Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, made some interesting and telling comments in a recent post-election interview regarding Iraq policy. Pace will be meeting with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. President Bush has been forced [grudgingly] to concede that the American public has repudiated his handling of Iraq policy. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has been neutered and removed from power. Pres. Bush turned to the seasoned pragmatist in his father’s Cabinet to undertake a review of Iraq strategy, as a potential face saving way to change direction from his disastrously inept “Stay the Course” mantra. In an example of Pace’s current attitude, he stated the following: "We need to give ourselves a good, honest scrub about what is working, what is not working, what are the impediments to progress, and what should we change about the way we're doing it."
While Bush insists that the election will not force him to change his "Victory in Iraq" strategy, he now is quick to point out that he recognizes the need for changes in “tactics.” In an apparent departure from his bull headed [apologies to all bovines] and arrogant approach prior to the election, Bush now seems willing to at least listen to military experts whose advice differs from his own agenda. Those same experts have previously been dismissed as “cut and run” sympathizers by the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal.
Perhaps the most beneficial effect of the US mid-term election with regard to the quagmire in Iraq is a new “openness” for dialogue and a greater opportunity to apply expert, reasoned and intelligent strategic analysis to the problem. These military policy experts of all political stripes, and those of non-partisan persuasion, now have political cover to express their opinions without fear of immediate dismissal from their posts by a micromanaging megalomaniacal Secretary of Defense. All agree that the situation is so badly messed up that there are no easy or quick solutions. However, the country has lost faith in the Bush cowboy rhetoric of “Victory” and has generally turned to the more rational goal of “resolution.” Arguably, if the latter had been in mind from the beginning, the situation would not have turned so dire. That is, of course, hindsight. Generals Pace, Casey and Abizaid can now openly discuss strategies for stabilization of the situation and extrication of US troops while minimizing the risk of further casualties. Few believe that the US can effectively determine or prevent the possibility of civil war in Iraq. That decision is and always has been one for the Iraqi people. Debate over whether the US presence has been an irritant and facilitator of sectarian strife or an ineffective buffer that has retarded the descent into all out civil war is academic as long as our presence remains.
The central question is whether the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are invested enough in salvaging their country to attempt to work together, no matter how tense the alliance, to establish and implement a central government capable of controlling sectarian violence and rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. The election signaled a defeat of the Bush Strategy in the “political war” against rational and intelligent strategic analysis. The Defense experts now have “cover” to come forward and provide their ideas and advice regarding how to fix the mess created over the past three and one-half years of incompetent leadership by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The Iraq problem has never truly been connected to, much less a "central front" in, the illusory and mythical "War on Terror," except in the deluded mind of Pres. Bush. Only by de-linking these two politically charged issues and permitting the experts to focus on the specific issues and problems relating to the Iraq occupation can we hope to find a rational and feasible resolution to US engagement.
The degree to which President Bush continues to try to obstruct this progressive turn should determine how aggressively the new Democratic led Congress has to push for immediate and thorough investigation of the massive corruption and incompetence in the Bush Administration’s handling of Iraq to date, including possible war crimes. We should hope that such political firefights will not be necessary to maintain the necessary cover for the Defense experts to develop and implement an effective strategy to get US troops out of an Iraq war that was neither legal nor necessary.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Sleeping Giant Awakens
The election results are almost complete. Save a potential for recount in Virginia, the reversal of fortunes by the GOP is complete. The public rebuke of the last six years of governance by the GOP in Congress and the White House is manifest. The Democrats will, come January, enjoy a comfortable lead in the House of Representatives, a margin similar to that held by the GOP over the past six years. It now looks like the Democrats will also enjoy a 51-49 majority in the Senate, assuming support of two Independents who have declared they will caucus with Democrats.
Pundits and analysts have attempted to portray the election results as a repudiation of the President’s handling of the War in Iraq. Bush attempted to dissemble in his news conference and to spin the results as an expression by the public that results were not sufficient and fast enough, but the public wants the US to stay in Iraq “until we achieve victory.” To be sure, the handling of Iraq was a factor in the election that has brought change to leadership in Washington. House Speaker elect Nancy Pelosi suggested that the first step President Bush could take to establish dialogue on Iraq would be to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in whom the Public and the military have lost confidence. Wednesday Morning following the Tuesday election, Rumsfeld was gone.
However, the impact of the election runs deeper than Iraq. The widespread dissatisfaction and the retirement of incumbents across the country in quarters thought safe by the GOP signal a more profound disapproval of the manner in which this country has been governed. The rule by a single party had become an antidemocratic and arrogant leviathan that brooked no dissent or opposition and refused to even listen respectfully to opposing ideas, even from within the GOP caucus. The public has waited in vain for answers to the legitimate questions about how and why the country was led into the Iraq invasion. The present Congress had no desire to exercise its Constitutional role of oversight. The perks of rule led those in power to believe that the public trust was instead the public trough. Legislation was guided by the interests of lobbyists willing to shovel truckloads of cash to elected representatives through their campaign accounts and then directly, ignoring completely all ethical rules. At the same time, the public was being stripped of its civil rights based upon jingoistic slogans and fear mongering about the “war on terror.”
The awakening of the public represents a repudiation of the manner in which it is being governed, not a proclamation on any single issue. There is no monolithic response to the many important issues that the country faces. That is precisely the problem with the GOP Neocon ideology and the imperial Presidency. The people of this country believe in discourse and dissent. They believe that opposing views can inform a more reasoned and effective result. The GOP refused to listen to or temper their ideology with opposing viewpoints. With control of Congress and the White House, they believed that they had no need to consider opposing views. They even threatened to eliminate filibuster with the “nuclear option” if the democrats tried to block a GOP initiative. The filibuster was developed as a stopgap tool of the minority to prevent oppression by a majority party. Many of the resulting measures were ill conceived and overreaching. The Congressional leadership was so arrogant that they directed staffers to insert provisions in final legislation that the Conference Committees had not approved, knowing that their control of Congress would back the move if the deception were eventually uncovered. And even measures that were reasonable took on a negative cast because of the way in which they were enacted.
The greatest lesson that the Democrats can take away from this election is how NOT to govern. While maintaining a sense of direction, a coherent strategy and a connection with the public on important issues, the Democrats need to listen carefully and respectfully to ideas and concerns raised by GOP representatives. If the ideas make sense, incorporate them. If they do not, respectfully decline. But never be afraid to listen to ideas that differ from your own, and never be afraid to learn something new. The governance that the American public wants and needs is one of collaboration and leadership, not arrogance and bullying tactics.
An additional move that the Democratic controlled Congress should take is to repeal the measures that stripped the American people of their Constitutional rights of liberty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The country will only be truly safer when we dispel the ghost of the phony and indefinable “War on Terror” and focus on real threats to safety. Experts from all political stripes tell us that the country is no safer from a potential terrorist attack than before 9/11 occurred. One has to believe that if we had spent $300 Billion on improving the staffing, technical and coordination capabilities of US and international criminal enforcement agencies, that our situation would be far better. Instead, we have mortgaged the future of our children to create a fiasco that has led to civil war in Iraq and a greater risk to world peace than existed prior to 9/11. Calming the public hysteria and “group think” fostered by Bush and the Neocons will be difficult, but it is vitally important if the real threat of terrorist activity is to be addressed.
We forget that the activity of the 9/11 hijackers was known to police, CIA and FBI agencies prior to the attack. They simply lacked the procedures and the mentality to share that information with each other. One certainty is that rational measures specifically targets to address those shortcomings would not have cost the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the Iraq fiasco. There is no way to turn back the clock or to bring back those lost souls. But with the help of God and an awakened public, we may be able to change direction and limit further damage and unnecessary loss of life.
Pundits and analysts have attempted to portray the election results as a repudiation of the President’s handling of the War in Iraq. Bush attempted to dissemble in his news conference and to spin the results as an expression by the public that results were not sufficient and fast enough, but the public wants the US to stay in Iraq “until we achieve victory.” To be sure, the handling of Iraq was a factor in the election that has brought change to leadership in Washington. House Speaker elect Nancy Pelosi suggested that the first step President Bush could take to establish dialogue on Iraq would be to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in whom the Public and the military have lost confidence. Wednesday Morning following the Tuesday election, Rumsfeld was gone.
However, the impact of the election runs deeper than Iraq. The widespread dissatisfaction and the retirement of incumbents across the country in quarters thought safe by the GOP signal a more profound disapproval of the manner in which this country has been governed. The rule by a single party had become an antidemocratic and arrogant leviathan that brooked no dissent or opposition and refused to even listen respectfully to opposing ideas, even from within the GOP caucus. The public has waited in vain for answers to the legitimate questions about how and why the country was led into the Iraq invasion. The present Congress had no desire to exercise its Constitutional role of oversight. The perks of rule led those in power to believe that the public trust was instead the public trough. Legislation was guided by the interests of lobbyists willing to shovel truckloads of cash to elected representatives through their campaign accounts and then directly, ignoring completely all ethical rules. At the same time, the public was being stripped of its civil rights based upon jingoistic slogans and fear mongering about the “war on terror.”
The awakening of the public represents a repudiation of the manner in which it is being governed, not a proclamation on any single issue. There is no monolithic response to the many important issues that the country faces. That is precisely the problem with the GOP Neocon ideology and the imperial Presidency. The people of this country believe in discourse and dissent. They believe that opposing views can inform a more reasoned and effective result. The GOP refused to listen to or temper their ideology with opposing viewpoints. With control of Congress and the White House, they believed that they had no need to consider opposing views. They even threatened to eliminate filibuster with the “nuclear option” if the democrats tried to block a GOP initiative. The filibuster was developed as a stopgap tool of the minority to prevent oppression by a majority party. Many of the resulting measures were ill conceived and overreaching. The Congressional leadership was so arrogant that they directed staffers to insert provisions in final legislation that the Conference Committees had not approved, knowing that their control of Congress would back the move if the deception were eventually uncovered. And even measures that were reasonable took on a negative cast because of the way in which they were enacted.
The greatest lesson that the Democrats can take away from this election is how NOT to govern. While maintaining a sense of direction, a coherent strategy and a connection with the public on important issues, the Democrats need to listen carefully and respectfully to ideas and concerns raised by GOP representatives. If the ideas make sense, incorporate them. If they do not, respectfully decline. But never be afraid to listen to ideas that differ from your own, and never be afraid to learn something new. The governance that the American public wants and needs is one of collaboration and leadership, not arrogance and bullying tactics.
An additional move that the Democratic controlled Congress should take is to repeal the measures that stripped the American people of their Constitutional rights of liberty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The country will only be truly safer when we dispel the ghost of the phony and indefinable “War on Terror” and focus on real threats to safety. Experts from all political stripes tell us that the country is no safer from a potential terrorist attack than before 9/11 occurred. One has to believe that if we had spent $300 Billion on improving the staffing, technical and coordination capabilities of US and international criminal enforcement agencies, that our situation would be far better. Instead, we have mortgaged the future of our children to create a fiasco that has led to civil war in Iraq and a greater risk to world peace than existed prior to 9/11. Calming the public hysteria and “group think” fostered by Bush and the Neocons will be difficult, but it is vitally important if the real threat of terrorist activity is to be addressed.
We forget that the activity of the 9/11 hijackers was known to police, CIA and FBI agencies prior to the attack. They simply lacked the procedures and the mentality to share that information with each other. One certainty is that rational measures specifically targets to address those shortcomings would not have cost the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the Iraq fiasco. There is no way to turn back the clock or to bring back those lost souls. But with the help of God and an awakened public, we may be able to change direction and limit further damage and unnecessary loss of life.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Guest - The Guardian UK - Bush Danger to World Peace
Because the American Media tends not to report views from abroad, and because the article is primarily empirical survey based, I thought I would share it. [Without my own commentary]
______________________________
British Believe Bush Is More Dangerous Than Kim Jong-il
By Julian Glover
The Guardian UK
Friday 03 November 2006
US allies think Washington threat to world peace. Only bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom.
America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.
Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.
It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.
The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.
Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.
Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.
Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.
In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.
As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.
The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).
Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.
Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)
______________________________
British Believe Bush Is More Dangerous Than Kim Jong-il
By Julian Glover
The Guardian UK
Friday 03 November 2006
US allies think Washington threat to world peace. Only bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom.
America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.
Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.
It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.
The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.
Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.
Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.
Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.
In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.
As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.
The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).
Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.
Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)
A Bush “Retro” Approach to Immigration Control
The Bush Administration and the GOP seem to have hit upon a novel “Retro” strategy for curbing immigration and suppressing the influx of migrants into the United States. The approach of vigilant border patrols supported by armed vigilante “Minutemen” militias does not seem to have yielded results. Talking about sanctioning employers for hiring illegal immigrants and undocumented workers, but not actually prosecuting them, has failed. This new approach is based upon a reverse psychology theory. By making the US unattractive enough, these immigrants will not even desire to come here, and the immigration problem will be remedied.
One visible step is to build a 700 mile wall along the border, like the Chinese did to repel the invading Huns, or like the Germans did to establish a barrier between East and West Germany. The Berlin wall was much smaller than the proposed US barrier, but we like to do things in a big way. Israel also has constructed a barrier wall to seal off Palestinian inhabited sectors from areas claimed by Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that at least part of that wall was illegal, but such technicalities have apparently not deterred the Israeli government from proceeding with the overall strategy. Such walls are important and imposing symbols of government control and restrictions of movement. They denote a closed off society that is unwelcoming of diverse ethnic and religious adherents and is intolerant of dissent. Any person seeking to come to this country would have to think twice whether this is the type of environment and lifestyle they truly seek.
The next step in the new strategy is to strip away from the citizenry and inhabitants certain rights that were previously viewed in the US, and throughout the world, as basic tenets of a “free nation.” Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, such as domestic wiretapping without court approval, was previously thought to be a Constitutional protection. However, the Bush Administration has dispensed with it. Another fundament of liberty was considered to be the right to be free from arrest or imprisonment without at least the right to challenge the basis for the detention. This principle of habeas corpus predates the Constitution and is embodied in the Magna Carta. The Bush Administration has adopted a number of measures which have stripped away this liberty as well. US citizens theoretically still have the right of habeas corpus that is denied non-citizens, but the procedures adopted do not even require that a detainee be permitted to prove US citizenship or obtain access to a lawyer. All the government has to do is arrest a person and hold them indefinitely without charging them. In such cases, any rights to counsel, to challenge detention or to confront accusers are denied. Anyone trying to immigrate to the US because of an oppressive regime that permits “disappearances” of persons by government agents and indefinite detention without communication with family or coming to America.
In addition, someone imprisoned by the American government, with or without justification, may be subjected to “aggressive interrogation” under the policies of the Bush Administration. The International community, the Geneva Conventions and human rights organizations all deem such treatment to be illegal “torture.” The Bush Administration believes the semantic difference is important, although someone being “water boarded” may not grasp the subtlety and nuance. The Bush objective is to make the risks of false imprisonment in the US like any other authoritarian or totalitarian country. These risks are not just speculative, as there are multiple case histories of abduction, “extraordinary rendition” and torture in "client" or accomplice states where torture is common practice or in secret US prisons abroad. Add to this the experiences disclosed regarding US prison facilities in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, and the message is pretty clear.
As an embellishing touch, the Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have created a permeating and palpable climate of fear and distrust that casts a shadow over the entire country. There is almost no place in the country where one can avoid being confronted by some message or procedure that restricts behavior or brings to one’s consciousness the admonition that some purported risk of “terrorism” is in play. The constant drumbeat of government generated media announcements supports this campaign. The inconveniences, the delays and the confusion created by airport security personnel and procedures could make the most patient person crabby. But a person can be arrested for merely making a statement that is critical of the process or experience. Historically, this was an environment indicative of a “police state.” The Bush Administration would never be so candid as to label the procedures that accurately or with such a negative connotation. Marketing or spin does not, however, diminish the pervasiveness and impact of the environment and the dynamic.
The GOP has supported this campaign by fostering attitudes of racial and religious hostility and bigotry. The term “illegal immigrants” has become “code” for Mexican and Latino immigrants. Conservative campaigns and rhetoric talk about the “invasion” by such illegal immigrants and the “burden” that they place on social systems. No such concerns are expressed about Whites who cross the US/Canadian border and stay in this country illegally. The GOP and the White House has declared the conflict against Muslims, who in their view are explicitly or implicitly presumed to all be suspected “terrorists,” to be a “struggle for the future of civilization.” Coming from the President and the governing authority, such statements are advocacy for bigotry and religious intolerance. Blind adherents to the GOP “party line” are likely to ignore all the hard evidence in the world that Islam is as old as Christianity and no threat to civilization or to US citizens. As with Christianity and any other religion, there are extremists who attempt to use religion as a rallying point for a distorted vision or doctrine to excuse or justify violence. They do not, however, represent the mainstream tenets of the religion. In any event, these rhetorical attacks advance a divisive and suspicious atmosphere that is hostile to people not of White ethnic or Judeo-Christian backgrounds.
The sum of these measures appears designed to project an image of America as a place that is not welcoming and not tolerant of immigrants. Our activities are continually monitored, free speech is limited in public places, one can be spied upon and arrested without notice or the ability to challenge such treatment and detention can mean indefinite imprisonment and possible torture. These characteristics may or may not be as daunting as the experience the prospective immigrant has experienced in their country of origin, but they tend to make the US a much less attractive place to migrate to in order to improve the quality of one’s life. By projecting such images, the “Retro” strategy is to deter foreigners from attempting to enter the US or to stay long if they do come here.
Perhaps national elections will serve as a referendum on whether Americans consider this “Retro” America, and what our society is becoming, a remedy that is worse than the problem to be addressed. If they do feel the cure worse than the disease, the challenge will be to retrieve the America most citizens have believed in and the environment that was once respected and admired by the rest of the world, and considered a beacon of freedom, liberty and democracy.
One visible step is to build a 700 mile wall along the border, like the Chinese did to repel the invading Huns, or like the Germans did to establish a barrier between East and West Germany. The Berlin wall was much smaller than the proposed US barrier, but we like to do things in a big way. Israel also has constructed a barrier wall to seal off Palestinian inhabited sectors from areas claimed by Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that at least part of that wall was illegal, but such technicalities have apparently not deterred the Israeli government from proceeding with the overall strategy. Such walls are important and imposing symbols of government control and restrictions of movement. They denote a closed off society that is unwelcoming of diverse ethnic and religious adherents and is intolerant of dissent. Any person seeking to come to this country would have to think twice whether this is the type of environment and lifestyle they truly seek.
The next step in the new strategy is to strip away from the citizenry and inhabitants certain rights that were previously viewed in the US, and throughout the world, as basic tenets of a “free nation.” Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, such as domestic wiretapping without court approval, was previously thought to be a Constitutional protection. However, the Bush Administration has dispensed with it. Another fundament of liberty was considered to be the right to be free from arrest or imprisonment without at least the right to challenge the basis for the detention. This principle of habeas corpus predates the Constitution and is embodied in the Magna Carta. The Bush Administration has adopted a number of measures which have stripped away this liberty as well. US citizens theoretically still have the right of habeas corpus that is denied non-citizens, but the procedures adopted do not even require that a detainee be permitted to prove US citizenship or obtain access to a lawyer. All the government has to do is arrest a person and hold them indefinitely without charging them. In such cases, any rights to counsel, to challenge detention or to confront accusers are denied. Anyone trying to immigrate to the US because of an oppressive regime that permits “disappearances” of persons by government agents and indefinite detention without communication with family or coming to America.
In addition, someone imprisoned by the American government, with or without justification, may be subjected to “aggressive interrogation” under the policies of the Bush Administration. The International community, the Geneva Conventions and human rights organizations all deem such treatment to be illegal “torture.” The Bush Administration believes the semantic difference is important, although someone being “water boarded” may not grasp the subtlety and nuance. The Bush objective is to make the risks of false imprisonment in the US like any other authoritarian or totalitarian country. These risks are not just speculative, as there are multiple case histories of abduction, “extraordinary rendition” and torture in "client" or accomplice states where torture is common practice or in secret US prisons abroad. Add to this the experiences disclosed regarding US prison facilities in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, and the message is pretty clear.
As an embellishing touch, the Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have created a permeating and palpable climate of fear and distrust that casts a shadow over the entire country. There is almost no place in the country where one can avoid being confronted by some message or procedure that restricts behavior or brings to one’s consciousness the admonition that some purported risk of “terrorism” is in play. The constant drumbeat of government generated media announcements supports this campaign. The inconveniences, the delays and the confusion created by airport security personnel and procedures could make the most patient person crabby. But a person can be arrested for merely making a statement that is critical of the process or experience. Historically, this was an environment indicative of a “police state.” The Bush Administration would never be so candid as to label the procedures that accurately or with such a negative connotation. Marketing or spin does not, however, diminish the pervasiveness and impact of the environment and the dynamic.
The GOP has supported this campaign by fostering attitudes of racial and religious hostility and bigotry. The term “illegal immigrants” has become “code” for Mexican and Latino immigrants. Conservative campaigns and rhetoric talk about the “invasion” by such illegal immigrants and the “burden” that they place on social systems. No such concerns are expressed about Whites who cross the US/Canadian border and stay in this country illegally. The GOP and the White House has declared the conflict against Muslims, who in their view are explicitly or implicitly presumed to all be suspected “terrorists,” to be a “struggle for the future of civilization.” Coming from the President and the governing authority, such statements are advocacy for bigotry and religious intolerance. Blind adherents to the GOP “party line” are likely to ignore all the hard evidence in the world that Islam is as old as Christianity and no threat to civilization or to US citizens. As with Christianity and any other religion, there are extremists who attempt to use religion as a rallying point for a distorted vision or doctrine to excuse or justify violence. They do not, however, represent the mainstream tenets of the religion. In any event, these rhetorical attacks advance a divisive and suspicious atmosphere that is hostile to people not of White ethnic or Judeo-Christian backgrounds.
The sum of these measures appears designed to project an image of America as a place that is not welcoming and not tolerant of immigrants. Our activities are continually monitored, free speech is limited in public places, one can be spied upon and arrested without notice or the ability to challenge such treatment and detention can mean indefinite imprisonment and possible torture. These characteristics may or may not be as daunting as the experience the prospective immigrant has experienced in their country of origin, but they tend to make the US a much less attractive place to migrate to in order to improve the quality of one’s life. By projecting such images, the “Retro” strategy is to deter foreigners from attempting to enter the US or to stay long if they do come here.
Perhaps national elections will serve as a referendum on whether Americans consider this “Retro” America, and what our society is becoming, a remedy that is worse than the problem to be addressed. If they do feel the cure worse than the disease, the challenge will be to retrieve the America most citizens have believed in and the environment that was once respected and admired by the rest of the world, and considered a beacon of freedom, liberty and democracy.
Honest Patriotism from the Cavalry [Horse’s Mouth]
At some point, perhaps, the public may tire or see through the cynical manipulation of public opinion based upon claims that public objection to the Iraq invasion and occupation is an act of disloyalty to the US military troops serving in Iraq. The Bush Administration also contends that it is necessary to sacrifice the lives of still more soldiers in order to honor those already killed or injured. Consider then the following clear pronouncement from those who have served in the military and who deserve far more credibility than a President who not only avoided active military service, but failed even to fulfill the limited responsibilities of military reserve duty:
Wednesday 01 November 2006 – The Nation
"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for US troops to come home."
This statement - the Appeal for Redress - has been signed by over 600 active-duty soldiers who have had enough of seeing their brothers and sisters sacrificed to the disastrous war in Iraq. In this month alone, 101 American soldiers have been killed, more than in any month since January, 2005 and the fourth highest monthly total since the war began in March, 2003.
[Sergeant Jonathan] Hutto, who served off the Iraq coast from September 2005 until March, told the Washington Post, "I hear discussions every day among my shipmates about the war in Iraq and how it doesn't make any sense at this point. There is no victory in sight."
The objections raised by these active service members and war veterans are not based upon a lack of nerve or commitment to serve in the military. These people bow to no one in their devotion to country. They voice rational conclusions based upon their personal experiences and knowledge. They cite the deception under which the invasion was initiated and failure to find any weapons of mass destruction. They also criticize the Bush Administration false linkage between Iraq and the Al Qaeda sponsored attack on 9/11. Seeing no credible justification for the “mission” in Iraq, no clear articulation of feasible objectives and no sensible plan for bringing resolution to the situation in Iraq, these patriots have all concluded that continuing to place in harms way and to lose more American troops in Iraq is wrong. They respectfully demand that the troops in Iraq be brought home. In their view, true “support” for the troops would be applying pressure on the Bush Administration to develop and implement a plan to bring the troops home.
The Bush Administration’s shameless misrepresentations and cynical attacks on the character and patriotism of Americans, including combat veterans, who exercise their right to dissent is the truly unpatriotic act. It is a sad development that honored and decorated veterans must band together and make such public statements to defend their honor and to correct the lies and distortions by President Bush and his entourage. The public statement by these service members is an embarrassment to the Administration. Even more embarrassing is the fact that the actions of our “leaders” made such a pronouncement necessary to correct the false propaganda broadcast by the Bush Administration.
Wednesday 01 November 2006 – The Nation
"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for US troops to come home."
This statement - the Appeal for Redress - has been signed by over 600 active-duty soldiers who have had enough of seeing their brothers and sisters sacrificed to the disastrous war in Iraq. In this month alone, 101 American soldiers have been killed, more than in any month since January, 2005 and the fourth highest monthly total since the war began in March, 2003.
[Sergeant Jonathan] Hutto, who served off the Iraq coast from September 2005 until March, told the Washington Post, "I hear discussions every day among my shipmates about the war in Iraq and how it doesn't make any sense at this point. There is no victory in sight."
The objections raised by these active service members and war veterans are not based upon a lack of nerve or commitment to serve in the military. These people bow to no one in their devotion to country. They voice rational conclusions based upon their personal experiences and knowledge. They cite the deception under which the invasion was initiated and failure to find any weapons of mass destruction. They also criticize the Bush Administration false linkage between Iraq and the Al Qaeda sponsored attack on 9/11. Seeing no credible justification for the “mission” in Iraq, no clear articulation of feasible objectives and no sensible plan for bringing resolution to the situation in Iraq, these patriots have all concluded that continuing to place in harms way and to lose more American troops in Iraq is wrong. They respectfully demand that the troops in Iraq be brought home. In their view, true “support” for the troops would be applying pressure on the Bush Administration to develop and implement a plan to bring the troops home.
The Bush Administration’s shameless misrepresentations and cynical attacks on the character and patriotism of Americans, including combat veterans, who exercise their right to dissent is the truly unpatriotic act. It is a sad development that honored and decorated veterans must band together and make such public statements to defend their honor and to correct the lies and distortions by President Bush and his entourage. The public statement by these service members is an embarrassment to the Administration. Even more embarrassing is the fact that the actions of our “leaders” made such a pronouncement necessary to correct the false propaganda broadcast by the Bush Administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)