I have so many articles bookmarked relating to the Iraq Aggression and the war on civil liberties that it could be the only topic I blogged about for the next month. Instead, I'll try to condense them all into one piece.
I've written many times condemning the Bush administration's policies for the Guantanamo Bay kidnapee camp. You'd think that if the administration had such overwhelming evidence against people being held there that they'd be in a hurry to present it before a court to prove how dangerous and real the extremist threat is. Instead, hundreds of detainees have been kept there for years without even being charged or having any semblance of justice meted out. This un-American policy is precisely what makes them kidnapees.
And not a single one has been convicted of anything.
Some are being given a mockery of justice called military commissions. But even that's little more than a fig leaf. A senior Pentagon official recently threatened US law firms that provide representation to the detainees.
The Denver Post, among others, noted that Charles Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, told a Washington, D.C.-based radio station last week that he was dismayed that lawyers from top firms were representing detainees. He said CEOs ought to "make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."
Such contempt for the most basic premises of our justice system is hardly shocking from this administration. After all, America's top law enforcement officer recently said that there is no Constitutional right to freedom.
Unsurprising as it may be, it's still another appalling of the administration's contempt for the basic American values it claims our soldiers are fighting abroad to protect.
Nat Hentoff, in The Village Voice, comments on reports that many countries around the world accused of human rights' abuses defend themselves by saying they are merely following America's examples. When the president told us that he wanted the United States to be a beacon for the world, most Americans probably didn't think that this was what he meant.
Adam Hochschild blasts the 'surge' proposed by Pres. Bush. He argues that the appropriate analogy for what the administration is doing is not Vietnam, but World War I's Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest battles in world history. Ironically, Bush recently claimed to have been reading Hochschild's excellent book King Leopold's Ghost on the Belgian Congo, which was the greatest crime against humanity of the 20th century. While Bush may have read the book, was he actually paying attention to the content?
Not paying attention to details seems to be a trait of the president and his advisors. That's what Iraq expert and author Peter Galbraith explained at a speech at the Vermont state capitol. Galbraith notes that the administration is conducting a war they have no hope of ending because they refuse to understand the complexity of the region and it's culture. As recounted in Samantha Power's seminal book on genocide, Galbraith was a key player in unsuccessfully trying to get the Reagan and Bush I administrations stop or at least condemn their ally Saddam Hussein's genocidal massacres of the Kurds.
Republican Sen. Hagel, who's always been a rare independent mind in the Senate, explains in an interview with GQ why he opposes 'the surge. He notes that, "For almost four years, this administration has been saying, 'Just give us another six months.'" When you're beating your head against a stone wall to no avail, eventually you have to realize that the solution isn't to beat your head harder.
Hagel, who was wounded in combat during Vietnam, makes a point that progressives have been saying for years and were angrily derided for doing so. "It’s not ours to secure. We have never understood that! We have framed this in a way that never made sense: 'Win or lose in Iraq.' Wait a minute! There is no win or loss for us. The Iraqis will determine how this turns out. "
His discussion of the contemptuous and duplicitous dealings by the White House toward the Congress are also revealing.
And while apologists in Fantasyland portray Iraq as a virtual paradise, except for a few isolated parts, aid agencies on the ground explain what's going on in the real world. Already nearly two million Iraqis live in often miserable conditions as refugees in nearby countries. The effects? Many refugees live in conditions of acute poverty. In Syria, almost a third of Iraqi refugee children do not go to school. The UN says that there is growing evidence of women turning to prostitution.
Another 1.7 million are displaced inside Iraq itself (and officials fear that number could rise to 2.7 million by the end of this year).
That means about 1 in 8 Iraqis have fled their homes, representing the largest long-term displacement of people since the uprooting of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948.
Britain and the United States, the two main countries who caused the chaos, only accept a tiny number of Iraqis seeking political asylum or resettlement.
Despite the menacing words coming from the Bush administration's fanatics, a full-scale invasion of neighboring Iran will not happen in the near future; Iraq is such a mess that even the administration's most extreme ideologues couldn't ram through a ground invasion of Iran. But a lesser military intervention, such as air strikes or small scale incursions, is not inconceivable. One (but not the only) way they will try to justify this is by claiming that Iran is aggressively supporting insurgents in Iraq. However, the actual evidence supporting this claim is negligible at best. This isn't new. Remember how accurate the Iraq weapons of mass destruction claims turned out to be.
Somehow as I was writing this essay, I kept thinking of the song 'Won't Get Fooled Again,' by The Who. It's still apt today, sadly enough. Even though the title was ultimately wrong: we were fooled again. Back in 2002.
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals when they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they'd all flown in the last war
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are out-phased, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
1 comment:
Apparently Mr Bush forgot the part that the British didn't win the Battles of the Somme.
Before it happened, a combined British-French offensive was planned in that region but was preempted by the Germans attacking the fortress system around Verdun. The Germans knew that pychologically the French would defend Verdun at any cost. At one point, they easily could have taken the entire fortress system but the Crown Prince was ordered not to cross the river (I forget which one) until well, into the 2nd day. Where I'm going w/ this is that the French moved their forces to the relatively unimportant Verdun sector to hold it. The Brits hastily arranged a counteroffensive to draw off the Germans in the Verdun sector.
A British commission declared that there was not enough artillery shells to get the job done, which one of the results resulted in the sacking of Gen Haig.
Historians now conclude it was that, plus the infantry tactics were inadequet. The infantry at that time had to cross no-mans land w/ packs of up to 70 lbs. British communications were poor & their leaders couldn't check the progress of the battle. Not to mention the Germans would just ride out the shellings in their bunkers & when the enemy shellings let up, it was the German's cue that the British infantry was coming. The German counter-artillery targeting British troops in no-mans land was downright murderous, some UK divisions had up to 91%.
Ultimately, the Brits basically gained about a length of 2 miles...meaning that it cost them about 2 men for every centimeter.
Post a Comment