Orwellian prophetic

Reading Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. A passage that rings true today, seventy years later.

"The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are simply not compatible with military efficiency. . . . As for the newspaper talk about this being a 'war for democracy,' it was plain eye-wash. No one in his senses supposed that there was any hope for democracy, even as we understand it in England and France, in a country so divided and exhausted as Spain would be when the war was over. It would have to be a dictatorship."

On American press eyewash on Iraq, see Robert Fisk's recent Independent column at http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12395.htm

Support Our Troops?

Everywhere you look, the little yellow ribbons reading "Support Our Troops." A sentiment universally affirmed? Well, not in most of the rest of the world. And here at home?

Insofar as our troops are allowing themselves to be used by a corrupt administration to prosecute an unjust war, I say no, don't support the troops. Don't support them any more than you would have supported the troops of Germany or the troops of Japan in World War Two. Soldiers fighting a bad war should not be supported, no matter how admirable they may be as individuals.

Or rather support them only insofar as you support the movement to have them brought home immediately. Who can dispute the truth of what Michael Moore says at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11, that our troops are sworn to risk their lives in any necessary war but are not obliged to fight in an unnecessary and/or immoral war. It is dead wrong to put them in harm's way unnecessarily. This is what Bush has done.

The ethical status of a U.S. soldier fighting in Iraq? A painful question. If the soldier is intelligent and perceptive enough to recognize that the war is unjust, and yet s/he allows her/himself to be used to prosecute it, can that soldier not be found guilty of a certain degree of complicity?

How about the troops who are not perceptive enough to know that they are fighting a bad war? Is ignorance of the war's immorality an acceptable defense? And how many of them would be willing to offer that defense: "I was too stupid to know what was going on. I was just following orders."

Pity our troops? Most would bitterly resent the gesture, be ready to punch you in the nose for it. Both those who believe in The Cause (an ever-dwindling number) and those who don't but do retain a certain amount of professional pride. Because in pity there is always also a trace of contempt. Sometimes more than a trace.

A good many troops coming home from Iraq are very angry. They feel they have been ill used, although they are not sure how or by whom. Where is the dignity they hoped to find in the uniform?

If a civil war breaks out in Iraq?

From today's Washington Post:

There's no doubt that the sectarian tensions are higher than we've seen, and it's a great concern to all of us," Abizaid told the Senate committee, adding that the situation in Iraq is "changing [in] nature from insurgency toward sectarian violence." Asked about that comment after the briefing, Abizaid said that "sectarian violence is a greater concern for us security-wise right now than the insurgency."

Seems those folks in Iraq have run out of patience waiting for Uncle Sam to go home so they could get down to the bloody business of sorting each other out.

There's an old Irishism: "If you see a good fight, jump into it." I think the best policy here would be to reverse that. There's a hell of a fight getting started, and it's time to jump out.

Damn shame about all that oil, though. Maybe we can recover some of our losses by selling arms to all the competing sides in the civil war. That's been done before.

creeping peeping tomism

Elsewhere, Vice President Dick Cheney made his case for warrantless wiretaps today, telling reporters, "Everything else we've done for the past five years has been completely unwarranted." --Andy Borowitz, The Borowitz Report

Houston's chief of police Harold Hurtt, apparently feeling a bit overwhelmed these days by the influx of hurricane refugees (some of whom are criminals), has proposed placing surveillance cameras all over his fair city--in apartment complexes, in shopping malls, even in private homes. "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother," Hurtt has commented, "but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

Mr. Hurtt is hardly alone in holding this opinion. After all, we have a president who is very much at ease with placing warrantless wiretaps on countless American citizens -- this ostensibly (note I say ostensibly) as a sort of fishing expedition launched in hopes of catching a terrorist or two. If you are not a bad guy, why worry that someone is eavesdropping on your telephone conversation? Why sweat it, even if this eavesdropping is in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and therefore a felony? George Bush is the president, after all, and the president knows best.

One begins to fear that ours has become a nation of full-time busybodies --individuals who, instead of putting their shoulders to the wheel and their noses to the grindstone, are gleefully occupied applying their ears to the wall and their eyes to the keyhole. Our famed work ethic is being transformed, before our very eyes, into a watch ethic. Everyone watching everyone else, expecting -- yea, hoping -- to see the worst.

Consider the psychology of the surveillance enthusiast, he who would place a peephole camera in every kitchen, living room, and (especially) bedroom in America. This individual is not only voyeuristic but probably amnesiac as well. A moment's recollection would probably call up an instance wherein he had done something or said something that, presented to a spouse or a superior at work, would be the cause of acute embarrassment if not instant decapitation. (As Shakespeare put it, “Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping?") Yet this man's conviction of his own moral rectitude -- and the utter depravity of the rest of mankind -- makes him blind to such a possibility. Either that or he is simply convinced that he's far too clever ever to fall into the trap he would so casually set for others.

Among the rights central to the American way of life is the right to privacy. And as the shrinking of our world makes true privacy ever more rare, we need to grow more vigilant in safeguarding the right. This is why, whenever one of the self-proclaimed Guardians of Public Safety threatens to violate our privacy, we need to go after him, using every resource of the law. If we are lax in this, these contemptible peeping toms may very quickly morph into malignant Big Brothers. Then it will be too late.

A good place to start? Impeach George W. Bush.

Striking while the barrel is still smoking

A special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate why the Vice President harvested a lawyer that was clearly not flushed. This is poor sportsmanship, to say the least, and may break Texas game law.

****

A Washington psychologist, who prefers to remain anonymous, feels the Whittington shooting may be the result of pent-up rage the Vice President felt over not having had the opportunity to pull the trigger on a hijacked airliner on 9.11.

****

"The Vice President was acting on the best intelligence available to him at the time. This intelligence indicated that Harry Whittington was a quail. Mr. Cheney was thereby not only justfied in shooting him but obliged to shoot him. It was the responsible, indeed, the patriotic thing to do. Mr. Cheney is a hero in error."--Ahmed Chalabi.

****

I turned in the saddle and there was Armstrong, her sabre out, charging across the plain behind me, shouting hoarsely, “Wheel, Mr. Vice President! Not that way! Wheel – to the left, to the covey!” But the Vice President ignored Armstrong's plea and shot Harry Whittington in the face anyway.

Oh when shall his glory fade!
Oh the wild shot he made!

Honor that shot he made!
Honor that holy rage!
Oh Noble Dick Cheney!

Of Broken Pottery and Broken Kneecaps

Turns out it's a fallacy: Pottery Barn never had a "You broke it, you bought it" policy. Wiser business minds than that ran the Pottery Barn.

If only wiser minds were serving as apologists for our country's foreign policy, particularly our continued military occupation of Iraq. With the other justifications for that occupation having gone the way of all lies, the apologists are clinging desperately to the last and the lamest: "We broke Iraq, now we are obliged to stay and fix it."

Sounds all grown up and responsible, don't it? But how about the first Gulf War? We broke the hell out of Iraq then, didn't we? Did we fix it? No, we did not. In fact we imposed through the U.N. very severe economic sanctions to make sure that Iraq stayed broken. We wanted it broken, badly broken, so that the Iraqi people would be so miserable that they would be compelled, in desperation, to overthrow Saddam and his thugs.

And emiserate we did. Infant mortality rates soared. Tens of thousands of innocent children died of malnutrition or inadequate health care. The poor of Iraq were devastated. Only Saddam and his boyos continued to live high off the hog -- this from kickbacks for selling oil through loopholes in the sanctions, loopholes we deliberately left open for the sake of some of our oil-poor friends. We knew, through regular reports to the Security Council, that Saddam was getting these kickbacks, yet we did nothing about it. All of our attention was focussed on his WMD programs -- which programs, it turns out, did not exist.

The lamest of the lame. A better analogy for our occupation of Iraq would be a protection racket. You know, when the mob offers a small businessman "protection" from criminals, competitors, and corrupt cops -- all of this for a nominal fee? And if the businessman says "Thanks, but no thanks; I can protect myself," what happens to him? He gets his kneecaps shattered by his would-be protectors. The offer, it turns out, is one he can not refuse.

The American forces are presently supplying Iraqis with protection they can't refuse. And what is the price? That the Iraqis put in place an America-friendly government, one that can guarantee a steady flow of inexpensive oil our way for the next half-century.

And if they balk at our magnanimous offer -- as the worshippers at the Najaf mosque did yesterday, hurling their shoes at the head of one of our favorite puppets, the ex-Baathist thug / ex-CIA asset Iyad Allawi? Well, those ingrates had better watch their holy kneecaps.

Which kneecaps, if we break, we will most definitely NOT feel obliged to fix.

John Prine on the torture question

Some lyrics from John Prine's song "Some Humans Ain't Human," from his recently released Fair & Square.

Some humans ain't human
Some people ain't kind
You open up their hearts
And here's what you'll find
A few frozen pizzas
Some ice cubes with hair
A broken Popsicle
You don't want to go there . . .

Some humans ain't human
Some people ain't kind
They lie through their teeth
With their head up their behind
You open up their hearts
And here's what you'll find
Some humans ain't human
Some people ain't kind

Although not directly a commentary on the Bush administration torture policy, this song might serve as such. When we condone torture, we essentially have given up our humanity -- this because we've given up on humanity. We've given up on the idea that human beings can be redeemed, that people can be good. And once we've done that, what's the point in going on?

To state it differently: what keeps Dick Cheney from slicing his throat? If you have that much contempt for humankind, why not just cash in your chips?

I know Dick, I know: I can't handle the truth . . .

paid propagandists

A New York Times headline:

"U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers," . . . A covert campaign is under way to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay Iraqi journalists monthly stipends.

Why should we expect that Iraqi journalists should be treated any differently than our own? Armstrong Williams got a paycheck from the Bush administration for being in favor of No Child Left Behind, right? Why shouldn't Iraqis be paid to write articles favoring the U.S. backed government?

The difference is, of course, that Williams was not signing his own death warrant by supporting No Child Left Behind. Iraqi journalists might well be doing this if they allow their name to appear as author of what will be perceived as a pro-U.S. article in their papers. So give them some combat pay as well.

Who Loves Ya?

What's it like? It's like a man whose wife has divorced him, moved across the country, remarried, had children by her new husband, and obtained a number of restraining orders against her ex. Still, the man keeps contacting her saying "Come on, baby, I know we can make this marriage work!"

That's what Bush's attitude toward Iraq is like. He's just incapable of recognizing that it is over, kaput. The Iraqis don't love us, won't ever be persuaded to love us, in fact hate our guts and just want us to bugger off forever. But Bush won't see it.

"Come on, baby! Just give me another chance! That Abu Ghraib thing was just an aberration! And Fallujah? I was drunk, I swear. Come on, love me!"

By the company one keeps . . .

What is the test of an honest man?

An honest man, if he should happen to wake and find himself in a house of ill repute -- having accidently wandered in the night before (for even honest men take a drop now and then) -- an honest man will leave that house immediately, lest his family or co-workers spy him there.

Can there be any doubt now that the Republican Party is no place for an honest man? How much more evidence of its corrupt nature does one need to conclude that the GOP is a rotten den of iniquity? Do not fool yourself, friend, into thinking that you can somehow redeem that house by your very presence. No, flee it immediately. Get out, and for God's sake stay out.

Flee whither? To the arms of the Democrats? Not necessarily. An honest man may not be altogether comfortable in the company of Bill Clinton and John Kerry, I will admit; yet he certainly cannot stay in the company of George Bush, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, "Scooter" Libby, "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Taft, Ken Blackwell -- yea, an endless gallery of rogues! -- and remain honest.

It's like the song the bartender sings at closing time: "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."

Ya better watch out! Ya better not cry!

From The Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, Nov. 24 -- A suicide attacker steered a car packed with explosives toward U.S. soldiers giving away toys to children outside a hospital in central Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 31 people. Almost all of the victims were women and children, police said.

He knows when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sake!

The grotesque nature of this war would cause the most proficient craftsman of black comedy to throw his hands into the air and concede that he's no match for Bush and his gang. This indeed is the present Uncle Sam has brought the children of Iraq.

The parents of those children would be wise, I think, to advise their kids to give American soldiers bearing gifts a very wide berth, lest they be turned to bloody mush. In addition the Iraqi government should require that all Americans in country wear a tinkling little bell -- as a housecat might be forced to wear -- this to give the kids fair warning of their approach.

Vide the true history of the Pied Piper of Hamlin. Also see Derek Mainhart's excellent The Iraqi Tinies, his short graphic novel on the fate of the children of Iraq.

Precious Truths

The New York Times reports that the Bush administration has decided to charge Jose Padilla with lesser crimes than those of which he has been publicly accused (that is, planning to set off a "dirty bomb," to blow up apartment buildings with gas lines) because it was "unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of Al Qaeda who had been subjected to harsh questioning."

For "harsh questioning" we should read, of course,"torture." And there is good reason why the courts do not accept as evidence testimony elicited by torture: it is notoriously unreliable. When one is being tortured, one will say almost anything to make the torture stop -- often whatever one thinks one's interrogators want to hear.

One of the "senior members of Al Qaeda" is reportedly Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, "believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." Mohammed is being held at a "black site" somewhere -- another kind of undisclosed location. Why undisclosed? "The better to give you the third degree, my dear!"

The Times report continues: "One review, completed in spring 2004 by the C.I.A. inspector general, found that Mr. Mohammed had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning in the first months after his capture . . . . Another review, completed in April 2003 by American intelligence agencies shortly after Mr. Mohammed's capture, assessed the quality of his information from initial questioning as 'Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies.'"

What a poetic way of putting it! Yes indeed, torture does bring out the Shakespeare in some people. The all-too-prosaic question the courts must ask, however, is the following: How does one know for sure, of the utterances gasped out during the waterboarding session, which are truths and which falsehoods? How to tell the VIP from his bodyguards?

Yet Mr. Cheney persists in defending torture as a necessary tactic in the War on Terror. We must not "tie the hands" of our Commander in Chief by prohibiting him from tying the hands of others -- this preparatory, of course, to kicking the living bejeezus out of them. If you oppose torture (as, for example, torture victim John McCain does), Mr. Cheney has a question for you: "Why do you hate Freedom?"

Let's call this what it is. It is not intelligence gathering. It is terrorism, pure and simple. We counter terror with terror. Why? Because such hardboiled tactics are what Bush's handlers think will play best in the heartland, will please a majority of voters. No better example of politics trumping moral principle than this.

The unflappable one

Dick Cheney's old friend Alan Simpson recently commented on how the scandals that have brought low the VP's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, will likely leave the boss untouched. The reason, Simpson suggests, is the marvelous strength of Cheney's character: "He's a survivor of all time. . . . I never saw him bow his head or go into a cocoon or suck his thumb or anything like that. He's an unflappable man."

In reading Simpson's characterization of Mr. Cheney, I was reminded of another unflappable character, this one from the realm of poetry. Allow me to quote a few stirring lines from this fine fellow: "What though the field be lost? / All is not lost -- the unconquerable will, / And study of revenge, immortal hate, / And courage never to submit or yield." The poet is John Milton, the poem is Paradise Lost, and the speaker is, of course, the Prince of Darkness -- flat on his back on the floor of hell (having recently been delivered there by that most Special of Prosecutors), trying nonetheless to buck up his own crestfallen chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Beelzebub.

Also an unflappable man, Milton's Satan, so much so that generations of romantic readers have mistaken him for the hero of the piece -- an egregious misreading that surely would have left Milton disgusted. The poet was, after all, in God's camp.

As for Simpson's reading of Cheney, it is also a misreading. For "unflappable" we should substitute "unscrupulous," "shameless," or better yet just plain "evil." It was Cheney, after all, who at the start of the so-called War on Terror asserted that our country might be compelled to employ "the dark arts" to win that war -- his reference being to torture. And that prediction has been borne out. No longer content simply to train other governments in the dark arts (vide WHINSEC, formerly the School of the Americas), the United States has itself become a torture regime, hanging out its shingle at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan -- at God knows how many "black sites" flung across this ever-suffering globe.

And it is Cheney who, in response to torture victim John McCain's recent attempt to excise this cancer from the body politic by demanding that all future interrogations done in our name be conducted in accordance with the Army Field Manual and the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- it is, as I say, the Unflappable One who has pressured Senator McCain and others to exempt CIA interrogators from the torture prohibition. Cheney wants those operatives to continue to be permitted to defend freedom ("Honor bound!") by inserting needles under fingernails, holding heads under water, administering electric shocks to genitals, and so on. He wants this in spite of the fact that every expert observer has concluded that very little in the way of actionable intelligence has been uncovered via such techniques.

Torture, it turns out, just doesn't work. And there is this troubling tendency for what begins as "coercive interrogation" to degenerate quickly into mere sadism. Thus those winning snapshots of our own Lynndie England demonstrating state-of-the-art canine training techniques. Just a bad apple, you say? Make no mistake, gentle reader: it was the Unflappable One who made her do it. And once she did it, we could kiss the possibility of success in Iraq -- what slim chance there was for that to begin with -- a fond farewell.

So "hearts and minds" be damned! In the manly vision of Richard Cheney, Lady Liberty lifts her lamp beside, not the Golden Door -- that fabled gateway to a Shining City upon a Hill -- but rather beside a rather grim chamber door, above which are inscribed the words "Abandon all hope ye who enter here," and upon which hangs a little cardboard sign that reads "Torture in Progress: Do Not Disturb."

counting bodies -- theirs

Then:

"We don't do body counts on other people," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in November 2003, when asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether the number of enemy dead exceeded the U.S. toll.

Now:

"For a discrete operation, it's a metric that can help convey magnitude and context," said Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman.

Today in The Washington Post a report (with the punning title "Enemy Body Counts Revived" -- tee-hee!) that our military has changed its mind about the enemy dead in Iraq, has decided to start counting them after all -- at least when we slaughter them in big bunches. This to impress the American public that ours is a Can-Do kind of military (in the killing department at any rate) and to signal "progress" in the war in Iraq. As if there is a finite number of enemy over there and every one we kill brings us a step closer to total victory.

Is there anyone still naive enough to buy this? Anyone who doubts that such mass slaughter will fuel anti-American sentiment, serve as a recruiting tool for the resistance, increase the number of enemy exponentially? Is there anyone whose attention will be distracted by this body count from our own troop death toll --closing in on 2,000 combat deaths?

This counting up of enemy dead, discredited after the debacle that was the Vietnam War, a sure symptom that our current war effort is -- to coin a phrase -- in its last throes. Time to get the Humvee out of Dodge.

*************

Also in the Washington Post report:

In May, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mentioned the killing of 250 of insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's "closest lieutenants" as evidence of progress in Iraq.

Myers went on: "These were the 250 lieutenants who grew up on the same block as Zarqawi, attended the same grade school, played on the same soccer team, dated the same girl, and served as best men at his wedding. You know, his mates."

Michael Brown can moo, can you?

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!"

--George Bush to Michael Brown, post-Katrina

It's never fun being the fall guy, and I'm not certain I'm being made to be the fall guy. But if being the fall guy gets done everything I want to get done, fine.

--Michael Brown, a few days later


Panegyrick to a Crony

(with apologies to Dr. Seuss)

Oh the wonderful things Michael Brown can do!
Michael Brown can go like a cow. He can go MOO MOO.
Michael Brown can do it. How about you?

He can go like the rain DIBBLE DIBBLE DIBBLE DOPP.
He can go to a hurricane HURRY UP AND STOP!
He can fake up a resume LICKETY SPLIT.
He can take the fall like a proper little s--t.

He can even be FEMA director.
He can do that, too.
Michael Brown can do it.
How about you?

-------

My two-year-old son is quite impressed by Dr. Seuss's Mr. Brown, thinks him a remarkably accomplished gentleman -- after all, he can make a wide variety of zoo noises. So George Bush seemed equally impressed by Mr. Michael Brown. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!" A good name for the gentleman in question, given that it was precisely due to his being a brownie (in the playground sense of the term) that he became head of FEMA.

Think about it. In the wake of 9/11, Bush promises to do everything in his power to protect this country from such disasters in future -- to preserve the country in the aftermath of such disasters should they occur. Yet he places at the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Joe Allbaugh, a political hack (manager of the 2000 Bush-Cheney presidential campaign) who has zero experience in emergency management. And then, when Allbaugh leaves the post for greener (consulting) pastures, he replaces himself with his college bunkie Mike Brown, a man with even less experience in emergency management than he (if it is possible to have less experience than zero . . .).

If you look up "crony" in the dictionary, you'll find Brown's picture in the margin.

So how seriously are we to take Bush's sworn commitment to protecting this country from terrorist-spawned catastrophe? In this administration, cronyism always trumps policy, always trumps moral principle. Everything is grist for the (Karl)Rovian political mill, including the lives of our citizens.

Oh the wonderful things Mr. Bush can do.

Let the Eagle Soar

Let the eagle soar,
Like she’s never soared before.
From rocky coast to golden shore,
Let the mighty eagle soar!

--John Ashcroft, "Let the Eagle Soar"


Near the beginning of the war a colleague posted on his office door a cartoon of a bald eagle sitting on a stool sharpening his talons with a file. The implication was clear: after 9.11, it was lex talionis time. As our late, great Attorney General John "Jaysus!" Ashcroft put it, "Let the mighty eagle soar!"

The other day I was driving through the countryside, glimpsed in the distance a red-tailed hawk being tormented in flight by a group of blackbirds. The majestic hawk was soaring and swooping, doing its best to evade the smaller birds, who were darting in, pecking the hawk viciously, then darting out again -- instinctive guerilla tactics. The hawk was helpless. All it could do is keep flying and hope the blackbirds would eventually grow tired of the game and desist.

Which is the better analogy for our military and its predicament in Iraq, Ashcroft's triumphant eagle or my beleaguered hawk?

This Thing of Darkness

When can their glory fade?
. . .
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

--Tennyson


To my last post the blogger "Mausergirl" responds:

"You're making a basic mistake in your logic here - and that is to assume that every soldier is a grunt on the front lines. More than 80% of soldiers are not infantry or other combat MOSs, and individual experiences vary.

And let me tell you, soldiers gripe, moan, and whine about politics just as much as anyone else does. They question why we're where we're at, and what we're doing there."

Of course she's right that not all soldiers are combat troops. Of course she's right that lots of soldiers -- the vast majority, I suspect -- indeed do "reason why": reflect upon and analyze the war, its causes and consequences, and wonder if they are being abused by their leaders.

What I was getting at is that the soldier that the militarists exhort us to respect and revere is a mythological figure: He who does not question why and who has an absolute and unwavering devotion to Duty. This, the ideal soldier of their fevered dreams, is the soldier they hold up to the rest of us to honor and--this is most important--to emulate. "Pat Tillman did not question his leaders in time of war so neither should you." This mythic warrior is used by war propagandists as a rhetorical club to discourage critics of the war, to shame them into silence. "If only Cindy Sheehan could love Freedom as much as Pat Tillman loved Freedom! If only she understood Duty as that hero did! If only she could SHUT THE HELL UP!"

Reading the other day on The Washington Post website a chat session with a pro-Bush mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. Whenever a reader would ask her a question about the causes of the war, whether they were legitimate or not, her response was "That's not my call to make." When further pressed she commented that she trusted the leaders she had voted into office to do the right thing. A sad case. A mother of a dead soldier unable to face the fact that she may be partially responsible for her son's death, given that her vote help put in office the man who sent him to his death. A very bitter pill to swallow.

The fact is that we live in a democracy, we vote our leaders into office, so ultimately it IS our call to make. We bear part of the responsibility, part of the blame, when they make mistakes or act badly. This is certainly how much of the rest of the world sees it. Why they hate US for this war, not just Bush. What was Prospero's line about Caliban? "This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine." Only if we all acknowledge responsibility for this war, this thing of darkness, can we act to end it.

ask a soldier if

The pro-war party depends heavily on the cult of the soldier to quiet the opposition. Sabre-rattlers are fond of quoting our servicemen and women on their belief in their mission, in the Glorious Cause. "Just ask a soldier," these propagandists advise. Tell you what:

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know how to break down an M-16.

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know how to sight in a mortar.

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know if MREs generally cause constipation or its opposite.

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know what it feels like to be spattered by the brains of the now-dead soldier beside you.

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know what PTSD-induced insomnia feels like.

I will NOT ask a soldier about the true causes and the ultimate consequences of the war he or she fights. About these topics the typical soldier is as clueless as the civilian.

Perhaps more clueless -- not because of a lack of intelligence but on principle. It is part of the warrior ethic not to question the causes of the war he fights but just to fight it. "Theirs not to make reply / Theirs not to reason why / Theirs but to do and die." A soldier, were he to engage in public speculation about these larger questions, would likely be mercilessly mocked by his comrades-in-arms. The good soldier is a trained fighter, takes professional pride in fighting, so fights. Like a good fighting cock or pit bull. The fight is all.

An area to be examined: the conflict between the warrior mythos and the reality of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Does recognition of the existence of the latter require a radical solicitation of the former? Or are we to resign ourselves to the necessity of the soldier as sacrificial victim?

What's It All About, Cheney?

What is the reason for this war, again?

From today's New York Times:

Army Contract Official Critical of Halliburton Pact Is Demoted

A top Army contracting official who criticized a large, noncompetitive contract with the Halliburton Company for work in Iraq was demoted Saturday for what the Army called poor job performance.

The official, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, has worked in military procurement for 20 years and for the past several years had been the chief overseer of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has managed much of the reconstruction work in Iraq.

Ms. Greenhouse's lawyer, Michael Kohn, called the action an "obvious reprisal" for the strong objections she raised in 2003 to a series of corps decisions involving the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, which has garnered more than $10 billion for work in Iraq.

Dick Cheney led Halliburton, which is based in Texas, before he became vice president.

"She is being demoted because of her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army's preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs," Mr. Kohn said Sunday in an interview. He also said the Army had violated a commitment to delay Ms. Greenhouse's dismissal until the completion of an inquiry by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Known as a stickler for the rules on competition, Ms. Greenhouse initially received stellar performance ratings, Mr. Kohn said. But her reviews became negative at roughly the time she began objecting to decisions she saw as improperly favoring Kellogg Brown & Root, he said. Often she hand-wrote her concerns on the contract documents, a practice that corps leaders called unprofessional and confusing.

Ms. Greenhouse fought the demotion through official channels, and publicly described her clashes with Corps of Engineers leaders over a five-year, $7 billion oil-repair contract awarded to Kellogg Brown & Root. She had argued that if urgency required a no-bid contract, its duration should be brief.

Ms. Greenhouse had also fought the granting of a waiver to Kellogg Brown & Root in December 2003, approving the high prices it had paid for fuel imports for Iraq, and had objected to extending its five-year contract for logistical support in the Balkans for 11 months and $165 million without competitive bidding. In late June, ignoring warnings from her superiors, Ms. Greenhouse appeared before a Congressional panel, calling the Kellogg Brown & Root oil contract "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." She also said the defense secretary's office had improperly interfered in the awarding of the contract.

************

Behind the cannon fire, always the Ka-ching of the cash register. A rich man's war and a poor man's fight.

Rather than the militarist's mantra "Freedom ain't free," more apropos for this war would be "Free markets ain't free." How does protecting Halliburton's profit margin by undermining competitive bidding protect my freedom, I wonder?

This war is bullshit, Billybob. Sorry you been suckered.

By God's grace?

Luke Stricklin, I have no doubt, would like to punch me in the head.

Mr. Stricklin was featured on CNN a few days ago -- a young soldier home from Iraq who has penned a patriotic little country ditty entitled "American by God's Amazing Grace." The main point of the song is that, if you had served with Mr. Stricklin in Iraq, you'd be very grateful that God allowed you to be born an AMERICAN:

Well when you've seen the things that I've seen
things don't seem so bad
quit worrying 'bout what you ain't got, thank God for what you have
Cause you could be raising your family in this place
but you were born in America, By God's Amazing Grace!!!!

I've little argument with this sentiment (although I might observe there are places in America damn neart as God-forsaken as the hell holes of Iraq). The lyrics to which I object -- which objection, I am certain, would incite Mr. Stricklin to assault and batter me -- are the following:

You want to talk about it, you better keep it short
cause I got a lot of lost time I gotta make up for.
Really don't care why Bush went into Iraq
I know for sure what I done there and I'm damn sure proud of that.
You got something bad to say about the USA
you better save it for different ears 'less you want to crawl away.

Here we have the warrior in full battle cry. "Really don't care why Bush went into Iraq." To Mr. Stricklin the WHY of the war is irrelevant ("Theirs not to reason why," etc.); all that matters is that he did his duty: "I know for sure what I done there and I'm damn sure proud of that." And if you dare suggest that Uncle Sam is on the wrong side of this war? Well, pal, them's fightin words. Prepare to meet your maker.

The timing here is interesting. It's been a while since we've been favored with a pro-war song -- patriotic gore such as Darryl Worley's "Have You Forgotten?" or Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue (The Angry American)" got a lot of radio play near the beginning of the War on Terror, when the country's blood was up. For the most part these songs have faded with the public's enthusiasm for the war. They've been displaced by anti-war songs such as Billy Bragg's "The Price of Oil," Steve Earle's "Rich Man's War," Eliza Gilkyson's "Highway 9," or the Rolling Stones' forthcoming "Sweet Neo Con."

I say "displaced," but that's not quite right. The pro-war songs received a good deal of play on mainstream radio, especially country stations. Toby Keith's bellicose growl went echoing through every laundromat across the land. The anti-war songs have never reached the ears of Clear Channel listeners, can only be found on alternative radio and the internet (and I doubt that the Stones' new cut will be an exception). No surprise, then, that when a belated pro-war song is penned, the writer should get prime facetime on CNN. Meanwhile Earle and Gilkyson must settle for the relatively modest stages of Democracy Now and Air America.

Poor Luke Stricklin. Listening to his song you can sense his violent ambivalence toward the war, his struggle to reconcile contradictory feelings. He tells us that he doesn't care about why "Bush went into Iraq." Note here the Commander-in-Chief is referred to as "Bush," not "President Bush" or even "Mr. Bush." Stricklin is clearly distancing himself from the prime maker of the war. This suggests that he's aware of the possibility that Bush's motives might not have been the best. Yet he does not want to hear criticism of the president, hasn't got the time, "got a lot of lost time I gotta make up for." Lost time? Does that not indicate time wasted? Is the war a just cause or a waste of time? If it is a waste of time, what of Mr. Stricklin's pride in his service? Is he protesting too much there?

Might not Mr. Stricklin's refusal to listen to criticism of the war be construed as a species of flight: he resists listening for fear that he'll discover he has been duped -- horribly duped -- by Dubya and the boys? Perhaps Mr. Stricklin, deep down, already knows this, knows that he's been suckered. Perhaps he is struggling to repress his desire to punch in the head, not yours truly or Cindy Sheehan or any other war protestor, but instead George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld -- perhaps even himself?

Can you say Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? "American by God's Amazing Grace" positively reeks of it. It's all there: the trauma ("I ain't never been to hell / but it couldn't be any worse than this place"), the uncertainty ("Tell my wife don't worry 'cause I know what to do / it makes you feel better sometimes, but don't know if it's true"), the anger ("And I laugh in your face when you say you got it bad"). Rather than stoking his rage by listening to the blood-spattered war anthems of his mentor Toby Keith, Mr. Stricklin probably would be better off listening to songs wherein PTSD is explicitly thematized, songs such as John Prine's "Sam Stone," Steve Earle's "Home to Houston," and Tom Waits' "Day After Tomorrow."

Little chance of that, however, given Mr. Stricklin's strong identification with the military. As an article in the latest Newsweek notes, "PTSD is one acronym the military does not like. It prefers 'temporary adjustment disorder,' with an emphasis on the temporary."

Yes, soldiers like Luke Stricklin are just a TAD crazy. May God's amazing grace deliver them from this evil.