons ofjellied gasoline--napalm--and high explosives on Tokyo. The resultingfirestorm killed an estimated 100,000 people and completely burned out 15.8square miles of the city. The fire-bombing raids continued and by July 1945,all but five of Japan's major cities had been razed and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians had been killed." "The fire bombings were no secret." ("The Logic of Mass Destruction," inKai Bird and Lifschultz, eds., Hiroshima¹s Shadow, pp. 55-57, as quoted inAmerican Prometheus, p. 291. ) Necessity or no, the American military selected targets and pushed forward with plans to use the Bomb. Horrified by such irrationality, several scientists, including Leo Szilard and Oppenheimer himself, kept trying to persuade the Truman administration to refrain from using the bomb, thus proving that the United States was truly interested in keeping a lid on such a cataclysmic weapon. Under the guidance of Nobelist James Franck, scientists prepared a report for the President concluding that a surprise attack on Japan was inadvisable from any point of view, especially because: "It may be very difficult to persuade the world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and suddenly releasing a weapon as indiscriminate as the [German]rocket bomb and a million times more destructive, is to be trusted in its proclaimed desire of having suchweapons abolished by international agreement." (p. 297)The report recommended instead a demonstration of the bomb's power before the UN, and was sent to the President. It never got to him. The WarDepartment secretly seized the report, and had it classified. The dismayed scientists were then told that an invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary and inevitable. What they were not told was the real reason for using the bomb was the imminent entry of Russia into the Pacific war. President Truman knew this, knew of Japan's desperation to surrrender, knew that the Russians would be entering the war on August 15 and that anAmerican invasion couldn't take place until at least November 1, and knewthat even General Eisenhower felt the use of the bomb unnecessary because the Japanese were done for. But Truman and his Secretary of State, JamesByrnes, were determined to use the bomb and end the war before Russia entered. As Byrnes later explained, "...it was ever present in my mind thatit was important that we should have an end to the war before the Russians came in." On July 18, 1945, Truman wrote the same thing in his diary:"Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in." (Truman, Off the Record, pp. 53-54.). And on August 3, Walter Brown, a special assistant to SecretaryByrnes, wrote in his diary, "President, Leahy, JFB [Byrnes] agreed Japs looking for peace. Presidentafraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country likeSweden." (all cited in American Prometheus, p. 301).
All the world knows what happened next. The United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and another on Nagasaki two days later. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were vaporized. And what we now know is that this first and only use of nuclear weapons amounted to nothing short of a terror bombing of innocent civilians designed to, first, impel Japan to surrender immediately, second, keep the Russians from entering the war and sharing in the victory, and third, leave the Russian leaders in nodoubt as to who was now top dog on the planet.
Given all this, no sane person can observe the belligerent U.S. threats continually aimed at North Korea and Iran and not be sickened by a) the growing danger of nuclear proliferation and annihilation now facing the world, and b) the bottomless hypocrisy of the United States in condemning smaller nations for daring to develop weapons that it alone has everused‹weapons that we now know were not needed to save lives in a putativeinvasion of Japan, but rather to impress a rival with our new-foundstrength. More chilling still, that weapon was dropped not on a military target, but rather on a prostrate and already terrorized civilianpopulation. Most nauseating of all, while our President prattles on about the danger to Americans of North Korea's test, he is at the same time makingit far more likely that it will be the United States which, with its new nuclear posture review, will once again be the first to employ new, nicely-miniaturized nuclear weapons on other humans.
Lawrence DiStasi
The news has elicited protests from leaders worldwide, from the UnitedNations Security Council, and of course from our President: North Korea,that charter member of the "Axis of Evil," on Sunday October 8 defied allthe world and tested a nuclear weapon. Predictably, President Bushre-asserted his longstanding threat: North Korea cannot be allowed to becomea member of our nuclear club.
Despite the fact that no one in his right mind would welcome a NorthKorea (or any other nation) armed with weapons of mass destruction, thecontext of this latest gambit in nuclear gamesmanship, historical, politicaland hypocritical, must be given its due. To begin with the massive hypocrisyinvolved, it is necessary to remember that several U.S. "allies" in the explosive Near and Far East also possess nukes‹with our blessing. Pakistan,India, and little Israel‹none of whom signed the nuclear non-proliferationagreeement which North Korea is accused of violating‹all have nucleararsenals. So the lesson here is a grim one: signing the nuclearnon-proliferation agreement puts a nation at a disadvantage relative tothose nations which simply thumb their noses at the international community.This lesson cannot have been lost on North Korea, or on Iran. Neither canthe lesson that developing nuclear weapons works wonderfully to discouragepre-emptive strikes by the United States‹witness the example of a now-brokenIraq. The historical hypocrisy is even more extreme. Americans would do wellto remember what happened during World War II, when the first atomic bombswere developed. Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin's recent biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, American Prometheus, provides stunning details of this history. First of all, nuclear scientists like Oppenheimer, Fermi and others were persuaded to work on developing this ultimate weapon because of the fear that Hitler's scientists would invent it first, and use it to enslave the world. This rationale for the bomb evaporated even before Nazi Germany surrendered in 1945: intelligence proved that German scientists were noteven close to developing a deliverable weapon. Instead, however, theAmerican military pushed development even harder so they could use the bomb on Japan.
Here is where American Prometheus disabuses us of the commonnotion that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to ŒsaveAmerican lives that would have been lost in a huge American invasion ofJapan.¹ Rather, we learn that ŒMagic¹ intercepts of Japanese communications indicated that Japan's leaders knew the war was lost, and were desperately searching for a way to surrender. Moreover, even finding a target for the ultimate weapon was proving difficult. This is because Japan's major cities and military targets had virtually all been destroyed by firebombing: "On the evening of Mar 9-10, 1945, 334 B-29 aircraft dropped tons ofjellied gasoline--napalm--and high explosives on Tokyo. The resultingfirestorm killed an estimated 100,000 people and completely burned out 15.8square miles of the city. The fire-bombing raids continued and by July 1945,all but five of Japan's major cities had been razed and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians had been killed." "The fire bombings were no secret." ("The Logic of Mass Destruction," inKai Bird and Lifschultz, eds., Hiroshima¹s Shadow, pp. 55-57, as quoted inAmerican Prometheus, p. 291. ) Necessity or no, the American military selected targets and pushed forward with plans to use the Bomb. Horrified by such irrationality, several scientists, including Leo Szilard and Oppenheimer himself, kept trying to persuade the Truman administration to refrain from using the bomb, thus proving that the United States was truly interested in keeping a lid on such a cataclysmic weapon. Under the guidance of Nobelist James Franck, scientists prepared a report for the President concluding that a surprise attack on Japan was inadvisable from any point of view, especially because: "It may be very difficult to persuade the world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and suddenly releasing a weapon as indiscriminate as the [German]rocket bomb and a million times more destructive, is to be trusted in its proclaimed desire of having suchweapons abolished by international agreement." (p. 297)The report recommended instead a demonstration of the bomb's power before the UN, and was sent to the President. It never got to him. The WarDepartment secretly seized the report, and had it classified. The dismayed scientists were then told that an invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary and inevitable. What they were not told was the real reason for using the bomb was the imminent entry of Russia into the Pacific war. President Truman knew this, knew of Japan's desperation to surrrender, knew that the Russians would be entering the war on August 15 and that anAmerican invasion couldn't take place until at least November 1, and knewthat even General Eisenhower felt the use of the bomb unnecessary because the Japanese were done for. But Truman and his Secretary of State, JamesByrnes, were determined to use the bomb and end the war before Russia entered. As Byrnes later explained, "...it was ever present in my mind thatit was important that we should have an end to the war before the Russians came in." On July 18, 1945, Truman wrote the same thing in his diary:"Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in." (Truman, Off the Record, pp. 53-54.). And on August 3, Walter Brown, a special assistant to SecretaryByrnes, wrote in his diary, "President, Leahy, JFB [Byrnes] agreed Japs looking for peace. Presidentafraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country likeSweden." (all cited in American Prometheus, p. 301).
All the world knows what happened next. The United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and another on Nagasaki two days later. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were vaporized. And what we now know is that this first and only use of nuclear weapons amounted to nothing short of a terror bombing of innocent civilians designed to, first, impel Japan to surrender immediately, second, keep the Russians from entering the war and sharing in the victory, and third, leave the Russian leaders in nodoubt as to who was now top dog on the planet.
Given all this, no sane person can observe the belligerent U.S. threats continually aimed at North Korea and Iran and not be sickened by a) the growing danger of nuclear proliferation and annihilation now facing the world, and b) the bottomless hypocrisy of the United States in condemning smaller nations for daring to develop weapons that it alone has everused‹weapons that we now know were not needed to save lives in a putativeinvasion of Japan, but rather to impress a rival with our new-foundstrength. More chilling still, that weapon was dropped not on a military target, but rather on a prostrate and already terrorized civilianpopulation. Most nauseating of all, while our President prattles on about the danger to Americans of North Korea's test, he is at the same time makingit far more likely that it will be the United States which, with its new nuclear posture review, will once again be the first to employ new, nicely-miniaturized nuclear weapons on other humans.
Lawrence DiStasi
Sunday, October 01, 2006
An Alternate to Cut and Run
Splinters
What’s your Plan, man?
You seem so upset
Do you think you can
With our blood and sweat
Take Iraq to the top
With your photo-op?
There has been considerable talk of redeployment of our forces in Iraq. I hope that this essay drafts a concept that demonstrates that there are options other than “stay the course.” While I agree with critics that we are between Iraq and a hard place, we need to develop alternatives while there is still enough of our military and financial resources to create workable options. Time is critical because we are wearing our military thin through revolving assignments into a meat grinder. I will focus on future actions that can be exercised rather than the mistakes of the past three years, but in doing so, I will offer reasons for changing course rather than blindly hoping for new outcomes on old ideas.
First, we need to acknowledge that things in Iraq are not going well and we need to fire the Lincoln Group that we recently rehired to produce and distribute optimistic propaganda in Iraq for Iraqis. Iraqis are on the ground and see what is happening. Contrary propaganda by Lincoln merely annoys Iraqis and makes them think that either we are liars or that we are so stupid that we do not see the chaos around us in Iraq. That is not trivial. We essentially have a civil war in progress and doing chin-ups on defining the exact level of civil war is not productive. In fact, it slows the process for changing our strategy and tactics.
Next, we need to isolate the battlefield. Given this civil war, the entire country is the battlefield, with the possible exception of Kurdistan. Most of Iraq is mired in violence and ineffective security, energy, water, schools, courts and economic viability. Isolating this battlefield is no small order. We need to screen the long borders with Saudi Arabia from where the majority of the 9/11 aircrews came. We need to meter the flow of the ancient trade routes from Syria and Jordan to staunch the flow of foreign fighters. We need to stop the traffic with Iran, even if there are Iraqis (like Ahmed Chalabi) that want the traffic. Once we effectively isolate the battlefield and use advanced surveillance techniques to detect and respond to violations, we can call upon Iraqis to help patrol their own borders. This provides real military missions for them that do not compromise tribal or religious loyalties with the possible exception of co-opted Shiite militia that cannot be expected to control their eastern border with Iran. The longer term solution of promoting nationalism instead of sectarian or tribal loyalty requires training Iraqis out of country where they can learn to work with one another in a way similar to the way we train new soldiers away from home in federal enclaves (like Ft. Benning) where facilities are secure and no ambient wars are competing for student attention. I propose that we establish training systems in Kuwait to achieve the neutrality that is not available in Iraq. All these actions require State Department involvement in the process of negotiating with powers within and bordering Iraq. Even the concept of “hot pursuit” needs State Department work rather than arbitrary action.
Next, we establish a major strike force and regional reserve in Kuwait. This requires a base to serve as a secure home for training and maintenance. Our military equipment is beat up and needs overhaul. Since we will be in the region for some time to come, it makes sense to conduct depot maintenance there instead of a complete retrograde to the Continental United States (CONUS). We need Special Forces and Special Operations capabilities throughout the region to lead the training and the initial contact teams for medicine and simple civil engineering tasks in areas away from Baghdad. This will establish an image of helping Iraqis to help themselves and may provide a start to the flow of intelligence that we need to separate insurgents from citizens. The strike force must be airmobile with heavier capabilities such as armor to sustain operations in the event that open warfare with armed militia or external forces occurs. This is the type of operation that we do well and yet the strike force must be kept razor sharp through training and rehearsals in Kuwait. This may mean that the strike force needs frequent rotation to avoid either complacency or over-training.
Next we must systematically eliminate corporate civilian support such as Halliburton/KBR as we build up military forces that have the dual capability of combat mission work and civil engineering, etc. KBR has provided contaminated water to our troops from 63 of its 67 water treatment facilities. That is not a combat multiplier but a combat divider that provided substandard water for above standard prices and still demands security forces. We have similar issues from the Bechtel Bridge that was over budget and never completed and the recent Parsons Company debacle where it was paid to rebuild barracks that now have to be destroyed because they are so unsafe and unsanitary with urine and feces flowing through ceilings onto soldiers. Outsourcing has been a source of waste, fraud and abuse that needs to go.
Next, we need to move significant forces from inner city Baghdad to protect commercial and military airfields in order to preserve flexibility in movement. Plush appearances do not help us to identify with Iraqis who may feel that if we occupy Hussein’s palaces, that we are more like him than ourselves. Troops rotate home as troops with the new skills move into the country. In a year’s time, we should have bases established; Special Forces reconnecting the Iraqis with Americans on a lower profile basis. As they succeed, we can expand the feel-good, do-good projects by completing schools and hospitals that were promised and never delivered. We need to use Iraqi labor and military troops directly in the construction. This will provide economic help for Iraqis and may begin some trust of the American military. The troop numbers can decline significantly as Iraqis take responsibility for security, civil and economic projects. The only way to change the image of occupation is to remove troops as rapidly as possible while maintaining a strike force that will serve as an emergency combat force. There is an irony that the combat skills that gave us a rapid battlefield victory are unable to win the peace. Get over it and play by the new rules.
As I wrote this brief outline, I inhaled a little and recognized that it was long ago and far away in Vietnam that I last wrote an Administrative Order in combat. Detailed planning must be done and we have people in our military that excel at planning. They are good at what they do and even better when we assign them wisely and lead them well. Kuwait can be a staging area for both support and rotation home, but there are myriad other solutions if we start now before we destroy our forces and merely dig deeper trenches around Baghdad and run out of time.
I also thought that it might be the epitome of poetic justice, assuming that Saddam Hussein is found guilty, that he be given a life sentence to serve as President of Iraq without possibility of parole.
We could then leave and know that we provided adequate punishment for him.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
1 October 2006
Splinters
What’s your Plan, man?
You seem so upset
Do you think you can
With our blood and sweat
Take Iraq to the top
With your photo-op?
There has been considerable talk of redeployment of our forces in Iraq. I hope that this essay drafts a concept that demonstrates that there are options other than “stay the course.” While I agree with critics that we are between Iraq and a hard place, we need to develop alternatives while there is still enough of our military and financial resources to create workable options. Time is critical because we are wearing our military thin through revolving assignments into a meat grinder. I will focus on future actions that can be exercised rather than the mistakes of the past three years, but in doing so, I will offer reasons for changing course rather than blindly hoping for new outcomes on old ideas.
First, we need to acknowledge that things in Iraq are not going well and we need to fire the Lincoln Group that we recently rehired to produce and distribute optimistic propaganda in Iraq for Iraqis. Iraqis are on the ground and see what is happening. Contrary propaganda by Lincoln merely annoys Iraqis and makes them think that either we are liars or that we are so stupid that we do not see the chaos around us in Iraq. That is not trivial. We essentially have a civil war in progress and doing chin-ups on defining the exact level of civil war is not productive. In fact, it slows the process for changing our strategy and tactics.
Next, we need to isolate the battlefield. Given this civil war, the entire country is the battlefield, with the possible exception of Kurdistan. Most of Iraq is mired in violence and ineffective security, energy, water, schools, courts and economic viability. Isolating this battlefield is no small order. We need to screen the long borders with Saudi Arabia from where the majority of the 9/11 aircrews came. We need to meter the flow of the ancient trade routes from Syria and Jordan to staunch the flow of foreign fighters. We need to stop the traffic with Iran, even if there are Iraqis (like Ahmed Chalabi) that want the traffic. Once we effectively isolate the battlefield and use advanced surveillance techniques to detect and respond to violations, we can call upon Iraqis to help patrol their own borders. This provides real military missions for them that do not compromise tribal or religious loyalties with the possible exception of co-opted Shiite militia that cannot be expected to control their eastern border with Iran. The longer term solution of promoting nationalism instead of sectarian or tribal loyalty requires training Iraqis out of country where they can learn to work with one another in a way similar to the way we train new soldiers away from home in federal enclaves (like Ft. Benning) where facilities are secure and no ambient wars are competing for student attention. I propose that we establish training systems in Kuwait to achieve the neutrality that is not available in Iraq. All these actions require State Department involvement in the process of negotiating with powers within and bordering Iraq. Even the concept of “hot pursuit” needs State Department work rather than arbitrary action.
Next, we establish a major strike force and regional reserve in Kuwait. This requires a base to serve as a secure home for training and maintenance. Our military equipment is beat up and needs overhaul. Since we will be in the region for some time to come, it makes sense to conduct depot maintenance there instead of a complete retrograde to the Continental United States (CONUS). We need Special Forces and Special Operations capabilities throughout the region to lead the training and the initial contact teams for medicine and simple civil engineering tasks in areas away from Baghdad. This will establish an image of helping Iraqis to help themselves and may provide a start to the flow of intelligence that we need to separate insurgents from citizens. The strike force must be airmobile with heavier capabilities such as armor to sustain operations in the event that open warfare with armed militia or external forces occurs. This is the type of operation that we do well and yet the strike force must be kept razor sharp through training and rehearsals in Kuwait. This may mean that the strike force needs frequent rotation to avoid either complacency or over-training.
Next we must systematically eliminate corporate civilian support such as Halliburton/KBR as we build up military forces that have the dual capability of combat mission work and civil engineering, etc. KBR has provided contaminated water to our troops from 63 of its 67 water treatment facilities. That is not a combat multiplier but a combat divider that provided substandard water for above standard prices and still demands security forces. We have similar issues from the Bechtel Bridge that was over budget and never completed and the recent Parsons Company debacle where it was paid to rebuild barracks that now have to be destroyed because they are so unsafe and unsanitary with urine and feces flowing through ceilings onto soldiers. Outsourcing has been a source of waste, fraud and abuse that needs to go.
Next, we need to move significant forces from inner city Baghdad to protect commercial and military airfields in order to preserve flexibility in movement. Plush appearances do not help us to identify with Iraqis who may feel that if we occupy Hussein’s palaces, that we are more like him than ourselves. Troops rotate home as troops with the new skills move into the country. In a year’s time, we should have bases established; Special Forces reconnecting the Iraqis with Americans on a lower profile basis. As they succeed, we can expand the feel-good, do-good projects by completing schools and hospitals that were promised and never delivered. We need to use Iraqi labor and military troops directly in the construction. This will provide economic help for Iraqis and may begin some trust of the American military. The troop numbers can decline significantly as Iraqis take responsibility for security, civil and economic projects. The only way to change the image of occupation is to remove troops as rapidly as possible while maintaining a strike force that will serve as an emergency combat force. There is an irony that the combat skills that gave us a rapid battlefield victory are unable to win the peace. Get over it and play by the new rules.
As I wrote this brief outline, I inhaled a little and recognized that it was long ago and far away in Vietnam that I last wrote an Administrative Order in combat. Detailed planning must be done and we have people in our military that excel at planning. They are good at what they do and even better when we assign them wisely and lead them well. Kuwait can be a staging area for both support and rotation home, but there are myriad other solutions if we start now before we destroy our forces and merely dig deeper trenches around Baghdad and run out of time.
I also thought that it might be the epitome of poetic justice, assuming that Saddam Hussein is found guilty, that he be given a life sentence to serve as President of Iraq without possibility of parole.
We could then leave and know that we provided adequate punishment for him.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
1 October 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)