There Is No Leaving

We are accustomed to the White House denying what 71% of Americans believe is the truth, which is that Bush's war in Iraq is a lost and hopeless cause. But there's a deeper truth that we have yet to consider.

Leaving Iraq is impossible. It cannot be done. Therefore, it will not happen; we will never leave Iraq.

Even if we put aside the moral dilemma of deserting a civil war for which we bear full responsibility, how could the operation even be executed? The road to Kuwait would be a shooting gallery for the gloating insurgency. The Neo-Cons are haunted by the image of the helicopter on a Saigon rooftop, but everything about Vietnam looks quaint compared to our current wars.

Then, there's the question of the will to leave Iraq. The planners of this war never considered failure, and the plans are going ahead as if this deadly fiasco was actually a success. For example, consider the massive embassy, such frightening hubris. The planners never planned on leaving Iraq, and so, inertia has assigned her heavy weight. We are stuck there.

To the People in the Street: Rock On!

Cindy Sheehan may have had it with the peace movement, but Marine Corps Sgt. Adam Kokesh appears to be just getting started. He and 14 others were arrested for unlawful assembly while staging a mock military funeral in the Hart Senate Office Building.

At the hearings of Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Cmte, Sgt. Kokesh editorialized silently and graphically, and with awe inspiring biceps.
Brian Haw marks time as a protest and entered his 6th year of camping in front of the Parliament building in London.
Artist Mark Wallinger brought the street to the institution by replicating Haw's signage in the marble halls of the Tate Britain after the police had carted away the protester's original installation. Wallinger's work was recenly shortlisted for this year's Turner Prize.

Last, but not least, full of rage, and not shy:
G8 protests - police car destruction attempt


thanks Crooks and Liars ; Wonkette

Iraq Charade

Bush's war in Iraq is a failure, and those who think otherwise are fooling themselves. This week, House Republican leader, John Boehner, demonstrated the language of charade:

"We don't even have all of the 30,000 additional troops in Iraq yet, so we're supporting the president. We want this plan to have a chance of succeeding. ...Early signs are indicating there is clearly some success on a number of fronts ... By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

First of all, wasn't this supposed to be a "surge" of American forces? But it appears the DoD couldn't even get that together, and instead, we've sent a trickle of poorly trained, overworked soldiers to their slaughter.

Second, what are the 'signs of clear success'? How come no one can say what they are? What is the 'number of fronts'? — zero?

Third, are these Republicans really going to wait until October to start asking 'what's Plan B'? Of course, they are, because the Bush Administration has never had a Plan B. Their eternal hubris obviates the need for proper planning. That they'd ever be wrong still has not occurred to them.

But they are wrong, and that's obvious to the rest of us. Part of the surge plan was to put US troops out among the Iraqi people so they could integrate and better understand conditions on the ground. But instead of breaking down barriers, US troops are exhausting themselves by fortifying their outposts into mini-bases. It's the only way they can stay alive.

This proves that counterinsurgency genius, Gen. David Petraeus, is wrong and therefore, continuing this war is a hopeless sham.

The most insidious and commonly heard term of the charade in Iraq is "benchmarks." This term refers to progress made by the Iraqi Parliament. But even the recently vetoed, Democratic 'time-table' bill refused to specify consequences for missing these benchmarks. Furthermore, the Iraqi Parliament isn't really a parliament at all. As a coalition of political interests, it's falling apart. It hasn't passed major legislation in weeks (unless you count their own opposition to US occupation of their country), and just as more young Americans surge their way to death and dismemberment, the Iraqi Parliament is planning a 2 month vacation!

Rethinking No-Bid Contracts

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'd like to divulge the fact that, until recently, I owned Halliburton stock. I dumped it when the misunderstanding which developed surrounding certain unintended KBR billing overages made me nervous. It's one thing to add extra sand to the concrete, after all Iraq has plenty of sand, but please, no-bid contractors, don't mess with my boys' MREs.

War profiteering has a long noble history in this country, and over the years it has created a lot of millionaires, so when the US marched on Baghdad to get those WMDs, I fought the feeling of being powerless over my own government the only way I knew how: I bought stock in corporations that manufacture weapons or otherwise supply our military.

I reasoned that, since my tax dollars were pouring into these companies I had every right to tap some back out. It's like springtime, when the sap begins to rise in the great sugar maples of North America. That is the time to pound your little metal tube into the xylem. Where is the ethical dilemma in that?

But now it's starting to look like a few bad apples are trying to ruin this war for the rest of us. Critical infrastructure projects built in Iraq by US contractors are "crumbling" even before the "Made in the USA" labels peel off. Could some of our corporate citizens have behaved in an unscrupulous manner? I thought Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to fix all of that. Perhaps now we can rid ourselves of the onerous accounting burden of this typically liberal-knows-best legislation. It's a pity that Ken Lay isn't alive to see it.

 As for me, I'm about to reinvest the money I made off of Armor Holdings, the little company that cornered the market on up-armoring Humvees,  and I'm starting an export company. [FYI- Humvees are produced by a privately-held company and I couldn't figure out how to buy  their stock.] I'm calling the new venture "Blackbush Trading Company." In 4Q '07 Phase One of the business plan commences, when we lobby Prince Bandar for the exclusive rights to sell Just For Men Gel to the House of Saud. We'll be doing our patriotic best to level out the trade imbalance in viscous black liquids.

Early Encouraging Signs the Surge is Working

 

Having ushered in the post-spin era, talking points are the refreshing new way to package cynicism and callousness.

When the president's "complete confidence" in the AG is exclaimed from all corners, people everywhere know it's the same complete confidence that Rummy enjoyed until Election Day.

The tactic copied from Madison Avenue is obvious: repeat something enough times and people will start to believe it's true. If they have intellectual pretensions they may say they don't believe it, but somewhere, deep in their hearts, there will be a nagging doubt brought on by having heard the same message over and over. Remember how you felt about WMD during the ramp-up to the war? Don't feel bad. It's child's play, really, like making rats push levers for food pellets.

When crafting the actual sentences involved, it is not necessary for a message to be overt. All that is required is for the message to be unavoidably embedded somewhere in its syntactical  embodiment, like a gemstone waiting to be chiseled out. The White House press corps will diligently parse every syllable, unearthing a diamond from apparent rubble.

The only problem is, this time it isn't working. It's obvious to anyone that, by expressing complete confidence in the AG after such horrendous incompetence and dissembling testimony, the President is either disingenuous or a fool, or most likely, both.

As the chaos and carnage in Baghdad obscure the "early encouraging signs the surge is working," with suicide bombers daily killing scores of innocents, the US is subjected to its own peculiarly homegrown version of mass-murder.

Statistically speaking, we are a nation that believes in God, yet we are reluctant so far to speak of our fallen soldiers as martyrs, preferring to label them "heroes" or "patriots." When our patriots make the ultimate sacrifice, they have done so in the fight for our freedom, which, by the way (in case you haven't heard) is not free. So goes the logic. It's a logic of principle, if not exactly one of reality.

 

In keeping with this line of reasoning, it might be suitable also to speak of the 32 victims of the Virginia Tech massacre as patriots, for they gave their lives for your right to bear arms. Leave it to the deranged killer to claim the title of martyr, which of course he did.

 The Bill of Rights comes with collateral damage. People are killed every day as a result of one amendment or another. It's just a fact of life, one that affirms the beautiful balance inherit in our Constitution. This is precisely why we take the fight to the terrorists, and fight them over there, so we don't have to face them here, on our soil.  Our soil is reserved for school and workplace shootings.

Bush's New Plan for the Past

The President speaks to a time long passed.
From his speech of January 10, 2007:
"... The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits."
[Already happened.]

"They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions."
[Already are.]

"Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons."
[Already been doing that.]

"Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people."
[We now have enemies everywhere.]

"On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities."
[Still trying to connect Iraq with 9/11.]

"For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq."
[Iraq is already lost.]

Stop the Surge

Again, the White House controls the language, and thus, they control the debate. From the people who brought us "Shock and Awe" and "Turning the Corner" we now have a new word to replace the phrases, "send more troops," "risk more lives," and "make more war."

Surge is what we say now. But what should really concern us is just how quickly and easily this new name, this new term for going against the will of the American people, has come to such pervasive use in the media.

PS - Stay tuned for "sacrifice," but Keith Olberman pretty handily puts that one to bed with this excellent little rant:

The Few, The Proud… Homeless and Handicapped

Maybe it's not so new, but if the US didn't invade Iraq, a new category of American would not be appearing on our streets. Vets of the Iraq war are more wounded than ever due to the advanced state of weapons (RPG's, IED's, etc.) and business-as-usual DoD. In a previous conflict, like Vietnam, Central America, or Somalia, there might have been some shrapnel in a leg, but in this war, that leg is blown clear off. Less obvious are the brain injuries.

While the brain is still a part of the body, soldiers with mental and emotional damage are also returning to a home incapable of dealing with them.

It is our inability to deal with these messed up heroes that will put many of them on the street. And the free market is stepping in to capitalize on America's bravest.

How does the White House support the troops? By cutting $910 million from the Veterans Administration budget.

ps - Speaking of the VA, that's an organization that works well, and proves single-payer healthcare can work in America.

Brutal History Evermore

Extraordinary levels of brutality are what we see in the declassified files of B Company. The LATimes has printed (and Truthout has posted) horrifying and sad accounts of violence against Vietnamese civilians by American GI's. This archive of war files is a crystal ball that reflects our current quagmire in Iraq. We see the torture, orders to murder civilians, and the rape of young girls.

Like the current war, very few were held accountable. This is part of a system that is out of control, one that makes it impossible for mere men be truly responsible for what happens in a state of hellish war. It is a system of legal absolution, and it is best described by former investigators who said:

"We could have court-martialed them but didn't."
"I don't remember why it didn't go anywhere."
"Everyone wanted Vietnam to go away."

By virtue of being part of the system of war, crimes against humanity are only punishable if the criminals are of the losing side in conflict (as in Nuremberg.) Today, as exactly 62 years ago, victors can do what they please, and for whatever reason.

Systems: Blaming and Gaming

The military gang rape of a 14 year old girl in Mahmudiya, Iraq, had systemic causes. The NYTimes elaborated on this today. The defense strategy for the trials will be based on blaming the system.

It's a desperate, but fascinating approach because, to the degree it's effective at all, we'll have a system that continually and automatically absolves itself. In other words, we'll have created a system that can now be blamed for our sins.

This seems a bit more elegant than say, clunkily working with Congress to turn the heretofore illegal into the new legal. (like this, and this.)

But, for the simplest circumnavigation of law, nothing beats the presidential signing statement.

PS - more on beating the legal system.

Impossible to Believe?!!

The US army continues to amaze. But amazement comes from having our expectations of an honorable military repeatedly dashed to bits. The latest is an order for soldiers to "kill all military-age males".

Such an order, we are told by a military expert for the New York Times is "clearly unlawful."

But what is truly remarkable, and very telling about our culture of obeisance is that despite the fact that commanders "acknowledged that they gave that order," this same expert says he finds it "impossible to believe such an order was given."

Why is it so difficult to believe, after all we've come to know of this military, this war, this Bush administration, that theirs is a moral vacuum.

No longer is there reason for any benefit of doubt. It's safe now to assume that they are always lying, always covering up, always breaking the law, completely barbaric, and without regard for common decency. No evidence exists to counter this assertion.

PS - If you didn't hear about the order to 'kill all military-age men', perhaps it was because the major papers, if they carried the story at all, buried it deep inside.

Sending a Message

This image of Israeli children writing messages on missiles destined for Lebanon creates a distinct queasiness. At first, there is disgust, but it's laced with ambiguity. Are we to think that hatred is so rife in Israel that even children thirst for the blood of Arabs? Some say yes.

For children to hate, it must be learned, so who has done the teaching here? Although a bunker-bound Israeli's blog suggested this picture was set up by the press, Columbia Journalism Review tells another version in which the children were just copying their parents who had just emerged from a 5 day stay in a bomb shelter.

Corrupted innocence is disturbing, but a greater burden lies in knowing that hatred and war are the lessons we teach our children.

It may be a comfort to consider that these girls passing notes on missiles are merely playing. Like George W. Bush playing soldier on an aircraft carrier, playing war has little to do with real war. So, like the Commander and Chief, these girls have very little understanding that the missiles with which they play, are the same missiles that destroy the children of Lebanon.

Obscene Crime Systems

Steven Green, the Army private who allegedly raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl and then killed her and her family, represents a near perfect breakdown of a system. A fundamental concept of General Systems Theory is the notion that elements of the world relate to each other and affect each other. Basically, there are consequences to decisions, actions, and natural phenomena. Some consequences are good, and others are like Steven Green.

After invading Iraq, the Army had trouble meeting it's needs for willing soldiers. So military recruiters increased deployment of "moral waiver". This is the device used by recruiters to make exceptions to their own rules that disallow the enlistment of those without high school diplomas and those with criminal histories.

It is clear that Green should have never been allowed to carry a weapon for the US Army. He never graduated high school, he had a criminal record, and was eventually discharged for psychological disorders.

So the approach here was not to increase incentives for young people to join the military, but a relaxation of restrictions on who is eligible to join. This is classic conservative strategy, and can be seen in all areas of government regulation. The idea is to simply reduce regulations that impede the goals of the larger organization, be it industry or government.

What is ignored in this approach is the original purpose of the discarded regulation - generally to protect individuals who may be harmed by the goals of government and industry.

One must only ask, why did the military restrict its recruitment to those without criminal histories in the first place? With this question in mind, obscene crimes like rape and murder by US soldiers should not be unexpected.

And neither should we be surprised by the effects of such crimes. (more)