Yesterday, President Bush used the veto for only the second time since he took office to send the Iraq war spending bill back to Congress. His rational was that the bill - laden with domestic pork - fundamentally infringed upon his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief by legislating war strategy. I agree completely.

Congress has no constitutional authority to tell the President how a war should be prosecuted. Congress chooses whether or not to declare a war, and Congress pays for that war thereafter, but that's all the Constitution provides for.

If the Democrats want this war to end, then the operation needs to be de-funded. It's political suicide of course, but what's more important, putting an end to the most expensive American foreign policy boondoggle in history or covering your own ass? We're talking about Washington here so I think we can expect some world-class half-assery over the next couple of weeks after which legislation sporting some shiny new compromise language will emerge with both sides claiming victory and absolutely nothing changing for the troops in the field. Shit, they're not real people anyway.

I want this war to end. Hell, I wanted not to start. But over the past few weeks I've watched the Democrats formulate their strategy, and found it severely lacking. For years I've criticized this Administration's inability to be truthful with the American people while it played our emotions for its own political gain, now the Democrats are doing the same damn thing. There is no "immediate withdrawal." That kind of talk needs to stop. Now. The best we can hope for militarily is a phased redeployment to an area from which our forces can respond to the Middle East should a truly state-threatening crisis arise. Africa, I'm looking at you. Talk of benchmarks and surrender dates and all the rest is bullshit. There's no other word for it. Please stop. You're hurting America.

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to shut up and do their job: Oversight, oversight, oversight. If they don't like the job the President is doing, then bring the hammer down. Impeach the SOB and let it be over with.

Labels: Congress, George W. Bush, iraq

...or are you just happy to see me?

BAGHDAD, Feb. 24 (Xinhua) --The U.S. and Iraqi security forces have killed some 400 suspected insurgents and detained a similar number of people during the 11-day-old major security clampdown in the capital, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Saturday.

Um...Nope, no human rights violations here. Move along.

I'm sure there's a reason why this isn't getting wider reportage in the U.S. media. Well, I mentioned it here a week ago. So that's something I guess.

Labels: insurgency, iraq, Nuri al-Maliki

Tits deep and falling fast the al-Maliki-led, U.S.-backed government in Iraq is struggling to provide basic necessities to a nation broken by war, civil and sectarian strife, and ancient animosities. While American troops are dying every day as the situation continues it's bottomless descent, it took a Congressional repudiation for the Bush Administration to take action.

As the symbolic, non-binding resolution moves from the House to the Senate today, Secretary of State Condoleza Rice flew to Baghdad unannounced to secure the Administration's position in the hearts and minds of Iraq's beleaguered leaders. She'll be playing hardball demanding results from the latest plan to quell the violence in the nation's capitol, while offering assurances that the Bush Administration has no intention of caving to Congress or the American people. The escalation will happen. But, if swift progress is not made, the U.S. will lessen it's support of the ruling coalition, which is essentially a death sentence to anyone working in the Iraqi government at the moment. In short: "We don't care how you do it, just get it done." The pressure is on.

The Administration's escalation plan calls for 21,500 U.S. troops to be embedded with Iraqi forces to secure key areas of Baghdad and Al Anbar province. This allows the full spectrum of American military intelligence, technology, and fire support to be made available to Iraqi units on the ground through their American embeds without compromising U.S. operational security. It also allows Iraqi troops - taking orders from their own civilian government - to effectively become the best equipped, best informed, and best trained death squads the world has ever known without asking U.S. troops to become war criminals. It's all very neat and tidy.

Dear people of Iraq, rejoice for you have been liberated.

Labels: Condoleza Rice, iraq, Nuri al-Maliki, Surge

Even as debate rages in Congress and around watercoolers throughout world regarding President Bush's Iraq escalation plan, the ground work is being laid for America's next ill conceived military boondoggle: Iran.

Across America - in Illinois, Hawaii, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Arkansas, and Kentucky - sightings of so-called UFOs are spiking. While these sightings are dismissed or ignored by military and civil air authorities, watchers of the night sky who also pay attention to global geo-politics recognize this activity for what it is: maneuvers and operations in preparation for a military strike.

With these activities taking place beneath the noses of Congress and the American people, a strike on Iran is now a foregone conclusion. It is a question of when, not if a strike will occur.

What makes these questions other than academic is that Bush is putting in place military assets that will enable him to order and effect the rapid nuclear castration of Iran. But scarcely a peep of protest has been heard from our congressional leadership.

Observers have noted the dispatch of minesweepers and another U.S. carrier to the Persian Gulf, the naming of Admiral Bill "Fox" Fallon to head CentCom, which today manages two ground wars, and the return of U.S. fighter-bombers to Turkey. ~via

Either the unitary executive is about to open another front in the struggle for Pax Americana, or the Greys are finally coming home.

Labels: Congress, iran, iraq, Surge, Unitary Executive

The spread of multi-drug resistant infection concerns us all. And having some small experience with military and VA medical facilities myself I found this article to be particularly troubling.

"The wounded soldiers were not smuggling bacteria from the desert into military hospitals after all. Instead, they were picking it up there. The evacuation chain itself had become the primary source of infection. By creating the most heroic and efficient means of saving lives in the history of warfare, the Pentagon had accidentally invented a machine for accelerating bacterial evolution and was airlifting the pathogens halfway around the world."

If you or someone you love visits VA medical facilities, be aware of the dangers and keep an eye out for symptoms of infection. If you have the choice, seek care at civilian facilities whenever possible. I know this is a no-brainer for most of you, but let your parents and grandparents know too. From the article:

"One of the most unsettling long-term questions about the military outbreak is how far the bugs of war will proliferate now that thousands of Iraq veterans have entered the VA hospital system. Many of the older vets who are already there - struggling with chronic conditions for decades, in and out of nursing homes - fall into the bacteria's target demographic."

On a conspiratorial note: Do medical investigators have access to the engineered, oil-eating versions of this bug mentioned in the Wired article? Was it used in the clean-up operations following the first Gulf War? Did the engineers build in a genetic kill switch?

~Wired

Labels: Acinetobacteria, gulf war, iraq

What a way to end the week. Bush wants a troop increase; a “surge.” One last thrust to quell the violence once and for all. You know, like Belfast. That he's had to reshuffle his military, intelligence and state department personnel to get this idea to float above outright ridicule is telling. Everyone knows a radically new strategy is necessary. And almost everyone knows a redeployment is an integral part of any such strategy, but not our Commander-In-Chief. I swear the man must think he's been chosen by God Himself to run this war. Oh wait...he does.

Our fledgling Democratic Congress has chimed in, and so has the military. It seems that while most of the plans for Operation Soup Fork call for 20 to 40 thousand additional U.S. troops, the Pentagon has reported that there's only a fraction of that number in any position to answer the call. Even a draft couldn't help with this plan. It would take months to train and deploy that many conscripts. And then there's Iran.

After a hopeful showing by moderates and reformers in the election recently, Iran has once again rattled its nuclear saber prompting Israel to intentionally leak its own military plans for a preemptive strategic nuclear strike against them. Madness just doesn't quite sum it up.

It's 2007. Any nation with the will to develop nuclear weapons shall have them. We need to accept this, and work with the facts. We didn't invade or bomb China when they went nuclear. We engaged them. The same can happen with Iran and every other nation that chooses to seek the bomb. There is always common ground, and there is always leverage. In this case we must accept that every nation has the right to self-determination (even the wacky ones). On these terms we can end our 27 year silence with Iran and re-establish diplomatic ties as co-equal, sovereign powers. Then, together with the other nuclear powers of the world we can begin what the wonks call a meaningful dialog.

Meanwhile, at the U.N., we can do something really nutty and stop behaving like hypocritical neo-nationalists and start acting like the world leader we claim to be. First step: an international nuclear open door policy. The nuclear powers of the world will police one another with a regime of inspections and standards formulated to discourage proliferation while maintaining the security of the most destructive weapons on Earth. That doesn't sound so bad now does it? For the sovereignty nuts out there I say: "Suck it." The American people have been not asked, but told that we will relinquish more civil rights and liberties for this global war on terror then I care to list here. What's the matter with letting the other kids in the club see our goods if it means we can subject them to the same mandatory inspections? It'll keep us safer in the long run while allowing us to keep an eye on our adversaries.

But that'll never happen. There will be troop increases in Iraq, and they will remain there long enough for the fat 30 year contracts to drop, so Bush & Co. can ride off into the sunset in style. Iran and Israel will forget about each other until CNN has another slow news day, and everyone will live happily ever after except the poor bastards in combat boots.

Labels: George W. Bush, iran, iraq, Israel, Surge

A week after one of his top aides was forced to resign for speaking to the press about plans for a possible amnesty for insurgents, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced his actual plan to establish a framework for peace in the war-torn nation: amnesty for insurgents.

Apparently the test balloon was well received.

Amnesty for Iraqi citizens who participated in acts of violence against Iraqi and Coalition forces is offered in hopes that such a program will marginalize foreign players in the conflict. Non-Iraqi combatants - long suspected of being the operational core of the insurgency - will become strangers in a strange land should this plan take root in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Therein lies the problem. Amnesty as a form of mediation in civil and ethnic conflict is not a new concept. It's been utilized successfully to resolve conflicts and avert devastating violence in some of the most extreme situations of recent human strife. But there is a catch. The success of any amnesty is entirely dependent on the capacity and willingness of the parties involved to forgive and move on.

Those who currently man the opposition of occupation forces and the democratic regime it helped establish are not political dissidents. They are people who feel they have been wronged. Individuals who have suffered the traumas of an Abu Ghraib interrogation, or who have lost family in botched check-point inspections or neighborhood raids are not fighting for or against an ideology. They are fighting for vengeance. Acceptance and forgiveness are not in their vernacular.

Not that it matters. Whether the individual players in the insurgency choose to stop fighting and collaborating with non-Iraqi fighters is moot. Either way a solution is fast at hand for American troops.

If the amnesty is accepted, Prime Minister al-Maliki will have to convince the Iraqis to "just get along." A gambit which, if successful, would lead to the reduction of American troop levels at the request of the Iraqi people; The pre-requisite of coalition disengagement.

If the amnesty is denied, the Iraqi government - and by extension their coalition partners - will have a full-blown civil war on their hands. Not exactly a solution, but it would be an official evolution of the situation. New options would be available to the coalition. Options such as declaring the civil war an internal problem of a sovereign nation and walking out with a deal to provide funding, arms, training, and logistical support. A slight departure from the "you break it, you buy it" paradigm true, but also a plausibly dignified step toward tactical disengagement.

On the other hand a denied amnesty could lead to perpetual American involvement in the region. Imagine a Vietnam-eqse theater of operations stretching from Israel to the Himalayas where terrorists and other enemies of the "forces of freedom" are hunted by thinly stretched American forces for a generation. This prospect is not really a solution, but it might force the rest of America to wake up and smell the quagmire sooner rather than later and demand this Administration lead us out of the war they led us into.

Here's hoping this hand of Texas hold'em doesn't go in the toilet.

Labels: Abu Ghraib, insurgency, iraq, Nuri al-Maliki

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the great state of California, and commander-in-chief of her formidable army, has denied a request by the Bush Administration for troops to be sent to the U.S.-Mexican border.

Money was an early concern, but Gov. Schwarzenegger took care of that. His people inked a deal with the Pentagon's people ensuring that funding for this immigrant jihad - an estimated $1.4 billion - will come from the national war chest not California's. Thanks Arnold, now my tax dollars are going towards this boondoggle too.

So if it wasn't money, why did the Governor balk? Simply put, he doesn't want to become the next Ray Nagin. Disaster looms large for California, and it's not a threat from the border-crossers who fuel the state's economic engine. It's much more serious than geography and paperwork. The Earth herself wants to drive Californians into the sea. Any combination of earthquakes, fires, drought, and rolling power outages could turn L.A. into Baghdad overnight, without warning. The Governor knows this, and he's not going to allow the Bush Administration to set the stage for the fall of California on his watch.

Schwarzenegger wants his troops trained to deal with Hollywood proportion catastrophe, not walking a fence.

That's all well and good for California, but was it worth snubbing our petulant, lame-duck, billionaire-boys-club president? Will the Governor choose anything else to publicly disagree with the president on? Will there be retribution? Why do I suddenly crave popcorn?

Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, George W. Bush, iraq, Ray Nagin

War: Take a good look.

Labels: iraq, Shock and Awe

The new.

I've spent the last couple of days giving myself a crash course on css. Hopefully that's obvious.

The cool.

Newsmap is a my newest, most favoritest toy. It's an app that shows a graphical representation of the amount of "ink" individual stories are getting via Google News. Awesome.

The real.

600 American lives lost so far, and it's about to get a whole lot worse.

"KUFA, Iraq, April 4 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - After U.S.-led occupation forces killed 20 of his supporters in An-Najaf and two others during a raid on his office in Baghdad, Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr urged his followers to "terrorize the enemy" because protests have become useless."

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Seven U.S. soldiers were killed in clashes with supporters of a leading Shiite cleric in a Baghdad neighborhood Sunday, military officials told CNN. "

Labels: bloggers, blogging, CSS, Internet, iraq, Mehdi Army, Moqtada al-Sadr, technology

A few months ago, during a White House visit by President Fox of Mexico, President Bush let slip a curious code name: Operation Desert Badger. The reference was part the President's reply when he was asked "...is it true, as your former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says, that you started planning for the invasion of Iraq within days of your inauguration? Do you feel betrayed? And should he have released those documents?"

In response, President Bush said "the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with Desert Badger, or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines. And then, all of a sudden, September the 11th hit. And as the President of the United States, my most solemn obligation is to protect the security of the American people. That's my -- to me that's the most solemn thing an American President -- or any president -- must do. And I took that duty very seriously."

So here we have one of the President's famous instances of equating the September 11th attacks with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. But there's something else. Tonight CNN reports "the secret plan Operation Desert Badger called for escalating air strikes within four to eight hours of a shootdown [of a US/UK fly-over]. Pentagon sources say a long list of targets across the country would be hit, crippling Iraqi air defenses and command and control. The plan went far beyond the Clinton administration's 1998 Operation Desert Fox, which hit 100 targets in four days...And so we were fashioning policy along those lines...One defense official familiar with the plan says, "If a plane got shot down, that was the trigger, we were going in." Over time, the source said, Operation Desert Badger evolved into a more robust plan for attacking the regime...The president would have quickly decided whether to take the next step, approving a small number of ground troops to secure key areas. At the time, only a few thousand troops were in nearby Kuwait. Sources tell CNN Operation Desert Badger was not a plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power...Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says the new options were justified by the threat..."We packaged them, we pre-cleared them with the president, and we were cocked and ready to do a variety of different things in the event something occurred that fit one of those possible unfortunate possibilities.""

Desert Badger was a planned retaliation against the Iraqi regime. One that went far beyond Desert Fox. A decapitation strike perhaps? Was Saddam one of the command and control targets? If so, with all this planning and emphasis on Saddam and Iraq ready to be "triggered" by something "that fit one of those possible unfortunate possibilities", can the Administration still say with a straight face that it didn't push Dick Clarke to fabricate a connection between the September 11th attacks and Iraq?

Labels: 9/11, Desert Badger, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, iraq, Mexico, saddam hussein, Vincente Fox

Richard A. Clarke, former counterterrorism coordinator to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush has hit the administration where it hurts. He claims the White House - prior to September 11, 2001 - couldn't be bothered with talk of terrorism. Furthermore, Clarke comments on the administration's obsession with Iraq, not Osama since day one of the administration despite overwhelming intelligence that something big was about to go down.

Before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the White House was hell bent on going to war with Saddam Hussein. So much so that Clarke was pressured to concoct a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. When he refused to do so, he was shuffled off to head a new cyber-terrorism initiative.

As expected the administration has come out with guns blazing. Fortunately for Clarke, he isn't married to a covert CIA agent whose life can be threatened by exposing her identity to the world with a few well placed phone calls. Nevertheless, it's character assassination a-go-go inside the beltway today as the White House fights to keep this story out of American diner conversation. Ain't election years a bitch, George?

Labels: 9/11, al-Qa'eda, bill clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, iraq, Richard A. Clarke, Ronald Reagan, saddam hussein

In mid-2003 the average American had grown isolated from the global community. A common attitude in many parts of the United States could be summarized thusly: “If someone doesn’t like America, fuck them. Fuck the French, fuck the U.N. and fuck those hippie scumbag protesters out in the streets.”

The Bush Administration’s policy of continuous war for continuous profit was criticized by many constituencies, but the “opposition” party fielded no fewer than nine candidates for the election in 2004. The Democratic party was plagued in the early primary season by the inability to organize the bulk of their membership behind a single candidate. This problem was solved by one candidate’s swift adoption of the Internet as a legitimate medium for serious political debate.

During that summer of odd weather, momentous discoveries, and strange occurrences few people noticed the subtle games being played in the nation’s places of power.

The news had been flooded for months with stories of war and weapons of mass destruction. Every office in America had suddenly spawned pundits in the fields of International Law, Military Science, and Politics in general. The populace was numb with talk of precision strikes, the forced exile of foreign leaders, and the role of the American military around the globe.

In the lingering glow of Baghdad’s destruction, the United States made itself ready to lead the world into the greatest period of weapons proliferation ever recorded.

The United States had pioneered use of high-precision weaponry during the first Gulf War in 1993. Guided missiles were used to great effect in destroying specific buildings in a crowded city, and leveling bridges with a single shot. Forever gone were the days of carpet bombing.

After swift success in annihilating the Taliban regime in Afghanistan with judicious use of precision weapons and special forces operations, the Bush Administration set its sights on the so-called “Axis of Evil.” According to George W. Bush, three nations comprised this axis: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. While Iran and North Korea were well-known to be engaged in nuclear research with the goal of producing a weapon, it is now generally agreed that Iraq had no such program following the destruction of its fledgling nuclear research facility by Israel in 1993.

President Bush, armed with doctored intelligence reports and a determination to go to war, falsely argued that Iraq not only had a nuclear weapons program, but also vast, uncounted stores of chemical and biological weapons. He erroneously claimed these weapons could be used against the United States if the Iraqi government sold them. To this day no such weapons have yet been found.

Gulf War II saw the first use of a super bomb known as a MOAB or Big Blue in combat. At that time, it was the largest, most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever conceived. Video of a test of the MOAB was distributed to the international media before the war. No public outcry beyond a growing global anti-war movement was generated by news that the weapon would likely be used in the war. Experimental thermobaric weapons used months earlier in Afghanistan similarly drew little public criticism.

The trend of public apathy towards U.S. production and use of weapons of mass destruction was also apparent in the lack of media coverage and public outcry concerning Agent Orange and Napalm; two weapons of mass destruction which once commanded extremely high buzz-factor in the United States only a decade earlier.

The stage was set for the U.S. Department of Defense and its industry partners to re-kindle America’s love affair with nuclear weapons. With public outrage no-longer a factor in the United States nuclear policy, all that stood in the way was a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing declared in 1992. That moratorium was debated at the now historic Offutt Conference in August 2003 on the anniversaries of the first and – until that point – only uses of nuclear weapons in combat; the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America.

The argument was made that the casualties of the second Gulf War could have been avoided had the first surgical strike of the war, known as the “decapitation” strategy, been successful. The Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, and his top advisers had been tracked to a specific building in Baghdad. The building was destroy by precision bombs and missiles. Saddam and his inner circle escaped with there lives. Had the bombs and missiles been low-yield nuclear “bunker busters” instead of conventional weapons, the Generals claimed, the Iraqi regime would have crumbled instantly.

Their theories were tested in the next war. But that’s a different story for a different time.

Labels: bloggers, blogging, iraq, MOAB, Offutt Conference, thermobaric weapons

I was doing some research tonight and tried to find a particular link that I know I had blogged at one point. That archive of posts is getting pretty deep. My high hopes that a search for "rapid dissent" and the object of my research on google were dashed instantly. I was going to have to this the old fashioned way: I had to go back and read my own blog. It was unusual. Like reading old term papers.

Anyway, I ran across this gem from April 3rd, 2003. The links still work. Not to shabby for a washed-up, armchair intel analyst if I do say so myself:

"When you sit down across from an opponent at chess, or tic-tac-toe for that matter, it’s not very difficult to play that opponent to a draw – even if they’re a “better” player than you. If you have no intention of winning from the start, you can turn the game into a very frustrating exercise for your adversary; Especially if instead of a single match, you play a series of long, slow matches. It’s obvious that the superior player will win in the end, but who’s counting the pawns?

In reading about what’s likely to become “The Siege of Baghdad,” I’ve had to ask myself, what is an acceptable end-game for Saddam Hussein at this point? He’s not in this battle to actually win – that option doesn’t exist for him. The best he can do is inflict as much damage to US forces as possible, and hope that world and US public opinion will eventually further hamstring the Pentagon’s efforts to fight this war the way they want and need to in order to minimize the loss of American lives. This is, of course, monstrous – but all’s fair.

In my mind, it’s logical to ask what the magic number is. That being the number of US casualties Saddam Hussein’s forces must inflict before his death for this entire operation to be considered a costly “failure” on the part of the United States. In other words, how many US lives will it take before history regards this war as Vietnam II, instead of Gulf War II?

Numerically, I think it’ll take far less than the number of lives lost in Vietnam. I also think it will take far less time. The stakes are much, much higher here. The US is using 21st century technology: a constellation of intelligence satellites, precision guided bombs, special forces, the best of the best of the best…against troops employing soviet era, rusting, dilapidated armaments.

So far, we know that the US troops on the ground have had some difficultly. It’s widely believed that Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration wanted to not only do this "on the cheap,” but also to show how much the US could do with so little effort. The plan was to show the entire Axis of Evil how easy it is for the US to cut through a nation like a hot knife through butter – just like Afghanistan. North Korea and Iran are watching this unfold just as attentively as China was watching the first Gulf War. This is an international parade and review of the United States top weaponry and intelligence capabilities – every fuck-up and short-coming is being noted by military and diplomatic analysts world-wide. The precise outcome of this war will have serious long-term geo-political consequences.

So what’s the magic number? How many Americans need to die before the American public begins to loose confidence in its Discovery Channel education on the methods of modern warfare? 1,000? 2,500? 5,000? So far the count is at 78, and the siege of Baghdad has yet to begin.

Republican Guard forces have been steadily falling back to Baghdad. Behind them they’ve left skeleton crews and heavy armaments that have been “melting” away against the superior US offensive. These forces have not surrendered, nor have they been added to casualty lists. Where are they? A “standoff” in Baghdad appears eminent.

If the Bush administration pushes our troops into Baghdad, the odds of our “winning” this war in the history books get a whole lot worse. But what are the alternatives?

1. Decisive military victory: Saddam and his top officials get taken out one-by-one or en masse by special forces or surgical missile strikes before US regulars must enter the city limits. This is an on-going operation, and has thus far proven very difficult. This type of operation consumes vast amounts of intelligence resources, and risks high profile US casualties and POWs for the Iraqi regime to parade as propaganda – not to mention the potential of loss of sensitive materials (i.e. frequency lists, maps, etc.) or equipment carried by these personnel which could be later exploited by Iraqi forces should even one of the missions fail.

2. Siege, and diplomacy. The city is surrounded. Water, electricity, and food supplies are cut-off. Another ultimatum is issued calling for the head of Saddam and his top officials. Exile might also be put back on the table. At best this might result in an internal coup which has failed to materialize as of yet. This strategy commits US forces to entering the city eventually should the plan fail. It also has a time limit – the “humanitarian crisis” clock will begin ticking the moment the city’s water supplies are turned-off.

3. Shock and awe. Remember this old hat? Well it’s still an option. In fact – although I might be giving too much credit to the administration here – the battle plan up until this point, including the “setbacks,” may have all been part of a scheme to draw Saddam and his forces off-guard before the final implementation of this ambitious strategy. With several tens of thousands of US troops on the “threshold of the city,” shock and awe has a legitimate chance of striking fear and terror into troops stationed in Baghdad. A mass surrender at this point would scuttle any of Saddam’s plans. The problem is this: Do we have enough bombs left for shock and awe? Reports have been trickling out that the US forces are running out of costly precision missiles and bombs. Although it’s worth noting that we haven’t yet seen the use of the MOAB/“Big Blue” super bombs touted in the days before the initial strike of the war. Has the administration been saving them until this point? Will it matter if they have?

I’m sure there are more options available to our military planners as our troops approach Baghdad. These are just the ones that came to the top of my head this morning. Time will tell in the end, but I sincerely hope that the current strategy of a “final battle inside the capital” is not what we will see unfold. Street-to-street fighting in Baghdad will be like sending our troops into an urban warfare meat grinder, or perhaps even a chemical trap. All the while, Saddam and his forces will keep-on playing for a draw, and the rest of us will be left counting the pawns."

Labels: bloggers, blogging, iraq

In those heady days before the first bombs fell in Iraq, when worldwide protests and public outcry had a chance to change the course of world history (before the will of the people took a backseat to ideology in this country), a friend of mine hit me with the old “love it or leave it” argument.

His charge was something along the lines of “If you love Iraq so much, why don’t you go there and see for yourself what kinds of rights and freedoms you’ll enjoy under Saddam’s regime?” Despite my agreement that Saddam Hussein was indeed a colossal fuck-wad, my friend refused to see that my chief concern was not whether or not the man was fit to lead a nation, but whether or not the United States had the right to make that determination, and then act unilaterally against a sovereign government.

International law aside, many of us were also against the war on matters of principle. The Iraq-Al Qa’eda connection never existed. Not to the extent that Bush Administration claimed, and certainly not to extent of the well-known Saudi Arabia-Al Qa’ida connection. The call for war against Iraq simply made no sense to us, but no one would discuss or debate the issue. “Love or leave it,” was the mantra-like answer our questions received.

Some protesters felt very strongly – long before recent revelations - that the Bush Administration was trying to hoodwink the American public by using the War on Terrorism and the search for Bin Laden to generate support for a war against Iraq. These individuals knew then that the so-called “evidence” against Iraq was fabricated and massaged to fit the Bush Administration’s ideology of war-at-any-cost. One such individual was a retired schoolteacher: Faith Fippinger.

Fippinger was one of a score Americans who traveled to Iraq before the war began to act as a “human shield.” This group was joined by as many as 300 others from nations around the world. Their intent: To serve as a deterrent for an unjust war. Shortly after their presence was noted in the international media, it was made known that these peace-niks would enjoy no special consideration from the U.S. Military when the bullets began flying.

Despite this, many peace protesters stayed on in Iraq as long as they dared. Their efforts were in vain. The Bush Administration ignored the global demand for diplomacy, and sent the United States, Briton, and the “Coalition of the Willing” (comprised of countries most Americans can’t even locate on a map, much less pronounce) into war.

Adding insult to injury the Bush Administration, through the U.S. Treasury Department (a.k.a the U.S. Secret Service) has served Fippinger with fines totaling in excess of $10,000 for her trip to Iraq. They claim her actions were in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and that she can either pay-up or face up to 12 years in prison for the crimes of her insolence.

For her part, Fippinger has stated that she would not pay, declaring, "I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons." To which officials responded with the threat of increased fines or the garnishing of her retirement pay, her Social Security check or her other assets.

It’s not as bad as living under Saddam yet, but we seem one step closer to tyranny nonetheless.

Labels: activism, al-Qa'eda, anti-war, Faith Fippinger, iraq, Secret Service

The Bush Administration has come under increasing fire – both at home and abroad – for its inability to locate Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. So far this has been primarily considered a political problem for the President as the possible legal implications of the situation are debated. World opinion of the President and the nation has also been a growing concern. However, while these issues are valid, they are not what should be foremost in our minds.

Consider for a moment that the Administration is innocent before it has been proven guilty (a novel concept I know, but work with me here), and let’s assume some sizable amount of banned weapons do exist in somewhere in Iraq. Given that there are some people in Iraq, and elsewhere, who might use them against the U.S., shouldn’t locating those weapons be our top priority?

We should be using the full weight of our nation’s considerable military and diplomatic capabilities to find any and all suspected weapons of mass destruction today - not eventually - today. If U.S. troops are spread so thinly throughout Iraq maintaining security that they can’t stop Saddam’s loyalists, or some other group, from finding and using those weapons, then it’s the responsibility of our President to go to the United Nations immediately to request the aid of the international community in this task.

Because of our unilateral action in Iraq – and by the assertions of the Bush Administration itself – chemical and biological weapons may now be accessible to any force or faction in Iraq who finds them. Our President has a sworn duty to us all to ensure that – if they exist – those weapons are found and destroyed by our forces before they can be used to harm a single human being.

If President Bush fails us in this, then impeachment will be the least of his worries.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, occupation, wmd

U.S. forces continue to hunt unknown assailants in Iraq. They're not the Iraqi army...that much we know. I mean, they couldn't possibly be remnants of the Iraqi army right? The war is over...Yeah sure it is.

I can't write about an international terrorist force without a name however, so from now on I will call this enemy Cobra. I think it fits...

Our latest operation against Cobra forces was known briefly as operation Spartan Scorpion. I say briefly because a couple of hours after the attack the U.S. media began to report it as operation Desert Scorpion.

Why the name change? Is it to protect sensitive battlefield information that might be harmful to our troops? Possibly. But I find it much more likely that someone in the Pentagon press office got a stern phone call or e-mail from a Military History buff who informed them that the U.S. might not want to be too closely associated with the Spartans of Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) fame.

We can't have our military operations against Cobra named after aggressive, war mongering assholes you know.

Yooooooo Joe!

Labels: insurgency, iraq, occupation

No wait. The administration now believes that there is in fact some centralized coordination to the attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.

But they don’t care.

More accurately, they claim it doesn’t matter. No of course not. Why would it matter? Who’s organizing these forces? Rummy says don’t worry, ‘cause we’re gonna get them. Yep.

So that’s that. In other news the Middle East is still as vibrant as ever. So much so in fact that in three days I’ve heard three separate assertions on three different networks that a U.S. lead coalition of peace-keepers might be the only way to stop the violence and save the “road map.” Wouldn’t that be great? I mean they've done wonders in Korea over the past 50 years.

I give credit to Senator John McCain for understating the obvious today: “The Israelis can defend themselves.”

It scares the hell out of me that there’s an increasingly vocal segment of the U.S. population that believes our country - and our president - have some kind of cosmic destiny to fulfill. These people shop at Wal-Mart. I’m a Target Boutique guy myself, so you can understand my dismay.

Who knows, maybe this religious fervor thing will be good for us. Maybe someone will run a slew of “How would Jesus vote?” ads with mushroom clouds hovering over the “holy land” before the election, and people will finally pull their heads out their asses.

I won’t hold my breath.

P.S. John Ashcroft is in Portland today. I expect to be monitored.

Labels: iraq, John Ashcroft, John McCain

"People want, they actually demand, more security," he said at the Baghdad palace where the American civil administration is billeted. "And quite frankly, we don't have the forces at our disposal to do it."

There’s a problem in Iraq. Someone forgot to tell the Iraqi’s loyal to Saddam Hussein and the Baath party the war is over. Have you seen how many U.S. troops have died since the “end” of the war? In the past two weeks we’ve been averaging about one American life a day – not to mention the non-Americans killed in assaults in Israel, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. How long will it be before the number of occupation casualties eclipses U.S. war casualties? A month, maybe two? Given our experiences in Vietnam, how can the present administration honestly tell the citizens of the United States that the war is over with a straight face? G.I.s Joe and Jane won’t be coming home for Christmas.

And yet, they continue to tell us everything is fine. Administration officials claim there’s no central coordination behind the increasingly frequent attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Of course we have no idea where Saddam Hussein or his sons are at present, but that doesn’t seem to be bothering anyone too much. Remember the final strike? The one that supposedly killed Saddam himself? It took until last week before the Military got around to excavating that site to search for Saddam’s DNA. WTF? They have time to dig up mass graves from 12 years ago when George the Elder promised military support to anti-Saddam “freedom fighters” who were then subsequently slaughtered and buried en masse by Iraqi forces when that support failed to materialize, but they haven’t found the axis of evil himself yet? I can’t say I’m surprised of course. After all, where’s Osama Bin Laden?

But wait, it gets worse. Our little war – the one that most definitely is not over yet – is costing us upwards of 100 Billion dollars. That cost was to be defrayed – so said the neo-cons – by revenue generated from the production, sale, and export of Iraqi oil. Apparently those who support Saddam – or at least those who would like to see the U.S. entrenched in a Vietnam like quagmire – have other plans. Besides killing our fellow citizens at check points and attacking their convoys, these people are specifically targeting U.S. efforts to get the Iraqi oil industry back in working order. No oil – no money.

In the meantime, official – and I use that word loosely - U.S. unemployment grew to 6.1 percent last week. Add to that the number of states having trouble meeting Homeland Security standards due to lack of funds, and you have the sorry state of the union. But don’t panic! George W. Bush has got it all figured out. W., affectionately known as “Bumble-fuck” in some circles, believes that he can solve the Middle East Problem TM and bring peace and prosperity to the world. This I gotta see.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, Osama bin Laden, saddam hussein

LIMA, Ohio, April 24 -- President Bush today raised the possibility that Saddam Hussein's government destroyed the prohibited chemical and biological weapons that were the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Well I’m glad that’s over and done with. No more petty debate about whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a just cause. Now we know it wasn’t. Will it matter? Nope, not a damn bit.

Most Americans have already been brainwashed into blindly supporting this administration by the continuous, 24-hour a day information offensive ever since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some Americans have been so stupefied by the onslaught of propaganda and misinformation that they believe Saddam Hussein, and not Osama Bin Laden (whom we haven’t heard much about lately, but don’t worry I’m sure O.J. is on the case), was responsible for those attacks.

Are Americans morons? No, we’re not. We are however addicted to information, and the more entertaining the better. The average pre-packaged news burst in this microwave-loving, instant gratification crazed country is about 30 seconds long. Slam a few graphics on a few lines from an official (read: carefully tailored) news release, and BAM! you’ve got yourself half a million viewers glued to your channel for the next half an hour. Everybody wins. The government gets its propaganda out, the network gets its advertising dollars, and the advertisers get their captive audience. The current administration knows this – thanks to many years of careful research - and has been carefully manipulating public opinion through the mainstream media for its own profit.

This is just the latest, blatant example of that manipulation. By raising the possibility that the Iraqis destroyed any existing WMDs just before we invaded, President Bush echoes a dubious story that was quietly seeded into the news cycle a couple of days ago that conveyed the same message. That article gave everyone who read it some background so this scripted statement by the President didn't come straight out of left field. More stories about this will be written, although none beyond the editorial pages (who reads those?) will be critical. After a week or two, the possibility that Saddam Hussein’s government destroyed WMDs days before the US invasion will suddenly appear to be historical fact - even though no facts have ever been presented. Within a month – enough time for other gripping stories to capture our collected attentions - many Americans will believe this absurd scenario is actually true. The debate of whether or not the United States was justified in re-writing international doctrine by initiating a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation based on a perceived threat – one which has never been proven to exist – will be over. It might as well have never occurred.

I’m afraid for America. Our actions have consequences. We can’t afford to remain a nation of citizens crippled with goldfish memories. If we don’t pay attention, read, watch, listen, learn, and form opinions on our own, then someone else will do it for us.

Sheep have no choice but to be slaughtered.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, saddam hussein, wmd

So when is the last time you heard the word "nosedive" used in reference to the US economy?

This is not good. In fact, it is BAD.

I was particularly heartened by this confident passage:

"Fed officials have indicated that their battle plan has been influenced heavily by reviewing the mistakes made by the Bank of Japan, which has been unable to jump-start that country's economy over a decade despite driving short-term interest rates to zero."

Isn't that just nifty. Maybe we should also build ourselves a giant, sinking airport while we're at it.

Will Iraqi oil be enough to get us out of this mess?

Labels: economy, iraq, Japan

Via MSNBC:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 8 — A U.S. Air Force warplane dropped four enormous bombs Monday on a residential neighborhood where “extremely reliable” intelligence information indicated that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons were staying, senior administration officials told NBC News. The sources would not rule out the possibility that Saddam could have moved before the planes struck, but they said it was highly likely that he and his sons were dead if they were still there when the bombs hit.

How likely is it that the CIA could miss twice? Not very likely at all.

Now all the administration needs to do is get there story straight on the fertilizer, er, I mean sarin nerve gas.

Labels: cia, iraq, saddam hussein, wmd

I hate self-righteous bloggers who watch the news like vultures, posting every headline of even minor importance just so they can say, “See, I told ya so!” a few weeks later when the mainstream news finally catches up. Poor CNN, they never even saw it coming. Oh well.

But I’m not one of those smarmy blogging pseudo-intellectuals who would declare “You heard it here first” after scooping every major news outlet in America. Nope, not me. That would imply that I take pride in scouring the web for news and cool stuff 8 to 12 hours a day. I don’t. It’s a sickness really, and I probably couldn’t stop if I wanted to. Now, if there were just some way to make a living as an intelligence analyst outside the military…

Anywho, here’s an update on the US-backed, post-Saddam leader of Iraq via ABC News Online, Austrailia:

Missing Iraqi General in Kuwait after CIA aided Denmark escape

Why it’s none other than Nizar al-Khazraji, the former Iraqi Army Chief of Staff who disappeared from Denmark – where he was under house arrest while being tried for war crimes (when will they just get over gassing people to death, sheesh!) – back on March 17th. What a surprise!

Not to worry though, the CIA says he’s A-OK with the USA. He’s a GOOD (suspected) mass-murdering fuck-head TM.

I’m going to take a nap now.

Labels: bloggers, blogging, cia, iraq, media, Nizar al-Khazraji

A few years ago – OK it was more like 10 – I was a freshman in college. (We just didn’t believe them when they said the time would fly). I was in a bizarre little class of 10 or 12 students entitled Freshman Seminar: Contemporary Japanese History and Culture. I say it was bizarre because by the end of the second semester of my sophomore year I had exhausted the University’s entire catalog of courses regarding Asian Studies; At the time, URI was still very much a Euro-centric East Coast State University – a bit backward really.

I took the course because it fit nicely into a schedule I had thrown together at the last minute (i.e. the day classes started), but also because it complemented the Japanese 101 course I had signed up for to satisfy my language requirement (Spanish 303 at 8 am MWF, or Japanese 101 at 2 pm TR – it’s a no brainier really).

The course was – after several years of Asian Studies at various institutions - actually a decent, but slightly dated, introduction to the cultural identity of Japan. Any legitimate understanding of the topic requires a lengthy study of history, geography, anthropology, art, political science, language, and philosophy, but this odd little course at URI served its purpose well.

In my final paper for the class, I tried to tackle the difficult subject of competitive spirit - as it exists in all cultures – and its specific manifestations in modern day America and Japan. (That's what I was attempting to write about, but I’m sure the thesis looked more like: “The Japanese are cool.”).

In America – go to any ball park on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and watch your neighborhood sports teams play a game – and listen. What are you likely to hear from the stands? “Be number one!” In Japan – at the time I wrote my original paper anyway – you’d hear something that translates roughly to “Do your best!”

In America, being called a “loser” is perhaps one of the worst insults imaginable. This is not necessarily true for other cultures in which doing one's best – regardless of the outcome – is a more significant endeavor than simply winning. It’s a subtle difference, but one that deserves exploration considering our current situation in Iraq.

Militarily, there’s no doubt that the US will “win” this war. No comparison exists between US and Iraqi forces. None. However – as simple as this fundamental truth appears – it all goes to shit once we move beyond the limited American cultural instinct of applying concepts of “win” and “lose” to a conflict. Who says the Iraqis are in the same ball game we are? What if not a single Iraqi soldier is trying to win at all? What if each one of them is simply trying to cause as much damage as possible?

When you sit down across from an opponent at chess, or tic-tac-toe for that matter, it’s not very difficult to play that opponent to a draw – even if they’re a “better” player than you. If you have no intention of winning from the start, you can turn the game into a very frustrating exercise for your advarsary; Especially if instead of a single match, you play a series of long, slow matches. It’s obvious that the superior player will win in the end, but who’s counting the pawns?

In reading about what’s likely to become “The Siege of Baghdad,” I’ve had to ask myself, what is an acceptable end-game for Saddam Hussein at this point? He’s not in this battle to actually win – that option doesn’t exist for him. The best he can do is inflict as much damage to US forces as possible, and hope that world and US public opinion will eventually further hamstring the Pentagon’s efforts to fight this war the way they want and need to in order to minimize the loss of American lives. This is, of course, monstrous – but all’s fair.

In my mind, it’s logical to ask what the magic number is. That being the number of US casualties Saddam Hussein’s forces must inflict before his death for this entire operation to be considered a costly “failure” on the part of the United States. In other words, how many US lives will it take before history regards this war as Vietnam II, instead of Gulf War II?

Numerically, I think it’ll take far less than the number of lives lost in Vietnam. I also think it will take far less time. The stakes are much, much higher here. The US is using 21st century technology: a constellation of intelligence satellites, precision guided bombs, special forces, the best of the best of the best…against troops employing soviet era, rusting, dilapidated armaments.

So far, we know that the US troops on the ground have had some difficultly. It’s widely believed that Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration wanted to not only do this "on the cheap,” but also to show how much the US could do with so little effort. The plan was to show the entire Axis of Evil how easy it is for the US to cut through a nation like a hot knife through butter – just like Afghanistan. North Korea and Iran are watching this unfold just as attentively as China was watching the first Gulf War. This is an international parade and review of the United States top weaponry and intelligence capabilities – every fuck-up and short-coming is being noted by military and diplomatic analysts world-wide. The precise outcome of this war will have serious long-term geo-political consequences.

So what’s the magic number? How many Americans need to die before the American public begins to loose confidence in its Discovery Channel education on the methods of modern warfare? 1,000? 2,500? 5,000? So far the count is at 78, and the siege of Baghdad has yet to begin.

Republican Guard forces have been steadily falling back to Baghdad. Behind them they’ve left skeleton crews and heavy armaments that have been “melting” away against the superior US offensive. These forces have not surrendered, nor have they been added to casualty lists. Where are they? A “standoff” in Baghdad appears eminent.

If the Bush administration pushes our troops into Baghdad, the odds of our “winning” this war in the history books get a whole lot worse. But what are the alternatives?

1. Decisive military victory: Saddam and his top officials get taken out one-by-one or en masse by special forces or surgical missile strikes before US regulars must enter the city limits. This is an on-going operation, and has thus far proven very difficult. This type of operation consumes vast amounts of intelligence resources, and risks high profile US casualties and POWs for the Iraqi regime to parade as propaganda – not to mention the potential of loss of sensitive materials (i.e. frequency lists, maps, etc.) or equipment carried by these personnel which could be later exploited by Iraqi forces should even one of the missions fail.

2. Siege, and diplomacy. The city is surrounded. Water, electricity, and food supplies are cut-off. Another ultimatum is issued calling for the head of Saddam and his top officials. Exile might also be put back on the table. At best this might result in an internal coup which has failed to materialize as of yet. This strategy commits US forces to entering the city eventually should the plan fail. It also has a time limit – the “humanitarian crisis” clock will begin ticking the moment the city’s water supplies are turned-off.

3. Shock and awe. Remember this old hat? Well it’s still an option. In fact – although I might be giving too much credit to the administration here – the battle plan up until this point, including the “setbacks,” may have all been part of a scheme to draw Saddam and his forces off-guard before the final implementation of this ambitious strategy. With several tens of thousands of US troops on the “threshold of the city,” shock and awe has a legitimate chance of striking fear and terror into troops stationed in Baghdad. A mass surrender at this point would scuttle any of Saddam’s plans. The problem is this: Do we have enough bombs left for shock and awe? Reports have been trickling out that the US forces are running out of costly precision missiles and bombs. Although it’s worth noting that we haven’t yet seen the use of the MOAB/“Big Blue” super bombs touted in the days before the initial strike of the war. Has the administration been saving them until this point? Will it matter if they have?

I’m sure there are more options available to our military planners as our troops approach Baghdad. These are just the ones that came to the top of my head this morning. Time will tell in the end, but I sincerely hope that the current strategy of a “final battle inside the capital” is not what we will see unfold. Street-to-street fighting in Baghdad will be like sending our troops into an urban warfare meat grinder, or perhaps even a chemical trap. All the while, Saddam and his forces will keep-on playing for a draw, and the rest of us will be left counting the pawns.

Labels: china, Donald Rumsfeld, iraq, Japan, saddam hussein

I am alive, and back on my ass - soon to be on my feet - after surgery this week. Trapped in a hospital without Internet access for a week damn near killed me, but now I'm back. I'm still highly medicated, and I can think of no better time than now to start posting to this blog again. Call it a restart.

Speaking of which, how about that war? WTF? I'm out of it for a little while and everyone starts having delusions of grandeur.

Donald Rumsfeld wants a do-over? His strategy has backdoored our troops who are now entrenched the middle of the desert, without supplies, surrounded by hostile forces. Can anyone tell me how this can get any worse?

Let's pretend we don't know anything about Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or Northern Ireland for a moment. No wait, I forgot, we can't; our troops are fucked, and it's all the Bush Administration's fault. It was bad enough that they got us into this war by screwing-up diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq without war, now they're practically admitting that their grand strategy was a bluff, and that thousands of US lives depend on the re-establishment of secure supply lines throughout the entirety of country about the size of California...Without over-flight rights. Yeah, that shouldn't take too long. All the while there will be body bags coming home.

So now what? How the hell do we get our troops home? We have two options.

1. Call a cease-fire: Pullout now. Go to the UN and apologize. Send Rumsfeld, Perle, and Cheney - or any other assortment of Administration officials - down the river. That's right - send them to jail. They screwed this up, and the only way to keep it from getting worse is to crack a few eggs - just like they're willing to do with our troops. Either it's these millionaire bastards going to The Hague and eating bon bons with other moronic nation-ruling fat cats, or it’s our troops in the desert over several months of uncertain conflict. Sorry, but if we can simultaneously pull out of the war, rebuild relationships with the world community on a diplomatic level, and throw a bone to the Muslims of the world who are none too fucking happy right now, I say do it. If this is horribly unpalatable to red-blooded, freedom loving Americans, then there is always option two.

2. Do it. Fire Rumsfeld. Appoint Norman Schwarzkopf Secretary of Defense, and allow the Pentagon to do its job: fight this war. Congress gives the troops every red cent they need to take Iraq, and more importantly gives them permission to take Iraq by any means necessary. You want this war over quick, then you damn well better be willing to kill every male Muslim in the Middle East old enough to even think about fighting back. Black-ops, CIA operations, drug and weapons swaps, black market economic destabilization, and old school Iran-Contra style deception. I'm talking about a police state that covers the entirety of the Middle East. Oh, someone from Iran was found in Iraq with a gun? Guess what pal you just got yourself a problem with the big dog. This of course will lead to mass civilian casualties in several nations and worldwide hatred for the United States and everything we claim to stand for - but we'll have won the war!

There is no middle ground here. There can be no appeasement. Either we take responsibility for our actions as a nation, and fire a couple of big names from the administration, make examples of them, and call it a day, or we fight this war as if our very survival on the face of this planet depended on it. Anything else will only lead to more delay and more death. The lives of our fellow Americans are worth far more the lives of the scum that have sent them into this war.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. And please hope for a swift and just end to this horrible tragedy.

Labels: bloggers, blogging, Donald Rumsfeld, iraq

House Narrowly Passes $2.2 Trillion Budget

WASHINGTON, March 21 — Voting largely along party lines, the House early today narrowly approved a 10-year budget plan that would allow the deep tax cuts President Bush has proposed.

The Republican-controlled House approved its plan by a vote of 215 to 212. The legislation calls for a $2.2 trillion budget for the 2004 fiscal year that includes $726 billion in tax cuts that the White House has proposed.

This is a record high budget that some believe could seriously damage the economic outlook of the US for the foreseeable future. The budget DOES NOT yet include any funding for the ongoing war in Iraq. The Bush administration has told the American people and the US Congress that it would request even more money to pay for the present operations and any occupation afterwards.

Labels: budget, Congress, George W. Bush, iraq

US Anti-War Protests Flare, More Than 1,000 Arrests

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Police arrested more than 1,000 people in San Francisco on Thursday -- the most demonstrators taken into custody on a single day in the city in 22 years -- as tens of thousands protested across America against the U.S. war in Iraq.

"If this was happening in every city, there would either be martial law or an end to war," said one Berkeley student who chained himself to 16 others on a major San Francisco street.

Labels: activism, iraq

Live video feed from Baghdad back up: new angle.

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

BBC reports:

Twelve US and four British personnel killed in helicopter crash in Kuwait. More soon.

Labels: iraq, Shock and Awe

CNN's "Live video feed from Baghdad" has gone dead. Can anyone else confirm this? E-mail me: ernestlombardi@yahoo.com

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

Drudge:

MARINE CHOPPER DOWN IN KUWAIT; CREW FEARED LOST

Also confirmed on Fox News and MSNBC.

Labels: iraq, Shock and Awe

WTF? Why is this being announced today in the fog of war?

Texan to Lead House Cybersecurity Panel

Congressional leaders have picked Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) to lead a new congressional subcommittee on cybersecurity, a House spokeswoman said today.

Thornberry will head the subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science, Research and Development. The panel is part of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, which was created last month to oversee the new Department of Homeland Security.

Who is Mac Thornberry you ask? He introduced a little bill to congress last year H.R. 1158. That bill established a new cabinet-level dpartment: The Department of Homeland Security.

I have a very bad feeling about this.

Labels: Congress, Cybersecurity, iraq

DUBAI (Reuters) - Mosul has been rocked by explosions, a reporter in the northern Iraqi city for Al Jazeera television said on Friday.

Mosul lies in the far north of Iraq, just outside a Kurdish-run zone and some 60 miles south of the Turkish border.

Labels: iraq, Kurds, Mosul, Shock and Awe, Turkey

There are prayers being sung this morning in Baghdad. They are clearly audible on the live feed. Christ, this is the eeriest fucking thing I have ever witnessed. How many of these people will be dead in a few hours? Is this they're last prayer?

Labels: iraq, Shock and Awe

NORTHERN KUWAIT (Reuters) - Huge explosions lit the night sky in the direction of the southern Iraqi city of Basra early on Friday, a Reuters witness said from near the Iraq-Kuwait border.

Labels: Basra, iraq, Shock and Awe

I definitely hear birds on the CNN video feed now - and still a lot vehicular activity. It’s strange to think of Baghdad as just a city; Sleeping right now - as much as it can - in the lull of bombing and sirens. I’m listening to the birds chirp wildly in the relative silence of the night. It’s so easy to imagine it’s my city, Portland, in the summer. My windows are open and I can hear life beginning to stir in the hours before the dawn. Soon enough, I’ll no doubt be violently shaken from this peaceful reverie by the air raid sirens, then the bombing will begin. It will likely be the awful display that the world has been promised: Shock and Awe. It disgusts me that this city – so much like any other city on Earth - will be subjected to that horror. All I can do now is listen and wait for the inevitable. When the birds no longer sing I will curse this administration and the senseless destruction it has wrought.

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

It's confirmed: Turkish leaders have stated that they can move troops into Northern Iraq.

"Immediately after Thursday's airspace vote, the Turkish parliament also authorized Turkish soldiers to enter northern Iraq to create what would amount to a buffer zone."

Labels: iraq, Turkey

Listening to the CNN Live video feed from Baghdad, I swear I can hear several heavy vehicles driving by. Damn I wish I could maneuver the camera via the web.

Labels: Baghdad, iraq, media, Shock and Awe

British Commandos seize Al Faw Peninsula and the border town of Umm Qasr.

BBC Radio reports that the "road to Basra is now open."

Labels: Al Faw Peninsula, Basra, iraq, media, Shock and Awe, Umm Qasr

BBC:

All clear sounded in Baghdad, Iraqi state television confirms hostilities in south

Expect more military activity once prime time hits the east coast: 8:00 PM EST

Labels: iraq, Shock and Awe

From Reuters:

Iraq claims responsibility for downed US Special Forces helicopter.

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

Washington Post TechNews:

A hacker group marred hundreds of Web sites with digital graffiti last night in an apparent response to the onset of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, prompting security experts to warn of further cyberattacks in the days to come.

Labels: activism, iraq

Via MSNBC:

An Apache helicopter has been downed in Iraq, 2 crew members "OK."

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

An NPR correspondent in Baghdad has reported that the Republican Guard has entered civilian areas of the city, and have seized and occupied homes abandoned by Iraqi civilians who have left the city.

The current air strikes are targeting military and government facilities in Baghdad. It seems the Guard is avoiding the attacks altogether, and will likely be prepared to face US troops in the streets of Baghdad when they arrive.

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

Air raid sirens in Baghdad. Live.

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

President's "press conference" was a quick broadcast from inside the Cabinet meeting room (Have to love The Last Super imagery).

The president thanked US troops and asserted that the Cabinet members were "confident about the future of our country."

Was this a pre-emptive strike to prevent resignations of protest?

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, Shock and Awe

Violence in Cairo, Eygypt and Manila, Philippines. Protests in most major cities world-wide.

Labels: iraq, Shock and Awe

"IN THE FIELD: Beginning of War Surprises Crew"

Troops in the field were not alerted to the decapitation plan. They had prepared all this time for shock and awe. Will this effect the success of the operation?

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer’s press conference this morning. One major item of note is the administration’s handling of the delicate diplomatic situation in Turkey.

The Turkish government has allowed the US to utilize its nation as a staging ground for a Northern Front in the war on Iraq. But at what cost?

The original diplomatic deal called for huge aid packages to be paid to Turkey, but were contingent upon that nation’s cooperation with a proviso that they would not invade Northern Iraq themselves to attack Kurdish positions in that area. The deal reached today contains no such caveat.

The Kurds have been left in the lurch once again.

Labels: Ari Fleischer, iraq, Kurds, Turkey

NPR reporter embedded with US troops: "I think the Iraqi leadership is coming apart...I think last night's mission was a success."

His analysis is based on troop movements and postures on the front line right now. He says that things are not going as planned, and that in the last hour there has been a major turning point in the war.

Is it over? Or is he misinterpreting the situation?

A general in the studio is interpreting that the posture may be a psychological operation against Iraqi leadership - a minor show of force to encourage them to believe that there is still hope to end conflict before it "starts" by surrendering.

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

A link to a major story appeared briefly on Google News then disappeared on refresh. I tracked it and listed it below. The link is currently dead, but I listed it anyway in the event that it comes back up later. As always, I can not vouch for the source:

From Google News:

"Report: Saddam son suffers from brain hemorrhage"
Albawaba Middle East News, Jordan - 2 hours ago
Uday, the elder son of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, struck by brain hemorrhage
following conflict with a member of Saddam's Fedayeen on Thursday. ...

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

A downed US Special Forces helicopter with survivors? Forgive me if I’m a bit incredulous. When is the last time you remember a helicopter crash with survivors?

Is it possible? Absolutely. However, passengers on a military helicopter are not sitting in nice cushy chairs with shoulder straps on. These people are laden with equipment – much of which is “loose” in the cabin. When one of these aircraft goes down, it goes down hard.

Consider the headlines and effects on troop moral if, in the first hours of an unsuccessful assault on Saddam Hussein, the US suffered its first combat casualties. It would be devastating.

I believe that in a morning full of misinformation, back-pedaling and political double-speak, we must be vigilant in weighing the validity of information coming from the field of battle. Who set those oil field fires for instance? Why did they ignite 3 or 4? Why not 50? 100?

The history of this war is being written right now. We must be critical in our consumption of information – no source must be accorded any privilege of blind trust.

Equally important is that we, as Americans, keep close watch on what else occurs in our government as this war progresses. Major decisions are being made on several key issues as 24-hour war coverage holds most of our attention. Such as:

"Top White House anti-terror boss resigns"
"US offers Israel billions in aid"
"No-flags order causes a flap along the front line"

As the NSA drills into its employees and conscripts: "In God we Trust. Everyone else, we monitor."

Labels: iraq, media, Shock and Awe

A “last minute” gambit has failed (Are we all getting used to this yet?). The US strikes against Baghdad – intended to kill Saddam Hussein himself – were a major failure.

Not only is Saddam Hussein still alive, but the carefully laid war plan of Shock and Awe – a plan which took months to conceive and implement – is now virtually useless.

Shock and Awe was supposed to draw Iraqi forces into surrender through surprise and psychological intimidation. President George W. Bush threw that plan aside yesterday afternoon in an Oval Office meeting. Shock and Awe was replaced by a shoot-from-the-hip strategy to kill Saddam Hussein and his top military leaders in one fell swoop – a surgical strike employing the very best of America’s intelligence and technology (Think of the headlines!). The “Decapitation” plan had many advantages.

Shock and Awe called for 3,000 bombs and missiles to be dropped in the first forty-eight hours of conflict. Decapitation utilized only 24 cruise missiles and a hand full of bombs. Politically, economically, and militarily Decapitation was superior, if it worked.

It didn’t, and we will now witness the consequences of our administration’s folly.

Shock and Awe is on the garbage heap, this is now a conventional urban war: The Pentagon’s worst case scenario.

US troops must now overcome an emboldened Iraqi Army entrenched in Baghdad. They have trained to face a cowering one. The Iraqi troops will not surrender easily – their leader has taken the first hit of the war and has lived to tell the tale. The administration has made Saddam Hussein a hero: Worst case scenario.

US military planners - after months of intelligence collection, analysis, battle planning, training and deployment – must now go back to the drawing board as US troops march through the desert. Again, this is the worst case scenario.

Saddam Hussein now knows that the eyes and ears of the US intelligence community are on him – he will use that knowledge to his advantage. Need I say it again?

President Bush made the decision, he will be personally responsible for every American life lost in Iraq. Military leaders in the field will not forget this.

Can it be any worse?

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, saddam hussein, Shock and Awe

via Drudge, WashPost.

Labels: iraq

Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."

This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.

Howard Dean needs us to win the Democratic primaries. Be sure that you are registered to vote. Be sure that your registration indicates Democrat as your party of preference (if necessary in your state). Vote in the primaries. Vote in the general election. Do everything you can to take our country back.

Labels: 2004 election, bloggers, blogging, howard dean, iraq

During an unprecedented speech to the entire world last night President Bush assured the Iraqi people that “If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.”

He went on to declare “In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.”

In the short term – after the death and destruction that will accompany the war – an interim government will be established in Iraq. That government will be comprised of three administrative regions, which on paper will look very much like the current map of Iraq. Former US Generals will administer two of the regions – essentially the same areas that are the northern and southern no-fly zones today. Barbara Bodine, former U.S. ambassador to Yemen, will administer the third, central region including Baghdad. Over all of them will be the head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, former US Army Lieutenant General Jay Garner.

Mr. Garner has significant baggage. He was responsible for the deployment and evaluation of the experimental Patriot Antimissile Missile System during Gulf War I. He worked closely with the Israeli Defense Force to assess the success of the system. Some might say a little too closely. Following the war, having retired from military service, Mr. Garner served as president of SY Coleman, a division of defense contractor L-3 Communications. The company specializes in missile defense systems – the same systems that have been fast-tracked for deployment around the US without testing by October of next year.

Is this the man we really want calling the shots in Iraq during an occupation? Can he be trusted to protect Iraqi oil from scheming corporations and governments and uphold President Bush’s assertion that they are “a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people”?

Mr. Garner will lead Iraq’s interim government, but someone much more disturbing will likely lead Iraq after the US occupation: Nizar al-Khazraji.

Nizar al-Khazraji, the former Iraqi Army Chief of Staff, is suspected of war crimes against Iraqi Kurds in the 1980’s. Up until Monday, March 17 2003 he was under house arrest in Denmark. That country had dared to prosecute Nizar al-Khazraji for war crimes despite strong US diplomatic efforts to spare him the burden of having to face trial for his alleged crimes against humanity. He has since disappeared.

In short, Iraq will be ruled by an unscrupulous agent of the US Department of Defense for the foreseeable future, and then the reigns of power will be handed over to one of the chief architects of Saddam Hussein’s regime of terror.

This is what liberation means to our administration.

Labels: dod, George W. Bush, gulf war, iraq, Jay Garner, missile defense

An un-scheduled press conference (and in the Rose Garden no less)? This is odd in and of itself in the weird world that is the White House press corps, but I don't think anyone knew how strange it would actually turn out.

The President held the conference accompanied by Secretary of State Colin Powell. The reporters present assumed the conference perhaps had something to do with the equally odd surprise announcement of an "emergency summit" which will occur Sunday in the Azores. Yeah, this is when I start calling people to make sure I haven't finally lost touch with reality. Well, it seems I'm still sane - I wish I could say the same for our government.

So about this press conference: I was listening to Maine Public Radio and the host of the program breaks in to inform listeners that they would be switching over to National Public Radio momentarily to cover a press conference during which the President and the Secretary of State were expected to make some remarks.

NPR takes over. The conference begins. The President makes a short 2 or 3 minute speech about Israel and Palestine living in peace with one another, and then he turns and leaves! Colin Powell turned on his heel to follow the President as the press corps began shouting questions about the summit. The reaction from the NPR host in the studio and reporters on the scene was more or less similar to mine: WTF?

Yeah, this whole thing is getting a little out of hand at this point. Something has gone terribly, terribly wrong for the administration's plan to wage indiscriminant war in the Middle East. I'm laughing at their superior intellect.

Here's the break down: Bush had planned to visit Blair - those plans were scrubbed this week as it appeared increasingly unlikely that the UN Security Council would bend to US pressure on the Second Resolution. Blair of course is suffering continued attacks at home over his pro-war stance, and is being condemned by his own party as Bush's lap dog. Naturally something had to give eventually. Remember, this was a strange pairing to begin with; Blair is essentially Briton's Bill Clinton.

So what happens? A press conference in which Bush tries to turn down the heat he's taking from ignoring the war going on right now between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and also to introduce an interesting turn of phrase to the current geo-political lexicon: "step-by-step." Could it be that the US is ready to pursue the British compromise plan for dealing with Iraq? Will it float in the Security Council?

It's a hell of a gamble. This is after all a pissing contest in the end, and Bush has suffered some major set-backs already. First he wanted to act without UN support, but was convinced by Powell and Blair to form a real international coalition before unilaterally deposing the government of one of the wealthiest sovereign nations on Earth. Then there was the tussle over the first resolution, 1441. Bush took it in stride and waited. He was sure that by the time he had his troops in place the UN would be ready to play ball. What he didn't count on was Russia. Sure, France had given the US a hard time with the first resolution, but the administration had figured Russia would play along. They figured wrong. With Russia on its side, France was able to form a voting block. Hell, even China started to toy with the idea of opposing the US. So the Second Resolution is dead in the water. What's next?

Meeting in the Azores is interesting symbolically. Neither Bush nor Blair is visiting the other's nation and twisting arms. No, they're both traveling half-way to meet one another. They are committed to war as a final option, and to make every diplomatic attempt to solve this situation in the meantime. That's the message they're trying to send anyway. The result will either be a new push for the British step-by-step plan (which France has already balked at), or a claim that everything that could be done was, and that unilateral action is now permissible by international law. (There's also the wild outside chance that Saddam will touch off a conflict himself before either the UN or the US makes a move. I believe the world would be highly suspicious of US covert action in this case however given the number of special forces troops already on the ground in Iraq).

Either way, war in Iraq will happen. But it's still nice to see Bush have to jump through these hoops. I only wish there were some way to convince him to just bring the troops home, and re-think his global strategy. Clearly, Bush has been a gambling man throughout these several months of diplomacy, and he hasn't won a single hand yet. Can there be any more indication that his administration's policies are simply unsound?

What happens when the President bets the farm?

Labels: Colin Powell, George W. Bush, iraq, maine, resolution 1441, tony blair, UN

The news cycle has been dragged to a razor's edge. Everyone on Earth is poised on the edge of their seats, and the second shoe has yet to hit the floor.

It's maddening - this waiting. We're powerless stop it, but we know what's coming. Each day I wake-up to find that no bombs were dropped in the dead of night. Should I be thankful that no one has died yet, or should I mourn them for the brutal death that awaits? Is there anymore that I can do than hope their deaths are quick?

As terrible as it is, many people will feel a sense of relief when the killing begins. The wait will be over, and everyone can get back to their "normal" lives; or so the administration would like us all to believe. It's a selfish and arrogant delusion.

September 11th changed the world we live in. Forever. Nothing will return to the way it was before. No matter how many people die, or what laws are passed, things will never be the same. Take a look around - at the news and the protests - this is the world we live in. Conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics are only the beginning; tremors of the unrest to come.

Al-Qa'ida was the first, but others will threaten the United States. They will be crushed. In every case our government will demand more power and more money to protect us: its helpless citizens. Who would deny them? Who could? Eventually law abiding folks will begin to feel the slightest pressure of the walls they have allowed to be built around them. These will be the labor pains of the birth of tyranny.

How many of us could survive the microscope of a bureaucrat? Taxes, rolling stops, travel expenses - one way or another we're all guilty in the eyes of the law. Sooner or later, the proper authorities will have something on everyone. We won't end up in a gulag, but can we say the same for our neighbors? What happens when the police ask for your help to finger someone? Make a statement here, or make it down at the station - the choice is up to you.

I'll still be waiting for that second shoe - even after the bombs start falling - it doesn't have too much further to go.

Labels: 9/11, iraq, patriot act, warrantless wiretaps

The first Gulf War was characterized by surgical Tomahawk missile strikes penetrating individually targeted air shafts like some strange homage to Lucas. The U.S. Department of Defense has promised a second Gulf War will be very different. For Gulf War II: The Empire Strikes Back, our forces are tasked with seizing the city of Baghdad; One way, or the other.

The DOD has deduced this goal can be reached in one of two ways.

The first plan of attack is a psychological operation dubbed “Shock and Awe.” The intent of this strategy is to force the surrender of Iraqi forces before U.S. troops on the ground need to fire a single shot. Our military planners are hoping to march into Baghdad without a fight with a stunning display of unadulterated power. Central to this ambitious plan to take Baghdad is a bomb…A very big bomb.

Nicknamed “Big Blue,” the largest non-nuclear bomb ever created will be utilized as one of our military’s primary psychological warfare agents. Its purpose is to scare the living shit out of anyone who witnesses its detonation. The DOD believes that even a video of a test of such a device might be enough to shake the loyalties of some Iraqi soldiers and conscripts. That must be some kind of bomb, eh?

Well, it is. Big Blue tips the scales at 21,000 pounds (some reports put it at 30,000 lbs.) – far heavier than its predecessor the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter.” Some of you may remember the devastation wrought by these comparatively puny 15,000 pound dumb-bombs during the first Gulf War.

Not only does Big Blue pack a bigger punch, it’s also a lot smarter than the Daisy Cutter; It’s guided by GPS. That’s right, for the first time ever we will have precision destruction on the scale of a small nuclear weapon without that nasty world-wide public relations disaster aftertaste!

So what the hell is Gelled Slurry Explosive? Remember Oklahoma City…That whole fertilizer bomb in a U-Haul thing? That explosion was caused by Ammonium Nitrate – the primary ingredient in Gelled Slurry Explosive. The blast produced by the 4,800 pounds of Ammonium Nitrate in that truck was powerful enough to take down half of a nine storey building, leave a 40 foot crater in the street with a depth of about 7 feet, and kill 168 people. Care to imagine what 21,000 to 30,000 pounds of GSE can do? Me neither.

These bombs are GPS guided; They will have targets. For the shock and awe plan, those targets will be remote, unpopulated areas outside of Baghdad. Places where the blast will be visible to Iraqi troops inside the city limits (which by the way is one-and-a-half times as large as New York city). The fireball created will be of a size comparable to a small nuclear blast – probably so comparable that some troops in the city may in fact believe them to be nuclear weapons. This is a cunning use of psychological warfare to be sure – but what if it fails to convince the troops that all is lost, and that surrender is their best option?

This brings me to the DOD’s second option for capturing Baghdad – level it into submission.

If used inside Baghdad, a Big Blue could level most of a city block. Collateral damage? No. This is collateral disintegration. Should the psy-ops gambit of shock and awe fail in those first nights of bombing, our military may be forced to consider a “no body, no crime” policy inside Baghdad city limits. Would the world care if parts of the city were leveled by non-nuclear weapons? Is there anything they could do if they did care?

Street-to-street and building-to-building warfare can only occur if there are streets and buildings. If these bombs are authorized for use as target killing ordinance above and beyond their use as psychological warfare agents, parts of Baghdad - those deemed non-critical to occupation and rebuilding - could be reduced to small fields of ash and rubble.

One way or another, every opportunity to protect U.S. troops from fighting a lengthy urban battle will be taken. If the psy-ops option fails, and considerable resistance remains in Baghdad after the first week of conflict, we may very well witness the first large scale destruction of a city since World War II.

Our arrogance will be rewarded a thousand-fold.

Labels: dod, gulf war, iraq, Shock and Awe, wmd

What are WMD? How effective must a weapon be to earn this classification? Or is it rather an issue of weapon “type” – are chemical and biological weapons automatically WMD?

These are not foolish questions; their answers are not as obvious as they might seem. Realizing this, the leaders of our world wanted to be sure that everyone on Earth was crystal clear on these definitions. That's why they enacted The Chemical Weapons Convention.

Chemical and biological weapons are illegal under international law. They are bad – one might even say evil.

Is it surprising then to learn that the “US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention…”

In case that's not enough, the U.S. has also reserved the right to flout international law with impunity by employing "Calmative" gases, "similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year."

I read a story tonight about the possible U.S. and U.K. troop assignments for Gulf War II. The story stated that U.K. troops will not participate in an assault on Baghdad. At the time, I found that odd. This will be the most difficult – and very probably the bloodiest – battle of the war, why relegate all of the U.K. troops to securing the Southern no-fly zone, and perhaps Basra? It seemed a strange waste of resources to me then, but no longer.

The following analysis puts the U.K.’s scheduled absence from the Battle of Baghdad into perspective:

“Professor Julian Perry Robinson, one of the world's foremost authorities on the [chemical weapons] convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the UK if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.”

It’s apparent to me now that the U.S. is ready to legitimize the use of chemical weapons during conflict, and the U.K. wants no part of it. I applaud the U.K. for having the strength and the foresight to protect its citizens and its international standing as a rational, peace-loving nation by refusing to take part in this crime against humanity.

What was it George said the other day? “This is the first war of the 21st century.” I’m so glad that we’re getting off to a good start! This will come back to haunt us.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, wmd

After a flurry of diplomatic activity last week, things were oddly quiet in the news this past weekend. A captured al-Qa'ida “mastermind,” and the Iraqi destruction of several Al Samoud missiles dominated the newscape. Monday had little more to offer, but it appears that a few of the more obscure developments from last week - having fermented and stewed - are now being served up for general consumption. Something else is on the horizon.

The resignation of U.S. diplomat John Brady Kiesling has finally made the mainstream news here in the states. The New York Times has decided to cover the story without actually covering it by printing his letter of resignation without editorial comment. A well-respected diplomat has terminated his 20 career in matters of state as a form of protest to his government. He’s not a star athlete, or a Hollywood stud. Is anyone else ashamed for never having heard of him? What work has he done for our nation? Was he a good man? Did he represent the United States as the land of the free, or did he use his place of power for personal gain? I’ll likely never know, and that disturbs me. If he was the man he presents himself to be in his letter of resignation, then I mourn our nation’s loss. The Times is practically an institution here in the U.S. – I expected better of them as journalists. Instead, they’re silent on this issue.

Today, there is also talk of war. Not talk of others talking about war, but talk of actual war. It seems that the U.S. has finally rounded the bend on this situation. The debate – regardless of its relevance - is over. With or without the support of its citizens, our nation is resigned to war; all that’s left is the screaming. Gulf War II is set to start sometime around the weekend of March 15th.

Karl Rove’s canceled fundraising trip to New Hampshire is one indicator that points to the start of hostilities. Rove was expected to collect as much as 250,000,000 for President Bush’s re-election campaign on that trip. It seems the administration is sensitive to the image of passing the hat while people are dying for its diplomatic failures.

That week is also significant because of the administration's push for the final U.N. Security Council to issue its final decision on “The Second Resolution.” President Bush has repeatedly voiced his willingness to go to war – whatever the outcome of that vote - in recent weeks. Despite this, the administration will wait until after the ballots are counted, and the voices of the world’s free nations have been heard. After that, the U.S. will be diplomatically free to ignore those voices, and pursue any course of action it deems fit.

To ensure the U.S. people are as resigned to war as is possible, I expect the administration to seed the media with banal al-Qa'ida news, threat warnings, and propaganda. The rest of the news cycle between now and the start of the initial assault will be filled in with local fluff pieces. Thoughtful analysis regarding the administration’s foreign policy – if it ever existed in the first place – will trickle to a stop as the media shifts into its own war footing. Substantial coverage of any war preparations will be replaced by up to the minute updates detailing how many pizzas were delivered the Pentagon and the Whitehouse.

Those of us who had hoped for peace are held hostage – forced to watch our nation’s descent into war on CNN. The regime in power continues to ignore our needs and our will. The Leviathan is beyond our control. Despite my education in the fields of political science, international relations, history, and military science I have failed to construct a justifiable case for war. I have tried to see their logic, and have found that there is none which can absolve us from the blame of the murder of innocents.

I was once proud of my country, but that’s changed. I still have hope that the U.S. can be a great and wonderful place again, but my hopes of living to see that day are continuously diminished. Madison believed that no nation can endure continuous war while protecting the rights of its citizens. I fear the worst for us. Our freedoms are being stripped away in name of security; our rights will follow. Will we still have the gall to call ourselves Americans even then?

My nation is dying, and I am powerless to stop it.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, Karl Rove, media, UN

1. “U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy”

“(Reuters) - A senior U.S. diplomat based in Athens has resigned in protest at the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, State Department officials said on Thursday…Brady Kiesling, 45, political counselor at the embassy and a foreign service officer for about 20 years, sent his resignation decision to Secretary of State Colin Powell by fax on Monday, The New York Times said.”

His reason? His letter of resignation said:

“We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners."

Very nice.

Next up is my second favorite.

2. “Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size” (NYT reg. req.)

The Department of Defense - you know, the civilian guys who “run” our military - refuses to tell our Congress – you know, our representatives in D.C. – how much of our tax dollars are going to be needed for a war and occupation in Iraq. The DOD says that our general’s estimate – you know, the guys who are going to have to fight the war and occupy the country – is way too high. They’re telling Congress not to worry about it because hey what the hell do generals know about how much it costs to fight a war? And besides, we’re going to use Iraqi oil to pay for it – not American taxpayer dollars! Ha. I love that part at the end.

No, they’re not fucking kidding.

But wait…seriously…there’s more! (Honestly I never get tired of that bit).

Apparently the general, our friend Army Chief of Staff Shinseki, also has no idea how many troops it’s going to take! No, really – the DOD says he’s full of shit. Yep, sometimes you have to wonder where they get those crazy generals. What do they know anyway?

And finally, my most favorite story of the night. This one is from BuzzFlash, via JOHO:

3. “Ari Gets Laughed Out of the White House Briefing Room”

I really can’t describe it better than BuzzFlash:

“Ari just drew himself up with imperious indignation and said something like "you're implying that the President is buying the votes of other nations and that's just not a consideration" or words to that effect...And guess what happened? The whole press corps, normally sheep, broke out in laughter... sweet, derisive laughter. They kept on laughing as Ari turned on his heels and strode out. Sheesh.”

Too difficult to imagine? Strain your noodle no more! Watch it here on C-SPAN (RealMedia).

Fast forward up until the counter reads 28 minutes and watch from there to the end. Absolutely priceless.

Labels: Ari Fleischer, Colin Powell, dod, Gen. Shinseki, iraq

“UP to 100,000 body bags and 6,000 coffins have been secretly delivered to a US base in Italy…”

Just to put that in perspective, the United States lost approximately 58,000 lives to the conflict in Vietnam. What could the Pentagon be thinking by preparing for so many losses in Iraq?

To continue a theme, I have an absurd thought. Let's imagine for a moment that Saddam Hussein really does posses a vast store of biological and/or chemical weapons. How would he best use them against the United States? One might argue that he doesn’t have a delivery system capable of reaching U.S. territory. One might also note that Saddam would be unlikely to launch a large scale attack against either Israel or Turkey. While he did launch a limited, and very quietly reported series of military strikes against Israel during the first Gulf War, it’s simply too much ground for his current weapons systems to cover while under the thumb of 200,000 U.S. and U.K. troops. So what are his options?

Saddam has vowed to die in Iraq. He also vowed that the Iraqi people will die with him in a struggle against any invasion force. He knows that urban combat is our worst nightmare. He believes the Bush administration will not stop at nothing before U.S. troops have overthrown his regime.

So when you can’t bring Mohammed to the mountain, what do you do?

It is very likely that if Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction he will use them against an invasion force. Furthermore, those weapons would be made most effective by use in an urban environment. If Saddam is as ruthless and evil as the administration would have us believe, his own civilian losses would be negligible. The toll on U.S. forces however would be catastrophic. The situation becomes even more grim when you consider the Bush administration’s assertion that it would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the event of U.S. troops being subjected to such an attack. How would our Arab allies feel about that I wonder?

This is only my opinion, but I believe that things are going to get a whole lot worse in the Middle East before they get any better.

Labels: iraq, saddam hussein, wmd

George W. Bush is not dumb. Nor is he a slack-jawed buffoon. He is, in fact, an excellent orator. This is not observed by the vast majority of us because we are plebeians not privy to the real George W. Bush. His true persona is reserved for the share holders of America Inc.

Case in point: His recent address to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI). Bush used the opportunity of a dinner sponsored by that most prestigious of “right-wing think tanks” to outline his administration’s long term foreign policy goals (28 min. RealMedia or transcript).

As a long time foreign affairs and international relations junkie, my final analysis of those goals is this: Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Pax Americana is no fantasy. The Bush administration is doing everything in its considerable power to ensure a global hegemony the likes of which have never been known. Following the war in Iraq, the U.S. will maintain instantaneous force projection capability throughout the world. Put simply, we will be able to deploy a significant number troops to any nation on Earth within 24 hours, and their support units will already be in place. Never before has a single nation had such power.

On its surface, this doesn’t seem a bad thing. With this type of reach, our country will be safe from any who oppose it. It becomes troubling, however, when one considers the converse: None who oppose our nation shall be safe.

If American domestic policy was a model for the world - if it did in fact represent the greatest freedoms of the world – I think most Americans would go along with the Pax Americana plan. But this is not the case. Let’s face it, America has some problems.

I could make a laundry list here of cases in which the U.S. government has over-stepped its bounds - either intentionally or otherwise - to the detriment of law abiding citizens like you and I, but I won’t. We all know how badly our government can screw-up sometimes. I’m also not going to say that any other government does everything better than ours. No such government exists. The question is, if every government is flawed, which one is best deserving of the title “ruler the world”?

The answer is none of them. No one nation should ever rule this world. Not even America.

Despite this, the goal of Pax Americana is nothing short of world domination by a single super power. It is a vision of sustainable global stability, if not global peace, under the watchful eye of the United States. The Bush administration, and those who support them, believe that the United States can be a benevolent dictator to the world. But they need Iraq first.

To this end, the administration has been struggling to convince both the international community, and the citizens of the United States, that America can be trusted to act as custodian of one of the largest oil fields ever discovered, and then walk away once a democratic government is in place in Iraq. The administration points to Germany and Japan, and our occupation of those nations after the Second World War as proof of our abilities of self-restraint. It’s an argument not without merit, but it does not apply here.

Iraq is not Germany, and it is not Japan. Neither of those nations had the ethnic and religious diversity of Iraq. Neither of them presented the long term challenges of security and factional conflict that Iraq will. The United States occupied Germany and Japan not only to protect the world from their militaristic aspirations, but also to protect those nations from being consumed by an expanding Soviet Union. We will have no such role in Iraq. Instead, the task of the occupation forces will be to keep Iraq from exploding into a million pieces before a stable government can be established. This is not World War II, this is Bosnia in the desert.

President Bush and his top generals, namely Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Shinseki, have assured us that the U.S. will “stay in Iraq as long as we have to, and not a day more.” But who will decide when it is safe to leave Iraq on its own? America will. When we have decided that Iraq is safe for democracy, we will withdraw most - but not all - of our troops just as we did from Japan and Germany. From that point on, we will pay Iraq for the privilege of hosting whatever U.S. troops remain, just as we do with Germany and Japan to this day. In short, the American military will have a permanent home in the Middle East.

Pax Americana is a brilliant plan. This whole world domination thing really has potential. And yet, it just doesn’t smell right.

Something’s rotten in the state of domestic policy. If we’re going to be benevolent dictators to the world, then that means we’ll be able to protect American freedoms here at home from all manner of threat. All manner of exterior threat that is. That’s the problem with the neat and tidy Pax worldview. It allows the most powerful government in the world to become that much more powerful. And all the while that government is chipping away at the basic freedoms of its own citizens.

This blog is filled with examples of how our rights as individual citizens are being stripped away. These instances are not separate from the role the U.S. is seeking to play on the global stage. At this point, our foreign and domestic policies are more intertwined than ever before.

Make no mistake, our government is still reacting to September 11, 2001. As a matter of fact, I think they're just getting started. Day by day the administration is moving to curtail more of our freedoms and enforce newly minted laws. It’s like a well oiled machine; Humming and spinning, its power grows with each press conference and with every news broadcast.

Be careful, world. A sleeping giant has just awoken, and the administration of George W. Bush is at the helm.

Labels: 9/11, aei, Gen. Shinseki, George W. Bush, iraq, neocon, new american century

Oh I am so happy that the impending war in Iraq is going to make lots of people very rich in the near future. Local affiliate television stations, and the people who own them, stand to make the most off of the war in Iraq in the imediate future. So much so in fact, their big brothers up the food chain are doing everything they can to help them out. Remember folks, February is sweeps month.

"Sweeps months are usually strange to begin with, chock-full of stunt programming, blockbuster specials and anything the networks can program to grab viewers' attention. It's when ratings are used to set local advertising rates, so it's important to the networks -- and even more important to their affiliates -- to do well."

Isn't that nice. So what type of zany programming can we expect this year's sweeps month? No, not another Friends marriage (or pregnancy). No, not the big kiss between those two characters you've been following all season, who just haven't realized yet that they’re so perfect for each other. No this year we get a war.

CNN notes:
"First it was Michael Jackson vs. "Must-See TV." Then it was Michael Jackson vs. "Joe Millionaire." And then, of course, it was Michael Jackson vs. Michael Jackson.

But tonight's network battle takes a more sober turn: It's Robert Blake vs. Saddam Hussein. "

Not good enough? Wait, there's more! If you tune in, you get to see them both!

"The Saddam interview airs Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET on CBS' "60 Minutes II," and the Blake interview follows at 10 p.m. ET on ABC's "20/20." "

Hmm, still not tempted, eh? Well how about if I throw in...

"The Saddam interview was conducted over the weekend by news anchor Dan Rather. In it, the Iraqi leader declares that his country will not bow to U.S. military pressure, nor will he go into exile. "

I see I've got your attention now. Good. Watch it, but don't forget that right afterwards...

"Across the dial at ABC, Barbara Walters will be talking with Blake about the charge that he killed his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, in 2001. Blake says he's innocent and maintains that a jury will agree. "I'm not going to be found guilty," he told Walters, according to the "20/20" Web site. "Why? It's real simple: 'Cause God has never, ever deserted me. Can't say I haven't deserted him from time to time." "

Now if that's not good TV, I don't know what is.

Oh yeah, and stay tuned to these stations because you'll get the best coverage of a war...should one break out at any moment sometime in the next two weeks.

I think they called it "shock and awe." Didn't they?

Labels: iraq, media

This week the U.S., the U.K. and Australia will once again plead their case to the UN Security Council. They will insist that Iraq is in "further material breach" of UN resolution 1441. I believe that this will be the last such opportunity for the UN to authorize force before the allies go it alone.

The United States has made no secret of its offer to Saddam Hussein - and his top officials - of immunity to war crimes prosecution in exchange for political exile. As tensions have mounted on Saddam to take an active hand in avoiding war, he has placed his Minister of Defense under house arrest.

U2 spy planes are patrolling the skies over Baghdad. The U.S. threat of finding and killing Saddam within the first 48 hours of an invasion are very real. So the question remains, can this situation end peacefully before such an invasion unfolds?

The cost to the U.S. - regardless of the outcome - will be untold billions of dollars.

One way or another, Iraq will be occupied by either the U.S. or the UN. Inspections and disarmament will continue. In the aftermath, the Bush administration will enter an election year with 200,000 troops abroad, and a possible continued nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula. Osama Bin Laden will likely still be at large.

Then of course there is the economy. Will U.S. investors rally following a resolution to the situation in Iraq? Is that all that is keeping them from rallying now?

I continue to search for the answers to these questions. Your thoughts are always appreciated.

Labels: iraq, saddam hussein, UN

I checked-out MoveOn.org's site for their virtual march on Washington D.C. to protest war in Iraq. It’s set for Wednesday the 26. They'd like people to phone, fax, and e-mail their representatives in Washington to show support for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

The site interface sucks. Check it out if you like. Very weak.

Are we too dumb to be trusted to go to congress.org, type in our zip codes, and e-mail our Senators and Representatives on our own? Do we need MoveOn.org to coordinate and coach us on when to speak and what to say?

Please, if you want to participate in an antiwar protest via e-mail, do it yourself. Don't register with anyone. Just go to congress.org on Wednesday, type in your zip code, and e-mail those who represent you in D.C. It's that simple.

As a matter of fact, why not take this opportunity to save the e-mail addresses of your Senators and Representatives, just in case you want to contact them in the future. After all, they are there to speak on your behalf. They can't do that effectively if they don't hear from you from time to time.

Labels: activism, Congress, iraq

Today it was announced that actor Martin Sheen would voice opposition for a war in Iraq in a television commercial to be aired on CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News. The commercial is sponsored by Win Without War and MoveOn.org.

This will be the boldest attempt to date to reach “regular” Americans with the antiwar message. The commercial advertises a "virtual march on Washington," set for Wednesday. Would-be virtual march participants are asked to “use e-mail, fax machines and telephones to get their antiwar messages to legislators” on that day.

But to call it a virtual march? We are talking about utilizing a television commercial to broadcast a message to television viewers. There’s something missing here that prevents this from being considered a virtual anything.

If the celebrity supporters of the Virtual March honestly believe in the antiwar message, then they should make a personal commitment to reach-out to internet users, and ask them to participate on Wednesday.

Many “regular” Americans today are internet users; At home or on the job, they are networked. In one way or another, these people spend part of their day in front of a computer. But it’s not all work and web surfing is it? They are also involved in - or sometimes they just read - conversations online. They interact with their peers in virtual communities via e-mail, weblogs, and discussion boards.

A very large, very vocal audience ready to discuss the prospects of a Virtual March exists online. Furthermore it’s possible that some members of that audience - who know nothing about or care little for the antiwar cause - can be informed by others.

Members of these communities have opinions, and they are willing to share, discuss, and sometimes change them. They are prepared to engage in conversations with total strangers. They are also willing to communicate with celebrities.

Are the celebrities who support a Virtual March so readily on television also willing to help spread the word online? I sincerely hope they are.

And when I say “spread the word,” I don’t mean by having an assistant build a website with an antiwar banner ad and a couple of glossy photos to field fan mail. I’m taking about celebrities participating in frank, honest discussions online by joining existing community weblogs, or by establishing weblogs of their own.

It is my sincere hope that if celebrities are willing to communicate with a camera for this cause, they will also be willing to communicate with a keyboard and a modem. No pseudonyms or aliases – just as themselves.

Some celebrities already have successful weblogs; They are role models for others who are willing to speak for a Virtual March and for the antiwar cause in general. These web logs are already a powerful means of speaking to people from all walks of life about celebrities’ careers and hobbies, why not also their politics?

I wish Win Without War and MoveOn.org the greatest success in informing as many Americans as possible about the Virtual March. Furthermore, I hope that the many who do hear about the march can be prompted to participate on Wednesday.

Labels: activism, iraq

Iranian-backed forces moved into Iraq yesterday without US approval, threatening to destabilize a post war Iraq before that war is even fought (“US concern as Iranian-backed troops enter Iraq”).

Last night, Iran lost 302 of its top military troops in a plane crash
(“Elite troops perish in Iran plane crash”, “Iranian plane carrying Revolutionary Guard crashes”). This is a potentially crippling blow to that nation’s military.

Were these troops headed home, or somewhere else?

Their plane disappeared from radar as it was descending to land. It was a Russian built aircraft flying in a mountainous region during snowy weather. Every article on the web sums up the story with a list of other recent plane crashes in the area.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Labels: iran, iraq, Revolutionary Guard

"Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea."

In terms of international law, what implications does this have (If it's actually true)? Is this the smoking gun? If these vessels represent the entire store of Iraq’s banned weapons, could war be avoided? Are all the eggs in the same basket?

One thing is certain: These ships cannot stay out at sea forever. If they do carry banned weapons in their cargo, then they will be found out sooner or later. But at what cost?

In light of the US being prepared to bribe other nations to support an extensive war - and a subsequent occupation - wouldn't it be cheaper for us to propose that the UN weapons inspectors be allowed to claim global jurisdiction in their search for Iraqi engineered weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors would then have the authority of international law to seize and examine the cargo of these vessels whatever their location.

Furthermore, a UN Security Council resolution which bars UN member states from supplying these vessels until they have made a full disclosure with regards to their cargo should be immediately considered. The suspicion of vessels carrying tons of weapons grade materials on the high seas is adequate grounds for the Security Council to act on this matter.

To consider the worst case scenario: If these ships are capable of polluting regional ecosystems, and they do so, UN member nations who are adversely effected by this action must receive economic compensation for their environmental loses.

Either way – its cheaper than war.

Labels: iraq, UN, wmd

I agree that Saddam and members of his regime are guilty of crimes against humanity. The world knows this, and believes he should be removed from power. I don’t believe that is what is at issue here. Let me explain why I feel this way.

Bill Clinton successfully presented the American people with a war criminal in eastern Europe. Then he rallied support around a diplomatic effort convincing the UN - with NATO military support for the first time in history - to depose a government, and bring its top officials to trial in the World Court. The entire thing was a sham to distract media attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Yet the governments of the world still went along with him for the ride.

Why has the UN Security Council and three NATO member states chosen now to obstruct US endeavors to police the world from bad men? Are they the pacifists they claim to be? Since when?

I don’t believe for a second that France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and China have become pacifists. They are not. Their opposition to war has little to do with pacifism, and nothing to do with policing the world. Not a single government on the globe gives a damn about the suffering of the Iraqi people under an oppressive regime.

This is about money - not people.

If that’s true, how much would this war cost the United States? It’s being bandied about in Washington D.C. that a war in Iraq – and its subsequent occupation – would cost US taxpayers several tens of billions of dollars over the next two years.

How much more than this must we pay our “allies” to go along with this plan in the first place?

Turkey alone is going to cost the US in excess of 26 billion in grants and loans. What about all the fledgling EU states to be? How much are they each costing us? Why are the poorest nations of the world suddenly so vocally supportive of our policies? Were France, Germany, and Belgium simply too expensive the first time around? Are Russia and China just holding out for better deals when the second UN resolution gets put forward?

Turkey has come late to this game, but they stand to make a considerable profit. With US troops floating off their costs – unable to unload, and unable to turn around – how long can we hold out on them. Even if they only manage to negotiate one or two billion more, its still coming out of our pockets. And when I say “our pockets” I mean that literally.
Everyday the long-term costs of this potential war increase. I am concerned that a war is too costly a venture for our economy to sustain.

So what is our best alternative?

Labels: bill clinton, iraq, saddam hussein, UN

I actually believe the protests this weekend made an impact. That's pleasantly surprising to me, really. I don't know about you, but I grew up with the impression that the antiwar protests of the 60's had a monumental effect on US pop-culture, but never came close to actually effecting US foreign policy. So, in that sense, these protests made a "difference." Whatever your opinion might be about the nature of that difference - whether its good or bad for America and the state of Humanity – it’s still a historic moment.

It’s historic for another reason too. The BBC collecting digital pictures from around the world – that was just the tip of the iceberg. I’m a news and information junkie. I’ve been collecting, collating, and analyzing “news,” blog postings, and discussion board conversations for years, and I’ve never seen an issue with as much resonance online as the possibility of this war. These protests were not organized; They were networked.

Everything buzzed and clicked on Saturday. It was amazing.

What made it most impressive though was that these protesters – not just here in Portland, but globally – were not all stoned-out anarchists and fringe communists. For once those people were in a severe minority of the protestors. Take a look at the pictures and you’ll see that most of the people out there were normal, well-informed people who have just had enough.

There are dangers in the world, we all realize that, but there are also ideals. The question is this: Do we abandon our ideals to confront the dangers? Or, conversely, do we ignore the dangers to pursue the ideals? Isn't there a middle ground here, and if so what is it?

America is in a difficult place right now. How can we believe in ideals? Hell, we don’t even have a dream anymore. The “American Dream” is a punchline. I don’t believe it has to be that way, and I don’t believe a war or even a skyrocketing stock market is going to fix it.

I know that this sounds naive and optimistic but what’s our alternative? Does anyone really and truly believe that taking control of Iraq is going to stop someone from harming the US if they're willing to die to do so? Does anyone believe that war is a GOOD idea for stability in the region and around the globe? Those in our government who support war don’t just support a war in Iraq. Iraq is just the first on a list. A list of wars. When did this happen to us? Remember when the United States was a symbol of democracy, freedom, and peace?

Remember peace? It’s not just a word. For a long time before the 1960’s, peace was an ideology (Some might say for a very long time before the 60’s. Some might also say it was much more than just an ideology). Regardless of it’s origin, peace was approached not as an impossible dream but as a goal yet to be achieved.

People used to talk about the last war. Can you even imagine that? Once upon a time, the last war was one that had already been fought. Not anymore. Now we’re lucky if we can even envision such a thing.

I won’t delve into the histories of the League of Nations and Wilson’s 14 points, they should be common knowledge. But I will say this: The United Nations exists for a reason. Too few recall what that reason is. To feed the hungry, to clothe and house the poor, to promote democracy and free thought around the world. Yes all of those, but they came later. First and foremost UN exists to end the scourge of war.

War, like peace, is not just a word. International coalitions. Regime change. Transitional governments. Military occupation. Do these euphemisms make anyone believe that a generation of human beings will not be permanently scarred by war? An entire global generation will learn the lesson: “War is evil, but sometimes it’s justified.” That’s not the only lesson they’ll learn. They’ll also learn to hate. The children of the victors will learn to hate the children of the defeated. And the children of the defeated will learn to hate the children of the victors. Will these children act on these lessons? Are we giving them an alternative?

History has taught us that war and isolation breeds tyrants. How long can we sanction and punish a nation before its people vow to destroy us and all that we claim to stand for? We’ve seen this before. We could have stopped it before, but we didn’t. And the peace was lost. Now some people are trying to get it back. I still have hope that they can.

Lastly, I have something to say about patriotism. I am a patriot. I love this damn country, warts and all. I was willing to die for the Constitution when I served in the military, and I’m still willing to die for it. More than that, I’m willing to see my neighbors die for it; My family too (I know that they love America as much as I do). That is what it means to be a patriot. We will die – not kill – to protect the freedom of others. Even if those others are different from us.

Given the choice of living in an America that believes that some are more deserving of freedom than others, or living in an America where my life, or the life of someone I love is at risk of being lost because of a random terrorist attack, I’ll take the latter. People die everyday, we can’t stop that no matter what laws we pass or how many bombs we drop.

Freedom – and all the risks that come with it – is our heritage. This is America, and anyone who doesn’t like it can leave. After all, it's a free country.

Labels: activism, iraq, maine, portland