questions that might determine history:
Since the war began in 2003 (actually, for a long time before that, but for the sake of maintaining focus), there has been an element in the antiwar movement that understands the fundamentally imperialist nature of the US war and occupation. In response, this element has organized its opposition to the debacle in anti-imperialist terms. The anti-imperialists’ politics range from libertarian to anarchist with most of them considering themselves leftists. I have had a running conversation with Ashley Smith — one of those organizers with the International Socialist Organization — since well before March 2003. Recently, we decided to exchange thoughts regarding the need for a re-energized antiwar movement whose fundamental understanding is that the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is imperialist and that opposition to that war should be anti-imperialist.
(...) For most people opposed to the war on Iraq, the problem is the Bush Administration or this or that wing of corporate America, say the oil companies. This administration or the oil industry has corrupted what is essentially, whatever its pock marks, a fine system. The aim of the movement therefore should be to pressure the government, isolate a regressive wing of corporate America, elect a liberal Democrat, and then implement a sane foreign policy through the existing government. Imperialism is therefore a problem of policy, not the of the system itself. In 2004, this led the mainstream anti-war movement to entirely subordinate grassroots struggle to the project of electing John Kerry, who was an ardent supporter of the Iraq War and merely claimed that he would more effectively run the war. The anti-war movement thus collapsed. Understanding the actual roots and nature of imperialism is therefore pivotal for building an effective movement that can end this occupation and develop a radical movement for overthrowing imperialism.
(...) The US has thus far more at stake in Iraq than it had in Vietnam and will take an ever more powerful movement to drive it out of Iraq and the region. During the Vietnam War, which was a brainchild of Cold War Democrats Kennedy and Johnson, it took a mass domestic anti-war movement, a rebellion of US troops in Vietnam, and a heroic resistance by the Vietnamese people to defeat the US. Congress never lifted a finger. We should learn that lesson well and organize an independent mass movement of mass protests and sit-ins, help build a new Vet and GI resistance through Iraq Veterans against the War, and also support the legitimate resistance of the Iraqi people against occupation. Only the combination of all those forces has the social power to drive the US out of Iraq.
(...) The New York Times had a piece on the Democratic candidates’ true Iraq/Afghan war stances and none of the three major candidates’ plans include anything even approaching an immediate and unconditional withdrawal. This isn’t a surprise to us, but you gotta’ wonder how many antiwar citizens think that Edwards, Obama or Clinton are going to end the war. Just like the 2006 Congressional elections, the Democrats are lying about their true intentions, yet you can bet that there will be some of their supporters at every antiwar rally between now and the 2008 elections. This is our biggest task: get the movement past these liars.
(...) The Democrats are really a challenge for social movements and the Left. Just a glance at the main funders of the party reveals the problem; they get the bulk of their money from corporate America. As a result, however much they appeal to the movements of workers and the oppressed, they are tied to a class that does not share our interests and as a result betray their promises to us. Nowhere is that more clear than the war in Iraq. Save for a handful of exceptions, they voted for the war; they refuse to cut the funding; they oppose immediate withdrawal; and won’t even impeach the war criminals in the White House. Some of them are actually more hawkish on Iran than Bush is!
(...) The key historical precedent we have to turn to is how we, not the Democrats, ended the Vietnam War. We ended it through the dynamic interaction between a truly mass domestic anti-war movement, a rebellion among the US troops and Veterans documented in David Cortright’s brilliant book Soldiers in Revolt, and the national liberation struggle of the Vietnamese people.
Showing posts with label antiwar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antiwar. Show all posts
Friday, September 14, 2007
Sunday, June 17, 2007
reading mark twain on imperialism:
"But what does it amount to?" says Twain, using one of his story's characters, an angel to convey the idea: "nothing at all. You gain nothing. You always come out where you went in. For a million years the race has gone on monotonously propagating itself and monotonously re-performing this dull nonsense to what end? No wisdom can guess! Who gets a profit out of it? Nobody but a parcel of usurping little monarchs and nobilities who despise you; would feel defiled if you touches them; would shut the door in your face if you proposed to call; whom you slave for, fight for, die for, and are not shamed of it, but proud."
"But what does it amount to?" says Twain, using one of his story's characters, an angel to convey the idea: "nothing at all. You gain nothing. You always come out where you went in. For a million years the race has gone on monotonously propagating itself and monotonously re-performing this dull nonsense to what end? No wisdom can guess! Who gets a profit out of it? Nobody but a parcel of usurping little monarchs and nobilities who despise you; would feel defiled if you touches them; would shut the door in your face if you proposed to call; whom you slave for, fight for, die for, and are not shamed of it, but proud."
Thursday, June 7, 2007
cindy sheehan's departure:
It is also clear that Cindy Sheehan, for hopefully a short period of time, has lost hope in the possibilities of change in the USA. She writes, in reference to the reality of US society, that it is “a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.” And the end of the letter concludes by saying, “Good-bye America. . . you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it. It’s up to you now.”
(...) There are days, or parts of days, where I keep going not because I feel like we have a chance of turning around this destructive “paradigm” but because I feel it’s my duty to keep plugging away. I know that I need to give as much as I can to the struggle for a new world. I believe, I deeply believe, that our purpose on this earth is to try to depart it having done as much as we could to make it a better and more hopeful place for those coming after us.
(...) Not being “organized and united”--this was the other big issue Cindy raised in her letter. She referred to her “work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. . . It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.”
It is also clear that Cindy Sheehan, for hopefully a short period of time, has lost hope in the possibilities of change in the USA. She writes, in reference to the reality of US society, that it is “a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.” And the end of the letter concludes by saying, “Good-bye America. . . you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it. It’s up to you now.”
(...) There are days, or parts of days, where I keep going not because I feel like we have a chance of turning around this destructive “paradigm” but because I feel it’s my duty to keep plugging away. I know that I need to give as much as I can to the struggle for a new world. I believe, I deeply believe, that our purpose on this earth is to try to depart it having done as much as we could to make it a better and more hopeful place for those coming after us.
(...) Not being “organized and united”--this was the other big issue Cindy raised in her letter. She referred to her “work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. . . It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.”
Monday, May 7, 2007
mother's day:
Julia Ward Howe, the author of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, wrote the original Mother's Day Proclamation in 1870 calling upon the women of the world to unite for peace. She had just witnessed the carnage of the American Civil War and the start of the Franco-Prussian War.
Julia Ward Howe, the author of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, wrote the original Mother's Day Proclamation in 1870 calling upon the women of the world to unite for peace. She had just witnessed the carnage of the American Civil War and the start of the Franco-Prussian War.
putting somalia on the antiwar agenda:
The U.S. bombing of Somalia took place while the World Social Forum was underway in Kenya and three days before a large anti-war action in Washington, January 27. Nunu Kidane, network coordinator for Priority Africa Network (PAN) was present in Nairobi, and after returning home asked out loud how 'to explain the silence of the US peace movement on Somalia?'
(...) 'Perhaps US-based organizations don't have the proper analytical framework from which to understand the significance of the Horn of Africa region. Perhaps it is because Somalia is largely seen as a country with no government and in perpetual chaos, with 'fundamental Islamic' forces not deserving of defense against the military attacks by US in search of 'terrorists'.' To that I would add: the major U.S. media's role in the lead up to the invasion and the suffering now taking place in the Horn of Africa. 'The carnage and suffering in Somalia may be the worst in more than a decade -- but you'd hardly know it from your nightly news,' wrote Andrew Cawthorne from Nairobi for Reuters last week. Amy Goodman's Democracy Now recently examined ABC's, NBC's and CBS's coverage of Somalia in the evening newscasts since the invasion. ABC and NBC had not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once, dedicating a whole three sentences to it. This, despite the fact that there have been more casualties in this war than in the recent fighting in Lebanon.
(...) As recently as last week, Reuters was still maintaining that Ethiopian troops had invaded its neighbor with the 'tacit' support of the United States. At least the New York Times has taken to describing it as 'covert American support.' Both characterizations obscure the truth. The attack on Somalia was preplanned and would never have taken place without being approved by the White House. We now know that the Bush Administration gave the Ethiopian government the go ahead to ignore its own imposed ban on weapons purchases from North Korea in order to gear up for the battle ahead. U.S. military forces took part in the assault.
(...) 'US political and military alliance with Ethiopia - which openly violated international law in its aggression towards Somalia, is destabilizing the Horn region and begins a new shift in the way the US plans to have permanent and active military presence in Africa,' wrote Kadane.
(...) The planning for the invasion actually began last summer when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took control of the Somali government. It, too, was supposed to be a slam dunk. The U.S.- Ethiopian version of shock and awe was to swiftly bring about the desired regime change, installing the Washington-favored, government- in-exile of President Abdullahi Yusuf. Only a few days after their troops entered the country, Ethiopian officials said their forces lacked the resources to stay in Somalia and they would be leaving soon. At one point, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared - Bushlike - that the invaders' mission had been successfully accomplished and two-thirds of his troops were returning home. That turned out not to be true. Three months later the Ethiopians are still in Somalia committing what numerous observers are calling horrendous war crimes.
(...) The obviously indiscriminate use of heavy artillery in the capital has killed and wounded hundreds of civilians, and forced over 200,000 more to flee for their lives.' Walter Lindner, German Ambassador to Somalia, wrote to the country's acting president last week. Displaced persons are 'at great risk of being subjected to looting, extortion and rape - including by uniformed troops' at a various "checkpoints."
(...) On April 3, the Associated Press reported that a senior European Union security official had sent an email to the head of the EU delegation for Somalia warning that 'Ethiopian and Somali military forces there may have committed war crimes and that donor countries could be considered complicit if they do nothing to stop them. I need to advise you that there are strong grounds to believe that the Ethiopian government and the transitional federal government of Somalia and the African Union (peacekeeping) Force Commander, possibly also including the African Union Head of Mission and other African Union officials have, through commission or omission, violated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court," the e-mail said.
(...) "There is a massive tragedy unfolding in Mogadishu, but from the world's silence, you would think it's Christmas," the head of a Mogadishu political think- tank told Cawthorne. 'Somalis, caught up in Mogadishu's worst violence for 16 years, are painfully aware of their place on the global agenda.'
(...) "Nobody cares about Somalia, even if we die in our millions," Cawthorne was told by Abdirahman Ali, a 29- year-old father- of-two who works as a security guard in Mogadishu.
(...) Martin Fletcher wrote in the London Times, April 26, about five days he spent in Mogadishu, during which he canvassed many ordinary Somalis. 'Overwhelmingly, they loathed a government they consider a puppet of the hated Ethiopians.'
(...) Such cases are especially troubling because the U.S. government, a key Ethiopian ally, has acknowledged interrogating terrorism suspects in Ethiopian prisons, where some detainees were sent after being arrested in connection with Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia in December,' said the Post story. 'There have been no reports that those jailed have been tortured.' The following day, the paper reported, 'More than 200 FBI and CIA agents have set up camp in the Sheraton Hotel here in Ethiopia's capital and have been interrogating dozens of detainees -- including a U.S. citizen -- picked up in Somalia and held without charge and without attorneys in a secret prison somewhere in this city, according to Ethiopian and U.S. officials who say the interrogations are lawful.'
(...) Chatham House, a British think tank of the independent Royal Institute of International Affairs, has concluded, "In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, genuine multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actions of other international actors -- especially Ethiopia and the United States -- following their own foreign policy agendas.'
(...) When I first visited this subject shortly after the invasion, I quoted a 10 percent figure for the proportion of petroleum our country takes in from Africa and noted that some experts were saying the U.S. will need to up that percentage to 25 by 2010. Wrong again. Last week came the news that the U.S. now imports more oil from Africa than the Middle East, with Nigeria, Angola and Algeria providing nearly one-fifth of it -- more than from Saudi Arabia. While the rulers in Addis Ababa claim the invasion was a preemptive attack on a threatening Somalia and the Bush Administration says giving a wink and a nod to the attack was only a chance to capture a few terrorist holed up in Somalia, for most of the media and diplomatic observers outside the U.S. it was another strategic move to secure positioning in the region where there is a lot of oil. On file are plans - put on hold amid continuing conflicts - for nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields to be allocated to the U.S. oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. It was recently reported that the U.S. - backed prime minister of Somalia has proposed enactment of a new oil law to encourage the return of foreign oil companies to the country.
(...) However, she said it is impossible to overlook the parallel with the situation in the Iraq. 'It's aggression, that is undeniable, and the same language is being used to justify it,' she said. Kidane is on target in insisting that the movements for peace and justice in the U.S. - and elsewhere - must take up the issue. The unlawful U.S.- Ethiopian invasion and occupation of that country and the accompanying human suffering and human rights abuses constitute a new - and still mostly hidden - war in many ways similar to that in Iraq. And, waged for the same reason.
The U.S. bombing of Somalia took place while the World Social Forum was underway in Kenya and three days before a large anti-war action in Washington, January 27. Nunu Kidane, network coordinator for Priority Africa Network (PAN) was present in Nairobi, and after returning home asked out loud how 'to explain the silence of the US peace movement on Somalia?'
(...) 'Perhaps US-based organizations don't have the proper analytical framework from which to understand the significance of the Horn of Africa region. Perhaps it is because Somalia is largely seen as a country with no government and in perpetual chaos, with 'fundamental Islamic' forces not deserving of defense against the military attacks by US in search of 'terrorists'.' To that I would add: the major U.S. media's role in the lead up to the invasion and the suffering now taking place in the Horn of Africa. 'The carnage and suffering in Somalia may be the worst in more than a decade -- but you'd hardly know it from your nightly news,' wrote Andrew Cawthorne from Nairobi for Reuters last week. Amy Goodman's Democracy Now recently examined ABC's, NBC's and CBS's coverage of Somalia in the evening newscasts since the invasion. ABC and NBC had not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once, dedicating a whole three sentences to it. This, despite the fact that there have been more casualties in this war than in the recent fighting in Lebanon.
(...) As recently as last week, Reuters was still maintaining that Ethiopian troops had invaded its neighbor with the 'tacit' support of the United States. At least the New York Times has taken to describing it as 'covert American support.' Both characterizations obscure the truth. The attack on Somalia was preplanned and would never have taken place without being approved by the White House. We now know that the Bush Administration gave the Ethiopian government the go ahead to ignore its own imposed ban on weapons purchases from North Korea in order to gear up for the battle ahead. U.S. military forces took part in the assault.
(...) 'US political and military alliance with Ethiopia - which openly violated international law in its aggression towards Somalia, is destabilizing the Horn region and begins a new shift in the way the US plans to have permanent and active military presence in Africa,' wrote Kadane.
(...) The planning for the invasion actually began last summer when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took control of the Somali government. It, too, was supposed to be a slam dunk. The U.S.- Ethiopian version of shock and awe was to swiftly bring about the desired regime change, installing the Washington-favored, government- in-exile of President Abdullahi Yusuf. Only a few days after their troops entered the country, Ethiopian officials said their forces lacked the resources to stay in Somalia and they would be leaving soon. At one point, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared - Bushlike - that the invaders' mission had been successfully accomplished and two-thirds of his troops were returning home. That turned out not to be true. Three months later the Ethiopians are still in Somalia committing what numerous observers are calling horrendous war crimes.
(...) The obviously indiscriminate use of heavy artillery in the capital has killed and wounded hundreds of civilians, and forced over 200,000 more to flee for their lives.' Walter Lindner, German Ambassador to Somalia, wrote to the country's acting president last week. Displaced persons are 'at great risk of being subjected to looting, extortion and rape - including by uniformed troops' at a various "checkpoints."
(...) On April 3, the Associated Press reported that a senior European Union security official had sent an email to the head of the EU delegation for Somalia warning that 'Ethiopian and Somali military forces there may have committed war crimes and that donor countries could be considered complicit if they do nothing to stop them. I need to advise you that there are strong grounds to believe that the Ethiopian government and the transitional federal government of Somalia and the African Union (peacekeeping) Force Commander, possibly also including the African Union Head of Mission and other African Union officials have, through commission or omission, violated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court," the e-mail said.
(...) "There is a massive tragedy unfolding in Mogadishu, but from the world's silence, you would think it's Christmas," the head of a Mogadishu political think- tank told Cawthorne. 'Somalis, caught up in Mogadishu's worst violence for 16 years, are painfully aware of their place on the global agenda.'
(...) "Nobody cares about Somalia, even if we die in our millions," Cawthorne was told by Abdirahman Ali, a 29- year-old father- of-two who works as a security guard in Mogadishu.
(...) Martin Fletcher wrote in the London Times, April 26, about five days he spent in Mogadishu, during which he canvassed many ordinary Somalis. 'Overwhelmingly, they loathed a government they consider a puppet of the hated Ethiopians.'
(...) Such cases are especially troubling because the U.S. government, a key Ethiopian ally, has acknowledged interrogating terrorism suspects in Ethiopian prisons, where some detainees were sent after being arrested in connection with Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia in December,' said the Post story. 'There have been no reports that those jailed have been tortured.' The following day, the paper reported, 'More than 200 FBI and CIA agents have set up camp in the Sheraton Hotel here in Ethiopia's capital and have been interrogating dozens of detainees -- including a U.S. citizen -- picked up in Somalia and held without charge and without attorneys in a secret prison somewhere in this city, according to Ethiopian and U.S. officials who say the interrogations are lawful.'
(...) Chatham House, a British think tank of the independent Royal Institute of International Affairs, has concluded, "In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, genuine multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actions of other international actors -- especially Ethiopia and the United States -- following their own foreign policy agendas.'
(...) When I first visited this subject shortly after the invasion, I quoted a 10 percent figure for the proportion of petroleum our country takes in from Africa and noted that some experts were saying the U.S. will need to up that percentage to 25 by 2010. Wrong again. Last week came the news that the U.S. now imports more oil from Africa than the Middle East, with Nigeria, Angola and Algeria providing nearly one-fifth of it -- more than from Saudi Arabia. While the rulers in Addis Ababa claim the invasion was a preemptive attack on a threatening Somalia and the Bush Administration says giving a wink and a nod to the attack was only a chance to capture a few terrorist holed up in Somalia, for most of the media and diplomatic observers outside the U.S. it was another strategic move to secure positioning in the region where there is a lot of oil. On file are plans - put on hold amid continuing conflicts - for nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields to be allocated to the U.S. oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. It was recently reported that the U.S. - backed prime minister of Somalia has proposed enactment of a new oil law to encourage the return of foreign oil companies to the country.
(...) However, she said it is impossible to overlook the parallel with the situation in the Iraq. 'It's aggression, that is undeniable, and the same language is being used to justify it,' she said. Kidane is on target in insisting that the movements for peace and justice in the U.S. - and elsewhere - must take up the issue. The unlawful U.S.- Ethiopian invasion and occupation of that country and the accompanying human suffering and human rights abuses constitute a new - and still mostly hidden - war in many ways similar to that in Iraq. And, waged for the same reason.
putting somalia on the antiwar agenda:
The U.S. bombing of Somalia took place while the World Social Forum was underway in Kenya and three days before a large anti-war action in Washington, January 27. Nunu Kidane, network coordinator for Priority Africa Network (PAN) was present in Nairobi, and after returning home asked out loud how 'to explain the silence of the US peace movement on Somalia?'
(...) 'Perhaps US-based organizations don't have the proper analytical framework from which to understand the significance of the Horn of Africa region. Perhaps it is because Somalia is largely seen as a country with no government and in perpetual chaos, with 'fundamental Islamic' forces not deserving of defense against the military attacks by US in search of 'terrorists'.' To that I would add: the major U.S. media's role in the lead up to the invasion and the suffering now taking place in the Horn of Africa. 'The carnage and suffering in Somalia may be the worst in more than a decade -- but you'd hardly know it from your nightly news,' wrote Andrew Cawthorne from Nairobi for Reuters last week. Amy Goodman's Democracy Now recently examined ABC's, NBC's and CBS's coverage of Somalia in the evening newscasts since the invasion. ABC and NBC had not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once, dedicating a whole three sentences to it. This, despite the fact that there have been more casualties in this war than in the recent fighting in Lebanon.
(...) As recently as last week, Reuters was still maintaining that Ethiopian troops had invaded its neighbor with the 'tacit' support of the United States. At least the New York Times has taken to describing it as 'covert American support.' Both characterizations obscure the truth. The attack on Somalia was preplanned and would never have taken place without being approved by the White House. We now know that the Bush Administration gave the Ethiopian government the go ahead to ignore its own imposed ban on weapons purchases from North Korea in order to gear up for the battle ahead. U.S. military forces took part in the assault.
(...) 'US political and military alliance with Ethiopia - which openly violated international law in its aggression towards Somalia, is destabilizing the Horn region and begins a new shift in the way the US plans to have permanent and active military presence in Africa,' wrote Kadane.
(...) The planning for the invasion actually began last summer when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took control of the Somali government. It, too, was supposed to be a slam dunk. The U.S.- Ethiopian version of shock and awe was to swiftly bring about the desired regime change, installing the Washington-favored, government- in-exile of President Abdullahi Yusuf. Only a few days after their troops entered the country, Ethiopian officials said their forces lacked the resources to stay in Somalia and they would be leaving soon. At one point, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared - Bushlike - that the invaders' mission had been successfully accomplished and two-thirds of his troops were returning home. That turned out not to be true. Three months later the Ethiopians are still in Somalia committing what numerous observers are calling horrendous war crimes.
(...) The obviously indiscriminate use of heavy artillery in the capital has killed and wounded hundreds of civilians, and forced over 200,000 more to flee for their lives.' Walter Lindner, German Ambassador to Somalia, wrote to the country's acting president last week. Displaced persons are 'at great risk of being subjected to looting, extortion and rape - including by uniformed troops' at a various "checkpoints."
(...) On April 3, the Associated Press reported that a senior European Union security official had sent an email to the head of the EU delegation for Somalia warning that 'Ethiopian and Somali military forces there may have committed war crimes and that donor countries could be considered complicit if they do nothing to stop them. I need to advise you that there are strong grounds to believe that the Ethiopian government and the transitional federal government of Somalia and the African Union (peacekeeping) Force Commander, possibly also including the African Union Head of Mission and other African Union officials have, through commission or omission, violated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court," the e-mail said.
(...) "There is a massive tragedy unfolding in Mogadishu, but from the world's silence, you would think it's Christmas," the head of a Mogadishu political think- tank told Cawthorne. 'Somalis, caught up in Mogadishu's worst violence for 16 years, are painfully aware of their place on the global agenda.'
(...) "Nobody cares about Somalia, even if we die in our millions," Cawthorne was told by Abdirahman Ali, a 29- year-old father- of-two who works as a security guard in Mogadishu.
(...) Martin Fletcher wrote in the London Times, April 26, about five days he spent in Mogadishu, during which he canvassed many ordinary Somalis. 'Overwhelmingly, they loathed a government they consider a puppet of the hated Ethiopians.'
(...) Such cases are especially troubling because the U.S. government, a key Ethiopian ally, has acknowledged interrogating terrorism suspects in Ethiopian prisons, where some detainees were sent after being arrested in connection with Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia in December,' said the Post story. 'There have been no reports that those jailed have been tortured.' The following day, the paper reported, 'More than 200 FBI and CIA agents have set up camp in the Sheraton Hotel here in Ethiopia's capital and have been interrogating dozens of detainees -- including a U.S. citizen -- picked up in Somalia and held without charge and without attorneys in a secret prison somewhere in this city, according to Ethiopian and U.S. officials who say the interrogations are lawful.'
(...) Chatham House, a British think tank of the independent Royal Institute of International Affairs, has concluded, "In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, genuine multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actions of other international actors -- especially Ethiopia and the United States -- following their own foreign policy agendas.'
(...) When I first visited this subject shortly after the invasion, I quoted a 10 percent figure for the proportion of petroleum our country takes in from Africa and noted that some experts were saying the U.S. will need to up that percentage to 25 by 2010. Wrong again. Last week came the news that the U.S. now imports more oil from Africa than the Middle East, with Nigeria, Angola and Algeria providing nearly one-fifth of it -- more than from Saudi Arabia. While the rulers in Addis Ababa claim the invasion was a preemptive attack on a threatening Somalia and the Bush Administration says giving a wink and a nod to the attack was only a chance to capture a few terrorist holed up in Somalia, for most of the media and diplomatic observers outside the U.S. it was another strategic move to secure positioning in the region where there is a lot of oil. On file are plans - put on hold amid continuing conflicts - for nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields to be allocated to the U.S. oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. It was recently reported that the U.S. - backed prime minister of Somalia has proposed enactment of a new oil law to encourage the return of foreign oil companies to the country.
(...) However, she said it is impossible to overlook the parallel with the situation in the Iraq. 'It's aggression, that is undeniable, and the same language is being used to justify it,' she said. Kidane is on target in insisting that the movements for peace and justice in the U.S. - and elsewhere - must take up the issue. The unlawful U.S.- Ethiopian invasion and occupation of that country and the accompanying human suffering and human rights abuses constitute a new - and still mostly hidden - war in many ways similar to that in Iraq. And, waged for the same reason.
The U.S. bombing of Somalia took place while the World Social Forum was underway in Kenya and three days before a large anti-war action in Washington, January 27. Nunu Kidane, network coordinator for Priority Africa Network (PAN) was present in Nairobi, and after returning home asked out loud how 'to explain the silence of the US peace movement on Somalia?'
(...) 'Perhaps US-based organizations don't have the proper analytical framework from which to understand the significance of the Horn of Africa region. Perhaps it is because Somalia is largely seen as a country with no government and in perpetual chaos, with 'fundamental Islamic' forces not deserving of defense against the military attacks by US in search of 'terrorists'.' To that I would add: the major U.S. media's role in the lead up to the invasion and the suffering now taking place in the Horn of Africa. 'The carnage and suffering in Somalia may be the worst in more than a decade -- but you'd hardly know it from your nightly news,' wrote Andrew Cawthorne from Nairobi for Reuters last week. Amy Goodman's Democracy Now recently examined ABC's, NBC's and CBS's coverage of Somalia in the evening newscasts since the invasion. ABC and NBC had not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once, dedicating a whole three sentences to it. This, despite the fact that there have been more casualties in this war than in the recent fighting in Lebanon.
(...) As recently as last week, Reuters was still maintaining that Ethiopian troops had invaded its neighbor with the 'tacit' support of the United States. At least the New York Times has taken to describing it as 'covert American support.' Both characterizations obscure the truth. The attack on Somalia was preplanned and would never have taken place without being approved by the White House. We now know that the Bush Administration gave the Ethiopian government the go ahead to ignore its own imposed ban on weapons purchases from North Korea in order to gear up for the battle ahead. U.S. military forces took part in the assault.
(...) 'US political and military alliance with Ethiopia - which openly violated international law in its aggression towards Somalia, is destabilizing the Horn region and begins a new shift in the way the US plans to have permanent and active military presence in Africa,' wrote Kadane.
(...) The planning for the invasion actually began last summer when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took control of the Somali government. It, too, was supposed to be a slam dunk. The U.S.- Ethiopian version of shock and awe was to swiftly bring about the desired regime change, installing the Washington-favored, government- in-exile of President Abdullahi Yusuf. Only a few days after their troops entered the country, Ethiopian officials said their forces lacked the resources to stay in Somalia and they would be leaving soon. At one point, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared - Bushlike - that the invaders' mission had been successfully accomplished and two-thirds of his troops were returning home. That turned out not to be true. Three months later the Ethiopians are still in Somalia committing what numerous observers are calling horrendous war crimes.
(...) The obviously indiscriminate use of heavy artillery in the capital has killed and wounded hundreds of civilians, and forced over 200,000 more to flee for their lives.' Walter Lindner, German Ambassador to Somalia, wrote to the country's acting president last week. Displaced persons are 'at great risk of being subjected to looting, extortion and rape - including by uniformed troops' at a various "checkpoints."
(...) On April 3, the Associated Press reported that a senior European Union security official had sent an email to the head of the EU delegation for Somalia warning that 'Ethiopian and Somali military forces there may have committed war crimes and that donor countries could be considered complicit if they do nothing to stop them. I need to advise you that there are strong grounds to believe that the Ethiopian government and the transitional federal government of Somalia and the African Union (peacekeeping) Force Commander, possibly also including the African Union Head of Mission and other African Union officials have, through commission or omission, violated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court," the e-mail said.
(...) "There is a massive tragedy unfolding in Mogadishu, but from the world's silence, you would think it's Christmas," the head of a Mogadishu political think- tank told Cawthorne. 'Somalis, caught up in Mogadishu's worst violence for 16 years, are painfully aware of their place on the global agenda.'
(...) "Nobody cares about Somalia, even if we die in our millions," Cawthorne was told by Abdirahman Ali, a 29- year-old father- of-two who works as a security guard in Mogadishu.
(...) Martin Fletcher wrote in the London Times, April 26, about five days he spent in Mogadishu, during which he canvassed many ordinary Somalis. 'Overwhelmingly, they loathed a government they consider a puppet of the hated Ethiopians.'
(...) Such cases are especially troubling because the U.S. government, a key Ethiopian ally, has acknowledged interrogating terrorism suspects in Ethiopian prisons, where some detainees were sent after being arrested in connection with Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia in December,' said the Post story. 'There have been no reports that those jailed have been tortured.' The following day, the paper reported, 'More than 200 FBI and CIA agents have set up camp in the Sheraton Hotel here in Ethiopia's capital and have been interrogating dozens of detainees -- including a U.S. citizen -- picked up in Somalia and held without charge and without attorneys in a secret prison somewhere in this city, according to Ethiopian and U.S. officials who say the interrogations are lawful.'
(...) Chatham House, a British think tank of the independent Royal Institute of International Affairs, has concluded, "In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, genuine multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actions of other international actors -- especially Ethiopia and the United States -- following their own foreign policy agendas.'
(...) When I first visited this subject shortly after the invasion, I quoted a 10 percent figure for the proportion of petroleum our country takes in from Africa and noted that some experts were saying the U.S. will need to up that percentage to 25 by 2010. Wrong again. Last week came the news that the U.S. now imports more oil from Africa than the Middle East, with Nigeria, Angola and Algeria providing nearly one-fifth of it -- more than from Saudi Arabia. While the rulers in Addis Ababa claim the invasion was a preemptive attack on a threatening Somalia and the Bush Administration says giving a wink and a nod to the attack was only a chance to capture a few terrorist holed up in Somalia, for most of the media and diplomatic observers outside the U.S. it was another strategic move to secure positioning in the region where there is a lot of oil. On file are plans - put on hold amid continuing conflicts - for nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields to be allocated to the U.S. oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. It was recently reported that the U.S. - backed prime minister of Somalia has proposed enactment of a new oil law to encourage the return of foreign oil companies to the country.
(...) However, she said it is impossible to overlook the parallel with the situation in the Iraq. 'It's aggression, that is undeniable, and the same language is being used to justify it,' she said. Kidane is on target in insisting that the movements for peace and justice in the U.S. - and elsewhere - must take up the issue. The unlawful U.S.- Ethiopian invasion and occupation of that country and the accompanying human suffering and human rights abuses constitute a new - and still mostly hidden - war in many ways similar to that in Iraq. And, waged for the same reason.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
on the imperial imperative:
His problems and those of Giuliani can be boiled down to the message of an Iowa poll released earlier this week: 56 per cent of registered Republicans want the troops out of Iraq within six months. The message? This electoral season any candidate shouting "Stay the course in Iraq" is doomed. So do the Republicans have a candidate with a simple call to bring the troops home now? Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has been saying this for months, but thus far he's dithered on the edge of an announcement that he's in the race.
(...) But they are also aware that if they seriously tilt towards Gravel's position about the insanity these overseas interventions they will be savaged by the political establishment on every talk show and every piece of political analysis in the mainstream press. So they are caught between the public mood and the imperial imperative and the latter will prevail in their calculations and thus--absent a prodigious orgy of doublespeak -alienate their political base.
His problems and those of Giuliani can be boiled down to the message of an Iowa poll released earlier this week: 56 per cent of registered Republicans want the troops out of Iraq within six months. The message? This electoral season any candidate shouting "Stay the course in Iraq" is doomed. So do the Republicans have a candidate with a simple call to bring the troops home now? Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has been saying this for months, but thus far he's dithered on the edge of an announcement that he's in the race.
(...) But they are also aware that if they seriously tilt towards Gravel's position about the insanity these overseas interventions they will be savaged by the political establishment on every talk show and every piece of political analysis in the mainstream press. So they are caught between the public mood and the imperial imperative and the latter will prevail in their calculations and thus--absent a prodigious orgy of doublespeak -alienate their political base.
Friday, May 4, 2007
the democratic option:
The Democrats did not send Bush an antiwar bill. They sent him tepid dead-in-the-water petro-imperial legislation that that would have funded Cheney and Bush’s oil occupation at more than $100 billion and set non-binding timelines for the partial withdrawal and imperial re-deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. As the Fourth International’s Bill Van Auken rightly observed last week (Van Auken 2007):
(...) The way out of this significantly self-made dilemma, Brecher and Smith observe, is to acknowledge, expose, and denounce the occupation as wrong and to drop the imperial assumption that Iraq was “ours” to “lose.” As long as the Democrats believe or claim to believe that the criminal oil invasion was initiated with “the best of intentions” (see Obama 2006, pp. 290-309, 317; Street 2007) and worth winning (even if its launching was a “strategic blunder”), they will be (somewhat deserving) targets for the “defeatism” charge.
(...) As Tuft's University political scientist Tony Smith noted recently in the Washington Post, there's no real foreign policy difference between the Republicans and the Democrats when it comes to "doctrinal questions." The leaders of both parties are equally committed to U.S. world supremacy. Both wings of the narrow-spectrum U.S. party system strongly embrace U.S. interventionism, militarism and (when "necessary") unilaterialism in the name of spreading "democracy" and "free markets."
(...) If anything, the "neoliberal" Democrats' main foreign policy claim is that they can do a better job of conducting this imperialist foreign policy than the "neoconservative" Republicans. "We are the better, more effective and competent Men and Women of Empire" is the basic claim. Such was the essence of the John F. Kerry "Reporting to Duty" campaign.
(...) Democratic administrations invaded and imposed neo-slavery on Haiti (Wilson), intervened against the Russian Revolution (Wilson), needlessly atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Truman), and lied about Soviet intentions and the nature of post-WWII conflicts to “scare the Hell of the American people” in order to garner their support for a permanent war economy and set off the Cold War (Truman). Democratic administrations killed hundreds of thousands in Korea (Truman again), initiated and escalated the vicious imperial U.S assault on Vietnam (JFK and LBJ),invaded the Dominican Republic (LBJ), imposed the lion’s share of the U.S.-led economic sanctions that killed at least a half million Iraqi children (Clinton), killed thousands in a missile attack of Sudan (Clinton), bombed Serbia in the false name of humanitarianism (Clinton) and signed legislation ending poor peoples’ entitlement to public family cash assistance in the U.S. (Clinton).
The Democrats did not send Bush an antiwar bill. They sent him tepid dead-in-the-water petro-imperial legislation that that would have funded Cheney and Bush’s oil occupation at more than $100 billion and set non-binding timelines for the partial withdrawal and imperial re-deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. As the Fourth International’s Bill Van Auken rightly observed last week (Van Auken 2007):
“While media reports on the Congressional legislation routinely refer to it as a plan for the withdrawal of US troops from occupied Iraq and ending the war, the language of the bill makes clear that what is involved is a tactical ‘redeployment’ that would leave tens of thousands of US soldiers and marines in Iraq for years to come. The bill incorporates ‘benchmarks’ to be achieved by the Iraqi government that were spelled out by Bush himself as part of the escalation of the war initiated early this year. Included among them is the passage of new oil legislation that would open up Iraq’s vast reserves to exploitation by US energy conglomerates. The legislation proposes that ‘redeployment’ begin by next October—while giving no indication of what number of troops it proposes be withdrawn at that time—and be completed by March of 2008. This timetable is not binding, but merely a goal suggested by the legislation. The bill...would essentially allow the occupation and war to continue indefinitely, with US troops deployed to protect a massive new embassy being constructed in Baghdad to house a virtual colonial government and to guard ‘American citizens’ sent by the oil companies to reap massive profits off of Iraq’s oil fields. At the same time, under the cover of a struggle against ‘al-Qaeda,’...US troops would remain embroiled in a dirty counterinsurgency campaign aimed at crushing the resistance of the Iraqi people...The differences separating the Democrats and Congress and the Bush White House are not between an anti-war faction and a pro-war one, but rather between two pro-war parties, vying over the best tactical means of pursuing the US campaign of neo-colonial aggression in Iraq.”
(...) The way out of this significantly self-made dilemma, Brecher and Smith observe, is to acknowledge, expose, and denounce the occupation as wrong and to drop the imperial assumption that Iraq was “ours” to “lose.” As long as the Democrats believe or claim to believe that the criminal oil invasion was initiated with “the best of intentions” (see Obama 2006, pp. 290-309, 317; Street 2007) and worth winning (even if its launching was a “strategic blunder”), they will be (somewhat deserving) targets for the “defeatism” charge.
(...) As Tuft's University political scientist Tony Smith noted recently in the Washington Post, there's no real foreign policy difference between the Republicans and the Democrats when it comes to "doctrinal questions." The leaders of both parties are equally committed to U.S. world supremacy. Both wings of the narrow-spectrum U.S. party system strongly embrace U.S. interventionism, militarism and (when "necessary") unilaterialism in the name of spreading "democracy" and "free markets."
(...) If anything, the "neoliberal" Democrats' main foreign policy claim is that they can do a better job of conducting this imperialist foreign policy than the "neoconservative" Republicans. "We are the better, more effective and competent Men and Women of Empire" is the basic claim. Such was the essence of the John F. Kerry "Reporting to Duty" campaign.
(...) Democratic administrations invaded and imposed neo-slavery on Haiti (Wilson), intervened against the Russian Revolution (Wilson), needlessly atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Truman), and lied about Soviet intentions and the nature of post-WWII conflicts to “scare the Hell of the American people” in order to garner their support for a permanent war economy and set off the Cold War (Truman). Democratic administrations killed hundreds of thousands in Korea (Truman again), initiated and escalated the vicious imperial U.S assault on Vietnam (JFK and LBJ),invaded the Dominican Republic (LBJ), imposed the lion’s share of the U.S.-led economic sanctions that killed at least a half million Iraqi children (Clinton), killed thousands in a missile attack of Sudan (Clinton), bombed Serbia in the false name of humanitarianism (Clinton) and signed legislation ending poor peoples’ entitlement to public family cash assistance in the U.S. (Clinton).
Thursday, May 3, 2007
paul street on may day:
You know when somebody like...I don’t know, like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or even John Edwards tells you they’re against the Iraq War make sure you ask them why. Are they against it because it’s an immoral and monumentally illegal and brazenly imperialist oil occupation that has killed more than 700,000 Iraqis as well as 3300 Americans and is part of a larger U.S. project of global dominance? Or do they think that the only thing wrong with the war is that it isn’t working.
(...) I really liked those chalk body outlines that one of you did last night to bring home the needless death of 3300 U.S. troops. But let’s not forget the 700,000 or more Iraqis murdered by this criminal war.
(...) If you go back and look more closely at the struggle for shorter working hours you’ll find something interesting. You’ll find that workers wanted more time so that they could participate in the great “democracy” that the United States purported to be. They knew very well that time is a democracy issue. Democracy takes time. It takes time to study the issues and their historical context and meaning. It takes time to disentangle the endless lies of the power elite and its servants. It takes time to cut through all the propagandistic self-serving know-it-all bullshit of the bosses, teachers, newscasters, textbook writers, advertisers, candidates, political consultants, bureaucrats, professors and other professional liars and thought coordinators.
(...) This was complete bullshit. They acted in accord with FIXED intelligence – with COOKED intelligence designed in advance of the war to justify an invasion they had already decided to launch. We also got the big democracy promotion lie claiming that the real reason to invade Iraq was to spread freedom and democracy. That is a complete fairy tale. The last thing U.S. policymakers want to see in Iraq is real freedom and democracy and independence since the last thing they want to see is that country free to make whatever deals it likes with whoever it wishes in regard to the remarkable petroleum resources under their soil.
You know when somebody like...I don’t know, like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or even John Edwards tells you they’re against the Iraq War make sure you ask them why. Are they against it because it’s an immoral and monumentally illegal and brazenly imperialist oil occupation that has killed more than 700,000 Iraqis as well as 3300 Americans and is part of a larger U.S. project of global dominance? Or do they think that the only thing wrong with the war is that it isn’t working.
(...) I really liked those chalk body outlines that one of you did last night to bring home the needless death of 3300 U.S. troops. But let’s not forget the 700,000 or more Iraqis murdered by this criminal war.
(...) If you go back and look more closely at the struggle for shorter working hours you’ll find something interesting. You’ll find that workers wanted more time so that they could participate in the great “democracy” that the United States purported to be. They knew very well that time is a democracy issue. Democracy takes time. It takes time to study the issues and their historical context and meaning. It takes time to disentangle the endless lies of the power elite and its servants. It takes time to cut through all the propagandistic self-serving know-it-all bullshit of the bosses, teachers, newscasters, textbook writers, advertisers, candidates, political consultants, bureaucrats, professors and other professional liars and thought coordinators.
(...) This was complete bullshit. They acted in accord with FIXED intelligence – with COOKED intelligence designed in advance of the war to justify an invasion they had already decided to launch. We also got the big democracy promotion lie claiming that the real reason to invade Iraq was to spread freedom and democracy. That is a complete fairy tale. The last thing U.S. policymakers want to see in Iraq is real freedom and democracy and independence since the last thing they want to see is that country free to make whatever deals it likes with whoever it wishes in regard to the remarkable petroleum resources under their soil.
“masters of war” by bob dylan
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
ujp on the democrats bill:
The anticipated veto of the Iraq war funding bill demonstrates the extent of White House extremism. Bush is not rejecting a "bring all the troops home and end the war" bill but rather rejecting a compromise bill that would provide $100 billion to continue the war, would set only a "goal" of removing some troops by March 2008, would allow 60-80,000 troops to remain indefinitely, would not restrict a U.S. attack on Iran, would allow the 100,000+ U.S.-paid mercenaries in Iraq to continue with only insignificant restrictions, would require Iraq to accept a new oil bill, and would allow Bush to ignore suggested requirements for adequate training, equipping and rest of U.S. troops.
(...) More significantly, like the earlier draft the bill exempts from the "redeployment" four categories of troops which together could constitute up to 60,000-80,000 troops. They include training, counter-terrorism, and protection of U.S. diplomatic positions (such as the huge Green Zone) and personnel. It allows maintaining the over 100,000 mercenaries who back up U.S. troops in Iraq, calling only for 15% of the U.S. funding for mercenaries to be made contingent on certain benchmarks being met. Like the earlier bill it takes no steps to restrict the president's ability to attack Iran, and demands that the Iraqi government pass a new oil bill. (The oil bill under parliamentary consideration would not simply divide Iraq's oil wealth, the feature U.S. officials and media like to point to, but would privatize control of a huge proportion of Iraq's oil industry and resources in the hands of private international oil companies, with special privileged access likely for U.S. companies.) And like the earlier drafts it would allow Bush to simply announce his intention to ignore the Pentagon's own requirements regarding providing troops with adequate training, equipment, and rest between deployments.
(...) Congressmembers are not afraid that an end to funding, and thus an end to the war, will actually hurt the troops, but they are very much afraid of newspaper headlines and Sunday talk show hosts accusing them of abandoning the troops. There is a better chance that Congress could overcome its fear and thus make feasible this seemingly impossible scenario if the peace movement, speaking with and for the antiwar majority of the American people, maintains absolute clarity on our core demand to end ALL funding for the war. That includes opposition to all funding for the war regardless of rhetorical restrictions. Of course a decision to authorize $50 billion would be much less damaging than one authorizing $100 billion; but that does not mean we should support a bill authorizing $50 billion. Rather, our continued principled opposition to ANY funding for waging an illegal war will provide the best support to those in Congress who might be considering efforts to qualitatively reduce actual funding for the war, or to impose real and not just rhetorical restrictions on White House freedom to wage unlimited endless war. Congress is not the peace movement. It is an institution designed to make compromises; we help our friends most if we don't.
The anticipated veto of the Iraq war funding bill demonstrates the extent of White House extremism. Bush is not rejecting a "bring all the troops home and end the war" bill but rather rejecting a compromise bill that would provide $100 billion to continue the war, would set only a "goal" of removing some troops by March 2008, would allow 60-80,000 troops to remain indefinitely, would not restrict a U.S. attack on Iran, would allow the 100,000+ U.S.-paid mercenaries in Iraq to continue with only insignificant restrictions, would require Iraq to accept a new oil bill, and would allow Bush to ignore suggested requirements for adequate training, equipping and rest of U.S. troops.
(...) More significantly, like the earlier draft the bill exempts from the "redeployment" four categories of troops which together could constitute up to 60,000-80,000 troops. They include training, counter-terrorism, and protection of U.S. diplomatic positions (such as the huge Green Zone) and personnel. It allows maintaining the over 100,000 mercenaries who back up U.S. troops in Iraq, calling only for 15% of the U.S. funding for mercenaries to be made contingent on certain benchmarks being met. Like the earlier bill it takes no steps to restrict the president's ability to attack Iran, and demands that the Iraqi government pass a new oil bill. (The oil bill under parliamentary consideration would not simply divide Iraq's oil wealth, the feature U.S. officials and media like to point to, but would privatize control of a huge proportion of Iraq's oil industry and resources in the hands of private international oil companies, with special privileged access likely for U.S. companies.) And like the earlier drafts it would allow Bush to simply announce his intention to ignore the Pentagon's own requirements regarding providing troops with adequate training, equipment, and rest between deployments.
(...) Congressmembers are not afraid that an end to funding, and thus an end to the war, will actually hurt the troops, but they are very much afraid of newspaper headlines and Sunday talk show hosts accusing them of abandoning the troops. There is a better chance that Congress could overcome its fear and thus make feasible this seemingly impossible scenario if the peace movement, speaking with and for the antiwar majority of the American people, maintains absolute clarity on our core demand to end ALL funding for the war. That includes opposition to all funding for the war regardless of rhetorical restrictions. Of course a decision to authorize $50 billion would be much less damaging than one authorizing $100 billion; but that does not mean we should support a bill authorizing $50 billion. Rather, our continued principled opposition to ANY funding for waging an illegal war will provide the best support to those in Congress who might be considering efforts to qualitatively reduce actual funding for the war, or to impose real and not just rhetorical restrictions on White House freedom to wage unlimited endless war. Congress is not the peace movement. It is an institution designed to make compromises; we help our friends most if we don't.
cost in nationalist terms; are these our allies?
(1): But should we? The costs of intervening in the Balkans were extraordinarily low compared to those of invading Iraq. Relying exclusively on air power, the U.S. ultimately succeeded in forcing the Serbs to desist in their campaign against the Albanian Kosovars. The bombing campaign lasted less than three months, and resulted in zero American combat fatalities. By contrast, we're now four years into Iraq, with 3,200 American troops dead, more than $400 billion spent, and no end in sight.
(2): About 17 times as many US troops died in the Vietnam War — the longest war in US history — as have been lost in Iraq, the nation’s third-longest war. Also, despite widespread public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war, the debate over it has not convulsed American society to the extent seen during the Vietnam conflict.
(1): But should we? The costs of intervening in the Balkans were extraordinarily low compared to those of invading Iraq. Relying exclusively on air power, the U.S. ultimately succeeded in forcing the Serbs to desist in their campaign against the Albanian Kosovars. The bombing campaign lasted less than three months, and resulted in zero American combat fatalities. By contrast, we're now four years into Iraq, with 3,200 American troops dead, more than $400 billion spent, and no end in sight.
(2): About 17 times as many US troops died in the Vietnam War — the longest war in US history — as have been lost in Iraq, the nation’s third-longest war. Also, despite widespread public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war, the debate over it has not convulsed American society to the extent seen during the Vietnam conflict.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
1968:
Meanwhile in France, a revolutionary insurrection was erupting. What began as a demonstration against curfew rules in university dormitories in Nanterres spread across France, igniting universities and the streets of Paris. By the middle of May the workers of France had joined in and President DeGaulle was considering launching a military attack against the French people-something which had not occurred in France since the days of the Commune in 1870. Students spent their days holding open organizing meetings in the commons areas of their schools and spent the nights fighting the police. Workers throughout France took over their factories and ran them with workers' councils. Workers in one Renault plant in the hinterlands locked their managers in their office and ran the plant themselves. Their goal was to show how needless management really is. Then, just as they did at Columbia, the powers regrouped. The workers' political parties-the Communists and the Socialists-reneged on their support of the strike in favor of immediate pay raises and some changes in working conditions. In addition, the Socialists ended up with a substantial share of political power. Although the more conservative Gaullists and their allies did lose some ground and although it could be argued that the balance of power shifted in France after May 1968, one would be hard put to prove that now.
(...) When everything is branded it becomes considerably more difficult to separate one's existence from that reality. Heck, at the January 27th protest against the war in Iraq there were people holding signs opposed to the war that were distributed by Working Assets communications company and included their corporate logo.
Meanwhile in France, a revolutionary insurrection was erupting. What began as a demonstration against curfew rules in university dormitories in Nanterres spread across France, igniting universities and the streets of Paris. By the middle of May the workers of France had joined in and President DeGaulle was considering launching a military attack against the French people-something which had not occurred in France since the days of the Commune in 1870. Students spent their days holding open organizing meetings in the commons areas of their schools and spent the nights fighting the police. Workers throughout France took over their factories and ran them with workers' councils. Workers in one Renault plant in the hinterlands locked their managers in their office and ran the plant themselves. Their goal was to show how needless management really is. Then, just as they did at Columbia, the powers regrouped. The workers' political parties-the Communists and the Socialists-reneged on their support of the strike in favor of immediate pay raises and some changes in working conditions. In addition, the Socialists ended up with a substantial share of political power. Although the more conservative Gaullists and their allies did lose some ground and although it could be argued that the balance of power shifted in France after May 1968, one would be hard put to prove that now.
(...) When everything is branded it becomes considerably more difficult to separate one's existence from that reality. Heck, at the January 27th protest against the war in Iraq there were people holding signs opposed to the war that were distributed by Working Assets communications company and included their corporate logo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)