Exiting Iraq

Mr Hayden,

You have no idea just how many Americans disagree with your prophet of doom assessment.  Sure, support for the war is slipping among the general public.  Who can blame them given the shallow negative news coverage.  But the people that are closest to the conflict, the soldiers, are re-enlisting at unbelievably high rates.  Even first time enlistment is now exceeding goals.

How disheartening it must be for them to read your sob story written from the comfort of your luxury living room.

You and Jane have apparently learned very little since Vietnam.  You have not changed.  Back then you gave tacit support to the communists.  Now, you do the same for the terrorists.  That’s some legacy.

“My son’s friend Todd Jones just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. At a celebratory gathering at his parents’ home, we chatted a while, and I asked him what he thought were the biggest problems facing the military. Without hesitating, he shot back: ‘The terrorists and the media.’ “

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007113

“Guess we have to face it: Patriotism is alive and well. Soldiers believe in the Army, and they believe in their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They love their comrades, too. And yes, the word is “love.” They would die for the man or woman serving beside them. They’re risking their lives to save a broken state, to give tens of millions of human beings a chance at decent lives, to do the grim work that no one else in the world is willing to do.

Their reward? The Cindy Sheehan Extravaganza. Predictions of disaster. The depiction of Michael Moore as a hero and our soldiers as dupes. And a ceaseless attempt to convince the American people that there’s no hope in Iraq.”

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php

Expand your reading list beyond Michael Moore’s website.  Please, Tom.

Natalie,

Soldier’s always fight for each other when push comes to shove. This applies for both sides in any conflict and has nearly nothing to do with the rightness of the cause.

We are now in the midst of a struggle that is both religious and nationalist. The kind of struggle that can scarcely be understood, much less fought and won, by an external power.

We cannot impose a Pax Americana on Iraq. We have changed the regime there and started a democratic process. We need to tie our withdrawal to the political milestones in place and allow the Iraqis to be responsible for themselves. The international community, the U.S. included, will lend support.

Why does Cindy get so much press and her family so very little? Seems sort of odd. . .

Even amongst the “gold stars” there is no agreement about the war. Just like the general population.

Quiz question: how many more Iraqis died from sanctions and Saddam than from the war? No need to be exact, just use a multiplicative factor. (To be fair, losing even a single US life to save thousands of Iraqi lives is not a good trade, at least for the US.)

Natalie,

It’s not only Tom Hayden,it’s also the majority of Americans.

Many soldiers are espousing right-wing perspectives.I did at that age.Hell,I even voted for Bush 41.However,media and news fed to our troops is carefully filtered.They did it to me and my shipmates when we were deployed,they’re doing it this time in Iraq.Haven’t you noticed how groups like Fox News trumpet the fact that the military gets much of their news from Fox?

By the way"predictions of disaster”?Sorry,try postdictions.

I see your also quoting the New York Post.Gee,isn’t that the paper run by arch-reactionary Rupert Murdoch?Real objective source there.I trusted the New York Post more during the Eighties when they ran articles about coma babies and Nessie sightings.

By the way,my little brother is serving in Iraq,Baghdad,as a hummer driver so save yourself a few keystrokes.He and I have disagreements about the war yet he has his prerogative.I would never insult,belittle or question his patriotism the way the right has done to the left.In this war,unlike Vietnam,it was not"Hell no!We won’t go!”,it was"let’s not be too hasty before we commit,before we bite off more war than we can chew”.That statement,in the right’s eyes,merited the term “TRAITOR!”,usually by fox News stooges who have never spent day one in military service.

Oh,about Vietnam,unlike this war,the president who got us into Vietnam was a combat veteran.Also not even Nixon was cold blooded enough to cut military spending by 25%during a war the way this administration has.

I see “Natalie” is still haunting ITT. I agree that the news reportage is shallow. Negative? Only spin-meisters demand to see the “positive” side of war. This article (intro to a photo gallery by Salon) gives a few insights why graphic images have been absent in the MSM:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082305O.shtml

Iraq: The Unseen War
By Gary Kamiya
Salon.com

Tuesday 23 August 2005

a few excerpts:

“ Aug. 23, 2005 This is a war the Bush administration does not want Americans to see. From the beginning, the U.S. government has attempted to censor information about the Iraq war, prohibiting photographs of the coffins of U.S. troops returning home and refusing as a matter of policy to keep track of the number of Iraqis who have been killed. President Bush has yet to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.”
--------------------------------------------

“Governments keep war hidden because it is hideous. To allow citizens to see its reality - the shattered bodies, the wounded children, the incomprehensible mayhem - is to risk eroding popular support for it.”
---------------------------------------------

“It is because we believe that the American people are not getting a look at the reality of the Iraq war, for Americans and Iraqis alike, that we decided to run this photo gallery. It is no secret that Salon has published many more pieces questioning and challenging the Iraq war than supporting it. But that is not why we think it is important that these images be seen. We would have run them even if we supported the war. The reason is simple: The truth should be told. “
--------------------------------------------

“There is no way for any journalist, whether reporter or photographer, to capture the multifaceted reality of Iraq. But all of the journalists I have spoken to who have worked in Iraq say that the blandly optimistic pronouncements made by the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq are completely false. A picture of a dead child only represents a fragment of the truth about Iraq - but it is one that we do not have the right to ignore. We believe we have an ethical responsibility to those who have been killed or wounded, whether Iraqis, Americans or those of other nationalities, not to simply pretend that their fate never happened. To face the bitter truth of war is painful. But it is better than hiding one’s eyes.”

Natalie, you criticize Tom Hayden for casting a negative picture of the war from his living room, but what about all the right-wing pundits, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, that offer their assessments from a lavish network studio in Manhattan? Going by your logic, their opinions are no better.
You offer a quote to support the notion that the U.S. mission over there is noble and that we are improving the lives of Iraqis. Only someone with their head in the sand would say that.  Electricity is still sparse, the hospitals are woefully equipped (remember how the U.S. attacked and shut down the hospital in Fallujah because it was telling the truth about civilian casualties of the U.S invasion?), and Iraqis stand in long lines to get gasoline in an oil rich nation. Furthermore, ask the more than 25,000 dead Iraqis if their nation is better off and their lives are being improved. Ask the significant majority of Iraqis that want the troops gone soon or now (see the poll figures quoted in this article) if the U.S. military is making everything okay. Ask Naomi Klein, who put to rest the “reconstruction” myth by noting in her lengthy visit to Iraq that the only rebuilding is occuring inside the U.S. Green Zone while rubble is still in the streets from the bombings of 2003. Saigon during the Vietnam War until 1975 was a safe place for U.S. soldiers who could walk around without fear of being shot at or blown up. Not so with Baghdad. The security in that city is far worse than Saigon’s cerca 1967. This whole war is worse than the one we fought in Vietnam.

Natalie, you also need to read the other Iraq article on this website, the one discussing the constitution and what it portends in order to see what the ever-deteriorating status quo is in Iraq.

Yeah, Liberal, you make a good point about right-wing pundits.  Most of them don’t really know the true picture, either.  The difference in my mind is that they are at least being supportive of a foreign policy that was debated and voted on.  There were national elections, 2002 and 2004, the results of which were to increase the power of the party most forcefully advocating the policy.

I have zero patience for people who demonstrate and protest against their government’s official foreign policy when troops are in harm’s way.  I deplore any of it that went on during Kosovo by right-wing pundits or others and I deplore it now.  It breaks my heart to think what this powerful righteous nation could accomplish as far as beating back totalitarianism and encouraging freedom and democracy if we could just be united on these issues.  My god, look what we accomplished in the 40’s.  Then, we were unified.  It was no “cake-walk”, though, and it isn’t going to be as far as Islamic fundamentalism is concerned.

What must a dictator or terrorist think when they listen to the U.S. media and gauge what threat America is to their survival?  They must think to themselves...hmmm.....half of America is on my side.  What am I worried about?

I think most liberals want us to succeed in Iraq, and understand that if we do, it will be good for the world.  I know my liberal parents and siblings do, even though they hate George W. Bush.  But I can’t help but think that many of them don’t, and if they could pull the lever for failure or success, they’d put their politics first and opt for failure.  I hope I’m wrong on that, but I’m just watching and listening.  Perhaps many Republicans would do the same if the roles were reversed.  I think it’s a question we should all ask ourselves and think about.

I can’t think of any better way to insure failure than to follow the advice of Tom Hayden or Cindy Sheehan.

“Tom Hayden and I were once comrades-in-arms in a movement to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image and help America’s enemies defeat her sons on the field of battle. Now he is running for mayor of Los Angeles and many people are asking me, “Does this past matter?” I think it does.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1056

(At least I assume the writer is the same Tom Hayden I saw at rallies so often with Jane Fonda.  If not.....sorry, other Tom!!)

Natalie:

There were national elections, 2002 and 2004, the results of which were to increase the power of the party most forcefully advocating the policy.

The Reichstag fire in 1932, like the mass murders of 9/11, worked “to increase the power of the party most forcefully advocating the policy” as well. Almost all of us wish that other parties and factions had been more forceful in advocating power thereafter. I know I intend to do so.

I have zero patience for people who demonstrate and protest against their government’s official foreign policy when troops are in harm’s way.

I know that patience or tolerance of any sort is not the strong suit of the present regime and its supporters, Natalie. May I refer you to Bring Them Home Now for some of the troops’ and their families’ views on the subject of the present “adventure” in Iraq?

It breaks my heart to think what this powerful righteous nation could accomplish as far as beating back totalitarianism and encouraging freedom and democracy if we could just be united on these issues.

I agree. But beating back totalitarianism and encouraging freedom and democracy” begin at home, Natalie. Not only were the mass murders of 9/11 used as a “catastophic, catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor” to forward the Plan for a New American Century’s aggression abroad, they were also used as an excuse to do what Osama bin Laden could never do, to throttle back our freedom at home via the PATRIOT Act and to undermine our democracy in Ohio in 2004 as it had been in Florida in 2000.

What must a dictator or terrorist think when they listen to the U.S. media and gauge what threat America is to their survival?

The present American regime in fact has embraced dictators in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. And it treasures Osama bin Laden, allowing him his freedom, using him as its foil to justify whatever excesses it deems necessary.

I think most liberals want us to succeed in Iraq, and understand that if we do, it will be good for the world. 

You may be right here. I know that Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman, Pelosi… all of the DLC Demoplicans are furious with the incompetence with which the present regime has carried out its aggression. These people want to do it “properly”! They want more war, more troops, more death, more destruction. So you may be right on this point.

I know my liberal parents and siblings do, even though they hate George W. Bush.

I don’t hate George W Bush, Natalie. He’s in way over his head and the folks he’s taking advice from are not the traditional conservative base of the Republican party but the neocon fringe which has an agenda all its own, which seems to think since “victory” has proven illusory in the Middle East that it will now settle for the destruction of any and all power centers outside of Israel. I do hate all of the present regime’s policies but once the regime itself is out of power I will be relieved and satisfied. Of course I’m sure they’ll have to answer to the courts for their war crimes.

I can’t think of any better way to insure failure than to follow the advice of Tom Hayden or Cindy Sheehan.

Well Tom Hayden is just another Demoplican politician as far as I’m concerned, but Cindy Sheehan is an individual who has decided to do what she can to end this monstrous war, and by doing that she hopes to give her son Casey’s death a dignity the present regime has tried to steal away along with his life’s breath itself.

As for ending anti-American terrorism Cindy Sheehan has hit the nail on the head, and her prescription seems to me the only one that will do so : “You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism.”

Well said JFL.

“What must a dictator or terrorist think when they listen to the U.S. media and gauge what threat America is to their survival?  They must think to themselves...hmmm.....half of America is on my side.” (from a post above)

This is just utter bullshit. Americans plainly see the debacle that the Bush/neocon foreign policies are bringing US.  Nobody supports terrorists by desiring peace.  War as an answer will never bring “unity” ... think what single-minded nations are.... fascist dictatorships!

pick of the litter:

‘They must think to themselves...hmmm.....half of America is on my side.’

Actually that’s correct. The half that voted for George W Bush are in favor of dictatorship. Bring on the Great Man on the White Horse and let me get back to business, back to sleep, back to my TV…

“You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism.”

You have a large place to hold the Jews? Or are you thinking of the Muslim plan (perhaps we can make some bucks selling them the ovens?)?

Plus lets make the West Islamic too! Just to really make sure we really appease them. .  .

Or we could try something else. An energy policy designed to rapidly wean us from oil, which we promulgate to the rest of the world. No more money (read weapons systems) to the middle-ages middle east. No more modern technology exports to the same. I have no objections to a few exceptions, such as medical help and such.

An effective follow on to the UN would be nice too. One where everyone was invited, but countries with no representation are spectators only. . . (this is in part to make explicit the obvious - North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc are not the moral equivalents of the West and we should not pretend otherwise)

“The half that voted for George W Bush are in favor of dictatorship.”

Seems you have a clear idea of your political opposition. And kudos to you, you are careful not to underestimate same, which can be a costly error in politics.

Natalie, you do not understand the un-democratic nature of your comments. It is clear YOU do not understand how the other half think. How can we discourage and disparage democracy at home while we ostensibly enforce it militarily abroad? The first amendment is meant to protect unpopular speech, for popular speech needs no protection. Free societies tolerate all sorts of viewpoints. If you don’t like that Natalie, then you can leave and go to, I don’t know, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Nepal, or Indonesia. The second and fourth countires on that list have recieved significant military aid from the U.S. government by the way.

With respect to the 2002 elections, I guess you are referring to success as the fact that Republicans picked up ONE seat in the Senate, in which a decorated war hero lost to a man who received five military deferments due to football injuries but nevertheless painted his opponent as unpatriotic. The Democrats would still have had control of the Senate if Paul Wellstone hadn’t died, and he was leading his opponent by eight points at the time.

Wolf, Cindy Sheehan is not advocating kicking Israel out of the Middle East, neither is JF Lee. I believe he is advocating that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders and leave the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. If you look at a map, Gaza and the West Bank do NOT make up all of Israel.

Liberal - My comments were addressing JFL comment (not Cindy’s). While you may be correct in your assertion of what JFL meant, it seems clear that Palestinians want “their” entire country back. Push the Jews into the sea and all that. . .

Of course, it could be worse. The Indians could decide they want back “their” country too!

Want an exit strategy:

We could throw in the towel — Tell all Iraqis who don’t want Saddam back in charge to leave the country before a specific release date for him. (Go to France, you’ll love Paris in the springtime.) But, before we leave, bury a few surprises — let them look for WMD.  Then, every 4th of July and 9/11, set off fireworks like they’ve never seen before.

Or…
We could stay as long as it takes to let this country learn the freedoms and the responsibilities of self determination.

P.S. I take it this is the former Mr. Fonda — I hope your next mugger is a Viet Nam vet.

WTH, you just don’t get it. If the U.S. respected the right to Iraqi self-determination it would have left that country long ago. The Iraqis do not like Saddam, but they have seen the anarchy and mistreatment of its people that resulted from an invading power occupying its land. Thus by default some desire a return to order and the security from terrorism that Saddam’s regime provided. The U.S. is not acting in favor of Iraqi freedom either. When you defy U.N. Security Council Resolutions and the 1907 Hague Convention and completely rewrite the economic policies for the benefit of foreign multinational corporations to exploit the natural resources of a country without any input from the people, you are not respecting their freedoms. When you arbitrarily round up innocent civilians in search-and-seizure raids and throw them into Abu Ghraib where they are tortured, sodomized, and even murdered, you are not respecting their freedoms. When you isolate a potent ethnic minority in drafting a constitution in order to show “progress” back at home, you are not respecting Iraqi freedoms.

If the U.S. truly desires Iraqi freedom, then it must accept the fact that Iraq’s President and Prime Minister want to cozy up to the mullahs in Iran. Furthermore, respect for human rights and democracy go hand in hand, and when the U.S. does nothing to ensure that the legal freedoms that Iraqi women enjoyed under Saddam remain in place, it is not acting in favor of democracy.

The U.S. never was bothered by Saddam’s atrocities when he was a pawn in America’s MidEast strategy, but when he took an independent course, that is when all the rhetoric about his atrocities and suppression began to surface. The U.S. took Saddam out because he was no longer serving America’s interests. The Bush administration acted out of its own selfishness, the rhetoric about freedom and democracy was just the conveneient cover story to give to the American people.

And finally, enough of the French bashing. You repugs need to get a new line already.

WTH, your last line about Tom Hayden just epitomizes the violent filth that spews forth from Right-wing talking heads. Remember Pattie Robertson’s little statement about the need to assassinate Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, despite that it is illegal under U.S. and international law to even threaten to do so? Remember what O’Reiily said about the Gitmo detainees, that he would execute them if he were in charge? Remember the felon G. Gordon Liddy’s statment “aim for the head” with respect to how his listeners should deal with DEA agents?

“We could stay as long as it takes to let this country learn the freedoms and the responsibilities of self determination.”

Well, whatever happened to the conservative idea that America not become the world police? I’m not even sure that peace is the ultimate goal of the bigtime oil wheeler and dealers (who seem to be pulling a lot of the puppet strings for Bush).  I agree with Bud that the other article about Iraq here (Echoes of Oslo, By Mark Levine, In These Times, Sunday 21 August 2005, which btw also appears in truthout.org) is quite insightful.

here’s a relevant quote from that article:

“The idea of “sponsored” or “managed” chaos as a defining characteristic of contemporary neoliberal globalization has already been demonstrated by scholars working on Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other locations along the “arc of instability” that happens to contain some of the world’s most resource petroleum rich and politically unstable countries. The main thrust of this argument is that the coming “Age of Peak Oil” makes it strategically necessary for the United States to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq, and thus have unrestricted influence over its vast oil. In an environment where the vast majority of Iraqis do not want either of these things, creating a situation of violence and instability becomes a logical, and perhaps the only feasible way, to secure them.”

Echoes of Oslo
By Mark Levine
In These Times

Sunday 21 August 2005

I’ve seen this idea around more than a few
times.

“Or we could try something else. An energy policy designed to rapidly wean us from oil, which we promulgate to the rest of the world. No more money (read weapons systems) to the middle-ages middle east. “

....wolf, this is soo true.  If the U.S. put its resources in the right places, like if we used NASA’s wits and funding and some of those insane military programs, we could be running on water.  Why go to another planet when we could make this one so much better off?  Why should space be more important than the health of earth and all of us creatures who live here?  Why not put space exploration on the back burner until we have solved more problems here where real life is?  I just don’t understand the priorities here.

I find siginificant irony in that it appears we will have been successful in accomplishing what Bin Laden couldn’t: the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. Weeeeee!!! So much for spreading democracy and freedom. Oh, but maybe I’m being too hasty. Maybe instead we’ll get a full on civil war, with Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syrai joining in the fun! We’ll call it Lebanon 2.0!

“The U.S. never was bothered by Saddam’s atrocities when he was a pawn in America’s MidEast strategy, but when he took an independent course, that is when all the rhetoric about his atrocities and suppression began to surface. The U.S. took Saddam out because he was no longer serving America’s interests. The Bush administration acted out of its own selfishness, the rhetoric about freedom and democracy was just the conveneient cover story to give to the American people. “...posted above by Liberal

that is so damn right!

From Tom Hayden’s article....Usually wars generate a public reluctance to withdraw without “victory” so that the fallen shall not have “died in vain.”

Lately I’ve heard quite a few people now using this new excuse for the war in Iraq. It is practically an admission that going to war was a mistake and that the “died in vain” reasoning is now all that is left for continuation of warfare in Iraq.

But fighting on because of the “died in vain” arguement is nothing more than a hollow excuse. Worse, it only causes more death and destruction to follow with absolutely no guarantee of some abstract victory. How many more “died in vains” filling the body bags and flag draped coffins before we will stop hearing this new excuse?

Once the first death of war occurs every soldier that is labeled as a “died in vain” death is nothing more than an excuse for an endless war because if a “win” does not happen then the war must go on indefinitely to continue to justify the “died in vain” reasoning. Further it obscures the original reasons and objectives for going to war.

When the “died in vain” becomes the impetus to continue on, then we know that any kind of moral reasoning has fallen by the wayside. We can see that the Iraq War has been lost because war proponents have run out of ideas to justify it, they are down to “died in vain.”

It’s sad that the truth is that the soldiers did indeed die (and will continue to die) in vain over a war started on lies and waged with ineptitude and poor planning by their suited command. This war will be extended on for far too many years because of the hubris of those White House suits not willing to admit their lies and mistakes and for not considering that they might be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~
We’ve known all along that this was not about WMDs or Saddam Hussein or democracy, this was about oil or rather the price of oil. Pat Robertson just recently voiced what no one in the White House would dare publicly admit, that oil is their prime concern in foreign policy.

About Hugo Chavez of Venezuela he said, “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

I certainly suspect that the Bushers would be interested in assissination as they tried to assissinate Saddam on the first day of the Iraq War and again later.

I’ve always wondered how these fundementalist Christians plan to meet their Jesus in heaven and explain how they “loved thine enemy.” I guess people like Bush and Robertson would explain that they love them dead. What else could Bush say after repeatedly breaking the commandment “thou shall not kill” by ordering the death of any Afghan or Iraqi that got in the way of his agenda.

And every Christian that voted for Bush in 2004 has blood on their hands. They approved of his death machine, they gave him the thumbs up. And for what? Cheap oil. Oh, wait, I see the corner gas station attendant climbing the ladder to raise the price once again. Blood for not so cheap oil, how can these so-called Christians live with themselves?

A few comments:

pick - i think NASA is one of our better investments. If it and other esoteric enterprises (particle accelerators, etc) did not exist, science would not have advanced nearly as much as it has (i say this as a physicist, myself and many others like me being inspired by various esoteric endeavors). However, i do imagine we could divert significant resources from defense to more useful technologies.

Jon - the whole Jesus “love thy enemies” is a fun ploy to use. However, nonbelievers should think twice before quoting religious texts (and then hopefully refrain and speak of something they are more familiar with). If you really want to know the answers to the questions you pose above (and it really would behoove you to do so) i would strongly urge you to talk with some people of faith, which i expect you will find is far from a homogenous group. . .

It’s going to be fun to watch and see how long the meek can keep the earth after they inherit it.

Wolf said:"If you really want to know the answers to the questions you pose above (and it really would behoove you to do so) i would strongly urge you to talk with some people of faith, which i expect you will find is far from a homogenous group. . .”
This is a VERY good point wolf raises. The media does a lot of talking about specific Christian groups, such as Pat Robertson’s as if that is the only Christian POV. We Christians are not any more homogeneous than the Muslims or the Jews. There are so many sects and sub-sects with many openly hostile to one another. It seems as though Robertson and Bush are from a sect that relies heavily on Old Testament concepts. Fire and Brimstone, smiting enemies, etc… As far as I am concerned, the Old Testament is no better than a Greek tragedy. The New Testament on the other hand is the foundation of my fiath, though not the be all end all. I think Jesus would be agrieved to have people essentially murder in his name. But, as wolf points out, we all have different POV.
I also agree with wolf’s comments regarding NASA and physics and I’m not even a scientist. On another note I think its sad that we’re spending serious dough on reviving a missle defense program when our borders are still some what porous and our soldiers go without proper equipment. WTF?

Liberal,

So my “… last line about Tom Hayden just epitomizes the violent filth that spews forth from Right-wing talking heads.”

Well, maybe you should view the TV program featuring our vets who were in the Hanoi Hilton when Tom and Jane were dishing out their pro-commie lines. At least I didn’t wish one of those guys on him.  Come to think of it YEAH! Why not?

How would he like to hang by his hands which are tied behind his back until his shoulders dislocate? This had nothing to do with any talking head opinions — just facts.

Speaking biblically, “love thy neighbor (and enemy)” , “thou shall not kill”, “turn the other cheek” , all point the way to peace,… peace, the necessary ingredient for a “civilized” society, for sustained prosperity. The oil economy seems destined to play out like the dinosaur, it is ultimately a short-term energy solution and it is foul, foul , foul....so bad for our health.  If the oil economy depends upon war and strife, where/when is the longterm prosperity going to emerge?  It must be clean energy which leaves no blights upon the land and the people, where environmental health is the indicator of healthy economies, peace and prosperity.  For to “Love thy neighbor” is to be ecologically conscientious, we do not pollute our neighbor’s land or livelihood.
I have a theory about some of these hateful times we live in.  There ain’t enough love going around.  Not that there’s a shortage, humans have endless capapcity, but peace and prosperity go hand in hand and all the war and violence going on is an economic dead-end, a bleak picture indeed.
What I find in the West, when you get past our voracious material greed, is that we have the love.  In this culture, we have the freedom to choose whom we love.  We make our own choices in whom to marry and I believe that most of us choose to marry for romantic reasons, we believe in love.  Children raised in a loving environment respect life and generally pass the love onward.  What results does a culture face when marriages are arranged and abusive relationships are tolerated?  Divorce is messy but at least it is a freedom.  The patriarchal systems function in a great absence of love in my book.  Cultures that prize boys only are only half there.  The power of family relationships, the balance of the sexes is so out of whack.........the repression of equal sexual satisfaction (or even sexual knowledge).... this type of culture has got to be holding resentment like a bubbling volcano.  Rather than look within, it looks outward.  No wonder boys end up warriors before they even hit puberty.  Loveless and prosperless culture will easily recruit its young to the military as culture which cherishes its young will be loathe to see them off to battle.
I’ve rambled, hope my point comes across.  The West is the Best.  If we led the world with the example of love that we are so capable of, would we not see our neighbors as extensions of ourselves?  Would we not be welcomed instead of hated and feared? We could use our might to truly spread prosperity and not death and hegemony.

WTH, how about the Muslim man who was beaten to death by his American guards? His leg muscles had turned to mush at the time of his death. How about the young Iraqi boys who were anally raped by U.S. soldiers and private contractors at Abu Ghraib? We have yet to see the footage because the government won’t release it. I remember a domestic population that was similarly kept in the dark about its government’s atrocities. That population was NAZI GERMANY!!

The atrocities in Vietnam were not limited to the NVA. How about the use of chemical warfare in South Vietnam by the U.S. military in the form of agent orange and napalm? Not only did U.S. soldiers get ill from agent orange, but generations of innocent Vietnamses civilians still suffer from U.S. acts without a dime of compensation from our government, the guilty party.

Oh, yeah, remember the the several hundred innocent women and children massacred by U.S. forces at My Lai? The people at My Lai got caught, this stuff was going on everywhere.

Final Death Toll in Vietnam
United States: roughly 58,000
Vietnamese: 2-3 million

Thank you for your great EXIT IRAQ article. I posted a link to it at www.gnostics.com/newsletter.html

However I must say, trusting Democrats to have guts is like expecting Bush to have a clue. They are part of the reactionary political climate that has become America.

Suzanne Radford, editor
Gnostics & The Social Revolution

To continue, you seem to deny that America can do any wrong. God Forbid any one of those U.S. soldiers ever mugs you! Cover your rear, WTH. I see a parallel between what you call Hayden and Fonda’s acts, and the true-believers in GW’s foreign policy. They are spewing lies about the greatness of America even while their fellow citizens are violating every human rights law the U.S. has signed.

wolf writes...Jon - the whole Jesus “love thy enemies” is a fun ploy to use. However, nonbelievers should think twice before quoting religious texts (and then hopefully refrain and speak of something they are more familiar with). If you really want to know the answers to the questions you pose above (and it really would behoove you to do so) i would strongly urge you to talk with some people of faith, which i expect you will find is far from a homogenous group. . .

I was specific in refering to fundementalists and you sound like you are accusing me of being a non-believer, bad call on that one.

Bush has played the Christian card plenty enough, so he really should be the one explaining in detail how he reads Jesus’ words and then how his policies jive with his interpretation. He said in 2000 that Jesus was his favorite philosopher, well explain the philosophy of Jesus and how you use it to make decisions that affect the world, Mr. Bush.

It is not a “ploy” to point out how certain fundementalist Christians that are imbedded into the power positions of our society are so careful not to discuss how they interpret Jesus, the basis of their beliefs. Bush makes life and death decisions and Jesus had plenty to say about that. I think I have every right to delve into something that stinks of hipocrisy.

Natalie posted earlier, “It breaks my heart to think what this powerful righteous nation could accomplish as far as beating back totalitarianism and encouraging freedom and democracy if we could just be united on these issues.”

Righteous nation? I can’t agree. This is a nation that practiced slavery, genocide of the native peoples, Jim Crow apartheid and war mongering. And then I have to hear from the right about this being a Christian nation. They need to explain what a Christian is when they say that. They need to quote Jesus to back up their claims, if that is who they indeed follow.

Bush supporters include the Christian Revelationists who see this war on terror as their ticket to heaven, despite the fact that Revelations had nothing to do with Jesus. And I certainly have wondered if Bush sees the Middle East as nothing more than the Revelations catalyst. But mostly I think Bush is a non-believer using those Revelationists for the vote margins that he needed to win elections. Mostly I think Bush is a Christian charlatan whose only interest is money and power. Either way he makes war decisions supposedly based on HIS Christian faith, not mine that’s for sure.

Further, this constant campaign to post the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses by the right is such a joke. They break every commandment and act like it is the left that won’t read them and that the left hates God.

I would really like Bush to explain how Jesus affected his decision to start a war against Iraq, if he used anything that Jesus said to justify raining bombs on the cities and land of Iraq when they never attacked us. Why is it that Iraqis have to turn the other cheek, but we don’t? But I’m just barking up a tree, because Bush probably would never be able to explain his wars based on Jesus, Bush wouldn’t even try. Bush wants to wear his religion on his sleeve, but he won’t explain what he actually believes.

Pat Robertson once ran for president and he continues to be involved in Republican politics and policy. He brought his view of Chistianity into the political sphere and when he advocates assissination being a good thing, then he needs to find in the Bible where Jesus would agree with him and explain it to us.

If the right wants to mix religion and politics and weave it into policy, I think it is important that they communicate all that they believe about their religious beliefs. John Kerry was pillored by the right for being a Catholic that was not completely against abortion. So little old me has every right to question whether certain Christians are really listening to the word of Jesus.

By the way Liberal, we used napalm (actually an advanced form) in Iraq and in the incident reported in the very early days of the war it was dropped on enemy positions, not used as some type of defolliant. The U.S. is one of only a handful a countries in the world that refuses to ban napalm. For all our screaming of WMDs, we will use weapons most of the world abhors. Napalm would be classified WMD if only the U.S. would sign on, but we won’t because we want every weapon available for our own use.

We also used those bomblets that Iraqi children injured themselves picking up thinking they were toys. After a number of kids had their arms and legs blown off, we had to drop leaflets to try to explain to Iraqis not to pick them up.

Ah yes, the cluster bomb fiasco. Brightly colored as I recall to aid in speedy clean-up. Kind of backfired because those colors also attract children. As I recall they had similar SNAFUs in Afghanistan because some aid agencies were distributing food packets that were the same color as the bomblets. Kinda caused a lot of deadly confusion.

The following words are from the song “Anatomy of your Enemy” from the Anti-Flag release “Mobilize for Peace” Album on AF-Records

Think about this and the march to war in Iraq and continuation of war by the right wing warhawks. Think about how many of the 10 steps the neo-cons incorporated and how.

10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our
lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most
highly educated.
We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and
not as truth.

First step: create the enemy.  Sometimes this will be done for
you.

Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like
you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary
habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heatless murderers who enjoy killing!

Third step: Once these differences are established continue to
reinforce them
with all disseminated information.

Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party’s
information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the
ruling party’s information.
Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.

Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange,
militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.

CHORUS: THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.  THIS IS HOW TO START A
WAR. 
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. 

Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an “Us versus Them” mentality. Leave no room
for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should
be considered a traitor.

Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and
rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as “freedom loving
people versus those who hate freedom.”
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.

Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, “It is god’s
will” or “god bless our nation.”

Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it cleat that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not
want or like to kill.

Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort
the public’s fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest
fear.

CHORUS (repeat); We are not countries.  We are not nations.  We
are not religions.
We are not gods.  We are not weapons.  We are not ammunition.
We are not killers.
We will NOT be tools.

I’m not a f**ker
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your world
I am not a fighter
I’m in UNITYYY!!!

wolf :

“You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism.”

You have a large place to hold the Jews?

I was speaking of the territories Israel first occupied in 1967 as those which Israel must evacuate.

Actually what is required of us Americans is that we stop financing the occupation of those territories, stop financing the construction of subsidized housing in Israeli enclaves within the territories, and stop financing the Apartheid Wall built upon occupied land and partitioning the West Bank into what have been compared to South Africa’s Bantustans.

It is up to the Israelis themselves to do what is right and I have no doubt they will so so, once the overwhelming American support of the Israeli far-right ceases to so massively distort Israeli politics.

There are at least 1393 Israelis refuseniks including 27 Israeli airmen, more than a dozen members of Sayeret Matkal, and Noam Bahat, Hagay Mattar, Adam Mouar, Shimi Tzamrit and Mittan Kminar who are serving prison terms for refusing to serve in Israel’s illegal, immoral war against the Palestinians.

That’s like 60,000 people here. And I’d venture that it takes more backbone to stand up to the Likud in Israel than it does in the United States.

It is no more anti-Israeli, certainly not anti-Semitic, to be anti-Likud than it is anti-American for an American like myself who loves his country to be vehemently opposed to “our” present viciously war-mongering and anti-democratic American regime. In fact patriotism demands that we repudiate the regimes that are making war criminals of us all.

The Indians could decide they want back “their” country too!

At some point “facts on the ground” become irrefutable. Ariel Sharon is hoping that will become the case in Palestine. That has become the case in America.

The English occupied Northern Ireland in 1690. Among the Irish the colonization of Northern Ireland has yet to achieve the status of a “fact on the ground”.

This whole episode of history ought to teach us (f’n finally!) that the tactic of sponsoring selected dictators, playing them off one another, is a loser. Even if we damage an enemy in the short term by arming his rival, the rival himself sooner or later becomes strong enough and headstrong enough that the next generation has to deal with him, just as soon as he takes a notion to defy US directives or run afoul of US interests.

Starve them out, don’t feed them. And I’m not talking food here, but the only thing that they really want, which is power and the weapons they need to keep it.

By the way, it’s not WMDs that allow a tyrant to rule, it’s good old fashioned conventional arms that they can use in town without toxifying the whole timezone. How much of the materiel Saddam used to terrorize the people of Iraq was actually made in Iraq? And where did he get it? Hell, the insurgents are probably accessing caches of weapons stashed long ago to shoot at or blow up US troops even as I write!

61% are against the war and growing, even neo-cons in the house and senate are worried. They are fighting for their politcal life in the 06 election.33% approval rating for the rebulicans and 55% approval ratings for the democrats in the house.The democrates can take the house back, then ann Coulter can write a book how to talk to a liberal because we have to.

Remember this war is not like vietnam.
In vietnam the U.S. sent advisors to help the south fight the north because they were commies.
Then the U.S. sent troops to train the south from the north. When the troops were trained then we could come. Is this sounding familiar to anybody?
Now the neo-cons are so wacked out that one of their leaders (Pat Robertson)wants to go and kill leaders of other countries.
But he still wants thou shall not kill posted in the class rooms and the court houses.
Make sure you eat his Age-Defying Protein Pancakes, you can’t pray on an empty stomach.

Hey Brian28 I sure wish I could agree with your prediction but America has been gerrymandered into easily predictable red or blue districts. Many times the incumbents don’t even face an opponent. House incumbents win at about a 95% clip these days, hardly the statistics to base an election revolution on.

I too sometimes become a little giddy when seeing recent polling results. But then I well know that polls are too fleeting to rely on and as pollsters like to say “They are only a snapshot in time.”

I’ve long believed that the campaign to go to Iraq was purposely planned to coincide with the 2002 mid-term elections. So I am tempted to now believe that some sort of withdrawal from Iraq will be timed for the mid-term 2006 elections.

It doesn’t have to be a real withdrawal, just alot of rhetoric and some minor withdrawals to “prove” the Republicans are serious. In other words the Republicans will make it look like the war is going to be over soon, until the election is over. You know they won’t stop building those billion dollar permanent military bases.

The Repugs in the White House have been pushing all these window dressing actions by the Iraqi government. The Constitution, the referendum and then elections again. But none of those actions will really mean a thing for Iraqi “democracy.”

Now I’ll admit the White House does have a problem that all hell could break lose during the next year. They will keep their fingers crossed that civil war won’t break out. I’m sure that the military directive is to negate a civil war at all costs. A civil war is the worst case scenario for the Bushies, the final dagger into the heart of their bad planning.

But even with the worst case scenario, I still wonder if the gerrymandered America can really swing the balance of power.

Right on Jon B. If Christians are so hot to change the world in their image, they at least ought to follow some of the commandments!

Not like Vietnam-yeah it’s worse and the Vietnam vets I live with tell me so most nights at news time. And it sounds all too familiar-we noted with rage last night that 1500 more troops have been sent. This is exactly what they did in the bad ole days of Vietnam-the public would get concerned because their loved ones were coming home in body bags-and not for a very good reason- and so they’d send more troops in....

I think the real shame of this war is that it was predicated on a lie-a big hugh lie fueled by men and at least one woman who were absolutely drunk with arrogance.If we pull out and thus acknowledge the lie, what about all those Iraqis that are now stuck with the horrible mess of a country we’ve created and lots more terrorists than they ever had before? Ethically speaking, even though I absolutely agree that occupation is the problem, don’t we have some responsibility to at least leave the country in a position to defend itself? Images of 1974 Vietnam come racing back and it isn’t something I would like to re-live.
How do we do this? The UN? Watch “Hotel Rwanda” again and tell me about defence and the UN-pretty pathetic. This question becomes a grand circle, and we’ve been here before.Thus, this bad summer re-run of a war continues to reek destruction while we debate what should have been debated before we even stepped foot one there.
This is what happens when people refuse to admit that they were wrong and learn from their mistakes.
I lived through the Veitnam war and when I hear references made to “mr. Fonda” I am absolutely amazed that these folks still think this war was a good idea-it wasn’t ever a good idea, the powers that perpetuated it on us knew it wasn’t a good idea from the get-go. And yet these folks still habor some strange idea that if the protestors hadn’t made such a big deal about it("giving aid to the enemy") that we somehow would have mangaged to “win” it. This was never possible-Kennedy knew it and so did Johnson. There are several good books out that point this out.

The idea that exercising democracy-ie free speech- is somehow aiding the enemy is about as convoluted as an idea can get. If any of us has a right to this free speech, surely it is Cindy Sheehan. She’s not a pawn, she’s a citzen, and I think what she really wants to know is why isn’t anyone being held accountable for her son dieing for a lie? I think it’s a damn good question. I’d like to know that too.
What this war isn’t -despite the marketing by Fox and the administration-is WWII. And to try and fuse this war to the one we’ve got going is so incredibly wrong it leaves me wondering in what world do these neo-cons live? Maybe if if we all eat the Age Defying Protein Pancakes we could join them in their war-bliss and would finally understand their warped logic.

Good one kaela.

“A civil war is the worst case scenario for the Bushies, the final dagger into the heart of their bad planning. “ Jon B

I think not.  Did you read the other article on ITT, Echoes of Oslo, By Mark Levine, In These Times, Sunday 21 August 2005 ?

again I post this quote:

“The idea of “sponsored” or “managed” chaos as a defining characteristic of contemporary neoliberal globalization has already been demonstrated by scholars working on Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other locations along the “arc of instability” that happens to contain some of the world’s most resource petroleum rich and politically unstable countries. The main thrust of this argument is that the coming “Age of Peak Oil” makes it strategically necessary for the United States to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq, and thus have unrestricted influence over its vast oil. In an environment where the vast majority of Iraqis do not want either of these things, creating a situation of violence and instability becomes a logical, and perhaps the only feasible way, to secure them.”

The idea of sustained violence for the benefit of the oil economy is not new but it doesn’t seem to be well-known or widely discussed; it probably comes closer to the truth than any reasons given for the war.

I’m a little shy about making comparisons of Iraq to other wars, having said that, to me Iraq is more like Yugoslavia than Viet Nam.

All we are really doing there right now is trying to avert a break-up into regional nation/states and trying to tamp down a civil war. Personally I think civil war and a break-up is inevitable no matter what we do. Pragmatically or rather American self interest, we should just get out and let the inevitable play out.

We would save many American lives and treasure which is far more expensive than the numbers we read in the main stream media. No one calculates the life-long care that will be needed for the seriously injured soldiers. Or dollars given to the coalition of the bribed isn’t put into the costs. And there are other hidden costs.

The comparisons to Viet Nam do have some merit. Both wars were started with lies, both became wars with no good solution for America. It’s odd how the most powerful military in the world couldn’t find a way to win in either sphere. The reason is of course we can’t nuke them, we would be the pariah and enemy of the world.

Bush this week gushed about Iraq working on the its constitution as “amazing.” Nothing amazing about it. For two centuries nations have been creating constitutions. But constitutions are nothing but words on paper, many of those nations failed. The Weimar Republic of Germany had a constitution, Hitler essentially destroyed it. Pakistan has a constitution, it didn’t prevent Musharraf from taking control with a military coup.

In the 1930s we had the possibilty of a fascist coup (google Smedley Butler) and the civil war was a constitutional mess. Having a constitution does not a democracy make. Saddam had a constitution.

The Iraq mess is all about oil. That is what makes Iraq incomparable to Viet Nam or Yugoslavia or any previous conflict in our history. Oil is a natural resource of such extreme importance at this time in history, like nothing we’ve ever seen. WWII was about oil as well, but we were oil suppliers then and in this era it’s a resource that is becoming scarce.

The Bushies I’m sure are believers in peak oil. They have no intentions of leaving Iraq without becoming de facto members of OPEC through Iraq. That’s why the Bushies say nothing about the content of the Iraqi constitution, they just want some words on paper to make it look like a legitimate nation.

They tried to influence that first Iraqi election, didn’t work. Now they will be satisfied with keeping the country from breaking apart. As long as our military is there, we are the protector of whatever form of government finally takes shape. America has supported dictatorships and repressive regimes of many types, Saudi Arabia for instance. The Bushies will support an Iraqi theocracy if that is what emerges, as long as those permanent military bases are still there and the oil flows faster.

They’ve been ad libbing the Iraq War all along. But as any football fan knows you don’t win games with 4 quarters of broken plays. My opinion is that we lost the war on the first day because it was unwinnable.

We’ve lost Afghanistan as well. That war is no longer about Bin Laden, it is about keeping the Karzai regime in place. Karzai is no darling of Afghans as he played the coward and left the country when the Soviets attacked. The Soviets held the capital of Kabul just like we do, but Afganistan is much more than one city as Russia learned.

It seems big military nations never seem to learn that winning guerilla wars is near impossible.

pick of the litter....I did read that article.

Why I believe that civil war is the dagger is that if that point comes the American people will be demanding we leave.

The populace may begin a mass demand to leave even prior to that, but we would certainly not want to be part of a crossfire between the warring factions. A civil war would probably result in an increase of our troops, deepening our role in the conflict beyond what we’ve already seen.

Polling is already showing a weariness with the war, an escalation would only push the polls more against the war.

I fully believe we are just about at the point of peak oil. But why keep fighting a war in Iraq if the price of oil rises regardless? If the oil prices continue an upward trend, Americans won’t see that Iraq makes much difference, in fact may come to blame the war for the rising prices (which wouldn’t be the whole truth).

How many years of war in Iraq do you think Americans will tolerate? Today we are beginning to lose our tolerance, what of a year from now, two years, 2008?

The powers that be may indeed want chaos in the region, but the populace will eventually gag on that chaos. Hey, if we’re lucky we could get a sea change in American politics out of this Iraq mess. A demand to withdraw, a demand for alternate energies, a rejection of neoconservatism.

John Francis Lee,

Upon examining your meticulous HTML enabled dissection of my post, I find that you left one aspect unaddressed.

Do YOU want your country to succeed in Iraq? 

This is a simple question that deserves a simple yes or no answer.

Are you able to answer it in such a manner?

Liberal,

I certainly don’t disparage democracy by advocating that people in this country speak with one voice on foreign policy, especially when it comes to its troops being in harm’s way.  I may be discouraging “democracy” in this particular case, if that’s the label you want to give it, but to me it’s just simple common sense and decency which I’m sure the Democrats would expect if roles were reversed.  I guess I would be technically entitled to say just about anything about anybody anywhere, but the better question is would it be appropriate, and is it constructive and helpful.

If people feel they must protest the war, I would only advocate that they do so in such a way that the young adults who have volunteered to put themselves in harms way on their behalf and are probably quite afraid but are still gung-ho and anxious to carry out their orders are not demoralized by reading or hearing their words.  If they do become affected by those words, the safety of they and their comrades cannot help but be compromised.

Yeah, right.  I’m off to North Korea.  How tiresome.  Somehow I think a Democrat would be treated far better than would be a Republican by Kim Dong Dildo, so better you than I.

According to my sometimes faulty memory, the GOP netted two seats in the senate and six or seven in the house in 2002.  Max Cleland lost because his local hawkish rhetoric didn’t match his national liberal voting record.  Very similar to Dashle.  It was the first time in a hundred years that a Republican president saw his party gain House seats in a mid-term election.  Even more gains in 2004.  My only point here is that the country endorsed, albeit implicitly, Bush’s foreign policy in two separate elections.  That makes it even more unjustified in my mind to so vilely protest against the troop’s commander when they are in danger. 

The time for protest was before the war, not during.  Obviously you have the right to protest.  But are you right to protest?  Is the situation really so desperate as to warrant such behavior?  I think not.

The only consolation is that the unseemly protests by the fringe left I believe can only help Republicans electorally.  But I still implore you and Cindy to reconsider.

A request for other perspectives…

As I recall, the protests of the Vietnam era that left such bitter memories were those aimed at troops. Does anyone else recall it that way? As I remember, being rather young at the time, it was the insults, the charges of baby-killing, all of the epithets thrown at them and all the refusal to publically welcome them back that was so bitter. That’s what not only infuriated broad sectors of the country, but also left a psychological scar. It brought about a cultural crisis of conscience that America is still trying to make up for. Or so I perceive it.

The protests against the Iraq have been aimed at the policymakers, have they not? Not at the troops-at-large, but at the leadership who have planned and executed the policy of war in Iraq. Again, if I’ve misperceived, I would welcome a response.

It seems to me that today’s protests have largely avoided the anti-soldier rancor that was observable 30+ years ago. To offer an opinion, I submit that citizens’ registering their opposition to the decisions of government is perfectly within bounds, during wartime or peace. As has been pointed out by more articulate people than me, that very freedom has had to be defended by soldiers willing to follow orders, lay aside any trepidation or hesitency they might feel, and to take up the sword. To say that freedom ought not to be exercised (providing it is peaceful and aimed in the proper direction) is confusing and seems a bit false, if one is truly convinced his country’s leadership has led us and those in uniform down the wrong path.

Maybe the protestors’ focus away from troops in the field and toward the national leadership is being judged as disingenuous…

Or do y’all see something I’ve missed?

Yes of course I want my country to succeed in Iraq Natalie. No fancy html.

The only way to do that is cease hostilities and bring the troops home immediately.

The mistake we made in allowing “our” government to invade and occupy that nation cannot be undone. But the mistake can be ended sooner rather than later. Every day we delay means more Americans and Iraqis murdered and maimed, more debt accumulated and passed on to the next generation of Americans, more enemies made for ourselves and the next generation, not to mention more shame for us and our children.

Success at this point would be to pull up our socks and have the courage to admit our mistake, to make amends as far as that is possible to those we have injured, and to see to it that we never again act the aggressor on the world stage.

And that would not at all be an inconsiderable success, Natalie.

Name another nation that has come back from the abyss without being totally defeated first.

Natalie has expressed a very simple idea, “my country right or wrong, once the war started.”

She also talks of speaking with one voice. American history has shown we NEVER speak with one voice. There was opposition to the Revolutionary War by those called Loyalists who after the war were called traitors. There was opposition to WWI, in fact Woodrow Wilson drudged up the Sedition Act to suppress dissent. There was opposition to WWII, Charles Limburgh traveled the country agitating against it. 

“In one voice” is a ridiculous concept in a truly free democracy. One voice is what you get in totalitarian nations, dissenters are jailed and/or killed. That’s why the right in this country always has this fascist tilt as they flirt with farther right ideas, such as “one voice”.

From an article just today...."Nearly three weeks after a grieving California mother named Cindy Sheehan started her anti-war protest near President Bush’s Texas ranch, nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it’s OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict.”

90% think protest DURING this war is OK. So Natalie by her “one voice” reasoning is expressing using her term a “fringe” opinion that protest should not be occurring. So what I should be telling her is to take her fringe rhetoric and leave the country, right? Back in the early days of the war that’s what I was told several times, that because I disagreed that I should leave the country.

Natalie wonders if protesting or having an anti-war opinion is “appropriate,” “constructive”, or “helpful.” The answer is a big YES, if a person’s opinion is that the war should end. Wars aren’t like board games with some type of proven winner. Every person that dies has become the ultimate loser, whether an American soldier, a UN worker, a reporter, and as our military likes to call civilian Iraqis “collateral damage.”

This effort to dampen interest to protest by appealing to some sort of guilt, that we should consider the soldiers as they think on the battlefield is just a smokescreen to turn attention away from the war policy.

Here’s something controversial, I don’t care what the soldiers think. I was in the army and had my opinions and didn’t care what the American public thought about my opinions. Soldiers have different opinions, some want the war to be over for no other reason then they would rather not be in a war, politics has nothing to do with it.

Many of the soldiers in Iraq joined long before the war was even a twinkle in Bush’s eye. Many soldiers are coming back from Iraq and joining organizations like Veterans Against the War in Iraq. And on the other hand, many of the troops are proud to be fighting this war. There is no political consensus from active soldiers. Many don’t understand anything about what’s going on, thinking simply that they have a job to do.

When I joined the army it was made clear that I might have to fight in a war. There was no predictions of what type of war it might be or what political reasons for it (back then it was assumed it was against communism, but no major war was happening at the time). But I was young and like most young people I was not a political information hound, I wanted the college money and needed a job.

In retrospect, these were stupid reasons to join, but many of our soldiers of today are there for just such monetary reasons. Those are the type of soldiers I probably relate to now. They wouldn’t be getting their arms and legs blown off, they wouldn’t be dead if they had better choices in America’s economy as well as the bad policy of this war.

But my opposition to the Iraq War has so many threads that even the above doesn’t nearly cover it. I will go on voicing my dissent for all the different theads.

I think Jon B pretty well invalidates Natalie’s attacks against my previous post. Well done Jon B.

On a final note, I have been protesting this war for several months now and we always tell men and women who say they are going to Iraq to come home safely and be careful. I protest this war to stop the loss of American and Iraqi lives, not to attack the personal integrity of individual service members. The right always accuses us of being anti-troop, but never provides a shred of evidence to buttress that claim. My father is an ex-marine and he feels EXACTLY the same way as myself. I think I will conclude this post with a quote of his regarding the invasion of Iraq: “It wasn’t worth a single American life.”

Natalie, I just have to say that your statements that the 2004 election validated Bush’s Iraq strategy is clear nonsense. If you look at the exit polls in Ohio, for instance, it is clear that people who voted for GWB did so on the basis of “moral values” which translates into abortion and gay marriage. Similar results were found across the United States.

Furthermore, the U.S. was not presented with the whole picture about Bush’s pre-war intelligence handling. The Senate Intelligence Committee, at the calling of chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), postponed the final leg of its investigation of pre-war intelligence until after the election. It was going to investigate the manipulation of pre-war intelligence. To this date, the committee has not reconstituted these hearings. In addition, Bush pushed back the release date of the Silberman-Robb Commission findings until after the election as well. That commission also investigated the U.S. handling of pre-war intelligence, but thanks to Bush, the committee had to look at all U.S. intelligence regarding all nations, not just Iraq, even though that is what the public and Congress wanted.

Right on John Francis Lee!

Natalie defines success probably as Bush would. And by our ORIGINAL reasons for going to war, it has already been a success. We found that Saddam had no WMDs, reason one successful, Iraq has no WMDs. Saddam is out of power, reason number two a success. No link to 9/11 has been found, full proof has been a success. And even Bush’s later reasoning, democracy, we can call it a success, they did have a vote.

Now, I’m really saying this tongue in cheek. But I’ve offered an alternate way of thinking that allows for declaring victory and getting out of there.

Success is just a word that means different things to different people. Success is just an opinion based on goals accomplished. Most people set goals and even if those goals were not totally acheived, if they’ve progressed toward those goals they consider it success. Success gets redefined as the attempt to meet the goal ensues.

As an opponent to this war, I’ve certainly had to redefine success based on my goals. Prior to the war, I didn’t want it to start at all. But there was success as the war protest prior to the war was the greatest ever produced prior to a war. Then my definition of success changed as I wanted the war to end, this required an education of the American public and that education is now bearing fruit as polls are showing the tide is turning. But success by my new definition is not complete until we withdraw, that day is coming. But my goals will not have been realized, but my redefinition of success will.

The Bushies are redefining success in Iraq in their minds as we speak. And they’ve been doing this all along. It’s been hard to know what their real goals are. Did they really expect Iraq to be a cakewalk with Iraqis throwing flowers at our soldiers feet? If so, they’ve been unsuccessful, right Natalie? If they did expect the cakewalk, they’ve obviously had to redefine their meaning of success.

When Bush staged his Mission Accomplished show on the aircraft carrier, did he really believe that? If so, he obviously didn’t meet his goal.

So, I have to wonder what Natalie considers success at this point. I wonder if she felt the war was won on the day Saddams statue was toppled at that time. I wonder if she believed that major combat operations were over back when she watched that show on the boat. And finally I wonder how many Americans, how many Iraqis have to die to consider it a success?

Success is also about perspective. I remember the incident in Afghanistan for instance when one of our “smart” bombs landed on a wedding. I wonder of those participating in the joyous event if any considered the war in Afghanistan a success?

I wonder if Natalie cares one hoot about the 6 year old Iraqi son of a construction worker killed by a bullet from a skittish American soldier I read about in my local newspaper. Success? Or the 40 something female Iraqi nurse on the way to work gunned down at a checkpoint recently. Success? They had something to do with 9/11? Or how about that football player Pat Tillman, dead from friendly fire in Afghanistan, would he consider the Afghan War a success? His parents don’t have that definition as they are pissed at the Bush Administration for lieing to them about the circumstances of his death.

My first paragraph described a version of success, declare victory and end the success of our destruction of innocent lives.

Protesting this very wrong war is not only right but it is incumbent upon a moral conscience.  The posts above address the issues really well.  The protest is against bad policy not soldiers.  The ones who destroy troop morale are the ones who lied them into being there, and who send them in harm’s way while they have to use shoddy body armor and equipment.  People in uniform can think for themselves and they don’t need to hear a censored America.  Mrs. Sheehan is speaking her heart and the press has glommed onto those wide-spread sentiments that they ignored for way too long while they spewed the Bush propaganda.  She is a catalyst for change, a voice of moral reason in contrast with its absence from our “leaders”.  Just look at the story “Radioactive Wounds of War” by Dave Lindorff here on ITT about the New York State National Guardsman, Gerard Matthew.  This is the horrible aftermath of modern warfare and it is outrageous.

Natalie claims a faulty memory, I agree.

She recalls “My only point here is that the country endorsed, albeit implicitly, Bush’s foreign policy in two separate elections.”

What was Bush’s foreign policy in the 2000 election? Pretty much nothing. It was free trade and an opposition to nation building. So actually he has totally flipped on nation building, working on two countries at the same time today.

In fact the 2000 election was nearly devoid of foreign policy issues. The debates had virtually no questions about foreign policy. It was one of my complaints about the debate shows at the time.

IMO I considered the 2000 election the most issueless election in my years. The big issues were social security, (remember lock boxes) and tax cuts (how much the only difference). Bush in fact was fairly careful not to take stances on any issues. He played his campaign as a bear in sheeps clothes, being careful not to reveal his real agenda.

That election was called Gush and Bore. Many people consider that election as devisive in retrospect due to the Florida thang and then the Bush presidency. But the actual campaign was alot of nothing, both candidates trying to look moderate and trying to say all the right things without controversy. Ralph Nader was the only candidate taking strong stances, forcing Gore to move a little left trying to look anti-corporate occcasionally.

As far as 2004, as Liberal pointed out moral issues seemed to be a stronger pull than Iraq in the end. Iraq for the few who hadn’t picked their candidate long before election day, IMO came down to “don’t switch horses in mid stream”, hardly a strong endorsement for foreign policy. And let’s not forget Bush only had 51% of the popular vote, not some kind of sweeping mandate.

By the way I stress that I use “IMO” strongly in the above. Analyzing American political campaigns in retrospect has always been a tricky business. For instance the exit polling showing moral issues as the number one issue on further scrutiny didn’t tell an accurate story. Moral issues only polled at about 35% and what moral issues wasn’t defined. In the aftermath it was simply assumed it was gay marriage and abortion. Yet, many on the left consider a decent job and decent pay as moral issues.

Tom Hayden brilliantly encapsulated the many issues that the anti-war movement has broached with regard to the futile and immoral nature of this imperialist war: the collapsing “coalition”, the lack of representitiveness of the new Baghdad Regime, the failure (and transparency) of Iraqization, the loss of US allies’ respect in the world, the great cost in lives and resources, and the total lack of legitimacy for going to war based on the lack of either WMDs or official state sponsership of terrorist activity abroad.  The key motives have proven to be not only oil and a restoration of US hegemony in the world but the opportunity presented by the war to use the entire Iraqi economy for US corporate-led globalization. Billions of US dollars have gone to mostly US corporations in reconstruction contracts to take over the Iraqi economy and globalize it by destroying the local state sector and middle classes and linking the local economy to global markets and investment in a way that marginalizes the majority of Iraqis and enriches global capital.  Certainly the war helped many large US transnationals such as Haliburton whose half billion debt before the war turned into a quarter billion dollar profit after the invasion and occupation due to lucreataive no bid contracts. But cronyism is only part of the story. US and other foreign capital has taken over the economy from the rebuilding, dredging, and management of the southern Port of Umm Qasr to local manufacturing of consumer goods, the running of the new banking system and even the future of Iraqi agriculture.  Much of this is based on the 100 Bremer Orders unilaterally, illegaly, and undemocratically enacted by the CPA, the US occupation administration, and which is binding on Iraqi sovereign authority by agreement. With regard to Iraqi agriculture, Order 81 has compelled Iraq to allow the dumping of subsidized surplus grains on their local market putting many Iraqi farmers out of business and allowing hybrid seed companies to monopolize the seed market using new intellectual property laws to forbid Iraq farmers from saving the seeds from a season’s crop without a royalty payment agreement with the seed companies.  This is only one instance of the creation of local dependence on corporate controlled markets and supply chains.  Much of the “new” seed varieties are culled from Iraqis themselves who have been cross breeding crops for generations. The result will be fewer independant farmers and future dependance on expensive US food imports and agricultural inputs.  The replacement of the state marketing board with corporate marketing networks mean lower prices for Iraq farmers, higher ones for local consumers, and a redistribution of wealth from the local to the foreign sector.  This is the pattern which is evident in the rest of the Iraqi economy whereby Iraqis who have skills and are willing to work cheaper than foreigners are being shut out of their own economy!  By late 2004, when the Sunni triangle began to see heavier resistance, it was reported that only 7% of the iraqi workforce was being used in the reconstruction efforts.  Many towns and villages still have no or irregular electricity and water despite the resources to prodvide it.  Trade Unions, the only truely democratic forces in the country are being attacked and disbanded by the occupation.  The Sunnis are the sector of Iraqi society which contains the greatest amount of secular nationalist opposition to US imperialism and corporate capitalist usurpaation of the economy which is why the US politically marginalized them through a corrupt party list system for the January elections which favored the theocxratic Shiite leadership who also wants an end to the US occupation. This is all part of the reason for the conflict over the drawing up of a new national constitution.  Such a constitution is not allowed to contradict the interests of US corporate capitalism.  An ongoing war will be the consequences.

Stop the presses:

The truest, most cogent response to Tom Hayden’s proposal is now available at Stan Goff’s site in the form of Stan Goff’s reply to Tom Hayden’s reply to Stan Goff’s reply to Tom Hayden’s proposal.

Please read it and join me in a mediatation on just exactly what is at stake here.

Bring the troops home NOW! is the only possible answer to the monstrous mess that the “professionals”, Demoplicans and Republicrats alike, have got us into, and are now doing their best to keep us from getting OURSELVES out of.

Stan Goff served in Viet Nam. He has a son who is now getting ready to return to Iraq for his third tour. Tom Hayden, bless his soul, talked about Viet Nam and is now talking about Iraq. He has a “solution” that Stan’s son may or may not live through.

That’s the difference in their perspectives. The one is of the “strategic”, hold on to power at all costs class, the other of the fighting and dying class.

I was with Tom Hayden on Viet Nam. I talked the talk too. That got us out of Viet Nam and into Iraq thirty years later.

I think I’ll try Stan Goff’s take this time.

I’m finally willing to pay the price you have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice.

What do we “KNOW”?

Whether I go to what is classed as a conservative site or to one labeled liberal, there is not a lot of objectivity anymore. Most seem to be divided by pro/anti Bush biases. It takes a narrow mind to always be either one all the time and on every issue. (Talk about profiling.)

People are speaking with authority on topics of which they can not possibly have firsthand knowledge. Often it is from a favorite publication or commentator. Sometimes there are multiple ones with the same initial source.

Today more than ever because of 24/7 news and the rush to be first, the need to be accurate takes a back seat.  We need to be skeptical and cautious in what we accept as truth. Question everything — ask yourself, “Is anything missing here?” The source could be: mistaken, misguided, misleading, misquoted.

At “In These Times”, the common threads seem to be:  “Bush knew the intel was wrong. — It was all a lie and he knew it. — It’s all about oil. — It’s our country’s fault.” What happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Here is something to ponder… noble words spoken of a people thousands of miles away across a vast ocean.  “It is our determination to restore those conquered peoples to the dignity of human beings, masters of their own fate, entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. We have started to make good on that promise. I am sorry if I step on the toes of those Americans who, playing party politics at home, call that kind of foreign policy ‘crazy altruism’ and ‘starry-eyed dreaming.’” *

*FDR in July 1943, after the fall of Mussolini

John Francis, you started out pretty well in your attempt to answer my question with a simple yes or no.  You said “yes”. 

But then you went on to describe a policy that almost surely would lead to failure.

If I was to ask you if you wanted crime reduced in your neighborhood, you would answer yes.  But then, if your logic was consistent, you would prescribe reducing the police presence to zero to achieve your goal.

Having read the short and simplistic “plan” of Stan Gof that you embrace, I can only assume that you are not part of the “nuanced” left.  Is your position on the drug problem “just say no”?

Stan Gof sees great virtue in all the left fringe groups burying their hatchets and speaking with one voice to defeat an enemy.  Putting aside all the frightful perils of silencing dissent and stifiling free speech, is his strategy not similar to mine when I advocate for the nation to speak with one voice against anti-democratic forces in Iraq and elsewhere? 

My position is really just the Stan Goff position.  Except that my version might actually lead to some real world improvements in the area of totalitarian oppression, not simply achieve the goal of simultaneously sticking our heads in the sand.

I’m afraid I’m compelled to ask a few more simplistic yes or no questions.  (It might have somethng to do with that one comment on Goff’s plan quoting the wisdom of Fidel) DO you favor an end to totalitarian oppression?

If yes (I’ve gotta think you’d say yes), do you have a plan to achieve it?  Is it similar to your Iraq plan in which you would simply allow the forces of oppression to have free reign?

Natalie,

I know you dislike the blockquotes, but quotes are confusing.

But then you went on to describe a policy that almost surely would lead to failure.

No Natalie, I then went on to describe a policy that will end the daily loss of innocent life due to America’s presence in Iraq, that will strive to put right as much of the wrong we have done there as possible, that will make sure that we do not repeat the same mistake we have already made twice in my lifetime.

That policy is inconsistent with the policy you espouse which has already failed. The question is do we send more Americans to kill and be killed or do we sober up and take responsibility for the monstrous mistakes we have made now.

If I was to ask you if you wanted crime reduced in your neighborhood, you would answer yes.  But then, if your logic was consistent, you would prescribe reducing the police presence to zero to achieve your goal.

If Iraqi “police” showed up in your neighborhood to “reduce crime”; if they burst into your house fully armed, trashed your house, barked orders at you in Arabic which you could not understand, disappeared into a back room to have a talk with your son and left laughing an hour a later; if then, when another of your family discovered your blameless son dead, in a pool of his innocent blood where the police had left him, would you not prescribe “reducing the police presence to zero” in order to reduce crime in your neighborhood?

This is exactly the position the present American regime has put honest Americans answering their country’s call to serve in Iraq.

I understand that George W Bush is a Christian. If so would it not be better for him if a millstone were tied about his neck and he were hurled into the deepest sea than for him to have done what he has done to the innocent young Americans he has sent to Iraq?

I do not say this out of hatred for George W Bush but as an earnest admonishment. He may yet spare tens of thousands of lives between now and January 20, 2009. Out of stubborness and recalcitrance he may yet slay them.

Stan Gof sees great virtue in all the left fringe groups burying their hatchets and speaking with one voice to defeat an enemy.  Putting aside all the frightful perils of silencing dissent and stifiling free speech…

I must have missed Stan Goff’s call to stifle free speech. Could you please direct me to it?

...is his strategy not similar to mine when I advocate for the nation to speak with one voice…

You are trying to rally support and so is Stan Goff. You add to your call that it is unpatriotic to oppose it. I support Stan Goff.

My position is really just the Stan Goff position.  Except that…

Except that it is the opposite of Stan Goff’s position.

DO you favor an end to totalitarian oppression?

Yes, Natalie, I deplore totalitarian oppression. I oppose it in Palestine and in Iraq. I theoretically oppose it in Burma, but I have very limited means of opposing the Burmese generals.

My plan to end totalitarian oppression in Palestine and in Iraq is to work for the election of Representatives and Senators in the United States, be they Republicrats, Demoplicans, Independents, Greens, Conservatives, or Liberals, who will pledge in writing to vote NOT ONE MORE DIME for the wars in Iraq and Palestine, or anywhere in the Middle East.

For it is clear that the present regime plans not only to continue the wars in Iraq and Palestine but to attack Iran as well, if it can get away with it.

They can’t get away with it. Other Americans like myself will speak up. Many of us will march on Washington on September 24th. We will put an end to this war and foreclose the possibility of another. We will not allow the forces of oppression free reign.

Natalie,

You may as well give up on this one. When you have to explain the obvious, subtlty is way beyond comprehension.

“My position is really just the Stan Goff position.  Except that my version might actually lead to some real world improvements in the area of totalitarian oppression, not simply achieve the goal of simultaneously sticking our heads in the sand.”

I used to think liberals were more open to ideas, but it is increasingly apparent they can be as biggoted as the reddest necked conservative.

This is the crux of the fanatical Muslim and any other closed mind… You are one of us, or you are worthless.

I propose a bumpersticker to bug liberals:
Have you hugged a Bigot today?

Yeah, whattheheck, I think I’m done here.  I give up.  I simply tried to appeal to people, on grounds of common courtesy and practicality, to consider the impact their brand of “dissent” has on the troops moral, and the ability of our nation to defend and maybe even heaven forbid project itself—even in the event that a situation develops they DO consider worthy of military action. 

Liberals have absolutely no problem suppressing and squelching speech and ideas they oppose.  They favor muzzling political speech close to election time, outlawing what THEY decide to be “politically incorrect” references, and shouting down or throwing pies at certain people for expressing fascist, imperialistic views, like those you quoted above by FDR, or even the ones of JFK as he sought to expand freedom and stan