The media's collapse, said actor and activist Jane Fonda in an earlier speech, shielded the government's own failures.
Telling the story of Abeer Qasim Hamza, a 15-year-old Iraqi who was raped and murdered by U.S. soldiers, Fonda criticized the news media's impotence in covering the war.
"The cold-blooded murder of Abeer and her family is a tragedy," Fonda said. "But it's almost as great a tragedy when her story and all the other stories that are difficult to hear and difficult to accept are buried in the back of news pages and quickly shuffled off the nightly news." She added: "A truly powerful media is one that can stop a war, not start one."
A founder of the Women's Media Center, which advocates for greater representation of women in media and in newsrooms, Fonda said American journalism takes pride in balance but "forgets that the world is not divided only by right and left."
"During the coverage of the 2004 elections," she added, "journalists were more than twice as likely to turn to a male source than a woman."
The above, noted by Cindy, is from Trevor Aaronson's "Fonda Wraps up Media Conference: Advocate for women in newsrooms says journalism forgets divide not just right and left" (Memphis Commerical Appeal via Common Dreams). That's a jumpoing off point for a joint entry. Participating are:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
Fonda's comments strike at the heart of the problems with media today. They address the issue of Abeer, Iraq, and the portrayal of the 'other' (anyone who's non-White, non-middle-aged, non-straight, and non-White). As Rebecca has argued, Abeer's story is the story of Iraq.
And what did the media do with it?
Independent media ignored it. Early on (June), it looked like there might be some interest in but that was quickly dropped as independent media marched off elsewhere. It never really bothered to pick up the story after it was done completely ignoring Iraq. No article in The Nation ever ran on Abeer or has run as of today. A fourteen-year-old girl was gang raped, murdered, her five-year-old sister was murdered, her parents were murdered and the initial blame for the war crimes was 'insurgents.' The reality was that the war crimes were committed by non-Iraqis. In November, James P. Barker admitted to his involvement in the war crimes (he entered the home as part of a plan to rape Abeer and kill her and others in the house). His court confession also included the actions of others. Since they've yet to be tried, or to confess, you can toss "alleged" in front of their names if you like.
But Abeer was raped and killed and where was the media when the details emerged?
The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Off Our Backs and Robin Morgan were accounted for, they weighed in. Where was everyone else?
The New York Times specialized in a funny sort of reporting. Before the defense could present their legal argument in an Article 32 hearing that was held in August, the New York Times, supposedly presenting objective reporting, managed to run an opinion piece as reporting and somehow managed to argue the defense's case. In a piece published before the defense had presented their case. In a defense that a military legal expert said had no known basis in legal history. Wow. Those New York Times reporters (Carolyn Marshall and Robert F. Worth) are certainly amazing. They predicted it all -- and without any help from the defense! What seers are they.
The New York Times specialized in another kind of reporting on the war crimes -- never mentioning Abeer's name. To name the victim would be to give a face to her and since their own 'reporting' had already crossed the line into advocacy journalism (not anything wrong with advocacy journalism but the paper self-presents as 'objective') it was very clear that their interest wasn't in the truth, wasn't in reporting what happened, but in rendering Abeer and what happened to her invisible. How do you, as reporters at the paper repeatedly did, cover the trial of men accused of gang raping and murdering Abeer and never manage to mention her name?
You do it very carefully when you're interests are in managing and mitigating public opinion. Better to make her a faceless victim if you're interested in continuing to sell the illegal war which the paper is interested in doing.
Now the paper's actions should have been called out. So you might think you got that. You didn't. If in no other way, The Nation could have covered Abeer as a media topic. There media columnist could have addressed the way the paper of record rendered Abeer invisible. But he wasn't interested in that. AlterPunk was interested in useless articles such as his lengthy take on why the New York Times shouldn't run unsigned editorials -- a column that ran in a magazine (The Nation) which runs unsigned editorials.
He was interested in getting upset that he'd recently learned the New York Times' policy on quoting from comments on websites was questionable. In a piece where they rushed to lynch Janet Jackson -- a piece riddled with inaccuracies, only a few of which resulted in corrections by the paper -- it was apparently okay to 'doctor' a quote from a website. The paper is aware of the docotring -- at every level -- and they issued no correction on that. If AlterPunk wants to feign shock about the Times' 'quoting' from websites, he might do better to know the paper's history on it.) (Altering quotes, failure to research your articles, presenting half-baked theories that blow up with the most basic examination and not even grasping that just because you say something was or wasn't a number one doesn't make it true didn't result in the arts section's version of Judith Miller being banned from the paper for anyone interested. We could also touch on the topic of allowing people to create titles for themselves and the paper running with them. That started in the arts section and then, as the Times well knows up through the editorial offices -- carried over to the front page of the news section. The defense on that, expressed by the editor responsible for the front page piece, was that the executive in question didn't like his actual title so he preferred to use a title that doesn't exist. That may be the executive's wish but if the company wanted him to have that title, they'd give it to him. (They haven't and his being billed by a title he doesn't hold has caused anger at the company and caused those still expressing disbelief to note that when you're 'friends' with writers at the paper you can write your own ticket in what passes for 'objective' reporting.) Maybe the Cindy Brady of the faux left can next tackle that?
Probably not because it's safer for all involved (safer translates as coverage and book reviews) to offer up useless topics (unsigned editorials? A pressing issue in the bull pens of high school papers, no doubt) .
And independent media played 2006 safe and cowardly with few exceptions.
Today, John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel write of Dr. Martin Luther King. It may be less than generous to note that the magazine's choosing to note him on the federal holiday in his honor. It's pointing the obvious to note that the passing last year of Coretta Scott King produced no article -- in print or 'online exclusive.' So it strikes us as a more than apalling that the same magazine who didn't appear to give a damn about Coretta Scott King now rushes pieces on MLK to their website.
Like Abeer, Coretta Scott King meets the defnition of an 'other.' African-American, a woman, she couldn't get any traction. The media critic for The Nation couldn't even note that the paper of little record didn't editorialize about her passing -- though, in the same week, they could note a playwright (and personal friend of Gail Collins) who died. Her passing didn't rate a column either. The closest to a column, and the only mention in the editorial section, was Bob Herbert's tacked on one paragraph noting she had died.
What does that say? What does the above say?
Quite a lot and if people want to address media reform, they better do seriously. The Nation is the left magazine with the largest circulation so we'll focus on it.
In 2006, when both Katha Pollitt and Naomi Klein were on leave while they worked on books, two prime spots were open to be temporarily filled. When two strong voices are absent and they happen to be female, you might think The Nation would fill those spots with women. But apparently having nearly wall to wall contributions from male writers wasn't quite enough for "Nobody Owns The Nation," they needed more male voices.
This operating belief goes a long way towards explaining why a freelancer placed her article on Abu Ghraib last year not with The Nation but with a fashion magazine (Marie Claire). The Nation should be leading and it isn't. That's in terms of what gets covered and who gets to cover it. (Already in 2007, their appalling low number of pieces written by women threaten to match the disgraceful numbers for 2006.)
Is the nation White, male, middle aged and straight in all regards? No, but if you got that impression from reading The Nation in 2006, your mistaken beliefs were certainly supported by the magazine.
Alternative media is supposed to provide an alternative, to present what media could be. (On a lower budget, granted.) Offering what the mainstream provides (often the worst it provides -- such as handicapping political races as though they were horse races) but with a left/Democratic spin (for many in independent media, the 'left' view is determined by what the DNC decides it is) isn't an alternative. It's a negative, a photographic negative, it's the bizarro world, it's just not an alternative.
An alternative requires providing an alternative. That requires covering topics that the mainstream isn't interested in. That requires creating the kind of media that demonstrates what is wrong with the current system.
If the extent of 'wrong' is that more Republican hacks are tossed on the airwaves than Democratic hacks, then The Nation is doing a wonderful job. If being a party organ for the Democratic Party is an alternative, congratulations to The Nation.
That would explain why coverage of students qualifies in the magazine as covering what an Iowan poli-sci student deemed "Eisnhower Democrats." Look, they're War Hawks, well funded one with the usual crowd of useless names speaking to them and funding them! Oh, look, here's another piece about 'activists' who are overjoyed by their 'success' (they farmed out volunteers to Congressional campaings) and who explain that sometimes you have to stop 'hugging a tree,' 'put on a suit,' and get down to business. Such business doesn't include serious concern over the environment as the dismissive 'tree hugging' reference telegraphs.
Meanwhile, in the real world, students organize to end the war, organize to rebuild in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, organize to halt the imprisonments at Guantanamo, organize (and lead!) on the immigrations rights issue.
The immigration rights issue? "Alternative" coverage apparently means you go down to the deep south and speak to White people opposed to immigrant rights. You also toss in a male (of course male) activist. You avoid the students who led the protests, who woke a sleeping nation. You avoid their bravery and maybe you even offer a slap to them that the Mexican flag shouldn't be carried at a protest. Now those words generally come from people who didn't participate in any of the protests so the words are as useless as the owners of the mouths uttering them.
Where is the place at the table for people of ethnicities and color, for women and LBGTs?
The Nation is looking for a publicity director. That's not going to change the opinions of students opposed to the magazine, students who see it as useless and judgmental of them, students who see their own work and the issues that matter to them ignored.
A new publicity director won't conceal the fact that 'equality' has a funny meaning at The Nation. Equality doesn't mean when two female columnists are on leave, you fill their posts with other male voices. Equality does seem to mean that you demonstrate how fair you are by criticizing Harry Belafonte. At last! African-Americans can be slammed equally at The Nation! (If undeservedly.) Now they can't get covered, Coretta Scott King's death demonstrates that, but they've 'achieved' enough at the magazine that they can be slammed.
Will a publicy director speak to the staff about how they conduct themselves in on air interviews?
We think she or he should. We think that's now a requirement after Laura Flanders was called everything but stupid on air. (Flanders an astute journalist, critic and broadcaster.) That hostile, patronizing, impatient and dismissive treatment didn't come from a guest billed as being on the right, it came from a Nation staffer (and Lyndon La Rouche refugee). We think that interview, the hostitility expressed towards Flanders, says a lot. How does anyone at the magazine come to believe it's okay to treat Flanders, or any woman, in such a manner? (It was bullying. Flanders stood her ground.)
Well it helps when the culture is predominately male, predominately straight, and predominately White. And we're speaking of the culture at the magazine. Media reform is suddenly an issue (for a week or so) and we're reminded of the 2006 issue on media reform which played like celebrity even if it didn't make for good reading. Having something to say wasn't apparently a requirement, just name value. (Which led to it playing out like the what-are-they-reading feature in Vanity Fair -- though in fairness to Van Fair, that's a tiny item in the magazine, not something they provide for pages and pages.)
Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) is very popular with this community, so let's get practical: when does she get invited to the table?
Or does she have to blindly cheer every Democrat to be included?
If impeachment was a topic worthy of a January 2006 cover, why is it a topic dropped when Nancy Pelosi announcing she is pulling it off the table? Last time we checked, she wasn't listed on the masthead of The Nation.
Independent media needs to show some independence. That's independence in thought and in coverage. Talk of media reform is meaningless if alternative outlets aren't willing to provide an alternative currently.
As 2006 drew to a close, CounterSpin finally found a woman they could interview for the full program (a practice common with male guests). We see that and her topic (the way the press covers war) as a big step in the right direction. But having lived through one of the worst years for independent media (2006), we're not about to act like media reform is something required of the mainstream and that the bulk of independent media has done a good (or even an okay) job in the last year. It hasn't.
It has not reaffirmed the core of democracy (that would require covering actions that included more than running for office or urging that readers vote). It has not practiced anything resmembling Brown v. Board in their own coverage. And we're all dying for the moment where a host (male or female) of a panel has the guts to stop a male, who repeatedly cuts off a female guest, by pointing out just how dismissive he's treating the woman and asking him why he thinks that treatment is acceptable? We're also dying to get something other than The Elector.
We're not interested in The Elector and we're not interested in linking to sop. A perfect example would be an article that David Enders has written. Does the writing qualify for sop? No. It's well written. But The Nation feels it's only worthy of 'online exclusive' status -- implying that they grade outside writers much more harshly than they do insiders. (Possibly they're under the mistaken belief that their print editions are awash with Iraq coverage?) While we're glad that both John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel chose, on the MLK federal holiday, to note MLK, we're not interested in linking to the articles because of the magazine's own silence on Coretta Scott King. In fact, community wide we probably won't to link to anything from The Nation other than Naomi Klein or Katha Pollitt. Why?
Why bother? Why bother to link to a magazine that refuses to cover war resisters? They can't get ahold of Kyle Synder? (Puts them in the minority.) No, they just don't want to. They've demonstrated that throughout 2006 and the slam they printed on Ehren Watada is so offensive and does not pass the 'free speech' phrase that's used as a bully club.
Isn't it funny how free speech lets in Christopher Hitchens, La Rouche refugees and sexual predators but it doesn't let it people of color, it doesn't let it in women, it doesn't let in coverage of peace activists and demonstrations, and it doesn't let in war resisters.
Ehren Watada's beliefs about the illegality and the immorality of the war could be backed up with citations from (much earlier) coverage of Iraq that The Nation provided. So he takes a stand and they play dumb. That's not cutting it. At some point, when you know the war is wrong, you have to take a stand. Ehren Watada has done that. The Nation reads like its unsure. A war resister is a cover story, not a sidebar and especially not a sidebar after you've just printed a useless (unneeded and uninformed) quote from a man slamming Watada. That a magazine which says it is opposed to the illegal war continues to be unable to offer one editorial or column in support of Watada or any of the other war resisters to go public in the summer of 2006, while filling pages of the magazine week after week with useless trash like AlterPunk's nonstop shout outs to various men (someday he'll prove he's a real boy, just like Pinochio!) (and when that happens, he still won't correct his lie that Naomi Klein was a fashion consultant to the Gore campaign).
We're tired of it and we think media reform is a useless topic until independent media is willing to practice some of it themselves.
trevor aaronson
jane fonda
media reform
ehren watada
margaret kimberley
the common ills
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
Monday, January 15, 2007
Saturday, January 13, 2007
E-mails, peace, moments, Iraq
I have certainly complained about the Cindy Brady of the faux left's e-mailing but I want to take a moment to note that I also get some of the best e-mails. Friday at work (it's now past midnight, so officially Saturday), Sunny told me I really needed to check my e-mail account today. She prints up various e-mails for me. (That's not part of her job duties but she swears she really enjoys reading the e-mails.) So I usually read her prints outs during lunch but there were seven she didn't print up that she said I really needed to read.
I only just did, starting an hour ago. I have replied to each of the seven and just want to note here that they really meant something to me and were a pleasure to read. There are people who take the war very seriously and have paid various costs for trying to end it. I salute and applaud them.
To note other news, Sunny asked that I pass on that she's got a summer wedding coming up. I told her she should do a guest-blog here to discuss that because I know readers enjoyed her guest stint here. But let me note that she's very excited about her wedding. They've been seeing each other eight months and living together for the bulk of that so they've got a strong sense of one another and I wish them all the best. (Sunny's not planning on leaving. I'm wishing them the best because they're announcing their plan to marry to their parents tonight. Last night. It's after midnight, so they've already told their families.)
On the topic of e-mails, I should also note that a number have come in on "How The Nation isn't cutting it." I'm glad it was so postively received but there was a concern expressed in several that I feel like I should address. A number of e-mails wondered, while agreeing with the commentary about The Nation, whether C.I. and I were in strong disagreement over this topic? I don't think we have any disagreement about it. C.I. would prefer not to criticize Katrina vanden Heuvel in a negative manner due to having known and liked her grandfather. On that, I was under the impression it had been discussed at the site. I knew it had been in a roundtable but didn't realize that was at a roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. Rebecca pointed that out and I was mortified. I included that information thinking (a) I do, fair of unfairly, base my expectations on something beyond the woman herself. Her grandfather was an amazing man. Since I was criticizing her leadership of the magazine, I felt it was important to disclose that. C.I. knew him as well. So for disclosure reasons, it seemed the time to note that he was always interested in (and donating to) causes. If I'd realized that C.I. had kept that 'in the community' by addressing it at the round-robin, I wouldn't have noted that C.I. also knew the man.
C.I. wasn't upset about that. I was in a session when Rebecca passed that on, about it being in the round-robin, to Sunny. When I came out, Sunny mentioned it to me and my first comment was, "Get C.I. on the phone." When we spoke, I was apologizing because I wouldn't want someone posting details about my life that I hadn't shared myself. C.I. just laughed and said not to worry about.
Other than that, I had no worries about the post because that didn't just pop into my head. It was based on what's been on going for some time. I'm sure nothing in it was a surprise to C.I. because we've discussed those topics quite often. I don't know that C.I. read it (and didn't ask) because it was expecting Katrina vanden Heuvel to be accountable and was naming her. C.I. would prefer to name her only if it's something positive. But for those who worried that it might cause some problem, it didn't. C.I. linked to it. (Twice, I believe.) When Rebecca had a serious problem with something vanden Heuvel had written, C.I. cross-posted it at The Common Ills. C.I.'s not interested in being gatekeeper but is also not interested in personally writing anything that's negative about vanden Heuvel. Mike's noted at his site that last Sunday's editorial ("Editorial: Ehren Watada stands and independent media heads for the bathrooms") took forever to write and noted that one of the problems was that a post criticized at the end was written by Katrina vanden Heuvel. C.I.'s attitude was "The Nation" covered it. There was no need to name her, she is the magazine.
My comments about her not getting a pass because she's a woman is also a topic I've long discussed with C.I. who really has to feel someone's gone beyond the point of no return to start criticizing them at The Common Ills. For instance, "Truth" was boring the hell out of the community for some time and also ticking many members off. It was only when she voiced support for curbs on reproductive rights that C.I. weighed in. C.I. is loathe to crticize a woman and that's wonderful and I have so much respect for that. I share it to a degree. But, like C.I., I have my point where someone's crossed the line far enough that I will speak out and speak up.
So for the ones who wondered if there was some problem resulting from my post (the ones who didn't write in, Sunny responded for me to everyone who wrote in Thursday), there wasn't.
I do support that attitude but, and this is true of C.I. and I would assume everyone who feels the same, at some point it needs calling out. For all of us, the point will be different. But it's there and when it's reached, you either continue to bite your tongue or you speak out.
(I did however wonder, when C.I. noted the stomach pains on Friday morning, if I'd caused stress.)
This is an e-mail from Declaration of Peace that Mike and I are both posting:
The DECLARATION of PEACE
Defund the War and Declare Peace!
Nationwide Nonviolent Civil DisobedienceTo End the Deepening U.S. Quagmire in Iraq
"There is nothing wrong with a traffic law which says you have to stop for a red light. But when a fire is raging, the fire truck goes right through that red light ... Massive civil disobedience is a strategy for social change which is at least as forceful as an ambulance with its siren on full." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
As the violence in Iraq escalates, The Declaration of Peace is organizing nonviolent civil disobedience -- and other forms of powerful and dramatic peacemaking -- to urge the nation and its leaders to end the U.S. quagmire there. We invite people everywhere to respond to this growing emergency by participating in this campaign of conscience and nonviolent action to defund the war, to support the troops by bringing them home, and to launch a comprehensive Peace process. (See the full text of the Declaration of Peace Call for Nonviolent Civil Disobedience at: http://declarationofpeace.org/a-call-for-nonviolent-civil-disobedience )
Between now and mid-March -- the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- The Declaration of Peace will organize visits to Congressional offices, phone and email campaigns, rallies and vigils, town hall meetings, and media outreach to call on all U.S. policymakers to take these steps for Peace. If the Bush Administration and the new Congress fail to carry out its clear mandate for peace, we will be led by conscience to respond to this growing emergency with dramatic and creative forms of peaceful resistance -- including nonviolent civil disobedience -- across the country, March 16-19, 2007.
We invite you and your organization to organize a peaceful and powerful civil disobedience witness in mid-March.
Please let us know what you are planning by emailing: training@declarepeace.org
Next Steps
In preparing for the March 16-19 Actions, The Declaration of Peace is organizing:
• A National Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Organizing Conference Call on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. Please join us to learn more, to share plans, and to offer one another support.
If you want to join the conference call, contact us at: training@declarepeace.org
• A National Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Organizing Meeting onSunday, January 28, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern, for those attending United for Peace and Justice's March on Washington and Lobby Day (January 27-29). Location: Bethesda Chevy-Chase High School 4301 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland Let us know if you will be attending: training@declarepeace.org
• A National Week of Nonviolent Action Training: February 17-25, 2007. Contact us to organize a Nonviolence Training session: training@declarepeace.org
For more information about this Campaign, visit: http://www.DeclarationofPeace.org
Okay, earlier this week, I noted the protests at Congressional offices. If that wasn't your thing, there's something above that you can do. If that's not your thing, then you need figure out what is because you need to be making your voice heard. The war will keep dragging on until the leaders grasp that the American people will not stand for it.
That's true of any issue and one of the few positives about the Vietnam era is that we were active as a people on the issue of the war, to be sure, but on others as well. That's how Nixon was forced to resign, that's why we ended up with a more open government.
If I can share anything to anyone younger it would be: That time, that post-period when the war ends, you'll be encouraged to go home and live in a daze. You'll be lulled into a false sense of security, a feeling that "We did it, we ended the war, Congress knows they have to listen to the people." They don't "know" that. They have to be reminded of it constantly. Kat and I have talked about this and how, on a smaller scale, you can see it in the early half of the 90s, another moment for change. Those moments are precious and people need to seize them.
I do think we are encouraged by the media and by society at large not to be involved, not to care. Kat's got a theory about how grunge was co-opted into psuedo grunge and how it was co-opted into meaninglessness. I agree with her points, but it's her theory, so I give her credit for it. But that moment, when change seemed so possible -- healthcare, gay rights, etc. -- passed very quickly. I think my generation saw Nixon resign, the war finally end (after he was out of office), Congressional investigations and all these signs that the system was alive and well and motivated to speak to the general welfare. Then, at the end of 1980, Ronald Reagan would be elected and a wholesale assault on everything that had been accomplished would begin -- would begin openly.
If the period after we end the war echoes earlier periods, we'll see 'jokes' about people who were involved. Songs, movies, standup, where that's mocked and we're all encouraged to return to being consumers. Passive consumers, at that. I don't know that you can fight that response or overcome it. It may just be the natural swing of the pendulum. However, the time after will be wide open and since a backlash is entirely positive, people should be making brave demands. Not asking for band aids, but asking for real progress. It's a moment and you can make the most of it or you can do nothing with it. So just keep that in mind.
When you read the snapshot below, keep in mind that Anthony Arnove is beginning a book tour (the dates are listed). That's a voice you should be embracing. Howard Zinn is one of my favorites (he's quoted in the snapshot) and I think that's true of many people my age on the left. Anthony Arnove, whose age I don't know, is a voice that I've discovered during this war. Like Naomi Klein, his is a name to answer when people wonder where the brave truth tellers of today are? If there are more than the usual number of typos in my post, forgive me. The hour is late. I hope everyone already read "Kat's Korner: Carly Simon, Into the Real," by the way. That and Lizzie West's I Pledge Allegiance To Myself are the two CDs I'm listening to the most these days. (Carly Simon's Into White, being the other one.)
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, January 12, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; after the Bully Boy's Wednesday speech offering no 'benchmarks,' US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reveleals the 'plan' also offers no timetable; Anthony Arnove and Howard Zinn talk the importance of withdrawal and combat the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk; US war resister Ehren Watada prepares for a public speech this weekend; and Antoni Juhasz addresses what an escalation means for US troops.
Today on KPFA's The Morning Show, Andrea Lewis spoke with Anthony Arnove and Howard Zinn about Iraq and comparisons to Bully Boy's dreamed of escalation in Iraq to Vietnam. Zinn felt it was very important to note that the Iraqi people do not want US forces in their country. On the 'new' 'plan' and it's talk up as well as the way Iraq is addressed, Howard Zinn pointed out:
When they talk about making a difference, they keep using the words 'victory' and 'success' and how do we 'win'? It seems to me this is missing a very, very critical point, Iraq is not our country to 'win' -- to be successful in, to be victorious in. We simply don't belong there. And Bush's 'surge' is exactly the opposite of what we need to do. Well Anthony's book Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal lays out the argument for the simple statement that I'm making now, that instead of surging in Iraq, we should be withdrawing as fast as we can from Iraq. And not only that, we should be questioning the larger principle involved and that is should the United States be sending troops anywhere in the world -- whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else -- should we think we could solve any problems with military solutions? And, in fact, is this the motive of the administration to solve problems for the people of these other countries? Iraqis don't want us in Iraq, that's clear. The American people don't want us in Iraq. Even the Iraqi government, which was really put in in a kind of fake election with American control excercise, even the Iraqi government is very embarrassed by the idea of having more American troops in Iraq. So what Bush is proposing is a violation not only of self-determination of Iraqis and the will of the American people and world opinion, it's a continution of the whole idea of US military dominace in the world which we should do everything we can to bring to an end.
Andrea Lewis asked about the statements that if the US pulls out it will lead to chaos in Iraq.
Anthony Arnove: I think we have to acknowledge that people who raise that point raise it two different ways. The cynical group of people who make that argument, pundits, politicans, to say we can never pull out, to justify the US remaining as an occupying power in Iraq for years to come, to justify setting up military bases, permanent bases, in Iraq, to justify the role that the United States wants to play in Iraq projecting its power in the entire Middle East and globally, as Howard mentioned. But then there's also decent people who have a concern for the consequences of the Iraqi people. And I think we have to acknowledge their fears and their concerns for what would happen to Iraq? And we're not saying abandon the Iraqi people -- "This is some kind of isolationist position, we don't care what happens to them." We're saying the opposite. Our point is that every day that the United States continues in Iraq as an unwanted, foreign, occupying power, it makes the situation worse for ordinary Iraqis. It's not ending sectarian conflict in Iraq, it's actually fueling sectarian conflict. It's not ending violence, it's actually fueling violence. The United States occupation is the greatest source of instability in the country. And after every benchmark that we've been told would change the situation there --elections, the constitution, the capture of Saddam Hussein, the execution of Saddam Hussein -- things just get worse. Iraq right now is the world's largest refugee crises in the world. Inflation has skyrocketed, unemployment has skyrocketed, there's less electricty, less safe drinking water, less security for Iraqis which is why poll after poll shows that that they say their life is getting worse and they want the United States to leave and so if we claim that we're bringing democracy well democracy would dictate that we let the Iraqi people determine their own future. But we should support them. We should pay reperations. We owe them a tremends debt, not just for the harm caused by the occupation, but all of the years before that the United States imposed sanctions on the country and, before that, supported Saddam Hussein as he carried out his worst crimes.
Zinn discussed how the same arguments for the US remaining in Iraq were the ones his book Vietnam: The Logic for Withdrawal were "greeted with the same claims that are made today" -- e.g. chaos, violence, civil war in Vietnam. "The truth is that we were creating the chaos," observed Zinn. Anthony Arnove's book, Iraq: The Logic for Withdrawal, has just been released in paperback and he will be appearing on the following dates:
January 17, 7 pm,
New York, NY (with Michael Schwartz)
16 Beaver
http://www.16beavergroup.org/monday/
January 20, 7 pm,
Chicago, IL (with Jeff Engelhardt)
University of Illinois-Chicago
Contact: Adam Turl, 773-567-0936, adamcturl@yahoo.com
January 27, 5 pm,
Washington, DC (with Kelly Dougherty)
Busboys and Poets
http://www.busboysandpoets.com/blog_events.htm
February 1, 7:30 pm,
Pasadena, CA
Voices of a People's History of the United States
with Mark Ruffalo, Q'Orianka Kilcher, Benjamin Bratt, Marisa Tomei, Josh Brolin, and Alfre Woodard.
All Saints Episcopal Church
http://www.icujp.org
Appearing as part of a panel discussion yesterday on Kris Welch's program, KPFA's Living Room , Antonia Juhasz (author of The BU$H Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time) noted two points regarding the US troops in Iraq. First, she noted, "On this issue of the troops increase . . . Bush wanted significantly more troops but the military said we don't have anywhere to get them for you, there aren't anymore troops. So the troops that are the addition of the 20,000 is simply going to be extending the tours of troops that are there speeding up the redeployment of troops that have already served. We have to be really clear about who the soldiers are that are part of this increase."
She then spoke of what their role would be and what is wanted from Iraq.
Antonia Juhasz: This is . . . the critical moment to make our demands very, very clear to the Democrats and one of those demands has to explicity be that this is a war for oil that cannot be allowed to continue and that what the administration is hoping for is that it will suceed in its economic transformation of Iraq which at this point has nearly reached fruition -- which is a new law developed way before the war in the US State Department, then pushed by US corporations, pushed by the successive appointed governments of Iraq by the US government following the invasion -- for a new law that is now, the al-Maliki govenrmenet has now said that it will put this new law forward to the Iraqi parliament that creates an unprecedented oil victory in Iraq. So what it does is give the government of Iraq nominal control and ownership of their oil but every function of the oil industry would then be privatized and turned over to foreign companies and the foreign companies would get a form of contract called a Production Sharing Agreement which is not used anywhere in the Middle East not used anywhere in oil rich countries in fact that gives first 30 years, 30 year contract, and then according to the UK Independent, that the intial contract would give 75% of initial profits to the private companies leaving only 25% for the Iraqis. [. . .] Iraq can best be understood as a pimple of oil that has yet to be plucked. It has certainly the second largest oil reserves in the world possibly larger. It has 80 known oil fields but only 17 have even begun to be developed. It is those undeveloped oil fields which are all completely within the realm of the new law and then the debate, that the president mentioned in his speech, is over a constitutional amendment to address the existing fields, which are now divided between the Shia and the Kurds in the north and the south, and to bring the control of the existing fields back into the central gover of al-Maliki. And what I believe is that the Bush administration is going to hold onto the occupation and make it larger and make it as big as he can until the law passes and US companies sign contracts and then they have to get work. And they need a security force to do that and that is our troops.
While Juhasz addressed the realities of US troops in Iraq, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, testifying before the US Senate Armed Service Committee, revealed a reality of his own. BBC reports that Gates, speaking of Bully Boy's new 'plan' for Iraq, stated that there was no timetable for the puppet government to achieve any of the non-defined benchmarks. Susan Cornwell and Kristin Roberts (Reuters) observe that Gates threw out the usual sop of troop withdrawal on the conditional 'if' (always the same 'if' -- if a corner is turned and it never is) and they write that "Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who heads a House panel overseeing defense spending, said he would try to attach restrictions to a $100 billion 'emergency' request for new war money that Bush will request in February. Those restrictions could include a prohibition on spending money for the additional troops, Murtha said. They could also include immediately closing Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad and the Guantanamo Bay detention center at a U.S. base in Cuba."
Yesterday, US military forces stormed an Iranian diplomatic consulate and arrested six diplomatic staff. The Kurdish government in northern Iraq responded by insisting that diplomatic staff be released immediately (Iran has long had a consulate in Iraq's Kurdish territory). KUNA reports that the US, via White House flack Tony Snow, continues to dismiss concerns and attempt to downgrade a recognized diplomatic headquarters while the Foreign Minister of Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, continues to state that it was a consulate and that, in addition, "U.S. forces tried to seize more people at the airport in Irbil, 220 miles north of Baghdad, prompting a confrontation with Kurdish troops guarding the facility that was resolved without casualties. " The BBC notes that the consulate has been "operating for years" and the Mikhail Kamyin ("Russing foreign ministry spokesman") declared, "It is absolutely unacceptable for troops to storm the consular offices of a foreign state on the territory of another state . . . It is also not clear how this fits in with American statements that Washington respects the sovereignty of Iraq."
In other Iraq news . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that, near Baquba, a mortar attack killed "one primary school teacher and one student," while a child was killed in Muqdadiyah by an IED and, in Baquba, an Iraqi soldier was killed by a bomb and three more wounded.
Shootings?
Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that in the Diyala Province, "American forces killed a woman and a child and injured another woman with another child (all from the same family)" while 4 Shi'ites were shot dead "near ARAB SHOKA area near hibhib area in khalis town" as well as their driver.
Corpses?
Reuters notes that 10 corpses were discovered in Baghdad, seven in Mosul, three in Basmaia.
Turning to news of war resistance, Ehren Watada became the first officer (June 2006) to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq and now faces a February 5th court-martial. He is scheduled to speak tomorrow at the Coupeville Recreation Hall, 901 NW Alexander ST., Whidbey Island in Coupeville, Washington at 1:00 pm. Also tomorrow, there will be a benefit performance for him Corvallis, OR when Crooked Kate and the Childers-Carson Duo take the stage of the Sunnyside-Up (116 N.W. Third St.) at six pm. In addition, later this month A Citizens' Hearings is being convened January 20-22 at Evergreen State College to address the illegality of the war. In addition, Iraq Veterans Against the War are staging Camp Resistance in support of Watada. Writing at the blog they've set up for Camp Resistance, dockyne reports:
www.kboo.fm The oldest public radio station in the states hosted IVAW Deployed and had Darrell [Anderson] and Dennis [Kyne] on Friday morning for one hour and a half. Discussing Darrell's experience in this illegal war and his 18 months in exile to Canada, as well as the fact that thousands of other soldiers are refusing to deploy to this illegal war. Hosted by Ani and Melody on their weekly progam (7:30-9 am) Absolutly revolting.
This interview was in depth...it covered the draft, the anti war movement, depleted uranium and allowed multiple callers to learn about the Gulf War, which the VA handbook of benefits states began on 2 Aug 1990 and will end on a date to be determined by congress. When will they end it? We discussed the court martials of Suzanne Swift and Ehren Watada...and the support from Portland, Oregon is massive. Darrell stated, "this is the most radical community I have been too."
Dennis Kyne, writing at U.N. Observer, gives the details on Camp Resistance:
Please support this move....as troops are gathering to support Ehren Watada in his stand against the lies that have gained our nation nothing more than death and despise. Purple Heart, 'Winner' Darrell Anderson returned from 18 months in hiding when he heard that Lt. Watada had refused to deploy. Darrell Anderson would have deployed to his third tour had he not gone north. Anderson asked me to get on the ( http://www.ivawdeployed.org ) with him and get to Fort Lewis to open up Camp RESISTANCE!!!
We are here, in the mud. It is not warm here
...nor dry
.....however, you should stand with us
....in support of a man who stands up against the military mahine and a nation of millions who don't have the foggiest notion that our troops do not want to serve in this war. Lt. Watada is speaking for thousands of enlisted soldiers like Darrell Anderson and myself, a fifteen year veteran of the Army. Watada is a true leader.....leading and doing
....he knows he should never ask enlisted soldiers to do things he would never do ....that is part of the requirement. NEVER ask nor order your troops to do things that you wouldn't do. There are more violators of this rule in the military now, than ever (or at least in my 15 years.) Lt. Watada is not one of them
...and with that, the soldiers, who have always followed good leaders
....will follow Lt. Watada.. Mike, Damon, Ethan and I, slept on the rig last night
...it was night one of Camp RESISTANCE!!!There is a RESISTANCE!!! going on. Thousands of troops are refusing to deploy
....please let everyone know we are here
.....working from the wi fi hot spot, let them know they should stand here too. If not for a month as we will, than for a day or even an hour. We are at off ramp 119, gates of Fort Lewis.
We are meeting up at the gates of Fort lewis to support the Lt. Why? We have had enough
...we want the war to stop....we want the government to stop using the troops as pawns in their game. If you know of a veteran who is opposed to this war, please help them get here....if you are ok with the weather, please get here also.
I, personally, will always think it an honor and a privilege to have served the United States people
...I know Ehren does too. It is with that same pride and honor that I, personally, ask you to do something for this man
....who has, without question stood, with more integrity in his little pinky, than most of these Generals have in their entire skin. I am honored to know his family, they are a wonderful display of family values
...something we don't see a lot of.
To support him
.... ( http://www.thankyoult.org ) you will find the news to follow the days up to the trial......
Meanwhile, John Powell writes to the Capital Times to weigh in on the argument that Watada signed a contract and any responsibilities he had for war ended right there: "Perhaps Piek has never served in the military, but I remember the oath I took when I was inducted into the Army as a lowly buck private in 1968. The oath for soldiers is virtually the same as the oath taken by the president of the United States and every other official of every level of government in the country: an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in that oath about obeying orders. In fact, the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice make it clear that a soldier's duty is to disobey illegal orders. Watada alleges that the Iraq war is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, and that he is duty-bound to refuse to serve in it. This should be the issue - not whether he refused to obey orders (clearly he did), but whether those orders were legal."
Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson (noted abovein the Camp Resistance post), Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Finally, on yesterday's KPFA's Flashpoints, Dennis Bernstein provided military families with the opportunity to weigh in on Bully Boy's announced intent to escalate. This included a couple with five children and grandchildren serving in the military who ask that people write Congress and say "no" to the escalation. In addition to utilizing either previous link for an archived broadcast, Rebecca wrote about the broadcast yesterday.
iraq
ehren watada
kpfa
the morning show
anthony arnove
howard zinn
antonia juhasz
living room
kris welch
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
flashpoints
I only just did, starting an hour ago. I have replied to each of the seven and just want to note here that they really meant something to me and were a pleasure to read. There are people who take the war very seriously and have paid various costs for trying to end it. I salute and applaud them.
To note other news, Sunny asked that I pass on that she's got a summer wedding coming up. I told her she should do a guest-blog here to discuss that because I know readers enjoyed her guest stint here. But let me note that she's very excited about her wedding. They've been seeing each other eight months and living together for the bulk of that so they've got a strong sense of one another and I wish them all the best. (Sunny's not planning on leaving. I'm wishing them the best because they're announcing their plan to marry to their parents tonight. Last night. It's after midnight, so they've already told their families.)
On the topic of e-mails, I should also note that a number have come in on "How The Nation isn't cutting it." I'm glad it was so postively received but there was a concern expressed in several that I feel like I should address. A number of e-mails wondered, while agreeing with the commentary about The Nation, whether C.I. and I were in strong disagreement over this topic? I don't think we have any disagreement about it. C.I. would prefer not to criticize Katrina vanden Heuvel in a negative manner due to having known and liked her grandfather. On that, I was under the impression it had been discussed at the site. I knew it had been in a roundtable but didn't realize that was at a roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. Rebecca pointed that out and I was mortified. I included that information thinking (a) I do, fair of unfairly, base my expectations on something beyond the woman herself. Her grandfather was an amazing man. Since I was criticizing her leadership of the magazine, I felt it was important to disclose that. C.I. knew him as well. So for disclosure reasons, it seemed the time to note that he was always interested in (and donating to) causes. If I'd realized that C.I. had kept that 'in the community' by addressing it at the round-robin, I wouldn't have noted that C.I. also knew the man.
C.I. wasn't upset about that. I was in a session when Rebecca passed that on, about it being in the round-robin, to Sunny. When I came out, Sunny mentioned it to me and my first comment was, "Get C.I. on the phone." When we spoke, I was apologizing because I wouldn't want someone posting details about my life that I hadn't shared myself. C.I. just laughed and said not to worry about.
Other than that, I had no worries about the post because that didn't just pop into my head. It was based on what's been on going for some time. I'm sure nothing in it was a surprise to C.I. because we've discussed those topics quite often. I don't know that C.I. read it (and didn't ask) because it was expecting Katrina vanden Heuvel to be accountable and was naming her. C.I. would prefer to name her only if it's something positive. But for those who worried that it might cause some problem, it didn't. C.I. linked to it. (Twice, I believe.) When Rebecca had a serious problem with something vanden Heuvel had written, C.I. cross-posted it at The Common Ills. C.I.'s not interested in being gatekeeper but is also not interested in personally writing anything that's negative about vanden Heuvel. Mike's noted at his site that last Sunday's editorial ("Editorial: Ehren Watada stands and independent media heads for the bathrooms") took forever to write and noted that one of the problems was that a post criticized at the end was written by Katrina vanden Heuvel. C.I.'s attitude was "The Nation" covered it. There was no need to name her, she is the magazine.
My comments about her not getting a pass because she's a woman is also a topic I've long discussed with C.I. who really has to feel someone's gone beyond the point of no return to start criticizing them at The Common Ills. For instance, "Truth" was boring the hell out of the community for some time and also ticking many members off. It was only when she voiced support for curbs on reproductive rights that C.I. weighed in. C.I. is loathe to crticize a woman and that's wonderful and I have so much respect for that. I share it to a degree. But, like C.I., I have my point where someone's crossed the line far enough that I will speak out and speak up.
So for the ones who wondered if there was some problem resulting from my post (the ones who didn't write in, Sunny responded for me to everyone who wrote in Thursday), there wasn't.
I do support that attitude but, and this is true of C.I. and I would assume everyone who feels the same, at some point it needs calling out. For all of us, the point will be different. But it's there and when it's reached, you either continue to bite your tongue or you speak out.
(I did however wonder, when C.I. noted the stomach pains on Friday morning, if I'd caused stress.)
This is an e-mail from Declaration of Peace that Mike and I are both posting:
The DECLARATION of PEACE
Defund the War and Declare Peace!
Nationwide Nonviolent Civil DisobedienceTo End the Deepening U.S. Quagmire in Iraq
"There is nothing wrong with a traffic law which says you have to stop for a red light. But when a fire is raging, the fire truck goes right through that red light ... Massive civil disobedience is a strategy for social change which is at least as forceful as an ambulance with its siren on full." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
As the violence in Iraq escalates, The Declaration of Peace is organizing nonviolent civil disobedience -- and other forms of powerful and dramatic peacemaking -- to urge the nation and its leaders to end the U.S. quagmire there. We invite people everywhere to respond to this growing emergency by participating in this campaign of conscience and nonviolent action to defund the war, to support the troops by bringing them home, and to launch a comprehensive Peace process. (See the full text of the Declaration of Peace Call for Nonviolent Civil Disobedience at: http://declarationofpeace.org/a-call-for-nonviolent-civil-disobedience )
Between now and mid-March -- the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- The Declaration of Peace will organize visits to Congressional offices, phone and email campaigns, rallies and vigils, town hall meetings, and media outreach to call on all U.S. policymakers to take these steps for Peace. If the Bush Administration and the new Congress fail to carry out its clear mandate for peace, we will be led by conscience to respond to this growing emergency with dramatic and creative forms of peaceful resistance -- including nonviolent civil disobedience -- across the country, March 16-19, 2007.
We invite you and your organization to organize a peaceful and powerful civil disobedience witness in mid-March.
Please let us know what you are planning by emailing: training@declarepeace.org
Next Steps
In preparing for the March 16-19 Actions, The Declaration of Peace is organizing:
• A National Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Organizing Conference Call on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. Please join us to learn more, to share plans, and to offer one another support.
If you want to join the conference call, contact us at: training@declarepeace.org
• A National Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Organizing Meeting onSunday, January 28, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern, for those attending United for Peace and Justice's March on Washington and Lobby Day (January 27-29). Location: Bethesda Chevy-Chase High School 4301 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland Let us know if you will be attending: training@declarepeace.org
• A National Week of Nonviolent Action Training: February 17-25, 2007. Contact us to organize a Nonviolence Training session: training@declarepeace.org
For more information about this Campaign, visit: http://www.DeclarationofPeace.org
Okay, earlier this week, I noted the protests at Congressional offices. If that wasn't your thing, there's something above that you can do. If that's not your thing, then you need figure out what is because you need to be making your voice heard. The war will keep dragging on until the leaders grasp that the American people will not stand for it.
That's true of any issue and one of the few positives about the Vietnam era is that we were active as a people on the issue of the war, to be sure, but on others as well. That's how Nixon was forced to resign, that's why we ended up with a more open government.
If I can share anything to anyone younger it would be: That time, that post-period when the war ends, you'll be encouraged to go home and live in a daze. You'll be lulled into a false sense of security, a feeling that "We did it, we ended the war, Congress knows they have to listen to the people." They don't "know" that. They have to be reminded of it constantly. Kat and I have talked about this and how, on a smaller scale, you can see it in the early half of the 90s, another moment for change. Those moments are precious and people need to seize them.
I do think we are encouraged by the media and by society at large not to be involved, not to care. Kat's got a theory about how grunge was co-opted into psuedo grunge and how it was co-opted into meaninglessness. I agree with her points, but it's her theory, so I give her credit for it. But that moment, when change seemed so possible -- healthcare, gay rights, etc. -- passed very quickly. I think my generation saw Nixon resign, the war finally end (after he was out of office), Congressional investigations and all these signs that the system was alive and well and motivated to speak to the general welfare. Then, at the end of 1980, Ronald Reagan would be elected and a wholesale assault on everything that had been accomplished would begin -- would begin openly.
If the period after we end the war echoes earlier periods, we'll see 'jokes' about people who were involved. Songs, movies, standup, where that's mocked and we're all encouraged to return to being consumers. Passive consumers, at that. I don't know that you can fight that response or overcome it. It may just be the natural swing of the pendulum. However, the time after will be wide open and since a backlash is entirely positive, people should be making brave demands. Not asking for band aids, but asking for real progress. It's a moment and you can make the most of it or you can do nothing with it. So just keep that in mind.
When you read the snapshot below, keep in mind that Anthony Arnove is beginning a book tour (the dates are listed). That's a voice you should be embracing. Howard Zinn is one of my favorites (he's quoted in the snapshot) and I think that's true of many people my age on the left. Anthony Arnove, whose age I don't know, is a voice that I've discovered during this war. Like Naomi Klein, his is a name to answer when people wonder where the brave truth tellers of today are? If there are more than the usual number of typos in my post, forgive me. The hour is late. I hope everyone already read "Kat's Korner: Carly Simon, Into the Real," by the way. That and Lizzie West's I Pledge Allegiance To Myself are the two CDs I'm listening to the most these days. (Carly Simon's Into White, being the other one.)
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, January 12, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; after the Bully Boy's Wednesday speech offering no 'benchmarks,' US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reveleals the 'plan' also offers no timetable; Anthony Arnove and Howard Zinn talk the importance of withdrawal and combat the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk; US war resister Ehren Watada prepares for a public speech this weekend; and Antoni Juhasz addresses what an escalation means for US troops.
Today on KPFA's The Morning Show, Andrea Lewis spoke with Anthony Arnove and Howard Zinn about Iraq and comparisons to Bully Boy's dreamed of escalation in Iraq to Vietnam. Zinn felt it was very important to note that the Iraqi people do not want US forces in their country. On the 'new' 'plan' and it's talk up as well as the way Iraq is addressed, Howard Zinn pointed out:
When they talk about making a difference, they keep using the words 'victory' and 'success' and how do we 'win'? It seems to me this is missing a very, very critical point, Iraq is not our country to 'win' -- to be successful in, to be victorious in. We simply don't belong there. And Bush's 'surge' is exactly the opposite of what we need to do. Well Anthony's book Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal lays out the argument for the simple statement that I'm making now, that instead of surging in Iraq, we should be withdrawing as fast as we can from Iraq. And not only that, we should be questioning the larger principle involved and that is should the United States be sending troops anywhere in the world -- whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else -- should we think we could solve any problems with military solutions? And, in fact, is this the motive of the administration to solve problems for the people of these other countries? Iraqis don't want us in Iraq, that's clear. The American people don't want us in Iraq. Even the Iraqi government, which was really put in in a kind of fake election with American control excercise, even the Iraqi government is very embarrassed by the idea of having more American troops in Iraq. So what Bush is proposing is a violation not only of self-determination of Iraqis and the will of the American people and world opinion, it's a continution of the whole idea of US military dominace in the world which we should do everything we can to bring to an end.
Andrea Lewis asked about the statements that if the US pulls out it will lead to chaos in Iraq.
Anthony Arnove: I think we have to acknowledge that people who raise that point raise it two different ways. The cynical group of people who make that argument, pundits, politicans, to say we can never pull out, to justify the US remaining as an occupying power in Iraq for years to come, to justify setting up military bases, permanent bases, in Iraq, to justify the role that the United States wants to play in Iraq projecting its power in the entire Middle East and globally, as Howard mentioned. But then there's also decent people who have a concern for the consequences of the Iraqi people. And I think we have to acknowledge their fears and their concerns for what would happen to Iraq? And we're not saying abandon the Iraqi people -- "This is some kind of isolationist position, we don't care what happens to them." We're saying the opposite. Our point is that every day that the United States continues in Iraq as an unwanted, foreign, occupying power, it makes the situation worse for ordinary Iraqis. It's not ending sectarian conflict in Iraq, it's actually fueling sectarian conflict. It's not ending violence, it's actually fueling violence. The United States occupation is the greatest source of instability in the country. And after every benchmark that we've been told would change the situation there --elections, the constitution, the capture of Saddam Hussein, the execution of Saddam Hussein -- things just get worse. Iraq right now is the world's largest refugee crises in the world. Inflation has skyrocketed, unemployment has skyrocketed, there's less electricty, less safe drinking water, less security for Iraqis which is why poll after poll shows that that they say their life is getting worse and they want the United States to leave and so if we claim that we're bringing democracy well democracy would dictate that we let the Iraqi people determine their own future. But we should support them. We should pay reperations. We owe them a tremends debt, not just for the harm caused by the occupation, but all of the years before that the United States imposed sanctions on the country and, before that, supported Saddam Hussein as he carried out his worst crimes.
Zinn discussed how the same arguments for the US remaining in Iraq were the ones his book Vietnam: The Logic for Withdrawal were "greeted with the same claims that are made today" -- e.g. chaos, violence, civil war in Vietnam. "The truth is that we were creating the chaos," observed Zinn. Anthony Arnove's book, Iraq: The Logic for Withdrawal, has just been released in paperback and he will be appearing on the following dates:
January 17, 7 pm,
New York, NY (with Michael Schwartz)
16 Beaver
http://www.16beavergroup.org/monday/
January 20, 7 pm,
Chicago, IL (with Jeff Engelhardt)
University of Illinois-Chicago
Contact: Adam Turl, 773-567-0936, adamcturl@yahoo.com
January 27, 5 pm,
Washington, DC (with Kelly Dougherty)
Busboys and Poets
http://www.busboysandpoets.com/blog_events.htm
February 1, 7:30 pm,
Pasadena, CA
Voices of a People's History of the United States
with Mark Ruffalo, Q'Orianka Kilcher, Benjamin Bratt, Marisa Tomei, Josh Brolin, and Alfre Woodard.
All Saints Episcopal Church
http://www.icujp.org
Appearing as part of a panel discussion yesterday on Kris Welch's program, KPFA's Living Room , Antonia Juhasz (author of The BU$H Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time) noted two points regarding the US troops in Iraq. First, she noted, "On this issue of the troops increase . . . Bush wanted significantly more troops but the military said we don't have anywhere to get them for you, there aren't anymore troops. So the troops that are the addition of the 20,000 is simply going to be extending the tours of troops that are there speeding up the redeployment of troops that have already served. We have to be really clear about who the soldiers are that are part of this increase."
She then spoke of what their role would be and what is wanted from Iraq.
Antonia Juhasz: This is . . . the critical moment to make our demands very, very clear to the Democrats and one of those demands has to explicity be that this is a war for oil that cannot be allowed to continue and that what the administration is hoping for is that it will suceed in its economic transformation of Iraq which at this point has nearly reached fruition -- which is a new law developed way before the war in the US State Department, then pushed by US corporations, pushed by the successive appointed governments of Iraq by the US government following the invasion -- for a new law that is now, the al-Maliki govenrmenet has now said that it will put this new law forward to the Iraqi parliament that creates an unprecedented oil victory in Iraq. So what it does is give the government of Iraq nominal control and ownership of their oil but every function of the oil industry would then be privatized and turned over to foreign companies and the foreign companies would get a form of contract called a Production Sharing Agreement which is not used anywhere in the Middle East not used anywhere in oil rich countries in fact that gives first 30 years, 30 year contract, and then according to the UK Independent, that the intial contract would give 75% of initial profits to the private companies leaving only 25% for the Iraqis. [. . .] Iraq can best be understood as a pimple of oil that has yet to be plucked. It has certainly the second largest oil reserves in the world possibly larger. It has 80 known oil fields but only 17 have even begun to be developed. It is those undeveloped oil fields which are all completely within the realm of the new law and then the debate, that the president mentioned in his speech, is over a constitutional amendment to address the existing fields, which are now divided between the Shia and the Kurds in the north and the south, and to bring the control of the existing fields back into the central gover of al-Maliki. And what I believe is that the Bush administration is going to hold onto the occupation and make it larger and make it as big as he can until the law passes and US companies sign contracts and then they have to get work. And they need a security force to do that and that is our troops.
While Juhasz addressed the realities of US troops in Iraq, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, testifying before the US Senate Armed Service Committee, revealed a reality of his own. BBC reports that Gates, speaking of Bully Boy's new 'plan' for Iraq, stated that there was no timetable for the puppet government to achieve any of the non-defined benchmarks. Susan Cornwell and Kristin Roberts (Reuters) observe that Gates threw out the usual sop of troop withdrawal on the conditional 'if' (always the same 'if' -- if a corner is turned and it never is) and they write that "Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who heads a House panel overseeing defense spending, said he would try to attach restrictions to a $100 billion 'emergency' request for new war money that Bush will request in February. Those restrictions could include a prohibition on spending money for the additional troops, Murtha said. They could also include immediately closing Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad and the Guantanamo Bay detention center at a U.S. base in Cuba."
Yesterday, US military forces stormed an Iranian diplomatic consulate and arrested six diplomatic staff. The Kurdish government in northern Iraq responded by insisting that diplomatic staff be released immediately (Iran has long had a consulate in Iraq's Kurdish territory). KUNA reports that the US, via White House flack Tony Snow, continues to dismiss concerns and attempt to downgrade a recognized diplomatic headquarters while the Foreign Minister of Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, continues to state that it was a consulate and that, in addition, "U.S. forces tried to seize more people at the airport in Irbil, 220 miles north of Baghdad, prompting a confrontation with Kurdish troops guarding the facility that was resolved without casualties. " The BBC notes that the consulate has been "operating for years" and the Mikhail Kamyin ("Russing foreign ministry spokesman") declared, "It is absolutely unacceptable for troops to storm the consular offices of a foreign state on the territory of another state . . . It is also not clear how this fits in with American statements that Washington respects the sovereignty of Iraq."
In other Iraq news . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that, near Baquba, a mortar attack killed "one primary school teacher and one student," while a child was killed in Muqdadiyah by an IED and, in Baquba, an Iraqi soldier was killed by a bomb and three more wounded.
Shootings?
Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that in the Diyala Province, "American forces killed a woman and a child and injured another woman with another child (all from the same family)" while 4 Shi'ites were shot dead "near ARAB SHOKA area near hibhib area in khalis town" as well as their driver.
Corpses?
Reuters notes that 10 corpses were discovered in Baghdad, seven in Mosul, three in Basmaia.
Turning to news of war resistance, Ehren Watada became the first officer (June 2006) to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq and now faces a February 5th court-martial. He is scheduled to speak tomorrow at the Coupeville Recreation Hall, 901 NW Alexander ST., Whidbey Island in Coupeville, Washington at 1:00 pm. Also tomorrow, there will be a benefit performance for him Corvallis, OR when Crooked Kate and the Childers-Carson Duo take the stage of the Sunnyside-Up (116 N.W. Third St.) at six pm. In addition, later this month A Citizens' Hearings is being convened January 20-22 at Evergreen State College to address the illegality of the war. In addition, Iraq Veterans Against the War are staging Camp Resistance in support of Watada. Writing at the blog they've set up for Camp Resistance, dockyne reports:
www.kboo.fm The oldest public radio station in the states hosted IVAW Deployed and had Darrell [Anderson] and Dennis [Kyne] on Friday morning for one hour and a half. Discussing Darrell's experience in this illegal war and his 18 months in exile to Canada, as well as the fact that thousands of other soldiers are refusing to deploy to this illegal war. Hosted by Ani and Melody on their weekly progam (7:30-9 am) Absolutly revolting.
This interview was in depth...it covered the draft, the anti war movement, depleted uranium and allowed multiple callers to learn about the Gulf War, which the VA handbook of benefits states began on 2 Aug 1990 and will end on a date to be determined by congress. When will they end it? We discussed the court martials of Suzanne Swift and Ehren Watada...and the support from Portland, Oregon is massive. Darrell stated, "this is the most radical community I have been too."
Dennis Kyne, writing at U.N. Observer, gives the details on Camp Resistance:
Please support this move....as troops are gathering to support Ehren Watada in his stand against the lies that have gained our nation nothing more than death and despise. Purple Heart, 'Winner' Darrell Anderson returned from 18 months in hiding when he heard that Lt. Watada had refused to deploy. Darrell Anderson would have deployed to his third tour had he not gone north. Anderson asked me to get on the ( http://www.ivawdeployed.org ) with him and get to Fort Lewis to open up Camp RESISTANCE!!!
We are here, in the mud. It is not warm here
...nor dry
.....however, you should stand with us
....in support of a man who stands up against the military mahine and a nation of millions who don't have the foggiest notion that our troops do not want to serve in this war. Lt. Watada is speaking for thousands of enlisted soldiers like Darrell Anderson and myself, a fifteen year veteran of the Army. Watada is a true leader.....leading and doing
....he knows he should never ask enlisted soldiers to do things he would never do ....that is part of the requirement. NEVER ask nor order your troops to do things that you wouldn't do. There are more violators of this rule in the military now, than ever (or at least in my 15 years.) Lt. Watada is not one of them
...and with that, the soldiers, who have always followed good leaders
....will follow Lt. Watada.. Mike, Damon, Ethan and I, slept on the rig last night
...it was night one of Camp RESISTANCE!!!There is a RESISTANCE!!! going on. Thousands of troops are refusing to deploy
....please let everyone know we are here
.....working from the wi fi hot spot, let them know they should stand here too. If not for a month as we will, than for a day or even an hour. We are at off ramp 119, gates of Fort Lewis.
We are meeting up at the gates of Fort lewis to support the Lt. Why? We have had enough
...we want the war to stop....we want the government to stop using the troops as pawns in their game. If you know of a veteran who is opposed to this war, please help them get here....if you are ok with the weather, please get here also.
I, personally, will always think it an honor and a privilege to have served the United States people
...I know Ehren does too. It is with that same pride and honor that I, personally, ask you to do something for this man
....who has, without question stood, with more integrity in his little pinky, than most of these Generals have in their entire skin. I am honored to know his family, they are a wonderful display of family values
...something we don't see a lot of.
To support him
.... ( http://www.thankyoult.org ) you will find the news to follow the days up to the trial......
Meanwhile, John Powell writes to the Capital Times to weigh in on the argument that Watada signed a contract and any responsibilities he had for war ended right there: "Perhaps Piek has never served in the military, but I remember the oath I took when I was inducted into the Army as a lowly buck private in 1968. The oath for soldiers is virtually the same as the oath taken by the president of the United States and every other official of every level of government in the country: an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in that oath about obeying orders. In fact, the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice make it clear that a soldier's duty is to disobey illegal orders. Watada alleges that the Iraq war is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, and that he is duty-bound to refuse to serve in it. This should be the issue - not whether he refused to obey orders (clearly he did), but whether those orders were legal."
Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson (noted abovein the Camp Resistance post), Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Finally, on yesterday's KPFA's Flashpoints, Dennis Bernstein provided military families with the opportunity to weigh in on Bully Boy's announced intent to escalate. This included a couple with five children and grandchildren serving in the military who ask that people write Congress and say "no" to the escalation. In addition to utilizing either previous link for an archived broadcast, Rebecca wrote about the broadcast yesterday.
iraq
ehren watada
kpfa
the morning show
anthony arnove
howard zinn
antonia juhasz
living room
kris welch
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
flashpoints
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
How The Nation isn't cutting it
Okay, we're diving in right in tonight because I saw something online at lunch, actually, Sunny showed it to me, and I phoned C.I. to ask, "What is this nonsense?"
It's "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel from her Editor's Cut blog at The Nation. Follow along, kids, and let's see what we learn. She's addressing escalation which is a worthy topic so, so far, so good.
That takes about a paragraph and then she's providing examples.
First up, John Murtha. Let me repeat, John Murtha, the Democrat Congress member. Apparently the magazine's decided they like Murtha again . . . after attacking him throughout November when he was about to be made House Majority Leader, second in charge after Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In fact, Murtha was Pelosi's pick. But, as you probably remember, a character assassination was launched on Murtha and the House Majority Leader is a wishy-washy, spineless War cheerleader. So forgive me, after all the slam pieces on Murtha, for not being thrilled that in January, when it's no help to him at all, the editor (and publisher) of one of the magazines that especially went out of their way to attack him, now wants to give him a "shout out."
Where was The Nation when Murtha (and, in fact, the nation) needed them? Oh, that's right, they were sharpening their knives and driving them through his back.
Then it's time for shout outs to James McGovern and Dennis Kucinich. Enjoy that while you can because if 2003-2004 was any indication, 2007 is the only time Kucinich's presidential campaign will get any attention.
Then, another paragraph means another shout out. Ted Kennedy. Russ Feingold. Someone read their morning paper.
Here's where I really get ticked off. It's time for a shout out and she goes with the petition Appel for Redress. The Nation also ran a cover story on the petition. Petitions are apparently easier to cover than war resisters. This would have been the time, this post, for vanden Heuvel to mention a war resister, any war resister. But, like the magazine she steers, she can't bring herself to do so.
Now The Nation did run a sidebar, not an article, finally, in 2007, on Ehren Watada. But before you got to that page, you came across the magazine's first mention of Watada, where he was called a coward. Who is the coward? I think it's a magazine called The Nation.
Then it's time for her to pretend like she was around during Vietnam by shout-out to George McGovern. Then a paragraph on Win Without War, then on a group of organizations -- don't look for CODEPINK, remember the magazine elected to lecture/hector them and, of course, Katha Pollitt played dumb for a column as well when she pretended not to grasp why CODEPINK would birddog Hillary Clinton. (She played dumb, as Trina noted, when she decided to respond to a letter calling her out on that as well.) CODEPINK appears to have rubbed The Nation the wrong way because while the magazine was happy to give Hillary Clinton a pass on the war, CODEPINK wasn't. Other organizations get listed.
But the embarrassing silence on war resisters is what ticked me off.
I told C.I., who likes Katrina vanden Heuvel, that I wasn't going to be silent on this. (To C.I.'s credit, a heads up was noted in the snapshot today.) I'm tired of this nonsense.
This is exactly why I never give money to independent media. Being a 'trust fund baby,' I'm happy to open my checkbook for any charity I believe in but I don't support independent media (other than pledges for radio) and it is because I've lived long enough to see them repeatedly betray their audience over and over.
(The exception to that rule is if C.I. were to ask me to donate. In which case, my response would be, "How much and who do I make it out to?" That's due to the fact that we both donate to organizations that the other believes in and have for years.)
Now in 2004, I thought maybe the pattern was being broken. A war was raging but Naomi Klein's hard hitting pieces (on James Baker and on Mad Maddie Albright) ran in the paper. Klein was gone for most, if not all, of 2006 (she was finishing her book). In addition, Katha Pollitt, who is generaly a highly observant writer, was gone for a good chunk of the year (also working on her book). What did we see?
There's this idea that The Nation shouldn't be criticized because a woman is now in charge. (Katrina vanden Heuvel is not the first woman to run the magazine.) I agree with that if I'm seeing some effort to give women a chance but, as anyone who paid attention in 2006 noticed, women were hardly ever in the magazine. Possibly there were none willing to play party hacks who churned out one bad piece of journalism after another on how 'neat' whatever Democratic flavor of the month was?
My point here is that if vanden Heuvel expected leeway, she needed to do something to earn it. She didn't. With Pollitt and Klein on leave, women all but vanished from the magazine. At the same time, a whole crop of young males (White) popped up in the pages, issue after issue.
I think a magazine reflects the editor and/or publisher. In the case of The Nation, that would be Katrina vanden Heuvel. What do we have to show for it?
No woman columnist has been added -- not even while Klein and Pollitt were on leave. No effort appears to have been made (if it was, it was a failure because it produced no results) to give women an equal footing in terms of pieces assigned and/or published. So I don't buy the idea that because she's a woman, I need to give her a pass.
She's been in charge for some time now. I'm not going to even try to remember the announcement because she was in charge before the announcement (and when ___ slid over to CJR, that should have been noted immediately and not popping up to the magazine and CJR's embarrassment at right-wing blogs). She's had more than enough time to put her stamp on the magazine.
Either she's unable to do so or the magazine as it exists today is her vision of a weekly. (Or sometime weekly.) In which case, let me say loudly, her work doesn't cut it. Her limited vision doesn't cut it. The shameful silence on war resisters (which even people with the magazine complain about) doesn't cut it.
The mainstreaming of the magazine doesn't cut it. That includes the topics covered in articles and the way subjects are mainstreamed (some are made more liberal, more often they're made out to be far less liberal and come off like they just woke up the day before the interview and had a hint of liberalism in them). (I am biting my tongue on that but I'll assume many will get the point rather loudly.)
Like Rebecca, I think the "Sweet Victories" posts have been one embarrassment after another. That would be true regardless of who wrote them (or co-wrote them) but when it's coming from the editor and publisher, let me be clear on this, Marianne Williamson has that market covered. Others would be well advised to leave the 'Return to Love' pieces to her.
'Inspirational' is better left to a children's magazine and not a political weekly.
While the nation has fallen appart, vanden Heuvel has panned for fool's gold finding one reason to take comfort after another. Less reassurance of victories and hard hitting coverage of realities is what I expect from a political magazine and the editor of one.
I have had it with the magazine's silence on war resisters. The refusal to cover them, the refusal to take a stand. That's coming straight from the top and I will call Katrina vanden Heuvel out on it.
I will do because it's embarrassing and it's shameful. I will also do so because I knew her grandfather and he did give a damn about war resisters. I do not know the adult vanden Heuvel and only encountered the tot a few times. I wasn't impressed nor, I'm sure, was the tot impressed with me.
But when she became editor and then editor and publisher, I had some modest hopes for the magazine. They haven't been met. The magazine is an embarrassment that can't stop sniffing the crotches of any Democrat in office while ignoring serious problems in the country and in the world. The Nation should be leading and it's not even following. That's a huge embarrassment for everyone on the left and it's time the editor was called out on that.
The grandfather? Anytime C.I. and I encountered him, his first question was always what "cause" were we working on and he wasn't just interested in conversation, he would also donate money. While it's not her job to live up to her grandfather's view of the world, the fact that the magazine has so little of a view of the world (beyond vote! sign a petition!) is especially sad.
I'm not a huge fan of David Corn's but he does try to seriously address the war and I do read his columns. I read Katha Pollitt's and I can think of only two, out of years of reading, where I disagreed strongly with her. Patricia J. Williams is always worth reading. Otherwise?
Well, the magazine has what it bills as a "peace columnist" but he doesn't cover the peace movement. He doesn't cover demonstrations or oganizations. When Pollitt and Klein were both on leave, it would have been the perfect time to bring in a peace columnist who covered the peace movement. That didn't happen.
Time and again what needs to happen doesn't happen. Whether it's the rape and murder of Abeer or any other story that requires a strong response from the left, The Nation is silent. Lynne Stewart could have been hanged and I doubt seriously she would have gotten anymore than the very mild attention her case received (and received only at the start). A community member wrote a letter to The Nation that I doubt they'll publish. (It ran in the gina & krista round-robin and I will post it here if it doesn't show up in the magazine.) But it pefectly captured the abdication that has been The Nation.
So am I wrong? As C.I. would say, "I'd love to be proved wrong." I'd loveto have Sunny tell me tomorrow at work that she surfed the site and Katrina vanden Heuvel (finally) weighed in on war resisters. But throughout 2006 it hasn't happened and 2007 may have provided Watada as a sidebar but, before you could turn to that page, you first had to read that he was a coward. That's not cutting it. Until it does, I will call out the magazine and I will call out Katrina vanden Heuvel.
I've omitted any mention of Alexander Cockburn here because, as a CounterPunch reader, I see him as more of a part of that publication. When I was on the phone with C.I., the snapshot was being worked on and C.I. told me about the Ivan Brobeck article. As we both know, and I'll assume anyone reading does, CounterPunch has regularly covered war resisters, it's found time for the peace movement. Alexander Cockburn may have a column in The Nation but he's all CounterPunch in my mind. (Which I obviously find to be a superior magazine.)
The silence from The Nation, the wasting everyone's time, is hurting the movement. If Katrina vanden Heuvel wanted to turn the magazine into American Progress with a slight edge, congratulations to her because she has succeeded.
As bad as I can remember The Nation being over the years, I don't think it's ever been this bad. (A sentiment Ruth agrees with me on.) It's not cutting it and I'm not going to be silent or avoid calling out those responsible.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 10, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq with the discovery of over 70 corpses reported, Bully Boy goes primetime (you bought a flat screen for that?), the US military announces the deaths of three more US troops, US war resisters get attention (no, not from The Nation), and BuzzFlash interviews activist and author Antonia Juhasz.
Starting with the speech to get it out of the way. Later today (9:00 pm EST, 8:00 pm Central and 6:00 pm PST), Bully Boy will be making a speech where he will announce his intent to send more US troops into his illegal war despite having declared, on May 1, 2003, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Three years and eight months later, Bully Boy now wants to send more troops to Iraq. As Danny Schechter (News Dissector) wrote, "Today is the day when the Bush Administration takes its next big shot like some schoolyard bully determined that his way is the only way."
3018 US troops have died in Iraq and Bully Boy now wants to send more troops. Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks (Washington Post) reported today that when Bully Boy met with Nouri al-Maliki (finally) in Jordan, "Maliki did not ask for more American troops as part of a new Baghdad security plan he presented to Bush, U.S. officials said. Maliki's idea was to lower the U.S. profile, not raise it." But now Bully Boy wants to send more US troops.
Iraqis want foreign troops out of their country, as polls have consistently demonstrated, and The Lancet study estimated over 655,000 Iraqis have lost their lives during the illegal war. Now Bully Boy wants to send more troops.
On Democracy Now! today, one Iraqi, Abu Haider, voiced his opinion, "All the stances of America are indications of negative positions towards society and its citizens.Their decisions and credibility are negative. They damaged this country. They said that they are here to spread freedom and democracy in Iraqi society but they did nothing but bring terrorism.” Now Bully Boy wants to send more troops. Abu Haider lives in Baghdad where most of the escalated troops will go (some, about a fifth, will also go to Al-Anbar Province).
The BBC World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds notes how the 'fresh start' (that's what the US administration is calling it) "has echoes of Vietnam in the belief that another push will get the job done" and notes five specific echoes -- "the realisation in Washington that it is not winning"; "trying to hand over responsibility to the local government in the midst of battle, not after it"; "belief by the US administration that more troops are an important part of the answer"; "opposite belief by others that the enterprise cannot work and that disengagement must be sought"; and ""in Vietnam too the president consulted and outside group -- they were called the Wise Men and, like the Iraq Study group, they too urged a policy designed to lead to withdrawal."
Speaking yesterday on The KPFA Evening News, Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights and co-host of WBAI's Law and Disorder) declared, "Basically we can look at this in a few ways. One is you [Congress] can cut off the funding and that they have a constitutional right to do. Secondly, they could pass a resolution under the war powers resolution that repeals the authorization to use force in Iraq I think [Ted] Kennedy's argument is something. There better argument in Congress is to say 'We repeal the Iraq War Resolution' -- that would take away the president's authority. So Congress has remedies here. The question is are the Democrats going to be willing to stand up and take them or are they just going to talk? Kennedy, obviously, is going to do more than talk."
Ratner was referring to US Senator Edward Kennedy's speech to the National Press Club yesterday (see yesterday's snapshot) where Kennedy called the illegal war in Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam" and spoke of "introducing legislation to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. My bill say that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation, unless and until Congress approves the President's plan." The speech can be found in full in Kate Phillip's blog post at the New York Times and Kathy Kiely's USA Today report on the speech contains links to the audio and video of it.
What Micheal Ratner was referring when he noted a second option the US Congress had is something that another Michael apparently slept through (Michael Gordon of the New York Times), the reaction to Tricky Dick's announcement that he would bomb Cambodia led to a Senate vote to repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was followed by House of Representatives doing the same.
As Kennedy and other grown ups, including US House Rep. and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, attempt to address Bully Boy's non-stop, illegal war of choice, Ron Elving (NPR) observes that: "Anti-war activists have gained ground -- both at the polls and in the polls -- over the past two months. A new Democratic majority is in place in Congress and surveys find well over half the public now wants to get the United States out of Iraq. Not one American in five supports the idea of sending more troops to fight there. Yet, before this month is over, opponents of the war will get a double does of disappointment" -- the first being Bully Boy's speech today and the second being, according to Elving, will be "the Democrats, empowered as the majority in House and Senate by dint of those November elections, will not be able to stop the greater troop committment."
Tom Hayden (Common Dreams) observes: "If and when the 20,000 Americans plunge into Baghdad neighborhoods, there will be dramatic television coverage of soldiers at risk. It is possible, though far from easy, to 'stabilize' a Baghdad neighborhood for several months or one year, carrying the surge into the next presidential cycle. The strategy fits the polling data showing only 21 percent of Americans favor immediate withdrawal, while the moderate middle might be open to an undefined new strategy if convinced it will shorten the war and bring the troops home. More likely, the ranks of the peace movement are likely to swell with people angry over the perceived betrayal by Bush of the November voter mandate. A failure by majority Democrats to prevent the escalation will convince more people to take to the streets or look to 2008 for a fix."
From CODEPINK:
America Says NO Surge! President Bush is expected to give his "new direction in Iraq" speech this Wednesday, January 10th -- he wants to increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. We have to make it clear that Americans do NOT want more troops in Iraq and we have to act fast! True Majority has created a coalition called AMERICA SAYS NO. We will take to the streets together after Bush makes his expected call for escalation in Iraq. We need to stop this "surge" with a stronger surge of protest. Can you join an event this week and help stop the surge? Click here to find an event near you and if you can't find one create your own. Read our latest action alert for more details.
Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) speaks with US soldiers who, don't tell Bully Boy, don't see escalation as an answer in Iraq. Those who would like to listen to the Bully Boy's speech tonight or, at least, to hear an intelligent discussion of it, KPFA and WBAI will be carrying it live with Larry Bensky offering analysis and discussion with various guests which you can listen to online (free of charge, no quiz to take or membership to apply for). For those looking for something else to listen to . . .
In fact, the dispassionate tone of the "debate" about Iraq in The New York Times and on every television screen seems psychotically remote from the reality of what will happen if war actually occurs. We are talking about raining death down on human beings, about thousands and thousands of howling wounded human beings, dismembered corpses in pools of blood. Is this one of the "lessons of Vietnam" that people have learned--that the immorality of this unspeakable murdering must never be mentioned? That the discussion of murder must never mention murder, and that even the critics of murder must always criticize it because it turns out not to be in our own best interest? Must these critics always say that the murders would come at too high a price for us, would be too expensive, would unbalance the budget, hurt the economy, cause us to stint on domestic priorities; that it would lose us our friends, that it would create new enemies? Can we never say that this butchering of human beings is horrifying and wrong?
That is from Wallace Shawn's Fragments from a Diary (written in 2003) and was among the pieces performed on WBAI's Theater Special: THAW ON THE AIR which broadcast Monday night and which is now in the WBAI archives (for a limited time) -- Jonah tells us it's filed under "Home Fries," Monday, January 8th, 9:00 pm. Those interested in the broadcast but unable to listen can check out Rebecca's report on it.
Turning to news of war resistance, Robert Fantina (CounterPunch) writes of Ivan Brobeck. Yes, Ivan Brobeck -- the war resister independent media forgot. Or those who keep up. The Full Brobeck is a term the community uses to note what passes for coverage of war resisters in independent media -- so named when only KPFA's Flashpoints covered Brobeck when he returned to the US from Canada to turn himself on election day (November 6, 2006 -- day before the election -- is when the interview conducted by Nora Barrows-Friedman aired). Robert Fantina (CounterPunch) writes: "Lance Corporal Ivan Brobeck, Sergeant Ricky Clousing, Sergeant Kevin Benderman, Sergeant Camilo Mejia: each a veteran of the Iraq war, and each charged with desertion. Mr. Benderman, Mr. Mejia and Mr. Clousing were convicted, sentenced and have completed prison time. Mr. Brobeck is currently serving an 8-month sentence. Yet with government studies indicating that thousands of soldiers have deserted during the Iraq war, why are only a few charged, while so many others are basically ignored? This is not a new phenomenon. As communication has improved over the two centuries of America's life, the ability for war resisters to reach a wider audience has greatly increased. The four brave men listed above demonstrated their courage first on the battlefield. They then not only further showed their bravery by leaving the U.S. military -- a tremendously brave act in and of itself -- they went the additional step of speaking out publicly against the war. This, it seems, is what brought down the wrath of the U.S. government upon them."
In Peggy Got A Message For Me, From Jesus news: Wonderful article but can someone get it to The Nation -- with sections highlighted? ("Peggy Get . . ." line from Tori Amos' "Cooling" off To Venus And Back.) Elaine will be addressing that topic this evening at Like Maria Said Paz. That topic? The Nation's refusal to cover war resisters.
Meanwhile William Hughes (San Francisco Indymedia) reports that, in a recent speech, Daniel Ellsberg opposed the escalation option (that Bully Boy will be pimping in the Big Speech), opposed expanding the war and "lauded Lt. Ehren Watada for his principled stand against the Iraqi war." Ehren Watada is the first US officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Last week, a pre-trial hearing began which preceeds the planned February 5th court-martial. John Catalinotto (Workers World) reports that Camp Resistance is across from Fort Lewis (where Watada is stationed) and "plans to stay until the end of Lt. Watada's court-martial" while there will be "nationally coordinated demonstrations for Feb. 5, the day his court-martial is scheduled to open."
Information about Camp Resistance can be found in The Nation. Did you laugh at that idea? Me too. Seriously, information about Camp Resistance can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War which has a page for it and other actions entitled Iraq Veterans Against The War Deployed with photos and blog posts.
Watada and Brobeck are a part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Appeal for Redress is collecting signatures of active duty service members calling on Congress to bring the troops home -- the petition will be delivered to Congress next week (MLK day). [Yes, that is a federal holiday and, yes, Congress won't be in session.]
And remember that Lisa Brobeck is requesting people write her husband, war resister Ivan Brobeck, "so he is constantly reminded that he is not alone during this time in the brig and that he is supported in his brave and courages stand." The address:
LCPL Ivan S. Brobeck
MCB Quantico Brig
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, Virginia 22134
In Iraq today -- all was calm and peaceful -- or to judge by the US media it was. In
reality . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a car bombing in Mahmudiya that took one life and wounded three other people; a bombing in Tal Afar that killed the bomber, 4 other people and left 11 wounded; near Tal Afar, a bombing "killed a child and wounded three policemen and one civilian"; and a bombing in Kirkuk wounded three people. Abdelamir Hanun (AFP) reports four "wounded in two roadside bomb attacks" in Baghdad, "one of which also ruptured a water pipeline supplying the impoverished Shiite slum district of Sadr City." Mohhamed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the bomb that ruptured the water pipeline was on Al Kanat Street and that "the pipe was destroyed which led to the cut of the water supply to sadr city."
Shootings?
Abdelamir Hanun (AFP) reports: "Nine Iraqi Shiites coming home from Mecca after the annual hajj pilgrimage have been shot dead in cold blood by gunmen" amd also notes that "a woman and a male nurse" were shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Abdelamir Hanun (AFP) notes that 60 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes that 8 corpses were discovered in Mosul, 4 in Mahaweel, 4 corpses were discovered in Qaim, and 1 in Iskandariya. (That's a total of 77 corpses discovered today.)
Today, the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier assigned to 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, died Tuesday as a result of injuries sustained from a gunshot wound while conducting combat operations in Diyala Province." And they announced: "One Soldier assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group and One Soldier assigned to 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division died Tuesday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province."
Meanwhile, Ross Bynum (AP) reports that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division is preparing for their third deployment to Iraq in four years: "The 3rd Infantry, which has about 19,000 troops, is the first Army division to be tapped for a third deployment to the war. Barely a year has passed since its soldiers returned from their last yearlong rotation."
And the slaughter of Haifa Street continues (see yesterday's snapshot). Leila Fadel and Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) note that "residents from the predominantly Sunni Muslim area and Sunni leaders said the American forces had been duped by Iraq's Shiite-dominated security forces into participating in a plan to drive Sunnis from the area." CBS and AP note that "Haifa Street is a broad, two-lane thoroughfare that stretches northwest from the Green Zone through the heart of Baghdad along the Tigris river. Apartment buildings of up to ten sotries high line the street, with retail space on the ground level." AFP notes that, today, "troops were out in force on the streets and most residents stayed indoors" and, most importantly, that the assault took place approximately one mile from the Green Zone. Steve Negus (Financial Times of London) notes Haifa Street "is virtually adjacent to the heavily fortified Green Zone".
Turning to the US, BuzzFlash interviews Antonia Juhasz (author of THE BU$H AGENDA which they are offering as a premium) on the topic of the illegal war:
BuzzFlash: You're saying that the war in Iraq was as much economic invasion as it was a militarily one.
Antonia Juhasz: Yes, the two most important chapters of my book cover the economic invasion of Iraq and the Middle East trade area and point to what I think are the heart of the problems. The Bush Administration is pushing aggressively forward on rewriting Iraq's oil infrastructure to allow greater control and access to U.S. corporations for its oil under the ground, for exploration and production. I believe that's what's keeping the Bush Administration in Iraq and pointed towards having the United States military remain in Iraq.
Iraq isn't the end. One month after the invasion, the Bush Administration announced plans to expand the Middle East as a free trade area. That free trade pact is moving along quickly, with individual countries making deals with the U.S. out of fear of economic or military retribution. Included in those agreements are increased access to those countries' oil.
The Democratic Congress is going to have to be forced to address these free trade agendas, both in Iraq and across the Middle East, and to reject them. The occupation of Iraq has to end, but not just the military occupation, also the corporate occupation. The United States cannot use the stick of the war to press its own economic agenda across the Middle East. The results will be just as devastating to the rest of the Middle East as they have been in Iraq, and, of course, reverberate back to the United States.
FYI, A Citizens' Hearings is being convened January 20-22 at Evergreen State College in Tacoma, Washington and Antonia Juhasz will be among those participating.
Others include Ann Wright, Denis Halliday, Daniel Ellsberg, Nadia McCaffrey, Darrell Anderson.
Finally, Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) take a look at the attacks on media (government attacks) in Iraq noting that the "press freedom index of the watchdog Reporters Without Borders" is lower now than it was before the start of the illegal war, the banning of journalists, the expelling of outlets (such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya) and being targeted "for reproting the growing resistance to the occupation."
iraqkpfaantonia juhasz
ivan brobeckflashpointsnora barrows friedman
ehren watada
michael ratner
law and disorder
the washington postrobin wrightmichael abramowitzthomas e. ricks
wbaithawtheatres against war
the kpfa evening news
danny schechtertom hayden
buzzflashlarry bensky
john catalinotto
like maria said pazsex and politics and screeds and attitude
It's "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel from her Editor's Cut blog at The Nation. Follow along, kids, and let's see what we learn. She's addressing escalation which is a worthy topic so, so far, so good.
That takes about a paragraph and then she's providing examples.
First up, John Murtha. Let me repeat, John Murtha, the Democrat Congress member. Apparently the magazine's decided they like Murtha again . . . after attacking him throughout November when he was about to be made House Majority Leader, second in charge after Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In fact, Murtha was Pelosi's pick. But, as you probably remember, a character assassination was launched on Murtha and the House Majority Leader is a wishy-washy, spineless War cheerleader. So forgive me, after all the slam pieces on Murtha, for not being thrilled that in January, when it's no help to him at all, the editor (and publisher) of one of the magazines that especially went out of their way to attack him, now wants to give him a "shout out."
Where was The Nation when Murtha (and, in fact, the nation) needed them? Oh, that's right, they were sharpening their knives and driving them through his back.
Then it's time for shout outs to James McGovern and Dennis Kucinich. Enjoy that while you can because if 2003-2004 was any indication, 2007 is the only time Kucinich's presidential campaign will get any attention.
Then, another paragraph means another shout out. Ted Kennedy. Russ Feingold. Someone read their morning paper.
Here's where I really get ticked off. It's time for a shout out and she goes with the petition Appel for Redress. The Nation also ran a cover story on the petition. Petitions are apparently easier to cover than war resisters. This would have been the time, this post, for vanden Heuvel to mention a war resister, any war resister. But, like the magazine she steers, she can't bring herself to do so.
Now The Nation did run a sidebar, not an article, finally, in 2007, on Ehren Watada. But before you got to that page, you came across the magazine's first mention of Watada, where he was called a coward. Who is the coward? I think it's a magazine called The Nation.
Then it's time for her to pretend like she was around during Vietnam by shout-out to George McGovern. Then a paragraph on Win Without War, then on a group of organizations -- don't look for CODEPINK, remember the magazine elected to lecture/hector them and, of course, Katha Pollitt played dumb for a column as well when she pretended not to grasp why CODEPINK would birddog Hillary Clinton. (She played dumb, as Trina noted, when she decided to respond to a letter calling her out on that as well.) CODEPINK appears to have rubbed The Nation the wrong way because while the magazine was happy to give Hillary Clinton a pass on the war, CODEPINK wasn't. Other organizations get listed.
But the embarrassing silence on war resisters is what ticked me off.
I told C.I., who likes Katrina vanden Heuvel, that I wasn't going to be silent on this. (To C.I.'s credit, a heads up was noted in the snapshot today.) I'm tired of this nonsense.
This is exactly why I never give money to independent media. Being a 'trust fund baby,' I'm happy to open my checkbook for any charity I believe in but I don't support independent media (other than pledges for radio) and it is because I've lived long enough to see them repeatedly betray their audience over and over.
(The exception to that rule is if C.I. were to ask me to donate. In which case, my response would be, "How much and who do I make it out to?" That's due to the fact that we both donate to organizations that the other believes in and have for years.)
Now in 2004, I thought maybe the pattern was being broken. A war was raging but Naomi Klein's hard hitting pieces (on James Baker and on Mad Maddie Albright) ran in the paper. Klein was gone for most, if not all, of 2006 (she was finishing her book). In addition, Katha Pollitt, who is generaly a highly observant writer, was gone for a good chunk of the year (also working on her book). What did we see?
There's this idea that The Nation shouldn't be criticized because a woman is now in charge. (Katrina vanden Heuvel is not the first woman to run the magazine.) I agree with that if I'm seeing some effort to give women a chance but, as anyone who paid attention in 2006 noticed, women were hardly ever in the magazine. Possibly there were none willing to play party hacks who churned out one bad piece of journalism after another on how 'neat' whatever Democratic flavor of the month was?
My point here is that if vanden Heuvel expected leeway, she needed to do something to earn it. She didn't. With Pollitt and Klein on leave, women all but vanished from the magazine. At the same time, a whole crop of young males (White) popped up in the pages, issue after issue.
I think a magazine reflects the editor and/or publisher. In the case of The Nation, that would be Katrina vanden Heuvel. What do we have to show for it?
No woman columnist has been added -- not even while Klein and Pollitt were on leave. No effort appears to have been made (if it was, it was a failure because it produced no results) to give women an equal footing in terms of pieces assigned and/or published. So I don't buy the idea that because she's a woman, I need to give her a pass.
She's been in charge for some time now. I'm not going to even try to remember the announcement because she was in charge before the announcement (and when ___ slid over to CJR, that should have been noted immediately and not popping up to the magazine and CJR's embarrassment at right-wing blogs). She's had more than enough time to put her stamp on the magazine.
Either she's unable to do so or the magazine as it exists today is her vision of a weekly. (Or sometime weekly.) In which case, let me say loudly, her work doesn't cut it. Her limited vision doesn't cut it. The shameful silence on war resisters (which even people with the magazine complain about) doesn't cut it.
The mainstreaming of the magazine doesn't cut it. That includes the topics covered in articles and the way subjects are mainstreamed (some are made more liberal, more often they're made out to be far less liberal and come off like they just woke up the day before the interview and had a hint of liberalism in them). (I am biting my tongue on that but I'll assume many will get the point rather loudly.)
Like Rebecca, I think the "Sweet Victories" posts have been one embarrassment after another. That would be true regardless of who wrote them (or co-wrote them) but when it's coming from the editor and publisher, let me be clear on this, Marianne Williamson has that market covered. Others would be well advised to leave the 'Return to Love' pieces to her.
'Inspirational' is better left to a children's magazine and not a political weekly.
While the nation has fallen appart, vanden Heuvel has panned for fool's gold finding one reason to take comfort after another. Less reassurance of victories and hard hitting coverage of realities is what I expect from a political magazine and the editor of one.
I have had it with the magazine's silence on war resisters. The refusal to cover them, the refusal to take a stand. That's coming straight from the top and I will call Katrina vanden Heuvel out on it.
I will do because it's embarrassing and it's shameful. I will also do so because I knew her grandfather and he did give a damn about war resisters. I do not know the adult vanden Heuvel and only encountered the tot a few times. I wasn't impressed nor, I'm sure, was the tot impressed with me.
But when she became editor and then editor and publisher, I had some modest hopes for the magazine. They haven't been met. The magazine is an embarrassment that can't stop sniffing the crotches of any Democrat in office while ignoring serious problems in the country and in the world. The Nation should be leading and it's not even following. That's a huge embarrassment for everyone on the left and it's time the editor was called out on that.
The grandfather? Anytime C.I. and I encountered him, his first question was always what "cause" were we working on and he wasn't just interested in conversation, he would also donate money. While it's not her job to live up to her grandfather's view of the world, the fact that the magazine has so little of a view of the world (beyond vote! sign a petition!) is especially sad.
I'm not a huge fan of David Corn's but he does try to seriously address the war and I do read his columns. I read Katha Pollitt's and I can think of only two, out of years of reading, where I disagreed strongly with her. Patricia J. Williams is always worth reading. Otherwise?
Well, the magazine has what it bills as a "peace columnist" but he doesn't cover the peace movement. He doesn't cover demonstrations or oganizations. When Pollitt and Klein were both on leave, it would have been the perfect time to bring in a peace columnist who covered the peace movement. That didn't happen.
Time and again what needs to happen doesn't happen. Whether it's the rape and murder of Abeer or any other story that requires a strong response from the left, The Nation is silent. Lynne Stewart could have been hanged and I doubt seriously she would have gotten anymore than the very mild attention her case received (and received only at the start). A community member wrote a letter to The Nation that I doubt they'll publish. (It ran in the gina & krista round-robin and I will post it here if it doesn't show up in the magazine.) But it pefectly captured the abdication that has been The Nation.
So am I wrong? As C.I. would say, "I'd love to be proved wrong." I'd loveto have Sunny tell me tomorrow at work that she surfed the site and Katrina vanden Heuvel (finally) weighed in on war resisters. But throughout 2006 it hasn't happened and 2007 may have provided Watada as a sidebar but, before you could turn to that page, you first had to read that he was a coward. That's not cutting it. Until it does, I will call out the magazine and I will call out Katrina vanden Heuvel.
I've omitted any mention of Alexander Cockburn here because, as a CounterPunch reader, I see him as more of a part of that publication. When I was on the phone with C.I., the snapshot was being worked on and C.I. told me about the Ivan Brobeck article. As we both know, and I'll assume anyone reading does, CounterPunch has regularly covered war resisters, it's found time for the peace movement. Alexander Cockburn may have a column in The Nation but he's all CounterPunch in my mind. (Which I obviously find to be a superior magazine.)
The silence from The Nation, the wasting everyone's time, is hurting the movement. If Katrina vanden Heuvel wanted to turn the magazine into American Progress with a slight edge, congratulations to her because she has succeeded.
As bad as I can remember The Nation being over the years, I don't think it's ever been this bad. (A sentiment Ruth agrees with me on.) It's not cutting it and I'm not going to be silent or avoid calling out those responsible.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 10, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq with the discovery of over 70 corpses reported, Bully Boy goes primetime (you bought a flat screen for that?), the US military announces the deaths of three more US troops, US war resisters get attention (no, not from The Nation), and BuzzFlash interviews activist and author Antonia Juhasz.
Starting with the speech to get it out of the way. Later today (9:00 pm EST, 8:00 pm Central and 6:00 pm PST), Bully Boy will be making a speech where he will announce his intent to send more US troops into his illegal war despite having declared, on May 1, 2003, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Three years and eight months later, Bully Boy now wants to send more troops to Iraq. As Danny Schechter (News Dissector) wrote, "Today is the day when the Bush Administration takes its next big shot like some schoolyard bully determined that his way is the only way."
3018 US troops have died in Iraq and Bully Boy now wants to send more troops. Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks (Washington Post) reported today that when Bully Boy met with Nouri al-Maliki (finally) in Jordan, "Maliki did not ask for more American troops as part of a new Baghdad security plan he presented to Bush, U.S. officials said. Maliki's idea was to lower the U.S. profile, not raise it." But now Bully Boy wants to send more US troops.
Iraqis want foreign troops out of their country, as polls have consistently demonstrated, and The Lancet study estimated over 655,000 Iraqis have lost their lives during the illegal war. Now Bully Boy wants to send more troops.
On Democracy Now! today, one Iraqi, Abu Haider, voiced his opinion, "All the stances of America are indications of negative positions towards society and its citizens.Their decisions and credibility are negative. They damaged this country. They said that they are here to spread freedom and democracy in Iraqi society but they did nothing but bring terrorism.” Now Bully Boy wants to send more troops. Abu Haider lives in Baghdad where most of the escalated troops will go (some, about a fifth, will also go to Al-Anbar Province).
The BBC World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds notes how the 'fresh start' (that's what the US administration is calling it) "has echoes of Vietnam in the belief that another push will get the job done" and notes five specific echoes -- "the realisation in Washington that it is not winning"; "trying to hand over responsibility to the local government in the midst of battle, not after it"; "belief by the US administration that more troops are an important part of the answer"; "opposite belief by others that the enterprise cannot work and that disengagement must be sought"; and ""in Vietnam too the president consulted and outside group -- they were called the Wise Men and, like the Iraq Study group, they too urged a policy designed to lead to withdrawal."
Speaking yesterday on The KPFA Evening News, Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights and co-host of WBAI's Law and Disorder) declared, "Basically we can look at this in a few ways. One is you [Congress] can cut off the funding and that they have a constitutional right to do. Secondly, they could pass a resolution under the war powers resolution that repeals the authorization to use force in Iraq I think [Ted] Kennedy's argument is something. There better argument in Congress is to say 'We repeal the Iraq War Resolution' -- that would take away the president's authority. So Congress has remedies here. The question is are the Democrats going to be willing to stand up and take them or are they just going to talk? Kennedy, obviously, is going to do more than talk."
Ratner was referring to US Senator Edward Kennedy's speech to the National Press Club yesterday (see yesterday's snapshot) where Kennedy called the illegal war in Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam" and spoke of "introducing legislation to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. My bill say that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation, unless and until Congress approves the President's plan." The speech can be found in full in Kate Phillip's blog post at the New York Times and Kathy Kiely's USA Today report on the speech contains links to the audio and video of it.
What Micheal Ratner was referring when he noted a second option the US Congress had is something that another Michael apparently slept through (Michael Gordon of the New York Times), the reaction to Tricky Dick's announcement that he would bomb Cambodia led to a Senate vote to repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was followed by House of Representatives doing the same.
As Kennedy and other grown ups, including US House Rep. and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, attempt to address Bully Boy's non-stop, illegal war of choice, Ron Elving (NPR) observes that: "Anti-war activists have gained ground -- both at the polls and in the polls -- over the past two months. A new Democratic majority is in place in Congress and surveys find well over half the public now wants to get the United States out of Iraq. Not one American in five supports the idea of sending more troops to fight there. Yet, before this month is over, opponents of the war will get a double does of disappointment" -- the first being Bully Boy's speech today and the second being, according to Elving, will be "the Democrats, empowered as the majority in House and Senate by dint of those November elections, will not be able to stop the greater troop committment."
Tom Hayden (Common Dreams) observes: "If and when the 20,000 Americans plunge into Baghdad neighborhoods, there will be dramatic television coverage of soldiers at risk. It is possible, though far from easy, to 'stabilize' a Baghdad neighborhood for several months or one year, carrying the surge into the next presidential cycle. The strategy fits the polling data showing only 21 percent of Americans favor immediate withdrawal, while the moderate middle might be open to an undefined new strategy if convinced it will shorten the war and bring the troops home. More likely, the ranks of the peace movement are likely to swell with people angry over the perceived betrayal by Bush of the November voter mandate. A failure by majority Democrats to prevent the escalation will convince more people to take to the streets or look to 2008 for a fix."
From CODEPINK:
America Says NO Surge! President Bush is expected to give his "new direction in Iraq" speech this Wednesday, January 10th -- he wants to increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. We have to make it clear that Americans do NOT want more troops in Iraq and we have to act fast! True Majority has created a coalition called AMERICA SAYS NO. We will take to the streets together after Bush makes his expected call for escalation in Iraq. We need to stop this "surge" with a stronger surge of protest. Can you join an event this week and help stop the surge? Click here to find an event near you and if you can't find one create your own. Read our latest action alert for more details.
Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) speaks with US soldiers who, don't tell Bully Boy, don't see escalation as an answer in Iraq. Those who would like to listen to the Bully Boy's speech tonight or, at least, to hear an intelligent discussion of it, KPFA and WBAI will be carrying it live with Larry Bensky offering analysis and discussion with various guests which you can listen to online (free of charge, no quiz to take or membership to apply for). For those looking for something else to listen to . . .
In fact, the dispassionate tone of the "debate" about Iraq in The New York Times and on every television screen seems psychotically remote from the reality of what will happen if war actually occurs. We are talking about raining death down on human beings, about thousands and thousands of howling wounded human beings, dismembered corpses in pools of blood. Is this one of the "lessons of Vietnam" that people have learned--that the immorality of this unspeakable murdering must never be mentioned? That the discussion of murder must never mention murder, and that even the critics of murder must always criticize it because it turns out not to be in our own best interest? Must these critics always say that the murders would come at too high a price for us, would be too expensive, would unbalance the budget, hurt the economy, cause us to stint on domestic priorities; that it would lose us our friends, that it would create new enemies? Can we never say that this butchering of human beings is horrifying and wrong?
That is from Wallace Shawn's Fragments from a Diary (written in 2003) and was among the pieces performed on WBAI's Theater Special: THAW ON THE AIR which broadcast Monday night and which is now in the WBAI archives (for a limited time) -- Jonah tells us it's filed under "Home Fries," Monday, January 8th, 9:00 pm. Those interested in the broadcast but unable to listen can check out Rebecca's report on it.
Turning to news of war resistance, Robert Fantina (CounterPunch) writes of Ivan Brobeck. Yes, Ivan Brobeck -- the war resister independent media forgot. Or those who keep up. The Full Brobeck is a term the community uses to note what passes for coverage of war resisters in independent media -- so named when only KPFA's Flashpoints covered Brobeck when he returned to the US from Canada to turn himself on election day (November 6, 2006 -- day before the election -- is when the interview conducted by Nora Barrows-Friedman aired). Robert Fantina (CounterPunch) writes: "Lance Corporal Ivan Brobeck, Sergeant Ricky Clousing, Sergeant Kevin Benderman, Sergeant Camilo Mejia: each a veteran of the Iraq war, and each charged with desertion. Mr. Benderman, Mr. Mejia and Mr. Clousing were convicted, sentenced and have completed prison time. Mr. Brobeck is currently serving an 8-month sentence. Yet with government studies indicating that thousands of soldiers have deserted during the Iraq war, why are only a few charged, while so many others are basically ignored? This is not a new phenomenon. As communication has improved over the two centuries of America's life, the ability for war resisters to reach a wider audience has greatly increased. The four brave men listed above demonstrated their courage first on the battlefield. They then not only further showed their bravery by leaving the U.S. military -- a tremendously brave act in and of itself -- they went the additional step of speaking out publicly against the war. This, it seems, is what brought down the wrath of the U.S. government upon them."
In Peggy Got A Message For Me, From Jesus news: Wonderful article but can someone get it to The Nation -- with sections highlighted? ("Peggy Get . . ." line from Tori Amos' "Cooling" off To Venus And Back.) Elaine will be addressing that topic this evening at Like Maria Said Paz. That topic? The Nation's refusal to cover war resisters.
Meanwhile William Hughes (San Francisco Indymedia) reports that, in a recent speech, Daniel Ellsberg opposed the escalation option (that Bully Boy will be pimping in the Big Speech), opposed expanding the war and "lauded Lt. Ehren Watada for his principled stand against the Iraqi war." Ehren Watada is the first US officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Last week, a pre-trial hearing began which preceeds the planned February 5th court-martial. John Catalinotto (Workers World) reports that Camp Resistance is across from Fort Lewis (where Watada is stationed) and "plans to stay until the end of Lt. Watada's court-martial" while there will be "nationally coordinated demonstrations for Feb. 5, the day his court-martial is scheduled to open."
Information about Camp Resistance can be found in The Nation. Did you laugh at that idea? Me too. Seriously, information about Camp Resistance can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War which has a page for it and other actions entitled Iraq Veterans Against The War Deployed with photos and blog posts.
Watada and Brobeck are a part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Appeal for Redress is collecting signatures of active duty service members calling on Congress to bring the troops home -- the petition will be delivered to Congress next week (MLK day). [Yes, that is a federal holiday and, yes, Congress won't be in session.]
And remember that Lisa Brobeck is requesting people write her husband, war resister Ivan Brobeck, "so he is constantly reminded that he is not alone during this time in the brig and that he is supported in his brave and courages stand." The address:
LCPL Ivan S. Brobeck
MCB Quantico Brig
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, Virginia 22134
In Iraq today -- all was calm and peaceful -- or to judge by the US media it was. In
reality . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a car bombing in Mahmudiya that took one life and wounded three other people; a bombing in Tal Afar that killed the bomber, 4 other people and left 11 wounded; near Tal Afar, a bombing "killed a child and wounded three policemen and one civilian"; and a bombing in Kirkuk wounded three people. Abdelamir Hanun (AFP) reports four "wounded in two roadside bomb attacks" in Baghdad, "one of which also ruptured a water pipeline supplying the impoverished Shiite slum district of Sadr City." Mohhamed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the bomb that ruptured the water pipeline was on Al Kanat Street and that "the pipe was destroyed which led to the cut of the water supply to sadr city."
Shootings?
Abdelamir Hanun (AFP) reports: "Nine Iraqi Shiites coming home from Mecca after the annual hajj pilgrimage have been shot dead in cold blood by gunmen" amd also notes that "a woman and a male nurse" were shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Abdelamir Hanun (AFP) notes that 60 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes that 8 corpses were discovered in Mosul, 4 in Mahaweel, 4 corpses were discovered in Qaim, and 1 in Iskandariya. (That's a total of 77 corpses discovered today.)
Today, the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier assigned to 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, died Tuesday as a result of injuries sustained from a gunshot wound while conducting combat operations in Diyala Province." And they announced: "One Soldier assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group and One Soldier assigned to 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division died Tuesday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province."
Meanwhile, Ross Bynum (AP) reports that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division is preparing for their third deployment to Iraq in four years: "The 3rd Infantry, which has about 19,000 troops, is the first Army division to be tapped for a third deployment to the war. Barely a year has passed since its soldiers returned from their last yearlong rotation."
And the slaughter of Haifa Street continues (see yesterday's snapshot). Leila Fadel and Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) note that "residents from the predominantly Sunni Muslim area and Sunni leaders said the American forces had been duped by Iraq's Shiite-dominated security forces into participating in a plan to drive Sunnis from the area." CBS and AP note that "Haifa Street is a broad, two-lane thoroughfare that stretches northwest from the Green Zone through the heart of Baghdad along the Tigris river. Apartment buildings of up to ten sotries high line the street, with retail space on the ground level." AFP notes that, today, "troops were out in force on the streets and most residents stayed indoors" and, most importantly, that the assault took place approximately one mile from the Green Zone. Steve Negus (Financial Times of London) notes Haifa Street "is virtually adjacent to the heavily fortified Green Zone".
Turning to the US, BuzzFlash interviews Antonia Juhasz (author of THE BU$H AGENDA which they are offering as a premium) on the topic of the illegal war:
BuzzFlash: You're saying that the war in Iraq was as much economic invasion as it was a militarily one.
Antonia Juhasz: Yes, the two most important chapters of my book cover the economic invasion of Iraq and the Middle East trade area and point to what I think are the heart of the problems. The Bush Administration is pushing aggressively forward on rewriting Iraq's oil infrastructure to allow greater control and access to U.S. corporations for its oil under the ground, for exploration and production. I believe that's what's keeping the Bush Administration in Iraq and pointed towards having the United States military remain in Iraq.
Iraq isn't the end. One month after the invasion, the Bush Administration announced plans to expand the Middle East as a free trade area. That free trade pact is moving along quickly, with individual countries making deals with the U.S. out of fear of economic or military retribution. Included in those agreements are increased access to those countries' oil.
The Democratic Congress is going to have to be forced to address these free trade agendas, both in Iraq and across the Middle East, and to reject them. The occupation of Iraq has to end, but not just the military occupation, also the corporate occupation. The United States cannot use the stick of the war to press its own economic agenda across the Middle East. The results will be just as devastating to the rest of the Middle East as they have been in Iraq, and, of course, reverberate back to the United States.
FYI, A Citizens' Hearings is being convened January 20-22 at Evergreen State College in Tacoma, Washington and Antonia Juhasz will be among those participating.
Others include Ann Wright, Denis Halliday, Daniel Ellsberg, Nadia McCaffrey, Darrell Anderson.
Finally, Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) take a look at the attacks on media (government attacks) in Iraq noting that the "press freedom index of the watchdog Reporters Without Borders" is lower now than it was before the start of the illegal war, the banning of journalists, the expelling of outlets (such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya) and being targeted "for reproting the growing resistance to the occupation."
iraqkpfaantonia juhasz
ivan brobeckflashpointsnora barrows friedman
ehren watada
michael ratner
law and disorder
the washington postrobin wrightmichael abramowitzthomas e. ricks
wbaithawtheatres against war
the kpfa evening news
danny schechtertom hayden
buzzflashlarry bensky
john catalinotto
like maria said pazsex and politics and screeds and attitude
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)