Sunday
Renegade Justice: An Interview With Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias
The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal on Wednesday, June 25th when this interview took place. David Iglesias is the prototype twenty first century Republican: charismatic, Hispanic, an evangelical Christian and a captain in the Navy Reserve who served for many years in the Navy’s Judge Advocate General Corps (“JAG”). In 1998, Iglesias campaigned to become Attorney General of New Mexico against the heavily favored Patricia Madrid. He nearly pulled off an upset and the Republican Party took notice. In 2000, Iglesias paid his party dues and worked for George W. Bush’s election.
As a reward, President Bush nominated Iglesias in 2001 to be the United States Attorney from the District of New Mexico. His sponsor was longtime Republican Senator Pete Domenici. The position of U.S. Attorney has served as a springboard for many political careers and Iglesias appeared to be on the fast track. Highly regarded by his peers, Iglesias served as chairman of a committee of U.S. Attorneys that advised former Attorney General John Ashcroft about border and Immigration issues. The Justice Department had also given his office high marks for performance.
However, as the first installment of the just released Department of Justice Inspector General report illustrates, professionalism took a back seat to political prerogatives when it came to personnel decisions. A pervasive culture of hyper-partisanship at the Justice Department ultimately cost David Iglesias and nine other U.S. Attorneys their jobs last year. It also resulted in a metastasizing scandal that forced Bush loyalist Alberto Gonazles to resign as Attorney General.
David Iglesias became persona non grata in the Republican Party when he resisted political pressure while carrying out the responsibilities of his office. One example was his cautious evidenced based approach while prosecuting voter fraud. Specifically, Republicans feared that the votes of minorities and the poor in New Mexico could adversely affect their candidates in what had become a polarized state. Al Gore defeated George Bush in New Mexico by a mere 366 votes in 2000. Hence, Republicans viewed prosecuting voter fraud as a means of suppressing Democratic turnout in elections that could be decided on the margins. Iglesias dutifully investigated voter fraud and found virtually nothing to prosecute, angering the White House.
Another example involved a public corruption investigation against powerful Democratic New Mexico state legislator Manny Aragon. In 2006, while Iglesias took a measured evidenced based approach to investigating Aragon; Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson was in a tough re-election fight against New Mexico’s Democratic Attorney General, Patricia Madrid. The same candidate Iglesias lost to in 1998. Republicans hoped that an indictment filed against Aragon prior to Election Day would make Madrid appear professionally lax as New Mexico’s Attorney General. However, Iglesias didn’t believe the case was ready and didn’t want to undermine the investigation or chances of conviction by filing an indictment prematurely.
The events that followed are well known. Both Representative Wilson and Senator Domenici inappropriately telephoned Iglesias hoping to persuade him to indict Aragon. Iglesias didn’t budge and he was asked to resign on December 7, 2006. Six of his colleagues with similar experiences were also asked to resign on the same day and a political firestorm engulfed the Bush Administration, his Attorney General and the entire Republican Party. Domenici, his reputation and legacy forever tarnished opted not to seek re-election this year because of poor health. Congressman Wilson hoped to replace Domenici in the Senate but she lost the Republican primary on June 3rd.
Iglesias memorialized his experience with his new book, In Justice: Inside The Scandal That Rocked The Bush Administration (Wiley & Sons). Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson had the following praise for Iglesias’s book:
“In justice is a chilling tale of the subversion of the Constitution for political purposes. What was done to David Iglesias and his colleagues constitutes complete and utter disregard for the role of law that underpins our great republic. Americans will rightly be appalled and Republicans ashamed at this abuse of power.”Iglesias agreed to podcast interview with me over the telephone about his book and the scandal that made him an important historical figure. Our conversation was just over sixteen minutes. Please refer to the flash media player below.
This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for the Intrepid Liberal Journal. Also, I apologize for my voice coming in on the low side. I was using a new headphones/microphone set and it underperformed. Thankfully, David's voice comes through loud and clear. But you may have to turn up the volume some to hear my questions.
Conservatives, liberals, Obama: what's the difference?
Steven Colbert does a wonderful impression of the modern conservative's view on race (or at least he used to, I stopped watching after he crossed the picket line). Colbert claims that he doesn't see race- literally. He physically can't see the color of his skin, or anyone else's, therefore he can't be a racist when he advocates absurd policies that obviously benefit the largely white ruling class. It's funny, but it also is an actual tactic many conservatives use when debating race sensitive issues. Instead of claiming they are literally colorblind, however, they simply ignore the historical context of situations and pretend everyone is on equal footing. It is disingenuous, callous, and for lack of a better word, racist. It is the preferred strategy of the owner of North Dakota's most popular collection of links, a "I'm pro-war but too busy to fight" pussy named Rob Port. Rob claims not to understand why portraying Barack Obama as a monkey is different than portraying George Bush as one. Considering chattel slavery was still alive and well up until the second world war, and given the ease to find examples of rampant racial inequality in today's society, it is safe to assume people like Rob simply long for the "good old days" when blacks, and other troublesome non-whites, knew their place.
But it isn't just conservatives who use race to refuse challenging the power structure. After Ralph Nader's recent comments, many liberals have been attacking him with an intensity they don't dare attack John McCain with (they would never bring up McCain's role in the murders of countless men, women and children in Vietnam). This is exactly why most "progressives" are pathetic. Rather than hold Obama accountable for his disgusting stances on the telecom immunity bill, the death penalty, Israel, his failure to support healthcare for all, his failure to support same-sex marriage, and a host of other issues; they attack Nader for having the gall to question their messiah. They join conservatives in pleading ignorance about the meaning behind terms like "white talk" and "white guilt."
Nader was right. On Father's Day, for example, instead of talking about the steady decline of wages affecting all families, Obama attacked black fathers in an apparent attempt to convince the "blacks are lazy" voter to give him a second look. That's not even "talking white," that's talking white supremacist. Perhaps if black fathers, as well as fathers and mothers from any other race, had a job that paid a living wage without working hours upon hours of overtime, they'd actually have time to spend with their children, and you know, raise them. They could even sit them down for a real meal rather than feeding them "cold Popeye's" and "eight sodas" or whatever other bullshit generic accusation the Obama campaign's version of Nixon-era Kevin Phillips comes up with. We reap what we sow. We can't have a society that rewards the worst aspects of humanity and not have a few dead-beat dads. Until issues like the dictatorship of industry by the few and the commoditization of the human experience are addressed, it is hard to take the "personal responsibility" crowd very seriously.
Also, Nader is not implying that blacks are monolithic in their concerns, as some liberals are saying. Anyone who has read or watched the comments should easily realize how nonsensical this claim is. He is arguing that someone who is not part of the dominant culture ought to have better insight regarding issues that overwhelmingly affect minority cultures. Nader, an Arab American, knows the situation well. Again, this is the same disingenuous logic that conservatives use when it benefits their world view.
This "controversy" shows that not only are "progressives" still not willing to back an actual progressive candidate, they are still willing to throw one under the bus faster than Obama can say Reverend Wright.
But it isn't just conservatives who use race to refuse challenging the power structure. After Ralph Nader's recent comments, many liberals have been attacking him with an intensity they don't dare attack John McCain with (they would never bring up McCain's role in the murders of countless men, women and children in Vietnam). This is exactly why most "progressives" are pathetic. Rather than hold Obama accountable for his disgusting stances on the telecom immunity bill, the death penalty, Israel, his failure to support healthcare for all, his failure to support same-sex marriage, and a host of other issues; they attack Nader for having the gall to question their messiah. They join conservatives in pleading ignorance about the meaning behind terms like "white talk" and "white guilt."
Nader was right. On Father's Day, for example, instead of talking about the steady decline of wages affecting all families, Obama attacked black fathers in an apparent attempt to convince the "blacks are lazy" voter to give him a second look. That's not even "talking white," that's talking white supremacist. Perhaps if black fathers, as well as fathers and mothers from any other race, had a job that paid a living wage without working hours upon hours of overtime, they'd actually have time to spend with their children, and you know, raise them. They could even sit them down for a real meal rather than feeding them "cold Popeye's" and "eight sodas" or whatever other bullshit generic accusation the Obama campaign's version of Nixon-era Kevin Phillips comes up with. We reap what we sow. We can't have a society that rewards the worst aspects of humanity and not have a few dead-beat dads. Until issues like the dictatorship of industry by the few and the commoditization of the human experience are addressed, it is hard to take the "personal responsibility" crowd very seriously.
Also, Nader is not implying that blacks are monolithic in their concerns, as some liberals are saying. Anyone who has read or watched the comments should easily realize how nonsensical this claim is. He is arguing that someone who is not part of the dominant culture ought to have better insight regarding issues that overwhelmingly affect minority cultures. Nader, an Arab American, knows the situation well. Again, this is the same disingenuous logic that conservatives use when it benefits their world view.
This "controversy" shows that not only are "progressives" still not willing to back an actual progressive candidate, they are still willing to throw one under the bus faster than Obama can say Reverend Wright.
Saturday
"Are We Still Broken ? How Broken Are We ?"
"To Sin by Silence, when they should protest makes Cowards out of men."
Abraham Lincoln
"Are We Still Broken ?" So I have a neighbor down the street that I run into walking the dog,this is his favorite way to greet me. An older fellow, WWII Vet who is wise, sarcastic and pissed. He makes me laugh, he makes think. His caustic wisdom is as insightful as it is painful. We have discussed everything from the GI Bill that was not good enough for McCain to Iraq to Oil to Hillary to Obama to Home Foreclosures to Fearmongering.Here is a smattering of some of his wisdom.
" I may be an old Fool, but I am old enough to know that I want Someone Young at the Helm. And I want someone that will tell me if the Bus Is Broken...which it is." He says this with a wrinkled smile.
"And you can bet this election those Damn Repug Fools will be trying to scare us with some kind of Terror Tomfoolery".
"Nixon would have called these Criminals Real Crooks".
So last weekend, he is out working on his yard and I eavesdropped on his conversation with his neighbor, the retired teacher, the Hillary supporter. He was making conversation with her as she took Hillary sign out of her yard. She was complaining that it was an Awful Process, and that she was going to put the sign back in her yard during the Denver Convention. And she told him that she was not going to vote.
He stopped what he was doing and stared at her jaw gaping, eyes huge.
"You are kidding me right?"
"No, I am not, I am not voting. I can not be part of this process any longer, so I just won't be. It was her Turn, Not His."
I watched him get flushed and he had stopped raking and was staring at her hard, I knew that he was going to have to say Something. I watched him take a deep breath and get ready to let her have a piece of his mind.
"Now I have to say. I have known you for some years, but you have me a bit confused. You mean to say when I went and fought the Evil Germans who destroyed their country and many other countries, I was not protecting Freedoms of ALL Americans ? Only Some Americans? And that I was not protecting People that Value the Right to Vote ? Or the People who believe in the Constitution ? And those poor kids over in Iraq right now, WHO is going to Vote to get them Home ? Because you know McCain will leave them there forever, because in his mind, this is NOT as bad as Vietnam. So in this America, that is "Our" America, it is only a partial thing, like sometimes you feel American and sometimes you don't ? And you can pretend that Other People, like me and kids in Iraq don't need your Vote or need you to care ? That is the most Selfish Thing I have ever heard."
He sighed and then finished, " When my nephew gets home from that Hellhole, I will be sure to tell him that not everyone wanted to help get him home."
He looked at her hard, put his rake against the tree and went inside , mumbling about his BP meds.She just stared at him. I continued picking up dog poo and would not look her in the eye, I figured she should be alone with what he said to her. She had been thoroughly schooled and his words hung heavy still in the air.
***********************************
John Cusack was on Countdown last week and he asked a really poignant question. He pointed out that if you are not an Activist now, when would you be ? It is a really good question. We are beyond Broken at this point, and we are not going to get infinite chances to fix any of this. The Bush Regime fearmongered us and warmongered us , meanwhile they have broken every single system that we need as a Nation to survive, from Foreign Diplomacy to Infrastructure, to Justice to Energy, to the Constitution to Healthcare.
We are so Broken that the Bigger Question is , is Our Collective Humanity Broken ? Is Our Vision Broken? Because Myoptic Apathy does Kill.....If you don't believe me, I have my Neighbor, The WWII Vet who will tell you about what Germany Looked like after Hitler created a nation of people who were not "involved". Admitting we are Broken is one thing, deciding to Do Something about that is Another.Our Future is in Our Hands.
*******************************
This video was on my mind the whole time I wrote this...."Come Undone" by Duran Duran...
******************************
Crossposted at Watergate Summer and Sirens Chronicles.
Friday
Gee, I wonder if Queer community has Chicago School Disciples, too...we must...
This came into my inbox a few days ago...
So...okay...
I'm gonna go clear out my bank account and donate my good money to the Blackchurian Candidate's campaign so that he can use my money to continue lying to anyone who will listen by saying only exactly what people want to/need to hear thereby getting himself elected president and going on to surprise all the people who voted for him by continuing on with the agendas of people like those in the Bush administration.
O...K....
Help elect Obama and other pro-equality leaders.
Four days left until a major fundraising deadline!
Dear dark (that's me),
"It's wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens... I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans."
Imagine hearing those words in a State of the Union address. Or in the inauguration speech of the next President of the United States.
Those words belong to Barack Obama. And LGBT people across the country are listening, hoping for the change we've lived without for eight long years.
Barack's campaign has relied on millions of people, giving whatever they can afford.
When you make a donation to his campaign through HRC, you send a powerful message: people who care about LGBT equality are stepping up, and we're counting on you.
Donate to Obama's campaign and other HRC-backed candidates by June
30th!
I've spoken with Barack about his commitment to equality, and it is clear to me that he understands the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as civil rights – as human rights. He voiced it when he announced his candidacy, and he has reaffirmed it many times since then, including at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.
Barack has promised to work for "an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters."
Donate before the June 30th fundraising deadline.
Barack's words are echoed by a chorus of courageous pro-equality candidates for the House and Senate, including:
Betsy Markey, who has vowed to fight for bills like the Matthew Shepard Act and an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and is running against lead sponsor of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment in the last Congress, Marilyn Musgrave;
New Hampshire's former Governor Jeanne Shaheen, who signed a repeal of the state's ban on gay adoption, enacted a law to ban workplace discrimination, and supports her state's new civil union law;
Congressman Mark Udall, who has earned a 100% on HRC's scorecard and
whose likely opponent for the U.S. Senate earned flat 0% ratings in Congress;
Comedian, writer, radio talk show host, and out-spoken supporter of the LGBT community, Al Franken, who will be running against the Minnesota incumbent,
Senator Norm Coleman; Victoria Wulsin, who will be in a hotly contested rematch in Ohio with Jean Schmidt, a vocal opponent of equal rights;
Representative Tom Udall, who supports key HRC legislation such as the fully-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act and strong hate crimes prevention legislation, and will be running for the open Senate seat in the battleground state of New Mexico;
Congressman Christopher Shays, who has been a leader on issues facing the LGBT community since he joined Congress in 1987 and whose race is expected to be highly competitive;
Representative Ciro Rodriguez, who faces a tough reelection campaign for his Congressional seat due to redistricting efforts by Texas Republicans. Rep. Rodriguez has always shown a commitment to issues of equality and civil rights during his time in the House;
These races are going to be extremely close, and a key FEC fundraising deadline is just four days away. Your support will play a critical role in making sure these advocates for equality make it to Washington, D.C.
Give before the deadline to help elect Obama and other HRC-backed candidates.
On November 5, let's wake up to a pro-equality White House and Congress!
Thanks for your generous support,
Joe SolmonesePresident
So...okay...
I'm gonna go clear out my bank account and donate my good money to the Blackchurian Candidate's campaign so that he can use my money to continue lying to anyone who will listen by saying only exactly what people want to/need to hear thereby getting himself elected president and going on to surprise all the people who voted for him by continuing on with the agendas of people like those in the Bush administration.
O...K....
Obama's Chicago Boys by Naomi Klein...
Papi's mama Ophelia, a staunch Black conscious feminist who was all about Obama for quite a while, directed me to this article a few days ago.
Obama's Chicago Boys
By Naomi Klein
The Nation, June 14, 2008
Straight to the Source
Obama's Chicago Boys
By Naomi Klein
The Nation, June 14, 2008
Straight to the Source
Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the raceto declare, on CNBC, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love theI think the end of this article is a little soft. My partner's mother still reminds me that Klein is still the daughter-in-law of Stephen Lewis which means she is connected to a family that is probably well invested in free market growth and reaping benefits from the shocking the Third World. And in truth just generally in terms of her book, I think she tends to step back from forthrightly confronting those in power about what's happening right at this moment. I guess she still needs to keep her publisher in her good books. :)
market."
Demonstrating that this is no mere spring fling, he has appointed 37-year-old Jason Furman to head his economic policy team. Furman is one of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders, anointing the company a "progressive success story." On the campaign trail, Obama blasted Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board and pledged, "I won't shop there." For Furman, however, it's Wal-Mart's critics who are the real threat: the "efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits" are creating "collateral damage" that is "way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and sing 'Kum-Ba-Ya' in the interests of progressive harmony."Obama's love of markets and his desire for "change" are not inherently incompatible. "The market has gotten out of balance," he says, and it most certainly has. Many trace this profound imbalance back to the ideas of Milton Friedman, who launched a counterrevolution against the New Deal from his perch at the University of Chicago economics department. And here there are more problems, because Obama¬who taught law at the University of Chicago for a decade¬is thoroughly embedded in the mind-set known as the Chicago School.
He chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the center-right. Goolsbee, unlike his more Friedmanite colleagues, sees inequality as a problem. His primary solution, however, is more education¬a line you can also get from Alan Greenspan. In their hometown, Goolsbee has been eager to link Obama to the Chicago School. "If you look at his platform, at his advisers, at his temperament, the guy's got a healthy respect for markets," he told Chicago magazine. "It's in the ethos of the [University of Chicago], which is something different from saying he is laissez-faire."
Another of Obama's Chicago fans is 39-year-old billionaire Kenneth Griffin, CEO of the hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. Griffin, who gave the maximum allowable donation to Obama, is something of a poster boy for an unbalanced economy. He got married at Versailles and had the after-party at Marie Antoinette's vacation spot (Cirque du Soleil performed)¬and he is one of the staunchest opponents of closing the hedge-fund tax loophole. While Obama talks about toughening trade rules with
China, Griffin has been bending the few barriers that do exist. Despite sanctions prohibiting the sale of police equipment to China, Citadel has been pouring money into controversial China-based security companies that are putting the local population under unprecedented levels of surveillance.
Now is the time to worry about Obama's Chicago Boys and their commitment to fending off serious attempts at regulation. It was in the two and a half months between winning the 1992 election and being sworn into office that Bill Clinton did a
U-turn on the economy. He had campaigned promising to revise NAFTA, adding labor and environmental provisions and to invest in social programs. But two weeks
before his inauguration, he met with then-Goldman Sachs chief Robert Rubin, who
convinced him of the urgency of embracing austerity and more liberalization.
Rubin told PBS, "President Clinton actually made the decision before he stepped
into the Oval Office, during the transition, on what was a dramatic change in
economic policy."
Furman, a leading disciple of Rubin, was chosen to head the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, the think tank Rubin helped found to argue for reforming, rather than abandoning, the free-trade agenda. Add to that Goolsbee's February meeting with Canadian consulate officials, who left with the distinct impression that they had been instructed not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA campaigning seriously, and there is every reason for concern about a replay of 1993.
The irony is that there is absolutely no reason for this backsliding. The movement launched by Friedman, introduced by Ronald Reagan and entrenched under Clinton, faces a profound legitimacy crisis around the world. Nowhere is this more evident than at the University of Chicago itself. In mid-May, when university president Robert Zimmer announced the creation of a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute, an economic research center devoted to continuing and augmenting the Friedman legacy, a controversy erupted. More than 100 faculty members signed a letter of protest. "The effects of the neoliberal global order that has been put in place in recent decades, strongly buttressed by the Chicago School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive," the letter states. "Many would argue that they have been negative for much of the world's population."
When Friedman died in 2006, such bold critiques of his legacy were largely absent. The adoring memorials spoke only of grand achievement, with one of the more prominent appreciations appearing in the New York Times¬written by Austan Goolsbee. Yet now, just two years later, Friedman's name is seen as a liability even at his own alma mater. So why has Obama chosen this moment, when all illusions of a consensus have dropped away, to go Chicago retro?
The news is not all bad. Furman claims he will be drawing on the expertise of two Keynesian economists: Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute and James Galbraith, son of Friedman's nemesis John Kenneth Galbraith. Our "current economic crisis," Obama recently said, did not come from nowhere. It is "the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long."
True enough. But before Obama can purge Washington of the scourge of Friedmanism, he has some ideological housecleaning of his own to do.
Naomi Klein is the author of many books, including her most recent, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism .Visit Naomi's website at w.naomiklein.org, or to learn more about her new book, visit http://www.shockdoctrine.com/ .
© 2008 The Nation
Tracing the rise of the right and the obliteration of the left...
Poetry Man, I read what you wrote here:
It's still blowing the top off my head.
Making me really sad and a little hopeless, too. The powers that be don't plan on making any concessions to the Left. The Democrats, the NDP, whatever the designated left parties in any of our countries tell us...none of their platforms mean shit. They know this. They have purposefully undereducated the vast majority of their voters to such a large extent that these people don't realize that they're participating in ritual games that won't ever have a positive outcome for everyday people. The way those in power, in real power, high up past their puppets the politicians see things, they don't have to play nice or fair...anymore...
Obama who? If you don't know what him or Hilary will do when they get into power, you're fucking fooling yourselves.
I read this about events just after the defeat of Hitler up until just after the fall of the Soviet Union...the game...their economic agendas linked to the supremacy not of democracy but of capitalism as the sole economic system holding sway over the whole planet, is clear and terrifying...
"and now, i am not angry, just sad. sad that the death knell of the american democratic republic has turned into a funeral march. many folks looked to obama as someone who would lead america back towards democracy- but there is no democracy in politics. survival of the richest and fittest- and obama and the congress caved yet again to corporate interests. i mean, you can't bite the hand that feeds you, right?"I'm still reading Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine.
It's still blowing the top off my head.
Making me really sad and a little hopeless, too. The powers that be don't plan on making any concessions to the Left. The Democrats, the NDP, whatever the designated left parties in any of our countries tell us...none of their platforms mean shit. They know this. They have purposefully undereducated the vast majority of their voters to such a large extent that these people don't realize that they're participating in ritual games that won't ever have a positive outcome for everyday people. The way those in power, in real power, high up past their puppets the politicians see things, they don't have to play nice or fair...anymore...
Obama who? If you don't know what him or Hilary will do when they get into power, you're fucking fooling yourselves.
I read this about events just after the defeat of Hitler up until just after the fall of the Soviet Union...the game...their economic agendas linked to the supremacy not of democracy but of capitalism as the sole economic system holding sway over the whole planet, is clear and terrifying...
"When the Cold War was in full swing and the Soviet Union was intact, the people of the world could choose (at least theoretically) which ideology they wanted to consume; there were the two poles, and there was much in between. That meant capitalism had to win customers; it needed to offer incentives; it needed a good product. Keynesianism was always and expression of that need for capitalism to compete. President Roosevelt brought in the New Deal not only to address the desperation of the Great Depression but to undercut a powerful movement of U.S. citizens who, having been dealt a savage blow by the unregulated free market, were demanding a different economic model. Some wanted a radically different one: in the 1932 presidential elections, one million Americans voted for Socialist or Communist candidates. Growing numbers of Americans were also paying close attention to Huey Long, the populist senator from Louisiana who believed that all Americans should receive a guaranteed income of $2,500. Explaining why he had added more social welfare benefits to the New Deal in 1935, FDR said he wanted to "steal Long's thunder."They are like a fox in the hen house because they believe there are no "competitors" powerful enough to force them to soften or otherwise alter their blood thirsty agendas in any way whatsoever. Sweet.
It was in this context that American industrialists grudgingly accepted FDR's New Deal. The edges of the market needed to be softened with public sector jobs and by making sure no one went hungry -- the very future of capitalism was at stake. During the Cold War, no country in the free world was immune ot this pressure. In fact, the achievements of mid-century capitalism, or what Sachs calls "normal" capitalism -- workers' protections, pensions, public health care and state support for the poorest citizens in North America -- all grew out of the same pragmatic need to make major concessions in the face of a powerful left.
The Marshall Plan was the ultimate weapon deployed on this economic front. After the war, the German economy was in crisis, threatening to bring down the rest of Western Europe. Meanwhile, so many Germans were drawn to socialism that the U.S. government opted to split Germany into two parts rather than risk losing it all, either to collapse or to the left. In West Germany, the U.S. government used the Marshall Plan to build a capitalist system that was not meant to create fast and easy new markets for Ford and Sears but, rather, to be so successful on its own terms that Europe's market economy would thrive and socialism would be drained of its appeal.
By 1949, that meant tolerating from the West German government all kinds of policies that were positively uncapitalist; direct job creation by the state, huge investment in the public sector, subsidies for German firms and strong labour unions. In a move that would have been unthinkable in Russia in the 1990s or Iraq under U.S. occupation, the U.S. government infuriated its own corporate sector by imposing a moratorium on foreighn investment so that war-battered German companies would not be forced to compete before they had recovered. "The feeling was that letting foreign companies come in at that point would have been like piracy," I was told by Carolyn Eisenberg, author of an acclaimed history of the Marshall Plan. "The main difference between now and then is that the U.S. government did not see Germany as a cash cow. They didn't want to antagonize people. The belief was that if you come in and start pillaging the place, you interfere with the recovery of Europe as a whole."
This approach, Eisenberg points out, was not born of altruism. "The Soviet Union was like a loaded gun. The economy was in crisis, there was a substantive German left, and they [the West] had to win the allegiance of the German people fast. They really saw themselves battling for the soul of Germany."
Eisenberg's account of the battle of ideologies that created the Marshall Plan points to a persistent blind spot in Sachs's work, including his recent laudable efforts to dramatically increase aid spending in Africa. Rarely are mass popular movements even mentioned. For Sachs, the making of history is a purely elite affair, a matter of getting the right technocrats settled on the right policies. Just as shock therapy programs are drafted in secret bunkers in La Paz and Moscow, so, apparently, should a $30 billion aid program for the Soviet republics have materialized based solely on the common-sense arguments he was making in Washington. As Eisenberg notes, however, the original Marshall Plan came about not out of benevolence, or even reasoned argument, but fear of popular revolt. Sachs admires Keynes, but he seems uninterested in what made Keynesianism finally possible in his own country: the messay, militant demands of trade unionists and socialists whose growing strength turned a more radical solution into a credible threat, which in turn made the New Deal look like an acceptable compromise. This unwillingness to recognize the role of mass movements in pressuring reluctant governments to embrace the very ideas he advocates has had serious ramifications. For one, it meant that Sachs could not see the most glaring political reality confronting him in Russia: there was never going to be a Marshall Plan for Russia because there was only ever a Marshall Plan because of Russia. When Yeltsin abolished the Soviet Union, the "loaded gun" that had forced the development of the original plan was disarmed. Without it, capitalism was suddenly free to lapse into its most savage form, not just in Russia but around the world. With the Soviet collapse, the free market now had a global monopoly, which meant all the "distortions" that had been interfering with its perfect equilibrium were no longer required...
Now that there was no need for compromise, all those moderating social policies were under siege in Western Europe, just as they were under seige in Canada, Australia and the U.S. Such policies were not about to be introduced in Russia, certainly not subsidized with Western funds.
This liberation from all constraints is, in essence, Chicago School economics (otherwise known as neo-liberalism or in the U.S., neo-conservatism): not some new invention but capitalism stripped of its Keynesian appendages, capitalism in its monopoly phase, a system that has let itself go -- that no longer has to work to keep us as customers, that can be as anti-social, anti-democratic and boorish as it wants. As long as Communism was a threat, the gentlemen's agreement that was Keynesianism would live on; once that system lost ground, all traces of compromise could finally be eradicated, thereby fulfilling the purist goal Friedman had set out for his movement a half century earlier.
That was the real point of Fukuyama's dramatic "end of history" announcement at the University of Chicago lecture in 1989; he wasn't actually claiming that there were no other ideas in the world, but merely that, with Communism collapsing, there were no other ideas sufficiently powerful to constitute a head-to-head competitor."
The Brig (by Kent H. Brown)
Below are excerpts from a play written by Kent H. Brown titled The Brig and produced by The Living Theatre.
The Anti-War Theatre
The Anti-War Theatre
Thursday
The World According to Monsanto
From TreeHugger
By all means, the deluge of damning information, string of political intricacies and overall ominous tone of the latest documentary by French journalist and director Marie-Monique Robin, “The World According to Monsanto,” should have put me to sleep. But it didn’t. In fact, it kept my stomach literally churning. The film, a National Film Board of Canada co-production, meticulously details the manipulative deeds of Monsanto Co., one of the world’s biggest agrochemical- biotech companies, on its route to global domination by tracing a trail of evidence, cover-ups and tragedies from the American heartland and beyond.
Notorious for its development of hazardous chemicals such as Agent Orange, PCBs (now banned) and the recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), Monsanto is now also known for its monopoly on genetically modified (GM) seeds of food crops such as corn, wheat and soybeans. Despite the uncertainty of the long-term health effects of consuming and growing GM foods, the company’s GM seeds are now widespread in much of North and South America.
Non-labeling and genetic contamination
The film documents the beginnings of the company as a chemical start-up in the early 1900s, producing saccharin, caffeine and vanilla. As we watch Robin Google up unclassified documents and interview a bevy of officials, scientists and farmers, we see that today’s Monsanto is a giant multinational wielding its considerable financial, political and marketing clout to influence government officials, ruthlessly sue farmers using patent laws – all the while surreptitiously lobbying to keep their potentially toxic products unlabeled or falsely advertised.
Monsanto claims that their genetically modified seeds will solve the food crisis, especially in developing countries, where it will provide significant economic benefits, higher quality and better yield. Nevertheless, the film compellingly shows the unsettling possibilities of genetic contamination of conventional or local varieties of seeds by their genetically- engineered cousins, pointing to a horrific future where global plant biodiversity is nil and farmers are not able to grow anything but genetically contaminated food.
It’s a terrifying thought. But perhaps Monsanto’s agenda is even simpler than all their lofty claims put together. As one farmer puts it, “The reason they do it is control. They want to control seed. They want to own life. I mean, this is the building blocks of food we are talking about. They are in the process of owning food, all food.”
Genetically modified seed “more powerful than bombs”
And what of the future of global food security? In one interview, eco-activist Vandana Shiva asserts: “The second Green Revolution has nothing to do with food security … it is about returns to Monsanto’s profits… patenting is the real aim. If you look at Monsanto’s research agenda, they are testing something like twenty crops at this point with BT (Bacillus thuringiensis) genes. There’s nothing that they are leaving untouched – the mustard, the okra, the rice, the brinjal (eggplant), the rice, the cauliflower – once they have established the norm that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected, and we will depend on them for every seed we grow, for every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food… it’s strategic, it’s more powerful than bombs, more powerful than guns, and it's the best way to control the populations of the world.”
Importance of labellings genetically modified foods
Despite the rather dismal picture it paints, the film does an excellent job in digging up and piecing the facts together, much of it easily available online (Robin also wrote a book, Le Monde Selon Monsanto, based on her investigations) . But what can we as consumers do to address concerns about the possible health and environmental risks of genetically modified foods? Or should we rephrase: what else is Monsanto not telling us? As some surveys already show that a majority of people want GM foods labeled, one crucial step would be to take action to ensure GM foods are clearly labeled and standards quickly put into place, so that consumers can make an informed choice. For in the midst of ignorance, how could we ever choose?
::Montreal Mirror
By all means, the deluge of damning information, string of political intricacies and overall ominous tone of the latest documentary by French journalist and director Marie-Monique Robin, “The World According to Monsanto,” should have put me to sleep. But it didn’t. In fact, it kept my stomach literally churning. The film, a National Film Board of Canada co-production, meticulously details the manipulative deeds of Monsanto Co., one of the world’s biggest agrochemical- biotech companies, on its route to global domination by tracing a trail of evidence, cover-ups and tragedies from the American heartland and beyond.
Notorious for its development of hazardous chemicals such as Agent Orange, PCBs (now banned) and the recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), Monsanto is now also known for its monopoly on genetically modified (GM) seeds of food crops such as corn, wheat and soybeans. Despite the uncertainty of the long-term health effects of consuming and growing GM foods, the company’s GM seeds are now widespread in much of North and South America.
Non-labeling and genetic contamination
The film documents the beginnings of the company as a chemical start-up in the early 1900s, producing saccharin, caffeine and vanilla. As we watch Robin Google up unclassified documents and interview a bevy of officials, scientists and farmers, we see that today’s Monsanto is a giant multinational wielding its considerable financial, political and marketing clout to influence government officials, ruthlessly sue farmers using patent laws – all the while surreptitiously lobbying to keep their potentially toxic products unlabeled or falsely advertised.
Monsanto claims that their genetically modified seeds will solve the food crisis, especially in developing countries, where it will provide significant economic benefits, higher quality and better yield. Nevertheless, the film compellingly shows the unsettling possibilities of genetic contamination of conventional or local varieties of seeds by their genetically- engineered cousins, pointing to a horrific future where global plant biodiversity is nil and farmers are not able to grow anything but genetically contaminated food.
It’s a terrifying thought. But perhaps Monsanto’s agenda is even simpler than all their lofty claims put together. As one farmer puts it, “The reason they do it is control. They want to control seed. They want to own life. I mean, this is the building blocks of food we are talking about. They are in the process of owning food, all food.”
Genetically modified seed “more powerful than bombs”
And what of the future of global food security? In one interview, eco-activist Vandana Shiva asserts: “The second Green Revolution has nothing to do with food security … it is about returns to Monsanto’s profits… patenting is the real aim. If you look at Monsanto’s research agenda, they are testing something like twenty crops at this point with BT (Bacillus thuringiensis) genes. There’s nothing that they are leaving untouched – the mustard, the okra, the rice, the brinjal (eggplant), the rice, the cauliflower – once they have established the norm that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected, and we will depend on them for every seed we grow, for every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food… it’s strategic, it’s more powerful than bombs, more powerful than guns, and it's the best way to control the populations of the world.”
Importance of labellings genetically modified foods
Despite the rather dismal picture it paints, the film does an excellent job in digging up and piecing the facts together, much of it easily available online (Robin also wrote a book, Le Monde Selon Monsanto, based on her investigations) . But what can we as consumers do to address concerns about the possible health and environmental risks of genetically modified foods? Or should we rephrase: what else is Monsanto not telling us? As some surveys already show that a majority of people want GM foods labeled, one crucial step would be to take action to ensure GM foods are clearly labeled and standards quickly put into place, so that consumers can make an informed choice. For in the midst of ignorance, how could we ever choose?
::Montreal Mirror
Wednesday
Afghanistan: Downgraded From Quagmire To FUBAR
Things have now reached such a sorry state of affairs in Afghanistan, that if one would wish to cherry-pick failures over "successes" simply could not do so - however much one would try.
For before, failures "only" overwhelmingly outnumbered small, inconsequential "successes". Now, even such small, inconsequential "successes" have become a full fledged rarity.
Things have to be bad and out of control when the Taliban can waltz in and free some 1200 prisoners - including some 400 fellow Talibs - from Kandahar's Sarposa prison.
This, not counting the usual fare regularly occurring in Afghanistan (you know - business as usual and all that).
And as Canadian, American and other fellow N.A.T.O. soldiers provided "intelligence support" (say what?!?) for Afghan forces in hunting down the escaped prisoners, one "top general" (Gen. Denis Thompson, the Canadian commandeer in Afghanistan) could not help but state the painfully obvious on the consequences of the spectacular jailbreak:
The commandeer was actually overly optimistic. Case in point: hundreds of Taliban fighters took over several villages in a district just north of Kandahar City - a mere two-three days after the Sarposa jailbreak.
In between, Afghan senior officials are beginning to be scared ... really scared:Mayor of Kabul President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, went as far as issuing the threat of sending troops into Pakistan to battle the Taliban (you know - who keeps hiding there).
Shit hitting the fan, indeed.
The response from N.A.T.O. following the Sarposa jailbreak? Same old dissembling "all is well" and "we're ready!" bullshit:
Now, how long will this last? Remember the last time N.A.T.O. had to "do it again"?
(Answer: it is always going on - N.A.T.O. pushes Talibs away from one place and they come back another place another day, and eventually return to the first place they were pushed from to begin with, and on and on and on and on. That is how things have been since the resurgence of the Taliban back in 2003)
And in between, those incompetent politicians who keep on cheering, supporting and defending this war could not help themselves in laying the blame for the Sarposa jailbreak squarely at the feet of the Afghan authorities - of course:
And never mind that the Afghan government is inept and corrupt, thanks in good part to your own incompetence (emphasis added):
Hell, they don't even have translators to interact properly with Afghanis.
No wonder this is a hopeless clusterfuck, a lost cause.
And if things weren't bad enough, Taliban insurgents use profits from the sales of opium as their prime source of revenue - Afghan opium traffic is now a $4 billion/year business, as Afghanistan has become the premier world supplier of illegal opium, while the never-ending Taliban insurgency is giving way to the idea of N.A.T.O. actually fighting the Taliban in Pakistan, an idea which seems to get increasing traction.
Wanna bet how this will make things even worse? I mean, much worse?
Oh wait - now we learn that U.S. abuse of detainees was routine at Afghanistan bases, and that Afghan soldiers apparently like to indulge in sexual assaults, while Canadian soldiers allegedly had to turn a blind eye and stay silent on such matters.
I have previously endeavored to make the case that the war in Afghanistan has turned out to be absolutely for nothing, namely because:
And what about removing the Taliban for good? Why, we now want to negotiate with them!
Furthermore, there was also this seldom-mentioned matter of oil pipelines needing to go through Afghanistan at the time - which of course brought forth the suspicion that the war in Afghanistan may have been first and foremost about oil.
Well, guess what? Canadian troops would help (if asked) the Afghan army defend a proposed $7.6-billion U.S.-backed natural gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan and India.
I guess it is now official: Afghanistan has now devolved from quagmire to genuine FUBAR.
Talk about "signposts of success".
So my question (again and again) is: what the Hell are we still doing there?
When will we wake up to the sheer inanity of this "mission"?
How can there be anyone out there of the mind to keep on justifying this utter, ludicrous waste of lives, resources and money?
"What war?" fucking indeed.
(Cross-posted from APOV)
For before, failures "only" overwhelmingly outnumbered small, inconsequential "successes". Now, even such small, inconsequential "successes" have become a full fledged rarity.
Things have to be bad and out of control when the Taliban can waltz in and free some 1200 prisoners - including some 400 fellow Talibs - from Kandahar's Sarposa prison.
This, not counting the usual fare regularly occurring in Afghanistan (you know - business as usual and all that).
And as Canadian, American and other fellow N.A.T.O. soldiers provided "intelligence support" (say what?!?) for Afghan forces in hunting down the escaped prisoners, one "top general" (Gen. Denis Thompson, the Canadian commandeer in Afghanistan) could not help but state the painfully obvious on the consequences of the spectacular jailbreak:
"Eventually it may impact us in the field."Eventually?
The commandeer was actually overly optimistic. Case in point: hundreds of Taliban fighters took over several villages in a district just north of Kandahar City - a mere two-three days after the Sarposa jailbreak.
In between, Afghan senior officials are beginning to be scared ... really scared:
Walid Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai, told The Canadian Press on Monday that he's also worried the Taliban could mount attacks within Kandahar.In fact, senior Afghan officials are so scared nowadays, that the
"There are also strong rumours that they will attack Kandahar city at certain strategic points. My house, the governor's house (and) the police station," he said.
"Whenever they get close to Kandahar city, there could be problems. Every one in Kabul is very much concerned," said Karzai, who serves as president of the provincial council.
Shit hitting the fan, indeed.
The response from N.A.T.O. following the Sarposa jailbreak? Same old dissembling "all is well" and "we're ready!" bullshit:
NATO spokesperson Mark Laity said NATO and Afghan military officials are sending troops to the district to "meet any potential threats."Obviously - that they did.
Laity seemed to link the jailbreak with the Taliban push into Arghandab.
"It's fair to say that the jailbreak has put a lot of people (rebels) into circulation who weren't there before, and so obviously you're going to respond to that potential threat," he said.
Now, how long will this last? Remember the last time N.A.T.O. had to "do it again"?
(Answer: it is always going on - N.A.T.O. pushes Talibs away from one place and they come back another place another day, and eventually return to the first place they were pushed from to begin with, and on and on and on and on. That is how things have been since the resurgence of the Taliban back in 2003)
And in between, those incompetent politicians who keep on cheering, supporting and defending this war could not help themselves in laying the blame for the Sarposa jailbreak squarely at the feet of the Afghan authorities - of course:
Defence Minister Peter MacKay tried to distance Canada from blame in the Kandahar jailbreak that freed hundreds of prisoners – including 400 pro-Taliban insurgents – saying the Afghan government must answer for failing to prevent it.Alternately, blame your N.A.T.O. allies for being inefficient - even if you were the ones responsible for this mess to begin with.
“Let's not forget this is an Afghan lead. It's not a Canadian-run prison,” Mr. MacKay told CTV's Question Period, adding later that the Afghans “have obviously a lot to account for as to what happened.”
And never mind that the Afghan government is inept and corrupt, thanks in good part to your own incompetence (emphasis added):
(Sarah) Chayes’s input has become regarded as a vital source of intelligence for those stakeholders trying to get a full picture of the situation on the ground without many eyes and ears outside the wire. She supports a continued NATO presence in Kandahar but is highly critical of the political strategy and combat tactics of the coalition forces.And never mind as well the fact that N.A.T.O. troops do not even have the proper means, let alone any comprehensive plan, to actually train competently Afghan police and soldiers.
"I was very happy to see NATO come (to Kandahar) but disappointed that NATO hasn’t altered their policy of using corrupt Afghan officials," she said. "They have given a blank cheque to the local government authorities and you simply can’t do that. Fighting corruption is a daily process. You can’t just remove a few officials and consider the task complete."
According to Chayes, NATO’s killing of insurgents is negated by the unchecked corruption of the local government, which is causing an even greater number of volunteers to take up arms and join the resistance.
(...) "These corrupt Afghan officials will respond to foreign pressure because they know they are in power thanks to NATO," Chayes said. "If NATO wasn’t here, the Karzai regime wouldn’t last five days, or five minutes, because the people are so upset."
Hell, they don't even have translators to interact properly with Afghanis.
No wonder this is a hopeless clusterfuck, a lost cause.
And if things weren't bad enough, Taliban insurgents use profits from the sales of opium as their prime source of revenue - Afghan opium traffic is now a $4 billion/year business, as Afghanistan has become the premier world supplier of illegal opium, while the never-ending Taliban insurgency is giving way to the idea of N.A.T.O. actually fighting the Taliban in Pakistan, an idea which seems to get increasing traction.
Wanna bet how this will make things even worse? I mean, much worse?
Oh wait - now we learn that U.S. abuse of detainees was routine at Afghanistan bases, and that Afghan soldiers apparently like to indulge in sexual assaults, while Canadian soldiers allegedly had to turn a blind eye and stay silent on such matters.
I have previously endeavored to make the case that the war in Afghanistan has turned out to be absolutely for nothing, namely because:
For indeed, each one of the prime justifications/objectives for the Afghanistan war have now been either completely disavowed ("defeat the taliban"), more or less abandoned ("defeat al-Qaeda"), or outrightly dismissed/ignored ("bring freedom and democracy"), by the very same people who have been pushing and supporting said justifications and this war.Indeed, Bush lied about the Taliban refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, the "official" prime reason for waging war in Afghanistan.
In essence, the core-reasons for going into Afghanistan are being put aside in lieu of political salvage operations of appearances - with the price continuing to be exacted with the lives of N.A.T.O. soldiers and Afghan civilians in the meantime.
To put it in other words: people and soldiers have been dying over the last seven years for nothing more than what in the end has amounted to a needless and ludicrous political exercise on the part of incompetent "deciders" as their response to 9/11.
The idea of military intervention as the crux of the strategy behind the Global War on Terror(TM) was wrong-headed to begin with and has proven itself to be wrong-headed ever since - if only because one does not wage war on a method/technique of fighting. In this respect, it is now safe to say that the Global War on Terror(TM) has been a colossal failure so far, in addition to fostering more terrorism and extremism than prior to its implementation.
And Afghanistan will forever constitute grave testimony to that effect.
And what about removing the Taliban for good? Why, we now want to negotiate with them!
Furthermore, there was also this seldom-mentioned matter of oil pipelines needing to go through Afghanistan at the time - which of course brought forth the suspicion that the war in Afghanistan may have been first and foremost about oil.
Well, guess what? Canadian troops would help (if asked) the Afghan army defend a proposed $7.6-billion U.S.-backed natural gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan and India.
I guess it is now official: Afghanistan has now devolved from quagmire to genuine FUBAR.
Talk about "signposts of success".
So my question (again and again) is: what the Hell are we still doing there?
When will we wake up to the sheer inanity of this "mission"?
How can there be anyone out there of the mind to keep on justifying this utter, ludicrous waste of lives, resources and money?
"What war?" fucking indeed.
(Cross-posted from APOV)
Tuesday
a brave new america
i haven't been terribly hopeful for a peaceful world anytime soon. the winds of change are often harbingers of hope- but i am not feeling it. there was a time when i really thought that americans could fight against the tide of corruption washing over our nation but that was the election of 2006 and it seems, with the exception of rep. kucinich and rep. wexler and the small band that is with them, that the very people who ran on tickets of changing government- haven't. then, barack obama decided to run for president. taking the stage at the 2004 democratic convention, obama blew me- and countless others away. and i felt the stirrings of hope that john kerry ( a good man) could not stir. since that time, america's constitution has been stolen and shredded and with the bill of rights all but gone, people began looking for someone, anyone to hold the guilty accountable. but time and again, our leaders have refused to lead.since i registered to vote, i have always been a registered democrat. for me, the democratic party represented fighting for the poor and vulnerable and fighting for the equality of all human beings- 'all men are created equal.' recently, i changed my voter registration to undeclared. i no longer believe that we have a two party system or a system of checks and balances in this country. we are no longer a country 'for the people, by the people' and we no longer have the will to be so. i can no longer participate in a system that will never be changed and is so horribly corrupt. i haven't spoken much about the presidential election since dennis k. dropped out because i felt that the only person 'man enough' for the job- was no longer running. and people started lining up behind clinton or obama. and they started ripping into each other. and it was and still is- blind stupidity.
i have been critical of hillary clinton because 1) she is the senator from new york- my home 2) she represents my gender 3) she is a highly motivated and intelligent person who helped raise a fine daughter in spite of her professional life and 4) she rose above the garbage thrown at her while bill was in office. all of that changed when her campaign started the racist crap and used misogyny as an excuse. it made me angry. because she played politics as usual and obama was running a different campaign- and she didn't get that. and she lost.
and now, i am not angry, just sad. sad that the death knell of the american democratic republic has turned into a funeral march. many folks looked to obama as someone who would lead america back towards democracy- but there is no democracy in politics. survival of the richest and fittest- and obama and the congress caved yet again to corporate interests. i mean, you can't bite the hand that feeds you, right?
Monday
A Poem
Having done fragment of poetry for my last two posts, I decided to post one I wrote. It's not political, but what the hell...
requiem
bury me if you would
in a shroud,
that my brothers and sisters,
the worms and microbes,
may enfold my body back into the earth,
bury me if you would
in a shroud,
that my brothers and sisters,
the worms and microbes,
may enfold my body back into the earth,
that one day
a little girl
squatting before a gaily colored flower
will lean forward to inhale its scent
and in doing so,
will inhale my spirit.
a little girl
squatting before a gaily colored flower
will lean forward to inhale its scent
and in doing so,
will inhale my spirit.
George Carlin - RIP
George Carlin, the dean of counterculture comedians whose biting insights on life and language were immortalized in his “Seven Words You Can Never Say On TV” routine, died of heart failure Sunday. He was 71. (More...)
VOTING
DIRTY WORDS
POWER
Sunday
FISA and The Democrats
The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.
I am a loyal and committed Democrat. However, my first loyalty is to our Constitution. Unquestionably, the Democratic Party's capitulation to the Bush Administration with respect to the FISA protocol is a disgrace. My favorite Democrat, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold issued the following statement about it on June 19th:
Note how Turley describes the capitulation as a form of immunity for the Democratic Party's leadership which looked the other way during the worst of the Bush Administration's civil liberty abuses in recent years. While I support the Democratic Party, their current generation of leadership is an abysmal failure and needs to be jettisoned forthwith. In the meantime, we must pressure the party leadership as much as possible to move in a more civil libertarian direction. Click here to contact your representative in the House and here to lobby your Senators. This is important.
I am a loyal and committed Democrat. However, my first loyalty is to our Constitution. Unquestionably, the Democratic Party's capitulation to the Bush Administration with respect to the FISA protocol is a disgrace. My favorite Democrat, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold issued the following statement about it on June 19th:
“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”Refer to the YouTube video below for another scathing perspective from George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley.
Note how Turley describes the capitulation as a form of immunity for the Democratic Party's leadership which looked the other way during the worst of the Bush Administration's civil liberty abuses in recent years. While I support the Democratic Party, their current generation of leadership is an abysmal failure and needs to be jettisoned forthwith. In the meantime, we must pressure the party leadership as much as possible to move in a more civil libertarian direction. Click here to contact your representative in the House and here to lobby your Senators. This is important.
Shari'a and The Muslim World: An Interview With Noah Feldman
The topic below was originally posted on my blog on Thursday, June 19th, when the interview took place.Shari’a is a code of law based on the Koran. In the Muslim world, many want to replace corrupt autocratic regimes with the Shari’a and establish traditional Islamic states. Western countries regard the Shari’a as a threat. Islamic parties are winning elections on it. Militants have used the Shari’a to justify acts of terrorism. Meanwhile, secular minded people find their most severe provisions repugnant.
In his latest book, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State (Princeton University Press), Noah Feldman tells the story behind the populist movement in the Muslim world to establish the Shari’a. Feldman addresses questions about why the Shari’a is popular in spite of its harsh code and whether the Islamic state can succeed.
He also explains how the classical Islamic constitution governed and was legitimized by law. Feldman argues that prior to the reforms of the modern era, the Shari’a operated under an effective system of checks and balances between scholars who interpreted the law and executive power.
Knowing the history of the Shari’a itself is important for context and Feldman’s book covers the promising beginnings of the traditional Islamic constitution and its downfall in the Ottoman Empire. Throughout the book, Feldman contends that if the Shari’a is combined with modernized institutions, successful Islamic states based on law and justice can be established.
Muhammad Qasim Zaman, author of The Ulama In Contemporary Islam, had the following praise for Feldman’s book:
“Scholarly and sophisticated yet highly accessible, this book makes an extremely important contribution to contemporary discussions of both Muslim politics and Islamic law. Feldman’s work provides a historical depth that has often been lacking in studies of law and constitutionalism in modern Muslim societies.”Feldman is not without his critics however. In a recent article for The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier writes,
“Feldman is shilling for a soft theocracy--for other people, naturally. This is, among other things, hypocritical. Don't Muslims, too, have the right to sin?”Noah Feldman is a professor at Harvard Law School and a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine. He is also an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of three previous books: Divided by God, What We Owe Iraq and After Jihad.
Feldman agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about his provocative book. Among the topics we discussed was Sharia’s history, women’s rights in Muslim society, geopolitics, how Barack Obama's candidacy was being received in the Muslim world and I also specifically asked him to respond to Leon Wieseltier’s critique. Our conversation was approximately twenty-eight minutes. Please refer to the media player below.
This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for the "Intrepid Liberal Journal."
Saturday
The Goon Show
Saturday Sonata VII, with LT.The date up there above these words says June 21—than means it's me' birthday. And I'm working. And my sweety's in Australia. (Okay, enough winjin'.)
Here's a link to another blog I occasionally remember I have, and some ancient wisdom and humor, from The Goon Show.
Spike Milligan's revolutionary radio show ran on the BBC from 1951 to 1960: a unique combination of memorable characters and daft plots, surreality and twisted logic, establishment bashing, satire and parody, music hall gags, catchphrases and random silliness. It broke new ground in its use / abuse of sound effects - both as pure audio gags and in helping to make physically impossible situations instantly believable. Milligan wrote most of the scripts, helped at various times by Larry Stevens, Eric Sykes, Maurice Wiltshire and John Antrobus.
Through the marvel that is the intertubes, you can listen to the shows here. Pour yourself a lemonade, have a sit, slow down, and smile.
Here's to the longest day of sunshine of the year—and the longest night of darkness of the year down in Sydney—and to all of you good goons out there. May you have a lovely day.
KING GEORGE'S REGIME ONCE AGAIN FLOODED WITH INCOMPETENCE
This Summer again has proven that at this rate as we all have known since 2005, we should all keep an Ax and blow up rowboat in the attic. The Current Flooding in the Midwest is one example of Disaster Unpreparedness at it's absolute worst ( and I say that with no disrespect to the thousands working to sandbag and people there working to save their homes, farms and communities and businesses).
People say that the Flooding in the Midwest is not as bad Katrina.I have to disagree. There are hundreds of miles and thousands of acres effected in 6 states.Where you really see the scope of this is looking at aerials ( photos and video). I find it interesting the MSM has shown very little of these aerials, if they did people would realize the staggering enormity of this situation.The Heartland is in some ways like Katrina, this is not a wealthy region, this is Middle America at it's finest, small towns and rural farms. King George should not have been on his "Farewell to Europe" tour, he should have come home and been monitoring this devastation. He should have for once been doing Flyovers and inspecting damage and Potential Damage. He should have ordered Branches of the Military to assist, including Coast Guard and even Airforce could have done aerial assessments.Mulitple crops will be effected, from soybean to corn to basic vegetables.So again Food Prices will suffer.
We have seen very little of FEMA or Chertoff ( which in some ways is fine, we do not really need more Brownie Moments).We have not even seen interviews of Red Cross Administration with updates regarding sheltering needs and reports, and really not even any ads. So I am encouraging people to write to the Red Cross, if you donate Specify on your check WHERE you want it to go.Now some of the reporting that has been insufficient might just be a matter of the MSM journalistic inablility to properly report other than Propaganda. I also think some of the Media, like CNN worries what Foreigners see and only show what they see fit. ( You do have to admit that Katrina atleast they did show the aerials with great concern, and actually embarrassed the president to do his famous "Flyover".)
And finally National Guard and Civil Defense Management should all be in place, as ALL aspects of life there are going to be impacted for thousands of people, from the transportation issues ( roads and bridge and raliway damage), to basic needs of living from sheltering to food. It is also important to note that many will be trapped inland with these massive problems. I have seen very few guard at the sandbag line photos. Another question or concern that we should all be asking, do they have enough Guard and Equipment ? Or is it all over in Iraq, this is the time to ask. ( Please also note that we have seen very few interviews with Governors on TV). And another thing that we can do to help our neighbors in the Midwest is to write and call the MSM and demand better coverage of this event that is not just a "weather phenom" it will impact this entire Country for many monthes to come and thousands of lives are effected.
Some of the other issues to come will be the lack of Fresh Potable water, disease risk from the muddy sewage ridden waters, and insects, as well as other contamination concerns.This also raises Medical Concerns for those in the region, during the clean up process, as well has many that are elderly and not physically up to the clean up challenge.Nothing has been said about Aid that will be there to assist these people ,whether it be economic or phyiscal assistance.So once you think on this you can see that Multiple Agencies should have feet on the ground there already, CDC, NOAA, and USGS and Army Corp of Engineers.
When the Bush Regime faces justice for the War Crimes of this Regime, I do hope that one of the aspects they closely examine is the Presidents inablilty to care of Refugees within his own country. His ignorance and incompetent neglect has damaged the lives of thousands, and not all of it can be blamed on the Natural Disasters.Do what you can to help Our Neighbors in the Midwest, be creative and resourceful, they depend on us.Sadly the Sandbags will provide some protection from the waters magnitude, but it will not protect these good people from the Dangerous Incompetence of the Bush Regime.
{{{ Please see Aerial Video Footage below, about one week old. I will post newer footage over at Watergate Summer as I find it. Please know that has a Nurse that has worked Disasters with the Red Cross and had FEMA training, that this post is written with great concern, Crossposted at Sirens Chronicles and Watergate Summer.}}
Thursday
Available
Driving to work, I've noticed quite a large number of 'Available' -oh baby, I am so available - signs posted on the streets - I don't work on the street honey - and they seem to be everywhere.
So, not only are people being thrown out of their homes - you can come to my house ANY time baby - but also their businesses. Some who have owned them since, well forever.
What happened to their grand scheme of an economic stimulus - NOW you're talking baby, let's go get stimulated! - that would help out these small mom and pop businesses? Oh yea, those checks were for WalMart and the other large American corporations.
Here’s the list, with 2007 gross revenues in millions:
Problem is, when they screw the world, they are pissing off a lot of people who don't understand what we, as Americans, understand about greed and consumerism and emptying our pockets, minds and souls for the almighty dollar - oh no baby, just think about me.
They don't have televisions to amuse them all night and day - hey, i got some great porn, wanna watch ? - and from what we've been allowed to read from our corporation media - no baby, read ME - they don't even have enough food or drinkable water to be the good corporate slaves - I'll be your love slave baby.
SO what possible purpose could they have for their world domination - dominate me baby? Yea, I know people from the beginning of time have been trying to take over the world and dominate all of people-kind - no baby, just you and me - and they had their reasons. But I'm wondering what are the now-a-day reasons at this stage in the game of our world development? - oh baby, I'm losing you... Is it the last grasp with an antiquated idea for the men behind the screen to get the ultimate ego stroke?
peace my friend, peace
~~
So, not only are people being thrown out of their homes - you can come to my house ANY time baby - but also their businesses. Some who have owned them since, well forever.
What happened to their grand scheme of an economic stimulus - NOW you're talking baby, let's go get stimulated! - that would help out these small mom and pop businesses? Oh yea, those checks were for WalMart and the other large American corporations.
Here’s the list, with 2007 gross revenues in millions:
1. Wal-Mart Stores: $378,799
2. Exxon Mobil: $372,824
3. Chevron: $210,783
4. General Motors: $182,347
5. ConocoPhillips: $178,558
6. General Electric: $176,656
7. Ford Motor: $172,468
8. Citigroup: $159,229
9. Bank of America: $119,190
10. AT&T: $118,928
Got me to thinking, dangerous I know - think on me baby ~ ooooh - about where else our so-called American corporations are out there on our pretty blue planet creating havoc. Multi-national, which means they are screwing the whole world and not just us - wow, now you're getting me HOT.Problem is, when they screw the world, they are pissing off a lot of people who don't understand what we, as Americans, understand about greed and consumerism and emptying our pockets, minds and souls for the almighty dollar - oh no baby, just think about me.
They don't have televisions to amuse them all night and day - hey, i got some great porn, wanna watch ? - and from what we've been allowed to read from our corporation media - no baby, read ME - they don't even have enough food or drinkable water to be the good corporate slaves - I'll be your love slave baby.
SO what possible purpose could they have for their world domination - dominate me baby? Yea, I know people from the beginning of time have been trying to take over the world and dominate all of people-kind - no baby, just you and me - and they had their reasons. But I'm wondering what are the now-a-day reasons at this stage in the game of our world development? - oh baby, I'm losing you... Is it the last grasp with an antiquated idea for the men behind the screen to get the ultimate ego stroke?
peace my friend, peace
~~
Wednesday
al-Qaeda In Pakistan/Afghanistan: Potential Solutions?
Much has been made (and rightly so) about Gen. Petraeus's and Amb. Crocker's frank admission a month or so ago that al-Qaeda’s main base of operation and greatest threat come from Pakistan/Afghanistan - not Iraq.
Of course, that was stating the obvious known all along.
Indeed, many (including yours truly) have been clamoring the same said obvious - however, that this simple fact is at last admitted openly in testimony before Congress, and that said admission was actually proded out by elected representatives, constitutes nevertheless a significant moment.
In order to fully appreciate such significance, let us first go back to the core-reasons for the Afghanistan War (emphasis added):
Or, in other words: this has been a policy of retreat from bin Laden and Afghanistan.
At the same time, this has also been a policy of not only ignoring the Pakistan problem, but actually coddling to it (emphasis added):
In the meantime, Pakistan remains very much volatile as al-Qaeda, Taliban and tribal allies continue to sow chaos, while U.S./N.A.T.O. forces have stepped up their unilateral strikes into Pakistan from Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its allies.
In short, terrorism and extremism have remained so far beyond the control of Pakistan, having painted itself in a corner to this effect long before 9/11 and the launch of the Afghanistan War.
So here we are, with two full-fledged quagmires - one (Afghanistan) brought about by incompetence-driven desire to rush to war along with botched pre-war and post-war planning, and the other (Iraq) brought about by incompetence-driven desire to wage a war of choice ... along with botched pre-war and post-war planning (violence is the last refuge of incompetence and incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself - so state the 6th and 7th Principles of Incompetence, respectively). In addition, we have a country (Pakistan) with nuclear weaponry which ever hangs precariously on the razor's edge of civil war and anarchy.
Oh - and to top it all, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still alive and well in Pakistan ... as they have always been.
The idea of military intervention as the crux of the strategy behind the Global War on Terror(TM) was wrong-headed to begin with and has proven itself to be wrong-headed ever since - if only because one does not wage war on a method/technique of fighting. In this respect, it is now safe to say that the Global War on Terror(TM) has been a colossal failure so far, in addition to fostering more terrorism and extremism than prior to its implementation.
Or, in other words: anti-terrorism is not a matter of troops and tactics, but rather one of diplomacy and strategy - at home and abroad.
Another fact which was obvious all along, to which incompetent warhawks, chickenhawks and fear-driven fools have ever been blind to (we all know who and what they are).
Consequently, the very à propos question which should have been asked from the begining and which is to be asked again and again, especially in light of the aforementioned admission by Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, remains this one: what should we do about al-Qaeda in Pakistan?
I have found some potential answers (emphasis mine):
Only by taking a long, hard and sober look at was done horribly wrong will we be able to formulate the policies and strategies to combat terrorism that should have been devised to begin with.
If only because (emphasis adeed):
Do we have the courage and competence to pull up a chair and sit down to it?
Que sera, sera.
(Posted originally at APOV)
Of course, that was stating the obvious known all along.
Indeed, many (including yours truly) have been clamoring the same said obvious - however, that this simple fact is at last admitted openly in testimony before Congress, and that said admission was actually proded out by elected representatives, constitutes nevertheless a significant moment.
In order to fully appreciate such significance, let us first go back to the core-reasons for the Afghanistan War (emphasis added):
At the time, President Bush justified the launching of the Afghanistan War as a response to 9-11 and the failure of the Taliban to meet his demands concerning terrorists, including delivering Osama bin Laden. Following the trauma and outrage brought by 9-11, an overwhelming majority of Americans supported the War in Afghanistan - and President Bush was believed at face value when he claimed that the replacement of the Taliban regime was a requirement for keeping the U.S.A. safe from another al-Qaeda attack.However, and despite President Bush's "convictions", a lot did not sit well with his invasion of Afghanistan (emphasis added):
(...) there was a rather meek international support for such justifications initially, especially since: 1) the U.S.A. had turned a convenient blind eye when the backward, fundamentalist Taliban regime seized power in 1996 (after all, the U.S.A. had supported the Taliban); 2) although the Taliban was indeed characterized by its parochial, fundamentalist and theocratic-driven ruthless rule, it was never a terrorist organization to begin with; 3) the Taliban was certainly not involved in 9-11; 4) the Taliban had agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan for trial (10/01/2001, but Pakistan refused); 5) the Taliban then offered to try bin Laden themselves (10/07/2001, but the offer was rejected by Bush); and 6) the Taliban thereafter offered to hand him over to the U.S., provided that proof was shown that bin Laden was responsible for 9-11 (10/14/2001, but this offer was likewise flatly rejected by Bush).From then on, the rest was history - including how it turned out (emphasis added):
Hence, the Taliban regime was not a terrorist organization and had made a significant number of overtures to deliver Osama bin Laden - however, all such overtures were rejected.
Why? Because of the expedient desire to go to war - which happened on 10/07/2001, when American and British forces undertook an aerial bombing campaign targeting Taliban forces and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - thus marking the beginning of the Afghanistan War.
By the summer of 2002, the Taliban had been removed from power and its remnants, like those of al-Qaeda, had gone into hiding. By the end of spring 2003, then-still U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared major combat operations over. However, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, by then fully allied by necessity, had already regrouped along the Afghani-Pakistani border, recruiting heavily while training in guerrilla warfare tactics - thanks to consistent funding seemingly transiting through Pakistan. Then, the Taliban insurgency followed - which has been lasting to this day.How could this have happened? Simply this way:
(...) Osama bin Laden got away and is still in hiding, along with most of the al-Qaeda leadership - even if he and his organization were the prime justification for going into Afghanistan in the first place.
The Powell Doctrine was already established and demonstrated after Operation Desert Storm. But then the resident incompetents in the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.) tossed it aside when they went into Afghanistan - especially because, as it has been revealed, they already had their sights on Iraq. So, they went in Afghanistan without massive deployments, made those stupid deals with the Afghan Warlords and their militias, contented themselves with routing the Taliban and al-Qaeda away from Khabul (and for the life of me, I never understood why no one figured out that the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban would run into Pakistan and, consequently, take strategic steps to block off the border in order to prevent this - then again, they never had enough boots on the grounds to enact such a basic strategy to begin with - but I digress), and then they asked for U.N./N.A.T.O. help because they had begun occupying themselves with Iraq.Conclusion: the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been back in force after being essentially allowed to flee to Pakistan and regroup, thanks to the mind-boggling incompetence of the Bush administration.
Or, in other words: this has been a policy of retreat from bin Laden and Afghanistan.
At the same time, this has also been a policy of not only ignoring the Pakistan problem, but actually coddling to it (emphasis added):
Pakistan has often been praised by the Bush administration, among others, for its role in the Global War on Terror(TM). President Bush even once proclaimed a broad and lasting strategic partnership with Pakistan to this effect.The preceding was written in August 2007. Since then, Musharraf did declare martial law in November 2007 (which he lifted about one month later, but not before making himself President until 2012 - with congratulations from President Bush), opposition leader and staunch al-Qaeda opponent Benazir Bhutto was assassinated (apparently by none other than al-Qaeda), and a new Prime Minister intent on restoring full democracy in Pakistan (and a close associate of Benazir Bhutto) was elected.
Despite evidence to the contrary:
A) Although initially helping to round up remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban (after their defeat in the summer of 2002) on its own side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the Pakistani army quickly found itself in a sub-war (dubbed the Waziristan War) which began in the spring of 2004 and ended in the summer of 2006, being pitted against al-Qaeda and other militants joined by local rebels and pro-Taliban tribal forces - all believed to be connected with the Taliban insurgency. A peace agreement was signed in September 2006 between the Pakistani government and the pro-Taliban militants, encouraged by the Tribal Elders in power in the region.
B) The provisions of this peace agreement included, among others, a significant reduction of Pakistani troops in the Waziristan region and the release of some 2500 al-Qaeda and pro-Taliban militants previously captured. Consequently, al-Qaeda and the Taliban have free reign at hiding within Pakistan.
C) Since then, Pakistan's "help" against al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been going downhill. Osama bin Laden was ascertained all along of being in hiding in Pakistan, whereby the Pakistani "lost his trail" quite a while ago. Furthermore, al-Qaeda funding still goes through Pakistan.
and D) Despite previous claims (see above), members of the Bush administration have begun this year to call upon Pakistan to "step up" further with its help in fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban, even going as far as to threaten military strikes within Pakistan's side of the border with Afghanistan, without Pakistan's permission.
In between, there has been a resurgence of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, as well as clashes and confrontations between Pakistani forces and pro-Taliban/al-Qaeda forces - in fact, Pakistan is deemed likely to face a civil war should it presses on further in the areas where al-Qaeda and the Taliban are hiding. Furthermore, President (dictator) Musharraf may yet declare martial law, even if he has so far publicly rejected the option. Meanwhile, the only solution that President Bush could come up with in solving this dire problem is by seeking a $2 billion Pakistan aid package from Congress, in order to help financing tribal paramilitary groups in the semi-autonomous region of Waziristan in Pakistan (where al-Qaeda and the Taliban have gained such a foothold) as part of an American-Pakistani joint counterinsurgency effort designed to wrest the region from extremist militants.
In the meantime, Pakistan remains very much volatile as al-Qaeda, Taliban and tribal allies continue to sow chaos, while U.S./N.A.T.O. forces have stepped up their unilateral strikes into Pakistan from Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its allies.
In short, terrorism and extremism have remained so far beyond the control of Pakistan, having painted itself in a corner to this effect long before 9/11 and the launch of the Afghanistan War.
So here we are, with two full-fledged quagmires - one (Afghanistan) brought about by incompetence-driven desire to rush to war along with botched pre-war and post-war planning, and the other (Iraq) brought about by incompetence-driven desire to wage a war of choice ... along with botched pre-war and post-war planning (violence is the last refuge of incompetence and incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself - so state the 6th and 7th Principles of Incompetence, respectively). In addition, we have a country (Pakistan) with nuclear weaponry which ever hangs precariously on the razor's edge of civil war and anarchy.
Oh - and to top it all, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still alive and well in Pakistan ... as they have always been.
The idea of military intervention as the crux of the strategy behind the Global War on Terror(TM) was wrong-headed to begin with and has proven itself to be wrong-headed ever since - if only because one does not wage war on a method/technique of fighting. In this respect, it is now safe to say that the Global War on Terror(TM) has been a colossal failure so far, in addition to fostering more terrorism and extremism than prior to its implementation.
Or, in other words: anti-terrorism is not a matter of troops and tactics, but rather one of diplomacy and strategy - at home and abroad.
Another fact which was obvious all along, to which incompetent warhawks, chickenhawks and fear-driven fools have ever been blind to (we all know who and what they are).
Consequently, the very à propos question which should have been asked from the begining and which is to be asked again and again, especially in light of the aforementioned admission by Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, remains this one: what should we do about al-Qaeda in Pakistan?
I have found some potential answers (emphasis mine):
- implementation of a new guarded, yet effective, counterinsurgency strategy in Pakistan. This means relying on credible human intelligence, winning over local support, and coordinating with American trainers and intelligence and military personnel in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis were able to bring Swat – a former Al-Qaeda stronghold in northern Pakistan – under state control using such a comprehensive strategy.Once again: anti-terrorism is not a matter of troops and tactics, but rather one of diplomacy and strategy.
- in addition to a desire to "talk" to moderate Taliban, more needs to be done to endorse counterinsurgency strategies over brute-force counter-terrorist measures. Pakistani politicians are eager to take charge – but they must know that simply cutting deals with al-Qaeda or Taliban will not guarantee security. Before hastily signing another truce with the "moderate Taliban" in the tribal areas, the new government must investigate past failures of similar agreements.
- measures that promise better governance, more constitutional autonomy and socioeconomic opportunities to the tribal areas pending expulsion of terrorists will only succeed if Pakistani politicians guarantee consistent engagement. That includes, for example, asking the military to support Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) – similar to International Security Assistance Force’s (ISAF) role in Afghanistan – over large-scale military operations.
- the current U.S. plan to increase the training of Pakistani troops – paratroopers, Pakistani Special Forces, and Frontier Corps – is a step in the right direction. U.S. training programs must be supplemented by U.S. military hardware and intelligence exchange across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In constrast, the current unilateral U.S. attacks on Pakistan’s rustic tribal areas are highly likely to prove devastatingly unsustainable and counterproductive (Note: actually, they have done so in the recent past already).
Only by taking a long, hard and sober look at was done horribly wrong will we be able to formulate the policies and strategies to combat terrorism that should have been devised to begin with.
If only because (emphasis adeed):
A stable nuclear-armed Pakistan is crucial for any successful effort to bring stability to the region. It holds the potential for intelligence exchange and military support, and holds a strategic geographic location next to Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban know this too well. With time running out, Washington should provide smart and targeted military, economic and diplomatic aid to all willing and capable Pakistani civilian and military leaders and institutions. Changing the counterterrorism-counterinsurgency calculus by focusing on active socioeconomic engagement over excess use of brute force is essential to achieving victory in the Global War on Terror.Looks like the table has been set after all.
Do we have the courage and competence to pull up a chair and sit down to it?
Que sera, sera.
(Posted originally at APOV)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
