It should not need to be said: And then they came for me...

Welcome to Canada!
Do you have any fruit, firearms
or implements of torture
to declare today?

HT Digby: Please click the digg link.

"First they tortured in ticking time bomb cases but I didn't mind because it was a clear and imminent danger..."

An obvious observation ... or it should be.

This deserves to be email-chained to everyone who's ever annoyed you with some damn-fool paranoid massmail forwarding.

I cannot even fathom what combination of fear and moral failure has allowed US Citizens to tolerate this - much less entrench it into a political philosophy! Nonetheless, this very phenomenon is directly related to why I chose to return to Canada.

It's not the whole of it, or even a huge part - but at some point, as a citizen of a nation, you have to ask yourself whether, if push came to shove, could you suck up your gut and say "My country, right or wrong?" I found that I could not honestly say that.

To me, that commitment has always depended on the balance of right versus wrong being a positive one. Somewhere during the Bush administration, it became clear to me that Bush was not an historical anomaly, but rather, the logical product of a political movement that prospered because good people chose to do nothing to oppose it.

At some point just prior to the election, even before the economic meltdown, I became convinced that it was entirely possible to envision circumstances in which Canada and the US would come to some parting of the ways. The issue of torture is certainly one issue that could bring this about, and there are a number of others, sovereignty being a very significant one.

Torture is a powerful issue, both in terms of symbolism and as practical evidence of an intolerable degree of ethical and moral failure at the highest levels.

If this does not inform the decisions of other world powers, including Canada, that is also a problem. You see, it goes to the very fundamental issues as to whether the United States can be trusted to act as a lawful power, if it can and will honor it's treaties and international obligations. Actions speak far louder than words.

I was blessed by birth with a choice; citizenship in two nations with remarkable history, people and potential. But of the two nations, one sees history, people and potential as a responsibility to be maintained and fulfilled and the other, sadly, sees it as an entitlement.

I regret being forced to chose. But I am not uncomfortable with the choice I have made. I hope that you, dear reader, are able to come to some acceptable terms with your own citizenship in the merciless light of conscience.

Illustrations:
Canada Above the Fray Rondel by EhCanada
Waterboarding saves lives by walraven

Reality, "realisms" and ethics.

A darned interesting article by by: Marc Ash leads to this conclusion

t r u t h o u t | The Threat of Realism:

Realism

The debate in Washington right now is defined by what media pundits have taken to labeling as 'Realism.' As is the case with any 'ism' it has man-made borders. The cornerstones of this brand of realism appear to include:

- A notion that it is an American birthright to lead the world, and profit by doing so.

- A notion that the US can maintain over 700 military bases worldwide and not unify the world in opposition.

- A notion that an Iraqi government, or any government orchestrated, protected and funded by US occupiers can someday be sovereign.

- A notion that the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan can end well.

Those are clearly false, unsustainable and quite dangerous realisms.

Indeed they are. And they are long-standing ones; as Marc Ash points out, the question as to which "side" was right in the US dispute with Cuba (and the larger struggle with various anti-American/anti-imperialist movements) is somewhat beside the point. The more useful and important question is this; what got us to the point where a nuclear showdown over a tobacco and gambling enterprise seemed like a good idea.

I grew up in the US, so I have to tell you that finding out what was really behind all of that was not easy. The issues are cloaked in ignorance and idiology. Nor do I doubt that of the other side; the Marxist cant of Castro and Che tended to conceal for everyone involved that the issues involved were not at all idiological. They were not even abstract manifestations of human rights.

And when the demagogues hauled out words like "The Free Market" and "Capitalism" and "Communism" and "Imperialism" - even before they got to the insults designed to motivate their respective power bases, well, the end result was nothing good for anyone.

I point to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the history leading up to it because it's relatively accessible and because it's an expression of basic US Foreign Policy that has not fundamentally changed in my lifetime. And sadly, the rhetoric of Hugo Chavez is not very different from that of Che or Castro because that side of the coin hasn't changed much either.

The problem is not one of economic systems; both capitalism and communism - socialism as well; all these systems can and do work rather well when applied intelligently by the professionally minded to situations they are suited to with the goal of maximizing gain for all. In other words, they need to be applied ethically, with the goal that everyone involved is better off at the end of the day by participation within the system than they would be by opposing it.

Or in other words, the goal of any sane government, any sane approach to foreign policy, any sane approach to avoiding expensive drama in any human context is to avoid approaches that are known to create opposition and will tend to create a highly motivated pool of pissed off individuals willing to act politically, economically and violently with the aim of frustrating your goals.

This has the effect of sharply limiting the goals one may legitimately aspire to. Oh well. It has been my observation over many years that accepting and working within limitations tends to boost creativity and generally produces better outcomes than plans that admit no limitations at all. For ideas that accept no human, practical, economic or ethical limitations simply do not fit into any human context. That means that some degree of violence will be required to make them work at all.

And aside from the ethics - it's metaphorically identical to having a furnace that must be firmly addressed with a sledgehammer in order for the feed auger to move coal into the firebox. The proper way of addressing this problem is not to sanctify the office of auger-banger, nor to devote great attention and effort to building better sledgehammers. The problem is that you are trying to heat your house with a hundred-year old coal fired furnace that was badly designed to start with and which has not improved with age.

Rip it out, recycle it and install something that works. This is what ethics tells us; that we must not invest ourselves in institutionalizing wrong answers. That creating an edifice of institutional justification for wrong actions will not make the action right - and all mysticism aside, wrong actions lead to undesirable outcomes, every single time, and almost by definition, at a cost that is exponentially higher than doing it right in the first place.

So instead of "realisms," worldviews in which "men of the world" take for grated that the actions of Great Men and the Legitimate Aspirations of Great States will lead to vast numbers of enemies, internal opposition and economic dislocation for the "lusers," we should take for granted that any person that takes those things for granted is dangerously, obviously and provably wrong.

CF: Cuba, Afghanistan (History, International, Military, Year Dot to Date), Carpetbaggers, The War of Northern Aggression and The Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire.)

It takes a good deal of willful blindness to look at the situations, history and people behind these conflicts and celebrate the outcomes as being the proper outcome of any defensible plan or legitimate, desirable outcome.

Diplomat:"OF COURSE you talk to enemies!!!" It takes me six paragrahs to say "Duh!"

27 year career diplomat agrees with Senator Obama on need for diplomacy, including talking with our enemies.

I was moved to digg and comment (digg link below, please use that one) and then realized that I really should follow my own lead on this. I frequently blog the better comments on news stories made by others. Well, this time, I think I nailed it.

Here's what I said.

"This whole "we don't talk to people we don't like" foreign policy has struck me as being on a level with seventh graders deciding who gets to sit at what table at lunch. And - clearly - our leaders do not choose to be seen in public with the auto-shop boys, the "smoker's corner" crowd or anyone from "the wrong side of the tracks."

This is a criticism that transcends any need to speak to politics, ideology or philosophy. I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that those concepts have had any bearing on any approach to anything. Conservatism has been reduced to the level of a purple heart band-aid.

Remember that, when it was a sign of a Good Conservative to mock the service of a decorated war hero because his experience led him to disapprove of the war in Iraq?

Whatever one might feel about a political opponent, or whatever one might feel about the conclusions they drew from their time in service of country, it's utterly wrong and an utter betrayal of a decent appreciation of fundamental Conservative values to mock the wartime service of another. Nonetheless, the tactic was embraced by leaders and followers alike, because it looked like it would work toward a short-term political goal. Principles be damned. And that's our foreign policy in a nutshell.

It's first, last and only goal has been domestic political advantage within the current news cycle, a calculation that is common to ALL important decisions over the last, utterly disastrous eight years.Wise and mature leaders understand that you cannot, must not, pander to people informed in sound bites by political partisans, or even be terribly concerned about what those partisans might say. There are always such people and it's always easiest to convince them that they are somehow being "mistreated" or "betrayed" by someone in power dealing with a complex situation.

And let us remember that despite being genuinely likable and good with people, George Bush's leadership style has never led him to deal with difficult issues in any substantive way. I honestly cannot think of a single situation that has been improved by George Bush's involvement, or indeed, improved on the basis of the Bush leadership philosophy. It's been a government of, by and for the "popular kids" - and we are reminded why student governments have grownup advisers."

If you digg what I said, please digg it there. But of course, you are also encouraged to share this article directly with all the other bookmarking services. :P

read more | digg story

Ron Paul - Right though he is, still more correct than not.

Of course, Ron Paul wants to cut off ALL foreign aid - and he makes a compelling case as to why supporting dictators and "the lesser of two evils" is an inherently bad idea that ultimately sabotages our national interest.

The problem is, we have been blessed with leadership over the last several decades that have been increasingly enamored of poking foreigners with sharp sticks in order to gain domestic support.

The founders - having had all of European history involving The Sport of Kings and various pseudo-religious wars, intended a policy of non-intervention in the affairs of others, backed up with a rattlesnake's response to being trod upon. Paul points out to NEIL CAVUTO that we can hardly afford the logical consequences of continuing this policy. Niel apparently knew better than to argue against the obvious.

read more | digg story

Tucker Carlson slowly comes toward the Light.

Tucker Carlson writes in The New Republic:

The first thing I learned from driving around Nevada with Ron Paul for a couple of days: People really hate the Federal Reserve. This became clear midway through a speech Paul was giving to a group of Republicans at a community center in Pahrump, a dusty town about 60 miles west of Las Vegas. Pahrump is known for its legal brothels (Heidi Fleiss lives there), but most of the people in the audience looked more like ranchers than swingers. They stood five deep at the back of the room and listened politely as the candidate spoke.

Until Paul got to the part about the Fed. "We need a much better monetary system," he said, a system based on "sound money, money that's backed by something." Paul, who is small and delicate and has a high voice, spoke in a near monotone, making no effort to excite the audience. They cheered anyway. Then he said this: "The Constitution gives no authority for a central bank." The crowd went wild, or as wild as a group of sober Republicans can on a Monday night. They hooted and yelled and stomped their feet. Paul stopped speaking for a moment, his words drowned out. Then he continued on about monetary policy.

Wow, I thought. The constitutionality of a central bank is not an issue you see on many lists of voter concerns. (How many pollsters would think to ask about it? How many voters would understand the question?) Yet a room full of non-economists had just responded feverishly when Paul brought it up. Hoping for some context, I went outside and found a Paul staffer. He didn't sound surprised when I told him about the speech. "It's our biggest applause line," he said.

Our biggest applause line? There are two ways to interpret a fact like that: Either the Ron Paul movement is more sophisticated than most journalists understand, or a lot of Paul supporters are eccentric bordering on bonkers.

One gets the impression that at first Tucker didn't take Paul all that seriously, drawing the obvious conclusions from his obvious lack of charisma and his clear, but deliberately non-inspirational speaking style; "Obviously," the man is "not presidential timber."

Unfortunately, it's turned out that the MSM idea of "Presidential timber" is Cottonwood. Looks real stately, but there's damn little substance to it.

By the conclusion of the article, it appears that Tucker has grasped the essence of the Ron Paul phenomenon. He's the only candidate who will give you an honest answer to an honest question. You may not agree with him, but at least you know where he stands, and you know he's willing to risk the consequences of telling you something you don't want to hear.

On the other hand, "Cottonwood" Thompson's supporters are circulating this twaddle:

You might be a Fredhead if...

...you blame America last.

...you kinda like it when terrorists are made uncomfortable.

...you think that today's serious foreign policy issues will take more than hillbilly charm and naiveté to handle.

...you suspect the Iran might actually be up to something.

...you prefer movies where American troops are the good guys.

...you think a Senate majority leader who constantly tells us how things are doomed while a war is still ongoing needs a good bitch-slapping.

...you think it's great if a murderer finds God, but that doesn't mean he should be let out of prison.

...you think America's sovereignty is kinda important.

...you think anyone who talks about how the rich aren't "paying their fair share" is a whiny little Communist.

..."great hair" is low on your list of presidential requirements.

...you think someone didn't draw those border lines on a map just for fun.

...call you crazy, but you'd prefer a presidential candidate who actually shares your conservative views.

...you think it's time someone did something about the hippies.

...you'd like Osama bin Laden's next video to be him pleading, "Someone please help me!" before he's pummeled on screen by the U.S. president.

Well, THAT was substance free. But as the saying goes, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American People."

It's a emotional appeals to the "If you don't understand it, hit it with a crowbar" crowd. None of it tells us for sure what Thompson is for. Hell, if you think about it (the last thing candidates like Thompson or Clinton want), you realize it doesn't stay a hell of a lot about what he's actually against. But he's DOWN witcha in that redneck 'hood. And that, apparently, is what counts to the followers of "Cottonwood" Thompson.

Ron Paul supporters, on the other hand, while they may well have red necks come by honestly from riding a tractor, are not afraid of studying up a bit to try and understand what the hell their candidate is on about. They don't mind saying - "Austrian economics? What the HELL is Austrian economics? Why don't I just google that..."

And suddenly, there's the whole course load for Econ 301, introduction to free market economies. PLUS some.

These here "internet tubes" have achieved a libertarian dream: they have deregulated access to information. There is no restriction based on race, class, creed or economic standing. There is no "hidden knowledge" - once you have achieved the Gnosis of Google. I'm limited in my learning only by my education and intelligence - and if I can't change the latter, I can definitely add to the former. It's something I do every single day.

So, it's not all that surprising that a crowd of Ron Paul supporters can follow a lecture on Austrian Economics and a terse explianation of the problems with an unregulated and unsupervised central bank.

Aside from the political implications of a broadly educated and informed electorate, there are some incredible social ones, which I've addressed before and which seem to me to presage a time when hierarchal organization will seem terribly quaint, rather like Victorian Engineering, or feudalism.

In my humble opinion, the groundswell of Libertarianism comes from the realization that, whatever you think about the virtues and vices of government per se, the Internet is the basis for replacing a hierarchical, authoritarian government with a networked, non-hierarchical facility for co-ordinating those interested in being co-ordinated.

It's doing that already, brilliantly. I give you the Ron Paul Revolution as a conspicuous example of the phenomenon, and what can be achieved when it's used creatively by intelligent people.

Ron Paul supporters are those who expect people wanting to be placed in a position of authority to have something in their briefcase besides a sack lunch, and he speaks eloquently about re-establishing trust in two critical areas of proper governance - our money supply and the interlocked domains of foreign and trade policy.

It's indisputable when it comes to his favorite topics - money, taxation and the Constitution, Ron Paul is authoritative. He's even made a fed spokesperson cry.

Whether you agree with him or not, there is no question that you'd have to work real hard to credibly dispute economics or monetary policy with him. And he's got a long history of standing up for his beliefs in the face of obvious pressure and all kinds of profit.

That's appealing to the conscientiously liberal as well as studied, plain folks who try to vote their values.

1 Million Blogs for Peace - why I'm signing up.

clipped from bluepyramid.org

The Concept

Between 20 March 2007 and 20 March 2008 (the fifth year of the war), we will attempt to sign up One Million Blogs for Peace.
By signing up, a blogger is stating his or her agreement with The Pledge below. They will then be able to participate in
various challenges launched by One Million Blogs for Peace. They will also be listed on this website with a link to their
blog.

The Pledge

I believe in the immediate withdrawal of all foreign combat troops from the nation of Iraq. I believe in using my blog, in
whole or in part, as a tool toward this end

There will be two counts (toward 1,000,000). For one, a blog must be based in the home country of a nation currently engaged
in the Iraq War

The second count will include all bloggers worldwide, whether or not their countries are involved in the conflict. The
importance of keeping separate counts is explained here

we will not post your name to the website, only your blog & URL.

20 March 2008:Deadline for One Million Blogs

I'll be signing up on the 1 Million Blogs for Peace site in a moment. If you have a blog, you should too.

If you want reasons beside the obvious, here are mine. My view is the best arguments against the war are the words of those who support it. I have come to the conclusion that their arguments are stupid because there is no possible intelligent, ethical defense for this war, even if it had been true that Hussein had WMD and was up to his eyeballs in an undeclared war of terror against the United States.

Had that been the case, the need to do something would have been compelling, but an inadequately prepared invasion into a foreign nation with no significant world support against an enemy in fortified positions with the ability to kill both troops and our civilian population would have been the very last scenario anyone who graduated from the War College would have suggested.

I'm not some bleeding heart that thinks that in understanding our enemies, we can make them our friends, or that you should be nice to rabid doggies. Nope, not at all.

I think the proper way to deal with such matters is smoothly, routinely and effortlessly. In other words, there is an ideal correlation between terrorists and smoking holes - one to one. Any course of action that treats the disease of terrorism as anything more significant than the threat rabid dogs, feral bears or stray tornadoes represents grants it a significance it does not deserve. (All the above threats are, in fact, a significantly greater threat to the typical US citizen than all of the terrorist networks combined.)

We are just smart enough that we do not declare a "war on tornadoes." However, if we did, and if it were prosecuted as well as the war on Terror has been, we would be losing. Just as we are losing the "War on Terror" in general and the conflict in Iraq in specific."

In war, the simplest and most common way to lose is to pick a fight you cannot win, in a situation where you cannot easily extract yourself, under conditions where just being there rouses the population against you. In observing this, I'm saying nothing that Sun Tsu, Erwin Rommel, or Dwight Eisenhower would not have said to a particularly dim lieutenant placed on staff so he couldn't fuck up anything more important than a pot of coffee.

It is sometimes the case that it's possible to negotiate from a position of strength on the basis of understanding. But more directly, understanding your enemy means that you can maneuver them into defeating themselves.

Well, unfortunately, our involvement in Iraq is a text-book example of that principle. We done gone and sucker-punched dat tar-baby, an' B'rer Wolf, he be laughin!

Here's what one of the "deadenders" said in response to one commenter in the Clipmarks thread.

n2sooners62

Sounds more like they should be called "Blogs for Ethnic Cleansing" or "Blogs for Insurgency" or "Blogs for Al Qaeda in Iraq"

When the first voices heard in defense of an agenda are those of fools and bigots, it's time to consider whether or not the agenda itself reflects the people in favor of it.

If you define "working" as proving that a slightly larger, but still inadequate force will reduce violence, yes, the Surge Worked - duh. Thirty odd violent incidents that would be headline news for weeks in any other nation, as opposed to double or more. It's an improvement, but it's not the fundamental change the situation requires.

Of course, this assumes that there's a legitimate reason to be there - and there is not.

It assumes that a victory in Iraq is critical to the war on terror - which it isn't, even if you could define "victory" in either case, which you can't.

I don't oppose this war because I'm a pacifist, a "peacenik" or a "liberal," I oppose it for the same reasons that SunTsu, George S. Patton, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Stonewall Jackson would. I oppose it from the perspectives and for the reasons it would have been opposed by great "liberal" thinkers like Barry Goldwater.

I could - and have - explained it in depth, but it boils down to this: Never stick your dick in a pencil sharpener and dare the enemy to turn the crank.

There are two reasons for this:

First - it proves your dick will fit in a pencil sharpener. To validate the metaphor, in making such a threat, you demonstrate that your ability to project force in a way that successfully achieves your end is sharply limited by your ability to cope with an intelligent and resourceful enemy or by other things that become obvious once you engage.

Second - It occurs to the enemy that a man with his dick stuck in a pencil sharpener tends to be completely focused on the situation at hand.

From the viewpoint of the worldwide strategic goals of any putative "Islamofacist" movement, there could be no better recruiting tool than Iraq - and no easier way to keep our forces pinned down than to maintain just enough pressure on the crank to keep us focused on "the job at hand."

Of course, I believe the same rationale appeals strongly to Bushco, so compellingly that I have personal suspicions that the war between the US and Al-Queda exists only to serve the ends of each - and any decisive engagement, with ANY outcome would be a disaster from both perspectives.

This whole "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" meme is nonsense. Any decent military leader will tell you that if you want to win a war decisively, you pick ground the enemy has difficulty getting to, is not familiar with, where it's difficult for them to blend into the countryside. For most of our history, our entire national security has depended on the fact that "fighting them over here" is far superior to "fighting them over there." It's better, far better, to BE the pencil sharpener.

This philosophy has been seriously degraded by dick waving cold warriors talking about "projecting force," but the fact is that our founders, in choosing to rely on militias to defend until a scratch regular army could come running, were displaying both political AND strategic brilliance. That's an essay for another time; but let's remember that many of them were noted for their military services and successes, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

If there is a "war on terror," wherein "turrists" from "Islamofacists" are motivated to come and try their tricks, it would be a hell of a lot easier - and far more decisive - to let them come.

But the Dubai ports deal - and many other key infrastructure ownership issues, as well as the insistence on security measures that have the effect - and only the effect - of restricting the movement of US citizens, while habituating them to intrusive searches and arbitrary abuses tells us all we really need to know.

You see, I don't much put my faith in what people in authority say. There are all kinds of reasons why they might be less than totally forthcoming, even if their motives are as pure as the driven snow. What I place my faith in is evidence of actions achieving a visible end - and using what is visible as an indicator of the general shape and form of that which is unseen.

I base my views on a very solid appreciation of what war can and cannot achieve, human nature, and of course, cause and effect.

The only clear, certain and measurable benefit to anyone is the consolidation of executive power and the erosion of individual liberties within the United States.

Further, the most seriously defended actions on the part of the Administration, it's highest priorities for covert action - have been aimed at US. Warrentless wiretapping. The elimination of habious corpus. The pernicious idea that anyone - including US citizens - may be detained indefinitely without trial or even public notice as "enemy combatants" on the say-so of George or his designated heir to power.

These are the fruits of victory Bush seeks, I must conclude. And that means that "a terrorist" is anyone who doesn't think Bushco should own their ass and be able to sell it off wholesale.

In joining this effort, I'm also calling for a return to the fundamentals of Constitutional National Security - which means a return to state and local defense networks that are on polite, but distant terms with federal authorities, and who's proper response to being told to drop everything and prosecute a foreign war of choice is "Sir, fuck you, Sir; I'm needed at home."

In the Quest for Truth

A constitutional scholar says President Bush and his administration were working to expand their spy powers months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which provided a "highly convenient" opportunity to dramatically strengthen law enforcement and surveillance authority.

This is why I will not vote for anyone who voted for the Patriot Act or any expansion of presidential powers. This leaves me with Ron Paul for sure, and maybe Kucinich, and rules out anyone who I think to be especially fascinated by the potentials for the ability of a strong central government to "do good" unto me.

Furthermore, anyone opposed to impeaching this president now, before he can start a nuclear war strikes me as being essentially too stupid or opportunistic to hold any political office.

In the Valley of Elah

I just sent this off to the publicity people for a new film, opening in theaters now, as they say.

I don't usually do film reviews on graphictruth.com, and I am not wanting to be on your list of "usual suspects," though I'm interested in UNusual films.

The hook for me was that my state senator and majority leader, Harry Reid, handed off a copy to John Kerry - who watched it and sent out a notice to his entire mailing list.

Graphictruth.com is pretty much about what it sounds like, and it sounds like this is a very graphic truth indeed.

For me, the fact that the ball started rolling on this in 2003 is to me the most interesting part of this story. It takes that long for the consequences of some acts to materialize, sometimes even longer.

This seems to be all about unintended, unimagined and unimaginable consequences.

I really, really do not want to see this film. I expect it will give me nightmares.

Can you please send me a review copy?

Regards;

Bob King
Graphictruth.com

I can count the number of times I've done something like this on my thumbs. And I'm doing it knowing that it is going to have a certain message, it is going to portray a certain reality that will be unpalatable to those who think that the War in Iraq and the War on Terror are inseparable.But in fact, when you go to war - every time, and for whatever reason, you must pay the Butcher's Bill - and the horrifying truth is that each and every soldier who faces combat is affected forever. This paragraph comes from John Kerry's letter.

The former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a Marine Lieutenant General, once said of Iraq that "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions --or bury the results."

I've never seriously considered myself to be anti-war. It strikes me rather like being anti-hurricane.

It really doesn't matter to the hurricane whether you are philosophically opposed to it's existence or not. One can prepare for it, one can avoid being in it or choose to endure it, one must respond to it intelligently and clean up the mess so that life can return to normal. These are common sense observations, and wars come upon us for many reasons, many of which are no more under our control than the weather.

I am pro-peace - and to me, the best way to ensure peace and the best way to return to a state of peace subsequent to war is to have a very efficient and powerful response to aggression, and as realistic an appreciation as possible as to the costs of war upon the people asked to fight it and those who must stay at home. Above all, don't stupidly create conditions that may provoke a war.

There is a huge, indefinable, but real price that must be paid over the generations for every act of war, for ever war that starts due to foolishness, misadventure, miscalculation, aggression, need, greed, the hunger for power or the desire for "living room."

Thousands of years ago, Sun Tsu considered all these things in his "Art of War," a book George W. Bush has clearly never read, or at least comprehended. Source: Shonshi.com; Links indicated with question marks lead to related discussion threads:

If one gains victory in battle and is successful in attacks, but does not exploit those achievements, it is disastrous.

This is called waste and delay. ?

Therefore, I say the wise general thinks about it, and the good general executes it. ?

If it is not advantageous, do not move;

if there is no gain, do not use troops;

if there is no danger, do not do battle. ?

The ruler may not move his army out of anger; the general may not do battle out of wrath. ?
If it is advantageous, move;

if it is not advantageous, stop. ?

Those angry will be happy again, and those wrathful will be cheerful again, but a destroyed nation cannot exist again, the dead cannot be brought back to life. ?

Therefore, the enlightened ruler is prudent, the good general is cautious.

This is the Way of securing the nation, and preserving the army. ?

And I could not resist adding this further citation from the very first page:

Before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will win, because many calculations were made;

before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will not win, because few calculations were made; ?

Many calculations, victory, few calculations, no victory, then how much less so when no calculations?

By means of these, I can observe them, beholding victory or defeat! ?

It seems that in this case, foresight was 20/20.

Technorati : 2003, 2008, George W. Bush, Harry Reid, In the Valley of Elah, Iran, Iraq War, John Kerry, Sun Tsu, The Art of War, anti-war, peace, strategy

Israel's Soldiers breaking silence.

I have long avoided saying anything about Israel's domestic and military policy because I did not consider myself well-informed enough to comment. But when any government, anywhere has foreign and domestic policies that are clearly causing irreparable to persons both in and out of their legitimate jurisdictions, that government is acting in a way that is clearly unethical. As clearly unethical actions always bring consequences, unethical policies always end up with a very large and painful mess that needs to be confronted, which the following excerpted paragraphs illustrate.

"Preach to Your Own People" Annotated

Mikhael Manekin, discharged from the IDF in 2002 is now the Foreign Relations Manager of Breaking the Silence www.breakingthesilence.org.il which documents former IDF soldiers testimonies about the occupation and oppression of Palestinians, "I am a practicing Jew and in two weeks we go into the month of repentance; which requires acknowledging our sins. We cannot change things until we acknowledge our culpability.

"A few years ago, the soldiers you have encountered at the checkpoints would have been me. Soldiers like myself who served during the second intifada, got our education on the job. You all have visited more places [the past nine days] than most Israelis ever have. Israeli's have no idea what is happening in the occupied territories. But, so far in 2007 we have given more Israeli's a tour through Hebron than we did in 2005 and 2006 combined. Hebron is a ghost town, the settlers are unbearable and every soldier who is stationed there understands the 600 settlers there are psychotic; insane.

"I became very opinionated while in the army, but I kept it all to myself. Nobody talks about it in the army and I was the commander and did not know until after I got out that one of the other soldiers in my unit was feeling the same way, until he gave his testimony. Israeli society wants you to believe you are a bad apple for speaking out because unless you trust the system, it will fall apart. Most Israelis who get out of the army leave the country and are probably all drugged out. They suffer post traumatic syndrome but we are the victimizers. My age group is getting the hell out of here or walling themselves off from society and are not involved in anything.

"Over 450 former soldiers have now given their testimonies and we don't publish any stories without the corroboration coming from another former soldier and the testimonies are kept anonymous.

"We all served in the territories. Some served in Gaza, some in Hebron, some in Bethlehem and the rest served in other places. We all manned checkpoints, participated in patrols and arrests and took part in the war against terror. We all realized that the daily struggle against terror and the daily interaction with the civilian population has left us helpless. Our sense of justice was distorted, and so were our morality and emotions.

"The reality we experienced was made of: Innocent civilians being hurt, Kids not going to school because of the curfew, and parents who can't bring food home because they can't go to work.

The article goes on to state that young people are tending to leave Israel after serving with the IDF in the Occupied Terratories; they are voting against further support and defense of the State of Israel with their feet. Others retreat into the silence and disaffection brought by drugs and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I can only acclaim and honor their sacrifices - and their decision as to the worth of what it has bought. I am no expert - but it seems that those making the decisions that send these young men and women into harm's way are clearly no better equipped than I, or their policies would not have such hideous outcomes.

It's time that Israel divorces itself from the control of the religious fundamentalists who are clearly willing to sacrifice the lives and safety of - well, anyone in the Middle East and certainly all Israelis - for the goal of a chimerical Greater Israel.

I have always been in favor of the State of Israel, and for the longest time I, like many of my fellow countrymen, was willing to overlook the means in the name of the end. I still do, in the case of the establishment of Israel.

But I must state:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others."

Of all the people in the world who should understand why it is both wrong and foolish to deprive others of their liberty and economic opportunity, to subject them to harassment, to herd them into ghettos and subject them to the daily threat of arbitrary and quite possibly deadly violence at the hand of the state or at the hands of persons within the dominant culture, it should be Jews.

It seems to me that the current course of the State of Israel, encouraged by both religious extremists and hard-line Zionists is causing the state of Israel to commit every sin ever committed against it - and I must speak up now, before it is guilty of the greatest crime against the soul of the Jewish people possible - a new holocaust. And that is, I am deeply sad to say, entirely within the realm of possibility, considering the current course of Israeli policy.

I anticipate accusations of anti-semitism, but in fact this is the opposite. I wish to see a powerful, flourishing, happy, peaceful Israel who is at peace with her neighbors, this is what I believe US supporters of Israel have always felt that the Jewish people are entitled to.

But then, it's something all people are entitled to - and it is a goal that cannot be pursued at the expense of others. Aside from being unethical and immoral, it clearly does not work.

Oh, should anyone wish to observe that this advice clearly applies to the US as well - Amen, and Selah.

tag: Israel, ethics, morality, religion, fundimendalism, foreign policy, oppression

Nyet to missile defense shield, Putin says.

Yet another Foreign Policy Triumph!

Russia withdraws from arms treaty - CNN.com: "President Vladimir Putin signed a decree suspending Russia's participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty due to 'extraordinary circumstances ... which affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures,' the Kremlin said in a statement.

Putin has in the past threatened to freeze his country's compliance with the treaty, accusing the United States and its NATO partners of undermining regional stability with U.S. plans for a missile defense system in former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe."

Yep, with all the potential fallout of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you won't impeach Bush because he has committed illegal acts, how about impeaching him for deliberately, stupidly and willfully endangering our national security?

North American union plan Going to Congress this Fall

A culmination of twin thrusts of practical necessity and economic ambition by those who wish to continue to profit and remain the elite of each nation, this attempt to duplicate the EU in North America is probably doomed to success. However, in neglecting to inform their Citizens, much less involve them in the process, there may be a few unanticipated developments along the way.

As an Anti-Authoritarian with no great love for Nationalism of any stripe, I don't feel as viscerally threatened by this development as many of my fellow Libs, nor do I see individual liberty as being a uniquely US phenomenon.

As far as I'm concerned, the fewer arbitrary lines and restrictions, the better. However, we should consider precedent as well, and what interests are behind these fine sounding ideas. For instance, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has little to do with free trade - save in the breech, and it's promised benefits to individual citizens of signatory nations have been - um - curtailed, shall we say, in favor of very large corporations that owe no loyalty to any nation. So before we sign on the dotted line, folks, perhaps we should re-consider the idea that another central authority would be a good idea.

It might well be better to take a far simpler approach - starting with the idea that the ideal administrative region is probably no larger than Texas. Any continental authority would have to be even more limited by charter than our federal government, with severe checks on it's ability to interfere in individual lives and in State matters. In other words, we need to reconsider the basis of the War Between the States before we agree to another layer of federalism, in light of how that worked out for us.

But if it's a proper Confederacy with due deference to the rights of the people and the rights of the various States and Provinces, I see it as possibly a positive evolution that might forestall what otherwise might become an impulse toward Balkanization.

read more | digg story

Not Safe for Working Republicans

Susie Bright is one of my reality checks. You see, people who have come to a level of comfort with sex, sexuality and talking about sex are, in my experience, not all that easily bothered by ephemeral trivia or taken in with obvious sublimations and substitutes for the real thing - in any sense.

Susie's take on figuring out why putting Democrats into the majority failed to stop the war is brutally pragmatic. "Follow the money."

The war profiteers cannot be altruistic or public-spirited. They can't be fulfilled. It's like asking a scorpion to give you a free ride. They can't be talked into a wind-down, a slowdown, or letting up on the gas. Their existence as a permanent arms economy can only survive by expansion.

Until we take away their toys, they will break them; they will break us. We have to stop paying for them, voting for them, working for them. It's a vision thing, as King George might say— to stop seeing that we share the slightest, tiniest, mutual interest.

Remember, it was Eisenhower who warned us of the dangers of the "military-industrial compelx." Not some faint-hearted draft-card-burning pansy-ass "liberal."

The Authoritarian Reflex

3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar' - washingtonpost.com

The authoritarian reflex to a failed policy is not to examine the policy, but to assume that those entrusted with the implementation were not "up to the task." The answer is always more power, concentrated more densely, with fewer checks upon the authority in question.

Now, the idea of a "War Czar" empowered to do the job right with the authority to make militarily sensible decisions based on the reality of the situation is appealing, even to this anti-authoritarian. I'm not really so much opposed to the idea of authoritative people having power as the opposite, the assumption that the power to enforce one's authority grants one the magical ability to make wise and prudent decisions. And I see that this idea comes from the latter school of authoritarianism - if only we give the right person enough power, they will be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

But the response of people who are qualified for the position have all demonstrated their qualifications by refusing the job.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

Yep, some vague concept of what "victory" would look like is important. More significantly, it would have to be a victory on the terms of the American People as a whole, not just the cheerleaders of war. It would have to be significant, meaningful and tangible - not merely a symbolic moment.

Most importantly, it would have to achieve lasting, positive change. I do my philosophical opponents the credit of believing all of these things were not just possible, but inevitable at the start of the war. Frankly, I suspected myself that while the results would be less positive than the cheerleaders suspected, they would nonetheless be a net positive, given what I understood about rational war-planning and preparation. In other words, I made certain reasonable assumptions about what sane people and competent military organizations do before they "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war."

I, along with everyone else, was betrayed in that assumption. There appears to have been no planning, no precautions, no allowances made for "the fog of war," no preparations made for casualties and consequences and most damning of all, no thought toward what victory would look like, and because of that most fundamental flaw - nobody has been able to plot a course toward it.

Some administration critics said the ideas miss the point. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," said Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, who is now a vice president at the Brookings Institution. "So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong."

And this is the lesson that we must take from the situation; that there are policies that are so deeply flawed, so fundamentally erroneous and unethical that no-one with the character, competence and moral stature to lead soldiers will take it on.

One of the great unstated consequences of this war - emblematic as it is of what happens to Bushite policies when they are implemented - is a broad loss of confidence in the competence of leadership. The greatest test of leadership is how you react to unanticipated problems - and the second greatest is how many problems inherent in your policies you anticipate and forestall.

While the Bush administration has clearly done everything it could to avoid anything resembling prudence and preparation, it was not sufficiently opposed by those who's very careers were supposedly based on knowing better. And those who were in a position to know better, should have known better as soon as the directives hit their desks. They must have known that the troop levels were insufficient, that training times given were insufficient, that the equipment mix and logistical trains were unprepared and that - most critically - they were woefully short of reliable intelligence and translation resources.

And yet - better to keep their jobs than to act in the interest of the men and women they were responsible to, and in proper deference to the office of Commander In Chief.

Authoritarianism is a lot like Communism - there are specific circumstances where it works, and works very well indeed - but it does not generalize to larger, more complex situations; for their inherent problems are identical - trust. People in either situation donate a portion of their liberty, their resources and personal power to people they can trust, and if there is no basis for trust, the appearance and reality will be two entirely different things - leading to a system divided against itself and effectively serving only the self-delusions of those seemingly in charge of the entire mess.

This leads me, and millions of others, to come to the conclusion that there is no way out of this current mess that resembles "politics as usual." Those trying to avoid political fallout, and who are aiming at political victory in 2008 are betting that Bush will not do something elementally stupid between then and now. I don't think that's a bet that's worth the prize. Indeed, Democrats should be looking at the question of "if we win in 2008, what will we have won?"

We do not need politics as usual; we need statesmanship. And we need to impeach the miserable failure, purge our government of his taint, and I would strongly suggest going so far as to impeach those members of the Supreme Court that selected him in the first place.

tag: Impeach the President, Miserable Failure, War Czar, Authoritarianism, Jack Sheehan, 2008, politics

Defamation, Criticism and why they are different words.

I stumbled across this at Markedmanner, was moved to comment, and then realized there was more that needed saying. There seems to be a marked lack of comprehension on the part of certain portions of the Religion of Peace of the distinction between "defamation" and "criticism."

A "defamation" is something that is both offensive and untrue. A valid criticism IS true, and while often uncomfortable, is not a legitimate cause for offense. That is to say that in saying, for instance, that the treatment of women in some Islamic countries is repugnant and unacceptable to great swaths of moral beings is true. That such behaviors brings Islam into disrepute is true as well. It does. Cope, and perhaps consider if the Koran truly requires what culture demands.

Or, for a domestic example, "Swift-Boating" involves saying things about a person, their history and their motives that are factually untrue and intended to discredit them in the eyes of people who do not know any of the parties personally. It's also referred to as "Bearing False Witness" in the Bible; I believe the Koran has similar language, but I cannot quote it.

It's very difficult (not to mention rather silly) to "defame" the Prophet. It's far to easy to check and see if the Prophet really... Oh, wait, yes, I do see the point. See Swift Boating, above. Nonetheless, if you are concerned that the Prophet, or your faith as it's taught are being defamed - or indeed, any person or concept, one goes first to the source to find out the facts of the matter.

Further, for most people on this globe, religion is less about God and more about culture, and therefore it's perfectly legitamate - and indeed, the primary task of every recorded Prophet - to remind folks that there is a real and significant difference, while rudely pointing out the difference between what your neighbors say the book says and what it plainly does say.

Consider also what your culture - and your blind acceptance of it - says about you. And almost all western criticism - even that so ignorant it IS unintentional defamation is actually directed at cultural manifestations. Most people wouldn't recognize a Koranic passage if it bit them. Myself, alas, included.

Spreading ignorance is not bearing false witness. But the consequences are often quite similar.

Especially as you-all quite insightful and accurately criticize the failings of what we touchingly refer to as "western civilization." The radical Islamic and terrorist, Osama Bin Ladin has been most articulate in that regard, as insightful into our failings as he is (or was) blind to the his own failure to practice Safer Sects. Such is the arrogance of mankind.

Of course, one does not have to be Islamic to be confused on this point, or indeed religious. We all have our pet ideas and would love to harbor our fond delusions of mental, moral, religious and cultural superiority. Americans are somewhat cartoonish in this respect, with our flagwaving and parades. But, to the extent that such idealism serves to drive us toward fulfilling our unrealistic expectations of ourselves, it's tolerable, even to be applauded. Mostly, folks prefer the delusions to the heavy lifting involved in making their propaganda come true.

I just found a meeting that took place in Washington DC this week with the Organization of Islamic Conference. Karen Hughes who is the U.S. Under Secretary of State lead this meeting. Here are some of the things she said: Read The Whole Thing Here

“As you pursue important efforts at the U.N. Human Rights Council to promote resolutions against the defamation of Islam,” Hughes said, “I hope you might consider broadening those resolutions to include respect for all faiths and people’s freedom to worship and express themselves as they choose.”

It's important to recall that this directly relates to the Great Cartoon Flap.

Apparently the diplomatic language is opaque to the author - so permit me to translate. "Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander. If you wish people to respect YOUR choice of religion, and indeed your religion per-se, you must not get your panties in a wad about those who choose otherwise. If you wish to be treated as grown ups; grow the hell up! If you wish to be respected, be respectable. Run along now, the grown-ups have important things to discuss."

Please note the gender of the person saying this. The choice of spokesperson for the United States in this matter was not accidental. This was a diplomatic bitch-slapping, and a textbook example of how one communicates an idea that may be offend without giving legitimate cause for offense.

What ever happened to freedom of expression Mrs Hughes? How about instead of outlawing people putting down religious faiths we allow them to do so if they please? If people want to put down Christianity and Jesus thats their choice. If people want to put down Islam and Muhammad that is their choice. There should be no law against the right of people to express how they feel about any religion. This should never be against the law. Just because Muslims cant handle people putting down Muhammad and the Quran doesn't mean other religions have to cow tail to their demands and outlaw defamation of all religions. Christianity is constantly attacked by people who mock Jesus yet I do not know of any large group of Christians that have committed violence because of it. Nor have they called for the outlawing of peoples freedom to express themselves in this negative way towards Jesus. Muslims should understand freedom of expression and freedom of criticism the same way Christians do.

Well, let's have a look at what else Karen Hughes said. Here's the next two paragraphs:

Noting recent violent terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, Hughes praised leaders such as Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu for speaking out against “violent extremists [who] only pervert religion when they bomb hospitals, universities, wedding parties, mosques, employment centers, even groups of children.”

Hughes called on the OIC Washington Group to join U.S. efforts to combat “misperceptions fostered by extremists that there is a ‘clash of the civilizations,’ that the West is somehow in conflict with Islam.” [emphasis mine]

Hear that, Dobson and Roberson? You have just been publicly and officially declared to be "part of the problem." Clearly she did not clear this statement with the White House. That, or as a Bush Appointee, she's incapable of perceiving irony. Nonetheless, I see nothing in here suggesting that violent actions are to be "tolerated" as "Legitimate expressions of outrage," or that criticism of Islam, or any religion should be outlawed.

But the author is not advocating the right to criticize Islam. He's advocating the right to DEFAME Islam. He's correct, so far as it goes, to say that as a US Citizen, the First Amendment guarentees the right to say things that may well offend others, and that Government is espressly prohibited from restricting such speech, even for his own good. The only exception to this is the "Fighting Words Doctrine," which says that the government is justified in acting to restrict speech that is likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace by "reasonable persons." Government has neither the authority nor the responsibility to protect the speaker from personal consequences - the doctrine exists ONLY to prevent "collateral damage."

In practical, individual terms, the way the law treats this is to reduce the consequences of punching a markedly offensive person in the face to a misdemeanor; just enough of a consequence to make people consider whether honor requires such a sacrifice. Honorable persons are responsible for the actions that honor requires of them, regardless of religion or culture. This is an ethical constant.

[She praised] Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu for speaking out against “violent extremists [who] only pervert religion when they bomb hospitals, universities, wedding parties, mosques, employment centers, even groups of children.”

Yeah. Thereby effectively putting words in his mouth that he very much did not wish to say in this context. In praising him, she was "heaping coals of fire upon his head."

General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu whom Mrs Hughes quotes supports outlawing any negative things being said about Islam. Read Here Sure he speaks out against specific attacks but who does he really consider to be terrorist organizations? That is the question we must ask.

Um. Why must we? It's quite probable he does support organizations that many westerners consider to be "terrorist organizations," and it's not at all a stretch to consider it legitimate to support the goals while considering some actions to be abominations.

I considered the African National Congress to have had worthy goals. But it WAS accurately described as a "terrorist organization." I was uncomfortable with that, but one has to consider if any other means were available to blacks in South Africa... or indeed, Catholics in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. In both cases, arguably, other options were limited or non-extant. Or shall we speak of the Irgun? Of the Stern Gang? The Mossad, pre 1948? I'm quite sure that the British considered them terrorists, and I doubt they were such airy-fairy idealists to seriously disagree. These groups were founded by survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto and the extermination camps. There is a definite "whatever it takes" that comes with "never again," and to an extent I cannot argue. Up to the point they start building ghettos for other people. Then I start wondering if anyone ever learns anything from history. I mean, what part of "never again" was unclear? It's an unqualified statement. If YOU can do it, it means - aside from "never again to us" - permisson to others to say "Once again, with FEELING."

Anyway, whether such acts as blowing up the King David Hotel are acts of terrorism, insurgency or those of "freedom fighters" is mostly a matter of perspective, and whether one agrees with the intended goals and the eventual outcome.

Me, I like calling a spade a spade. And if these groups were terrorists - they did not lack for legitimate targets. Nor did they always restrict themselves to legitimate targets. David Ben Gurian, well, I don't think he had reason, on the whole, to have difficulty sleeping at night. His current political successors, though - that may be another matter. Seems to me that one lesson of history should be how and why one should avoid being a legitimate target of - erm - "asymmetrical warfare."

That's the term the Pentagon uses for those folks who are either terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on who you talk to. An accurate description, if intentionally bloodless.

I should like to ask the author if he considered the Nicaraguan Contras to have worthy goals, and to what extent, if any he nonetheless objected to such excesses as the torture-murders of civilians - including nuns - in wholesale lots. They WERE fighting against Communism, or so I have been told. Many would consider that a laudable goal. Some would even say any means justified that end.

But there are means, and there are means. There's a difference between attacking a military occupation force and bombing a shrine filled with children. There's a difference between shooting a known traitor behind the ear and sticking a burning tire around their neck. The distinction is when the viciousness is in excess of any arguably legitimate goal in a moral struggle.

My personal view on all such "struggles" is this; if you are going to "go to the mattresses," it should be about something that is genuinely worth dying for, and ideally directed against objects and possibly persons who are by virtue of their nature and position legitimate targets. If either point is questionable, one's struggle is apt to be perceived as being nothing more than a particularly vicious temper-tantrum. Worse yet, that perception will be accurate.

The distinction between various forms of asymmetrical warriors is debatable, but it's not the debate that we need. We need to distinguish between asymmetrical warfare - as prosecuted on either side - and thuggery.

I think there is a great deal less "asymmetrical warfare" in any supposed cause than there is just plain old vicious thuggery on all the supposed sides, with a few childishly transparent justifications applied as laughably inadequate fig-leaves.

I believe that there is a general world-wide consensus of thinking persons that "temper-tantrum" is an accurate description of those who riot and commit bombings in the name of redressing the offense caused by a cartoon, and that an even better example of such inexcusably childish flailing would be the Iraq war.

Actually, in the latter case, "childish temper-tantrum" would be a charitable interpretation of the actions of this particular excuse for a government. The responses have been thuggish. We are led by thugs, the war is cheered by thugs, and those who balk at being thugs are called traitors.

We can be sure of this, for the most basic of reasons; they refuse to be held to account, they refuse even to give an account of themselves under oath. They are therefore dishonorable men, with not even the moral courage of a child snuffling an outraged "Johnny STARTED it!"

Yeah, I think that world wide, it's time that the real grownups stood up. Islam - go clean up your messes. Don't whine about the perception of Islam when you refuse to deal justly with those who pervert and defame it with their actions. You are demanding "respect." Try earning it. Hark back to when Islam was the heart of civilization and to be Islamic WAS to be civilized. What the hell happened, gentles, and why are you not embarrassed by your dusty decadence? This is surely not a criticism of the Prophet or the Book - but it certainly is of the religion as practiced by people who clearly are not following the Prophet or the Book.

Pot, Kettle, Black, you say?

Indeed!

tag: defamation, criticism, defamation of islam, , free speech, Diplomacy, Political Correctness, cultural warfare, religious persecution, terrorism, Iraq War, Clash of Cultures, Religious Fundimentalism, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes

Zibiggy has a plan:

Expressed in an address to Congress, the sum of which is "DO YOUR JOB."

But seeing that it's Zbigniew Brzezinski (May St. Vidicon of Cathode be praised for clipboards), there is a great deal of the precise and the specific in support of his blunt "suggestions."

It's amazing how much a mind can be improved by a prolonged lack of power and patronage.

Blog For Arizona: Brzezinski's Warning to the Senate

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about “a new strategic context” which is based on “clarity” and which prompts “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles’s attitude of the early 1950’s toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichaean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.

Zbiggy needs to include footnotes! But the essay, in the whole, is well taken - it does not take a giant, pulsating brain such as Brzezinski's to see what rough beast is shambling toward Persia. But he does name that beast more fully and damningly and publicly than most in the political establishment would dare.

The Administration clearly wishes to cast us into a protracted war with Islam in general - World War III is terminology that the Right Wing has floated several times to describe it, as well as the term "clash of civilizations."

I would call it a clash of realities - the term "civilizations" is a bit oxymoronic in my view, considering the leading proponents for this clash on both sides of a divide that I see as being both intentional and convenient to the Idiologues of Islam and the Chickenhawk Castastrophizers of Christianity. In fact, there's little support for either group among the religiously moderate or the moderately religious - in either religion. Sojourners criticizes the war, while Liberal Islam Network cautiously explores the possibility of religious dissent. Interestingly enough, when religious conservatives of all sorts thump their scriptures, yelling loudly about what "The Good Book" has to say, reading the book itself brings a new, and far less "conservative" perspective on the original intent.

When you think of it - all this "clash of cultures" nonsense may well bring to pass the exact opposite; two cultures, so long completely and blissfully ignorant of the values and tenants of the other, discovering that what they have "always known" about the Infidel Other is in fact nonsense, and their greatest threats and foes are those who make a fine living pointing out the Evils and Dangers of the Others.

tag: Christianity, Red Letter Christians, Islam, Religious Fundimentalism, Clash of Cultures, WWIII, armageddon, Unintended Consequences, antiauthoritarian, Iran, Iraq War, Bush's Agenda, Planned Iran War