In the hope we never forget why we have a holiday tomorrow, nor why it matters today, tomorrow, and forever ....
In memory of Martin Luther King, Jr., and more important, his work, I offer these links to his final speech, the one popularly known as his "Mountaintop Speech." He gave it the night before his assassination, speaking in support of striking sanitation workers of Memphis, Tennessee. It is memorable for it captures well his views on non-violence; on the importance of economic freedom, economic injustice and economic rights; and on history and his role in it. The speech is also known for his prophetic view of his own mortality, so cruelly realized the next day.
The text of the speech, from (quite fittingly) the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFSCME: “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A video of the speech, from the series Great Speeches, volume 6th, published by the Educational Video Group, and to be viewed for educational purposes only: Martin Luther King, Jr: "Mountaintop" speech full length.
Showing posts with label War and Peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War and Peace. Show all posts
15 January 2012
11 September 2011
September 11, restrospective
We were told that it was a day that changed everything ... and in ways more far-reaching and destructive than we could have imagined when first we heard the phrase, it has been. Consider some of the changes these past ten years have wrought.
Our national fabric and political process have been twisted into a cruel parody of the hopeful statement so often displayed on bumper stickers, that "United We Stand." A cynical President we never elected, aided by the even more cynical ideologues of his party and his supporters, used September 11 to pursue a nakedly partisan agenda that has divided our country so deeply that we're probably more disunited now than we have been at any time since the Civil War. In so doing, they have hobbled our nation's ability to deal with any of the genuine crises that have arisen since, while creating levels of misery not seen in the memories of people now living, and levels of economic inequality not seen in well over a century, if ever.
We've entered a period of permanent war. I grew up during the half-century long Cold War, when we were conditioned to accept the premise that the very existence of humanity was properly subordinated to the political conflict between the superpower, and I thought that was bad enough. I grew up, too, during a period where every President had his war, be it overt, covert or proxy. I thought that too was bad enough. But now we seem to be in a period of endless war, wars with no sign of ever ending, of ever resolving anything; wars whose sole functions seem to be continuation for the simple reason we see no way to quit. The spectre of war now plagues the entire lives of nearly every living American. We are raising a generation that has never known a period without war.
Beyond that, we've entered an era of permanent militarization. I grew up in the shadow of "the greatest generation," where all the boys donned their fathers' left-over uniforms and played at war in empty lots and orchards. And I came of age when those boys donned their own uniforms and went off to the jungles of Viet Nam or the stalemate of Germany. But we never lionized all things military the way we have during this past decade, ranging from the use of military and war-related metaphors in all aspects of our lives and commerce to de rigueur salutes to all things military to the infiltration of military motifs into fashion. This deadly militarization shows perhaps most profoundly as our nation struggles through this "Lesser Depression" with all forms of effort to improve lives becomming highly suspect, but military spending remains largely sacrosanct.
And we've similarly entered an era of blind patriotism with its corollary of mandatory paeans to patriotism. The evil standard of the Bush years that political opposition was equated with disloyalty to the nation has eased somewhat, but it is still with us, as is it's closely related partner, xenophobic bigotry.
Yet despite our militarization and our constant war-making, our influence throughout the world is considerably diminished, and we have abandoned the leadership role America formerly held in global matters, be they issues of peace and war, human rights and justice, technology and economic development, environmental protection, or cultural advancement. Meanwhile, we as a nation have become impoverished in spirit as well as in wealth.
Comparing what we were to what we have become, I can only conclude that this past decade has proven that with the connivance of American leaders whose interests have not been focused on American well-being but rather their own, the terrorists of September 11 are the ones who have triumphed, and not us.
Note: At the time, I lived close to one of the sites attacked that fateful day, and knew and know personally many people whose lives were ended or affected. I've long found it troubling that the people who used September 11 aggrandizement tended to be from elsewhere; it's worth noting that the two jurisdictions most affected have consistently voted against those who rode the tragedy to power.
Our national fabric and political process have been twisted into a cruel parody of the hopeful statement so often displayed on bumper stickers, that "United We Stand." A cynical President we never elected, aided by the even more cynical ideologues of his party and his supporters, used September 11 to pursue a nakedly partisan agenda that has divided our country so deeply that we're probably more disunited now than we have been at any time since the Civil War. In so doing, they have hobbled our nation's ability to deal with any of the genuine crises that have arisen since, while creating levels of misery not seen in the memories of people now living, and levels of economic inequality not seen in well over a century, if ever.
We've entered a period of permanent war. I grew up during the half-century long Cold War, when we were conditioned to accept the premise that the very existence of humanity was properly subordinated to the political conflict between the superpower, and I thought that was bad enough. I grew up, too, during a period where every President had his war, be it overt, covert or proxy. I thought that too was bad enough. But now we seem to be in a period of endless war, wars with no sign of ever ending, of ever resolving anything; wars whose sole functions seem to be continuation for the simple reason we see no way to quit. The spectre of war now plagues the entire lives of nearly every living American. We are raising a generation that has never known a period without war.
Beyond that, we've entered an era of permanent militarization. I grew up in the shadow of "the greatest generation," where all the boys donned their fathers' left-over uniforms and played at war in empty lots and orchards. And I came of age when those boys donned their own uniforms and went off to the jungles of Viet Nam or the stalemate of Germany. But we never lionized all things military the way we have during this past decade, ranging from the use of military and war-related metaphors in all aspects of our lives and commerce to de rigueur salutes to all things military to the infiltration of military motifs into fashion. This deadly militarization shows perhaps most profoundly as our nation struggles through this "Lesser Depression" with all forms of effort to improve lives becomming highly suspect, but military spending remains largely sacrosanct.
And we've similarly entered an era of blind patriotism with its corollary of mandatory paeans to patriotism. The evil standard of the Bush years that political opposition was equated with disloyalty to the nation has eased somewhat, but it is still with us, as is it's closely related partner, xenophobic bigotry.
Yet despite our militarization and our constant war-making, our influence throughout the world is considerably diminished, and we have abandoned the leadership role America formerly held in global matters, be they issues of peace and war, human rights and justice, technology and economic development, environmental protection, or cultural advancement. Meanwhile, we as a nation have become impoverished in spirit as well as in wealth.
Comparing what we were to what we have become, I can only conclude that this past decade has proven that with the connivance of American leaders whose interests have not been focused on American well-being but rather their own, the terrorists of September 11 are the ones who have triumphed, and not us.
Note: At the time, I lived close to one of the sites attacked that fateful day, and knew and know personally many people whose lives were ended or affected. I've long found it troubling that the people who used September 11 aggrandizement tended to be from elsewhere; it's worth noting that the two jurisdictions most affected have consistently voted against those who rode the tragedy to power.
01 November 2010
Such good company we keep
Cluster munitions are weapons such as bombs and artillery shells which contain a number of smaller bomblets which designed to be scattered about on impact. These bomblets, or sub-munitions, can remain active and dangerous long after they are distributed, posing active threats to civilians as they re-occupy the vicinity after the fighting has moved on or stopped.
Thus, a large number of civilians have been killed by cluster munitions have killed over the years, and some estimate that a quarter of them have been children who find unexploded sub-munitions and begin to play with them.
An international treaty banning most forms of cluster bombs was adopted on May 30, 2008 and went into effect August 1, 2010 after it had been ratified by 30 countries. The agreement permits signatories to keep certain types of relatively large submunitions which have self-destruction or de-activation mechanisms, thus permitting them to be used on the battlefield as anti-tank weapons and similar purposes. The treaty was opposed by some major users of cluster bombs, by signed by many others.
So far, 108 nations have signed the agreement, and 43 have ratified it. Among the NATO members which have ratified it are Britain, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and Norway. NATO nations which have signed it include Canada, France, Italy and the Netherlands. It has also been signed by such other important American allies as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Mexico, Chile, Iraq and Ireland.
Signatories must destroy their stockpiles of cluster munitions within ten years, but seven countries have already started doing so, and two more are clearing then from areas where they had been used.
Notable in their refusal to sign are the United States, Israel, Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea. The same sorry list has refused to sign the Ottawa treaty on landmines (formerly, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction). Such good company we keep!
It is time for America to join the community of nations working to make the world - and even the battlefield - safer for civilians. It is time for the United States to sign and ratify both the landmine and cluster munitions treaties.
Sources:
Convention on Cluster Munitions
Alastair Leithead, "Cluster Bomb Stockpiles 'Being Destroyed,'" BBC, November 1, 2010
John F. Burns, "Britain Joins a Draft Treaty on Cluster Munitions," New York Times, May 29, 2008
"Convention on Cluster Munitions," Wikipedia
International Campaign to Ban Landmines
Thus, a large number of civilians have been killed by cluster munitions have killed over the years, and some estimate that a quarter of them have been children who find unexploded sub-munitions and begin to play with them.
An international treaty banning most forms of cluster bombs was adopted on May 30, 2008 and went into effect August 1, 2010 after it had been ratified by 30 countries. The agreement permits signatories to keep certain types of relatively large submunitions which have self-destruction or de-activation mechanisms, thus permitting them to be used on the battlefield as anti-tank weapons and similar purposes. The treaty was opposed by some major users of cluster bombs, by signed by many others.
So far, 108 nations have signed the agreement, and 43 have ratified it. Among the NATO members which have ratified it are Britain, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and Norway. NATO nations which have signed it include Canada, France, Italy and the Netherlands. It has also been signed by such other important American allies as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Mexico, Chile, Iraq and Ireland.
Signatories must destroy their stockpiles of cluster munitions within ten years, but seven countries have already started doing so, and two more are clearing then from areas where they had been used.
Notable in their refusal to sign are the United States, Israel, Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea. The same sorry list has refused to sign the Ottawa treaty on landmines (formerly, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction). Such good company we keep!
It is time for America to join the community of nations working to make the world - and even the battlefield - safer for civilians. It is time for the United States to sign and ratify both the landmine and cluster munitions treaties.
Sources:
Convention on Cluster Munitions
Alastair Leithead, "Cluster Bomb Stockpiles 'Being Destroyed,'" BBC, November 1, 2010
John F. Burns, "Britain Joins a Draft Treaty on Cluster Munitions," New York Times, May 29, 2008
"Convention on Cluster Munitions," Wikipedia
International Campaign to Ban Landmines
08 April 2010
Virginia Treason Month
The governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, my own state, has named April to be "Confederate History Month." One wonders why. What does he think we should celebrate? Treason? Bloody, needless war? The attempted destruction of the United States? Slavery?
Oh, I know, apologists for the secessionists will reject the treason charge. But what is the truth? Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, George Pickett, Jeb Stuart, Jubal Early, and just about all of the other Confederate "heroes" swore to "bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and [to] serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever." No exceptions, no limitations, no avenues for evasion, no escape clause. And certainly no allowance for rebellion. Oath-breakers, all. Enemies and opposers of the United States. Treason. Is this what Governor McDonell wants to honor?
The same apologists will blithely skip over the terrible blood price of their war, or wrap it in a filmy gauze. But face it; the War of Southern Treason was the bloodiest war in our history, even when counted in absolute numbers; deadlier than both World Wars combined. As a proportion of our population, their war was even worse, killing nearly one out of every 50 Americans, and maiming far more. Those weren't numbers; they were sons, husbands, brothers, fathers, dying in agony, millions of man-years of potential life, snuffed out. Hundreds of thousands of families shattered, widows and children thrust into destitution, wives and mothers keening for their dead. Is that what Governor McDonell wants to celebrate?
The proclamation refers to the South's treasonous war as "a war between the states for independence." Independence? No, destruction of the United States. Destruction just as sure as envisioned by any of our foreign enemies. Funny how many apologists for the Confederacy today proclaim loudly an espoused patriotism for the country their heros tried to destroy. Had the South succeeded in seceding, what would have become of what was left? Every regional squabble would have carried the threat of further dissolution, until North America was utterly Balkanized, with its various fragments lurching form one European alliance to another, dragging us into innumerable wars. Where, then, would have been the bastion of hope, the arsenal of democracy, when the Nazis marched over Europe, when Stalin looked for conquest?
The governor speaks of the "sacrifices" of Confederate leaders and soldiers. What of the sacrifices of the millions of heros who paid with their blood and sweat to save the United States from the terror the Southerners brought to the land? They are the ones I would honor.
And then there was that little matter unmentioned by the governor, that curious institution which bound men and women as property of other men and women. What was slavery? Do they reflect on that as they celebrate "Confederate History Month"? What do those who wax nostalgic for the Old South think of slavery? As little more than a form of employment for those enslaved, exchanging their labor for room and board, and not of much significance beyond that? Slavery was oppression, at its most vile. A human being who had no future but toil. A human being utterly subjected to the whims and caprices of his and her oppressor. Men and women denied the ability to strive for better lives, build families, raise children, know their parents and their brothers and sisters. Women raped to serve the carnal lusts of their oppressors. Men beaten and humiliated to profit and amuse the heartless who commanded them, the psychopaths who abused them. What would the governor have us celebrate about the effect of the Confederacy upon their lives?
Oh, I know, the apologists will argue that the South's treason was about states rights, and a way of life, and an economic order. But slavery was the essential link to all of those things. Without slavery, the supposed cause of states' rights would have been meaningless, except perhaps to debating societies. Without slavery, the Southern way of life wouldn't have existed. Without slavery, the Southern economic order would not have been opposed to the rest of the country. The Civil War was about slavery; the Confederacy was about the debasement of millions of Americans. Is that what Governor McDonell wants to honor?
I hope not. For if it is, neither he nor his supporters understand anything about what America is. The Confederacy belongs in the dustbin of history. If this sorry chapter in Virginia's history is to be remembered, it should be understood for what it was, so that this country can finally overcome the errors that led to this greatest violation of Americans' rights, and our bloodiest war.
Oh, I know, apologists for the secessionists will reject the treason charge. But what is the truth? Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, George Pickett, Jeb Stuart, Jubal Early, and just about all of the other Confederate "heroes" swore to "bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and [to] serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever." No exceptions, no limitations, no avenues for evasion, no escape clause. And certainly no allowance for rebellion. Oath-breakers, all. Enemies and opposers of the United States. Treason. Is this what Governor McDonell wants to honor?
The same apologists will blithely skip over the terrible blood price of their war, or wrap it in a filmy gauze. But face it; the War of Southern Treason was the bloodiest war in our history, even when counted in absolute numbers; deadlier than both World Wars combined. As a proportion of our population, their war was even worse, killing nearly one out of every 50 Americans, and maiming far more. Those weren't numbers; they were sons, husbands, brothers, fathers, dying in agony, millions of man-years of potential life, snuffed out. Hundreds of thousands of families shattered, widows and children thrust into destitution, wives and mothers keening for their dead. Is that what Governor McDonell wants to celebrate?
The proclamation refers to the South's treasonous war as "a war between the states for independence." Independence? No, destruction of the United States. Destruction just as sure as envisioned by any of our foreign enemies. Funny how many apologists for the Confederacy today proclaim loudly an espoused patriotism for the country their heros tried to destroy. Had the South succeeded in seceding, what would have become of what was left? Every regional squabble would have carried the threat of further dissolution, until North America was utterly Balkanized, with its various fragments lurching form one European alliance to another, dragging us into innumerable wars. Where, then, would have been the bastion of hope, the arsenal of democracy, when the Nazis marched over Europe, when Stalin looked for conquest?
The governor speaks of the "sacrifices" of Confederate leaders and soldiers. What of the sacrifices of the millions of heros who paid with their blood and sweat to save the United States from the terror the Southerners brought to the land? They are the ones I would honor.
And then there was that little matter unmentioned by the governor, that curious institution which bound men and women as property of other men and women. What was slavery? Do they reflect on that as they celebrate "Confederate History Month"? What do those who wax nostalgic for the Old South think of slavery? As little more than a form of employment for those enslaved, exchanging their labor for room and board, and not of much significance beyond that? Slavery was oppression, at its most vile. A human being who had no future but toil. A human being utterly subjected to the whims and caprices of his and her oppressor. Men and women denied the ability to strive for better lives, build families, raise children, know their parents and their brothers and sisters. Women raped to serve the carnal lusts of their oppressors. Men beaten and humiliated to profit and amuse the heartless who commanded them, the psychopaths who abused them. What would the governor have us celebrate about the effect of the Confederacy upon their lives?
Oh, I know, the apologists will argue that the South's treason was about states rights, and a way of life, and an economic order. But slavery was the essential link to all of those things. Without slavery, the supposed cause of states' rights would have been meaningless, except perhaps to debating societies. Without slavery, the Southern way of life wouldn't have existed. Without slavery, the Southern economic order would not have been opposed to the rest of the country. The Civil War was about slavery; the Confederacy was about the debasement of millions of Americans. Is that what Governor McDonell wants to honor?
I hope not. For if it is, neither he nor his supporters understand anything about what America is. The Confederacy belongs in the dustbin of history. If this sorry chapter in Virginia's history is to be remembered, it should be understood for what it was, so that this country can finally overcome the errors that led to this greatest violation of Americans' rights, and our bloodiest war.
08 November 2009
Tragic, futile milestone
The results are in: more allied troops have died in Afghanistan this year than in any year since the war began. An "improvised explosive device" killed four American troops today, raising the total of allied dead to 295 for the year, one more than last year's record total. Since the war began, 1,340 have been killed. Of those, 802 have been Americans, including 172 this year.
Update: As of 8 Nov. 2009 it's 466, for a total of 1,513; 916 have been Americans.
Many, many more Afghans have died too, although our news media seem far less interested in them; I suppose they're just part of the scenery although to their families I'm sure their deaths are very real, indeed.
In the meantime, George W. Bush's ill-considered war has morphed into Barack Obama's, and as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs noted on Sunday, the situation is "deteriorating." How many more allied soldiers will die before President Obama decides it's time to stumble to the exit? How many more Afghan civilians?
And what will be left? Another failed state, slipping back into anarchy, chaos and oppression? A destabilized, nuclear Pakistan? An American colossus, further hobbled by debt and weakened by our reckless intrusion into the historical tangle of Afghanistan? There is no good answer, no sure solution. But what seems certain is that this war will end badly, whether it ends soon, or drags on for decades.
Our president is a learned, thoughtful person; he needs to heed the lessons of history, both Afghan and American. We need a credible exit strategy now. We need to do what we can to help Pakistan stabilize. We need to focus our resources on our own problems at home. And we need to staunch the flow of blood and treasure into the rugged soil of Afghanistan.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 25 August 2009
Update: As of 8 Nov. 2009 it's 466, for a total of 1,513; 916 have been Americans.
Many, many more Afghans have died too, although our news media seem far less interested in them; I suppose they're just part of the scenery although to their families I'm sure their deaths are very real, indeed.
In the meantime, George W. Bush's ill-considered war has morphed into Barack Obama's, and as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs noted on Sunday, the situation is "deteriorating." How many more allied soldiers will die before President Obama decides it's time to stumble to the exit? How many more Afghan civilians?
And what will be left? Another failed state, slipping back into anarchy, chaos and oppression? A destabilized, nuclear Pakistan? An American colossus, further hobbled by debt and weakened by our reckless intrusion into the historical tangle of Afghanistan? There is no good answer, no sure solution. But what seems certain is that this war will end badly, whether it ends soon, or drags on for decades.
Our president is a learned, thoughtful person; he needs to heed the lessons of history, both Afghan and American. We need a credible exit strategy now. We need to do what we can to help Pakistan stabilize. We need to focus our resources on our own problems at home. And we need to staunch the flow of blood and treasure into the rugged soil of Afghanistan.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 25 August 2009
This is what our soldiers are fighting for?
News item, as reported by BBC:
"An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law .... It allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands .... [The] bill has passed quietly into law with the apparent approval of President Karzai."
Point of reference: 1,315 allied soldiers, 782 of them from the U.S., have died to create and protect the government that just enacted this barbaric law.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 August 2009
"An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law .... It allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands .... [The] bill has passed quietly into law with the apparent approval of President Karzai."
Point of reference: 1,315 allied soldiers, 782 of them from the U.S., have died to create and protect the government that just enacted this barbaric law.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 August 2009
Pop quiz
1. Which of the following countries held presidential elections within the last decade which were marred by such widespread cheating and voting irregularities that the results were fraudulent?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
d. All of the above
2. The citizens of which of the following countries took to the streets in protest and severely disrupted or even shut down their government?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
d. Iran and Ukraine
3. The citizens of which of the following countries forced their governments to annul the fraudulent elections and hold new, fair elections?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
4. The citizens of which of the following countries reacted to the fraudulent presidential election by sitting on their hands, only to watch their unelected leader drag their country into illegal and ruinous war?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
5. Which of the following countries routinely lectures the world on the importance of democracy?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 23 June 2009
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
d. All of the above
2. The citizens of which of the following countries took to the streets in protest and severely disrupted or even shut down their government?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
d. Iran and Ukraine
3. The citizens of which of the following countries forced their governments to annul the fraudulent elections and hold new, fair elections?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
4. The citizens of which of the following countries reacted to the fraudulent presidential election by sitting on their hands, only to watch their unelected leader drag their country into illegal and ruinous war?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
5. Which of the following countries routinely lectures the world on the importance of democracy?
a. Iran
b. Ukraine
c. United States
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 23 June 2009
01 November 2009
Who now the price of his dear blood doth owe?
This is no defense of Russia's actions in Georgia. Would that they had used methods other than massive, deadly force. And there's probably truth to the contention that they were spoiling for an opportunity to chasten Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
But as much as the American political leadership and news media try to ignore or obfuscate the facts, the Russians engaged the Georgians in force only after Georgia had launched a massive assault on the the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. As BBC reports, on August 7, Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agreed to observe a ceasefire and hold Russian-mediated talks to end their long-simmering conflict. Hours later, however, Georgian forces launched a surprise attack, sending a large invasion force against South Ossetia and reaching the capital Tskhinvali, devastating that city and killing and maiming thousands of civilians. On August 8, Russia came to South Ossetia's aid and engaged the Georgian military. The rest we know.
Even though Georgia started this month's bloody conflict, our media and our leaders depict Russia as the aggressor, condemn Russia as the violator of peace and international law, and issue denunciations of Russia which are as hypocritical as they are severe.
Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine that in 2005, six years after the United States and other Western nations intervened in Kosovo, Serbia had launched a surprise invasion of Pristina, Kosovo's capital. Imagine that the NATO allies serving as peacekeepers in Kosovo counterattacked, blasting military bases across Serbia and driving the Serbian invaders back, deep into Serbia. Imagine that the Russians had then termed the NATO forces the aggressors and darkly hinted at reprisals. What would Americans have thought of the Russian charges?
So, how is South Ossetia's case that different from Kosovo's, except that Serbia didn't launch that attack in 2005?
But George W. Bush doesn't care who started the war. His is the focus of on unreconstructed Cold Warrior stuck in the 20th Century. Forget the facts, he seems to say; Russia is bad. AS quoted in a White House news release of 15 August, he said "The world has watched with alarm as Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatened a democratic government elected by its people. This act is completely unacceptable to the free nations of the world."
The United States sided with Kosovo both because of Serbian outrages against Kosovo, and because we sympathized with the Kosovars' thirst for freedom and autonomy. In short, we supported the separatists of Kosovo, and we still do.
The opposite is occurring in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. George W. Bush decries Russian support for the irredentist movements in Georgia, asserting that those restive provinces must be considered part of Georgia and that no country has the right to challenge Georgian sovereignty there. "There's no room for debate on this matter; we will continue to insist that Georgia's sovereignty and independence and territorial integrity be respected," he states (quoted in a White House press release of 16 August).
As with Georgia and South Ossetia, Serbia and the world used to consider Kosovo to be part of Serbia. Yet when Kosovar separatists fought for independence, the United States and other Western nations ultimately sided with Kosovo and attacked Serbia. Years later, when Kosovo asserted its legal independence, the Bush administration championed their cause rather than acknowledge Serbian sovereignty. This is not a defense of Serbia oppression of Kosovars or outrages against them, nor is it a condemnation of Kosovo's independence, but it is a fact. It is a fact, a precedent, which diametrically opposes to the principle the Bush administration is now espousing in South Ossetia.
Perhaps the best - or worst - chestnut comes from John McCain, however, when he assets in a press release of his own that "Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world."
Clear violation of international law?
Clear violation of international law???
Recent Republican administrations have a very clear record on international law, but it's not a good one. Ronald Reagan invaded the sovereign nation of Grenada on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George H.W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Panama on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq on many pretexts, in "clear violation of international law." Candidate McCain has supported all these clear violations of international law, and darkly threatens Iran with a similar fate should he take the White House.
One word describes the United States response to the recent conflict in Georgia: hypocritical.
Why does this matter? After all, Georgia is far away, and the United States does not appear likely to get caught up in the fighting there.
But what if we had a treaty obligation requiring the U.S. to go to Georgia's defense, requiring us in this case to get into a shooting war with Russia? Yet that is exactly what George W. Bush and the Republican right-wing want to do.
Caught in the trap of their Cold War mentality, they want to extend NATO membership to Georgia and other small countries formerly in the Soviet orbit, building a network of interlocking military commitments encircling the right-wing's old nemesis, Russia.
Folly!
That is how World War I started; a cascade of interlocking defense agreements led from a relatively minor act of terrorism in a remote corner of Europe to a war that engulfed the entire world. Do we want to do that again? Can we allow ourselves to be blinded by hypocritical propaganda, acquiesce to a perilously ill-advised military alliance with countries like Georgia, and link our fate to their pursuit of their own dangerous agendas?
I think not!
As for Georgia, Russia and all who would use war to settle disputes, I quote stout Mercutio: a plague o' both your houses!
ADDENDUM: Michael Dobbs, former Moscow bureau chief for the Washington Post, has a good column on the topic.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 August 2008; it has been revised slightly because some of the original documents to which it linked have been removed from the Web.
But as much as the American political leadership and news media try to ignore or obfuscate the facts, the Russians engaged the Georgians in force only after Georgia had launched a massive assault on the the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. As BBC reports, on August 7, Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agreed to observe a ceasefire and hold Russian-mediated talks to end their long-simmering conflict. Hours later, however, Georgian forces launched a surprise attack, sending a large invasion force against South Ossetia and reaching the capital Tskhinvali, devastating that city and killing and maiming thousands of civilians. On August 8, Russia came to South Ossetia's aid and engaged the Georgian military. The rest we know.
Even though Georgia started this month's bloody conflict, our media and our leaders depict Russia as the aggressor, condemn Russia as the violator of peace and international law, and issue denunciations of Russia which are as hypocritical as they are severe.
Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine that in 2005, six years after the United States and other Western nations intervened in Kosovo, Serbia had launched a surprise invasion of Pristina, Kosovo's capital. Imagine that the NATO allies serving as peacekeepers in Kosovo counterattacked, blasting military bases across Serbia and driving the Serbian invaders back, deep into Serbia. Imagine that the Russians had then termed the NATO forces the aggressors and darkly hinted at reprisals. What would Americans have thought of the Russian charges?
So, how is South Ossetia's case that different from Kosovo's, except that Serbia didn't launch that attack in 2005?
But George W. Bush doesn't care who started the war. His is the focus of on unreconstructed Cold Warrior stuck in the 20th Century. Forget the facts, he seems to say; Russia is bad. AS quoted in a White House news release of 15 August, he said "The world has watched with alarm as Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatened a democratic government elected by its people. This act is completely unacceptable to the free nations of the world."
The United States sided with Kosovo both because of Serbian outrages against Kosovo, and because we sympathized with the Kosovars' thirst for freedom and autonomy. In short, we supported the separatists of Kosovo, and we still do.
The opposite is occurring in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. George W. Bush decries Russian support for the irredentist movements in Georgia, asserting that those restive provinces must be considered part of Georgia and that no country has the right to challenge Georgian sovereignty there. "There's no room for debate on this matter; we will continue to insist that Georgia's sovereignty and independence and territorial integrity be respected," he states (quoted in a White House press release of 16 August).
As with Georgia and South Ossetia, Serbia and the world used to consider Kosovo to be part of Serbia. Yet when Kosovar separatists fought for independence, the United States and other Western nations ultimately sided with Kosovo and attacked Serbia. Years later, when Kosovo asserted its legal independence, the Bush administration championed their cause rather than acknowledge Serbian sovereignty. This is not a defense of Serbia oppression of Kosovars or outrages against them, nor is it a condemnation of Kosovo's independence, but it is a fact. It is a fact, a precedent, which diametrically opposes to the principle the Bush administration is now espousing in South Ossetia.
Perhaps the best - or worst - chestnut comes from John McCain, however, when he assets in a press release of his own that "Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world."
Clear violation of international law?
Clear violation of international law???
Recent Republican administrations have a very clear record on international law, but it's not a good one. Ronald Reagan invaded the sovereign nation of Grenada on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George H.W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Panama on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq on many pretexts, in "clear violation of international law." Candidate McCain has supported all these clear violations of international law, and darkly threatens Iran with a similar fate should he take the White House.
One word describes the United States response to the recent conflict in Georgia: hypocritical.
Why does this matter? After all, Georgia is far away, and the United States does not appear likely to get caught up in the fighting there.
But what if we had a treaty obligation requiring the U.S. to go to Georgia's defense, requiring us in this case to get into a shooting war with Russia? Yet that is exactly what George W. Bush and the Republican right-wing want to do.
Caught in the trap of their Cold War mentality, they want to extend NATO membership to Georgia and other small countries formerly in the Soviet orbit, building a network of interlocking military commitments encircling the right-wing's old nemesis, Russia.
Folly!
That is how World War I started; a cascade of interlocking defense agreements led from a relatively minor act of terrorism in a remote corner of Europe to a war that engulfed the entire world. Do we want to do that again? Can we allow ourselves to be blinded by hypocritical propaganda, acquiesce to a perilously ill-advised military alliance with countries like Georgia, and link our fate to their pursuit of their own dangerous agendas?
I think not!
As for Georgia, Russia and all who would use war to settle disputes, I quote stout Mercutio: a plague o' both your houses!
ADDENDUM: Michael Dobbs, former Moscow bureau chief for the Washington Post, has a good column on the topic.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 August 2008; it has been revised slightly because some of the original documents to which it linked have been removed from the Web.
31 October 2009
A key to unlocking a vital door to peace
The key to nearly the full range of conflicts in the Middle East is the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict which establishes a viable Palestinian state and leads to a secure Israel, thereby removing a casus belli within the Middle East and leading ultimately to the furtherance of regional prosperity and peace. I've become increasingly convinced that the political forces holding that key reside in America and shape the direction of American policy towards the region.
In that light, I recommend an opinion piece appearing in today's New York Times by Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for The Atlantic, who argues that the long-range interests of Israel depend upon the emergence of a Palestinian state and that American supporters of Israel must come to realize what many Israelis already know, that the Israel that they value cannot continue to exist unless the emergence of such a state is encouraged.
Goldberg's column can be found through this link to the Times.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 May 2008
In that light, I recommend an opinion piece appearing in today's New York Times by Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for The Atlantic, who argues that the long-range interests of Israel depend upon the emergence of a Palestinian state and that American supporters of Israel must come to realize what many Israelis already know, that the Israel that they value cannot continue to exist unless the emergence of such a state is encouraged.
Goldberg's column can be found through this link to the Times.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 May 2008
Restraining the four horsemen of the Apocalypse
George W. Bush is a master at redefining the bottom. Every time it's seemed that he's plumbed the lowest levels of leadership, he discovers ways to slide even deeper into the muck at the bottom. Today in Israel he did it again.
"Some seem to believe," he said, "that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement."
Like much of what he says, this has a patina of sensibility to it. But as usual, that thin patina proves to be only camouflage for demagoguery.
What's he really saying here? That we shouldn't negotiate with our adversaries simply because they are, well, our adversaries? How, pray tell, is it otherwise possible to resolve conflicts, save by annihilation? Should we negotiate only with our friends, with people we find agreeable? Much help that is in resolving disputes.
The real world is filled with conflict. The quality that separates civilization from barbarism isn't the lack of conflict, but the ability to deal with conflict without resorting to violence and coercion. Negotiation is the tool for resolving conflicts. The only tool. Yes, that means talking with adversaries, even negotiating with them. But it's infinitely better than the desolation of war.
The easy route, the cheap route, the cowardly route, the barbaric route, is the one Bush would use. Negotiation is the more difficult, the more courageous, the more honorable ... but ultimately, the only successful way to resolve conflicts and still restrain the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 15 May 2008
Bush should be ashamed. But he's not, so his misguided approach must be condemned.
"Some seem to believe," he said, "that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement."
Like much of what he says, this has a patina of sensibility to it. But as usual, that thin patina proves to be only camouflage for demagoguery.
What's he really saying here? That we shouldn't negotiate with our adversaries simply because they are, well, our adversaries? How, pray tell, is it otherwise possible to resolve conflicts, save by annihilation? Should we negotiate only with our friends, with people we find agreeable? Much help that is in resolving disputes.
The real world is filled with conflict. The quality that separates civilization from barbarism isn't the lack of conflict, but the ability to deal with conflict without resorting to violence and coercion. Negotiation is the tool for resolving conflicts. The only tool. Yes, that means talking with adversaries, even negotiating with them. But it's infinitely better than the desolation of war.
The easy route, the cheap route, the cowardly route, the barbaric route, is the one Bush would use. Negotiation is the more difficult, the more courageous, the more honorable ... but ultimately, the only successful way to resolve conflicts and still restrain the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 15 May 2008
Bush should be ashamed. But he's not, so his misguided approach must be condemned.
The war won't go away
The war has receded from the headlines, displaced by the Presidential campaign, the credit implosion and resultant threat of recession, and the latest politicosexual contratemps in New York ... and especially the false but oft-repeated assertion that the "surge is working." Recent days have brought several grim reminders that the war won't go away, but will continue to demand our attention for quite some time to come.
First, there's the unending horror of the war itself. Yes, the number of American casualties is down, but yesterday's deadly blasts killing eight American soldiers was a distressing reminder that it continues. In fact, about as many American soldiers died over the past five full months as during the five months following George W. Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" photo-op on the U.S.S. Lincoln nearly four and a half years earlier, and quite a few more were wounded.
The horror has been even worse for Iraqis. Five were killed by a suicide bomber in Dhuluiya today and another ten in Kut, plus 16 in a bombed out bus near Basra and two political leaders in Falluja with five more killed by gunmen in Mosul. The day before, gunmen killed a doctor in Basra, a minibus bomb killed one in Baghdad, a suicide bomber blew up two in Muqdadiya, three were murdered in Mosul, and a suicide bomber killed a Sunni leader northeast of Baghdad. Last Thursday bombs killed 68 shoppers in Baghdad, on a day when other attacks killed one in the al-Waziriya district, four in Basra, and four more in Mosul. Day after day, Iraqis are being killed and maimed. Perhaps it's at a lower rate than during the worst of 2007, but let us not pretend the suffering is going away.
Meanwhile, let's face it, there's precious little evidence the Iraqis have been using the the surge as cover for forging the democratic, pluralistic government of national unity they need to create peace ... and without which, the war can never end on any terms remotely resembling real peace.
Then there's the cost. The Nobel laureate economist, Joseph Stiglitz, writing with Linda Bilmes, released a study this past week forecasting that the total cost of the war will be around $3 trillion when all the indirect costs are computed, including costs as diverse as long-term care for injured veterans and debt service costs for the massive borrowing the administration is using to finance the war. In the short term, the we're squandering treasure that could be used to address such pressing needs as funding national health care, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, improving schools, developing energy alternatives, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and balancing the budget. In the long-term, the war is seriously jeopardizing our economic future, constraining our ability to deal with other problems and handicapping us in the world economic and political arena.
And then there's the utter lack of any reasonable hope that it will end within the foreseeable future. The administration and its sycophants foresee no end to the war until the distant golden day when "victory" -- undefined and unknowable -- is finally attained.they'll be long gone while the war still drags on and poisons all aspects of national life.
As Stiglitz and Bilmes note, "the United States will be paying the price of Iraq for decades to come ... and the cost will grow the longer we remain." The time to end this awful war is now.
Note: this was orginially posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 March 2008
First, there's the unending horror of the war itself. Yes, the number of American casualties is down, but yesterday's deadly blasts killing eight American soldiers was a distressing reminder that it continues. In fact, about as many American soldiers died over the past five full months as during the five months following George W. Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" photo-op on the U.S.S. Lincoln nearly four and a half years earlier, and quite a few more were wounded.
The horror has been even worse for Iraqis. Five were killed by a suicide bomber in Dhuluiya today and another ten in Kut, plus 16 in a bombed out bus near Basra and two political leaders in Falluja with five more killed by gunmen in Mosul. The day before, gunmen killed a doctor in Basra, a minibus bomb killed one in Baghdad, a suicide bomber blew up two in Muqdadiya, three were murdered in Mosul, and a suicide bomber killed a Sunni leader northeast of Baghdad. Last Thursday bombs killed 68 shoppers in Baghdad, on a day when other attacks killed one in the al-Waziriya district, four in Basra, and four more in Mosul. Day after day, Iraqis are being killed and maimed. Perhaps it's at a lower rate than during the worst of 2007, but let us not pretend the suffering is going away.
Meanwhile, let's face it, there's precious little evidence the Iraqis have been using the the surge as cover for forging the democratic, pluralistic government of national unity they need to create peace ... and without which, the war can never end on any terms remotely resembling real peace.
Then there's the cost. The Nobel laureate economist, Joseph Stiglitz, writing with Linda Bilmes, released a study this past week forecasting that the total cost of the war will be around $3 trillion when all the indirect costs are computed, including costs as diverse as long-term care for injured veterans and debt service costs for the massive borrowing the administration is using to finance the war. In the short term, the we're squandering treasure that could be used to address such pressing needs as funding national health care, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, improving schools, developing energy alternatives, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and balancing the budget. In the long-term, the war is seriously jeopardizing our economic future, constraining our ability to deal with other problems and handicapping us in the world economic and political arena.
And then there's the utter lack of any reasonable hope that it will end within the foreseeable future. The administration and its sycophants foresee no end to the war until the distant golden day when "victory" -- undefined and unknowable -- is finally attained.they'll be long gone while the war still drags on and poisons all aspects of national life.
As Stiglitz and Bilmes note, "the United States will be paying the price of Iraq for decades to come ... and the cost will grow the longer we remain." The time to end this awful war is now.
Note: this was orginially posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 March 2008
29 October 2009
The red phone test
As you undoubtedly know by now, Hillary Clinton is running an ad in her race against Barack Obama in which the "red phone" in the White House rings during the middle of the night as the narrator reminds voters that they will decide who answers, darkly hinting that it better not be Obama.
Wrong. Hillary Clinton has already flunked the test.
The foreign policy crisis came, and she reacted the wrong way.
Time and time again she has excused her support for George W. Bush's criminal war in Iraq by saying "If I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted that way," when in fact anybody who was paying attention (and millions of us were, with millions more abroad ... and dozens more in Congress) already knew the administration's case for war was specious. Clinton didn't care what she knew; she was too busy pandering to the right. Since then, she has come to criticize the administration's abominable handling of the war, but she has never repudiated her vote, her early support for the war, or her consequent complicity for the oceans of blood that this illegal war has shed and the trillions in treasure it has cost America.
Hillary Clinton is running on her "experience." But her most important foreign policy experience was to commit a colossal mistake.
If the red phone rings, I hope it's not Hillary Clinton who answers.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 March 2008
Wrong. Hillary Clinton has already flunked the test.
The foreign policy crisis came, and she reacted the wrong way.
Time and time again she has excused her support for George W. Bush's criminal war in Iraq by saying "If I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted that way," when in fact anybody who was paying attention (and millions of us were, with millions more abroad ... and dozens more in Congress) already knew the administration's case for war was specious. Clinton didn't care what she knew; she was too busy pandering to the right. Since then, she has come to criticize the administration's abominable handling of the war, but she has never repudiated her vote, her early support for the war, or her consequent complicity for the oceans of blood that this illegal war has shed and the trillions in treasure it has cost America.
Hillary Clinton is running on her "experience." But her most important foreign policy experience was to commit a colossal mistake.
If the red phone rings, I hope it's not Hillary Clinton who answers.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 March 2008
Cold-war redux
Letter in response to a Los Angeles Times article, A Cold War redux is seen on the horizon, January 29, 2008
Rather than enlighten its readers, the Times' article on U.S.-Russian relations ("A Cold War Redux Is Seen on the Horizon," Jan. 29) fosters tensions through its curiously one-sided reportage. It may well be that Bush administration officials have concluded that "Russia is now more comfortable with the U.S. as an enemy than an ally," but if so, they are merely projecting their own prejudices on the Kremlin, for there is strong evidence that it has been U.S. policies and statements which are predominantly responsible for the deterioration. It was the Bush administration which unilaterally abandoned the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty; works to militarize space; plans new generations of nuclear arms; endeavors to push NATO's borders eastward and establish military relationships with countries encircling Russia; and is trying to establish ABM batteries along Russia's western borders. And it has been the Bush administration which has been pursuing reckless and destabilizing policies in the Middle East, the Caucuses and southwest Asia, regions of considerable strategic importance to Russia. Russian analysts and leaders reasonably perceive these actions and aims as threatening to Russian security, and have reacted in the regrettable but understandable ways described in the article. We should not be blind to the disturbing anti-democratic developments within Russia, but tensions would be much lower and the U.S. would be able to play a far more constructive role if our policies were better chosen, and if our news media were more objective in their reporting. Let us hope that 2009 brings us an administration which pursues a wiser course.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 29 January 2008
Rather than enlighten its readers, the Times' article on U.S.-Russian relations ("A Cold War Redux Is Seen on the Horizon," Jan. 29) fosters tensions through its curiously one-sided reportage. It may well be that Bush administration officials have concluded that "Russia is now more comfortable with the U.S. as an enemy than an ally," but if so, they are merely projecting their own prejudices on the Kremlin, for there is strong evidence that it has been U.S. policies and statements which are predominantly responsible for the deterioration. It was the Bush administration which unilaterally abandoned the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty; works to militarize space; plans new generations of nuclear arms; endeavors to push NATO's borders eastward and establish military relationships with countries encircling Russia; and is trying to establish ABM batteries along Russia's western borders. And it has been the Bush administration which has been pursuing reckless and destabilizing policies in the Middle East, the Caucuses and southwest Asia, regions of considerable strategic importance to Russia. Russian analysts and leaders reasonably perceive these actions and aims as threatening to Russian security, and have reacted in the regrettable but understandable ways described in the article. We should not be blind to the disturbing anti-democratic developments within Russia, but tensions would be much lower and the U.S. would be able to play a far more constructive role if our policies were better chosen, and if our news media were more objective in their reporting. Let us hope that 2009 brings us an administration which pursues a wiser course.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 29 January 2008
28 October 2009
Don't bother the War Post with facts
To the Washington Post:
Your editorial of January 17, "Fight in Afghanistan," unfairly denigrates the contribution of our NATO allies in Afghanistan, alleging that they are "too averse to casualties" to be as effective as U.S. troops and backing up that derogatory insinuation with a cruelly misleading comparison of the number of fatalities suffered since the invasion of Afghanistan began. However, since the middle of 2006 when NATO significantly increased its force size and shouldered a larger share of allied operations, it has been our allies, primarily from NATO, who have paid the higher blood cost, with 193 allied fatalities compared to 165 U.S. troops. Happily, I haven't heard of any of our NATO allies alleging a similar canard about the U.S.
Note: This is in response to a Washington Post editorial of January 17, 2008.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 January 2008
Your editorial of January 17, "Fight in Afghanistan," unfairly denigrates the contribution of our NATO allies in Afghanistan, alleging that they are "too averse to casualties" to be as effective as U.S. troops and backing up that derogatory insinuation with a cruelly misleading comparison of the number of fatalities suffered since the invasion of Afghanistan began. However, since the middle of 2006 when NATO significantly increased its force size and shouldered a larger share of allied operations, it has been our allies, primarily from NATO, who have paid the higher blood cost, with 193 allied fatalities compared to 165 U.S. troops. Happily, I haven't heard of any of our NATO allies alleging a similar canard about the U.S.
Note: This is in response to a Washington Post editorial of January 17, 2008.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 January 2008
And is there a follow-up question?
Four days ago, George W. Bush's National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley snuck another one by that somnolent lap dog known as "the working press."
The topic was the recent National Intelligence Estimate which found that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons policy back in 2003, a finding which significantly undercuts the administration's heated rhetoric about the supposed threat of Iranian mushroom clouds. (Recall that the NIE is a consensus document of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.)
At a press briefing during Bush's current Middle East trip, Hadley forcefully mouthed the White House line, saying that Bush believes that "Iran was a threat before the NIE, was a threat on the day the NIE was issued, and continues to be a threat after the NIE has been issued."
Put simply, the NIE didn't change Bush's perceptions one iota.
Do you see the teensy-weensy little logical problem here? If so, you're doing better than the press corpse, because the ladies and gentlemen of the 4th Estate totally dropped the ball. Again.
What the administration is really saying is that George W. Bush assumes he knows better than all the intelligence personnel in all of our intelligence agencies, that his gut is a better source of information than the multi-billion dollar intelligence community America has painfully developed.
Okay, so how does he know? Is he withholding information from the CIA, DIA, NSA, et al.? Or does he just know? Maybe a little bird told him? Or one of his neocon buddies, the same sorts of folks who got Iraq so terribly wrong? Or is he just blowing air, figuring that if he repeats a lie often enough, we'll believe it?
Or at least the press will. Again.
Don't confuse Bush with facts; his mind is already made up.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 14 January 2008
The topic was the recent National Intelligence Estimate which found that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons policy back in 2003, a finding which significantly undercuts the administration's heated rhetoric about the supposed threat of Iranian mushroom clouds. (Recall that the NIE is a consensus document of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.)
At a press briefing during Bush's current Middle East trip, Hadley forcefully mouthed the White House line, saying that Bush believes that "Iran was a threat before the NIE, was a threat on the day the NIE was issued, and continues to be a threat after the NIE has been issued."
Put simply, the NIE didn't change Bush's perceptions one iota.
Do you see the teensy-weensy little logical problem here? If so, you're doing better than the press corpse, because the ladies and gentlemen of the 4th Estate totally dropped the ball. Again.
What the administration is really saying is that George W. Bush assumes he knows better than all the intelligence personnel in all of our intelligence agencies, that his gut is a better source of information than the multi-billion dollar intelligence community America has painfully developed.
Okay, so how does he know? Is he withholding information from the CIA, DIA, NSA, et al.? Or does he just know? Maybe a little bird told him? Or one of his neocon buddies, the same sorts of folks who got Iraq so terribly wrong? Or is he just blowing air, figuring that if he repeats a lie often enough, we'll believe it?
Or at least the press will. Again.
Don't confuse Bush with facts; his mind is already made up.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 14 January 2008
Is he really this ignorant?
Or does he just think we are?
George W. Bush visited Israel and Palestine this week, and came up with three statements which appallingly revealed either how ignorant he is, or how ignorant he thinks we are.
For one thing, after having all but ignored the Arab-Israeli conflict for the past seven years -- and, indeed, having thrown in with the Israelis and further antagonized the Palestinians every time the region heated up -- Bush somehow manages to say, "I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office. That's what I believe." Incredible. It takes more than blind faith to make that leap. If he truly believes that one, he's the only person on earth who does.
During the trip, he also repeatedly made comments such as this: "But the only lasting peace will be achieved when the duly elected leaders of the respective peoples do the hard work." Does this mean he's forsaking Abbas for Hamas? For in fact, whether he likes it or not, the duly elected leaders of Palestine are from the Hamas party. Bush has consistently refused to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that in the most recent free and democratic Palestinian elections, Hamas swept to an overwhelming victory over the Fatah party of Abbas, and that Abbas remains in power on the West bank primarily through force of arms. So with this statement, Bush demonstrates a total disregard for the principle of democracy for Palestinians. (Of course, I suppose this is hardly surprising, given Bush's happily moving into the White House after losing the 2000 election by 532,000 votes; one doesn't look to the leader of a constitutional putsch to care much about the voice of the people.)
Given his lack of knowledge about contemporary issues, I suppose it's hardly surprising that his grasp of history is just as poor. While in Israel, Bush visited the Israeli Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, he "was most impressed that people, in the face of horror and evil, would not forsake their God, and in the face of unspeakable crimes against humanity, brave souls young and old stood strong for what they believe."
Wrong.
The 6 million Jews (and Roma, and homosexuals, and other victims of the Holocaust) weren't murdered because of their beliefs, but because of who they were. Jews who were atheists, Jews who were agnostics, Jews who had converted to Christianity, and people who only had only one Jewish parent and might not have considered themselves Jewish at all were murdered right along with the most pious of Jews, simply because the Nazis considered them all Jewish, and all sub-human. They couldn't have saved themselves from the gas chambers by renouncing their religion if they had wanted to; with the greatest possible respect for these victims, one must say that the strength of their faith was immaterial to their mortal fate.
Hitler wasn't interest in their conversion to Christianity. He wasn't trying to "Christianize" (it seems horrific to use the term in such a context) Jews. He was trying to exterminate them. They were murdered for their ancestry.
Mass murder is repugnant in all its forms, but it is worst when it is used to exterminate people for immutable qualities of their being. This wasn't some horribly criminal attempt to influence religious beliefs; it was genocide at its very worst. Bush should know that. Every human should know that.
But then, maybe some of us are so stupid, after all. I heard one reporter ask Bush how it felt to be "walking in the footsteps of Jesus." Huh? Walking in the footsteps of Jesus? Is there any contemporary American who has demonstrated less of an inclination to walk in the footsteps of Jesus than George W. Bush? If the answer to that question isn't painfully obvious to you, go back and read the Beatitudes, and then reflect on the entirety of Bush's career in the public sector: the illegal and awful war in Iraq, the executions, the manifold suffering he has visited upon millions, his disregard for the sufferers, his clear preference for the rich and powerful coupled to his contempt for the meek, his ridicule of the world's peacemakers, his disdain for all of creation; the list goes on and on. There is absolutely no way George W. Bush could be considered to be "walking in the footsteps of Jesus," and anybody who could even ask the question must be as stupid as Bush and his handlers think we all are.
Note: this was originally posted in ketches, yaks & hawks 11 January 2008
George W. Bush visited Israel and Palestine this week, and came up with three statements which appallingly revealed either how ignorant he is, or how ignorant he thinks we are.
For one thing, after having all but ignored the Arab-Israeli conflict for the past seven years -- and, indeed, having thrown in with the Israelis and further antagonized the Palestinians every time the region heated up -- Bush somehow manages to say, "I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office. That's what I believe." Incredible. It takes more than blind faith to make that leap. If he truly believes that one, he's the only person on earth who does.
During the trip, he also repeatedly made comments such as this: "But the only lasting peace will be achieved when the duly elected leaders of the respective peoples do the hard work." Does this mean he's forsaking Abbas for Hamas? For in fact, whether he likes it or not, the duly elected leaders of Palestine are from the Hamas party. Bush has consistently refused to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that in the most recent free and democratic Palestinian elections, Hamas swept to an overwhelming victory over the Fatah party of Abbas, and that Abbas remains in power on the West bank primarily through force of arms. So with this statement, Bush demonstrates a total disregard for the principle of democracy for Palestinians. (Of course, I suppose this is hardly surprising, given Bush's happily moving into the White House after losing the 2000 election by 532,000 votes; one doesn't look to the leader of a constitutional putsch to care much about the voice of the people.)
Given his lack of knowledge about contemporary issues, I suppose it's hardly surprising that his grasp of history is just as poor. While in Israel, Bush visited the Israeli Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, he "was most impressed that people, in the face of horror and evil, would not forsake their God, and in the face of unspeakable crimes against humanity, brave souls young and old stood strong for what they believe."
Wrong.
The 6 million Jews (and Roma, and homosexuals, and other victims of the Holocaust) weren't murdered because of their beliefs, but because of who they were. Jews who were atheists, Jews who were agnostics, Jews who had converted to Christianity, and people who only had only one Jewish parent and might not have considered themselves Jewish at all were murdered right along with the most pious of Jews, simply because the Nazis considered them all Jewish, and all sub-human. They couldn't have saved themselves from the gas chambers by renouncing their religion if they had wanted to; with the greatest possible respect for these victims, one must say that the strength of their faith was immaterial to their mortal fate.
Hitler wasn't interest in their conversion to Christianity. He wasn't trying to "Christianize" (it seems horrific to use the term in such a context) Jews. He was trying to exterminate them. They were murdered for their ancestry.
Mass murder is repugnant in all its forms, but it is worst when it is used to exterminate people for immutable qualities of their being. This wasn't some horribly criminal attempt to influence religious beliefs; it was genocide at its very worst. Bush should know that. Every human should know that.
But then, maybe some of us are so stupid, after all. I heard one reporter ask Bush how it felt to be "walking in the footsteps of Jesus." Huh? Walking in the footsteps of Jesus? Is there any contemporary American who has demonstrated less of an inclination to walk in the footsteps of Jesus than George W. Bush? If the answer to that question isn't painfully obvious to you, go back and read the Beatitudes, and then reflect on the entirety of Bush's career in the public sector: the illegal and awful war in Iraq, the executions, the manifold suffering he has visited upon millions, his disregard for the sufferers, his clear preference for the rich and powerful coupled to his contempt for the meek, his ridicule of the world's peacemakers, his disdain for all of creation; the list goes on and on. There is absolutely no way George W. Bush could be considered to be "walking in the footsteps of Jesus," and anybody who could even ask the question must be as stupid as Bush and his handlers think we all are.
Note: this was originally posted in ketches, yaks & hawks 11 January 2008
27 October 2009
One more teensy-weensy reason not to bomb Iran
Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. So no excuse for a surgical strike. Darn. But there you have it.
Not my opinion -- it's a National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus view of the various U.S. intelligence agencies. Which means that all the demagogic bellicosity emanating from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, a discouragingly bipartisan coalition of presidential candidates and a devil's chorus of belligerent pundits is just that: demagogic bellicosity. Someday, Iran might build nukes, but for the past four years they haven't even been trying.
See the story in the New York Times (click here) or, if you don't want to believe that bastion of east coast intellectual snobbery, try the Washington Post (click here) or CNN (click here).
Any bets that this will silence the calls for bombing Iran?
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 December 2007
Not my opinion -- it's a National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus view of the various U.S. intelligence agencies. Which means that all the demagogic bellicosity emanating from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, a discouragingly bipartisan coalition of presidential candidates and a devil's chorus of belligerent pundits is just that: demagogic bellicosity. Someday, Iran might build nukes, but for the past four years they haven't even been trying.
See the story in the New York Times (click here) or, if you don't want to believe that bastion of east coast intellectual snobbery, try the Washington Post (click here) or CNN (click here).
Any bets that this will silence the calls for bombing Iran?
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 December 2007
Deterrence works; war doesn't
Deterrence works
USA Today
November 28, 2007
Letter as printed:
Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons — and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is — Americans should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean, surgical strike ("Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," Opposing view, Iran debate, Nov. 20).
Any attempt to launch a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil America in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further and expose us to greater risks abroad and at home.
Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This is a fatuous claim because the Constitution clearly assigns to Congress the power to declare war.
With the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles, America has come to accept the logic that a president can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war.
There can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war.
Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. America had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or in China when those countries developed nuclear weapons than it now has in Iran. Past presidents have wisely ignored calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right.
Deterrence will work with Iran, too. Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that it would be destroyed if it ever used a nuclear weapon against the USA, Israel or any other American ally.
(Overly long) Letter as written:
Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities
(Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," November 20, 2007). Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is, we should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean "surgical strike." Any attempt to launch a massive attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil us in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further, and expose us to even greater risks abroad and at home, for Iran would be a far more dangerous foe than any group of Iraqi insurgents.
Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This fatuous claim is incredible, since conservatives from his own American Enterprise Institute and other conservative think tanks supposedly hold sacrosanct the principle of "strict construction" of the Constitution, which very clearly assigns to Congress and not the Presidency the power to declare war. With the advent of ICBMs, America has come to accept the logic that a President can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war, but there can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war. Surely we recognize by now that Iraq has proven the folly of recklessly starting a war without a reasoned national debate.
Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. We had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or China when they developed nuclear weapons than we now have in Iran, yet Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon wisely ignored similar calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right. Deterrence will work with Iran, too, for Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that they and their country would be destroyed if they or their proxies -- and we could determine the origin of any bomb used, no matter how anonymous the group might be which actually detonated it -- ever used a nuclear weapon against the U.S., Israel, or any other American ally.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 28 November 2007
USA Today
November 28, 2007
Letter as printed:
Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons — and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is — Americans should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean, surgical strike ("Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," Opposing view, Iran debate, Nov. 20).
Any attempt to launch a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil America in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further and expose us to greater risks abroad and at home.
Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This is a fatuous claim because the Constitution clearly assigns to Congress the power to declare war.
With the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles, America has come to accept the logic that a president can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war.
There can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war.
Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. America had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or in China when those countries developed nuclear weapons than it now has in Iran. Past presidents have wisely ignored calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right.
Deterrence will work with Iran, too. Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that it would be destroyed if it ever used a nuclear weapon against the USA, Israel or any other American ally.
(Overly long) Letter as written:
Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities
(Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," November 20, 2007). Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is, we should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean "surgical strike." Any attempt to launch a massive attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil us in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further, and expose us to even greater risks abroad and at home, for Iran would be a far more dangerous foe than any group of Iraqi insurgents.
Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This fatuous claim is incredible, since conservatives from his own American Enterprise Institute and other conservative think tanks supposedly hold sacrosanct the principle of "strict construction" of the Constitution, which very clearly assigns to Congress and not the Presidency the power to declare war. With the advent of ICBMs, America has come to accept the logic that a President can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war, but there can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war. Surely we recognize by now that Iraq has proven the folly of recklessly starting a war without a reasoned national debate.
Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. We had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or China when they developed nuclear weapons than we now have in Iran, yet Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon wisely ignored similar calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right. Deterrence will work with Iran, too, for Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that they and their country would be destroyed if they or their proxies -- and we could determine the origin of any bomb used, no matter how anonymous the group might be which actually detonated it -- ever used a nuclear weapon against the U.S., Israel, or any other American ally.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 28 November 2007
26 October 2009
This guy flunked history
President Bush said yesterday he was "absolutely serious" last month when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III. Citing Iranian leaders' almost ritualistic threats against Israel, he said "If you want to see World War III, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon."
It would be terrible if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. As readers of this blog know, however, I think it highly unlikely that Iran would, as such an attack would be a death sentence for Iran, and I'm pretty confident that Iran's leaders know that. But even if it happened, it would be a regional war. A devastating, tragic war, to be sure. But World War III? No.
World War I consumed millions of lives in the developed and undeveloped world, disrupted economies worldwide and had other global repercussions, and set the stage for World War II. World War II consumed even more lives, led to desperate fighting in nearly every part of the globe, and drastically reshaped the world order for generations to come. Throughout the Cold War, the world lived in fear that a real World War III would break out, destroying humanity on a global scale, or nearly so.
World War, by definition, involves in the most destructive ways imaginable most of the world, or at least most of the powers within the developed world with complex economies and/or large militaries. An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel -- which isn't even possible now and, according to most informed observers, will not even be potentially possible until years after George W. Bush leaves the White House -- simply would not meet that awful standard.
To raise the specter of World War in this context at this time is fear-mongering at its worst and is of the sort that, alas, we and the entire world have come to expect from this administration, akin to its hysteric cries about Saddam Hussein's mythic weapons of mass destruction. Let us refuse to be suckers for Bush's demagoguery this time, lest we find ourselves in another bloody and needless war.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 9 December 2007
It would be terrible if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. As readers of this blog know, however, I think it highly unlikely that Iran would, as such an attack would be a death sentence for Iran, and I'm pretty confident that Iran's leaders know that. But even if it happened, it would be a regional war. A devastating, tragic war, to be sure. But World War III? No.
World War I consumed millions of lives in the developed and undeveloped world, disrupted economies worldwide and had other global repercussions, and set the stage for World War II. World War II consumed even more lives, led to desperate fighting in nearly every part of the globe, and drastically reshaped the world order for generations to come. Throughout the Cold War, the world lived in fear that a real World War III would break out, destroying humanity on a global scale, or nearly so.
World War, by definition, involves in the most destructive ways imaginable most of the world, or at least most of the powers within the developed world with complex economies and/or large militaries. An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel -- which isn't even possible now and, according to most informed observers, will not even be potentially possible until years after George W. Bush leaves the White House -- simply would not meet that awful standard.
To raise the specter of World War in this context at this time is fear-mongering at its worst and is of the sort that, alas, we and the entire world have come to expect from this administration, akin to its hysteric cries about Saddam Hussein's mythic weapons of mass destruction. Let us refuse to be suckers for Bush's demagoguery this time, lest we find ourselves in another bloody and needless war.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 9 December 2007
25 October 2009
Podhoretz may not want to admit it, but ....
One minor little fact tends to get ignored in all the rhetoric about the advisability of preemptively attacking Iran: Iran is a sovereign nation, and it pretty much has the right to do what it wants, short of committing aggression against another sovereign nation, no matter what other nations may say or think. Its leaders can say what they want, structure their government they way they want, and pursue the armaments policies that they want, and the United States doesn't have the right to use military force to do anything to stop them, unless Iran attacks first.
Yes, Iran is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty signatory, but that reserves for Iran (or any other signatory not already possessing nuclear weapons) the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Any signatory also has the right to withdraw from the treaty upon three month's notice. Nothing in the treaty gives any nation the right to launch a preemptive attack to enforce treaty compliance.
In short, if Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, the United States has no legal right to use military force to stop it. The U.S., like every other member of the United Nations, has agreed, and is bound by international law to "refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," except in self-defense against an actual armed attack. Period.
In any case, there's no clear evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, according to sources both inside and outside of the U.S. government. Hyperbole aside, there would be no justification for a preemptive strike even if it was legal and sensible. Rather like Saddam Hussein's nukes, only with an "n" rather than a "q" at the end of the name.
So all this talk about whether the U.S. should use force to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons is beside the point. America has no legal right to do so, and if nevertheless it does attack, the U.S. would be an aggressor state, in total violation of international law.
Aggressor state. That's not a descriptive term any American would want to have applied to their beloved country.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 November 2007
Yes, Iran is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty signatory, but that reserves for Iran (or any other signatory not already possessing nuclear weapons) the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Any signatory also has the right to withdraw from the treaty upon three month's notice. Nothing in the treaty gives any nation the right to launch a preemptive attack to enforce treaty compliance.
In short, if Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, the United States has no legal right to use military force to stop it. The U.S., like every other member of the United Nations, has agreed, and is bound by international law to "refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," except in self-defense against an actual armed attack. Period.
In any case, there's no clear evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, according to sources both inside and outside of the U.S. government. Hyperbole aside, there would be no justification for a preemptive strike even if it was legal and sensible. Rather like Saddam Hussein's nukes, only with an "n" rather than a "q" at the end of the name.
So all this talk about whether the U.S. should use force to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons is beside the point. America has no legal right to do so, and if nevertheless it does attack, the U.S. would be an aggressor state, in total violation of international law.
Aggressor state. That's not a descriptive term any American would want to have applied to their beloved country.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 November 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
