From today's NYTimes:
The Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, an independent Iraqi television station, stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.
Representatives of the International Kennel Club today lodged a protest with the station manager of Al Baghdadia TV. Their complaint: that reporter Muntader al-Zaidi's recent reference to President Bush as a "dog" was an insult to canines the world over. "Dogs may be coprophagic," remarked IKC spokesman Dirk Begalovich, "but there is some shit that dogs should not be made to eat."
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Walters the Warrior
From today's NYTimes, an article about the massive drug-related violence along the Mexican border:
During his visit to Mexico last week, Mr. Walters [our drug czar] heaped praise on Mr. Calderón for his “courageous leadership” in taking on the cartels. But he also expressed concern about the spillover effects of the drug war on the United States.
“Some of these groups not only engage in crime and violence in Mexico, but they come across, kidnap, murder, carry out assassinations,” he told reporters, noting that the intensity of the violence was still much higher south of the border than north of it.
“Our goal is to reduce the period of suffering as rapidly as possible by bringing these people to justice,” he said. “That’s what this is all about on both sides of the border.”
Mr. Walters, a vehement opponent of drug legalization, backed a proposal by Mr. Calderón not to prosecute people caught carrying relatively small amounts of illegal narcotics, including cocaine and heroin. Under Mr. Calderón’s plan, addicts would be treated differently from traffickers and would avoid jail if they agreed to undergo treatment, not unlike similar programs in some parts of the United States. “I don’t think that’s legalization,” Mr. Walters said.
What hypocrisy. If Walters was really concerned to "reduce the period of suffering" the answer would be simple: legalize pot, coke, and heroin. The Mexican black market, which is built upon demand for drugs in the U.S., would disappear and the violence along with it. Some of the millions we are wasting fighting a futile war on drugs could be directed toward treatment of addicts and education of the public about the dangers of drug abuse. That makes too much sense, apparently.
During his visit to Mexico last week, Mr. Walters [our drug czar] heaped praise on Mr. Calderón for his “courageous leadership” in taking on the cartels. But he also expressed concern about the spillover effects of the drug war on the United States.
“Some of these groups not only engage in crime and violence in Mexico, but they come across, kidnap, murder, carry out assassinations,” he told reporters, noting that the intensity of the violence was still much higher south of the border than north of it.
“Our goal is to reduce the period of suffering as rapidly as possible by bringing these people to justice,” he said. “That’s what this is all about on both sides of the border.”
Mr. Walters, a vehement opponent of drug legalization, backed a proposal by Mr. Calderón not to prosecute people caught carrying relatively small amounts of illegal narcotics, including cocaine and heroin. Under Mr. Calderón’s plan, addicts would be treated differently from traffickers and would avoid jail if they agreed to undergo treatment, not unlike similar programs in some parts of the United States. “I don’t think that’s legalization,” Mr. Walters said.
What hypocrisy. If Walters was really concerned to "reduce the period of suffering" the answer would be simple: legalize pot, coke, and heroin. The Mexican black market, which is built upon demand for drugs in the U.S., would disappear and the violence along with it. Some of the millions we are wasting fighting a futile war on drugs could be directed toward treatment of addicts and education of the public about the dangers of drug abuse. That makes too much sense, apparently.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
smearing all the way
From today's Washington Post, an article on the McCain campaign's ads attacking Obama:
The sex education ad referred to legislation Obama voted for -- but did not sponsor -- in the Illinois Senate that allowed school boards to develop 'age-appropriate' sex education courses at all levels. Kindergarten teachers were given the approval to teach about appropriate and inappropriate touching to combat molestation.
The McCain advertisement calls it 'Obama's one accomplishment' in education: 'legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.'
'Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education, wrong for your family,' the ad concludes.
Does it get any dirtier than this? Obama votes for a bill that is intended to protect children from sexual molestation; what the McCain ad implies is that Obama was voting to encourage sexual precocity in children, to destroy their innocence, to deprave them. Obama as child predator.
And today Obama has to shake hands with McCain at a 9/11 memorial event. I'd wear a rubber glove if I were he.
The sex education ad referred to legislation Obama voted for -- but did not sponsor -- in the Illinois Senate that allowed school boards to develop 'age-appropriate' sex education courses at all levels. Kindergarten teachers were given the approval to teach about appropriate and inappropriate touching to combat molestation.
The McCain advertisement calls it 'Obama's one accomplishment' in education: 'legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.'
'Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education, wrong for your family,' the ad concludes.
Does it get any dirtier than this? Obama votes for a bill that is intended to protect children from sexual molestation; what the McCain ad implies is that Obama was voting to encourage sexual precocity in children, to destroy their innocence, to deprave them. Obama as child predator.
And today Obama has to shake hands with McCain at a 9/11 memorial event. I'd wear a rubber glove if I were he.
Monday, September 01, 2008
fearful symmetry
From today's New York Times, an article about Russia claiming its own sphere of influence:
"Mr. Putin appeared on Russian television on Sunday from the nation’s far east, where he was inspecting progress on a trans-Siberian oil pipeline to China and the Pacific Ocean, a clear warning to Europe that Russia could find alternative customers for its energy exports. He was later shown in a forest, dressed in camouflage and hunting a Siberian tiger with a tranquilizer gun."
Couldn't we just decide this Georgia thing by having Vlad Putin and Dick Cheney square off for a rousing game of laser tag?
"Mr. Putin appeared on Russian television on Sunday from the nation’s far east, where he was inspecting progress on a trans-Siberian oil pipeline to China and the Pacific Ocean, a clear warning to Europe that Russia could find alternative customers for its energy exports. He was later shown in a forest, dressed in camouflage and hunting a Siberian tiger with a tranquilizer gun."
Couldn't we just decide this Georgia thing by having Vlad Putin and Dick Cheney square off for a rousing game of laser tag?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Romancing the President
Recently, while discussing the state of the war in Afghanistan with military personnel, President Bush remarked, "I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger . . . I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. . . . It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."
The president’s use of the term “romantic” is very suggestive. There are essentially two ways of looking at combat: the Romantic and the Realist. The Romantic view represents combat as an opportunity for the soldier to prove and improve his character. Combat, if it does not kill the combatant, will only make him stronger—will lift up and transfigure him. The experience of combat will transform a boy into a man, a man into a Superman.
This Romantic view is given classical expression in Shakespeare’s Henry the Fifth, in the famous speech the king gives to his troops before the battle of Agincourt. Henry tells his men that they should not be downcast because they are outnumbered by the French, as the glory of victory will be all the greater for this: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; / For he to-day that sheds his blood with me / Shall be my brother. . . . And gentlemen in England now abed / Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, / And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks / That fought on Saint Crispin’s day.”
That the Romantic myth of combat is still compelling today, four hundred years after Shakespeare wrote those lines, is evident from how military recruiting ads attempt to borrow the Bard’s rhetorical fire: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” echoes distinctly in “The Few, the Proud, the Marines.” Recruits are encouraged to think that with proper training they can become “an Army of One.” Young men (and now women) are still lured into military service by the promise that combat is a “trial by fire” that will raise them up, transfigure them, turn them into Heroes.
Such is the Romantic viewpoint. There is, however, another view: the Realist. From this perspective combat is seen not as an opportunity but as a disaster. Rather than improving one’s character, the experience of combat is likely to injure it, in many cases ruin it. Exposure to combat is like exposure to a toxin: it does not transfigure so much as disfigure. What does not kill us may leave us wounded, maimed, or wishing we were dead.
It is the Realist view that comes to the fore in discussions of PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This malady has been illuminated by Dr. Jonathan Shay in his groundbreaking Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. In Shay’s view, the veteran with PTSD is unable to “turn off” the survival skills he or she learned in combat, which skills are inappropriate in a civilized context. This contradiction exacerbates a host of problems associated with the original trauma: intrusive thoughts (“flashbacks”), social anxiety, insomnia, depression, violent rages, and substance abuse.
A particularly tragic case of PTSD has been in the news lately: that of former Army medic Joseph Dwyer. Dwyer became famous during the first week of the war when a photo of his rescuing a wounded Iraqi child was published on the cover of USA Today. He was an instant hero. When he returned home, however, he brought the war with him – suffered from paranoid delusions that the enemy was all around him, turned to huffing solvents to find relief from his demons. He died from substance abuse at the age of 31. He left behind a wife and daughter.
A recent study by the RAND Corporation found that approximately one in five of those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan – that’s 300,000 souls -- are suffering from PTSD. Unfortunately, many of these soldiers are doomed to lead lives of quiet desperation, as their Romantic conception of what a warrior should be--that is, tough and uncomplaining--prevents them from seeking psychological treatment.
Given that 1,000 veterans receiving care at the VA try to kill themselves every month, we can begin to see the heavy cost of indulging in Romantic conceptions of warfare (such as that held by our present Commander in Chief). War is not glorious. On the contrary, as General Sherman realistically remarked, “War is all hell,” and for too many of our combat vets, hell is where they’ll live for the rest of their lives. Perhaps we should take this into account when we decide to send idealistic young men and women off to do battle.
The president’s use of the term “romantic” is very suggestive. There are essentially two ways of looking at combat: the Romantic and the Realist. The Romantic view represents combat as an opportunity for the soldier to prove and improve his character. Combat, if it does not kill the combatant, will only make him stronger—will lift up and transfigure him. The experience of combat will transform a boy into a man, a man into a Superman.
This Romantic view is given classical expression in Shakespeare’s Henry the Fifth, in the famous speech the king gives to his troops before the battle of Agincourt. Henry tells his men that they should not be downcast because they are outnumbered by the French, as the glory of victory will be all the greater for this: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; / For he to-day that sheds his blood with me / Shall be my brother. . . . And gentlemen in England now abed / Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, / And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks / That fought on Saint Crispin’s day.”
That the Romantic myth of combat is still compelling today, four hundred years after Shakespeare wrote those lines, is evident from how military recruiting ads attempt to borrow the Bard’s rhetorical fire: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” echoes distinctly in “The Few, the Proud, the Marines.” Recruits are encouraged to think that with proper training they can become “an Army of One.” Young men (and now women) are still lured into military service by the promise that combat is a “trial by fire” that will raise them up, transfigure them, turn them into Heroes.
Such is the Romantic viewpoint. There is, however, another view: the Realist. From this perspective combat is seen not as an opportunity but as a disaster. Rather than improving one’s character, the experience of combat is likely to injure it, in many cases ruin it. Exposure to combat is like exposure to a toxin: it does not transfigure so much as disfigure. What does not kill us may leave us wounded, maimed, or wishing we were dead.
It is the Realist view that comes to the fore in discussions of PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This malady has been illuminated by Dr. Jonathan Shay in his groundbreaking Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. In Shay’s view, the veteran with PTSD is unable to “turn off” the survival skills he or she learned in combat, which skills are inappropriate in a civilized context. This contradiction exacerbates a host of problems associated with the original trauma: intrusive thoughts (“flashbacks”), social anxiety, insomnia, depression, violent rages, and substance abuse.
A particularly tragic case of PTSD has been in the news lately: that of former Army medic Joseph Dwyer. Dwyer became famous during the first week of the war when a photo of his rescuing a wounded Iraqi child was published on the cover of USA Today. He was an instant hero. When he returned home, however, he brought the war with him – suffered from paranoid delusions that the enemy was all around him, turned to huffing solvents to find relief from his demons. He died from substance abuse at the age of 31. He left behind a wife and daughter.
A recent study by the RAND Corporation found that approximately one in five of those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan – that’s 300,000 souls -- are suffering from PTSD. Unfortunately, many of these soldiers are doomed to lead lives of quiet desperation, as their Romantic conception of what a warrior should be--that is, tough and uncomplaining--prevents them from seeking psychological treatment.
Given that 1,000 veterans receiving care at the VA try to kill themselves every month, we can begin to see the heavy cost of indulging in Romantic conceptions of warfare (such as that held by our present Commander in Chief). War is not glorious. On the contrary, as General Sherman realistically remarked, “War is all hell,” and for too many of our combat vets, hell is where they’ll live for the rest of their lives. Perhaps we should take this into account when we decide to send idealistic young men and women off to do battle.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Gitmo strays
"American Progress's Ken Gude has put forth a five-phase plan to close Guantanamo over an 18-month period. The plan includes bringing 'a small number of detainees into the United States to stand trial in regular federal or military courts,' rather than under the flawed Military Commissions. It would create 'a resettlement and rehabilitation program in partnership with allied countries and international organizations to find homes for detainees that can't be returned to their home countries' and transfer the remaining detainees to stand trial in the United States."
This is Ahmed. Ahmed is a Guantanamo detainee. There's not enough evidence to put Ahmed on trial, and his country of origin no longer wants him. Please open your heart and your home to Ahmed or to some other unfortunate detainee. All have been spayed / neutered and given their shots. They are waiting for your love! Call now.
This is Ahmed. Ahmed is a Guantanamo detainee. There's not enough evidence to put Ahmed on trial, and his country of origin no longer wants him. Please open your heart and your home to Ahmed or to some other unfortunate detainee. All have been spayed / neutered and given their shots. They are waiting for your love! Call now.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Antonin "Crazy Tony" Scalia gets even
From today's New York Times, on the Supreme Court decision to allow Guantanamo detainees the right of habeas corpus.
"Of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Antonin Scalia’s was the more apocalyptic, predicting 'devastating' and 'disastrous consequences' from the decision. 'It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,' he said. 'The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.'"
And he went up from thence unto Washington: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth out of the city Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Stevens. And they did mock him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in The Name of The Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare the five of them.
"Of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Antonin Scalia’s was the more apocalyptic, predicting 'devastating' and 'disastrous consequences' from the decision. 'It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,' he said. 'The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.'"
And he went up from thence unto Washington: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth out of the city Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Stevens. And they did mock him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in The Name of The Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare the five of them.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Cheney Commits Suicide
WASHINGTON (AP). The White House has reported that Vice President Dick Cheney has committed suicide, apparently by shooting himself with the same shotgun with which he shot Harry Whittington. Cheney left a short note explaining that he had become so utterly despicable that he could no longer stand himself, and, since impeachment was "off the table," this appeared his only recourse. President Bush, upon hearing the news, turned to his aides and, tossing his hands in the air, exclaimed "What now?"
In a related story, the Wall Street Journal reports that the "undisclosed location" to which the Vice President retreated in the wake of 9/11 has been identified as an apartment complex outside of Toronto, Canada. It appears, therefore, that after 9/11, while not in-country, Mr. Cheney was in-continent.
In a related story, the Wall Street Journal reports that the "undisclosed location" to which the Vice President retreated in the wake of 9/11 has been identified as an apartment complex outside of Toronto, Canada. It appears, therefore, that after 9/11, while not in-country, Mr. Cheney was in-continent.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
I've fallen and I can't get up
From Saturday's Washington Post:
Officials said they do not know the number of service members cremated at the Kent County facility, which is identified on a billboard as Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates found "the site and signage are insensitive and entirely inappropriate for the dignified treatment of our fallen," Morrell said. "The families of the fallen have the secretary's deepest apology," he said.
A grotesque story. But on second thought why not in a pet crematorium? Four thousand of our soldiers have been turned into dogmeat by a war that is absolutely grotesque --unjust and indefensible. Why sublimate these deaths? Let the lamp affix its beam.
The Post article continues,
Military culture instills that showing respect for the fallen is an extremely important and solemn duty. Funerary rituals such as removing flags from military caskets and presenting them to the deceased's family are carried out meticulously, while other demonstrations of respect include personally delivering news of the loss of a loved one to the next of kin.
It is so very easy to be bullied into silence by the cult of the Fallen. "All uncover, please, and cast eyes downward. Now kiss the flag." The same old bullshit, the same old lie.
Look at the way, for example, our government represented Pat Tillman as a figure of romance rather than as a pathetic dupe to romance rhetoric. Let's forget the fact (or suppress it, as our government did) that he got his head blown off by his fellow soldiers in the usual dark comedy of errors that war is. Instead it's "When can [his] glory fade! Honor the charge [he] made!" The Pentagon misrepresenting his death to try to lure in a few more, to collect some more cannon fodder.
Ted Rall was disappeared from the pages of the Washington Post for telling the truth about Tillman in his cartoon strip. Such is the fate of the truthteller in wartime.
Officials said they do not know the number of service members cremated at the Kent County facility, which is identified on a billboard as Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates found "the site and signage are insensitive and entirely inappropriate for the dignified treatment of our fallen," Morrell said. "The families of the fallen have the secretary's deepest apology," he said.
A grotesque story. But on second thought why not in a pet crematorium? Four thousand of our soldiers have been turned into dogmeat by a war that is absolutely grotesque --unjust and indefensible. Why sublimate these deaths? Let the lamp affix its beam.
The Post article continues,
Military culture instills that showing respect for the fallen is an extremely important and solemn duty. Funerary rituals such as removing flags from military caskets and presenting them to the deceased's family are carried out meticulously, while other demonstrations of respect include personally delivering news of the loss of a loved one to the next of kin.
It is so very easy to be bullied into silence by the cult of the Fallen. "All uncover, please, and cast eyes downward. Now kiss the flag." The same old bullshit, the same old lie.
Look at the way, for example, our government represented Pat Tillman as a figure of romance rather than as a pathetic dupe to romance rhetoric. Let's forget the fact (or suppress it, as our government did) that he got his head blown off by his fellow soldiers in the usual dark comedy of errors that war is. Instead it's "When can [his] glory fade! Honor the charge [he] made!" The Pentagon misrepresenting his death to try to lure in a few more, to collect some more cannon fodder.
Ted Rall was disappeared from the pages of the Washington Post for telling the truth about Tillman in his cartoon strip. Such is the fate of the truthteller in wartime.
Friday, May 09, 2008
another modest proposal
It appears the Pentagon is having trouble finding enough bodies to wage our President's glorious War on Terror. Word has it, in fact, that the services have started accepting almost anyone, including convicted felons and near-imbeciles, to fill the ranks.
Here's an idea. Since it is the people who voted Bush into office who are ultimately responsible for this war, why not set up a draft especially for them? I'm thinking in particular of those male retirees who voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. Since they are retired they are nothing but a drain on society anyway, so why not ship them off to Iraq and Afghanistan? They could be blown to smithereens as well as young men and are more easily spared.
I mean, if they are true believers in Bush and his war, why not give them the opportunity to prove it? To put their money where their dentures are? To limp the limp?
Here's an idea. Since it is the people who voted Bush into office who are ultimately responsible for this war, why not set up a draft especially for them? I'm thinking in particular of those male retirees who voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. Since they are retired they are nothing but a drain on society anyway, so why not ship them off to Iraq and Afghanistan? They could be blown to smithereens as well as young men and are more easily spared.
I mean, if they are true believers in Bush and his war, why not give them the opportunity to prove it? To put their money where their dentures are? To limp the limp?
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
searching for a metaphor
"The Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine released their third edition of the Terrorism Index in August 2007. The survey of over 100 national security experts from across the ideological spectrum found that an overwhelming 84 percent disagreed with the statement that 'the United States is winning the war on terror.' The persistent threat of Al Qaeda seven years after 9/11, as shown in the State Department’s report and by other U.S. government professionals, only reinforces these opinions. The Bush administration has failed to advance comprehensive strategies for preserving American power, security, and leadership in the world and eliminating the real terrorist threats we face in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq, and in the broader counterterrorism mission."
A metaphor for our war on terror and its failure: the United States a dog attacked by fleas. The dog's solution is to scratch itself raw, bite at itself until it is exhausted. The fleas are encouraged by the dog's futile efforts, continue to breed and multiply. For every flea killed a half-dozen spring up to take its place. The dog is finally driven mad by the itching, proceeds to eviscerate itself.
Friday, May 02, 2008
On the dotted line
A common argument heard in response to one pointing out the tragedy of our soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq: "Well, they did know when they signed up that going to war was a possibility."
True, our soldiers signed on the dotted line. They did not sign on, however, to be put in harm's way in an unjust and unnecessary war. They signed on to defend their country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. How was the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein a threat to this country? No weapons of mass destruction. No connection to Al Qaeda. Our war in Iraq was and is a war of choice, not of necessity. A sleazy oil war.
Yet to make this argument is to risk being labelled a bore. Those who a few years ago argued vociferously in defense of the war now just roll their eyes and change the subject. And yet the war rages on. And yet our soldiers continue to die. For what? For the dreams of empire dreamt by a handful of greedy old men.
True, our soldiers signed on the dotted line. They did not sign on, however, to be put in harm's way in an unjust and unnecessary war. They signed on to defend their country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. How was the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein a threat to this country? No weapons of mass destruction. No connection to Al Qaeda. Our war in Iraq was and is a war of choice, not of necessity. A sleazy oil war.
Yet to make this argument is to risk being labelled a bore. Those who a few years ago argued vociferously in defense of the war now just roll their eyes and change the subject. And yet the war rages on. And yet our soldiers continue to die. For what? For the dreams of empire dreamt by a handful of greedy old men.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
McCain's support for our troops
Senators James Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) have each sponsored bills to boost veterans' educational assistance to cover the cost of tuition at state universities. This update to the G.I. Bill would cost taxpayers anywhere between two and a half to four billion dollars over ten years -- a drop in the bucket compared to what the war in Iraq is costing us. Most members of Congress think this is a wonderful idea. Isn't it the least we can do to "support our troops"?
Guess who opposes this proposal? Senator John McCain. Why does he oppose it? He fears it will discourage soldiers from re-enlisting, leaving us short of warriors to fight our glorious War on Terror. McCain comments, "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military."
Stop a moment and consider: what does this say about why people join the military in the first place? Could it be that a large number of them are essentially economic refugees -- poor people who could not afford college and figured that it was somewhat less humiliating to don a soldier's uniform than a blue Walmart vest? People who, if given a chance for a good education -- and a good job to follow -- will leave the military in a heartbeat?
Rich man's war, poor man's fight. It was ever thus. Perhaps those who call for a return to the draft have a point. If not just the kids of poor folk but everyone was responsible for fighting this war, maybe the war would be brought to a conclusion a whole lot sooner.
Post-script: Last week a funeral at Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati for Matthew Maupin, whose remains were finally recovered four years after he was kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Iraq. How did he end up in Iraq? He had joined the Army Reserve to make a little extra money for college.
Guess who opposes this proposal? Senator John McCain. Why does he oppose it? He fears it will discourage soldiers from re-enlisting, leaving us short of warriors to fight our glorious War on Terror. McCain comments, "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military."
Stop a moment and consider: what does this say about why people join the military in the first place? Could it be that a large number of them are essentially economic refugees -- poor people who could not afford college and figured that it was somewhat less humiliating to don a soldier's uniform than a blue Walmart vest? People who, if given a chance for a good education -- and a good job to follow -- will leave the military in a heartbeat?
Rich man's war, poor man's fight. It was ever thus. Perhaps those who call for a return to the draft have a point. If not just the kids of poor folk but everyone was responsible for fighting this war, maybe the war would be brought to a conclusion a whole lot sooner.
Post-script: Last week a funeral at Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati for Matthew Maupin, whose remains were finally recovered four years after he was kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Iraq. How did he end up in Iraq? He had joined the Army Reserve to make a little extra money for college.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
McCain's Two Big Ideas
For his campaign John McCain is selling himself as our foreign affairs / security expert, asserting his manifest superiority in this realm over the Democratic candidates. "You wanna talk about war? Well, I know war!" Yet his statements on Iraq seem to suggest the opposite: that, when it comes to what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq, he's pretty much clueless. Take for instance his repeated assertion that Iran is training Al Qaeda terrorists and sending them back into Iraq to kill American soldiers. This is of course impossible. Al Qaeda is Sunni, Iran is Shiite, and never the twain shall meet.
It was almost inevitable, though, that he make this particular mistake. What he did was conflate the two Big Ideas about the war that he is deploying on the campaign trail: (1) that the enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that struck us on 9/11 and that (2) the enemy in Iraq is Iran. Never mind that these two assertions are mutually exclusive. McCain will continue to assert them.
Why? Because the reality on the ground of Iraq is too complicated for public consumption --also too damned hopeless. McCain's big ideas simplify things. According to McCain, the war in Iraq is a proper response to the crime that was committed against us on 9/11 and the enemy in Iraq is a coherent nation state that potentially could be defeated in a war. See? Simple! Wrong on both counts, but simple.
McCain's strategy is borrowed from Bush and his cronies: just keep saying the same thing over and over again, regardless of its relation to the truth (for example, that there is a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein), and perhaps enough people will believe it for it to have a political effect.
It was almost inevitable, though, that he make this particular mistake. What he did was conflate the two Big Ideas about the war that he is deploying on the campaign trail: (1) that the enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that struck us on 9/11 and that (2) the enemy in Iraq is Iran. Never mind that these two assertions are mutually exclusive. McCain will continue to assert them.
Why? Because the reality on the ground of Iraq is too complicated for public consumption --also too damned hopeless. McCain's big ideas simplify things. According to McCain, the war in Iraq is a proper response to the crime that was committed against us on 9/11 and the enemy in Iraq is a coherent nation state that potentially could be defeated in a war. See? Simple! Wrong on both counts, but simple.
McCain's strategy is borrowed from Bush and his cronies: just keep saying the same thing over and over again, regardless of its relation to the truth (for example, that there is a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein), and perhaps enough people will believe it for it to have a political effect.
Friday, April 18, 2008
cheney on the move
News Brief: Vice President Dick Cheney today visited the smouldering remains of a large Iraqi orphanage that burnt down last night after being struck by a U.S. Navy submarine-launched Hellfire missile. Standing amidst the ruins he observed that he thought the fire "had gone very well," that "we were making good progress," and that "it was well worth it." When one reporter observed that Cheney was standing on a pile of charred corpses he responded that most of the children were "dead enders" to begin with and many had "links to Al Qaeda." One of the few surviving children shouted out "God bless you, Mr. Cheney!" at which point Cheney picked up a rock and, hurling it with great force, struck the child in the forehead. "Take that you little Baghdad bastard!" Cheney was heard to mutter before climbing into a Humvee and heading back to the Green Zone for a meeting with the oil minister.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
War yawn
"It’s not just torture we want to avoid. Most Americans don’t want to hear, see or feel anything about Iraq, whether they support the war or oppose it. They want to look away, period, and have been doing so for some time."
The above from Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times. He right. Nation-wide battle fatigue has set in.
Went with my father to see Kimberly Pierce's Stop-Loss last night, which is a very intelligent and artful film. Still, I felt antsy throughout the screening, and I winced when some of the familiar arguments against the war were put in the mouths of the beautiful young actors; statements of the by-now-obvious-to-almost-everyone truth that this war in is a very bad business that damages anyone who is involved in it. For all of its sincerity, Pierce's film hardly an eye-opener.
More to my taste would be an absurdist representation of the war on terror, something along the lines of Tony Richardson's Charge of the Light Bridgade or Mike Nichols' Catch-22. A feature film with the wry sense of a Michael Moore documentary. Fewer tears, more jeers.
Rich is right. This war has come to seem like a chronic, wasting disease. The end is not imminent but inevitable and it will be bad. Let's ignore the war just as we ignore the inevitability of our own death, lest we be paralyzed by the contemplation of it. In the corner of our minds is the vague hope that Bush's departure from Washington will somehow result in our troops coming home. This hope persists even though neither of the Democracts likely to replace him are guaranteeing that withdrawal will happen immediately upon their achieving the office. And if McCain wins? So long vague hope.
The above from Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times. He right. Nation-wide battle fatigue has set in.
Went with my father to see Kimberly Pierce's Stop-Loss last night, which is a very intelligent and artful film. Still, I felt antsy throughout the screening, and I winced when some of the familiar arguments against the war were put in the mouths of the beautiful young actors; statements of the by-now-obvious-to-almost-everyone truth that this war in is a very bad business that damages anyone who is involved in it. For all of its sincerity, Pierce's film hardly an eye-opener.
More to my taste would be an absurdist representation of the war on terror, something along the lines of Tony Richardson's Charge of the Light Bridgade or Mike Nichols' Catch-22. A feature film with the wry sense of a Michael Moore documentary. Fewer tears, more jeers.
Rich is right. This war has come to seem like a chronic, wasting disease. The end is not imminent but inevitable and it will be bad. Let's ignore the war just as we ignore the inevitability of our own death, lest we be paralyzed by the contemplation of it. In the corner of our minds is the vague hope that Bush's departure from Washington will somehow result in our troops coming home. This hope persists even though neither of the Democracts likely to replace him are guaranteeing that withdrawal will happen immediately upon their achieving the office. And if McCain wins? So long vague hope.
Monday, April 07, 2008
on Honor
What is honor? a word. What is in that word honor? What is that honor? air. A trim reckoning! -- Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 1
I grow weary of the cult of the soldier in wartime. Weary of hearing people praise the soldiers for having served "honorably." How is it possible to serve honorably in a dishonorable war? An illegal war of colonial conquest? It would be like saying one has served honorably in a group action that, under close analysis, resolves into a gang rape. How can anyone who serves in this abomination of a war come out of it unsullied?
What can we say of our soldiers that is true? We can say that they've been tricked into serving in a dishonorable war -- have been fooled by words such as "duty" and "honor" and "freedom" and "democracy." We can pity them for their misuse and abuse, for being put in harm's way for no good reason and for a host of bad ones.
In my eyes, the most honorable soldiers in this war have been those who, possessed of the intelligence to see this war for what it is, have refused to continue to serve and have done so at the risk of their freedom. Now there is true honor. There is true courage. There is true patriotism.
Am I saying it is impossible for a soldier in Iraq to behave in an admirable way? Of course not. The soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers is acting courageously, and we admire courage. Yet we find ourselves wishing that he had never been put in the horrible situation where he had to make this fateful decision. We rightly blame the warmongers who put him there.
Rich man's war, poor man's fight. Never truer than now, than with the fight in Iraq.
I grow weary of the cult of the soldier in wartime. Weary of hearing people praise the soldiers for having served "honorably." How is it possible to serve honorably in a dishonorable war? An illegal war of colonial conquest? It would be like saying one has served honorably in a group action that, under close analysis, resolves into a gang rape. How can anyone who serves in this abomination of a war come out of it unsullied?
What can we say of our soldiers that is true? We can say that they've been tricked into serving in a dishonorable war -- have been fooled by words such as "duty" and "honor" and "freedom" and "democracy." We can pity them for their misuse and abuse, for being put in harm's way for no good reason and for a host of bad ones.
In my eyes, the most honorable soldiers in this war have been those who, possessed of the intelligence to see this war for what it is, have refused to continue to serve and have done so at the risk of their freedom. Now there is true honor. There is true courage. There is true patriotism.
Am I saying it is impossible for a soldier in Iraq to behave in an admirable way? Of course not. The soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers is acting courageously, and we admire courage. Yet we find ourselves wishing that he had never been put in the horrible situation where he had to make this fateful decision. We rightly blame the warmongers who put him there.
Rich man's war, poor man's fight. Never truer than now, than with the fight in Iraq.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Mencken-esque
"Nobody ever went broke," observed the journalist H.L. Mencken, "underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Perhaps it is this piece of wisdom that John McCain and other Republicans have in mind as they insist that President Bush's surge tactic in Iraq has been successful and that now "We're winning!" By convincing the American public that we are indeed winning the war in Iraq, McCain and his pals hope to win the presidency this fall.
Granted, there has been a drop in the overall level of violence in Iraq in the past few months. Increased security due to the surge may in part account for this. A more significant factor is our paying eighty-thousand Sunni insurgents three-hundred dollars a month each not to kill us. Also part of the deal is that we get these men jobs in the Iraq army or police forces. That the predominately-Shiite government is balking at embracing these traditional enemies makes it not only possible but probable that sometime soon they will return to their old ways, then the violence will spike up again. In other words the decrease in violence is most likely just a lull in the violence -- the calm at the eye of the bloody storm.
We're winning? Just a few days ago Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki welcomed with open arms Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad --one of the "axis of evil" sort to whom Bush refuses to speak. That the Shiite government in Iraq is on very friendly terms with Iran and will be heavily influence by Iran in the future is without doubt. So it is for this that we've sacrificed four thousand lives (and counting) and half a trillion dollars (and counting)? An Iraq that's essentially a satellite state, not of the U.S. (only in Dick Cheney's dreams . . .), but of Iran?
John McCain has always relished his reputation as a "rebel." If he sincerely believes we are now winning the war in Iraq he's a rebel all right -- a rebel without a clue. Let's hope the American public is not so clueless come November.
Granted, there has been a drop in the overall level of violence in Iraq in the past few months. Increased security due to the surge may in part account for this. A more significant factor is our paying eighty-thousand Sunni insurgents three-hundred dollars a month each not to kill us. Also part of the deal is that we get these men jobs in the Iraq army or police forces. That the predominately-Shiite government is balking at embracing these traditional enemies makes it not only possible but probable that sometime soon they will return to their old ways, then the violence will spike up again. In other words the decrease in violence is most likely just a lull in the violence -- the calm at the eye of the bloody storm.
We're winning? Just a few days ago Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki welcomed with open arms Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad --one of the "axis of evil" sort to whom Bush refuses to speak. That the Shiite government in Iraq is on very friendly terms with Iran and will be heavily influence by Iran in the future is without doubt. So it is for this that we've sacrificed four thousand lives (and counting) and half a trillion dollars (and counting)? An Iraq that's essentially a satellite state, not of the U.S. (only in Dick Cheney's dreams . . .), but of Iran?
John McCain has always relished his reputation as a "rebel." If he sincerely believes we are now winning the war in Iraq he's a rebel all right -- a rebel without a clue. Let's hope the American public is not so clueless come November.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The war in Iraq and the failure of democracy
The question has arisen: why is it that the War in Iraq, the central issue of the midterm elections, has been displaced by the Economy in 2008? Is it because, as some right-wingers have suggested, the Surge is working and things are getting better in Iraq, so people have stopped worrying about the conflict and moved on to domestic issues?
I doubt it. Rather, I think it is because people saw that making the war the central issue in the last election had no discernable effect on the war. The Bush administration simply thumbed its nose at the people's will, continued to fight the war as it damn well pleased. In short, the voters have decided that, when it comes to the war in Iraq, their votes don't work, mean nothing. In other words, they've seen that, just as it is in Iraq, democracy in America is a bit of a joke.
p.s. From a Washington Post story of 13 March: "During the last week in January, 36 percent of those surveyed said they were most closely following campaign news, while 14 percent expressed the most interest in the stock market and 12 percent in the death of actor Heath Ledger. In contrast, 6 percent said they were most closely following coverage of Iraq. "
I doubt it. Rather, I think it is because people saw that making the war the central issue in the last election had no discernable effect on the war. The Bush administration simply thumbed its nose at the people's will, continued to fight the war as it damn well pleased. In short, the voters have decided that, when it comes to the war in Iraq, their votes don't work, mean nothing. In other words, they've seen that, just as it is in Iraq, democracy in America is a bit of a joke.
p.s. From a Washington Post story of 13 March: "During the last week in January, 36 percent of those surveyed said they were most closely following campaign news, while 14 percent expressed the most interest in the stock market and 12 percent in the death of actor Heath Ledger. In contrast, 6 percent said they were most closely following coverage of Iraq. "
Monday, January 21, 2008
we're winning?
"For every complex problem there is a solution, which is simple, neat, and wrong"
--H.L. Mencken
Lately Republican candidates for the presidency have been crowing about the effect of Bush's "surge" strategy in Iraq, some going so far as to claim "We're winning!" Granted, there has been a decrease in violence lately that can be attributed in part to the increase in U.S. ground troops. But how does one make the leap from this to the conclusion that victory is at hand?
Most on the ground in Iraq see the present lull in violence as just that -- a lull, a temporary situation. Why? Because the conditions which created the sectarian violence in the first place remain. Sure, we can pay Sunni tribesmen ten dollars a day not to kill us, but what if we can't follow through on promises of good jobs in the military and government -- an idea which the Shiite dominated government resists? What if Moqtada al-Sadr changes his mind and ends the ceasefire he's presently imposed on the Mahdi army? What if the Kurds, at the moment preoccupied with border problems with Turkey, return their attention to the de-Arabization of their territories and to control of the Kirkuk oil fields? Iraq has hardly been de-fused by the surge; listen closely and you can still hear the tick-tick-tick.
Let's just suppose the impossible happens and the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all join hands to sing Kumbaya. Does that mean the United States can claim a victory? Consider: the present death toll for U.S. forces in Iraq stands just shy of four thousand. We have had five times that many wounded. Harper's reports that one in four veterans who have served two tours of duty now has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Also that the projected total cost of medical care for U.S. veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is five hundred billion dollars -- a number that matches the total military spending on both wars so far.
Given these staggering statistics, what possible positive outcome in Iraq could be consider worth the cost? "Pyrrhic victory" hardly characterizes it. Out -and -out disaster is more like it.
--H.L. Mencken
Lately Republican candidates for the presidency have been crowing about the effect of Bush's "surge" strategy in Iraq, some going so far as to claim "We're winning!" Granted, there has been a decrease in violence lately that can be attributed in part to the increase in U.S. ground troops. But how does one make the leap from this to the conclusion that victory is at hand?
Most on the ground in Iraq see the present lull in violence as just that -- a lull, a temporary situation. Why? Because the conditions which created the sectarian violence in the first place remain. Sure, we can pay Sunni tribesmen ten dollars a day not to kill us, but what if we can't follow through on promises of good jobs in the military and government -- an idea which the Shiite dominated government resists? What if Moqtada al-Sadr changes his mind and ends the ceasefire he's presently imposed on the Mahdi army? What if the Kurds, at the moment preoccupied with border problems with Turkey, return their attention to the de-Arabization of their territories and to control of the Kirkuk oil fields? Iraq has hardly been de-fused by the surge; listen closely and you can still hear the tick-tick-tick.
Let's just suppose the impossible happens and the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all join hands to sing Kumbaya. Does that mean the United States can claim a victory? Consider: the present death toll for U.S. forces in Iraq stands just shy of four thousand. We have had five times that many wounded. Harper's reports that one in four veterans who have served two tours of duty now has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Also that the projected total cost of medical care for U.S. veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is five hundred billion dollars -- a number that matches the total military spending on both wars so far.
Given these staggering statistics, what possible positive outcome in Iraq could be consider worth the cost? "Pyrrhic victory" hardly characterizes it. Out -and -out disaster is more like it.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
another drug war casualty
A few days ago there was a drug raid in Lima. During the raid a young woman, Tarika Wilson, and the year-old baby she was holding were shot by a police officer. The mother died; the baby, though shot in the shoulder and hand, survived.
The war on drugs waged by our federal, state, and local governments has been, and continues to be, a disaster – a very expensive disaster. Over the years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on drug interdiction, with the result that rates of drug use and abuse have remained for the most part unchanged. We incarcerate thousands of otherwise unoffending people on drug charges, most of these charges brought against users of marijuana – a drug considerably less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. As destructive as drug abuse can be to individual lives, more pernicious to society as a whole is the war on drugs itself. Like Bush’s current “war on terror,” it makes things worse, not better.
The answer to the drug problem is simple: legalization. If we make drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin legal in the way that hard liquor is legal, we destroy the black market in drugs – and eliminate the extreme violence associated with this market. If drugs are made legal, then no more drug raids, which means no more “collateral damage”-- by that euphemism I mean the harm inflicted on innocent bystanders such as Tarika Wilson and her baby.
Legalize drugs, then the immense amount of money we currently spend on enforcing drug laws, prosecuting drug criminals, and incarcerating those criminals could be spent on providing treatment for drug abusers and educating the general public on the dangers of abuse –a far more effective and humane way of dealing with drugs in society than interdiction.
Some fear that legalizing drugs will lead to a dramatic increase in drug use and abuse. Here a comparison with an early war on drugs can be instructive. When Prohibition went into effect, it created a black market in booze – created, as it were, Al Capone. People who wanted to drink found ways around the law. When Prohibition was finally repealed, there was not a dramatic increase in alcohol use and abuse. Those who were not drunks before did not decide to become drunks just because the law changed. Why not assume that the same results will follow legalization of street drugs?
Over the years the use of drugs has, as a result of prohibition, come to be associated with criminals and crime. Politicians, therefore, are reluctant to consider drug legalization for fear that they will appear soft on crime. We citizens therefore need to make politicians accountable for all the misery and mayhem the current drug prohibition causes. Only then will they begin to act sensibly.
The war on drugs waged by our federal, state, and local governments has been, and continues to be, a disaster – a very expensive disaster. Over the years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on drug interdiction, with the result that rates of drug use and abuse have remained for the most part unchanged. We incarcerate thousands of otherwise unoffending people on drug charges, most of these charges brought against users of marijuana – a drug considerably less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. As destructive as drug abuse can be to individual lives, more pernicious to society as a whole is the war on drugs itself. Like Bush’s current “war on terror,” it makes things worse, not better.
The answer to the drug problem is simple: legalization. If we make drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin legal in the way that hard liquor is legal, we destroy the black market in drugs – and eliminate the extreme violence associated with this market. If drugs are made legal, then no more drug raids, which means no more “collateral damage”-- by that euphemism I mean the harm inflicted on innocent bystanders such as Tarika Wilson and her baby.
Legalize drugs, then the immense amount of money we currently spend on enforcing drug laws, prosecuting drug criminals, and incarcerating those criminals could be spent on providing treatment for drug abusers and educating the general public on the dangers of abuse –a far more effective and humane way of dealing with drugs in society than interdiction.
Some fear that legalizing drugs will lead to a dramatic increase in drug use and abuse. Here a comparison with an early war on drugs can be instructive. When Prohibition went into effect, it created a black market in booze – created, as it were, Al Capone. People who wanted to drink found ways around the law. When Prohibition was finally repealed, there was not a dramatic increase in alcohol use and abuse. Those who were not drunks before did not decide to become drunks just because the law changed. Why not assume that the same results will follow legalization of street drugs?
Over the years the use of drugs has, as a result of prohibition, come to be associated with criminals and crime. Politicians, therefore, are reluctant to consider drug legalization for fear that they will appear soft on crime. We citizens therefore need to make politicians accountable for all the misery and mayhem the current drug prohibition causes. Only then will they begin to act sensibly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)