Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWith the Middle East on the cusp of war, President Bush's foreign policy for the area--remaking the region through invasion and occupation--is now effectively buried under the rubble of bombed out buildings, decimated bridges and civilian bodies.
The ongoing sectarian carnage in Iraq now barely makes it onto the front pages--and television is filled with the latest, horrifying scenes of devastation from the region. But Jessica Stern's op-ed, in Saturday's New York Times, is a powerful reminder of why we must not lose sight of ending the US occupation of a ravaged Iraq. Stern, a leading expert on terrorism, argues that our continuing occupation--and the growing number of revelations of US military atrocities (which she points out "are likely to proliferate the longer we remain in Iraq") will vastly increase the pool from which Al Qaeda and its sympathizers can recruit new members and supporters. As she reports, the latest Al-Qaeda video "tries to recruit ordinary American Muslims who might be offended, as many ordinary Americans are, by America's mistakes and moral failings in carrying out the war on terrorists." What Stern is saying is that this Administration's policies are actually increasing the possibility of future terrorist acts here in the US.
Yes, Iraq is complicated. As Robert Kuttner wrote recently in the Boston Globe, "..the search for a viable Iraq policy is really hard. President Bush has left the country with a policy problem from hell that may be literally insoluble, for him or anyone else." I agree, but at the same time that view should not lend a kind of gloss of acceptance to continued occupation.
Over the past three years, the Administration and its allies have offered a succession of reasons for why we must "stay the course"--all designed to match the succession of rationales for the war itself. An American withdrawal, we've been told, would embolden the insurgency, make Iraq a safe haven for terrorists and foreign jihadis and lead to civil war. One by one each of these predictions has come true. Not, of course, because we withdrew or even announced a timetable for withdrawal or redeployment but because we could not control the forces the war and occupation have unleashed and created.
At this point, there may be little America can do to stop the sectarian violence or even an all-out civil war. The sanest course is to remove US forces and work with the international community to keep Iraq from disintegrating as a result of our invasion and occupation. That means a shift from the failed military model to an all-out diplomatic and economic effort to limit the damage our reckless policies have caused. That means declaring no permanent bases or control of oil. But this Administration and its newly energized neo-con allies have little interest in diplomacy or giving Iraqis real sovereignty.
Stern's argument is a powerful and pragmatic rejoinder to the "stay the course" crowd. "We made a major error by going to war in Iraq.....Some errors yield not only bad outcomes, but also bad choices, and this is one. It will be dangerous for both Iraqis and Americans if we leave Iraq as a failed state. But it is even more dangerous to remain where our continuing presence will inevitably result in further cruelties and atroctiies, providing more arguments for more videos to attract more terrorist recruits around the globe--including here at home."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Barring some "October Surprise"...Iraq pretty easy to predict now-
1. Troop pull-outs start AFTER the midterms, down to 20K before the Iowa primaries.
2. Sectarian violence increases and a Shiite dominated government eventually has to employ some "tough" stances to crack down on the Sunnis. It eventually loses all pretense of being "democratic" by 2008.
3. The Kurds, for all intensive purposes, "break away" by Christmas 2008.
4. Anything and everything is linked to "our failure in Iraq" for Democratic politics for the next 10 years.
5. Bush/Cheney vilified (rightfully so) in all but the most partisan history texts.
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2006 @ 10:51am
MASK, you ignore the fact that Bush has vowed to keep our troops in Iraq and leave withdrawal to the next president. Down to 20K before Iowa? I'll bet a beer that it ain't so...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/17/2006 @ 11:14am
It is quite clear that we will be hearing more and more about "insolubility" and "difficulty" from Republicans over the coming months. The new argument is not that Bush/Cheney's Iraq policy was a well-predicted failure, but that they did the best they could, but the whole thing was just impossible. How extensively they will try to maintain this pose as the Middle East continues to implode will provide another new measure of their hubris and shamelessness. An unending occupation of Iraq because "at this point we don't have another choice"? It is hard to believe that they will be willing to stand behind this argument, but then again, what are their other options? Remember this one: "It's not the incompetence, it's the impossibility." You'll hear it again, I can guarantee it. peace, jim
Posted by JimPreston at 07/17/2006 @ 11:24am
The world and U.S.A. are in good hands. Just listen to the astute words of our leader...
"You eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country. Takes him eight hours to fly home. Not Coke, diet Coke. ... Russia's big and so is China. Yo Blair, what're you doing? Are you leaving," Bush said.
Jeez. What an embarassment.
Posted by BlueTexan at 07/17/2006 @ 11:24am
BLUETEXAN: Ha ha! How funny! Another "George W. Bush is an idiot" joke; it's not like we don't already know that or anything.
Posted by Gertrude at 07/17/2006 @ 11:33am
BLUETEXAN: Ha ha! How funny! Another "George W. Bush is an idiot" joke; it's not like we don't already know that or anything.
Posted by Gertrude at 07/17/2006 @ 11:35am
BLUETEXAN: Ha ha! How funny! Another "George W. Bush is an idiot" joke; it's not like we don't already know that or anything.
Posted by Gertrude at 07/17/2006 @ 11:36am
I have summed this up in a series of "Bushisms"
"I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." -- August 2000
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." May 2003
"The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on." -- May 2003 (One of the first really BIG lies I might add)
{The invasion of Iraq} "...is a catastrophic success." -- Aug 2004
Posted by leftofcenter at 07/17/2006 @ 11:36am
Sorry: I didn't mean to post that message three times.
Posted by Gertrude at 07/17/2006 @ 11:36am
Posted by GERTRUDE 07/17/2006 @ 11:33am
Not sure if you are joking. But I'm not. This is an actual Bush quote from the G8. He didn't know they were mic'ed.
Posted by BlueTexan at 07/17/2006 @ 11:36am
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 07/17/2006 @ 11:14am | ignore this person
The GOP won't let "IEDs" and the number "5000" go against them in 2008....like Goldwater going to Nixon in August of 1974, somebody will go to Bush in Summer 2007 and say "Start pulling them out, proclaim victory, whatever it takes...but we're not going to lose it all in 2008 over your dumb mistakes, Mr President. And if you don't, the treatment you get from us, will be like the treatment Jimmy Carter got from the Democrats in 1984"
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2006 @ 11:37am
Flawed policy, failed policy, mistakes in war, secterian violence, we are fighting and dying for a lie, I support the troops but they are going to fail, everything is going to hell and Bush is an idioit.
Well we might as well strike the tents and pull out, lets retreat inward and focus on solely US issues and global warming.
and
All those who support the war, area dithering buffoons unworthy of serious consideration.
There is a basic element about all this that is being largely ignored by all the detractors. The reality that the VAST majority of Iraqis DO NOT take part in the sectarian violence.
The militias have an interest in destablizing the area, their side gains in influence, the criminal element(who much of the violence can be attributed to) gains by chaos, and the same for the Iranians as well.
So what is the preferred course? from the LEFT??
Withdrawal. Simply cede all that has been gained, and despite all the blithering idioitic rantings about our failures aside, we have accomplished alot.
Send the message that the US will fold with things dont go exactly as planned and wait them out.
The fact is Iraq is going thru a tenous learning lesson in working things out in a representitive democracy.
The FIRST duly elected govenemnt just stood up in MAY 06. Now we want to say, how bad a mistake that is? Even if this is not your intent, it is the EFFECT.
History will duly note that Afghan/IRAQ were the first sparks in the overall change in the ME, from totalitarion govts to representitive democracies. And although it will not go as smoothly as we would like, there will be no doubt that history will remember that is was the right thing to do.
Posted by CPT at 07/17/2006 @ 12:56pm
meanwhile, europeans can only shake their heads and say, "told you so. you can't democratize the middle east. not a fucking chance in hell."
it's much harder than even trying to convert republicans to something more intelligent.
Posted by darladoon at 07/17/2006 @ 1:02pm
mask--
how could cheney/bush be vilified knowing that the means with which they pushed us into war were not only misleading, but actually illegal (by some standards), and even false (by others).
this is not a 'lefty' position, this is a 'realistic' position.
there isn't any debate over whether their case was misleading, which hardly lends credibility to the case for retroactive vilification in history books.
Posted by darladoon at 07/17/2006 @ 1:10pm
"there isn't any debate over whether their case was misleading, which hardly lends credibility to the case for retroactive vilification in history books. .."
This is true...here only where the one side view lives in an emotionallly charge atmosphere of loons and paranoia..don't look now, but the dems are going to steal the next election and throw the "Righteous Progressives " under the bus, along with the African American voting block...again...
There is plenty of debate
Posted by john maasch at 07/17/2006 @ 1:22pm
the democrats are far too timid, and law-abiding, to "steal" elections. so timid, in fact, that they have somehow allowed the extreme right wing of the republican party to effectively steamroll any civilized debate in congress over the last 6 years. no kidding, man, these wing nuts have reduced debate to an either (cut and run) or (patriot). it's about as anti-intellectual as you can possibly get.
no wonder the europeans think we're the dumbest country on earth! we've got a cowboy for a president, who simply cannot intellectually engage global affairs with any sort of linguistic sophistication whatsoever.
Posted by darladoon at 07/17/2006 @ 1:43pm
"no wonder the europeans think we're the dumbest country on earth!'
nobody cares what Europe thinks...they are minor players riding the bench of world affairs.
Posted by john maasch at 07/17/2006 @ 1:45pm
Unoriginal
and oleaginously
kleptomaniacal, yes?
That is what these traitorous
scum are, to lovers of peace.
unguent
Posted by lewwelge at 07/17/2006 @ 1:46pm
Unguent needed, I meant to add.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/17/2006 @ 1:47pm
DARLADOON
"the democrats are far too timid, and law-abiding, to "steal" elections. so timid,"
I guess you never heard of Tammny Hall or Boss TWEED, DEM....too ancinet for you?
JFK the 1960 election, and ole LBJ didnt exactly walk into his Senate seat easily, without a few "dead" voters
As far as law biding, well maybe William Jefferson was merely keeping the money cool in his freezer, there are plenty of other examples, but you get the point.
There is enough to go around for all parties
Posted by CPT at 07/17/2006 @ 1:52pm
i meant nowadays, cpt. they're far too busy trying to keep the animals in their cages.
look, man, if cheney/bush are vilified in history books, i will personally walk across the united states with nothing but a pair of shoes. these scum bags stole two elections (or "won" under highly, highly dubious circumstances), they lied us into war, they spied on americans, they secretly tortured innocent people, they broke at least 2 major international laws, and countless other terrible things.
if anything, history will read these two men as perhaps the worst presidents in american history.
Posted by darladoon at 07/17/2006 @ 1:58pm
Posted by DARLADOON 07/17/2006 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person
DARLA....please re-read your post.
You ask me "how could cheney/bush be vilified" and then proceed to give the answer.
I think you think you and I are disagreeing on this...and we aren't.
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2006 @ 2:00pm
Posted by DARLADOON 07/17/2006 @ 1:58pm | ignore this person
Okay...think I see the problem now....
Uh, DD....look up "vilified" at www.dictionary.com.
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2006 @ 2:01pm
BLUETEXAN: I know that he said those things at the G8 summit, and believe me, I know that he is a total idiot. But still . . . Haven't we moved beyond the "Bush is stupid" argument by now? It seems like we get bogged down over things like the Valerie Plame "controversy" or Ann Coulter's hateful statements, which, in comparison to the War in Iraq, the genocide in the Sudan, etc., seem relatively insignificant.
Posted by Gertrude at 07/17/2006 @ 2:06pm
hsuB seems frozen developmentally as a frat boy, forever. Yes, ok-- it's true, hsuB's "lips are where words go to die." Then also, his nose is where individual liberty is breathed in and corporate shackles are breathed out, his ears hear the distant bombs and wailing of wars' dying as just another pleasant country song, his eyes are where subtle images of beauty and peace go to inspire cartoons, hsuB's brain is where only thoughts that can fit through the eye of a needle may pass forth, and greatest of all his interwoven parts-- hsuB's heart is where compassion, filtered then flushed through the toxic sewage line via a garbage o'pus, is pumped out as the local faux m.u.d.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2006 @ 2:12pm
Mask, I think DD means they will be called liars and thieves in the history books and it won't be a vilification - it'll be true. (Although granted the verbage is a little clunky...) DD should have just said, that in retrospect they will be remembered in infamy...
Posted by leftofcenter at 07/17/2006 @ 2:27pm
Posted by GERTRUDE 07/17/2006 @ 2:06pm
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Stories like this don't help Bush's cause. Sometimes, they might even gain more traction with on-the-fence conservatives that are just waiting for a sign that its okay to finally abandon the sinking ship that is the Bush Administration. Oh, and I bet those religious righties just love it when their beloved gets caught on tape using swear words. WWJD indeed!
Posted by BlueTexan at 07/17/2006 @ 2:30pm
As they say, know your enemy better-- hold them closer.
Getting the message out sometimes requires building a lot of momentum to push beyond the muffled cover created to obstruct the reality of war. Especially one built around so many lies and a shell game.
Propaganda cuts both ways. Need a sharp edge to cut the strings manipulating a puppet in order to show it's powerlessnees to the will of the people. Build the truth large and sharp enough and the congress will come.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2006 @ 2:34pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 07/17/2006 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person
Actually, LOC....I think DD....didn't know the meaning of the word "vilify" or "vilified". Re-read her posts.
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2006 @ 2:41pm
"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation." Martin Luther King, Jr.
If only he were still around...
Where are the voices of leaders with similar concerns and commitment? A voice?
Time is running out.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2006 @ 2:59pm
indeed, i glossed over the word 'vilify', since it was mask who wrote it, and assumed he meant that history would prove them right (not wrong). my bad....
Posted by darladoon at 07/17/2006 @ 3:59pm
Posted by DARLADOON 07/17/2006 @ 3:59pm | ignore this person
No problem DARLA...though "going into" a post expecting something disagreeable to you (due to the poster), might increase such errors....hmm?
It's not always "black and white" and you're "white" and anybody who disagrees with you on one or more things is "black".
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2006 @ 4:23pm
Posted by MASK 07/17/2006 @ 2:41pm
Could be, although the intent is discernible (kinda like a Dubya speech in some respects!)
Posted by leftofcenter at 07/17/2006 @ 4:41pm
Of course the "bloodletting" is horrific, now in southern Lebanon, too. But almost as infuriating is the now decades old policy of economic sanctions, now in the form of military madness, against civilians (read all non-westernized Muslims), with infant mortality and life expectancy rates continuing to decline. Indirect, plausibly deniable genocide?
It troubles me to even express this possibility.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/17/2006 @ 5:58pm
Correction: infant survival/flourishment rates are declining, not mortality rates, I highly suspect.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/17/2006 @ 6:00pm
Oops. My lexicon indicates "flourishment" is at best a neologism, if not an outright non-entity. Hmm...infant survival and healthy growth, that's what I meant to write/say.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/17/2006 @ 6:03pm
things are definitely black and white. but YOU are white. and I am black.
Posted by darladoon at 07/17/2006 @ 7:22pm
http://ovimagazine.playarta.com/archives/issue-10/
The Inevitable
By
We keep hearing calls for a solution to the nation building efforts of the United States Forces in Iraq so that our troops can finally exit the quagmire of false pretenses.
The Bush Administration keeps stating that "we" cannot leave Iraq: until the votes for democracy are complete; until the Iraqis can set up a democratic government and govern themselves, until the Iraqi forces can protect their citizens, not until.......... Well, not until we realize the inevitable will the true Iraqi solution come forth. What is that solution you ask? The solution is the one that should have been sought from the very beginning, the obvious one, the one that Iraqis are in the midst of forming themselves through violence instead of diplomacy.
Has it occurred to the Bush Administration that this secular and non-secular warfare is not going to end until the most important lines are finally drawn. (and tragically at the cost of innocent lives,) --- the lines are boundary lines, separating each "tribe" into their own ruling domains.
Mankind has always and will always fight to the end for their country, their territory, their religion, their everything. That is a Truth of any country, any heritage. Call it nationalism call it anything you want except an untruth. If put to a vote of the Iraqi people, they too would choose their own domain instead of sharing it with "enemies". Does Israel/Palestine come to mind, --- Chechnya ...?
Anyway, even after the United States withdraws from Iraqi civil wars are inevitable. Just look to the secular, and non secular lines drawn presently; lines that mark territories guarded by numerous militias that answer only to their own leaders.
So why not do the most logical thing --- divide the country into three: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shites. The only disagreements there would be the resources. It's all a matter of economics and equality in sharing the country's wealth. I'm sure that can easily be hammered out to the satisfaction of each party. Then and only then can true nation building take place. That should have been the goal from the beginning.
I don't know if that approach is past its time, I hope not, but perhaps it's worth diverting our efforts towards that solution.
Unfortunately here too I doubt if the Bush Administration would condone such a change in its policy, because that would mean admitting a mistake --- and aren't they all infallible --- in their own words, in their own minds.
"Stay the Course" has been their eternal mantra. Too bad the Captain is below deck snoozing (or hiding) while the fanatical First Mate steers a course towards a waterfall.
Ironically, many of the greatest victories in history, both military and political, have come through leadership that was able to improvise, to see the need to change strategies, even if doing so it meant admitting mistakes. Daring moves require Courage, while Strength requires character, and Wisdom usually ensures a final, lasting victory.
Now, does anyone in the Administration have the Strength, Courage, and Wisdom to fully understand the future --- and not use the excuse of, "...nobody could have predicted, nobody could have imagined."
Seems I've heard Republicans use that excuse frequently in their past, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the insurgency in Iraq . It has now become an idiot's excuse to the very end of time.
If they only saw the Truth.................. then they could predict the future!
the end
Posted by bohdan yuri at 07/17/2006 @ 7:37pm
Ms Van Heuval of course reads the NYT very selectively:
MILITIA REBUKED BY SOME ARAB COUNTRIES
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
Published: July 17, 2006 (NYT)
"Saudi Arabia, with Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts" at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo on Saturday.
The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said of Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them." Prince Faisal spoke at the closed-door meeting but his words were reported to journalists by other delegates."
Note how the real players,The Arabs, see the ME situation. "These acts will pull the the whole region back to years ago...". Now do not one of you know what that implies wrt to the nonsense Van Heuval and some of you parrot about the mess the US has supposed to have created. Read the article in full. The Van Heuval NYT informant was a two cents a dozen commentary this is how those that matter in the ME see it.
The behaviour of Hezbollah (as well as AL Qeada) is as important for peace in the area as the establishment of good government in Iraq.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/17/2006 @ 8:31pm
Vanden Heuvel simply cannot utter one word of criticism against Israeli policy. With all the carnage that's going on in Lebanon, how can she avoid commenting on it?
Sad, because she has one of the most astute political observers in the country.
But this is typical of The Nation, whose critiques of the occupation are too few and far between.
Criticizing Bush every day is easy--and safe. Criticizing Israeli policy towards the Palestinians is another story.
Posted by fmoliterno at 07/18/2006 @ 12:22am
no freiheit, you don't understand. i AM black, and you ARE white.
Posted by darladoon at 07/18/2006 @ 01:33am
"Ebony and ivory" conveys less divisiveness, IMHO. Of course, I'm a caucasian male "gradual" student striving to develop/maintain/implement a non-racist white identity (Sue & Sue, 2003) in this imperium of ours.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/18/2006 @ 05:47am
Posted by DARLADOON 07/17/2006 @ 7:22pm | ignore this person
FREIHEIT had it right. My use of "black" and "white" was literary symbolic, not racial.
Of course, I'm curious as to how you determined that I am "white"?
Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 06:30am
Absolutist, albeit polarizing terms may serve to reinforce beneficial group/ethnic indentification, but I prefer to follow the Reverend Jackson's advice to use the signifiers African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian-American, etc., until encouraged to use more specifically appropriate categorizations for individual homo sapien males, females, transgendered, or otherwise unusual in their diversity.
Hey, political correctness is a GOOD thing when sincere, n'est-ce pas?
Posted by lewwelge at 07/18/2006 @ 08:38am
Isn't our blood all blue in our veins and arteries, and changing to the color red when exposed to the air?
Posted by lewwelge at 07/18/2006 @ 08:41am
LRJones
Although I hold no brief for Hezbollah, the fact that West-aligned Arab countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates have criticized Hezbollah shouldn't be taken as a huge sea-change. Further, the NYTimes commentary had nothing to do with Lebanon, so your statement isn't really responsive to that.
FMOLITERNO
The Nation doesn't critique the occupation of the West Bank!?! I don't think you've been reading the periodical long enough. Further, there is nothing wrong with mentioning Iraq while the current Lebanese crisis is ongoing.
CPT
History will duly note that Afghan/IRAQ were the first sparks in the overall change in the ME, from totalitarion govts to representitive democracies. And although it will not go as smoothly as we would like, there will be no doubt that history will remember that is was the right thing to do.
Yeah, and keep saying "I do believe in fairies, I DO believe in faires" and Tinker Bell well spring back to life.
History will remember Iraq as an ill-considered debacle and Afghanistan as a justified act that had bad follow-through because of the diversion of assets to Iraq.
The FIRST duly elected govenemnt just stood up in MAY 06. Now we want to say, how bad a mistake that is? Even if this is not your intent, it is the EFFECT.
Is is NOT the effect to say that was a mistake. Further, it is elements of the government that are involved in this. In case you haven't heard, Sadr's militia has been involved in some of the sectarian strife and he supplies a large chunk of the governing coalition's Parliamentary representation.
Send the message that the US will fold with things dont go exactly as planned and wait them out.
No, it sends the message that the US will pull out forces where they are an exacerabating effect. From the muffed reconstruction (courtesy of no-bid contracts to Halliburton) to the chaos that had its origin in a occupation mismanaged by Rumsfeld to the mere presence of an occupying army--the US presence has done its share in stoking tensions in Iraq.
Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 10:48am
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1006.shtml
Pity the nations By Luciana Bohne
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 18, 2006, 00:50
"We never kill except in self-defense. But, if someone is so stupid as to refuse to open a cash register when he has a gun pointed at him, then he deserves to die. It is useless for him to try to do something when an expert thief aims his gun at him. If he cries out, resists, or refuses to open the cash register he is killed."
Words of Jesse James, American bandit who robbed small banks, hurting local investors, but built himself a reputation as a confederate Robin Hood, a champion of the people, who stole from the rich to give to the poor. A humanitarian killer, no less!
Think of Jesse James as the spirit of the American Empire: that's what it does. It makes a false-choice offer: hand over the loot or die. It kills in "self defense" if the defenseless victim finds it impossible to comply. The prime example of this tactic is Iraq: hand over those non-existent WMD or we take you out.
"Follow the money," was a motto during the Watergate scandal. We must do so now. This War on an Abstract Noun, of which Lebanon is the latest victim, is a cover, calculated to disguise the real motives of US military global mobilization. It bears repeating. The prize is wealth beyond the dreams of avarice -- wealth and dominance and reproduction of the status quo, the unequal distribution of wealth, which is a constant prescription for endless wars -- and none of it will trickle down to us, though the blood will and does! As will retribution. Cicero said, "Money is the sinew of war." Follow it: it is money (a.k.a. capital) that motivates the targeted death of nations that dot the calendar, with homicidal frequency, of these days on our earth.
None of this death can be said NOT to have been foretold. Bush's accomplices have put it in words in countless policy statements retrievable across the sumptuous, well-funded archives of the reactionary establishment. We refuse to believe them: they said that this will be the new American century and it will conquer the world. Unless we believe them, we will not be able to process or understand (let alone act constructively ) anything that's happening in the world. We'll be distracted by arguments as time-consuming and as unproductive as arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. We'll be dragged along labyrinths that will lead us to reinventing the wheel. We will be persuaded, against our certain knowledge, that the earth is flat. And we will lose our reason and our ability to safeguard our safety. To escape that fate, we need to refocus on what they actually SAID they would do: conquer the world.
What is shocking about the Bushes is their bold-faced proclamations that wars, invasion, abuse of human rights, subordination of the whole world to their will and way of life are okay. But that's because the words are in our face.
They used to be hidden behind "covert operations" organized by the National Security State that Truman installed after WW II, persuaded by the Mad Hatters and global trotters in the OSS/CIA, led by servants of wealth like the Dulles brothers, devoted to creating a deficit of democracy across the world, from which their masters could profit. It was then that the US decided it would have one government -- tolerant, benevolent, internationally equitable and balanced -- on view for US people to admire and another, a secret one behind the mirror -- vicious, subversive, democracy-hating -- that they knew nothing about. Now the brute force that festered and plotted in the dark has come into the light. Like the look of the Medusa, it petrifies us with terror. We are rendered impotent by its ghastly, blood-stained visage. What can't be true, we say, isn't true.
......................................
Think of Iran -- the true target of this murder of Lebanon today -- as Spain in 1936. If the US is not stopped, it's over for us, the people of the world. At a certain point -- too late -- someone with nuclear capacity, somewhere -- China, Russia -- will say, "enough, we've let them take way too much." And then, it's curtains for the planet, because though the Soviet Union bowed out of history without a shot fired, the US, with the political sophistication and the ideological self-righteousness of a Jesse James, to whose robber mentality and delusional morality it is heir, will go down firing the big ones.
There is no time for appeals to moribund institutions like the UN, the Geneva Conventions, and the rule of law. Our own Congress has ceased to function for all intents and purposes. The Democratic Party is entirely complicit in this assault on the world: Iraq was and remains a bi-partisan war.
But there is something we can do: we can at last find the courage to believe in the fact that we are many and they are few -- the whole world opposed the invasion of Iraq, even when their governments sustained it. Poll after poll shows that entire populations believe, correctly, that the US and Israel threaten world peace -- not Korea, Iran, or any member of the invented fantasy of the "axis of evil" -- they fear our government and the governments of its satrapies worldwide.
We can think of ourselves, ordinary people everywhere, as "nations" at risk and of our government as a "rogue state." We, the people of this country and of the world, should declare our opposition to the anti-human war now being waged by our governments of war -- against ALL of us. We should stand with those who resist, in solidarity with them because on their success to check the imperial onslaught rests our own survival.
If we don't understand this truth, we are doomed.
To those who accuse us of anti-Semitism for supporting such struggles as the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, we say: we have made a choice to side with those citizens of Israel who oppose the occupation and who, at the risk of their limbs and liberty, stand for justice in Israel. Israel is not a monolithic state: it has people who act in the name of peace and justice. To take their side is not to side with "self-hating Jews," as their own state's propaganda brands them, but it is to side with the forces of right, with the forces of empathy, solidarity, and justice. There is nothing "anti-Semitic" in that. As for Palestinians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, who resist war and occupation, in siding with them we side with human rights -- the right to live in their own lands, free from the boot of occupation.
It's not complex at all. And it's a matter of life and death -- theirs and ultimately ours.
Jesse James was wrong -- in the end, his own violence killed him.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2006 @ 10:54am
"For two hundred years we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake. The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all, it was a cesspool filled with barbed wire." - George Orwell
Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 11:16am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/18/2006 @ 10:54am | ignore this person
If America is "Jesse James" or "the Nazis in 1936 with Iran being Spain"....
What are Hezbollah?....the Spanish Nationalists or the Sedalia National Bank?
Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 11:23am
HSUBFOOLS
That's to absolute and dramatic by far. Granted that the US move into Iraq was bloody, destructive, ill-informed, ill-executed and unjustified. Granted also the PNAC has an agenda. That doesn't change the fact that Hezbollah did start things up; that Iran did conceal aspects of its nuclear program from IAEA for years and that North Korea is engaging in deliberate saber-rattling.
Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 11:25am
Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 11:25am | ignore this person
Uh,oh, BRUNO...jumping off the "Blame America First" bandwagon?
Hope you have enough liberal bona fides points saved up ...else you risk being called a "anti-Arab neo-con warmonger".
Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 12:36pm
MASK
I've never been on that bandwagon. I got into a huge argument with Fromredbird because I insisted that pointing out that, however illegitimate military action against Iran would be, that sanctions were at least worthy of consideration because of Iranian history. I am prepared, however, to blame Bush first for Iraq and for the diplomatic blunder of the "Axis of Evil" crack.
Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 1:12pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 10:48am
B,
Suggest you may do better with your "commentary" if you first read the relevant news item.
"Saudi Arabia, with Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts" at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo on Saturday.
The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said of Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them." Prince Faisal spoke at the closed-door meeting but his words were reported to journalists by other delegates."
If they were not thinking about and addressing Hezbollah and Lebanon, what do you think they had in mind?
The only other functioning Arab State in the ME is Syria, which along with Iran are the sole suppliers of finance and arms to Hezbollah.
The significance of their statement is that they do not condemn Israel but Hezbollah alone as a first response. That is a big change, which probably indicates they are very concerned with Iranian meddling in Lebanon, which is also a member of the Arab league.
One can understand the reluctance of the U.S. and the EU to intervene in Lebanon at this time, only if one surmises that both entities would like to see Iran lose some of its influence in Lebanon, through a damaging of Hezbollah.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/18/2006 @ 1:29pm
LR
Suggest you may do better with your "commentary" if you first read the relevant news item.
I read the item. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf Emiriates criticized Hezbollah's action. I said that the first time-- "the fact that West-aligned Arab countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates have criticized Hezbollah shouldn't be taken as a huge sea-change."
Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 2:53pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person
Then, we're in agreement.....and, like me, you're opening yourself up for a serious case of "Oh, you just want all the Arabs killed...what are you in AIPAC or something" hyperbole.
As Ari Berman noted a lot on the Left are "reflexively anti-Israel" and anything that smacks of "pro-Israeli" (like simply WORRYING about Iran and maybe saying they're bad guys) means they jump on you.
Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 3:16pm
Jessica Stern wrote an undeniably powerful op-ed, but to suggest a unilateral withdrawal of American troops at this time seems incredibly naive. Our government created this mess, which we are now almost powerless to control. We should pull out as quickly as possible, but with a clear-cut exit plan involving all Iraqis, the US and its allies, as well as the Moslem world. To just "up and leave" would certainly leave Iraq vulnerable to an all out bloodbath and possibly a war that would engulf all the Mideast. I too want to bring the troops home, but do it as prudently as possible.
Posted by citykitty02 at 07/18/2006 @ 4:05pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 2:53pm
B, You also said: "Further, the NYTimes commentary had nothing to do with Lebanon, so your statement isn't really responsive to that."
You may have read the NYT report on the Arab League meeting but I'm wondering now if you comprehended what you claim to have read.
It seems that it cannot refer to anything else but the Hezbollah/Israeli conflict in Lebanon.
If Lebanon was not in view then what was?
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/18/2006 @ 9:31pm
LR
I was referring to the Jessica Stern piece. The was the one that KVH referred to in her post.
Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 11:04pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 11:04pm
B,
That was not in my sights then. But I think that again it (Stern's article) reflects an "outsider" trying to assess how Iraqis and other Muslims may react to a few incidents she touches on that were perpetrated by U.S. forces. Her view is very much one influenced by Western norms and embarrassment as an American, which can do nothing to help her objectivity and is not reflective of how many if not most Iraqis, particularly, feel about these incidents. Of course Muslim propagandists were in full cry against the Americans well before any of these unfortunate incidents came to light. I don't think the left is claiming recruitment to terrorism in Iraq began with the revelation of these incidents.
There was a NYT article a few days ago where Iraqis were effectively saying any atrocities the Americans have committed pale into insignificance compared with the scale and brutality of the atrocities the Shia and Sunni militias are now committing against fellow Iraqis.
That is why we need to hear, not soley from Western experts, who may have as many political biases, either way, as all of us have but from those at the sharp end of the action.
What we are getting here is commentary on commentary of an article by one who may be an expert on security but is also a committed anti-Iraq war player. So instead of something approaching objective analysis (which requires more data than is provided in the article) we may have nothing more than skewed subjective opinions.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/19/2006 @ 12:00am
Posted by MASK 07/18/2006 @ 11:23am
"the Nationalists led by General Francisco Franco defeated the Loyalists led by President Manuel Azaña of the Second Spanish Republic. The Loyalists received weapons and volunteers from the Soviet Union and the international Communist movement, while the Nationalists (or Francoists) were supported by the Fascist nations, including Italy and Germany."
Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 11:25am
War is pretty 'dramatic' with all that killing, messy destruction and mayhem stuff. But by all means lets sanitize it and play down any over the top hysterical responses to known manipulative tactics from weaker 'sovereign' nations.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/19/2006 @ 12:01am