Tag: war

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

Disconnecting War from Consequence

Militarism in the U.S. continues, unabated. (Photo: Michele Ursi | Dreamstime.com)

Twenty-two years ago, Congress put sanity up for a vote. Sanity lost in the House, 420-1. It lost in the Senate, 98-0.

Barbara Lee’s lone vote for sanity — that is to say, her vote against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution, allowing the president to make war against … uh, evil … without congressional approval — remains a tiny light of courageous hope flickering in a chaotic world, which is on the brink of self-annihilation. Militarism keeps expanding, at least here in the U.S. If there’s a problem out there, option one is to kill it quickly. Problem solved! This simplistic (and utterly false) mindset, which is always present — the companion of fear — may have a grip on American politics like never before, as demonstrated in the recent debt-ceiling standoff, in which President Biden came to an agreement with the Republicans that social spending will be slashed but “defense” spending must continue to expand.

You know. It’s the only thing that’s truly crucial. Poverty? Collapsing infrastructure? Underfunded schools? Climate disaster? We can worry about that stuff later, but as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy explained to reporters recently: “Look, we’re always looking where we could find savings … but we live in a very dangerous world. I think the Pentagon has to actually have more resources.” In other words, the U.S. is not a country with the maturity to discuss and analyze complex issues, such as the future of the world. Hey, it’s dangerous out there! It’s full of terrorists and dictators. That’s all you need to know. “Weak on defense” is the equivalent of “wants to defund the police” — a politician’s death sentence by advertising. No matter how much hell war creates — no matter how many families it displaces, no matter how many children it kills — we’ve got to be ready to wage it, you know, whenever we feel like it. And the mainstream media, in its basic coverage, doesn’t question this or delve into a complex analysis of the world.

But we are still a country that is slowly and complexly evolving — no matter that the powers that be, for the most part, don’t know it. Let’s return to that AUMF vote, passed in the wake of the 9/11 devastation. Barbara Lee, whose father was in the Army, serving in both World War II and the Korean War, knew about the human costs of war. After 9/11 she was deeply uncertain what the nation’s immediate response should be. She attended the memorial service at the capital, held the day of the vote (and attended by four former presidents plus the sitting president, GWB). There, as she told Politico, the Reverend Nathan Baxter, as he led the attendees in prayer, called on the nation’s leaders, as they considered how to respond, to “not become the evil we deplore.”

His words struck her in the soul. She had planned to challenge AUMF — she saw serious problems with it — but now she had certainty. She edited her prepared speech as she returned to Capitol Hill. There, she told her colleagues, “There must be some of us who say: Let’s step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today. I do not want to see this spiral out of control.” She had no idea — until the vote began — that she’d be the sole member of Congress to vote against AUMF. And soon enough her office was flooded with calls and emails. They were both for her and against her, but many of the latter were vicious. She was called a traitor. She received death threats. Plenty of people, especially as the antiwar movement grew, also declared, “Barbara Lee speaks for me.” But the fury of those who hated her vote, who were shocked that she had the audacity to speak the truth, demonstrate the self-feeding loop that war creates. Instantly, all complexity vanishes and you’re either for us or against us. And if you’re against us … uh oh. Watch out.

She also told Congress that day: “We must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target.”

These are not the sort of words that status-quo America listens to, even in retrospect. My God, 20 years of war in Afghanistan, eight years of war and unspeakable carnage in Iraq. The U.S. was the official loser (though not its military-industrial complex). We’re not any safer; we’re way less safe. But it’s all dismissed with a shrug. “We live in a very dangerous world.” All we can do is keep upping the military budget and keep refusing to listen to Barbara Lee.

When will this change? The collective psychology of it goes pretty deep. Perhaps the presence of war in the national psyche bears a relationship to the presence of guns. The United States, as Scientific American pointed out, is “the only country with more civilian firearms than people,” which, according to researcher Nick Buttrick, is a phenomenon that began in the American South after the Civil War.

Guns had been tools, handy in rural areas for pest control. Then came the Emancipation Proclamation. Previously enslaved people — “property” — were suddenly free. They even had some political power. The world was no longer what it once was; the established order was gone. The world, from a white perspective, was suddenly chaotic, dangerous, incomprehensible. And white people were no longer on top. Gradually guns became fetishized as sources — and symbols — of strength. “Through your weapon, you could recreate order,” Buttrick said.

Is that not the American way? All you have to do is disconnect the consequences from the trigger, and you can keep pulling it and pulling it.

Robert Koehler (koehlercw@gmail.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor. He is the author of Courage Grows Strong at the Wound.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

Dancing on the Edge of Hell

B-21 Raider (Photo: Northrop Grumman)

Two dogs walking. One of them says to the other: “I bark and I bark, but I never feel like I effect real change.”

This is the caption of a New Yorker cartoon by Christopher Weyant from several years ago. It keeps popping up in my head — I mean, every day. Like everyone else, I want what I do to matter, to “effect real change.” What I do is write. Specifically, I swim in the infinity of possibility. Humanity can kill itself or it can learn to survive. Most people (I believe) prefer the latter, which is all about discovering how we are connected to one another and to the rest of the universe. This is what I try to write about.

Then Congress passes another military budget. And once again, there’s the New Yorker cartoon.

“An emerging compromise on annual defense policy legislation will endorse a $45 billion increase to President Joe Biden’s defense spending plans,” Politico reports. “… The deal would set the budget topline of the fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act at $847 billion for national defense.”

You know, more than the world’s next nine defense budgets combined. We have more than 750 military bases around the world. We’re sending billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Ukraine to keep the war going, in the wake of our two decades of war in the Middle East to rid the world of terrorism … excuse me, evil. As a result, the planet is bleeding to death. Not to worry, though. We still have nukes. How safe and secure can we get?

And here’s Northrop Grumman, presenting to the world the B-21 Raider, an updated nuclear bomber, aka the future of Armageddon. No need to worry. When Armageddon is ready to happen, it will happen smoothly, at the bargain cost of $750 million per aircraft.

Northrop Grumman itself puts it this way: “When it comes to delivering America’s resolve, the B-21 Raider will be standing by, silent and ready. We are providing America’s war-fighters with an advanced aircraft offering a combination of range, payload, and survivability. The B-21 Raider will be capable of penetrating the toughest defenses to deliver precision strikes anywhere in the world. The B-21 is the future of deterrence.”

We’re dancing on the edge of hell.

Is it possible for humanity to evolve beyond this? Prior to Armageddon? Advocating that humanity’s collective consciousness must transcend militarism, and an us-vs.-them attitude toward the planet means lying on a bed of nails. Consider the weird and mysterious act of violence that took place recently in Moore County, North Carolina, which may — or may not — have been triggered by a drag show. Somebody opened gunfire at two electric substations in the central North Carolina county over the weekend, causing multi-million-dollar damage to the power grid and leaving some 40,000 households without power for half a week. While the perpetrator and motive remain a mystery to law enforcement officials, one person wrote on Facebook: “The power is out in Moore County and I know why.” She then posted a photo of the Sunrise Theater, in downtown Southern Pines, along with the words “God will not be mocked.” The theater had a drag show scheduled that night, which, prior to the power grid attack, had been vehemently opposed by many right-wingers.

The Facebook claim that the power outage was meant to stop the drag show may have been totally bogus (and also a failure, by the way, with spectators lighting the show with their cell phones so it could go on). Maybe we’ll never know for sure. But even if the poster, furious about the scheduled show, had simply co-opted a motive for the criminal act, essentially ascribing it to God, it’s still indicative that there’s a lot of poison in the air. If you hate something, don’t try to understand it. Go to war. There was, after all, a mass shooting at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs several weeks ago — indeed, mass shootings directed at multiple targets are, good God, commonplace.

I fear that war remains the logical terminus of collective human consciousness. Indeed, war is sacred, or so surmises Kelly Denton-Borhaug, citing as an example a speech delivered by George W. Bush on Easter weekend in 2008. She noted that W. “milked” the Easter story to glorify the hell the country was in the process of wreaking in Iraq and Afghanistan, throwing a bit of Gospel into his war on evil: “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

She writes: “The abusive exploitation of religion to bless violence covered the reality of war’s hideous destructiveness with a sacred sheen.”

But perhaps even worse than war’s pseudo-sacredness is its normalcy, à la that never-questioned trillion-dollar budget that Congress tosses at the Pentagon every year without fail. And the total pushes up, up, up every year, bequeathing us, for instance, that Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider, ready to deliver Armageddon on command.

Short of Armageddon, we simply have armed hate-spewers, ready and ever so willing to kill an enemy at the grocery store or a school classroom or a nightclub.

Understand, love, heal … these are not simple words. Will we ever learn what they mean? Will we ever give them a budget?

Robert Koehler, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor. He is the author of Courage Grows Strong at the Wound.

Categories
Book Features Books

Mission Accomplished?

The year is 1944, and the setting is Italy. A group of American G.I.’s are on a reconnaissance mission near Cassino — their mission: to learn the whereabouts of the German army, which is retreating north.

One day, the battalion meets up with a farmer’s cart pulled by a donkey, led by two boys, and loaded with straw. The boys are ordered away, and a sergeant named John Glick instructs his men to overturn the cart. Out fall a German officer and a woman. The German uses his Luger to shoot two of the Americans, then Corporal Robert Marson kills the “Kraut.” Sergeant Glick turns his carbine on the woman, who is shouting in German, and he fires a bullet into her head. End of story? No, start of story in Richard Bausch’s new novel, Peace (Knopf).

But peace — inner peace — is not what Marson and two of his men — Saul Asch and Benny Joyner — find as they climb a nearby hill in search of German presence in the area. Down below, they’d witnessed the killing of an unarmed woman. Do they report it as murder within their own ranks? Or do they just keep their mouths shut and do their duty: reach that hilltop and return with a report?

Days of rain turn to a nighttime of sleet, then snow as the three men ascend in “deep stillness” and “black quiet.” An old man named Angelo is serving as guide over the steep terrain, but Marson isn’t sure Angelo’s to be trusted. Marson isn’t so sure about a lot of things. That German officer is the first enemy soldier Marson’s shot dead up close. Nausea plagues him; emptiness haunts him. Even his prayers ring hollow, but he says them, sincerely, in the rote way a Catholic can. At 26, Marson, at least, is worldly wise.

Asch? He’s a 23-year-old Jew from Boston still haunted by the sight of an American tank (and its occupants) on fire in North Africa. One thing he’s sure of: his and the entire unit’s guilt in the killing of that German woman if Glick’s conduct goes unreported.

And Joyner? He’s a walking string of obscenities — against Asch, against the war, against the world in general, you name it, in Joyner’s words, “fuck it” — but he’s tormented by an itch that is, in fact, a case of nerves ready to snap. He’s a Michigan farm boy of 19.

This one tense night, all three men — Marson, Asch, and Joyner — struggle on and argue, numbed by the wet and cold, uncertain of what they’ll find and more uncertain of their safety. Are they to take Angelo at his word? Are they to avoid a possible attack? And are they to survive their return downhill — one of the men the target of a sniper, another turned sniper himself? And once returned to the battalion, what’s Marson to do with Angelo’s fate? At the close of Peace, it’s in his hands.

The story is in good hands. This is a short novel, and Bausch writes with the immediacy required — whether he’s describing the raw weather and difficult terrain of Italy or the harsh terms and ugly realities of life in wartime. But those are outward signs. Bausch charts Marson’s reflections with comparable economy and narrative force.

Peace then: yet another lesson in storytelling from this nationally recognized writer, holder of the Moss Chair of Excellence in creative writing at the University of Memphis.

Richard Bausch will be signing and reading from Peace at Burke’s Book Store on Thursday, May 15th, from 5 to 7 p.m. The reading begins at 6 p.m. For more information, call the store at 278-7484.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

GADFLY: (Another) Tale of the Tapes

I don’t understand the scandal that’s arisen over the
destruction by the CIA of the tapes it made of interrogations. I mean, isn’t
this SOP for the Bush administration, and, indeed, its Republican forebears?
Isn’t that what the Bushies did with millions of e-mails that disappeared from
the White House’s servers, as well as with (and about) billions of dollars in
Iraq that have disappeared into the ether (a.k.a Halliburton). And, isn’t that
the way Papa Bush (and Reagan before him) handled the cover-up of the
Iran-Contra scandal?

It’s obvious what happened here. The CIA had to choose the
least of several evils: risk the tapes coming out, with a resulting blowback
from the Muslim world the likes of which hasn’t been seen since Abu Ghraib, or
destroy the evidence and throw yourself on the mercy of the courts (and the
public) by saying, “Hey, there was nothing illegal in the tapes,” or, “We did
it to protect our agents,” or some other such nonsense. Risk having all who
participated in “enhanced interrogation” (read: torture) prosecuted, both
domestically and by international tribunals as war criminals (with the tapes as
“Exhibit A”), or risk pissing off a few senators, congressmen and federal judges
about the destruction of evidence (read: obstruction of justice).

Remember what happened when the images of Abu Ghraib were
released to the public? The Bushies weren’t going to let that happen again. So,
this was obviously a cost/benefit analysis that was performed by the CIA,
probably with the complicity of the Pentagon (which authorized “enhanced
interrogation”), and arguably with the knowledge of the White House (it’s come
out that the President’s counsel, Harriet Miers, knew about the tapes), and the
determination was made that the consequences of destroying the tapes were far
less damaging than the consequences of having them come out.

If Republicans learned any of the lessons of Watergate, it
was that (a) that tapes can easily be destroyed, erased or altered (e.g., the
Rosemary Woods 18½ minute gap), and (b) that if you don’t destroy, erase or
alter tapes, they can be used to impeach and/or prosecute you (e.g., the
Butterfield taping system in the Nixon White House). The conventional wisdom
about the Watergate tapes which eventually did Nixon in was that if he had
destroyed them before they came to light, he might have been able to withstand
(or avoid altogether) impeachment, since they were the most damning evidence of
his criminality. So, why not destroy evidence of war crimes?

Part of the cost/benefit analysis done in reaching the
decision to destroy the tapes was that, just as happened with Abu Ghraib, only
the low-level flunkies would ever be held accountable for their destruction, and
for the mayhem they recorded. We’re already seeing that, with the finger being
pointed at a single, now-retired CIA official. The Republicans have learned how
easy it is to hoodwink the public, not to mention the Congress and the judicial
system, into believing that anything they or their minions do is only the
responsibility of the dupes who’ve done it, not the authors of policy
themselves. That’s how the prime movers of Abu Ghraib avoided their
accountability moment.

In the case of these tapes, can there be any doubt that the
folks who authorized the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including Rumsfeld,
his deputy Steve Cambone, David Addington (now Cheney’s consigliere), Alberto
Gonzales and, last but not least, John Yoo, would have been at risk for criminal
prosecution if the graphic result of their authorization had ever come to light?
And since no one has admitted to waterboarding (except for the accusations of
its victims), and since there is no independent evidence of its having been
practiced, the people responsible for implementing the policy that allowed it
will probably skate.

And, of course, despite the flurry of demands by members of
congress that the tapes’ destruction be investigated, Congress won’t do
anything, at least not anything meaningful. Oh sure, there will be some “show
hearings,” but nothing will come of them because Congress is a paper tiger.
Hasn’t it proved that by its failure to hold in contempt any of the witnesses
who’ve evaded its subpoenas, which it clearly has the power to issue? It’s
never done its own investigation of how or why we invaded Iraq (we’re still
waiting – two years later — for the Senate Intelligence Committee to release
the second part of its report on that issue). Nor has it dealt with the many
remaining unanswered questions about 9/11, or the entire Katrina debacle, has
it? It still hasn’t found out who was responsible for the billions of dollars
that went astray in Iraq, and it still hasn’t begun to hold Bush and Cheney
accountable for all the things (illegal wiretapping, rendition, etc.)
that warrant accountability (read: impeachment).

And getting the Justice Department to investigate the
tapes’ destruction would be another example of asking the fox to investigate a
break-in at the hen house. The new attorney general, Michael Mukasey, judging
from his confirmation hearings, has an obvious dilemma about whether or not
waterboarding (which is apparently shown on the destroyed tapes) is torture: He
was actively involved, as a judge, with the prosecution of one or more of the
“detainees” whose lawyers were either denied access to the tapes or told they
didn’t exist.

And, most importantly, the techniques which are undoubtedly
demonstrated on the tapes were facilitated by the Justice Department itself.
Remember, it was people like John Yoo and Jay Bybee who issued opinions
approving torture when they were part of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. That is
the legal authority the new CIA director, Michael Hayden, was relying on when he
told his employees, just before the story of the tapes’ destruction broke in the
New York Times, that the techniques recorded in the tapes were “legal.”

So the Congress obviously isn’t going to investigate the
tapes’ destruction (at least, not effectively), the justice department can’t
investigate it (or shouldn’t, on conflict of interest grounds). So who does that
leave to investigate it? A Special Counsel, maybe, like Patrick Fitzgerald, who
couldn’t even nail the malefactors-in-chief in the Plamegate scandal, settling
for little Scooter Libby? And, of course, Congress has little stomach left for
Special Counsels. The Democrats remember all too clearly the excesses of Ken
Starr, and the Republicans are still fuming from what they consider the excesses
of Patrick Fitzgerald.

The only thing that will happen as a result of the
destruction of the tapes will be sanctions imposed by the courts against the
government’s lawyers where terrorist prosecutions are pending for lying about
the existence of the tapes. And it is possible that one of those sanctions may
end up being the dismissal of one or more of those prosecutions. Big deal. Other
than that, I expect no one will be prosecuted for what is an obvious obstruction
of justice. Nor will they be prosecuted for authorizing the techniques that were
apparently graphically displayed on the destroyed tapes. No foul, no harm.

So, while the
guy they’re pointing the finger at for authorizing the destruction may go down
for the count, if the past is prologue, we can expect this most recent example
of Republican cover ups to be covered up, once again.

Categories
Letters To The Editor Opinion

Letters to the Editor

Aquarius Revisited

Bianca Phillips’ article about the hippie commune, the Farm (“The Old Age of Aquarius,” November 22nd issue), showed that despite declining numbers of people, the 1960s countercultural ethic is still thriving in Tennessee.

What is more amazing is that many of the 1960s’ revolutionary, radical ideas are now mainstream, including solar energy, soy products, natural childbirth, recycling, spirituality, earth consciousness, and a healthy mistrust of the government’s immense power. All of these are now a part of the fabric of society.

If mainstream society would whole-heartedly embrace the guiding principles of the Farm — love and compassion — in all of its endeavors, then the 1960s cultural upheaval will not have been futile.

Randy Norwood

Memphis

The Shelter

Thanks to the Flyer and Bianca Phillips for highlighting one of the malfunctions associated with our city-run animal-disposal facility, aka the Memphis Animal Shelter (“Sheltered Life,” November 22nd issue).  

Unfortunately, the shelter’s euthanasia policies are just the tip of the iceberg. As a foster-home provider for rescued animals, I have been repeatedly let down by our city’s shelter policies. First, they do not respond to injured or loose animal reports consistently or in a timely manner. Second, animals may be adopted to whoever is willing to pay the small fee, without regard for eligibility. Third, owner-surrendered animals are immediately destroyed. (Shelter spokespeople say they must assume something is wrong with the animal since the owner is relinquishing it, so it is never made available for adoption.)

I realize that the shelter is overrun with animals and lacks resources (including but not limited to leadership and the support of the city government). But the fact that over 1,000 animals are killed per month in that facility is a shameful reflection of our city’s crime, poverty, and low education levels. A high percentage of dogs that are euthanized are bully breeds used for fighting operations. Until tougher penalties for dog fighting are instituted and spay/neuter is encouraged citywide, the Memphis Animal Shelter will continue to serve as a death-trap for thousands of animals each year.  

In the meantime, Memphians have a social and civil responsibility to adopt homeless animals and donate money they might have spent on designer dogs to one of the city’s volunteer-run rescue organizations.   

Jessica Leu
Memphis

The Surge

I believe all Americans want the surge in Iraq to be a success. If it succeeds, Iraq can stand on its own and our brave military men and women can come home. Unfortunately, the more we learn about what the president is planning, the more obvious it is that we are headed toward an open-ended commitment to Iraq. 

President Bush initially failed to deploy enough troops to ensure a victory. Now we learn our tax dollars are going to pay more than 70,000 Sunnis to patrol their neighborhoods. The Iraqi government was supposed to do this, but they fear arming so many who oppose the current government — and who might use the weapons to attack the Shiites who are in charge.  

The invasion has created two hostile opposing forces in Iraq, and we are arming and training both sides! It appears that Bush has not learned the lesson he should have learned from his father. When the first Bush administration armed the Taliban, they created a monster that finally turned on us. It was the Taliban who protected and assisted bin Laden. Now, more than six years after 9/11, that monster is still alive and making propaganda tapes for the world to hear.

After a million Iraqis and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed in Iraq and after close to a trillion dollars of American treasure has been spent, the real mastermind of 9/11 is still alive and planning more attacks.

The president claims he is spreading democracy. I say he is spreading something else. How does he explain the hundreds of Saudis in Iraq who are terrorists? He has called the Saudi princes friends for years. These same friends are silent when a Saudi woman who was raped is punished with 200 lashes. I fear democracy is far from the minds of those Bush has befriended in our name. Saudi princes and Shiite politicians are only interested in power, not freedom and democracy.     

Jack Bishop

Cordova

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant

CREDIT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Maybe she should just have them all waterboarded. In Monday’s edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, in an article titled “Feinstein blasts response to oil spill,” the illustrious Senator Dianne Feinstein takes the Coast Guard to task for not responding quickly enough after the Cosco Busan tanker hit the Bay Bridge and spilled a bunch of horrible fuel gunk into the water. She was even going to run and have a meeting with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about what she cited as a “disturbing lack of readiness for disasters.” Well, senator, you better look in the mirror, because you are part of a disaster that has been happening, is still happening, and likely won’t stop anytime soon — in part thanks to you. If you don’t think it’s a disaster for the United States government to torture other human beings, I wonder just what you think is. Feinstein broke with most Democrats and voted to confirm Michael Mukasey as United States attorney general, even though he wouldn’t come out and say that waterboarding is illegal. By doing so, Feinstein sent her message loud and clear, along with everyone else who voted for Mukasey. He could have said what he knows is true: that waterboarding is illegal. But he whined that he couldn’t comment on that because he hadn’t been “briefed.” What I want to know is, why the hell couldn’t someone have briefed him? Is it that big a deal? Why was everyone clamoring about it being “classified” information that he couldn’t be privy to until he was on the job? Why couldn’t he just talk with someone who had been instructed to carry out this form of torture and ask about it? The boys in Washington have already said that they are doing it and that it has prevented further attacks on Amurkan soil. Of course, they offer no proof of this, and they pretty much do much anything they want and people bow down and thank their God they’re still alive because some cab driver from Baghdad has been locked up in a stress position in Guantanamo for years and therefore couldn’t come destroy their lives. So, the question is not whether the boys have broken the laws of the Geneva Convention, but how Mukasey is going to help them get around getting in trouble for it. Not to mention how he is going to help them keep doing it. And Feinstein seems to think this is okay because it’s better to have Mukasey in there than not have any attorney general at all during this “time of war.” I heartily disagree. I think it would be great not to have an attorney general. Look at the past. Look back, if you can possibly stomach doing so, at John Ashcroft, the singing attorney general. Yep, it was GREAT having him in office — a man who, in a bizarre, mock religious ceremony, anointed himself with Crisco oil when he was sworn in as governor of Missouri. I would love to know where he rubbed it and I know I felt a lot safer with him looking out for me. Better than no attorney general at all? And look back, more recently, at the amazing Alberto Gonzales, who had his nose so far up Bush’s butt he couldn’t even make up a clear story about firing all those attorneys Bush wanted fired. He went to Ashcroft’s bedside while he was seriously ill and tried to get him to sign off on the practice of unrestricted wiretapping of American citizens. So no, I do not think having some weenie as attorney general who won’t say waterboarding is illegal torture is better than having none at all. And what’s worse is Feinstein and her other colleagues who voted likewise bought into George W. Bush’s bullshit about not sending up another candidate if they didn’t confirm Mukasey, leaving us all helpless and trembling in fear that a freaking mall might get blown up. The president and vice president of the United States are criminals and those politicians who are supposed to be representing the people of the United States better get some gonads and do something about it and stop supporting the appointments of their pawns, who’ll just bend over and take it to help them do whatever they want to do. Feinstein — who has much to lose from the Iraq war ending because her husband’s companies have made hundreds of millions of dollars on projects over there — has no right to be outraged with anyone other than herself. Maybe she should spend a little time washing the oil off of her hands.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Time To Get Out

The pro-war crowd has been emphasizing the recent drop in American casualties in Iraq, measured by the month, but the fact remains that 2007 has been the most lethal year of war for Americans, and it’s not over yet.

At this writing, 853 Americans have died in 2007, which tops the previous record of 849 in 2004. Altogether, 3,858 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. The sad thing is that they are dying for nothing, because the cowardly Congress refuses to stop the war by cutting off the funds.

The administration defines “winning” as a stable, democratic Iraq able to defend itself. That’s really a definition of a no-win war. The only way to establish stability with Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites at each other’s throats is to find another dictator ruthless enough to force stability at the point of a gun. In other words, you can have stability with no democracy or democracy with no stability. Take your choice.

Either way, it is not worth the life of a single American.

It’s time for the American people to face the question, “What’s in it for us?” That’s not being selfish. It’s our blood and our treasure, so surely the American people have a right to expect some gain for this sacrifice. So what is it?

The answer is nothing. The corporate friends of the Bush-Cheney gang have gained plenty of profits, but they haven’t shared them with the dead soldiers — or with the American people, for that matter. Whether Iraq has a new dictator or becomes an Islamic republic aligned with Iran, Americans will have no friends in a country we wrecked while killing at least 100,000 Iraqis and displacing 2 million more. It will be a long time before any nonsuicidal Americans put Iraq on their places-to-visit list.

The Bush administration has been the most secretive and deceptive bunch to occupy the White House in history. The truth is, nobody knows for sure what the motive for going to war against Iraq really was. I read one theory that the neocons, the chief proponents and pushers of the war, envisioned the convicted embezzler and exile Ahmad Chalabi running the country and making peace with Israel. If it’s true, it was a pipe dream based on ignorance. Nobody in Iraq who had suffered through Saddam Hussein’s rule was going to turn the country over to some corrupt exile who had been living the high life in London and Washington.

Regardless of why we went in, it’s past time for us to get out. The Iraqi people don’t want us. As long as we stay, we will be looked upon as occupiers, and the insurgents will keep whittling away at our forces. Occupation cannot be sustained in a hostile environment, and bribery won’t change the way the Iraqis feel. We have done the people of Iraq way too much harm for them to forgive us.

There is no reasoning with President Bush. He’s as likely to attack Iran as he is to withdraw troops from Iraq. The only answer is to pressure Congress to find the nerve to cut the purse strings. There will be enough money in the pipeline to safely withdraw the troops. Keeping young Americans in harm’s way when their lives and limbs will be lost for no gains is not by any stretch supporting the troops. You support the troops by getting them out of harm’s way, just as Ronald Reagan did after we lost the Marines in Lebanon.

Iraq may or may not have a bloody war after we leave. That’s up to the Iraqis. It’s no skin off our nose whether they reconcile or draw their knives. It’s their country. Let them fight over it if that’s what they want to do. The Bush administration has not done one single thing right in the Middle East, and the situation in the whole area is worse and more dangerous because of these blunders.

America’s withdrawal would be a blessing to everyone concerned.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 50 years.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

The Real Costs of War

Several newspapers and websites covered President Bush’s visit to Brooke Army Hospital in San Antonio earlier this week. The pictures were gut-wrenching. The president toured the facility, meeting soldiers who had lost arms, legs, eyes, ears, even faces in combat in Iraq.

Bush moved through the hallways, greeting the wounded with a wry smile and his typical bonhomie. As he watched one soldier — blind and legless — climb a wall, he turned to the soldier’s mother and said, “He’s a good man, isn’t he?” Yes, Mr. Bush, he is. And he was probably even a better man before an IED maimed him for life.

One hopes that Bush came away from his visit with some deeper understanding of the human costs of his administration’s unilateral and unnecessary war.

But it’s doubtful. As the president exited the hospital, impressed by the good medical work he’d just seen, he took a moment to advocate for better government support for wounded veterans. Apparently, Bush was unaware that the high-tech rehabilitation facility he’d just visited was entirely supported by private funds.

A new report on the financial costs of war was released this week by congressional Democrats. The report cited the costs to the United States of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at nearly $1.5 trillion — so far. It’s an amount that is nearly double the $804 billion the White House has spent or requested to wage these wars through 2008. The report estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000.

The report also says that our war funding is diverting billions of dollars away from “productive investment” by American businesses. It adds that National Guardsmen and reservists are being kept from their jobs, resulting in economic disruptions for U.S. employers estimated at $1 billion to $2 billion. Gas prices, the report further notes, have tripled since the beginning of the war.

Critics say these figures are inflated. We say, inflated or not, it’s quite obvious that the cost of endless war on two fronts has depleted our economy, pushed our armed forces to the breaking point, and inflicted immeasurable human suffering on our soldiers and their families — not to mention the Iraqi people.

As has been demonstrated over and over again, the way to fight terrorism is through police work and our intelligence agencies. Invading a country under the guise of “keeping America safe from terrorism” makes about as much sense as the old Vietnam canard: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

In this case, we fear, we are destroying our own village. It is time for congressional Democrats to do more than issue reports. It is time to stop the madness of this no-win war.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The Fruitcake Trade

I had been thinking recently that I might start a business that would export fruitcakes to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That was the most appropriate export I could think of. But the president has put the kibosh on that idea with his tough new sanctions.

Sanctions imposed by President Bush or Congress are always described as tough, but they only apply to Americans. Anybody in any other country who might like to sell fruitcakes to the Iranians is free to do so.

My point is that sanctions are generally stupid, since they affect only American businesses. As much as the president and Congress might wish otherwise, U.S. laws apply only in the U.S. American businesses can be barred from doing business with a country that displeases American politicians, but the ban doesn’t apply anywhere else.

And it does seem to me that I have at least heard rumors that today there is something called a global economy. Americans can’t invest in Cuba or in any of the other countries on the politicians’ scat list, but Europeans, Asians, and others can and do.

Other than substituting empty gestures for real action and appeasing domestic lobbies, I really don’t see what good sanctions do. It’s no longer 1945. We are not the only surviving industrial power. No matter what product you desire, you can find it in lots of other countries.

This empty gesture is just part of the buildup to attacking Iran militarily. As some noted expert recently said, you have to be living on a different planet to imagine that Iran is or ever would be a threat to the world.

Unfortunately, the president and Vice President Cheney apparently do live on another planet, because after a number of lies, they attacked two countries that were even less of a threat than Iran could ever hope to be.

Never mind that the Israeli foreign minister just said publicly that Israel would not be threatened by a nuclear Iran. Never mind that Iran says it wishes only to enrich uranium enough to fuel its reactors for generating electricity. Never mind that Iran does not have the capability of attacking either us or Israel.

I’d bet a dog that the president has convinced himself that we can stage another “shock and awe” show that will take out Iran’s nuclear facilities and its military assets in one easy surgical strike. Strategic bombing has been overrated ever since World War II. The president might know a lot about baseball, but he knows practically nothing about war.

Ask an American veteran who sat on an invasion fleet for days while naval guns and airplanes blasted some small Pacific island to smithereens. He will tell you that when he went ashore, the Japanese were still there ready to fight.

Our bombing campaign against Serbia no doubt killed Serb and Albanian civilians, but when it was over, the Serb army forces came out of Kosovo virtually intact. The famous shock-and-awe show made for good television but missed its intended target: Saddam Hussein and his top lieutenants.

If you hope that bombing can take out Iran’s nuclear facilities and its military assets, you are hoping for something that only a magic fairy can deliver. And please, to talk about a “surgical” strike with bombs is like saying a sawed-off shotgun can be fired with pinpoint accuracy. You cannot bomb any urban area without killing innocent civilians.

Nobody can know for sure what will happen if our Great Leader decides to attack Iran, but anybody will tell you that it won’t be good. Come to think of it, maybe we all should send fruitcakes to the fruitcakes in the White House, if we can find the address of the planet they are living on.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 50 years.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant

CREDIT: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

If anyone doubts that the

republic created by the U.S. Constitution

is dead, he or she only has to watch the Republican

presidential debates. Save for Ron Paul, all of the candidates believe a

president can take the country to war on his own, though most concede it might be a good idea to “consult” attorneys and even Congress.

The Constitution, written by men more intelligent and better educated than today’s crop of political duds, is quite clear. The president has no authority to take the country to war. The sole authority for declaring war rests 100 percent with Congress.

Naturally, if a shipload of pirates sailed up the Potomac and began shooting at the tourists, you wouldn’t need a declaration to authorize returning fire. American troops defending themselves while they are under attack is not the issue. The issue is that if a president wants to take the country to war against another country, he must, as Franklin Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor, ask Congress to make that decision.

The founding fathers, having suffered under a monarch, deliberately created a weak president. His powers, as specified by the Constitution, are limited mainly to administering the laws passed by Congress, making appointments, negotiating treaties and being the official greeter when dealing with foreign powers. His role as commander in chief is limited to just what it says — the military. The president is not our commander in chief, as the current president seems to think.

Lest anyone be beguiled by the current politicians’ determination to create an emperor and an empire, even the president’s appointments and treaties have to be confirmed by the Senate. Congress has sole authority over taxation and spending. Appropriations for the military are limited by the Constitution to two years. Furthermore, Congress is elected independently of the president and is a separate branch of government. It is under no obligation whatsoever to do anything the president asks it to do, and the president has no authority whatsoever to do anything not authorized by Congress and the Constitution.

The Constitution, which apparently not many Americans have ever bothered to read, is the supreme law of the land. It does not make suggestions. It commands. It was written in clear English. It has provisions to amend it, but it should never be amended by interpretation. That is always a usurpation of power and should be grounds for impeachment.

There is only one way for the U.S. to be a real nation of laws. That way is for the people to demand that every single public official obey the laws as they are written and obey them to the letter. The current president seems to think he can alter laws with “signing statements” and legislate with executive orders. He should have been impeached a long time ago.

The kernel of the nut is this: In our constitutional republic, sovereignty rests in the people. If the people are too stupid or ignorant, too lazy or indifferent, to hold their public officials accountable for violating the laws and the Constitution, then of course they will deserve the tyranny they will surely get.

Self-government is tremendously more difficult and demanding than living under a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, all you have to do is obey. I fear that concept appeals to some Americans today. It’s understandable. Responsibility can be a heavy load to carry. It’s much easier to relegate all of that to the Great Leader and just do what we are told.

Anybody who’s ever been in the military or jail knows what I’m talking about. When you are deprived of the ability to make choices, you are simultaneously relieved of the responsibility for making them. Responsibility is the other side of the coin of freedom.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 50 years.