A kind word for Obama: At least he's not insane

Image by yksin via FlickrBarry O. has been a terrible disappointment, a man who never went into a negotiation without first giving his opponent all his bargaining chips.

UPDATE: Alas, it is true that he has a spine of overcooked pasta. He doesn't even know how to turn aggressive overreaching by his opponents to his advantage. Pitiful.

But then you read something like this and you realize how lucky we are that John McCain and Sarah Palin aren't in charge.

An Unknown Soldier

. . . Several U.S. senators had gathered at the Halifax International Security Forum, an annual gathering that is the brainchild of Peter MacKay, Canada's defense minister. One of them, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, immediately put President Obama on notice.

Resurgent Republicans would be looking for him to "be tough with Iran beyond sanctions." If it came to war, the United States should "sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime."

Sure, Graham conceded, "you can expect, for a period of time, all hell to break loose." Another war is the "last thing America wants." But a nuclear-armed Iran was unacceptable and containment "off the table."

This is dangerous talk from an influential Republican who sits on the Armed Services Committee. The United States, in its current depleted state, cannot afford another war in a Muslim country. It cannot find itself fighting across a 2,000-mile front stretching through Arab, Persian and Central Asian worlds. You could forget about the tenuous progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iran can flick switches. From Lebanon to Gaza, on Israel's borders, tensions would boil.

But Graham's words were instructive. The pressure on Obama from Congress is going to grow. David Broder of the Washington Post even suggested recently that a war in Iran might spur the U.S. economy, just as World War II did.

The United States does not need the stimulus package from hell. This is a moment of great American uncertainty, a volatile passage. Sunni Pakistan has nukes and Al Qaeda. Shiite Iran has neither. It would be tragic to ignore the lessons of Iraq, stumble onto a war train armed with flimsy evidence, and imagine Iran is close to a bomb when there's no conclusive evidence it's made the decision to build one. Remember, the mullahs love ambiguity. It's their element, along with maddening inertia. To risk "breakout" is to risk the Islamic Republic. Hence the waiting-for-Godot aspects of their nuclear zigzag.

When I heard those words — "neuter that regime" — what I saw was a shattered body in Tampa. A third U.S war is inconceivable.

Hopeful prognostication: Why the troops are coming home

Another superb TomGram.

Understanding your audience

Cover via AmazonA LOVESalem foreign (upstate NY) correspondent, a former public HS math and science teacher, read this cheerful item that I sent out. His comment speaks volumes about both his sly wit and the deep understanding of our national priorities that teachers perforce acquire these days:

I guess it's nice that someone stepped in to help, but I am shocked and depressed that it was necessary.

I mean, if we don't fund education, who's going to design the bombs of tomorrow?

If there was ever a phrase that should go on a bumper sticker, it's that one.

Time for some dog-days dots connecting

The Pentagon being built in 1942; Image via Wikipedia In this strange period of Consumer Age War --- real, brutal wars and occupations being conducted by an increasingly tiny sector of society for increasingly surreal and irrational reasons, with the rest of us told to go quietly about our primary job, taking on debt to buy imported things --- Chalmers Johnson has been a unique voice of reason, pointing out that average Americans have much more reason to fear the Pentagon and CIA than we do to fear the Chinese, Russians, or even the Muslims whom we armed and tried to use against the Russians and who, as is the way of human puppet forces throughout history, turned against those who tried to keep pulling their strings a decade or two too long.

As America, Oregon, and Salem stare into the fiscal abyss of job cuts, declining tax revenues, collapsing infrastructure (Courthouse Square anyone?), and declining services, it's helpful to recall now and then why other countries are able to fund those things that America no longer manages to do: because we squander our wealth for generations on an attempt to be the first empire to buck the tide of history . . . which is, actually, of a piece with the tide of history, and has been the preferred mode of almost all empires in history -- with those that refuse to divest themselves of imperial possessions voluntarily suffering the most as a result.

In 1962, the historian Barbara Tuchman published a book about the start of World War I and called it The Guns of August. It went on to win a Pulitzer Prize. She was, of course, looking back at events that had occurred almost 50 years earlier and had at her disposal documents and information not available to participants. They were acting, as Vietnam-era Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara put it, in the fog of war.

So where are we this August of 2010, with guns blazing in one war in Afghanistan even as we try to extricate ourselves from another in Iraq? Where are we, as we impose sanctions on Iran and North Korea (and threaten worse), while sending our latest wonder weapons, pilotless drones armed with bombs and missiles, into Pakistan's tribal borderlands, Yemen, and who knows where else, tasked with endless "targeted killings" which, in blunter times, used to be called assassinations? Where exactly are we, as we continue to garrison much of the globe even as our country finds itself incapable of paying for basic services?

I wish I had a crystal ball to peer into and see what historians will make of our own guns of August in 2060. The fog of war, after all, is just a stand-in for what might be called "the fog of the future," the inability of humans to peer with any accuracy far into the world to come. Let me nonetheless try to offer a few glimpses of what that foggy landscape some years ahead might reveal, and even hazard a few predictions about what possibilities await still-imperial America.

Let me begin by asking: What harm would befall the United States if we actually decided, against all odds, to close those hundreds and hundreds of bases, large and small, that we garrison around the world? What if we actually dismantled our empire, and came home? Would Genghis Khan-like hordes descend on us? Not likely. Neither a land nor a sea invasion of the U.S. is even conceivable.

Would 9/11-type attacks accelerate? It seems far likelier to me that, as our overseas profile shrank, the possibility of such attacks would shrink with it.

Would various countries we've invaded, sometimes occupied, and tried to set on the path of righteousness and democracy decline into "failed states?" Probably some would, and preventing or controlling this should be the function of the United Nations or of neighboring states. (It is well to remember that the murderous Cambodian regime of Pol Pot was finally brought to an end not by us, but by neighboring Vietnam.)

Sagging Empire

In other words, the main fears you might hear in Washington -- if anyone even bothered to wonder what would happen, should we begin to dismantle our empire -- would prove but chimeras. They would, in fact, be remarkably similar to Washington's dire predictions in the 1970s about states all over Asia, then Africa, and beyond falling, like so many dominoes, to communist domination if we did not win the war in Vietnam.

What, then, would the world be like if the U.S. lost control globally -- Washington's greatest fear and deepest reflection of its own overblown sense of self-worth -- as is in fact happening now despite our best efforts? What would that world be like if the U.S. just gave it all up? What would happen to us if we were no longer the "sole superpower" or the world's self-appointed policeman?

In fact, we would still be a large and powerful nation-state with a host of internal and external problems. An immigration and drug crisis on our southern border, soaring health-care costs, a weakening education system, an aging population, an aging infrastructure, an unending recession -- none of these are likely to go away soon, nor are any of them likely to be tackled in a serious or successful way as long as we continue to spend our wealth on armies, weapons, wars, global garrisons, and bribes for petty dictators.

Even without our interference, the Middle East would continue to export oil, and if China has been buying up an ever larger share of what remains underground in those lands, perhaps that should spur us into conserving more and moving more rapidly into the field of alternative energies. . . .

UPDATE: Watch and/or listen to some amazing interviews with Chalmers Johnson here.

Word: Headline of the Century

We fight for the oil we need to fight for the oil.

Guest Essay: War is Death

Image by Ilona Meagher via Flickr

From Mary Vorachek, M.D., of Salem:

War is Death

In a country so squeamish about death it is difficult to understand why so many people are able to put our destructive, expensive foreign wars on the back burner. When the life of a person you are responsible for ends, that life continues on in your memory until you die. I am a retired physician and I remember every one of my patients who died while under my care. I cannot imagine how I would feel if I had ever intentionally killed another human being. If my country sent me out to kill other people for their oil, control of their natural resources, revenge or world supremacy, I too might want to live under a bridge or commit suicide. Recent information has suggested that people who, from the safety of their computer stations, direct armed drones to kill people in foreign lands suffer worse post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms than those who kill on the battlefield.

Since Bush has now been swept into the dustbin of history, he will soon be forgotten, but the depravity of his administration will be long remembered by each of the families that suffered deaths and mutilations of their loved ones. The families in this country who lost their sons and daughters to the Iraq War can remember them with pain and pride. My cousin, Donnie, died in the D-day landings when I was only four years old, and through my mother's love for her nephew I will always feel sad for him but very proud of his sacrifice against a reviled aggressor. The families who suffered in our unnecessary war on Iraq from the loss of children, parents and grandparents will never forget the harm we inflicted upon them, their families and their country. Parents and extended families feel responsible for the lives of their loved ones and their memories live on until each member of the extended family dies. Perhaps after many years, the young people of Iraq and Afghanistan who suffered from the deaths of their parents and siblings may put aside ideas of revenge, but in the meantime we will remain at risk for as long as their pain is translated into revenge. Are we now the reviled aggressor?

Citizens must necessarily distance themselves from the abuses of government in order to continue to function in a civilized society. The abuses of power by our national leaders have caused disaffection among many of the citizenry and contributed to an anesthesia of feelings toward our fellow humans. Duplicity and corruption of politicians, corporations and the financial system have taken a terrible toll on soldiers, citizens of principal and the powerless.

More insidiously, the lack of compassion for others is perpetuated by main stream media's lack of coverage of the atrocities committed in our name or with weapons America gives or sells to other countries for the sport of killing their “enemies”. Corruption, profiteering, poor leadership and the lack of remorse for mistakes, have propelled many in our nation to ignore the suffering of others. It is fortunate, therefore, that there are also many people who have been inspired to organize and work for a better world, and I suspect that there is a large and growing undercurrent of discontent among the people of the United States against the status quo of our federal leadership. Now that Americans are experiencing greater fears of joblessness and homelessness, the movement for justice and compassion for others may become even more resonant among the majority of decent American citizens.

During the Bush years America's moral compass appeared to point only toward profit and ideology. Never mind that cluster bombs kill innocent children and that most civilized nations have banned them—they are profitable for America's war machine. Never mind that white phosphorous causes people to experience horrible disfigurement when it does not kill them outright—it is an American weapon that an be sold or given to other “friendly” countries. Never mind that robotic weapons and those who control them cause collateral damage (dead foreign civilians) even when they do not mistake their targets—the American war machine provides jobs. And what depraved minds constructed the name DIME for a weapon that can rip off an arm or leg without leaving any trace of metal fragments? Conversely, who can forget the pictures of jubilation among the JPL scientist when America landed two unmanned space probes on Mars. Do the manufacturers and the workers who make guns, bombs, tanks and robotic weapons celebrate when innocent civilians are killed by their weapons for profit? Weapons of war are designed and produced to efficiently kill other humans living on our planet. In modern warfare, civilian deaths are estimated to make up to 85 to 90% of of the total number of casualties. The number of estimated civilian deaths in World War I was 50% out of approximately sixteen millions total deaths. Are destructive wars America's answer to climate change?

When people we love and care for die, it diminishes us, the people who are left behind, the ones who have known, loved and cared for them. When a patient dies there is the inevitable conversation with yourself of the “what ifs” and “if onlys”. It is not surprising that soldiers commit suicide and live under bridges when they return from wars. It is not surprising that soldiers are so damaged they cannot fight for PTSD treatment and must depend on their families and people of conscience to help them receive treatment necessary to alleviate their pain. How can the soldier who looks into the face of a child before he pulls the trigger or the soldiers who launches a rocket into the midst of a family forget the people they have killed? How does the operator of an armed robot cope with the controversy of innocent civilian deaths—the denial, investigation and final acknowledgment? Must we continue this madness in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

It appears to me that President Obama's stand on the world platform of war is just a step stool and he is stepping in the wrong direction.

Mary A Vorachek, M.D.
Salem, Oregon

Provocative thought experiment

Image by DVIDSHUB via Flickr

In the November 2009 Harpers, a retired army officer asks an excellent question about the Afghaninam folly, which is one of the places draining the money out of places like Salem:

For those who, despite all this, still hanker to have a go at nation building, why start with Afghanistan? Why not first fix, say, Mexico? In terms of its importance to the United States, our southern neighbor—a major supplier of oil and drugs among other commodities deemed vital to the American way of life—outranks Afghanistan by several orders of magnitude.

If one believes that moral considerations rather than self-interest should inform foreign policy, Mexico still qualifies for priority attention. Consider the theft of California. Or consider more recently how the American appetite for illicit drugs and our lax gun laws have corroded Mexican institutions and produced an epidemic of violence afflicting ordinary Mexicans. Yet any politician calling for the commitment of 60,000 U.S. troops to Mexico to secure those interests or acquit those moral obligations would be laughed out of Washington—and rightly so. Any pundit proposing that the United States assume responsibility for eliminating the corruption endemic in Mexican politics while establishing in Mexico City effective mechanisms of governance would have his license to pontificate revoked. Anyone suggesting that the United States possesses the wisdom and the wherewithal to solve the problem of Mexican drug trafficking, to endow Mexico with competent security forces, and to reform the Mexican school system (while protecting the rights of Mexican women) would be dismissed as a lunatic. Meanwhile, those who promote such programs for Afghanistan, ignoring questions of cost and ignoring as well the corruption and ineffectiveness that pervade our own institutions, are treated like sages.

The contrast between Washington’s preoccupation with Afghanistan and its relative indifference to Mexico testifies to the distortion of U.S. national-security priorities adopted by George W. Bush in his post-9/11 prophetic mode—distortions now being endorsed by Bush’s successor. It also testifies to a vast failure of imagination to which our governing classes have succumbed. This failure of imagination makes it impossible for those who possess either authority or influence in Washington to consider the possibility (a) that the solution to America’s problems is to be found not out there—where “there” in this case is Central Asia—but here at home; (b) that the people out there, rather than requiring our ministrations, may well be capable of managing their own affairs, relying on their own methods; and (c) that to disregard (a) and (b) is to open the door to great mischief and in all likelihood to perpetrate no small amount of evil. Needless to say, when mischief or evil does occur—when a stray American bomb kills a few dozen Afghan civilians, for instance—the costs of this failure of imagination are not borne by the people who inhabit the leafy neighborhoods of northwest Washington, who lunch at the Palm or the Metropolitan Club and school their kids at Sidwell Friends. . . .

If you don't subscribe to Harpers, then, well, you should, because you regularly get great stuff like this piece.

Peak oil to lead to Predatory (Oil-Seeking) Militarism?

Image via Wikipedia

A friend sent this link on and added this comment:

When your country's upper crust social "scientists" cannot face truth, facts, and consequences, what hope is there for timely adaptations? And what use are they, or perhaps more to the point, how much damage can they contribute to the cause? I guess it's not just economists who are problems, but all the rest of that lot as well. Are we about to regret the day when someone began to take them seriously and even include them in college curricula?

Aside from those dinosauristic ponderings, it's interesting to get the author's take on the effects of culture and political system on eventual outcomes. What she says makes general good sense to me, and bodes ill for many parts of the U.S. I don't see the northeast coping any better than the southeast at having their backbone ripped out - and the entire eastern seaboard is massively overpopulated.
tooj