|
|
 Posted July 24th, 2008 at 9:26AM
Steve Chapman has a succinct op-ed regarding McCain’s dilemma every time he attacks Obama over a time table for Iraq.
…
Despite creeping toward withdrawal himself, McCain continues to lambaste Obama for setting a timetable. But if the current policy is the stunning success depicted by McCain, it should be eminently practical to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis by the middle of 2010. If it is impossible to do that, more than seven years after the occupation began, how can McCain say the existing strategy is working?
The Arizona senator sounded frustrated this week, insisting that Obama was “completely wrong” in opposing the Bush administration’s escalation of the war in January 2007. “The fact is, if we had done what Sen. Obama wanted to do, we would have lost,” he declared. “And we would have faced a wider war. And we would have had greater problems in Afghanistan and the entire region.”
What McCain omits is that if he himself had been right all the times before 2007 that he said things were going fine, no surge would have been needed. He’s like a weatherman who forecasts clear skies every day and, when the rain finally lets up after a week, expects a standing ovation for his accuracy.
If we had done what Obama wanted to do back in 2002, we would not have lost—because we would not have invaded Iraq to start with. We would not have suffered 4,100 dead and 30,000 wounded or burned through hundreds of billions of dollars.
We also would not have diverted ourselves from the correct focus of the war on terrorism. “Greater problems in Afghanistan and the entire region”? Apparently McCain hasn’t noticed that we got those in spite of the surge, or more likely because of it.
The troop escalation has not been the complete failure Obama suggested it would be, but it has fallen far short of the triumph claimed by Republicans. The level of violence, though down from the very worst months of the war, remains at levels comparable with 2005, which were considered awful at the time.
Iraqi civilians died at a higher rate in the first four months of this year than in the same period of 2005. The number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces is about the same. Here is McCain’s definition of success: returning to a pace of bloodshed that was once regarded as intolerable.
…
I resisted the urge to quote the whole thing, only half of it, so click on over and read it yourself. It’s such common sense, it makes you wonder why anyone would even need to state it. But yeah. It needs to be said.
Also consider reading this John Dickerson article on Slate. “McCain is attacking too much and indiscriminately. The barrage undermines his brand, takes time away from telling voters what he might do for them, and looks awfully old-timey in a year when voters want a new brand. He should go on the offensive, yes, but in targeted forays.”
Posted February 21st, 2008 at 3:54PM
“Nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.”
– Barack Obama in Iowa, March 11th, 2007
Last week, when Barack Obama became the first major candidate to break the silence on the situation in Gaza, he didn’t criticize Israel, whose blockade of a civilian population has been roundly condemned by human rights organizations, nor did he call for restraint from the United States’ top ally in the Mideast. Instead, he fired off a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with a resounding message—one that could have been mistaken for words straight from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) website. “The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel.… If it cannot…I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all,” Obama wrote, adding he understood why Israel was “forced” to shut down Gaza’s border crossings.
– Obama’s Israel Shuffle by Justin Elliot, Feburary 1st, 2008
If Obama does become the next president of the United States, we need to start demanding the “change” that his entire campaign has run on. Unilateral support of Israel will get votes, but it is not change in any shape or form.
Posted February 21st, 2008 at 3:35PM
I watched Rendition last night and was relieved. It frays my nerves any time Hollywood does anything remotely political and timely, and I was prepared for some ham-fisted Bruce Willis politick, where the torture is ultimately justified and everyone goes home relieved, the ticking time bomb avoided. This wasn’t the case, and it was fairly entertaining to boot.
Today the March / April 2008 issue of Mother Jones arrived, and it has a very excellent feature by Justine Sharrock, titled Am I a Torturer? Sharrock follows two representative veterans who’re conflicted about their time spent in Iraq, “softening up” prisoners under the direction of their superiors. Media coverage of US-sponsored torture has slid off the radar these days, but the aftereffects are still being felt by all involved.
As of today’s date, the latest issue of Mother Jones isn’t online yet, but I encourage people to check back and hopefully they’ll post this article in its entirety.
Posted January 23rd, 2007 at 12:56PM
Bring the Mandate for Peace to Washington DC on Jan. 27
November 13th, 2006
Tell the New Congress:
Act NOW to Bring the Troops Home!
Join United for Peace and Justice in a massive march on Washington, D.C., on Sat., January 27, to call on Congress to take immediate action to end the war.
On Election Day the voters delivered a dramatic, unmistakable mandate for peace. Now it’s time for action. On January 27, 2007, we will converge from all around the country in Washington, D.C. to send a strong, clear message to Congress and the Bush Administration: The people of this country want the war and occupation in Iraq to end and we want the troops brought home now!
Congress has the power to end this war through legislation. We call on people from every congressional district in the country to gather in Washington, DC — to express support for those members of Congress who are prepared to take immediate action against the war; to pressure those who are hesitant to act; and to speak out against those who remain tied to a failed policy.
The peace and justice movement helped make ending the war in Iraq the primary issue in this last election. The actions we take do make a difference, and now there is a new opportunity for us to move our work forward. On Election Day people took individual action by voting. On January 27 we will take collective action, as we march in Washington, DC, to make sure Congress understands the urgency of this moment.
Werd. For any Ithaca cats* who might be going, SJP, in conjunction with a group at Cornell, is organizing a bus (or two) to the event. Tickets are currently at $37 and falling rapidly. For more info / tickets try emailing emorrel1 [at] ithaca dot edu.
* It’s that hip new slang, yo.
Posted April 4th, 2006 at 7:33PM
AU’s Darfur troops in abuse probe
The African Union (AU) peacekeeping mission in Sudan says it will look into claims that its troops committed sexual abuse in the western region of Darfur.
The UK’s More Four TV channel last week aired allegations that AU soldiers paid women, some as young as 11, for sex.
The AU said the claims were disturbing, but added there had recently been many allegations against its mission – all of which had been found to be baseless.
The AU has 7,000 troops guarding some of Darfur’s 2 million displaced people.
This news troubles me, not so much because of the allegations – although yes, soliciting children is quite bad – but simply because it is the African Union garnering negative press.
The AU is an organization similar in intent and scope to the European Union. In fact, much of the AU is modeled around the EU. The AU’s predecessor was the Organisation of African Unity, which was founded in 1963. The OAU solved little and was heavily criticized for being an inert body. In 1999, the heads of state who comprised the OAU met, and decided upon the established of an African Union. This body was created in 2002, and the OAU was subsequently dissolved.
The AU has many bodies which are analogous to the EU’s – parliament, commission, permanent representatives’ committee, central bank and monetary institutions. The AU has 53 member states – all of Africa, with the exception of Morocco. For more info, I invite you to continue on to the AU wikipedia entry, a decent primer.
To me, a supranational, pan-African body like the AU has the best chance of remedying Africa’s ills. Individually, the nations of Africa have a hard time tackling their problems, which include, among other things, corruption, AIDS, sectarian conflicts, and a gross lack of infrastructure. But by creating a supranational institution, these problems can be solved jointly, with the leadership and support of dominant nations like South Africa.
The Darfur conflict is a glowing example here. The US and Europe are wary of sending in troops. Another Somalia? No thanks. The UN and the West proved their effectiveness a decade ago, in Rwanda. AU troops have a higher chance of success, since they’re more involved in the situation. They have a real reason and understanding to what’s going on and why it needs to be fixed.
At this point in time, the AU is still a fledgling supranational body. It needs the support, both economic and political, of the West. The last thing it needs is bad press. The fact that they’re launching an investigation is promising. We can only hope that it is done swiftly and accurately, addressing the issue and putting it to rest.
Posted April 4th, 2006 at 11:18AM
Lest we forget…
Squeezed to death
Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed – most enthusiastically by Britain and the US. Three UN officials have resigned in despair. Meanwhile, bombing of Iraq continues almost daily. John Pilger investigates
Saturday March 4, 2000
Wherever you go in Iraq’s southern city of Basra, there is dust. It gets in your eyes and nose and throat. It swirls in school playgrounds and consumes children kicking a plastic ball. “It carries death,” said Dr Jawad Al-Ali, a cancer specialist and member of Britain’s Royal College of Physicians. “Our own studies indicate that more than 40 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years’ time to begin with, then long afterwards. Most of my own family now have cancer, and we have no history of the disease. It has spread to the medical staff of this hospital. We don’t know the precise source of the contamination, because we are not allowed to get the equipment to conduct a proper scientific survey, or even to test the excess level of radiation in our bodies. We suspect depleted uranium, which was used by the Americans and British in the Gulf War right across the southern battlefields.”
As the news of today focuses on Saddam Hussein being charged with the 1980s genocidal campaign against the Kurds, I heartily recommend everyone to turn back to the state of Iraq in 2000, after nearly a decade of sanctions. That Guardian article is good, as is Globalissues.org’s page on the sanctions.
It’s all too easy to cry foul over the 2003 invasion of Iraq – as well we should. There is no doubt that the humanitarian aspect was quite far removed from the typical neo-con’s rationale for the invasion. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al., are no humanitarians.
But neither was Clinton, John Major / Tony Blair, or any of the other leaders of the West who were complicit in the deaths of over a million. The 90s sanctions against Iraq were akin to Stalin’s genocidal efforts against the Ukraine.
So what allowed it to happen? How did millions turn out to protest the 2003 invasion? Where were they the previous decade? This is a fundamental failing of the anti-war movement, and any protest movement in general. If that sense of immediacy isn’t there, then they don’t turn out. Regardless of actual circumstances.
If millions had turned out in the nineties, would Clinton have listened? It’s rhetorical – there is no point in debating it now. But today, we have an administration which publicly admits to ignoring us. What a stupid time to raise a fuss.
Should acknowledging the atrocious nature of the Clinton-era sanctions change a person’s view of the latest invasion of Iraq? It really shouldn’t. Yes, occupying Iraq has allowed us to gracefully drop the sanctions. To use a cliche – we’ve jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. Or perhaps it’s Iraq which has done the jumping.
As the dozen or more permanent US military bases being built in Iraq make clear, we’re staying. The actual condition of Iraq and its population is irrelevant to our policy-makers. But it shouldn’t be. The air of democracy is not enough to placate them. You can’t eat a ballot, and a political figurehead does not provide clean water or steady electricity. The main objective should be improving living conditions. It’s not currently.
Could a new US administration change all of this? It’s possible. But I wouldn’t look towards the party of Clinton to solve anything. The single greatest prospect for Iraq is it’s own people. Because the “Coaliton of the Willing” is not likely to focus on the reality of the situation. And the anti-war movement has already fizzled, as it and everyone else grows tired of what’s happening to a bunch of foreigners halfway across the world. We’re content to sit here, watch the rising death toll, and smugly say, “I told you so.” We should be absolutely miserable that our predictions of a failed invasion and occupation are being proven daily.
“We are losing the war in Iraq. We are an isolated and reviled nation. We are pitiless to others weaker than ourselves. We have lost sight of our democratic ideals. Thucydides wrote of Athens’ expanding empire and how this empire led it to become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. The tyranny Athens imposed on others, it finally imposed on itself. If we do not confront the lies and hubris told to justify the killing and mask the destruction carried out in our name in Iraq, if we do not grasp the moral corrosiveness of empire and occupation, if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, if we do not remove from power our flag-waving, cross-bearing versions of the Taliban, we will not so much defeat dictators such as Saddam Hussein as become them.”
– Chris Hedges
It feels like a cop-out, throwing up your hands and saying that the Iraqis must get themselves out of a mess that the West created. But what’s the alternative?
Posted February 4th, 2006 at 12:08AM
The principal Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, Ryan Henry, sez:
“I can tell you now that US forces in all probability will be engaged somewhere in the world in the next decade where they’re not currently engaged.
But I can tell you with no resolution at all where that might be, when that might be or how that might be. And that’s indicative of the uncertainty that we face.”
via US military plans for ‘long war’
[aka "It's perpetual war, you fucking sheep. The writing is on the wall."]
Right. So if I was a betting man, I’d be smart to say that the US will be engaged somewhere in the world where we’re not currently. At the beginning, this sounds very vague. Who knows where we’ll go next, right?
Actually, this narrows it down quite a bit. The US currently maintains “702 overseas bases in about 130 countries.” There are 191 nations in the UN. Round up to 200, taking into account a few oddities like the Vatican.
We’re already in the majority of the world. Ryan Henry unwittingly narrowed down the possibilities quite a bit. So where aren’t we already?
Hmm. Iran. North Korea. China. Burundi.
I’m guessing Burundi is safe.
|
Tags: 
