The Pumpkin head

rabin quote

2010-07-01T13:28:00.000-07:00

pdf of New York Times article

In fairness to Sarah Palin

2008-09-12T10:28:00.000-07:00

Antiwar.com recently ran an article by an Iranian-American writer, Arash Kamangeer, in which he likened Sarah Palin’s touting of her son’s upcoming service in Iraq to an appearance made by an Iranian "show mom". This is the term he uses to describe the women who were trotted out by the Iranian government to raise morale by showing their willingness to send their sons off to fight in the Iran-Iraq war. (The Iranians would usually wait until that son was martyred to do so, but the principle is the same.) Of course, family members being proud of their children’s military service, and governments using them to promote the war effort is not unique to either the Iran-Iraq war or the current US war in Iraq. In fact, this sort of propaganda has probably been used by every government that ever waged a war.

Presumably, every mother who ever sent a son off to war would be proud of his service. French mothers were proud of their sons being sent off to kill Germans just as German mothers must have been proud of their sons being sent off to kill Frenchman. But certainly a mother’s pride is no substitute for a statesman’s judgment.

Wars still have to be justified on their merits. And all too often, the imagery of a mother proudly sending her son off to war is used to avoid that central and most important question for any statesman, in this case for the mother who would be a statesman – should a war be fought in the first place?

On this point, the criticism from Kamangeer gets stronger:

And then I wake the next morning and read that Sarah Palin is quoted as saying that the Iraq war is a "task that is from God."

Surely, if this snippet is accurate, then this mother who would be a statesman has not only dodged the question, but made the very asking of it into a form of blasphemy. Indeed, she was quoted by the associated press as having said just that:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God." ...

But subsequently the AP article softens it a bit with a slightly longer quotation.

“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

Fortunately, the full video is available and bears a more careful viewing.

At about the 3:40 mark she begins to discuss the Iraq war, and her son’s upcoming deployment there. At that point she says the following:

Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan. So bless them with your prayers, your prayers of protection over our soldiers.

It should be noted that Mrs. Palin was speaking extemporaneously, and her sentence structure is such that one can’t properly quote a single sentence (much less a phrase) withoutthe possiblity of giving a misleading interpretation.
Her full point can’t be properly summed up as simply declaring the war in Iraq a “task from God”. Reading the fuller context, and hearing the inflection in her voice puts a rather different meaning on to it A more reasonable reading is that she is actually telling her audience to pray that the tasks which our national leaders give to our military should be tasks that are from God, or part of God’s plan.

This is, of course quite different. To pray that one’s national leaders act in a way which is consonant with God’s plan, or His will, (or as some would define “God’s will” as being according to His code of moral instruction) - this is very different than simply declaring a particular thing a “task that is from God”, as some have claimed.

Indeed, to pray that one’s national leaders act in accordance with God’s will is what anyone who loves his country and believes in God would do. It is also something that only the most militant and obnoxious of atheists could possibly complain about – either that or a militant partisan of the opposing party who is utterly lacking in a sense of fair-mindedness.

Bill Clinton’s Fairy Tale about Barack Obama

2008-02-01T16:51:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDx4NZr2u4&feature=related

After watching former President Clinton’s rant, it might be worthwhile to examine more closely his latter comments regarding Senator Obama’s claims.

"That is the central argument for his campaign. You – “It doesn’t matter that I started running for President less than a year after I got to the senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure, and I am the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning – always, always, always."

It is, of course, very easy, and quite unfair, for Mr. Clinton to decide what constitutes the “central argument” for someone else’s campaign. But his anger as well as his derision of Senator Obama’s lack of experience (Mr. Clinton’’s wife was elected to the Senate 4 years before he was) does indicate that Mr. Obama’s purported claim regarding his superior judgment has struck a nerve.

“First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."

This is an absurd mischaracterization of the clear meaning of the 2002 Resolution to Authorize the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The resolution may have made some preambulary references decrying the absence of weapons inspectors in Iraq since 1998, but the operative paragraphs, - the ones which actually authorized the use of force - did not make it contingent on Iraqi non-cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

In fact, a careful reading of the resolution shows that it was so broadly crafted as to allow the President to launch military action if he merely determined that peaceful means “will not adequately protect the national security of the United States” against what the resolution, itself, calls “the continuing threat posed by Iraq”.

Regardless of anything that Condoleezza Rice purportedly said to Chuck Hagel, the resolution on which Mrs. Clinton voted “yes” was clearly what its short title said - an “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq”. It was not authored “to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors,” as Mr. Clinton alleges.

Furthermore, for Mr. Clinton to claim that “it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through” is silly. According to the Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to go to war, and if members of Congress really don’t support the launching of a war, they shouldn’t vote to authorize it. The vote cast by a legislator is what is critical, not some statements made after the fact.

If Mrs. Clinton and the other members of congress had only intended to threaten military action, and to only use force if the Iraqi regime failed to comply with specific demands (allowing weapons inspections, or whatever), then they could have written those demands into the resolution – but they didn’t.

Incidentally, Mr. Clinton’s claim that Chuck Hagel was “the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war” is also factually incorrect. Senator Lincoln Chaffee, of Rhode Island, opposed the war, and was so opposed that he actually exercised his responsibility and voted “no” to the war authorization bill, while Senators Hagel and Clinton voted “yes”.

(In 2006, Mr Chaffee was rewarded for his courage by being voted out of office.)

Mr Clinton’s second claim is also interesting:

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.”

“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen!”

Mr. Clinton’s statement that it is “wrong” for Senator Obama to have gotten to go through several debates claiming that he always opposed the war deserves to be examined. Indeed, questions of war and peace are obviously very important, and if the greatest distinction between the two candidates is that one can claim to have had better judgment in consistently opposing an unnecessary war, while the other voted to authorize it, then the issue should be thoroughly investigated.

Of course, at the time the war resolution was passed, Mr. Obama was still serving in the Illinois state senate, and since the legislature of Illinois doesn’t have the authority to start a war, he didn’t actually get the opportunity (or have the responsibility) to vote on the matter, while Mrs. Clinton was then serving in the US Senate, and did. Consequently, one can only judge Mr Obama’s position by his statements.

If Mr Clinton’s accusation that, “you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution” is a full and accurate portrayal of Mr. Obama’s statements at the time, then he would have something of a point. And although no one could claim that Senator Obama bears any responsibility for starting the war (as opposed to Mrs. Clinton, who undeniably does), still this would indicate that his judgment on the issue wasn’t always so unswerving as he is currently making out. Therefore, it is worthwhile to pour through some of Mr Obama’s past statements, in order to assess the accuracy of Mr. Clinton’s claim.

Mr. Obama’s speech at an anti-war rally in October of 2002 (concurrent with the passage of the war resolution) was a clear statement of his opposition. The eloquence and clarity of that speech, as well as its publicity, has obviously had an impact - and this seems to be what has fueled Mr. Clinton’s ire. (Whether or not Mr. Obama continuously maintained that speech in a prominent position on his web-site doesn’t amount to much – there is no record of his disavowal of it.) Also in a November, 2002 interview on a local talk show, ‘Public Affairs With Jeff Berkowitz', Obama stated "If it had come to me in an up or down vote as it came, I think I would have agreed with our senior Sen. Dick Durbin and voted 'Nay’.” The Obama campaign has compiled numerous press reports where he is quoted making similar unequivocal statements over the past few years.

Still, regardless of Mr Obama’s eloquent opposition in 2002, it is worth looking into whether Obama stated in 2004 that he didn't know how he would have voted on the resolution, as Mr. Clinton alleges.

It should be noted that in July of 2004, Mr. Obama was slated to be the keynote speaker at the Democrat National Convention, a convention which was in the process of nominating John Kerry, who had, like Mrs. Clinton, voted for the war authorization. Under such circumstances, Mr. Obama would have obviously been somewhat reticent about denouncing the vote of his party’s nominee – but what should be determined is whether his reticence had developed into equivocation. Is it really a full and accurate description of what Mr. Obama said at the time that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the resolution?

Mr Obama was interviewed by three different press outlets on or about July 25, 2004. Fortunately, with the internet, a more full description and/or transcript is available, making it unnecessary to simply take a man like Bill Clinton at his word. Those articles and/or transcripts deserve to be quoted at length.

The July 26, 2004 edition of the New York Times contained excerpts from an interview conducted with Mr. Obama:

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

"But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

On the July 25, 2004 edition of NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS,Mr. Obama was also questioned on this matter by Tim Russert. Excerpts from the transcript follow:

MR. RUSSERT: You also said this: "...I also know that Saddam possesses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said he was an imminent threat. They voted to authorize George Bush to go to war. How could they have been so wrong and you so write (sic) as a state legislator in Illinois and they're on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?

STATE REP. OBAMA: Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have. And what is absolutely clear is that John Kerry said, "If we go into war, let's make sure that we do it right. Let's make sure that our troops are supported. Let's make sure that we have the kind of coalition that's necessary to succeed." And the execution of what was a difficult choice to make was something that all of us have to be concerned about. And moving forward, the only way that we're going to be able to succeed is if, I think, we have an administration led by John Kerry that's going to allow us to consolidate the relationships with our allies that bring about investment in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?

STATE REP. OBAMA: I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time.

MR. RUSSERT: So you disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards?

STATE REP. OBAMA: At that time, but, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq...

On CNN's "Late Edition"” , also on July 25 2004, Mr Obama had this exchange with Wolf Blitzer”

BLITZER: ... you're going to talk about some of the issues.

Was the war in Iraq a mistake?

OBAMA: I think that it is clear that the numbers were fudged, that we shaded the truth, because I think there was a predisposition to go in, and wasn't based on facts on the ground.

But I think what's most important now and what John Kerry is focusing on now is going forward, how do we being together the international community to invest in the reconstruction in Iraq and make sure that we're relieving some of the pressure not only for American taxpayers, but also from our service men and women.

BLITZER: Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?

OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.

BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?

OBAMA: That's correct.

BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.

OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment...

Clearly, Mr Obama was scrupulously avoiding an attack John Kerry for his war vote. His intention appears to have been to allow Mr. Kerry some wiggle room, based on the possible existence of intelligence reports that may have been available to Senators, but not the general public. (Obviously, no such intelligence has surfaced regarding the fabled, and non-existent, WMD.)

But each time he tried to give that wiggle room, by pointing out that he wasn’t in the senate at the time, and that one can’t really say, definitively, what one would do in a different set of circumstances, he also pointed out that from where he was at the time, that he was clearly opposed. His statements were actually quite straight forward:

“What I know is that from my vantage point the case (for war) was not made.''

“I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time”

“I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.”

There is no way that any honest or fair minded person could interpret Mr. Obama’s words as anything but forthright opposition. And only a thoroughly dishonest partisan would truncate Obama’s statements the way that Bill Clinton did, and he was obviously doing so only to mischaracterize them.

Indeed there is a fairy tale being told, but the one telling the fairy tale is Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama. And the fact that Bill Clinton can tell such fairy tales with extreme vim and vigor, while at the same time accusing others of doing so, only demonstrates that he has not lost his unique “gift” for being self-righteous, hypocritical, and vehement and at the same time utterly deceptive.
______________________________________

Notes in the margin
This offering should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Barack Obama - I have no intention of voting for him in the upcoming primary (I support Congressman Ron Paul). My only reason for researching this topic and sharing that research in this post is that I wish to support and defend the anti-war movement. To that end, I find this attempt by a notorious liar to cloud the issue, and mischaracterize opponents of the war as fence-straddlers while averring that those responsible for this war shouldn't be held accountable to be reprehensible.

Public Service Announcement

2007-02-04T14:35:00.000-08:00

Public Service Announcement
For all wives and potential wives

On proper behavior during the Super Bowl

During tonight's football game please refrain from idle chatter.

Do not discuss issues like painting the room, changing the draperies, who is doing the idiotic half-time show, how long the game will last, or where the kids will go to school, etc.

Please limit your comments to more intelligent and appropriate statements like "Hit him!", "Knock it down!", "Throw the ball!", "Block him" or "Block it" (depending on whether your husband’s team is running the ball or the opposing team is kicking it).

Wives (and especially potential wives) may also ask relevant questions like "Would you like more chips?", "Shall I get you a drink?" etc. But it is preferable for them to ask those questions while there is a lull in the action – while the teams are in the huddle, or better still, during commercials.

Lastly, do not, under any circumstances start cheering for the opposing team - that is considered Treason, and generally will not be tolerated.

These rules are made available for the benefit of wives who wish to keep their husbands and most especially for girls who are seeking to get a husband. Men are often enticed by women who act in a certain way, under the mistaken assumption that such behavior will continue after the marriage ceremony.

Shocking Video - Senator Speaks Truthfully and from the Heart

2007-02-03T19:23:00.000-08:00

Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican of Nebraska) made the following comments during the recent (24 January, 2007) hearings of the Senate foreign relations committee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIoa7WU2Dfc

The video was shocking enough, in that a US Senator is apparently speaking from the heart, about an issue as important as war and peace. The meaningless platitudes, which usually make up the bulk of the speeches on foreign policy, were totally missing.

But what was truly astounding were the statements which Mr Hagel made beginning in the 6th minute, or so of his speech.

He said:

This is not about terrorists who don’t like freedom.

In that one simple statement, he clearly, and unmistakably dismisses the premise of the whole “Iraq is the central front in the war on terror” theme.

He then goes on to point out that terrorism is a tactic, and not a belief. This is, of course, an obvious reality, but one that is seldom articulated, because it would undercut the whole basis for the Bush policy in Iraq.

But what is really remarkable, is the intervening statement, which Mr. Hagel made regarding the Palestinians “who have been chained down for many, many years.”

Of course, everyone who is at all familiar with the situation there would know this, but generally the comments made by politicians in the US are in support of more efficient chains to tie them down, or more often set in the context of how best to provide “security” for those doing the chaining.

Mr Hagel’s comments made no mention of Israeli needs or demands. This makes it truly remarkable, and almost unheard of behavior in the United States Senate.

Desperate times often produce desperate measures, and perhaps the war, and the seeping realization that our leaders took us to war (at the behest of the Zionists) for no apparent legitimate reason, may lead to politicians taking the desperate measure of actually speaking the truth.

Responsibility for the Iraq War

2006-12-11T16:11:00.000-08:00

As the war in Iraq becomes less and less popular, there is more and more finger pointing over responsibility for having started it. This is, of course, understandable. Whenever things go badly, people try and blame others and/or attempt to show that they were not alone in making the mistake.

Many people point out that nothing productive really comes out of the blame game, and there may be some truth to that argument. However, if mistakes were indeed made, it is worthwhile to examine what actually happened in order to, perhaps, avoid making a similar mistake in the future. For this reason, it might be beneficial to examine the actual Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq, passed in October of 2002.

After a lot of gibberish about how Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and after acknowledging past congressional and UN Security Council resolutions against him, the meat of the authorization is contained in section 3:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. .

It is important to read this section of the document carefully. Some who have merely glanced at it, might argue that the use of "and" in subsection 3(a) between clause (1) and (2) requires that both those causes must be present for the authorization to be valid, but this is clearly not the case.

The "and" is subject to its context as part of the "authorized … in order to" language. If someone is authorized to take an action in case (1) and in case (2), this means that either one or both of the reasons are sufficient cause for action.

This is made obvious by the language in the subsequent notification requirements given in subsection 3(b)(1) wherein the "either…or" construct is used for the same two causes:

(1)reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Obviously, it wouldn’t make any sense to require both (a) and (b) but only require notification of either (a) or (b).

The resolution does have an additional stipulation, clause 3(b)(2), written into the notification portion, which goes beyond the other two possible causes.

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..

It is connected to the previous clause, 3(b)(1), with “and”. In that instance, because of the context, the use of "and" makes the second part of the determination absolutely indispensable. But the language used in that paragraph is so broad as to render it legally meaningless. To require that acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with something just means that it mustn’t be directly contradictory to it. In reality, many have pointed out that Iraq is totally unrelated to terrorists and the events of September 11, 2001, but it would be hard to claim that the war there is contrary to a response to them.

In sum, the resolution gives the President authority to use force in order to enforce Security Council resolutions (whether the resolutions themselves have military enforcement mechanisms is not really addressed – they don’t), and also to defend the national security of the United States against what the resolution declares to be “the continuing threat posed by Iraq”. This being the case, it is almost impossible to argue that the President acted outside Article I, section 7, paragraph 11 of the US Constitution, which grants to congress the exclusive authority to declare war.

The only conditions, which the resolution puts on the President have been satisfied by his simple notification that either one or the other of the stated causes could not be adequately addressed by peaceful means.

As an epilogue, it should be noted that the President’s letter of March 18, states that he had determined that peaceful means would neither adequately protect the national security of the United States nor lead to the enforcement of the relevant UN resolutions.

Since the relevant resolutions all addressed the issue of weapons of mass destruction (wmd), and since it has since become painfully obvious that Iraq was not in material breech of those resolutions at the time of the war, it can be argued that the President went to war based on a falsehood (or at any rate a mistaken determination).

However, that false determination was not indispensable to his going to war under the congressional authorization. The resolution, itself declared Iraq to be a “continuing threat”, and made this an acceptable cause for military action. Therefore, the claim that the President exceeded his authority, and that congress or, more precisely those members of congress who voted for the authorization, are, somehow, not responsible for the current imbroglio can not be sustained.

The Left and Right, and the Anti-war movement

2006-02-26T12:16:00.000-08:00

A virtual friend recently asked me if I was indeed, a conservative. Apparently, since his blog and mine tend to focus on Zionism, and the new imperialism (which seems to have developed in its wake), and since we tend to agree on those issues, he was somewhat surprised to see that we come from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

It is, of course, somewhat ironic that my friend, a British Jewish leftist, and I, an American Christian right-winger, would find so much common ground, but the phenomenon is by no means unusual. In fact, I thought it such an interesting anomaly, that it was worth analyzing.

During the run up to war in 2003, George Will wrote an article in which he sought to denigrate the case against the war by making lots of absurd accusations against those who were opposed to it. Virtually all of the claims on which he based his accusations, turned out to be wrong. But beyond this, he concluded his article by ascribing the basest, and most ethno-centric motivations to the groups opposing the war.

Conservative isolationism--America is too good for the world--is long dead. Liberal isolationism--the world is too good for America--is flourishing.

Of course, no liberal or conservative ever voiced their opposition in those terms, and I would imagine that most conservatives, as well as liberals would have responded (just as I did) that theirs is a more middle position – not that America is too good or too bad to intervene in the affairs of other countries, but simply that it would be better to let Iraqis handle their own affairs, and that by invading Iraq, we weren’t really doing them any favors. Just as patriotic Americans would prefer that other countries not interfere in our affairs, so we should not really interfere in theirs.

Mr. Will was using the classic straw man argument, project a false argument, and then refute it, (or in this case, simply attack the motivations of ones opponents, in order to dismiss them out of hand). And of course, it is not really valid. However, in all of Mr. Will’s faulty arguments and absurd slander, he does seem to have touched upon the intriguing phenomenon, which had taken my (virtual) friend aback. Namely, that those who would be considered far right, or far left are more likely to be opposed to the war, than those who would be considered center left or center right.

Of course, people like George Will would try and make the argument that their opponents are just extremists, and this might serve their interest, but it doesn’t really explain it. Why would the far left and the far right agree on an issue against the center? It certainly can’t be ascribed to the machinations of a cabal of political rivals. This is a broad trend, which is far more perceptible among the general population than the political elites. And of course, in general, the far left tends to agree with the center-left far more than with the right on most issues, and vice versa – why should this one be so different?

Perhaps the formulation of reducing the dispute between far right and far left on one hand, and the center right and center left on the other, misses the point. Perhaps the real dispute is between the apparatchiks on the one side and the hard-core ideologues on the other, and that the same forces are prevalent in each grouping.

The term apparatchik is, of course, a Russian word, and is usually used in the context of the peculiar system of the old Soviet Union, but it is a term which also means a zealous functionary whose position in the apparatus drives him to support the policy of the party to which he belongs.

Of course, Republicans and Democrats in the US don’t really have extensive party apparatuses. But, like all ruling groups, they do have various organizations, (in this case - think tanks, foundations, political action committees, as well as relatively unimportant party apparatuses) which are used to execute, or more precisely, promote, their policies. But beyond the functionaries of the dominant ruling parties, there are the various hangers on, as well as those whose level of political interest is limited to a mere identification with one or the other major party.

They are to be contrasted with the hard-core ideologues, the true believers, of whichever faction, who support the left or right only because those parties stand for the same things that they do. Their positions on particular issues usually have to square with their ideological principles, and if they can not be made to do so, these ideologues generally become dissidents. Toeing the party line is most often left to the apparatchiks.

It stands to reason that those who are a part of the ruling group, or groups, are far too concerned with their positions to take the risk of being seen as radicals or dissidents. This same principle applies to a slightly lesser extent, to those who merely identify with the governing parties or groups. This is part of the process of political socialization. To be taken seriously, as a member (or potential member) of the ruling group, one has to accept and follow the party line, even if that party line conflicts with one’s broad generally accepted principles.

Under no circumstances can someone in that position afford to be seen as “outside the mainstream”. In modern American political parlance, that accusation is the equivalent of anathematizing someone in the Catholic Church. Virtually, every political debate between candidates for office in the US involves this charge being made by one side against the other, since that is seen as the quickest, surest way to dispatch one’s rival. And, just as political debate on television, or in print, is usually an attempt to resonate with the general population, the general population often mimics the political debate which they see conducted by the elites on television.

Obviously those ideologues who are considered hard right or hard left are more accustomed to being called “outside the mainstream”, and have long since lost any sensitivity to the label. Likewise, they are largely immune to the other pressures of political socialization. (Some would say that their cantankerousness creates a reverse process of political anti-socialization, and there may be an element of truth to this.) Consequently, although most of the politicians in congress would willingly authorize a war of aggression, either out of support for their leader or out of fear of having their patriotism questioned, those who are already outside the mainstream feel no need to do so.

They, the extremists (if one prefers that term), can simply stand on principle. If there is no logical justification for the war, then they feel no inhibitions about opposing it. After all, only a lunatic would believe that the decision to go to war is one that can be made without a sound reason, and support for a sitting president and/or congress doesn’t get it – at least not for those who are inclined toward more independent thinking, or those who stand on first principles.

This is true of those whose ideological orientation is toward the left or the right. After all, the traditional Christian approach to just war doctrine, is consistent with the definition of ”Crimes against Peace” in the Nuremberg principles, the requirements of Article 2 of the UN charter, and the Kellogg Briand Pact.

Some issues, like war and peace, simply transcend the traditional left-right divide.

Ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

2006-01-24T17:52:00.000-08:00

A Zionist apologist recently asked me for proof of the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948. Of course, it is quite obvious to all but the obtuse that this is precisely what took place. Regardless, in this blog entry, I have decided to honor his request by providing irrefutable proof.

Ethnic cleansing is defined (in my dictionary) as “the practice of mass expulsion or killing of people from opposing ethnic or religious groups within a certain area.”

The claim, that the Zionists didn’t do that, is flatly contradicted by none other than Yitzhak Rabin.

The following is an excerpt from his memoir, which was translated and leaked to the New York Times, and appeared in the October 23, 1979 edition (page A3) Click here to view PDF . The Israeli government had censored this portion, and so it appeared under the Headline: “Israel Bars Rabin from relating 48 Eviction of Arabs”.

"While the fighting was still in progress, we had to grapple with a troublesome problem, for whose solution we could not draw on any previous experience: the fate of the civilian population of Lod and Ramle, numbering some 50,000.

"Not even Ben-Gurion could offer any solution, and during the discussions at operational headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave Lod's hostile and armed population in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route to Yiftach [another brigade], which was advancing eastward.

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question: 'What is to be done with the population?' B.G. waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'.

"Allon and I held a consultation. I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out. We took them on foot towards the Ben Horon Road, assuming that the legion would be obliged to look after them, thereby shouldering logistic difficulties which would burden its fighting capacity, making things easier for us.

"'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring. Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of Lod did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion.

"The inhabitants of Ramle watched and learned the lesson. Their leaders agreed to evacuate voluntarily, on condition that the evacuation was carried out by vehicles. Buses took them to Latrun, and from there, they were evacuated by the legion.

This next part is really kind of humorous, when one thinks about it:

"Great suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. Soldiers of the Yiftach brigade included youth-movement graduates, who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to.

"There were some fellows who refused to take part in the expulsion action. Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action, to remove the bitterness of these youth-movement groups, and explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action."

Oh, the great suffering which war criminals have to endure – not the victims, but the perpetrators!

At any rate, the story was leaked by Rabin's translator, a man named Peretz Kidron, who was apparently overtaken by a a desire to provide proof to the world of what actually happened, in spite of the action by the Israeli ministerial committee - which had censored the account. Mr. Rabin subsequently did not deny the veracity of the admission (a xeroxed copy of his manuscript was kept), only confessed to having neglected "field security" by entrusting the manuscript to someone who might leak it.

This is a first hand account from a future chief of staff, and Prime Minister of the state of “Israel” regarding an order of expulsion from the then Prime Minister.

It is confirmed by the following order, which was found in the Palmach archives and published by Benny Morris in “Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramle in 1948,” The Middle East Journal, 40 (1986) 82-109.

Dani HQ to Yiftah Brigade, 13.30 hours, 12 July 1948:

1. The inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly without attention to age. They should be directed towards Beit Nabala. Yiftah must determine the method and inform Dani HQ and 8th Brigade HQ.

2. Implement immediately.

This is just what happened in Lod and Ramleh. The Palestinians in different areas may have been driven out in a slightly different manner, and not every region in which the Palestinians were evicted has such good and irrefutable accounts, but it is incontestable that approximately 80% of the non-Jewish population of the territory which became the “Jewish state” were made refugees.

This was of course consistent with the Zionist Plan Dalet (section 6.b.4).

Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the. armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.

It should be noted that the armed force must be destroyed, but the population must be expelled.

Lastly, the bizarre argument which so many Zionists make, that “since many of the Palestinians fled in panic, it really isn’t ethnic cleansing,” is absurd.

It doesn’t really make a whole lot of difference whether someone was forced out at gunpoint, or whether he left because a group of people who commit massacres and mass evictions were attacking the area in which he lived, and he wanted to avoid getting shot. The critical question is whether he is allowed to return to his home– which the Zionist government has steadfastly prevented, because the Palestinian refugees are not of the desired ethnic group.
.
.

Myths about the Sanctions on Iraq:

2005-11-24T07:49:00.000-08:00

Quite a few myths have developed about the sanction, which caused so much suffering in Iraq during the period between the wars. One can quibble over the exact numbers of deaths, but the horrific scale of the suffering of the Iraqi people is undeniable. Consequently, the focus is usually shifted to pointing the finger of blame.

Two of the most prevalent claims of those who wish to palliate the US responsibility for the humanitarian cataclysm are
1. that the sanctions were imposed by the UN, and therefore the United States isn’t really to blame, and
2. that if Saddam Hussein's government had cooperated with the weapons inspectors the sanctions would have been lifted.

Neither of these claims is entirely accurate.

The claim that the sanctions were put in place by the full Security Council (and not by the US alone) is true, but it misses the point. Removing them would have required a vote of the full Security Council, which was subject to a US veto. If the other 14 members of the council had voted for lifting them, the US, or any of the other permanent members (the UK, France, Russia, or China) could have vetoed it, and the measure would have died, leaving the sanctions in place.

Although Britain remained a stalwart supporter of the US policy, on occasion the other permanent members attempted to lift them. But since they were unable to force the issue under UN rules, the mere threat of a veto was sufficient to keep the sanctions in place.

Furthermore, the claim that they were UN sanctions and not just Anglo-American ones, even if it were true (which it isn’t) would still not absolve the US and Britain of responsibility for the humanitarian cataclysm which resulted. When someone takes an action, which is morally indefensible, it really isn’t made any less bad because he had other confederates, or co-conspirators.

As for the other claim, that the sanctions were kept in place to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the requirements of the weapons inspectors, again this is technically true, but it doesn’t tell the full story. The US may have wanted the sanctions to remain, as it was considered necessary for this reason, but the US also made it clear that compliance on this issue would not be sufficient for the lifting of the sanctions.

Spokesmen for successive administrations made it plain, that the US would continue the sanctions regardless of Iraq’s compliance, until the government of Saddam Hussein was no longer in power.

"Do I think the answer is now for Saddam Hussein to be kicked out? Absolutely because there will not be – may I finish, please? - there will not be normalized relations with the United States, and I think this is true for most coalition partners, until Saddam Hussein is out of there. And we will continue the economic sanctions."

- President George H. Bush, 16 April 1991 - Press Conference

"Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."

- Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, on 7 May 1991. Los Angeles Times (Thursday, 9 May 1991), p.10; column 1

"We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected. Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."

- Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, 26 March 1997 - Speech at Georgetown University

"Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy of regime change, support for the opposition, and reviewing additional options that might be available of a unilateral or multilateral nature."

-Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 12 February 2002. Interview with The Financial Times

This policy of using the sanctions to effect regime change, is of course, in direct contravention to UN Security Council Resolution 687 (the resolution which put in place the cease fire after the 1991 Gulf War, and required the removal of Iraqi wmd).

In article 22 of that resolution the security council:

22. Decides that upon the approval by the Security Council of the programme called for in paragraph 19 above and upon Council agreement that Iraq has completed all actions contemplated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall have no further force or effect;

Paragraphs 8 through 13 simply enumerated the specific types of weapons, which Iraq was required to destroy.

Obviously, if the Security Council is the body which judges whether the government of Iraq has “completed all actions contemplated” in regards to wmd, and one of the members (with veto power) publicly announces that the actions taken by the government of Iraq will never be sufficient, it makes a mockery of the whole process.

If anyone ever asks the obvious question, (which is never articulated in the US media) of “Why were the Iraqi people being starved over weapons which we now know they didn’t possess?”, this provides a clue as to the answer.

...

Israel, A Brechtian Democracy

2005-06-19T19:45:00.000-07:00

In 1953, the Soviet sponsored government of East Germany suppressed an uprising of Berlin's workers. After seeing the government’s response to what was regarded as the people’s lack of understanding, the Communist playwright, Bertolt Brecht, wryly quipped:

Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

The irony in Brecht’s statement was quite apparent. As any reasonable person would recognize, the people do not exist to serve the state or government, but the reverse.

However, journalists in the United States, who regularly refer to Israel as “the only democracy in the middle-east” do not seem to appreciate the irony of that description.

The "Jewish state" was, of course, founded in a process which involved the "transference" of approximately 80% of the non-Jewish indigenous population. And furthermore, the Israeli authorities have steadfastly refused to allow them to return, on the grounds that such a large population of non-Jews would be inconsistent with the Jewish-ness of the "Jewish state".

On November 17,1958, the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Abba Eban, tried to explain why the Arabs who had been forced out by the Israeli onslaught should not be allowed to return. In order to make his case, he took issue with the use of the word "repatriation", and in order to do this, he also used some rather unusual (to say the least) definitions for the words "transplanting" and "resettlement".

In reference to the word "repatriation":

First the word itself is not accurately used in this context. Transplanting an Arab refugee from an Arab land to a non-Arab land is not really “repatriation.” “Patria” is not a mere geographical concept. Resettlement of a refugee in Israel would not be repatriation, but alienation from an Arab society; a true repatriation of an Arab refugee would be a process which brought him into union with people who share his language and heritage, and impulses of national loyalty and cultural identity.

When Mr. Eban objected to “transplanting” or “resettlement” of the Arabs, he was actually referring to allowing them to return. Of course, when normal people say “resettlement” or “transplanting”, they mean people moving to a new and different place, not coming back to their homes. And, of course, when normal people refer to “repatriation”, they refer to people returning to their country of origin, not being sent to a different, though perhaps similar one, because their own country had been transformed into an alien one by the very fact that they (and most of the people like them) had been ethnically cleansed.

This statement from Abba Eban, was not just the off-handed, meandering, twisted, babbling of a person who got confused as to what he was saying. He was speaking from a prepared text, and this was the official statement of Israeli policy concerning the matter. The twisted and bizarre re-definition of words was the only way that the policy could be made to sound in any way palatable.

In other words, according to the Zionist policy, the Arabs who were born in the territory, which was declared a “Jewish state”, may not return, because they would be alien to the new state which had been established. Jews, on the other hand, have every right to “return” there, regardless of where they were born, and regardless of the fact that they can not trace lineal descent from anyone who had ever lived in the territory which became the Jewish State.

It is here that the Brechtian approach to democracy in Israel becomes readily apparent. Since the non-Jewish people could not be expected to vote for a “Jewish state”, they were removed. (Or at any rate, 80% of them were). The government of the Jewish state, then opened up the borders to allow the “return” of any Jew, no matter of what nationality or place of birth, while steadfastly refusing to allow the return of those non-Jews who were born there, but had been removed.

The newly formed Jewish majority then freely chose to perpetuate the system by “democratically” choosing a Knesset (parliament) which would safeguard the interests of the Jews in a “Jewish state”. The dispossessed Palestinians (80% of the total) were, of course, not permitted to vote in such elections.

In other words, (to borrow the phrase from Brecht), the government did indeed, “dissolve the people, and elect another”.

Under such circumstances, the reference to the state of Israel as a “democracy” is something of a joke. And in fact it would be quite funny, if not for the fact that many people in the United States, not cognizant of the reality, take the description at face value.

"Brechtian" Democracy

.

Saddam's Right to Privacy?

2005-05-22T20:48:00.000-07:00

The Sun newspaper in Great Britain recently published photographs of Saddam Hussein in prison, and in at least one of the photographs he was pictured in his undergarments. Many of the people who saw these photographs simply laughed at them, but there are serious implications to the whole affair.

The sun defended the publishing of the photos, and according to the BBC claimed that the photos were provided by a US military source because:

"It's important that the people of Iraq see him like that to destroy the myth."

Whether this is true and a part of a US policy, or simply a rationalization by a guard, who may have sold the photographs, was unclear. And of course, one is hard pressed to understand what myth was circulating that could have been dispelled by the photographic evidence that Saddam does indeed wear underwear and puts on his trousers like other people do.

It is possible that the person or person who leaked the photos believed (or based on his avarice he could convince himself of the idea) that it would somehow be beneficial to the US forces for Saddam Hussein to be seen in such an undignified pose. This is, of course, rather silly. US forces are in a struggle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and regardless of whether one likes Saddam Hussein (most Iraqis don’t), the incident does not put the United States in a very favorable light.

It doesn’t compare to the Abu Ghraib photos, of course, but neither does it provide an example of dignified treatment of a Prisoner of War.

The US government recognized Saddam Hussein’s status as a prisoner of war, in January of 2004, although when the US arranged for his arraignment before an Iraqi judge, the claim was made that this status was revoked, even though Saddam had remained in US custody. But because he remains in US custody, he must continue to be accorded the protections of the 3rd Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 1949.

Article 13 of the convention states the following:

Article 13.
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Obviously, if the phrase regarding protection against “public curiosity” is to have any meaning, the display of such photographs violates it.

None of this is to say that Saddam Hussein is a nice fellow, or that he has some nebulous “right to privacy”, just that all Americans should be concerned about a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The Difference between Naked Aggression and a Pre-emptive Strike

2005-04-16T11:11:00.000-07:00

Some people have lately been asking the question, “What is the difference between aggression and preemption?”

The answer is really quite simple. The only difference is whether one is speaking in the first or third person. When "we" do it, it is preemption (usually used in the phrase "pre-emptive strike" - as though it were a single short quick operation, and as though virtually all conflicts don’t actually begin with a single operation), but when "they" do it, it is aggression (usually accompanied by the term "naked" in order to make plain that it is open and notorious, and therefore indisputable).

Some people might regard this as a very cynical answer, but they should ask themselves if they have ever heard of anyone arguing that the other side has a right to preemptively strike "us".

This simple reversal is the easiest method to expose the evil which is being advocated. Abraham Lincoln confronted a different question in his day, and although slavery and war are very different evils, his response parallels what reasonable people would say about the current burning political question of the day.

In a speech to an Indiana regiment on March 17, 1865, Mr. Lincoln stated that:

“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

The same principle applies to preventive or pre-emptive war. If any man argues for a pre-emptive strike, let him first admit the right of the other side to attack him or his country pre-emptively.

Mixed Signals from the Almighty ?

2005-02-12T22:01:00.000-08:00

During the final run-up to the 2004 election there was quite a stir created when, Pat Robertson (the televangelist and founder of the Christian Coalition), made the claim on CNN that he had warned President Bush, just prior to the US invasion of Iraq, that the US was going to have considerable difficulties in the ensuing war.

Paula Zahn conducted the interview, and had asked Robertson, whether he thought the president had made mistakes, and whether he had admitted them. His response was as follows:

I met with him down in Nashville before the Gulf War started. And he was the most self-assured man I ever met in my life.

You remember, Mark Twain said, he looks like a contended Christian with four aces. He was just sitting there, like, I'm on top of the world, and I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.

Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties. Well, I said, it's the way it's going to be. And so, it was messy. The lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy. And before that, I had deep, in my spirit, I had deep misgivings about going into Iraq.

Press accounts from the Washington Post, and the USA Today, etc tended to concentrate on the fact that Mr. Robertson had claimed that the President had said "we're not going to have any casualties," and didn’t place a whole lot of emphasis on the other parts of Robertson’s responses.

The claim, that anyone believed that in a war there wouldn’t be any casualties is rather bizarre, in itself, and the fact that it came from one of Bush’s supporters made it newsworthy, even if there was no verification.

The Bush campaign responded, with several statements from campaign officials, who diplomatically explained that Mr. Robertson must have misunderstood. Bush’s chief political advisor, Karl Rove, stated that he had been present at the February, 2003, Nashville meeting, when the alleged comment was made, and that the President had said no such thing.

As would be expected, considering the timing of the flap (two weeks before the presidential election), the press concentrated on President Bush, and whether Pat Robertson’s claim was an accurate description of the President’s judgement. Under the circumstances, no one seemed particularly interested in investigating Robertson’s account of his own statements, or the claim that the Lord had told him that it was going to be "messy" and a "disaster". Examining his claims would be instructive, both because it would give an indication as to whether the claims regarding Bush might possibly have some validity, and because they might indicate whether Robertson himself has decent judgement on these matters.

Of course, for normal people, in the absence of a recorded transcript, trying to recall the precise words used in a meeting, which took place a year and a half prior, is rather difficult. And people, in general, tend to remember things in a manner that portrays themselves in the most favorable light.

However, one can still get a slightly better picture of what was probably said at a meeting by examining the statements (for which there is a record) which were made shortly afterwards. Memories tend to fade over time, and the memories that are preserved are usually those, which are most likely to re-enforce the notions, which have subsequently been borne out.

In a Feb 27, 2003 interview also on CNN, Robertson had been asked about the impending war, by Connie Chung:

CHUNG:Because I'm wondering if you believe the United States should invade Iraq without U.N. backing.

ROBERTSON:Connie, I have, over the last year or so, been quite concerned about entering into this war. We should have gone in after him in the Gulf War I.

This thing is fraught with danger. And I think we need to understand that. I told the president that just recently, that we have got to prepare the American people for civilian casualties, for possibly our casualties, for gassing, for various chemical weapons against them.

CHUNG: And, sir, in the last 15 seconds, do you believe we need U.N. backing?

ROBERTSON: Connie, I think the U.N., frankly, is a joke. And I think they're becoming impotent and I think they're becoming ineffective. And the dithering on this matter just proves it. So I don't think that's necessary. We've already got Resolution 1141 (sic – he obviously meant resolution 1441). That's all we need.

CHUNG: So are you saying to the president, go ahead, but warn...

ROBERTSON: I think that's it. We're too far along the way to stop back now. And you have no choice but to go forward, so be resolute, but please tell the American people to expect trouble and don't think it's going to be a cakewalk.

This obviously does indicate that Pat Robertson believed that there could be casualties, although he was also under the impression (mistaken as it turns out) that chemical weapons would be used. Furthermore, he gave no indication that President Bush had denied that there would be American losses, only that he (Robertson) had seen fit to warn him about the possibility.

Robertson also stated that he was “concerned about entering this war.” But this statement is hardly novel – everyone is, or at any rate should be, concerned about a war, precisely because everyone should know that it does, in fact, usually involve casualties. Nevertheless, his subsequent comment that “you have no choice but to go forward” makes it abundantly clear what his position was at the time.

It was only subsequently, after the occupation of Iraq began to go badly, that Mr. Robertson began to speak of the fact that the Lord had told him it was going to be “messy” and a “disaster”.

This can only lead one to question the timeliness of Mr. Robertson’s divinely imbued clairvoyance. Perhaps he was confused about when the signals were received from the almighty. Or, for some unknown reason, God may have waited to tell him about how much of a messy disaster it was going to be until after it had already become one.

Obviously, if God had told him that it was going to be “A) a disaster and, B) messy,” before we entered the war, he probably should have told someone about it, or perhaps even suggested that we not do it - unless, of course, it was all part of God’s plan which only the initiated, can understand.

Saying that we “have no choice but to go forward” and to “be resolute” without telling people that it was going to be a messy disaster might lead people to question whether he and God actually had our best interests at heart. It might even lead some of the more faint hearted to ask a question which would be considered blasphemous by some of Robertson's supporters: "Is God really on our side?"

Déjà vu- The Historical Significance of the Iraqi Elections

2005-02-05T10:48:00.000-08:00

With all of the euphoria over the recent Iraqi elections, the question arises as to how historically significant they really are.

Of course, the White House issued a congratulatory statement. (Cynics would call it self-congratulatory, since it was Bush who made the decision to launch “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, and the election was only made possible, or necessary, by that invasion.)

By and large, the press followed suit, and in spite of the violence from those opposed to the U.S. sponsored elections, gave laudatory accounts, and presented the mere holding of the elections as a great victory, and an indicator of the overall success of U.S. policy in Iraq.

But with all of the fulsome praise for the “historic elections”, some members of the subversive news network were skeptical, and made it a point to give an interesting historical perspective. It was pointed out that the US press had previously echoed the claims of the US government regarding other countries’ elections in somewhat similar circumstances.

The account of South Vietnamese elections from the Sept 4, 1967 edition of the New York Times, is worth reading in full.

'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote’
Peter Grose
The New York Times, Sept 4, 1967, page 2

United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the national election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premiere Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premiere Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Diem was overthrown by a military junta.

Few member of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration’s view, diminish the Significance of the constitutional step which has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lasting in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong’s disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80% turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential elections started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling places would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

Reflecting upon this particular press report from a previous military misadventure does not automatically lead to the conclusion that holding the elections in Iraq is necessarily a bad thing. But reading the article is downright spooky. One merely needs to substitute the phrases “Iraqi Transitional Government” for “Saigon government”, “Insurgents” (or "Saddam loyalists" or "Islamist fighters" or "anti-Iraq Forces" or whatever is the term du jour) for “Vietcong”, etc.

The similarities are striking, even down to the use of the term “terrorists” to describe the groups trying to disrupt the foreign (US) sponsored election process.

This article may not prove that history repeats itself, but it might lead one to believe that whenever there is a conflict, journalists simply re-publish old articles and substitute new names and places for old ones.

The Wacky World of Christopher Hitchens

2005-01-30T20:24:00.001-08:00

Christopher Hitchens recently wrote a really wacky article for slate magazine, in which he claimed that the reputed exploits of Abu Musaib al-Zarqawi represent “proof” of the purported “relationship” between Osama bin Laden’s al-qaida and Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime in Iraq.

To follow Hitchens’s twisted logic is difficult, and therefore, it must be extensively quoted:

In order to believe that Zarqawi is or was innocent of al-Qaida and Baathist ties, therefore, or in order to believe that he does not in fact represent such a tie, you must be ready to believe that…

The argument is then completed by three separate assertions, which are given and explained below.

1) A low-level Iraqi official decided to admit a much-hunted Jordanian—a refugee from the invasion of Afghanistan, after Sept. 11, 2001—when even the most conservative forces in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were keeping their distance from such people and even assisting in rounding them up.

This argument is kind of silly. People cross borders surreptitiously all the time. To claim that Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq proves an al-Qaida link is to claim that everything that happened in Iraq happened with Saddam’s explicit permission. By that logic, Bush was responsible for 9-11 because he allowed the hijackers entry into the US.

2) That this newly admitted immigrant felt that the most pressing need of the holy war was the assassination of Kurdish leaders opposed to the rule of Saddam Hussein.

Even assuming that it were true that Zarqawi was involved in the assassination of Kurdish leaders opposed to Saddam Hussein, that doesn’t prove that Zarqawi was working for Saddam’s benefit. Most of those same Kurdish officials, who were opposed to the Ba’athist regime, had developed a serious (and even overt) relationship with the American intelligence agencies, and were opponents of Islamic fundamentalism as well.

Therefore, assassinating them would have been a logical thing for an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist to do, regardless of whether that would be beneficial to Saddam Hussein, as an unintended consequence.

3) That a recently arrived Jordanian, in a totally controlled police state, was so enterprising as to swiftly put himself in possession of maps, city diagrams, large sums of cash, and a group of heavily armed fighters hitherto named after the Iraqi dictator—the Fedayeen Saddam"

Maps and cash aren’t really that hard to come by, and the idea of gaining support from heavily armed fighters from the Fedayeen Saddam, doesn’t really prove anything, even if one accepts the postulation that it were true.

Obviously, after the US invasion of Iraq, many groups who may have been previously opposed to each other would agree to join forces in order to confront a common enemy. It does not mean that they were in cahoots before, just that people in a particular country or region are willing to set aside ideological differences in the face of a foreign invasion and occupation.

History is filled with examples of people and groups, who have put aside their internal disputes in order to confront an external attack, and even records quite a few cases whereby under the pressure of the actual struggle they submerged and even adjusted their philosophical/political orientation to that of the more dominant grouping. Lafayette may have gone to America in order to fight against the hated English, merely based on the traditional Anglo-French rivalry and a desire to achieve martial glory, but he left a firm believer in the “American” idea of constitutional and representative government. In a similar vein, many secular Arab nationalists might very well embrace Islamic fundamentalism in response to the specter of a foreign/infidel occupation of their “Islamic” homeland.

However, to attempt to tie two widely divergent movements together (like Ba’athist Arab Nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism) in this manner, merely to justify an attack on one, based on a prior attack by the other, is to reverse logic. It is to justify based on the anticipation of retaliation, i.e. – we attack them because if we do, they will embrace our enemies, and retaliate.

The idea of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” doesn’t necessarily apply. It is not always the case, but merely a cynical choice, which may or may not be made (either at the time, or in the future). The obverse of that mode of thinking is that “since all my enemies are my enemies, they must all be in league together” which is an emotional rationalization which projects the previous idea onto one’s rivals. It is also common among egocentric people, and the first stage of paranoia.

The claims (or more precisely the series of innuendo) made by Hitchens, with such absolute certitude (and total absence of convincing proof), just demonstrate that he has not only been co-opted by the neo-cons in their unending plans for establishing hegemony based on the possibility of resistance, but that his intellectual arrogance does not allow him to seriously scrutinize the claims which he makes on their behalf.

Election post-mortem:How to tell a BIG Lie and get away with it

2005-01-29T08:24:00.000-08:00

Commentators have argued about how successful or eloquent George W. Bush’s speech accepting the nomination of his party was. And, as is generally the case, the judgements reflected party affiliations. Republicans called the speech inspirational, and praised it, while Democrats disparaged it, along with the candidate.

Unfortunately, there was very little serious scrutiny applied to the speech itself, either to the veracity of the claims which Mr. Bush made or to the underlying message, which it sent.

Those who support him will praise his “clear moral purpose” in describing his confrontation with Iraq. Many people seem to appreciate his forthright statements concerning the war, and contrast them positively with John Kerry’s more nuanced approach. The reasons for the different approaches can be largely explained by the nature of the respective bases to which the candidates must appeal.

Whereas Kerry has to appeal to the large percentage of people who believe that the war may have been a mistake, while acknowledging that he himself voted to authorize it, Bush is under no such constraints. Bush simply has to make the case for his war, while Kerry must appeal to those who were opposed to it, as well as those who think it was the right thing to do – which can’t be an easy task.

At the convention, Mr. Bush made his case made his case concerning the war with Iraq, clearly and succinctly

This progress involved careful diplomacy, clear moral purpose, and some tough decisions. And the toughest came on Iraq. We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that September 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late.

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office -- a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.

The only problem with this heartfelt eloquence is that the central portion of it is totally untrue.

How much of a “threat” a third world country like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq really was, is debatable at best. And while it is undeniably true that Mr. Bush’s opponent also voted for the war, and we, (the United States acting through the UN Security Council), did give a “final chance” by passing a “resolution demanding the dictator disarm” the next part is false. While Resolution 1441 did give Saddam Hussein’s Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations,” the problem with Mr. Bush’s rendition is that the claim that he “refused” to do so, is completely untrue.

Saddam did, in fact, accept UN Resolution 1441, he did allow inspectors into Iraq, he did give an account of his country’s unconventional weapons program, and as yet (even now with the country under US occupation) there has been nothing unearthed which would show that he possessed any banned weapons.

Mr. Bush had made similar claims several times before. For example in his war speech of March 17, 2003, Mr. Bush stated categorically that:

On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm. Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed…

Whether or not any nation could “possibly claim the Iraq had disarmed” (of WMD) it turns out that Iraq had indeed done so. The statement that Mr. Bush made with such absolute certitude turned out to be completely false. This could, of course, be blamed on an “intelligence failure”. But the possibility of such intelligence failures should, at the very least, give one pause concerning the whole concept of pre-emptive war. Otherwise Hitler’s invasion of Poland could be justified based on the claim that Poland was about to attack, which is in the never-never-land of self-serving speculation. Still, Mr. Bush may have believed it when he said it. He and his junior partner, British Prime Minister Tony Blair could have been “sincere deceivers”, as the Economist put it. A simple falsehood can be a mistake. It isn’t necessarily a lie.

Subsequently, Mr. Bush when speaking to reporters during a meeting with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan , went off on a bizarre tangent and made the totally absurd and obviously false claimed that the reason the US invaded was that Saddam Hussein had refused to let inspectors in, so that it might be determined whether or not he had those banned weapons.

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power

Of course, this was an extemporaneous comment, and it could be reasonably argued that the falsehood was based on confusion, and not an attempt to deceive. Most observers argued that the falsehood of this particular claim was so flagrant – since the whole world knew that the inspectors were allowed unfettered access pursuant to Resolution 1441– that it had to be a mistake. No one would tell such an obvious falsehood on purpose. (Some people would be more concerned that their president could become so confused over such an integral part of what he claimed was the casus belli on which he led his country into war, but this is a side issue.)

However, at the Republican National Convention Mr. Bush was speaking from a prepared text. This is what makes the false claim, and the lack of serious reaction to it so interesting.

Why on earth would Mr. Bush make such a statement? Perhaps, he had been somewhat confused or mistaken when he said similar things before. But this was different, this was his acceptance speech for the nomination of the Republican party, and his advisors had to have seen the text before he presented it. How could he have told such a brazen lie, without any plausible deniability.

To be sure, Bush’s opponent responded immediately, and in an unprecedented step, gave his own speech at a rally that same evening, in order to counter it. But although Mr. Kerry accused President Bush, and his Republican cohorts of having “attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief,” and having “misled the nation into Iraq,” nowhere did he point out the precise falsehood of the Bush speech, which was made just hours prior.

Senator Kerry’s position is, of course, somewhat muddled (and some might say hypocritical) since he voted for the war, and he had access to the same information which President Bush had. For him to claim that the reasons given for the war were phony, is difficult, because he was either a willing participant in the campaign to mislead, or a dupe who believed all of the falsehoods that the Bush administration told him, or he simply accepted the same information, and made the same judgement as the president did. Since the first two, would be difficult to admit, and the third would make it impossible to distinguish himself from his opponent, he is in a bit of a quandary.

But why would he not point out the obvious falsehood of Mr. Bush’s claim regarding Saddam’s supposed refusal to comply? Why would he allude to the “misleading” of the nation some months back, (when the falsehood of the claims was not readily apparent), and ignore the fact that Mr. Bush was continuing to mislead the nation regarding the war.

The “outrage” at the Republican claim that Kerry was not fit “to serve as Commander-in-Chief”, (as though Republicans would say that a Democrat was the proper choice for that post, or vice-versa) was apparently more important than pointing out that President Bush, by brazenly lying about the supposed casus belli, might not be fit to continue as Commander-in-Chief. By discrediting the President, who is either confused about why he starts wars, or living in denial about it, Kerry would then be seen as the logical alternative. Why wouldn’t he point it out? And perhaps more importantly, why wouldn’t the press do so?

The fact that Mr. Kerry was more outraged over the attacks on himself, than on the continuing false claims about Saddam Hussein, that led to a war (with all of the attendant death and destruction), can only be explained by Mr. Kerry’s colossal sense of his own self-importance. To speak ill of John Kerry is an outrage (at least to John Kerry) but to make false claims in order to justify a war is somehow less important – after all, the false claims were about Saddam Hussein, who is, by almost all accounts, a despicable character.

In some regards, this emphasis on the personality of the accused and accuser can explain the unwillingness of anyone to call Mr. Bush’s hand on this issue. After all, to point out the fact Bush is still lying (or at any rate, living in denial about what he did) might be construed as defending Saddam Hussein.

This partially explains Kerry’s refusal to point out the specific falsehood, which George Bush is still telling about the war. Imagine for a moment if John Kerry stood up and in a boisterous voice accused George Bush of “lying about Saddam Hussein, and his weapons program.” For him to do so could result in complete ridicule. Most people look for a candidate to stand up for them, not for some despicable foreign dictator. Consequently, Mr. Kerry is left making slightly more vague claims about the Bush administration having “misled the nation into Iraq,” with the vagueness serving the dual purpose of avoiding precision about who Mr. Bush was lying about, and not having to identify the specific claims with which Mr. Kerry had apparently agreed, since as stated, he voted for the war.

Unfortunately, the most important point seems to be lost in the shuffle. No one seems interested in the fact that the President of the United States is still telling brazen falsehoods about a war he started.

Is this made possible because the lies are all being told about a despicable character who is sitting in an American (or Iraqi) military prison? Under the current circumstances, he can hardly point out that the statement about his “refusal to comply” is untrue. One is almost tempted to say that it is a variation on the old “blame it on the dead guy” routine.

Of course, the comparison isn’t really appropriate. Blaming it on the dead guy is premised on the fact that the only knowledgeable people are unable to speak up. While it could be argued that Saddam Hussein isn’t in a position to point out that he did comply with the UN resolution, other people can see it as well, by a simple cursory look at the record. This situation is a little different. It really isn’t like theClintonesque claim that “if the two people who are involved say it didn't happen—it didn't happen.” It is more like blaming a thoroughly despicable character for starting a fight, even though the visual evidence shows quite the opposite.

This whole situation leaves one wondering whether anyone cares about the truth, merely for its own sake, or if a lie is only a lie if it is told about someone who counts. Is the false claim that “he refused” only relevant if he [Saddam] is a judged to be sufficiently worthy? Is it really OK to lie just because the guy you lied about is a bad guy? Or is the situation a little more complicated than that? Is it only a lie, if someone is willing to call your hand, and people aren’t willing to call your hand because no one wants to be perceived as defending a bad guy?

This formulation might explain the reason why Kerry won’t expose the specifics of Bush’s false claims, but why wouldn’t the “independent” press do so?

The only explanation is that they are subject to the same constraints as Mr. Kerry is. No network anchorman has to finesse his vote for the war, like Mr. Kerry does, but a mainstream newsman can’t really afford to be seen as defending Saddam Hussein against a charge made by the President of the United States.

One only has to recall the case of Jim McDermott (Representative from Washington state) who was in Baghdad in September of 2002. Congressman McDermott was interviewed on ABC’s “This Week” and was openly skeptical of Bush’s claims regarding Iraq’s WMD. At the same time, McDermott, who was in Baghdad promoting the use of inspections, as opposed to invasion, as a policy towards Saddam, was assailed for his “gullibility”.

According to George Will:

Not since Jane Fonda posed for photographers at a Hanoi antiaircraft gun has there been anything like Rep. Jim McDermott, speaking to ABC's ``This Week'' from Baghdad, saying Americans should take Saddam Hussein at his word, but should not take President Bush at his.

Other right wing columnists and pundits and talk radio hosts expressed similar sentiments. The Republican Party joined in the fray, trying to capitalize on the “outrage” of members of the US Congress accepting the word of Saddam, and not trusting the US President. They were all utterly incredulous at the mere thought of such a thing.

Of course, McDermott wasn’t really advocating that anyone simply take Saddam’s word for it. As he stated on CNN a few days earlier:

"What I am advising is that we have the inspections," he said. "No one is saying that Saddam Hussein is a good person or honest or trustworthy or loyal or reverent."

But the fact that he was advocating inspections, which might determine whether or not Saddam Hussein possessed the fabled WMD was lost in the shuffle. All that mattered was that McDermott was apparently taking the word of the Iraqi dictator over the word of the President of the United States.

Of course, in reality the situation isn’t all that simple. It really isn’t a question of who is more trustworthy – Saddam Hussein or George Bush, but who is in a position to know the truth and who can prove what. It is rather analogous to the situation of a (heavily armed) policeman who makes an accusation against someone who had previously committed a crime (for example that he might have a gun in his basement). The question isn’t so much whether one takes the word of the policeman (in this analogy – the US government) or the accused criminal (in this analogy – Saddam Hussein), but whether or not the policeman has some sort of credible proof of the accusations which he makes. One wouldn’t just accept the word of the policeman and then approve of him going in blasting, without bothering to execute a search warrant, or more analogously – doing so after finding out that the search proved fruitless.

McDermott, himself, drew this analogy, after his return from Baghdad in October of 2002:

In the United States, we have a tradition. We have a Constitution that says if there is a bad person there, we give them due process, and the inspections is due process in this example. If we go and we were to hang somebody and then ask questions, we would say that's unfair, it isn't the right way to do it, and the whole world would see it.

So it is important for us to go through this process, not to pressure the process. Let the process go. Mr. Blix can go, and he'll come back with a report to the Security Council and say, I succeeded, I was allowed into every place, or I was not. At that point, we can make a decision about what has happened in that process.

Of course, Jim McDermott was never really successful at getting his message out. The Bush Administration simply made the claim about Saddam Hussein’s WMD, and went to war, even though Mr. Blix’s inspectors never uncovered anything. McDermott was reviled, and attacked as a “useful idiot” for Saddam Hussein. The truth and wisdom of what he was saying was left as a minor footnote.

This story partially explains the reticence of the “mainstream” media in disputing the veracity of President Bush’s claims. The “mainstream” media is already suffering from a loss in influence due to the advent of alternative media (cable news had already cut into the market share of the networks, and the internet and talk radio have made more recent inroads). They can not afford to become what Bush supporters would label “tools of Saddam Hussein (or the Iraqi insurgents, or terrorists, or whoever).

The net result of all of this is that since no one is willing to face the inevitable accusations of being soft on a dictator (or even worse – being soft on terrorism, since the war against Iraq is invariably presented as part of the broader “War on Terror”), the big lie is allowed to pass undisputed. It is almost as though the entire country has joined President Bush in his attempt to live in denial. No one wants to point out the very sad fact that as regards Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (the stated reason for the war) Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, and George W. Bush was and is lying. The terrible truth, that our president made the choice to start a war of what amounts to naked aggression, can not be faced, and will not be spoken.

Divide et Imperium

2004-12-22T01:15:00.000-08:00

Edward Wong of the N.Y. Times recently wrote a very good article about the inter-communal strife in Iraq. In discussing the topic of the interplay of the different communities, (Shi’i Arabs, Sunni Arabs, and predominantly Sunni Kurds) with the (American) occupation authorities, the article reflected on the fact that the much feared prospect of civil war, may have already begun.

To be sure, there were previously attacks on prominent Shi’i leaders like Ayatullah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim of the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, but these could be explained as the response of the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime in its death throws, or as an attack by other political enemies of the Ayatollah. Regardless of who was directly responsible for the attack, and even though it took place near the tomb of Ali in Najaf, the target was most likely the Ayatollah himself, and not the shrine or the other worshippers there.

Conversely, some of the most recent attacks have been directed against Shi'i mosques themselves as well as against ordinary Shi'is, and not limited to those who appear to be tied to the current US sponsored regime.

Of course, there was always a certain amount of cleavage between Sunnis and Shi’is in Iraq, but in some regards, the occupation has made the sectarian divisions much worse.

There is a certain logic to all of this. While a foreign invasion often unites a population against the invader, a foreign occupation, by definition creates the circumstances for civil war – although not necessarily on a sectarian basis. The occupation automatically creates a division between those who collaborate with the occupation on the one hand, and those who are steadfast in their opposition and resist it, on the other. If the occupiers support one particular ethnic, sectarian, or regional group over the other, the un-favored group tends to oppose the favored group as well as the occupiers.

Of course, the US entered the war with grand claims of “liberating” the Iraqi people, and didn’t really make any pronouncements about shifting the balance of power away from the Sunni Arab minority which had always made up the bulk of the ruling elite, and towards the Shi’i majority. But the reality of the Shi’i majority was always understood, and it was always assumed by all concerned that this majority sect would provide the bulk of the new leadership of the country.

Some have attempted to denigrate the Sunni resistance as a refusal to accept the loss of their position as the ruling sect. There may be a certain element of truth in this, but the exploitation of this sentiment is part of the problem.

In a television interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball”, James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA, tried to explain:

The mistake that was made here, I think, was not principally, a failure of enough American troops. I think it was not having enough Iraqi troops go in with us. And they would have had to have been Shia and Kurds. .

This is, of course, the logical approach. Shia and Kurds would be more easily used to put down an insurgency in the Arab Sunni areas of Iraq. They would also be less likely to mutiny or desert, as Iraqi police and National Guard units did last April, when the US forces first tried to subdue the city of Fallujah.

However, using Shia forces to put down the insurgency in a Sunni area can have unfortunate consequences. It encourages the Sunnis to regard the Shia as local agents of the foreign occupation.

According to Mariam Fam of the Associated Press

Civilians who escaped the Sunni militant stronghold of Fallujah during the assault on insurgents there claimed some National Guardsmen plastered walls with photos of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a top Shiite cleric, angering Sunni townspeople. Reporters in Fallujah saw photos of Shiite saints tied to the bumpers of some trucks carrying Iraqi security forces.

Of course, among Shi'is, Ayatollah Sistani is a unifying figure, and from their perspective, putting up his picture would make absolute sense. However, when the American forces flatten the city of Fallujah, and their local allies portray themselves as acting under his inspiration, the Fallujans would tend to regard this as a provocation.

This is not to say that the suicide attacks on the processions at Shi'a mosques in Najaf and Karbala are a direct response from Sunni Iraqis (generally) to the actions of some Shi'a members of the Iraqi National Guard. Nor should it be thought of as a general Sunni response to the fact that the Shi'a Prime Minister (Iyad Allawi) had authorized the attack on Fallujah. It is very likely that some of the foreign elements in Iraq are Wahabis, who have a deep seated, almost pathological hatred for the Shi’a, and it is quite possible that they were responsible for this latest attack.

However, there are obviously Sunni Iraqis involved, to a certain extent, in some of the attacks directed specifically against Shi’is, and this is, at least partially, the result of the attempt to tie the Iraqi National Guard and the new order to the Shi’a community. The problem is only accentuated by Shi'a National Guardsmen rubbing it in the faces of the Sunnis.

This may not be a bad thing, from a selfish American perspective. If the predominantly Sunni insurgents are provoked into attacking Shi’a, they have less resources and opportunity to attack Americans. And having the Sunnis attack the Shi’a would also tend to force the Shi'a to side with the US occupation.

At that point, the US would be able to reduce its military involvement, and begin to rule the country through surrogates, which appears to be the objective of US strategy. This is the logic of divide et imperium.

.

Was Kerry’s defeat really a defeat for the anti-war movement?

2004-11-17T19:44:00.000-08:00

Was John Kerry’s defeat in the last election really a triumph for the war party and a vindication for the President’s invasion of Iraq? Or were other issues paramount in the minds of the electorate? The pollsters are already out with data that shows that “values” was the most important issue on which voters made their choice. But what the heck are those values ?

Did the decision to go to war conform to those values? Certainly, the media coverage was centered on the war in Iraq. And that wasn’t some sort of a media conspiracy. Whenever the issue of a prescription drug benefit or medical liability limitations, or even gun control was discussed, there seemed to be a collective yawn from the audience. The one topic that seemed to captivate the electorate was the war in Iraq, which does seem to be a reasonable priority, regardless of one's position on the matter. The question of War or Peace does seem to be a weighty issue.

But based on this, was the defeat of John Kerry really a victory of the war party over the anti-war movement? Or should the 51% -48% split of the popular vote be interpreted as the close result from a society which is troubled, if not sharply divided on the war, and did not have a clear choice between candidates?

Was there really any difference between the candidates on the issue? After all, one candidate (Bush) started the war, and the other candidate (Kerry) voted to authorize it. The Kerry campaign made a real effort to appeal to the sizable chunk of the American populace who were opposed to the war (or at any rate thought that it may have been a mistake), but was their message too nuanced? Were the American people unable to understand (or depending on one’s point of view - was the Kerry campaign unable to explain) his position?

Some Kerry supporters like Madeline Albright tried to explain his position (albeit not very well) and put forth the argument that John Kerry’s vote for the authorization of the use of force, was not really the same thing as voting for the use of force itself. Although Kerry never disavowed his vote for the authorization, he did criticize the president for “rushing to war”.

On its face, this argument whereby the President should be held accountable for the war, but those who, like Kerry, voted to authorize it should not, sounds totally self-serving - as do most arguments made by politicians during an election season. But the subtleties of this position should nevertheless be examined.

The argument is partially based on the constitutional conundrum created by the American founding fathers, whereby the Congress has the authority to declare war, but the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces.

Because of this situation, a simple declaration of war is somewhat problematic. What would happen if the congress declared a war to which the president was opposed? In the 1890’s, in the period just before the Spanish-American War, President Grover Cleveland warned the Congress that if they declared war he wouldn’t send an army to fight. This division between the branches of government could have resulted in disaster. Conceivably, the refusal to attack on the part of a peacefully inclined president, combined with a provocative declaration of war on the part of a belligerent congress could have resulted in an attack on the United States.

Of course, Americans become indignant at the idea of discussing under what circumstances an attack against us would be "justified". But one should be able to look at things from a different perspective. One should also remember that the US entered the war against Nazi Germany, (and bombed the living daylights out of them) not because of an attack on the US, but because Hitler inexplicably issued a declaration of war on us (even though he had no feasible plan for actually attacking us). The point being that a declaration of war establishes a state of belligerency, and once that state exists, one shouldn't be surprised at the idea of the other side acting in a manner which befits that circumstance. After all, war is usually a two way street, and so it is reasonable to argue that to declare war is to invite an attack.

Therefore, although the congress might have the authority to declare war, to do so without a president who actually plans to pursue it, would be the height of irresponsibility, and could result in disaster.

Alternatively, if the situation were reversed, a similarly disastrous result could have ensued.

In 1990, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the elder President Bush committed his administration to UN Security Council resolution 678 , which authorized “Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait… to use all necessary means” to evict the Iraqis, if they refused to withdraw by Jan 15, 1991. The Bush administration then requested that Congress pass a resolution authorizing him, as commander in chief, to use the US military to enforce this demand.

There is a very good argument that the President's ultimatum combined with the passage of the congressional authorization for it, was the preferred method to achieve the legitimate goal of liberating Kuwait from the Iraqi occupation (possibly without having to resort to force).

As all reasonable people would agree, sometimes, the only way to deter or defend against aggression is to threaten the use of force, and the actions taken by the US followed this principle. The ultimatum, and the supporting authorization from congress, were being used to threaten war, if and only if Saddam Hussein did not withdraw from Kuwait, or to force him to withdraw if he refused.

Furthermore, by passing the resolution authorizing (but not requiring) the use of force under specific circumstances, the legislative branch had acted prudently, by not creating a premature state of belligerency and in a manner consistent with their constitutional mandate. At the same time congress placed a specific limitation on the authority of the President, while allowing him the latitude to choose the most propitious time and place for military action, if necessary.

Based on this formulation, if the Iraqis had complied with the demands in resolution 678, the President would not have been in any way required to wage war, nor would a state of belligerency have automatically come into effect. Furthermore, the authorization only gave the elder President Bush authority to enforce UN resolution 678, which in turn only allowed the use of “all necessary means” if Iraq refused to withdraw. Consequently, the Iraqis could see that the authorization, coupled with President Bush’s (conditional) threat, left them with a clear choice – withdraw from Kuwait, or else…

If, however, a majority of congress had voted (ironically, along with Senator Kerry on that occasion) against the authorization, Saddam Hussein would have known that the US would be facing a constitutional crisis, if the President had tried to enforce the ultimatum. The refusal to pass such a resolution might have emboldened the Iraqis to maintain their occupation precisely because they knew that the threat of force was a somewhat hollow one. In such a case, the refusal to authorize force might have conceivably made the actual use of force necessary.

Consequently, there is a fundamental need for unity of purpose between the legislative and the executive branches of government, in questions of war and peace.

Of course, Saddam Hussein refused to comply even though Congress had signed off on the ultimatum, and so the US took military action to force him to withdraw from Kuwait. Hence, this becomes something of an academic point. Nevertheless, it provides an excellent illustration of the need for a united front when confronting a foreign menace, as well as the need for each branch of government to act in a manner, which is consistent with its constitutional mandate.

The opposite side of this same principle is that if Saddam Hussein had voluntarily withdrawn from Kuwait (which, of course, he didn’t), and the elder President Bush had launched the military operation anyway, simply because he wanted to destroy Iraq's capacity to threaten her neighbors, or because he thought that Saddam should be punished for his prior actions, etc., then the elder Bush could have (and probably would have) been accused of exceeding his authority.

This principle forms the basis of Mr. Kerry’s explanation of his vote. According to the Washington Post

Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Unfortunately, the claim of Kerry supporters, that the vote for the Authorization for Military Force of 2002; wasn’t really a vote for war itself, doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny.

Since the authorization wasn’t in the form of an ultimatum, it can’t really be logically argued that it was merely a vote to threaten war, in order to achieve a specific aim (preferably without the need to resort to force).

The authorization for Military Force of 2002 was not an act of brinksmanship., and so the claim that Kerry only authorized the step up to the brink, but Mr. Bush is the one who stepped beyond it, doesn't really stand up.

Although it made preambulary references to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the absence of inspectors, the resolution of 2002 did not say that the president is authorized to use force in order to enforce a demand to allow weapons inspectors in, or to allow force if and only if Iraq maintains WMD, or any such thing. The authorization simply declares Iraq to be a “threat” and authorized the President

“to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-“,

among other things,

“defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;”

In this regard, Kerry’s claim, that he isn’t flip-flopping when he says that this is ,”the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” in spite of the fact that he voted for it, is completely ridiculous.

It is like a man writing a blank check, and then complaining that the person who cashed it shouldn’t have done so, or wrote in the wrong amount. If it isn’t a flip-flop (i.e. a change in his position), it is worse. It is a shameless attempt to take credit for authorizing the war - when seeking the votes of those who favored it, and disavowing his own responsibility - when seeking the votes of those who opposed it.

Worse still, if Mr. Kerry’s stands by his vote to authorize what he later called, “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time”, it would have to be regarded as a complete abdication of his responsibilities as a US Senator, since the authority to declare war is given exclusively to the Congress. Furthermore, if he believes that the President should have the blanket authority (and/or responsibility) as Commander in Chief, to wage war in whatever circumstances may arise, then why would he have voted against the War resolution of 1991?

The subtle nuance of Mr. Kerry’s position is that he wanted to profit by the difficulties which Mr. Bush is suffering in the war, but doesn’t want to share in the responsibility for having launched it.

Under such circumstances, Mr. Kerry’s defeat can’t really be thought of as a defeat of the anti-war movement. It is more properly thought of as the reaction of the American people when given the choice of a President who doesn’t know why he decided to go to war (since Mr. Bush is unperturbed by the absence of the fabled WMD which was the purported casus belli) and a Senator/candidate who doesn’t believe that he should be held responsible for having authorized him to do it.