News, views, opinions …
Back to Main
May 27, 2005
Open Thread
Comments
i like peanut butter and banana sandwichs on flax bread.:-)
Posted by: lenin’s ghost | May 27 2005 22:03 utc | 1
that my friend, l g, is clearly counterrevolutionary & is made clear in the collected works of v i lenin volume 14, foreign language press, moscow, 1966
banana, oui, peanut butter, non
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 27 2005 22:10 utc | 2
I must say, I am having a great spring so far. I ready to plant the garden tomorrow, I live in the north so its late compared to the south, and tomorrow night I am going to spend the night at Huron Beach. A few beers sounds good.
On the political front, it’s been a great week for the Dems. Frist is looking like the bumbling idiot that he is. His own party thinks hes an idiot except for the Dobson wingnut part.
I figured it was a matter of time and the rethugs would overreach and make themselves look like the backwords Gilded Age retro party that they are. The approval rating for congress is dogshit, and Bushies rating is in the tank. The Dems have won the SS argument, the filibuster argument and the polls show the Dems are trusted more on the economy. Only a quarter of US citizens believes Bush shares their values.
Its been a good first 130 days for Senator Reed.
Posted by: jdp | May 28 2005 0:56 utc | 3
the dems’ll blow the midterm elections.
But, Hillary will save the day in ’08.
Posted by: slothrop | May 28 2005 1:00 utc | 4
The democratic party is a joke. warmongers, antiunion/antiworker, antienvironment. Maybe Feingold is worth a shit. What a travesty.
Posted by: slothrop | May 28 2005 1:05 utc | 5
@Slothrop:
You need a purgative.
You are mentally constipated.
Mix 4 qts. Texas Pete with 4 quarts castor oil.
Drink 1/2 gallon a night.
You will be cured by Tuesday morning.
I garontee it.
Posted by: Dr. Groucho | May 28 2005 1:24 utc | 6
The dems are simply not an option. If we want fascism, we may as well have the whole unadulterated, unexpurgated version. At least the republicans give us a cartoonishly overdetermined superiority complex: yeah, we’re stupid prickheads, y’all, get used to it. People like the honesty of Bush, the honesty we are willing to dominate unconditionally and cruelly. How else to explain the general acceptance of torture? Really, people have no point of reference for opposition for this madness, because the dems have been so gutlessly complicit tin the ongoing normalization of what should rightly be abhorrent.
Only when the dems really oppose this fascism, will the party be successful. Only when left politicians unequivocally oppose the war, expose this power for what it really is, only when the dems relentlessly invoke class war to improve economic life, will the dems be a party of opposition.
This has been a shitty two weeks watching the repubs floss their teeth with the underwear of the dems.
Posted by: slothrop | May 28 2005 1:38 utc | 7
slothrop,
The Dems aren’t perfect, but their all we have to head off the wingnut onslaught. I will give them credit when due and slam them when needed.
At least Bushie is finally getting some opposition.
Posted by: jdp | May 28 2005 1:39 utc | 8
dr. groucho
I’ve been right about a lot of this: the elections, the supposed awakening of america to this rightwing nightmare, the war as quagmire, etc.
I’m rather surprised frankly why any of my comrades would ever for a moment, in a fleeting orgasm of optimism, believe the dems are some kind of option. How embarassing.
Posted by: slothrop | May 28 2005 1:43 utc | 9
I say again: the power enjoyed by repuclicans is unassailable because overdetermined, overdetermined because unopposed. Pretty fucking simple hegelianism. the dems don’t need Dean, they need a dialectician to point out the obvious details of antithesis to offer the American public.
But, that would mean the dems actually give a damn about “people.”
Posted by: slothrop | May 28 2005 1:52 utc | 11
Slothrop:
Apologies to the ghost of Leonard Bernstien
—-
Dems:
Dear kindly Sergeant Slothrop,
You gotta understand,
It’s just our bringin’ up-op
That gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are lobbyists,
Our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we’re punks!
Press:
Officer Slothrop, you’re really a square;
Those dems don’t need Dr. Dean, they need an analyst’s care!
It’s just their neurosis that oughta be curbed.
They’re psychologic’ly disturbed!
Dems:
Dear kindly socialist worker,
They say go earn a buck.
Like be an honest congressman,
Which means like be a schumck.
It’s not I’m anti-social,
I’m only anti-work.
Gloryosky! That’s why I’m a jerk
Socialist-worker:
Eek!
Officer Slothrop, you’ve done it again.
Those dems don’t need dialectics, they need a year in the pen.
It ain’t just a question of misunderstood;
Deep down inside them, they’re no good!
Posted by: citizen k | May 28 2005 2:25 utc | 12
@slothrop:
I will respond on Tuesday. It appears that the cure has been somewhat successful, even in the early stages.
Imagine that Hegel is playing out all ready. If you can have “little Eichmans”, I guess you can have little antitheses occurring as we write.
Might take a little longer to get to the BIG BANG.
And I do not think you can rush the dialectic. It happens as it happens. And it is happening.
All I’m saying.
Will pass on the amyl nitrate.
Posted by: Dr. Groucho | May 28 2005 2:26 utc | 13
gotta add my 2c in support of slothrop.
The Dems aren’t perfect, but their all we have ..
.. well then, your fooked.
Posted by: DM | May 28 2005 2:58 utc | 14
@Citizen K:
I advise you to consult a proctologist with a specialty in rectal-cranial inversion.
It appears, from cursory analysis, that you suffer from an advanced case of the malady.
Surgery is probably the only option
I urge you to consult your physician immediately and ask for a referral.
Posted by: Dr. Groucho | May 28 2005 3:15 utc | 15
Hey people, take a chill pill. If I wanted to be assaulted I would go to a bar in Texas.
I am giving the Dems some credit. I like their moves lately even while all branches are clearly rethug and they have no power.
Posted by: jdp | May 28 2005 3:59 utc | 17
Seems it is okay to be a hardline, Florida-Cuban terrorist.
U.S. rejects Venezuelan move to extradite Cuban
Will be fun to watch how Condi is going to deal with this. Interesting also, for the press he is just a Cuban, I am sure if he was Iraqi or Palestinian he would already be called a terrorist.
Posted by: Fran | May 28 2005 4:02 utc | 18
Justin Raimondo’s
latest diatribe is megalomaniacal, paranoidal and
right on target. His “rightist” analysis could
have been penned by one of our resident Marxist gurus.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | May 28 2005 5:10 utc | 22
I’ll buy jdp a beer on this one, in that most of the progress the dems have made lately has been from the more progressive wing of the party standing up to the republican momentum, and while maybe not quite the battle of little round top the repubs do seem to be wandering around scratching their heads as to where their assult has gone bad. This is only important in that their assult has so much to do with their “look” of success and the loss of that momentum makes them “look”… arrested (pun intended).
Posted by: anna missed | May 28 2005 5:33 utc | 23
US wants to be able to access Britons’ ID cards
“Mr Chertoff said compatability and the checking system was intended purely to track down ‘terrorists and criminals’ and the main aim was to provide a ‘fair and reasonable system’. US diplomatic sources stated later that Washington did not wish to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries.”
Posted by: pedro | May 28 2005 5:51 utc | 24
Thanks Slothrop – spooky how little change was needed.
Posted by: citizen k | May 28 2005 6:01 utc | 25
AfterDowningStreet.org, which describes itself as “a coalition of veterans’ groups, peace groups, and political activist groups”, launched on May 26, 2005 a campaign to “urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war”.
ADS is asking people to sign Rep. Conyer’s letter to president Bush, which was undersigned by other 88 congressmen but so far has been ignored. This letter asks the following questions about the Downing Street memo:
1) Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain’’s commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to “fix” the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?
Posted by: pedro | May 28 2005 6:06 utc | 26
That’s the stinkin problem, everyone thinking that “the dems are all we have”, people will cling to that intellectual lazyness even if it means going down with the ship. Like a alcoholic whom wont admit powerlessness,and clings to the bottle, some how thinking these elite paid professinal liars will one day come around….Ground hog day (the movie) on a mass scale. Talk about the Charlie Brown/Lucy football scene… geez.
The problem is that both parties are comprised of politicans, no leaders, …
-HL Mencken.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 28 2005 6:18 utc | 27
US officials are planning to build an execution chamber at the Guantanamo Base. According to Gen. Miller, “We’re getting ready so we won’t be starting from scratch.”
Posted by: pedro | May 28 2005 6:27 utc | 28
Analysts Behind Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded
Two Army analysts whose work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq — the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets — have received job performance awards in each of the past three years, officials said.
…
The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts’ work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq’s military. The panel said the finding represented a “serious lapse in analytic tradecraft” because the center’s personnel “could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question.”
…
The awards were given as part of a government-wide incentive program to recognize high-performing employees with cash or time off. An internal NGIC newsletter listed Norris and Campos as among those who received performance awards, lump-sum cash payments, in fiscal 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Let’s not waste our rage on each other. There may be plenty of use for it in the near future, like treating liars and crooks with an icy hand of procedural justice. No superficially satisfying emotional outbursts, just an unshakable adherence to measured and steady processes. Let them show themselves for what they are, don’t touch the dirt – it would merely make you dirty.
I think I remember that in any given group, the number of exploiters rises steadily at first before they start weeding each other out. Isn’t this why tit-for-tat strategies keep working out best? The exploiters are at each others’ throats right now, and they haven’t even gotten really nasty so far…
Humour:
Grocery Store Wars – rescue Princess Lettuce (Flash)
Whew. Good news. Masturbating will not make you go blind…but maybe using Viagra will.
although, in fairness, these same guys suffered from high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol, so maybe the real problem is that the things that contributed to their problems with maintaining a four hour erection (other than nature/aging) also are factors that may cause eye problems.
I hope they find all sorts of problems with viagra, since birth control pills could not be covered under certain insurance plans, but viagra could be?!?!?!
Posted by: fauxreal | May 28 2005 12:45 utc | 32
Thanks anna, I’ll take a Budweiser.
You have to admit, there is some progress being made if like anna said, from the progressive wing of the dems. I am proud to be from the same state as John Conyers. This man is doggedly after Bushie and his political hacks.
If the dems can manage to take over the US house, which the polls are showing, the dems will feel no sympathy toward the rethugs after the last ten years of ramming through anything they want. I am going to say the word that “will” happen if the dems take over. Impeachment.
There is plenty of evidence for high crime and misdemeaners, and I believe Bushie will go back to Texas with his tail between his legs. So, for all the cynicism, I am placing hope in the dems to take congress and put the wingnuts back into the bottle.
Posted by: jdp | May 28 2005 13:24 utc | 33
I have VERY mixed opinions about this site and “the voice of the white house” but I cannot help but read it…I don’t know if it’s the equivalent of rubber-necking at a highway accident or what, but tbrnews, in their ongoing “voice of the white house” claims:
From two sources, neither of whom know each other and both of whom are well-placed in the system, I have been receiving information that indicates that a coup d’etat against the Bush administration is apparently being seriously contemplated in certain circles.
The first of these is the higher commands of the U.S. military which is disgusted with Bush and his ruination, as they see it, of the discipline and legitimate tasks of the military and the other is a loose confederation of very high level American businessmen who see Bush as a complete and fatal disaster to American business, most especially in the areas of foreign trade.
[ ]
The CIA has joined the ranks of the military in hoping for an end to the Bush Adiministration.
[ ]
As a result of the economic and military disasters the narrow-minded and ignorant President is creating, there is now a very powerful internal movement to get him out of the White House, either by turning Congress and the people against him (with the willing assistance of the media barons) or by more forceful means…a coup d’Etat.
[ ]
I do not have any concrete knowledge of the specifics of this alleged putsch but my sources are certain that it is being very seriously pursued with at least one study group working on control of internal communications (my sources’ specialty) and a banker friend of mine, another source, has said almost the identical thing to me. They do not know each other and, to the best of my knowledge, have no points of contact.
This person claims that American-led factions were behind the grenade in Georgia and the plan for a hit in Mainz. Maybe Cheney is behind it, since he’d never be pres any other way…although this site claims he’s scared shitless too.
The site is weird. It uses homophobic language and yet includes Justin Raimondo. It rages about the Likud-infiltrated administration, yet the votwh claims to be Jewish.
Like I said, I don’t know what to make of the site, but if the above claims are true, it’s rather odd that they are made public, which makes me wonder about the amount of mind-foiking involved…or not.
who knows. caveat lector.
Posted by: fauxreal | May 28 2005 13:37 utc | 34
Dear jdp,
I drank the Kool-Aid along with all the other “anybody but Bush” zombies in 2004. The Demoplicans proved they can’t win ANY election. They ran against Hitler and lost.
In the latest “fight” in the Senate they hit the canvas before the bell rang to come out fighting.
At some point you’ll be betrayed enough. In the meantime things get worse and worse as the Demoplicans take dive after dive.
Their new contract no longer calls for winning campaigns, just making an appearance and making it look good. The MSM takes care of that for them when they do hit the canvas before the punch is actually thrown.
We can waste another $500 million and, worse, let the Rebuplicans have another two years to do things I’m afraid to contemplate, or we can begin to build a real alternative to the Republicrat-Demoplican axis.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | May 28 2005 13:52 utc | 36
faux, that quote is very interesting. I believe when a guy like Warren Buffet claims this admin is a total disaster, people in the world start to listen.
John, I am just as much of a realist as you. But with all the controls on power in two party control, I think it (the alternative) needs to rear its head. I would like party with a mixture of libertarian social (they are for legalization of drugs, and no hold on lifestyle) issues and mixed economy, German or French type social safety nets. The free market needs rained in and we need wealth re-distribution.
Posted by: jdp | May 28 2005 14:08 utc | 37
In a front-page post on Daily Kos, Armando wrote:
I and markos and other front pagers often do express support and concern for our soldiers. And we will continue to. Because the soldiers, out there putting their lives on the line for us, deserve our respect and support.
In response, this is what I wrote (and subsequently took some flak for):
These very words could have been written by any Russian family about the Russian troops in Afghanistan and they would have been just as wrong — understandable, well-meant, surely, but wrong nevertheless.
Bluntly, I do not agree that you can support an army and not, at the same time, support the war that it is waging.
The fact is: this war is evil.
The troops that wage it are a tool, this is true. They did not decide to go to war. But if they are not the brain, they are, in effect, the arms and the legs.
You cannot attack the brain while encouraging the arms and the legs to go on marching.
If you support the troops, you support the consequences of their actions. Yes, some troops behave properly, but we all know by now that others are thugs (or sadly, have been forced to become thugs in order to survive — such is war).
By supporting the troops, at the same time, you support the thugs — and worse, you support their actions.
If tomorrow a US soldier kill an Iraqi child, what will you someday tell his parents? “He was a victim too”? It would be obscene.
Let’s not address here the fact that, every time there has been an unjust war in history, some men (too few, alas) have chosen to desert, revolt, or better yet, serve time rather than become tools of evil, because that’s not strictly relevant to my point here. But it must weigh in the balance, too.
If you think the war is evil, then it must stop. And to stop the war, the tool that wages it must be broken. There is no other alternative.
To support the troops is to support the war.
There is no passport on GOOD and EVIL. The fact that we are talking about American soldiers, not Russian ones, do not give them, or us, a pass. And candidly, I don’t think tht anyone here is saying that.
Still, at the end of the day, the ONLY reason I can see why some here keep saying that we should support the troops is because they are OUR troops. Would we support them is they were Russians? I doubt it.
That is not enough!
This is not a time for compromise, not in the face of Armageddon. I’m not hyperbolic: as long as we breed enemies and plutonium, there’ll be another 9/11 and then Bushco will nuke half of the planet. More than ever, we need clarity about good and evil. More than ever, we should not let misguided patriotism blind us.
I’d like to think that the folks here would not have supported the US Cavalry when it slaughtered the Native Amricans, or the harrowing exactions of the US troops in the Philippines.
We live in times that require clarity.
We must NOT support the troops, at any price.
This is not only to show the rest of the world that we, Americans, know the difference between GOOD and EVIL, but also to show the victims of our war that we do not support their aggressors, sometimes their butchers and torturers, just because they bear the same passports as we do.
If you want to show humanity, and atone for the evil that is being done in our name, every day, please consider instead supporting the victims of the war, in Iraq or even here — such as the innocent families of our soldiers, who are not guilty and are not tools and do need our constant support — but please do NOT support the troops themselves.
Update/Note #1: by “support” I mean “provide material assistance”; if you mean “bring thm home”, why don’t you just say so.
Update/Note #2: The slogan “pay for the troops” is OK with me because it doesn’t enable the war effort; implies no approval, only compassion; and those poore souls need all the prayers they can get.
Posted by: Lupin | May 28 2005 15:37 utc | 38
Jerome,
Before you get into bed with anybody you should take care to find out what diseases they are carrying.
If you vote oui you are voting to get into bed with the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has no written constitution. Do you know what diseases you might catch?
As a former subject of Her Majesty let me tell you about the most virulent of her diseases – the Treason Felony Act of 1848, viz:
3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies
…If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, …from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, …within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her… to change her… measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty… and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, …or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, …to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.
As you can see, she can do whatever she likes, anywhere she wants to do it (the law is extra-territorial). Anybody that opposes her (“put any force or constraint upon her”) will be lawfully zapped.
You may have noticed the recent General Election in Britain. You may have noticed that foreign policy was not debated. Not a word about Europe or the constitution. Why do you think that was? (clue: look at the wording of the Act. “Any person” includes Blair and Howard.)
Posted by: John | May 28 2005 16:24 utc | 39
@ Lupin
I have been thinking the same thing lately and did not see this at Kos. What is required is a great deal of moral certainty to take this position of not supporting the troops. There are organizations set up by the Department of Defense that have gathered many public figures to come out and tell everybody how special it is that military people are saving the world for democracy. The PR war is going at a furious pace and the warmongers are kicking serious ass. To attempt to go against this propagenda is very difficult and will be used against you forever. There is still a lot of hatred toward Jane Fonda for what she attempted to do 40 years ago.
I guess what I am saying is that to state you do not support the troops is going to be considered sacrilege and blasphemy by most of the sheeple. Even though you are absolutely correct in saying that every soldier who goes to Iraq bears responsibility, it is not really fair to put such a burden on people who have very limited choices. The truly wicked are those who support this war because of financial gain. They need to be unmasked. You will be much more successful stopping this war if you can show who is benefitting. If you could work in that many people who are not US citizens are profitting from this so called War on Terra, the chances of people actually listening would increase.
Your blanket statement of We must NOT support the troops, at any price will backfire and ultimately do more harm than good. It is akin to telling someone that their baby is ugly. It might be true but you just can’t say that.
Posted by: dan of steele | May 28 2005 16:36 utc | 40
@Lupin,
I don’t disagree. The troops are willing participants. Even if one honorably volunteers on the reasonable assumption that one’s service will not be employed in ethically monstrous ways, Nuremberg should have taught the lesson that one is not only able, but required to resist immoral orders.
I’d love to see a mass desertion by all the troops who agree with us – and there are many. Such an action, carried out in sufficient numbers, would paralyze the war effort.
And I share your disgust with the moral double standard employed deliberately by the Right, and bought into by far too many others – that a different set of rules applies to Americans (especially christian Americans).
But I find it hard to place too much blame with the troops. The administration and Pentagon greatly control their access to information. The military culture is designed to discourage such action and the penalties are severe. And Chimpy’s handlers have worked diligently to remove the threat of international sanction for US war crimes, and to control the terms of domestic debate where “support the troops” = “support the policy” & “question the policy” = “hate the troops and love Saddam”.
Your argument depends upon too much dialectical depth, nuance, and self-examination to have a ghost of a chance of impacting many beyond the borders of progressive blogdom. The argument, while substantially correct, is a PR albatross that that would diminish the chances of actually acheiving what we all agree is necessary – the cessation of this immoral US military adventurism.
I dislike coming down on the side of pragmatism over principle. I wish we lived in world where your argument would spark wide, honest debate. Unfortunately…
Posted by: OkieByAccident | May 28 2005 17:15 utc | 41
@ fauxreal,
On the bright side, once they go blind from Viagra, their 4-hour erections serve excellently as canes, shopping bag holders, and (similar to cats’ whiskers) obstacle detectors… :^)
Posted by: OkieByAccident | May 28 2005 17:22 utc | 42
@ Okie and Dan.
I don’t think I was trying to put forth a viable platform, only express my heartfelt feelings really.
I also wasn’t blaming the troops. I don’t feel I can judge.
I’d rather the troops deserted, rebelled or be brought home, of course.
In the meanwhile: The war is evil, the army is waging the war, so do not enable the army, is the sum total of my reasoning.
Plus, when confronted someday by one of our victims, I think that saying “we’re sorry for what we did to you but we had to stand by our boys” is morally unacceptable.
That’s it.
I will PRAY for our troops (as I explained above) but I will not “support” them.
Posted by: Lupin | May 28 2005 17:24 utc | 43
time to re-read “War is just a racket” by Maj.Gen. Butler.
Posted by: Lupin | May 28 2005 17:30 utc | 44
jdp- I have to wonder when the House will not do its duty and investigate the abuses under the Bush administration. How many impeachable offenses has he gotten away with? How many things have he and his administration done (and some of the military–as in Miller) that rise to the level of crimes against humanity and that deserve a hearing in an international criminal court? (Not that it would happen.)
But right there, imo, is enough leverage to make it possible for rational people to say “hey, you in the house, get these guys outta there, or maybe big media will start wondering about whether or not American leaders should be exempt, and have experts on the right who could find justification for this because Bush, et al have so totally ruined the reputation of the US in the eyes of the world.
…but many of us think, and they have bragged about this as well, that we are not dealing with rational people. Zealots seldom are.
No doubt big biz is pissed when American products are boycotted because of a near-universal revulsion about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo…and because of the total “we don’t give a shit” about due process that BushCo has had.
For many rational people, such actions do not protect, but rather create greater problems…not to mention that old, silly idea about hearts and minds.
But as far as the info being correct from that site…who knows. Maybe that’s why Thomas Friedman finally noticed Gitmo on Friday.
Okie- I shouldn’t say this, as a female, but I was thinking those guys might think it’s a good thing, if they’re jerks and talk about a two-bagger for someone their own age (so I guess I was just a jerk.)
Lupin- I understand both sentiments. For the most part, though, people who “volunteer” for the military are poor. I believe that the problem, really, is that those at the level of power, those who serve, as Hersh said, in loco parentis for the troops need to be held responsible…and need to be punished for policies and orders that the troops are indoctrinated to carry out. How much information do they get, I wonder, about various propaganda they are fed to make them killers? I think some in the lower-ranks of the military are not blameless…the prison guard who just continued his sadism in Abu Ghraib, for instance, should serve as a lesson for troops that they should defy their commanders when asked to carry out a crime against humanity.
But I also think that the pressure to maintain solidarity as a group is very strong in situations in which you rely upon others for your life.
But, before I go off on any soldiers, I would go off on the commanders. Why are they the equivalent of white collar criminals who do far worse damage, but never suffer the same level of emnity that a poor thief experiences?
Posted by: fauxreal | May 28 2005 18:03 utc | 45
HKOL – the Raimondo article on the BTC pipeline is very partial and glosses over many important aspects. One part especially jars me: the fact that Bushco criticises Russia does not suddenly make Russia’s behavior in the region more defensible; similarly, the fact that the USA and Europe supported genuine democratic movements in some countries does NOT make these democratic movements automatically suspicious.
John – a “non” vote will be a lot better for the UK than a “oui” vote.
Lupin – good diary. It got a decent number of recommends (including mine) and mostly thoughtful comments, apart for that one stupid troll; If you take personal responsibility seriously, you should worry about what you can personally control. Being a soldier in an all-volunteer army is a personal decision for which you have responsibility, as is your subsequent participation in an illegal war. Being a citizen of a country that wages such illegal war is not your direct responsibility unless you have voted for the guys that took the decisions.
Posted by: Jérôme | May 28 2005 19:19 utc | 46
One problem with holding the “troops” responsable for what goes on in a place like Iraq is that their own personal experience is woefully inadequate as commenserate to the obligation they have assumed. And I’m thinking here of a differentation between those that design policy and those ordered to carry it out. The bulk of the military in theater are those givin the task of following orders with little or no recourse. This is structured such that it takes full advantage of the undeveloped character of youth and psychological development in that general age group. What we are talking about here is teenagers (&early20’s) and anyone who has raised a teenager knows full well the difficulties in maturation of both self and integration into civil society is often problematic. Suffice to say, this a period of establishing personal and social boundrys of behavior – through guidence and experimentation that place limits on behavior that eventually(hopefully) become self corrective.
The military, takes full advantage of this natural developmental process to impose a new set of boundrys that far exceed those acceptable in civil society, that make fighting a war, and all that entails possible. In the war context, the new indoctrnated self may reach full expression whereby the person can never consider him(her)self by the former parameters — they are in effect this” other” person that has become themself. While this dislocation may have alot to do with post traumatic stress, it also speaks to the fact that the military has willfully manipulated the developmental process of the individual at an age where it is not seen as such. It is only in rare cases where a person in this stage of development is capable of the full ramifications and implications of how he/she is/has been changed — without the means of reflection and hind- sight that comes ( and sure as hell will come) through experience. Essentialy I’m saying that the maturity level of your averrage”troop” is knowway capable of the moral certitude necessary to understand fully what has been done to themselves, what they are now doing, what will be the lasting effects of their actions will be, and certainly, how to recast the fate they find themselves within. The military makes damn sure resistance is equally or more painful to endure.
As for those other “troops”, making the plans, giving the orders, and making a career of it, they get zero support from me, 0.
Posted by: anna missed | May 28 2005 20:30 utc | 47
@Lupin – I agree.
Having been a soldier myself I do know that it is not easy to resist (semi) illegal orders. It is a “comrade environment” and it is a job some folks do not want to risk loosing.
The Captain “ordered” the company to attend a christian mess and I stepped out after him and explained to the troops that this was an example of a may-be order. The Captain was embaressed, the troops did understand and did thank me.
It did mean trouble, but I did anyway and it did work and others followed. I will probably write about this and some other “take your stand” thinks in the next days.
These troops, and if not the privates then the officers, do know that their very presence in Iraq is illegal. If the officers do not know, it is their dereliction of duty.
They HAVE to know the Nuremburg verdicts and the U.S. laws implementing the Geneva conventions as the U.S. law of the land.
If they act against them, there is absolutly no reason to support them, but all reason to indict them. And that shall be done – top down.
yes the law could not be clearer
it is an illegal war according to all the codes
the occupation of a sovereign nation is illegal
the volume & consistent abuse constitutes crimes against humanity in any legal language you would like to use
the legal question is self evident but so too is the moral one. the soldier who fights for the man is not innocent though he or she may be innocent. im sure anna missed can be more precise on this question
i’m with lupin on this
hard decisions have to be made. by us. by people. you cannot hate the war & not consider the mechacnisms. you cannot see the collaboration of the democrats in the senate as principled resistance
the news we are getting is deeply troubling – it is not so surprising that peopl try to filter what they feel through an ambivalence – that even if it is informed by hope – is in & of itself a form of bankruptcy – because it does not allow a real & substantial opposition to be built
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 28 2005 20:49 utc | 49
sorry anna missed i did not read your last post finely enough;
i have to disagree. the armed forces are not babies. they are not units. they are flesh & blood taking flesh & blood disproportionately. man is man.
we are responsible. we are responsible for what we do. that responsibility is one of the highest conditions of our humanity. soldiers are not victims. they are perpetrators. sometimes only having doubt about what they perpetrate when the shoe is on the other foot
& the soldiers arre part & parcel of a general neglect & contempt for what other people are – in this case iraquis
i feel sad for what happens for a black soldier from pittsburg but i do not feel sympathy for what that soldeier does, conciouslly. the reasons – social & psychologique gor why they are there is an excuse. it is the word of hitlers soldiers
once you have been on the other side of american firepower – it is an evident truth that the persons articulating that firepower are criminals or are participant in a criminal act
the legality is clear
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 28 2005 20:58 utc | 50
Jerome,
You misread me, I think. I said I was a FORMER subject of Her Majesty. I formally repudiated the Crown.
The UK is lost to feudalism. My concern is for the Enlightenment.
Posted by: John | May 28 2005 21:52 utc | 51
r’giap
dang it! I think all of us here agree that the invasion and occupation is wrong and illegal. I feel guilty for being part of it. The problem is no longer admitting that it is wrong, it is what to do about it.
I watch some US news programs now that I have some time and the propagenda coming from them is remarkable. It is a completely different universe from what we read and discuss here. Talking with other Americans I find their opinions to merge very neatly with those expressed on Fox/CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC. I find no difference whatsoever between any of the aforementioned stations. Even PBS sounds more and more like Fox.
Everyone is scared, the government has powerful means to suppress dissent and everyone knows it. Thousands have already marched and protested, many of those have been arrested. Who knows about this? Other than the protesters themselves, very few.
What can be done? What would you do? Like Okie, I consider myself to be somewhat pragmatic. How can I fix this?
Posted by: dan of steele | May 28 2005 22:07 utc | 52
r’giap,
What you say has existential truth, and responsibilty for ones actions being paramount, however, I was trying to illustrate how military indoctrination works very hard to strip from consciousness, the faciltiy(s) necessary to both fully understand this responsibility, and take appropriate action commenserate with that understanding. I know that this sounds like excuse making, but a glass half full may easily believe it is full, givin wrong information. I doubt many on the ground in Iraq question the legality of their mission, of their own personal culpability, and yes like the Germans, the Japanese, or any other imperial conquests, the US military exploits this ignorance defining unwittingly perhaps where the cusp of responsibility rests — within the legality of the action. If for instance the US soldiers in Iraq (or US citizens for that matter) were able to discern their own culpability as part of a larger imperial project that could reasonably be considered (puplic debate/discourse) and chose to participate anyway — well then, fuck ’em.
Posted by: anna missed | May 28 2005 22:19 utc | 53
first a cut & paste :
Neocon court historians of empire, such as Niall Ferguson, claim that the US cannot withdraw from Iraq because the result would be a civil war and bloodbath.
However, a bloodbath is what has been going on since the ill-fated “cakewalk” invasion.
Moreover, the planned Baghdad Offensive is itself the beginning of a civil war. The 50,000 troops represent a Shi’ite government. These troops will be hunting Sunnis. There is no better way to start a civil war.
As George W. Bush has made clear many times, he is incapable of admitting a mistake. The inability to admit a mistake makes rational behavior impossible. In place of thought, the Bush administration relies on coercion and violence.
Nevertheless, Congress does not have to be a doormat for a war criminal. It can put a halt to Bush’s madness.
The solution is not to reduce Iraq to rubble. The US can end the bloodshed by exiting Iraq.
A solution is for Iraq to organize as a republic of three largely autonomous states or provinces-Shi’ite, Sunni, and Kurd– along the lines of the original American republic. The politicians within each province will be too busy fighting one another for power to become militarily involved with those in other provinces.
The problem is that Bush wants “victory,” not a workable solution, and he is prepared to pay any price for victory. The neocons, who are in effect Israeli agents, want to spread their war against Islam to Syria and Iran. For neocons, this is a single-minded pursuit. Their commitment to war is not shaken by reality or rationality.
The Bush administration has proven beyond all doubt that it is duplicitous and has delusions that are immune to reality. America’s reputation is being destroyed. We are becoming the premier war criminal nation of the 21st century. We are all complicit.
How much more evil will we tolerate?
Paul Craig Roberts
roberts is becomong like ramsey clarke. the kind of lucidit & fury in his articles astound me. it speaks to me of an america that is very very concious of what is happening
this scholar & ex treasury official proves there are people who place civic duty above other questions. he speaks only common sense but in our world i know that even a conservative critic like him will be painted as a fanatic
dan of steel – i insist & i repeat because i think it needs to be repeated that just on the basic level of illegality it is criminal. i imagine in my posts i want to do what they do to their opposition. criminalise them. & it seems to me that what is necessary is criminal charges to be bought against this administration. even roberts infers so.
that would not clean the mess but perhaps it would lead to a form of comprehension if not resolution
but i am so unlike razor or citizen k – i think the law is part of the problem & not the solution. it has been so corrupted & used that it cannot do anything – that is moral – or that is legal for that matter
ashcroft & gonzales are criminals. they are as removed from law as i am from athletics
they have constructed the institutions of fear. practically, legally & legislatively. they have pissed fear into the heart of culture & we are shitting ourselves
the first thing we can do – is to not fear & that is not nothing
the next is to constuct hope & that can only be done through engagement & education & by ourselves being exemplary
in my work – my politics – my anti imperialist politics are as integral to me as my breath. i consider the work of pedagogy one of the most important tasks
then as i have said since i firt walked thru the door here – create communities of resistantce. i presume we are all doing that in our lives- hen we have to connect those communities
perhaps i bore people here & in life because i will not forget what is happening day to day in this war & i bring that war home – all the time – even when that greatly reduces – the joy that can be taken from a life
this time – this time we are in is a time of fighting
anna missed i understand the point – but the constuction of innocence as wm blake would tell us is through the wonder of experience – to know what is in front of us – to know we are not buddha but that we are capable of directing our lives – i is what i ask of refuggees, of the poor, of the crazed & of the hurt
is that too much to ask of a man or woman who is paid to slaughter or to act as an integral witness to that slaughter. men in our time – of the vietnam war faced hard decision & followed them
personally i always thought the weather people were correct – that the nature of war had to be bought concretely home – even if it only had the most symbolic value
we learnt from the vietnamese to divest ourselves of white skin privilege & surely we understood from frantz fanon & che guevara precisely why an oppressed people will take it within their destinies to fight for what they have
whatever are the constituants of the iraqui resistance – there is a basic fact – they are fighting for their country from an occupier who desires to anhilate not only them, but their nation, their resources, their culture & their civilisation
& i know dan of steel that my fury sometimes prevents me from offering practical advice here when it is a normal component of my life
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 28 2005 22:45 utc | 54
but i am so unlike razor or citizen k – i think the law is part of the problem & not the solution. it has been so corrupted & used that it cannot do anything – that is moral – or that is legal for that matter
I am so unlike RGiap, I think that ideologies are part of the problem and not the solution. They have been so corrupted and used that people trapped within them begin by applying labels to anything they see and then are content. For example, I have never stated that law is a solution to anything. On the contrary the Soviet constitution provided all sorts of guarantees that were routinely ignored and even the bedrock habeus corpus assurance in the US constitution is now being flauted. And the manifest problems with the proposed EU constitution seem to me to be of not much moment, since the foolish organizational charts of Brussels will disintegrate on contact with pan-european politics. However, since Remembering Giap is convinced that he can label me, he is able to analyze, refute, and integrate even words I neither write nor believe. Law is not meaningless, but it takes meaning from social structures. This deep dialectal phenomenon was described by Professor Benjamin Franklin who, asked what form of government was produced by the Consitutional Convention said “A republic, if you can keep it”.
As for the weather people, I believe they exemplified the problem of a self-indulgent middle class left so caught up in its hermetical world of ideological schema and its own childish impatience that it destroyed itself in a sulk. Poor babies, the mightiest power in the world failed to collapse on their command, so they relinquished the real work of building organization in favor of a rebellion that was easily crushed and demonized but that felt oh so pure.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 29 2005 0:06 utc | 55
dan of steel
as exemplars,my parents taught me the stories & i am today reminded of two groups of people who fought against fascism in the 2nd world war
both red of course
l’affiche rouge – were the first active & military resistance to the nazis in france. they were all with few exceptions – foreigners. armenian, jewish, polish, italian, spanish etc. they fought knowing they could not win & but knowing that doing nothing was not an option
they were extraordinarily young & they were extraodinary lyric in their actions. their history is such a beautiful & tragic story – that knowing it – you know that giants have walked the earth & they have done so as normal people. this very small group caused the collusus of fascism to falter. i do not know if their history is available in english & it is stilll not largely known in france because it was a resistance that began a long time before the ‘official’ resistance started to act. to read their histories & read their letters is to know a decency that is hard to find today
even one of our most profoundly anti communist historian stéphn courtois has written an ode to their beauty & force
the other red – is the red orchestra – where again – a small number of people – became as canaris famously said – were worth of 100 divisions. this small group collected valuable intelligence which cause great damage to the german war machine & again it was a different community of people including german. they also sacrificed themselves to something higher than themselves
they fought against impossible odds & in doing so established a mirror for society to look at itself
while i would not compare the weather people to them – they are connected in their utter repugnance to allow peopl to live out illegal & agressive wars, softly
there is much written about the redo orchestra from every conceivable angle & most of i is also a good read
both groups teach us that ordinary people can become extraordinary through their actions & that they need not let fear rule their lives. they were not people who waited – in fact history could not afford for them to do so
agaion citizen k in reference to the weather people spek of the loss & concerns to americans – he does not seem to think for a moment that what these people did was for the vietnamese & may have caused a minute less of the bombardements & cruelty of that population
& something thath marks these people out is their convinced & active internationalism
there are many historical examples that teach us how to fight
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 29 2005 1:29 utc | 57
Ah, RG, I didn’t speak of the loss and concerns to Americans at all and I have thought about whether the weathermen caused a minute less of attacks on Vietnam, but find zero reason to believe that they were anything but counter-productive. They did not “bring the war home”, all they did was kill some poor mathematician.
I join you in your applause for the Mancousian group who were heros to all humanity – although unlike you I also note that the PCF leadership didn’t commit to resistance until after the invasion of the USSR.
Posted by: citizen k | May 29 2005 1:55 utc | 58
thee rank & file on the other hand citizen k fought before the affirmation of the ‘leadership’ & even the most reactionary historian of the peiod accepts that
the pcf is a peculiarly french tragedy
it was the missak manouchian & the group was th ftp -moi – it was not manouchians nor the party’s private property
they were as i sd for the most part immigrants but they were all, communists
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 29 2005 2:33 utc | 59
RG, nice sister daughter thing going there
its illegal
legal doesn’t matter
its illegal
legal doesn’t matter
its illegal AND legal doesn’t matter, oh,
what has America come to that those structures that mean nothing are failing like i knew they would? why it is just as bad as i have always said!
nice marketing device there, the two for one special with two chances to criticize what has been written off anyway
Posted by: razor | May 29 2005 4:09 utc | 60
r’giap…..you stalinist bastard…..stalin hated peanut butter too. when he pissed me off i’d stick peanut butter to the roof of his mouth. it would keep him occupied for hours!:-)
lupin….great post.
yanks will never completely understand war until they have to live with it for more than a day at a time. its so ironic considering that the US civil war was so horrific.
Posted by: lenin’s ghost | May 29 2005 4:39 utc | 61
A Cheney biography from Canada´s CBC can now be watched online.
The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney
(First link under the title banner)
The Sunday Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.htmlRAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make “regime change” in Iraq legal.
Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that “the US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime”.
The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did.
…
between May 2002 and the second week in November, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, which Goldsmith said made the war legal, British aircraft dropped 46 tons of bombs a month out of a total of 126.1 tons, or 36%.
I’m a very mild pewrson; I don’t even bear any ill will to the poor fucked up trash like L England turned into terrorists by our military machine.
Screaming now:
I JUST WANT TO STOP HEARING “WE TOO SUPPORT THE TROOPS” FROM OUR SIDE!!!!!!!
Is that too much to ask?
Based on what I read on Kos, yes.
No one, not even the Left, is facing up to the fact that someday our Iraqi victims will confront us, and what will the Kossacks say then: “I’m realy sorry for the bad things we did to you, but you understand, we had to support our boys”?
That is totally morally bankrupt.
Posted by: Lupin | May 29 2005 14:55 utc | 64
@ Lupin
Just wanted to let you know that I’m with you on your diary @ Kos, didn’t respond there since I’m not logged in as a “member of the support the troops site”.
Posted by: terrorist lieberal craigb | May 29 2005 15:38 utc | 65
lupin
yes, it is totally moralement bankupt
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 29 2005 16:03 utc | 66
R’giap
I do appreciate what you are doing. It is very difficult not to give up. I keep picturing the Black Knight from Monty Python who had much bravado but was hugely ineffective. I don’t want to flail about and actually be counterproductive.
I find that the first stage in fixing something is to find out exactly what is broken. I don’t see that yet. As much as I lament a sold out press it has probably always been that way. Draconian laws are nothing new either. Big business wanting more profits is normal too. So what has gone so terribly wrong?
It has been said before that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans know exactly what they want and focus on getting that. The Democrats on the other hand know what they don’t want. That is not enough to change anything. We have to know what it is that we want to change and concentrate all of our collective powers on that. We need a target.
The stories of resistance are admirable, I believe that in order to really fight you have to have nothing to lose. I am not in that position. I can lose what I consider a fairly comfortable lifestyle. Therefore, it is important that any endeavor I should undertake be much more important than providing for my family. I am not noble enough to make sacrifices for the good of mankind. I am not sure that mankind deserves it in the first place and after viewing the nonchalance on the part of my countrymen toward the butchering of other peoples it is not at all difficult to come to that conclusion.
Please don’t consider me to be a coward, that would strike to close to the truth.
Posted by: dan of steele | May 29 2005 17:00 utc | 67
“The Democrats on the other hand know what they don’t want.”
No. What is this “not want”? The War? Bankruptsy bill? “welfare reform”? “free trade”? hmmmm.
The dems are only repubs who offer professedly more congenial means of American domination abroad and elite domination at home. Dems prescribe what seems to be a palliative, motherly capitalism. Repubs can only be admonished for a predilection for in-your-face, completely unmagnanimous domination and cruelty. The difference between the two parties the same difference in the effects of torture administered by a Cyrus Vance or a Charles Graner: none.
Posted by: slothrop | May 29 2005 17:26 utc | 68
Slothrop: Of course there are serious differences between some Democrats and some Republicans. Millions of people went to university, got health care and some pension in their old age, had free breakfast at their primary school, and so on because of those differences. I fear that in Cambridge, these differences are no so apparent, because the screams from the lower decks are hard to hear up top. Just because both are bad and corrupt does not imply that they are equivalent or that it doesn’t matter.
Posted by: citizen k | May 29 2005 17:51 utc | 69
Gen. Myers
There’s something downright strange about this. Myers isn’t talking to anyone but himself. The pro-war military is talking to itself! That’s how you try to unlearn the lessons of Vietnam: you talk to yourself over and over again, rather like Lady Macbeth….
Posted by: alabama | May 29 2005 18:03 utc | 71
Myers is the US answer to Elphinstone. God save the US soldiers and the Iraqi people, but history repeats itself, first as a butchery and then as a bloodbath, then as a massacre, and then as a charnel house, and so on.
Posted by: citizen k | May 29 2005 18:17 utc | 72
@Lupin
“Support Our Troops” is not even a genuine sentiment. For those who have memory, the phrase (and even the gaudy yellow ribbon displays) was used by the administration of Bush the Elder during Gulf War I (See, for example, Douglas Rushkoff’s Media Virus: Revised Edition, Ballantine Books, 1996. pp.23-5). “Support Our Troops” was invented specifically to squelch debate about the legality and justification for the war and, as such, is a propaganda coup par excellence. Danofsteele’s true (but logically ridiculous) observation that opposing this slogan will “backfire” on you is testament to its efficacy. I agree with your reasoning and your conclusions, Lupin. I have felt that way for a long time. But reason will not prevail over people who hide behind oversimplified semiotics to justify their jingoism and criminal behaviours. In bringing up this particular topic, you have put your finger on the pulse of the otherwise baffling question of how this American administration continues to get away with illegal, immoral and contemptible policies at home and abroad.
But how to counter it? Okie and Dan in their pragmatism can not be faulted; attacking this hateful meme on its merits will only raise people’s ire at you personally and will further entrench them in their twisted position. In the 1960’s, the meme “America, love it or leave it” was not effective because it presented a natural alternative… which would be “America, love it and fix it”. The current “SOT” meme presents no such alternative; one can not oppose criminal behaviour without opposing the perpetrators, even when the perpetrators are doing the grunt work of others. Supporters of our troops also support Abu Ghraib, media blackouts, nation building, depleted uranium, sweetheart defense contracts and the elimination of both the Nuremberg Principles and Geneva Convention. I know this, you know this and, somewhere, deep down, the supporters themselves know this. But I’ll take it a step farther than you did (and accept the larger consequences that Okie and Dan brought up). It is not simply the troops who are being an efficient tool of evil here… it is anyone and everyone who does not actively oppose these actions who shares culpability for them.
Another meme that bothers me are the thousands of bumper stickers I have seen bearing the slogan “The Power of Pride” amblazoned over a US flag. Everyone is aware that pride is one of the seven deadly sins. It is truly a test of my compassion when people… MY people… actually embrace their faults in these ways. Reasoned debate will not get through to them. In fact, pointing out how untenable their positions are will only make you their new target and you will be branded as unpatriotic and a security risk. I don’t know how to answer this question, Lupin, but I also can not sit idly by when such blatant wrongness is going on around me. Patria cara, carior libertas (“Country is dear, but liberty is dearer”). Sadly, I see both country and liberty endangered by this contemptible propaganda.
Posted by: Monolycus | May 29 2005 18:49 utc | 73
Fran, I think Riverbend has finally been pushed over the edge into sarcasm. She didn’t appreciate Friedman’s little article did she?
WTF?
British to assault Taliban stronghold . This is dated today????
Colman, can anyone read Friedman and not be pushed over the edge of sarcasm?
Posted by: Fran | May 29 2005 19:10 utc | 76
Monolycus, whenever the subject of the war comes up around here–and it doesn’t come up very often, which is interesting in itself–I let people know that I understand that they regard the war as a disaster (and everyone does), and that all the flag-flying and bumper-sticker stuff is okay, because of course they know that the war is a disaster. Since we’re dealing here with a somewhat paranoid formation, it’s important to keep things on a rather light footing, but it’s a fact that no one feels good about this war, and no one minds your pointing out this fact, provided you don’t turn it into a litmus test of some kind. I’d say that the worm is ready to turn.
Posted by: alabama | May 29 2005 19:52 utc | 77
“because of course they know that the war is a disaster.”
I understand what you mean. But also, so much vindication of the war is conceded to the collective will to merely prevail, no matter the reason.
Posted by: slothrop | May 29 2005 20:06 utc | 78
Put another way, the pro-war contingent in my own extended family do not ever need a reason for war. What is needed for them is periodic affirmation of American will to domination. That’s it. Really, reminds me of Johnson’s “We will not fail” rhetoric during Vietnam.
Posted by: slothrop | May 29 2005 20:14 utc | 79
One more point. The antidote to this thrilling micropolitics of unreasonable assent to war and assertion of American power for its own sake, is totally humiliating defeat. A very discomfiting feature of political dissent to this war requires defeatism. It sucks.
Posted by: slothrop | May 29 2005 20:22 utc | 80
I don’t get what “defeatism” means in this war. What “victory” is possible? Starting the war was the defeat, now we only wait to see the magnitude of the catastrophe.
Posted by: citizen k | May 29 2005 20:51 utc | 81
@Alabama
I appreciate your comments and, no, I certainly wasn’t trying to use people’s attitudes as any kind of litmus test (I will leave the “If you’re not with me, you’re an enemy” approach to others who have more practice with it). I am also very sympathetic to Dan’s position where he indicated that he had much to lose by being demonstrably anti-war, although I personally think it is absurd that things have come to the point where we must seriously entertain these thoughts. I was simply responding (viscerally) to Lupin’s remarks because I have had very strong feelings about this topic myself. It was never my intention to waltz into someone else’s bar and trash the place… I apologise if that is how my post came across. I also agree with you in a general sense that it is very valuable to keep things light; people tune out too much gloom-and-doom even if there is merit to it.
What I do not agree with, however, is that this wildfire is going to burn itself out in the near future. I fully expected that people would realise the ramifications of USAPATRIOT Act I, once the emotions of 11 September 2001 had a bit of time to dissipate. I was pretty sure that in the face of worldwide opposition to Iraq, the neocons might become a bit more introspective or, at the very least, the citizens would make their displeasure felt during the 2004 general election.
Slothrop raises an excellent point: On the one hand, the people who recognise the absurdity of these trends seem to feel that it will correct itself and they just need to sit back and ride it out. On the other hand, those who support it (and there are an alarming number who really do, they just do not frequent this particular bar), do not care that it makes no sense. They do not view American foreign policy as a disaster because anything more than a superficial examination of it is a threat to a deeply internalised worldview that they are the “good guys” in everything they do. It is especially easy for them to rationalise their fallacies ad populum since it is reinforced everywhere they turn with the “flag-flying and bumper-sticker stuff”. For this reason, I see a benefit even in preaching to the choir.
But I do apologise if it seemed I was chastising anyone here.
Posted by: Monolycus | May 29 2005 21:07 utc | 82
Wrote this on the “support” issue last night, so some repeats by now, have learned not to post to late into the night, anyway my2cents :
As far as the “support the troops” thing goes, the phrase originated I believe, with gulf war1, and has now continued with 2. Obviously, this is a propaganda ploy that proved successful the first time around, and has been dusted off to preempt dissent again. The ploy itself is to associate the personal feelings people have for the flesh and blood they have in the service with the policy instigated by the government — to criticize the policy is to turn your back on your kin, your neighbor, and your country. So people buy a magnetic ribbon and display it on their car. A few people might even send cookies in the mail. In reality, most people that “support the troops”, do absolutly nothing that would actually benifit the troops, even those that are in favorable to the policy. The government itself is the biggest offender in this respect with numerous cuts in veterans benifits, failed legislation, poor post trauma health care, and inadequate field provisions (armor, etc). Whats left of “support the troops” is hollow and empty rhetoric that belies the fact of very little actual support.
However, the phrase lives on in its most deceptive and potent incarnation, as the primary justification for recieving funding through supplimental legislation that acts to continue the war policy — the last one being passed without one no vote. These supplimentals that are always, and without dissent, rationalized as supporting the troops, that their funding cannot be cut off, as if it were, the troops would all go hungry or something, and we cant have that. We cant allow the troops to be underfunded as that would be an endangerment to their safety, so the policy is pushed back door through “support the troops”, as it is rhetorically in the broader sense.
The primary issue is that the function of the troops ( in their occupation of Iraq) cannot be seperated from a concern for their personal safety .This is a dilemma, that is progressivly extentuated by the increasing casualty rates and evermore successive rotations, which ironically cries out for more funding as a matching tokin of support. Another vicious circle so characteristic of Bushs mode of governance, a coupling of rhetorical non-sense with policy non-sense. In effect a tautology.
Posted by: anna missed | May 29 2005 23:25 utc | 83
The headline:
Hospital in Germany copes with heavy flow of wounded from Iran, Afghanistan
It is currently on 27 news pages of US publications listed by Google news. It is an Associated Press piece. But isn’t there something very curious about this headline?
flow of wounded from Iran
just asking …
@Alabama:
You ought to peruse good General Myer’s address to West Point graduates.
These military people running the services right now, and commanding divisions in Iraq, remind me of the 3rd Reich Yes men.
@citizen K:
Forget about Elphy Bey. Myers is the reincarnation of Keitel.
Posted by: FlashHarry | May 30 2005 1:24 utc | 85
anna missed, the point you make so well is that our troops are being held hostage by this administration. So the question then becomes, how can we help to free those hostages–especially when the hostage-holders themselves pretend to be their liberators (“support our troops” indeed!)? Well–and I hope this speaks to Monolycus’s concerns about the strategies of protest–I think it’s absolutely essential that we of the left do some serious and uncompromising homework about the extent of our complicity in the war effort, about the motives for that complicity, and about our capacity to reverse its direction.
Posted by: alabama | May 30 2005 1:41 utc | 86
For example: have we accepted, yet, the necessity that we, as heirs of the Enlightenment, must accept and affirm, unconditionally, the basic right of fundamentalist Muslims to work out their own receptions of an alien value-system (our own)? Have we come to terms with the necessity that we must recognize, by virtue of a nation’s claims to sovereignty, the rights of an undemocratic regime–theocratic or secular–to govern that nation? To do this, we have to make hard choices between double and incompatible demands (entailing, for example, some fresh thoughts about the claims of the fundamentalist elements in our own country). I think it can be done, that it hasn’t been done yet–or not to my knowledge, anyway–and that it’s an obligation of intellectuals to confront this task in a forthright manner. In confronting it, we can better insist on the rightness of our demand that the government free those hostage soldiers, who are not (for all our confusion) our hostages.
Posted by: alabama | May 30 2005 1:42 utc | 87
Monolycus, from your response at 5:07 PM to my post of 3:52 PM, I can see that my post was a slough of imprecision–an absolutely choice example of the fog that arises from imprecise wording without the fog’s appearing to be fog at all–looking like the keenest of point-making, rather.. Thus, when I said “here,” as in the phrase “whenever the subject of the war comes up around here,” I only meant my place of residence, and not the “Moon of Alabama”. And when I said “you,” as in the phrase “provided you don’t turn it into a litmus test of some kind,” I didn’t mean “you” as in “you, Monolycus,” but “you” as in “one” or “we”. Given the way you took my “here” and my “you”–the readiest way to take them, as it happens–the post ended up saying things that I didn’t recognize when I wrote them. (.At “Moon of Alabama” we can only learn….).
Posted by: alabama | May 30 2005 3:05 utc | 88
How about Lord Auckland then if you don’t like Elphinstine?
Posted by: citizen k | May 30 2005 3:41 utc | 89
B:
The headline of the linked article mentioned Iran but the text referred to only Iraq. It isn’t June yet, so the headline is probably just the journalistic equivalent of a Freudian slip.
Posted by: lonesomeG | May 30 2005 3:48 utc | 90
@Alabama
*laughing* Yes, re-reading your post after you clarified how you were using the pronouns gives it an entirely different meaning. No harm done. I need to be a little less defensive myself… when discussions of this administration come to the table I become a bit like Pavlov’s dog, except instead of salivating I become a bit too bilious.
Posted by: Monolycus | May 30 2005 4:56 utc | 91
the headline is a glitch in the matrix. isn’t there something we should be doing?
Posted by: b real | May 30 2005 4:59 utc | 92
Lupin is right.
And I for one believe that the slogan is worth attacking, even if Monolycus’ point about it being rather empty and meaningless is correct. Firstly, there is the question of personal responsibility which should not be left aside (amply discussed above.)
Secondly, pragmatically, what I intuit is that many Americans are living in an unconfortable state of cognitive dissonance, and that one can hack away at it to good effect. I guess that many are vaguely against the Iraq war – one of the latest poll shows that more than 50% considers ‘the war’ (in fact, the long term and very deliberate desctruction of an entire country) as ‘not worth it.’ The form of the question is in itself interesting, as it by passes morality and seems to imply some possible – but completely unformulated and mysterious – gain or advantage. Many Americans don’t see what the aim or the potential gain might be….the war can’t be justified in any common sense way…the only positive possible result put forward (democracy in Iraq or vanquishing the ‘insurgency’) seems ridiculous or hopeless.
For that very reason, it becomes important for this mass of uncomprehending hesitants to find something aligned with government policy they can ‘support’. Naturally, they prefer to support people rather than bombs or guns or the Govmint. So the troops it is!
Troops are Americans (even if many are not), are young men. They are inherently good, upright, stalwart, and just doing their job, unpleasant as it is. One can’t disaprove of a young, fit, American man who is ‘fighting for his country’, ‘fighting for all of us’, etc. In short, they treat the troops as if they were conscripts. Soldiers are representatives of their country, their, yes indeed, Homeland. And Americans, as we all know, are inherently good. They fight clean, and do not rape, steal, torture, bomb civilians, use illegal arms, or shoot people in the knees for fun.
What they do is necessary and justified … but how can that be if the war is bad or useless or ‘not worth it’?
Presenting such a viewpoint while being careful to avoid the moral condemnation of individual soldiers and leaving aside issues such as rape (bit of a cheat that!) has made at least three of my interlocutors try to think this matter out and come to slightly more reasonable frames of mind.
As one woman put it, Men can be good and do bad things. And I can condemn those bad things.
It is something.
Posted by: Noisette | May 30 2005 7:53 utc | 93
Feeding the resistance:
U.S. Detains Iraqi Islamic Party Leader
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – U.S. troops detained the head of Iraq’s largest Sunni Muslim political party during a house raid early Monday in western Baghdad, a top party official and police said. Mohsen Abdul Hamid, head of the Iraqi Islamic Party, was detained by American soldiers along with his three sons and four guards, said party-secretary-general Ayad al-Samarei. U.S. military officials could not immediately confirm the detentions.
Al-Samarei said American soldiers raided Hamid’s home at around 6 a.m. and confiscated various items, including a computer.
“This is a provocative and foolish act and this is part of the pressure exerted on the party,” he said.
“At the time when the Americans say they are keen on real Sunni participation, they are now arresting the head of the only Sunni party that calls for a peaceful solution and have participated in the political process,” he added.
A new post by Riverbend taking apart Friedman
Shia Leaders…
One thing I found particularly amusing about the article- and outrageous all at once-was in the following paragraph:
“Religiously, if you want to know how the Sunni Arab world views a Shiite’s being elected leader of Iraq, for the first time ever, think about how whites in Alabama would have felt about a black governor’s being installed there in 1920. Some Sunnis do not think Shiites are authentic Muslims, and they are indifferent to their brutalization.”
Now, it is always amusing to see a Jewish American journalist speak in the name of Sunni Arabs. When Sunni Arabs, at this point, hesitate to speak in a representative way about other Sunni Arabs, it is nice to know Thomas L. Friedman feels he can sum up the feelings of the “Sunni Arab world” in so many words. His arrogance is exceptional.
It is outrageous because for many people, this isn’t about Sunnis and Shia or Arabs and Kurds. It’s about an occupation and about people feeling that they do not have real representation. We have a government that needs to hide behind kilometers of barbed wire and meters and meters of concrete- and it’s not because they are Shia or Kurdish or Sunni Arab- it’s because they blatantly supported, and continue to support, an occupation that has led to death and chaos.
The paragraph is contemptible because the idea of a “Shia leader” is not an utterly foreign one to Iraqis or other Arabs, no matter how novel Friedman tries to make it seem. How dare he compare it to having a black governor in Alabama in the 1920s? In 1958, after the July 14 Revolution which ended the Iraqi monarchy, the head of the Iraqi Sovereignty Council (which was equivalent to the position of president) was Mohammed Najib Al-Rubayi- a Shia from Kut. From 1958 – 1963, Abdul Karim Qassim, a Shia also from Kut in the south, was the Prime Minister of Iraq (i.e. the same position Jaffari is filling now). After Abdul Karim Qassim, in 1963, came yet another Shia by the name of Naji Talib as prime minster. Even during the last regime, there were two Shia prime ministers filling the position for several years- Sadoun Humadi and Mohammed Al-Zubaidi.
DM, I don’t believe the super-inflated death tolls. The actual deaths in the current war are much lower than before due to the number of practically dead: those with massive brain and/or limb damage that would have died in earlier conflicts. I’m sure the casualty figures are understated, but not by those sorts of numbers.
RGiap’s new conservative soul-mate (except that
he probably likes peanut butter),
Paul Craig Roberts
once again says the unspeakable.
@Jerome Raimondo’s indictment of US policy
vis-a-vis Russia seems cogent. I agree that this does not excuse Putin for his sins, but putting the U.S. intervention in context seems
a service.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | May 30 2005 9:12 utc | 99
What we need, then, is a magnetic ribbon that says “free the troops”….
Posted by: alabama | May 30 2005 11:40 utc | 100