The Sine Man

Blaming the Iraqis?

2006-10-30T08:50:00.000-08:00

One of the more disturbing political developments to observe in connection with the Iraqi occupation is the dissembling that is taking place about where the responsibility lies for restoring social order and stability in the country. Now that “victory” seems ever more elusive (whatever it meant in the first place) the President and his “spinners” have begun to heap more and more emphasis on the sovereign status of Iraq and the responsibility of its people to “make the choice” to avoid civil war and restore order. President Maliki, in particular, has often been the subject of intense pressure, as if he could pronounce peace upon his nation, under the conditions that prevail.

As disturbing as the pattern the administration is evidencing…that is quite predictable. What is really quite perplexing is that members of the Democratic party seem also to be taking up the same line. Perhaps they are sensing some added pressure with the upcoming elections and are preparing a deflection of sorts, but this is blaming the victim in the extreme. No Iraqis (save for the few misinforming insiders working with the White House) asked for this intervention. Thousands upon thousands have died. The country has descended into what only a few hold-outs refuse to name a civil war and we are responsible.

Yes, it is tricky because there is a question about what our responsibilities are now and how to help. I personally believe that our sheer presence there stimulates violence and co-generates the environment for bloodshed. Yet, should we simply leave, there will likely be a power struggle that will likely not be smooth. As a starter, the United States should flatly and unequivocally state that we will not maintain a physical presence in Iraq or in the Middle East for that matter. We are the cause celebre. We create the purpose for the terrorism there. Why can’t we absorb that reality? We need a strategy that draws upon the neighboring states and international bodies that will have respect there.

But in any case…do not place the onus of this situation on the people of Iraq who are innocents and have only been damaged by it. It is unfair and unworthy of our country and its espoused traditions.

Has Administration Created Expectation of Disinformation?

2006-10-29T17:17:00.000-08:00

The Bush Administration has inflicted upon itself the most damaging of all political liabilities—lost public trust. Scandals, cronyism, duplicity are all surfacing to erode the confidence that is so essential in a representative form of government. But in the sweep of history, all of these will pale in the face of “the big lie”, the one that will reverberate for generations and for many will be unforgivable and unrecoverable—the Iraq War.

Many knew from the beginning that the timing was politically motivated, the rationale was one of convenience, the evidence was suspect and that the strategy itself had been developed years earlier by a small neo-con cabal that was now in power in and about the White House. But in the post 9/11 environment, the administration was able to push, cajole and extend its good offices to execute this unwarranted, illegal foreign policy escapade that has been so devastating.

But the phrase “the truth will out” has proved trustworthy itself and the people of this country have finally, in a majority, been willing to admit the practically unthinkable—the Administration purposely lied to its own people to justify the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Consider these two polls in just the past several weeks:

Newsweek Poll, October 5-6, 2006
"Before the Iraq War, the Bush Administration said it had intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was hiding banned chemical or biological weapons from UN weapons inspectors. But so far, no such banned weapons have been found in Iraq. Do you think the Bush Administration purposely misled the public about evidence that Iraq had banned weapons in order to build support for war?” Yes: 58%
CNN Poll, September 29-October 2, 2006
"Do you think the Bush Administration has deliberately misled the American public about how the war in Iraq is going or don't you think so?" Deliberately Misled: 58%
A clear majority now believe that the Bush administration both lied to bring the war and continue to lie about the progress of it. These are lies that matter. The most scientifically reliable estimates are that over 650,000 Iraqis have died directly as a result of the invasion and occupation. Almost 10% of their adult male population has been killed. Staggering numbers. On the U.S. side, almost 3000 soldiers have died and approximately 17,000 have permanent and disabling injuries.
These are deaths and injuries that were avoidable. They were incurred through deception…and there will be many, many more, now that this has been set in motion. This is behavior among those entrusted with leadership that is simply unthinkable and intolerable.
It is not a surprise that the people of this country have come out of denial and are accepting what has happened. It is a surprise that there is not already a groundswell, not for impeachment…but for a war crimes referral.

Bush Disputes Johns Hopkins War Estimates...Who Do We Trust?

2006-10-29T15:39:00.000-08:00

This week Johns Hopkins released new estimates of deaths in Iraq that are attributable to the invasion and occupation. The revised estimate is a staggering 655,000, according to an article in the BBC this week, translating to a doubling of the mortality rate in the country since the invasion and averaging 500 deaths per day. These are deaths directly attributable to the invasion and occupation and in which in nearly 80% of the cases that were identified from which to make the estimates, the families produced bona fide death certificates.

The death rate in Iraq rose from 5.5 to 13.3 per 1000 pre to post-invasion. In this short 3 and ½ years, then, Iraq has lost 2.5% of its population. If the same thing had happened in this country, our equivalent would be 7 million dead. It is totally unthinkable. And for the Iraqis, there is no end in sight. They must shudder at the words, “stay the course.”

As shocking as the numbers are, it is equally shocking that the President so blithely dismisses them. He characterized the study as “pretty well discredited” and “whatever they guessed at is just…it’s just not credible.” Quite amazing for a man who has been wrong about everything…not some things, or a few things, but everything…to call into question the careful work of scientists who are staking their reputations on their methods and analysis…not the political implications of their results.

The Bush administration could have a counter-claim but they foreclosed that option when they made the policy decision in the beginning not to count civilian deaths. So, on what basis, does the President, General Pace or anyone else, have any objection to make about this study? These people can continue to delude themselves, but no longer can they delude the rest of us.

Iraq Just a Comma in History?

2006-10-08T15:41:00.000-07:00

This week, President Bush tried out a new line of rhetoric about Iraq. Well, he had a lot to say, much of it strictly political in nature. But one thing he said was apparently intended to be more of a statesmanlike utterance (I know…hard to comprehend that since we haven’t pursued any statesmanship in so long). But in any case, he said that he expected that what was going on in Iraq now would be, in the context of history, “just a comma.”

As we all know, a comma is a grammatical device to signify a brief pause between clauses. It has no meaning of its own, it is used only to set off what comes before from what comes after.

Such an unfortunate metaphor for the families of the 2,737 service people who have died in Iraq. For them, it has meant an indelible “period.” Someone deeply meaningful to them is gone forever. And, in making the sign this week, I was almost embarrassed to focus on just the American lives lost because so many more Iraqi lives have been lost and ruined. And to think…this was all not only discretionary and pre-emptive…but made up.

Unconscious and unconscionable.

Constitution Bushwhacked

2006-10-02T11:33:00.000-07:00

In the most significant betrayal of values for politics in my memory, a significant number of Democrats joined Republicans of both Houses in passing legislation that authorizes an obnoxious abridgement of human and Constitutional rights in the so-called War on Terrorism. This legislation is not worthy of this country, its people, the way we represent ourselves to the world and is clearly inconsistent with our own Constitution.

Here are some major provisions, as I understand them:

It establishes military commissions to try the so-called “enemy combatants,” based on evidence that can be obtained without search warrants and that does not have to be revealed to the person charged in order to be rebutted.

It assigns the definition of acceptable interrogation techniques to the President and does not require that these be made public.

It eliminates the right of habeus corpus so people can be imprisoned indefinitely without charge with no recourse to any court and not knowing, even, the reason that they are being held.

It was made retroactive to a convenient time to avoid complication with the scandals of our earlier treatment of detainees and has no sunset clause so it is now in place indefinitely with no established review or point of reconsideration.

Now, what in the behavior of this administration would suggest that this kind of latitude is appropriate to be given them? This is a government that habitually lies, distorts, manipulates, conceals and recriminates. It’s record of corruption is the worst in modern history. It’s notoriety of cronyism over competence is already legendary. It’s stance of aggression and the brutality of the practices it has unleashed are what has promoted the calls for caution in the first place.

What happened to the Congress? Major military figures, the former Secretary of State (and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell), former President Carter…dignified and respected figures from all stripes and backgrounds opposed this. Just this past week the National Intelligence Estimate established what the common public already knew…that the War on Terror and occupation of Iraq, in particular, are creating more and more dangerous terrorists. Likewise, adopting measures such as those contained in this bill will further the recruitment logic of terrorist networks by clearly showing that we practice our own brand of terror…and try to legitimize it by actually placing it into law.

These are quite indescribable occurrences. We are not in the overheated atmosphere of the few days and weeks of the aftermath of 9/11. This is cold, calculated, state-sponsored curtailment of basic human rights and is showing a dark underbelly of this country that I, for one, had hoped we had moved beyond. Are doing these things simply because we can?

We are the world’s only superpower. We can do whatever we please to whomever we please. Why not adopt a more measured, reasonable, effective set of policies that have a chance of creating a sense of responsibility and good will, rather than more hatred and retaliation?

In the long run, I believe we will pay a significant price. We are shrinking by the moment on the world’s stage. Witness the willingness of small countries to berate Bush in the United Nations and defy him with their policies and programs. As our moral authority evaporates, and our military prowess shows itself to be hopelessly inept as it is in Iraq, as our sheer scale contracts in contrast to other nations and our economic power is counter-balanced around the world—we will begin to re-pay those who suffered from our arrogance and misuse of power.

Bush speaks of the “Long War”, knowing that it is nothing more than a political rationale. I hope for the long peace but it’s onset is being protracted by these enormous mistakes and I am deeply disturbed that so many are complicit in it.

Why don't Iraqis appreciate us more?

2006-09-11T15:14:00.000-07:00

Mysteries of the mind. Perplexities of perspective. Obscurity of the obvious.

When Iraqis turned out in the thousands to march in support of Hezbollah during its active conflict with Israel in south Lebanon, President’s Bush’s observation was that he couldn’t understand why the Iraqi’s didn’t appreciate more what the Americans were doing for them. An interesting equation to make in its own right.

But here we are a country that is afraid of the possibility of the occasion of another terror attack while Iraq is a country that is engulfed by terrorism. If an equivalent number of people died here from terrorism last month that did in Iraq, it would amount to over 40,000 people. Imagine. Who would sleep at night? Who would drive the streets? Who dare move about?

We have de-stabilized a country, lost control of the security situation, cannot repair it and our leader has the audacity to ask for a more decorous level of appreciation.

The President quite often uses the term “mindful” when describing his opinions. That’s appropriate I think because I believe his was already full of pre-conceived conclusions that will not be changed or revised by contravening evidence or circumstances that don’t square with them. We all are tempted to deny that which is inconvenient for an already formed opinion or belief…but most of the time, thousands of people aren’t required to suffer and die because we steadfastly hold to it while a country of 20 million innocent people move toward self-destruction.

Bush Opposes "Nation Building"? Apparently So.

2006-08-07T18:11:00.000-07:00

During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . .”

It seems like “regime change” might fall under the category of “nation building”. On the other hand, the approach that the administration has taken does reveal that they didn’t expect to have to “build” much of anything. We were told that Iraq could fund its own reconstruction, that we would be welcomed as liberators and that the democracy that flourished in Iraq would begin the transformation of the entire Middle East into a peaceful and stable region.

We have found that this was inflated rhetoric based on arrogant assumptions and manipulative communication. Now we have an Iraq in the chaos of sectarian violence and increasingly resentful of our occupying presence.

Hasn’t our misguided, self-delusional “nation building” actually become “nation wasting”?

How much more barbaric can "peace" efforts become?

2006-07-31T17:34:00.000-07:00

The ostensible reason for our intervention in Iraq (well, one of the latter ones) was to bring about a peaceful and stable Iraq through a democratic government. That country has descended into a chaotic state of violence that can only reasonably be labeled a civil war with over 100 Iraqis dying on a daily basis. This can only be considered a catastrophic outcome and quite the opposite of what was envisioned and promised to them when we initiated our military invasion.

Now, in south Lebanon and Gaza, Israel is raining down death and destruction in a conflict so disproportionate in the respective capacities of its opposition that it can simply be described as acting as it wants, how it wants, when it wants. The United States, the only international power, that could effectively terminate this action refuses to do so, oddly, in the name of peace…a “durable” peace…one which somehow should not be initiated with a ceasefire.

The Israelis have actually matched the gall of the U.S. by proclaiming what they are doing is really just as much for the good of Lebanon as it is for their own purposes. By “crushing” Hezbollah they will free Lebanon of an internal oppressor, an unwanted predator that lurks in their midst, undermining their freedoms and liberties. In this, they don’t mention that Hezbollah is, in fact, a political party that has won elections, conducts social programs and maintains many supportable aspects of its relationships with the Lebanese people beyond its military capacity.

If these are the actions of peacemaking, we must be redefining war.

Can U.S. Conceivably Oppose Ceasefire?

2006-07-23T11:23:00.000-07:00

The collusion of the United States and Israel couldn’t be clearer than what is represented by our refusal to support a cease-fire that would interrupt the devastation occurring at the moment in Lebanon and Palestine. Most, if not all countries, have condemned the actions of the Hezbollah. But we are alone in maintaining a position that a ceasefire is not warranted. Unfortunately and ironically, we are also the only nation that could require Israel to comply with such an action.

What might be considered even more convincing evidence that we condone the continuation of the strikes, is the New York Times report today (July 22, 2006) that the U.S. is accelerating the shipment of missiles and other arms to Israel. This country seems determined to strengthen Israel’s destructive power against Lebanon. What we’ve seen in collateral civilian deaths and widespread deterioration of humanitarian conditions so far cannot but accelerate.

The Lebanese government has made it clear that they will defend their land base from an incursion and re-occupation by Israel. What is our position regarding this development? We have pledged our support for the duly elected government of Lebanon and, in public, warned Israel not to de-stabilize it. Now, it appears that Israel is prepared to formal ground-based attacks across the southern Lebanon border. That should be quite a bind. I doubt, however, that it represents much of a dilemma for the present administration.

What peacemaker does not believe that a ceasefire can serve to initiate further negotiations? What peacemaker continues to supply one side (in fact, speeds up delivery of) weaponry while ostensibly looking for a lasting solution to a conflict?

But this potential “peacemaker” has a war of it’s own creation right next door in Iraq. It’s conduct is similar to Israel’s and it has rebuffed reported approaches of resistance fighters to introduce ceasefire arrangements—clinging to some wild notion that “victory” is achievable and anything less is a “cut and run.”

Our inability to face the truth of our foreign policy blunders has cost us dearly in the past. But it has cost others much more. Could we now, at least begin to see the pattern and break it? Occupation and oppression are very costly. They do not last. An occupied country’s people will not give up their struggle.

We, of all people, should understand this. Two centuries ago, having coalesced a “one-nation, indivisible” consciousness, we revolted against our occupier and oppressor. Against all odds. It took a long time. It was difficult. We lost many lives. But anyone reading this will know that today, if we still had not succeeded…we would still be trying. It is the human will and will never change.

Let us redeem ourselves. Let us close the gap between what we say are our values and how we conduct ourselves in the world. Let us be what we say we are. Let us leave Iraq and become honest brokers in our dealing in the Middle East and around the world.

Don't U.S. & Israeli Military Actions Amount to Terrorism?

2006-07-18T06:57:00.000-07:00

The unmitigated aggression of recent Israeli attacks in Gaza and Lebanon, in civilian environments and targeted to inspire fear and inflict maximum disruption to the population and their economic well being, cannot be easily distinguished from calculated acts of terror.

Likewise, recent revelations of U.S. military conduct in Iraq involving mass murder and rape are terrorist acts, prima facie. But consider the everyday aspects…the intimidation, the bullying, the bombs in the middle of the night. And then there are those “special” operations, always given such innovative names like Tombstone Piledriver or Grizzly Forced Entry, (over 130 of them so far) similar to those that occurred in Fallujah and Tall Afar that can arguably be described as special purpose neo-pogroms.

How do we define terrorism? We decry “state-sponsored” terrorism and accuse Iran, Syria and other countries of participating in it. Yet, using our own standards of assessment about what constitutes terrorism, it would be hard not to characterize the US and Israeli behavior in the Middle Eastern theater as anything but the best financed, the best equipped, the most sophisticated and the most unconstrained state-conducted terrorism in the world.

What many Americans apparently don’t realize is that every one of these forays - each and every outrage - is yet another stone upon which we are building the structure for future acts of retribution. Every child, mother, father, brother or sister that dies contributes to the cauldron of human will that intensifies the hatred towards those responsible. Everyone who suffers humiliation by an outside oppressor - individually and collectively - seethes with each experience of being diminished and violated. Every scar and disability that is inflicted remain visible reminders of needless suffering and the misuse of power.

The dividends of these “investments” are long term. How long do we remember how our loved ones died? Or why they are in a wheel chair or walking with a limp? What are the lasting impressions of 10-year-olds and 12-year-olds in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon that are being built right now? What will they teach their children? How will they tell their stories?

Why do US troops have immunity from Iraqi law?

2006-07-11T20:00:00.000-07:00

It is clear that there are two compelling reasons that U.S. troops should not be granted immunity from Iraqi law while serving there. First, many innocent Iraqis have needlessly been misused and even lost their lives because our forces will not or can not discipline their own behavior. Second, a consistent pattern has been evidenced that the military will not or can not find nor tell the truth concerning these incidents and provide justice to those who have been harmed.

Our national integrity was seriously corrupted when we allowed our administration, brazenly and transparently, to manufacture a rationale to invade a sovereign nation that posed no conceivable threat to us. And with these actions “on the ground”—with this arrogance, with this disdain—we claim more and more sordid moral territory.

The high-minded purposes trumpeted by this administration used to justify this illegitimate act of war are laughable in the face of our conduct. Shame has been brought to us all.

Those who do not give respect do not gain respect.

Israel and US Excercise Same Rights?

2006-07-02T15:45:00.000-07:00

The behaviors of the United States and Israel are remarkably similar in terms of taking latitude with the sovereign rights of other countries. This most recent incursion into Gaza and detention of legitimately elected representatives of the Palestinian government expresses this disregard in familiar, if dramatic, terms.

It is no accident that a broadly held perception in the Middle East is that the invasion of Iraq is linked to our lockstep commitment to Israel in the region. The similarities in our approaches, to respond to every challenge with an asymmetrically harsh and mostly irrelevant military assault are plain. Their ultimate futility is equally, and pathetically, evident.

Bullying takes so many forms in this world—all ugly and avoidable. These forms are also lethal and patently illegal, as well.

"Stay the Course" Plan or Prayer?

2006-07-02T15:32:00.000-07:00

The current debate about how to handle the situation in Iraq is indeed delicate because an entire nation is in shambles, thousands have died, and we are responsible.

But in considering this question, we should not ignore or forget:

§ We were brought into this invasion under false pretenses not just faulty intelligence, while being reassured by giddy fabrications of the expectations of a post-invasion Iraq.

§ After the immediate assault, we have experienced immense failures in execution—strategic and tactical—amidst massive corruption.

§ We have perpetrated horrific war crimes in the streets and in the prisons.

§ We have manufactured a “paid press” and managed systematic cover-ups of massive malfeasance of all kinds.

§ The level of violence and chaos continues to rise and the best research evidence suggests it is linked to our continued military presence there.

In the face of all this, the administration continues the refrain that we must “stay the course.”

This course, so far, has been a disaster for everyone. Everyone.

The old saying might apply here that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Why won't we promise to end our military presence in Iraq?

2006-06-18T14:28:00.000-07:00

In the continuing political din about when the United States will draw down its military in Iraq, some notable evidence is overlooked about our intentions of ever completing that objective.

In spite of the amorphous phrase, “When the Iraqi forces stand up, ours will stand down,” the Bush administration is in the process of building 14 massive, “enduring” military bases there. The pathetic, incompetent efforts to “stand up”an Iraqi military and police force belie our intentions. And the administration simply will not state outright that we will cease to have a military presence in that country in the future.

So what is the alternative to not having a military presence in Iraq? Well…having a military presence in Iraq. And what has research shown to be the single most potent motivating cause of continuing violence in Iraq? Well…the presence of the U.S. military. This dynamic cannot be an unknown to our leadership and it is simply amazing that we are being asked to ignore the obvious—the Bush administration entered Iraq to establish a U.S. military presence in the heart of the Middle East and has no intention of leaving.

So let us, the people, move in front of the politicians. Let us say…you debate the issue of what specific timetable can be used as you think you must because you have allowed this mess to develop. But we the people ask for you to pass an unambiguous statement of the will of the United States that we pledge ultimately to remove all military personnel from Iraq, permanently. And then we should judge the authenticity of our leadership by the actions that it takes to advance our promise and regain a certain measure of our integrity in the world.

How many Hadith's have there been?

2006-06-18T14:02:00.000-07:00

There have been reports of indiscriminate killing by U.S. military forces in Iraq since the beginning of the invasion and many specific incidents have only moved off the public stage because the military initiates its own investigations that eventually dissolve into obscurity.

It appears that Haditha will be different, although the military certainly followed the same pattern of deferral and cover-up for as long as it could. So now, at least, we have a concrete case to consider where troops on the ground appear to have created the Iraqi equivalent of a Mai Lai massacre. The images are horrifying. The idea is morally numbing.

But is Haditha any more grotesque than the commonly accepted practice of dropping 500 lb. bombs on the houses of “suspected insurgents” which annihilate whole families and neighborhoods which are then simply footnoted as “collateral damage.” We know full well, from the most famous missing WMD’s to the innumberable bombings to get Saddam Hussein and others that missed but blewn up hundreds of completely unsuspecting Iraqis in the middle of the night that our intelligence is criminally negligent if it is to be relied upon for pre-empitive force. The reality of the situation is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has taken over 35,000 well documented lives, approximately 2/3 of them women and children. Given that there was no foundation for this invasion in the first place, how can we consider any single one of these deaths, qualitatively different from the ones lost at Haditha?

Praise to Moussaoui Jurors

2006-05-07T10:20:00.000-07:00

It was gratifying to hear that the jurors deciding the fate of Zacharias Moussaoui refused to execute him in spite of the intense pressure, both within and outside the courtroom, to do so. The pure pragmatics of avoiding another inflammation of anti-American sentiment was served, but the much larger issue of resolving not to use our own justice system to take the life of another human being was also at issue. Sooner or later, I believe, we will realize that we cannot claim a humane system of justice if it is based on retribution, especially when taken to the extreme of execution.

When We Make War, How Can We Expect Peace?

2006-04-30T16:56:00.000-07:00

Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorism event of 9/11, even though the administration convinced roughly 70% of the population at one time that there was an association. Now, of course, some extremists have congregated in Iraq—enraged at our unwarranted invasion and occupation. Many more violent forms of resistance are being carried out by Iraqis themselves, for the same reasons.

What is so difficult to understand about the concept of violence begetting violence? And why shouldn’t we think it applies to the international behavior of the United States? How could we possibly imagine that a military action of this kind could possibly bring anything but the response that it has?

What Was the Immigration Policy When the Mayflower Arrived?

2006-04-16T12:17:00.000-07:00

It is really disturbing to listen to the rhetoric about immigration in this country when it seems to characterize those from other countries as somehow “less than” people from the United States. Other than American Indians, we are all immigrants. Let’s not forget that

Is Classified Information for Bush's Private Political Use?

2006-04-16T12:11:00.000-07:00

Now that we are aware that George Bush himself authorized the selective leaking of then classified national security information to discredit a challenge to the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, we must wonder what powers and discretion this administration might feel constrained to use for political purposes, if any.

A democracy depends upon a balance of power between the branches of government and leadership that will be faithful to the overall interests of the people. The people of the United States had no compelling interest in the invasion of Iraq and for that very reason, George Bush and his administration had to fabricate and exaggerate the rationale for it.

Can a Secretive Government Be an Honest One?

2006-03-18T10:17:00.000-08:00

The secrecy of the Bush administration has already become legendary. The administration has utilized every legal, technical, policy, procedural and strong arm technique available to limit and restrict the release and access of information to the media and the public. The guise of national security has been a shroud for much information that otherwise would be available to the public. While the Clinton administration promoted a policy among its agencies of “presumption of disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act and more broadly, the Bush administration has, remarkably, formally advised its agencies in specific ways to avoid disclosure through technical maneuvering, delays and other tactics.

At one point, in the pronounced halo of 9/11, President Bush was able to convince the American people of his “trust us…we will do what is good for you” message. Now, in the wreckage of foreign policy, the spectacle of incompetence in domestic affairs and the wholesale duplicity that apparently runs through his administration, that trust is no longer possible—even for many conservatives—let alone independents, and setting aside progressives. Forget popularity, per se, the most recent polling says that 59% of the public think that the Bush administration tells the truth “only some of the time or hardly ever”. (CBS News/New York Times Poll, March, 2006)

So can a secretive government be an honest one? Hardly not. Governance in a representative democracy is literally a function of transparency. Our form of government is based on dialogue and constant monitoring for consistency between our intentions as a nation and our actions. Only in the most rare situations of national security concern can secrecy be justified. In the main, if the press or even ordinary citizens cannot avail themselves of the conduct of their government, how can trust be built in the first place. And in this instance, where trust has been damaged, how can it be re-established?

This administration has a lot to answer for and, instead, it continues to try to “brick up” the wall. That is the good news for progressives here, because no likes to be lied to and hiding the truth amounts to the same thing.

Is Iraq Better Off Now? Is Anyone?

2006-03-05T18:53:00.000-08:00

Given the current state of affairs in Iraq and the path leading to it, it is difficult to imagine how anyone can make the claim that the people there are better off than before the invasion. In practically every category of reconstruction activity, pre-invasion levels have not yet been re-established (including oil production). Careful documentation shows that over 28,000 Iraqis have died directly as a result of combat activities. Approximately 14,000 are being held in prisons under circumstances, both legal and humanitarian, that would not be condoned in any modern society. And now, after three years of occupation, security for ordinary Iraqi citizens worsens by the day as incendiary acts, such as the bombing of the shrine in Samarra, bring the country to the edge of outright civil war.

As this horrific situation unfolds, our President proclaims that Iraq has reached a point of “choosing between unity or chaos”, as if the people of Iraq must simply clarify in their own minds which they desire. There has perhaps never been such a disingenuous false choice presented. The disunity and chaos they are experiencing was unleashed by our invasion and occupation. Under their previous governmental rule; suppressive, ruthless and, perhaps, maniacal as it was, there was not chaos and there was unity. Now that full scale civil war is a real possibility, our President says our troops will not intervene in “sectarian conflicts.” These are conflicts, this is bloodshed, this is escalating violence and instability that did not exist before we took the extraordinary and discretionary decision to invade and occupy the country. It is simply shameful to now invent new rhetoric to frame the situation in a way that shifts the responsibility to the very people who have been already victimized.

Of course, the only responsible course of action, because it is the only action that has any hope of ameliorating the stimulus for the on-going violence seems beyond the grasp of the administration—removal of our military. The military itself knows it—Zogby International released a poll of military personnel stationed in Iraq on February 28, 2006, (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075), which showed that 72% of the those surveyed thought the U.S. should “exit the country in the next year.” The rest of the world knows it—recent polls show that 60% across 35 countries think that the threat of terrorist attacks has increased because of the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

So is anyone better off?

Detainees Held Without Charge

2006-02-19T14:10:00.000-08:00

Just this week the United States released over 400 detainees from among the more than 14,000 being held in Iraq. In the US press the impression given was that this was some sort of benevolence on our part, something for which the detainees and their families could be grateful.

In my judgment, this is emblematic of the controverted logic that pervades this administration. Holding over 400 people for weeks, months or years without charge, with no due process and now, admittedly, erroneously, seems to me to just underscore the fundamental abridgements of human rights of which it is capable. Releasing them now can hardly be interpreted as an act of kindness—it is raw evidence of over 400 acts of injustice.

In Guantanamo Bay the same approach has resulted in experiences so obnoxious and prospects so dire that some 25% of the over 500 held there have engaged in hunger strikes—some so extreme that forced-feeding (another grotesque practice) has been 2used. Imagine people swept up in the post 9/11 fervor, subjected to systematic and highly sophisticated psychological and physical torture, having no charges levied against them and absolutely no conception of how long they might be held. These are indefensible conditions to be perpetrated by a nation that holds itself up as a standard of human rights and due process to the world.

If we are to imprison one single human being, here or anywhere else in the world, on the suspicion of terror activity, that imprisonment must meet the same standards that would apply to any of our own citizens. We cannot continue to demonstrate, day after day, that we think that anyone who is not an American is “less than” and can be treated that way.

2006-02-08T16:44:00.000-08:00

The budget proposal from the Pentagon released this week includes considerably more funding for "psychological warfare" as part of what is portrayed by the administration as modernization of our Defense Department. At the same time, less money was requested for reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

This policy choice is emblematic of this administration's consistent belief that what is said matters more than what is done, that impression management trumps reality and that any means are justified for what they determine are appropriate ends.

As a means to improve the image of the United States, the process of democratization and self-determination in Iraq, the term itself (and the actions that make it real) are inconceivably wrong-headed. Disinformation, deception and distraction are hardly consistent with the principles of democracy.

At least the administration doesn't discriminate...they are doing the same back home. But, ultimately, it won't work there and it won't work here. There, people will continue to suffer and die and the reality of the occupation will not be able to be covered by some cute curtain of planted stories and public relations campaigns. Here, the ugly nature and underbelly of this administration is already spilling out and they seem unable to even conceive of how to conceal it, so pervasive and essential to their idea of themselves it seems to be.

2006-01-29T14:44:00.000-08:00

A military jury on Monday (Jan. 23, 2006) ordered a reprimand but no jail time for an Army interrogator convicted of killing an Iraqi general by stuffing him headfirst into a sleeping bag and sitting on his chest.

Meanwhile, on Friday (Jan. 27, 2006), Teresa Grady of Ithaca, New York, began serving a 4 month prison term for spilling her own blood in protest of the invasion of Iraq.

Among other comments she made at her sentencing hearing was this:

“Whenever you have done the right thing, you have won.”

Detaining Without Charge, AKA Kidnapping

2006-01-29T14:31:00.000-08:00

It is difficult to distinguish between ordinary kidnapping and state sponsored detainment in the current environment. People are seized in the middle of night or the middle of the street, bags put over their heads, held indefinitely in undisclosed locations, treated very badly and have no idea when they will be freed or even have the opportunity to know why they were taken. When one of "ours" is taken, it is an outrage and an act of barbarity. We routinely take hundreds and apparently feel completely justified in doing it...in a country environment, we must bear in mind, where we are the occupiers. Such amazing hubris must contribute an incalculable amount to the rage that continues to build against us and will make resistance in Iraq an unending phenomenon.