A plan for withdrawal? How about a plan for anything!

On Tuesday, the US Senate defeated a resolution that would've demanded a timetable for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. They did, however, require that the president provide regular reports on the situation in Iraq; this demand to be kept in the loop is a shocking departure for a Congress that had long resisted this Constitutional duty and it will certainly infuriate a White House that loathes accountability.

I've never called for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, much to the ire of people who normally agree with me on most things. Setting a timetable would allow the bad guys* a chance to 'run out the clock' as you might say.

[*-'Bad guys' being defined as those who massacre or otherwise target Iraqi civilians engaged in such highly political, collaborationist practices as, gasp!, holding a wedding party. Atrocities which should undermine legitimacy for their causes in the eyes of anyone who cares one iota about human rights]

While a timetable for withdrawal at this point** would be militarily foolish and a betrayal of the country that Americans voluntarily decided to ruin, that doesn't mean the public should be deprived of specifics altogether.

[**-I would, however, have no problem with a future withdrawal if either a) Iraq were capable of running its own country, b) the Iraqi government asked us to leave or c) US/UK forces were replaced by a UN peacekeeping/nation-building mission, since they have competence and experience in those things... or an Arab League one, since maybe the Arab countries could be told to put up or shut up]

The president and his apologists insist, "We must stay the course." They insist that 'premature withdrawal' would be disastrous.

If the administration wants to shore up flagging public support for the war and plummeting trust in President Bush's ethics and judgement, then they need to get specific. What is this course we must stay? At what point will withdrawal be timely, rather than premature?

Even the most diehard war supporters claim (perhaps with a wink and a nod) that they don't want US troops in Iraq forever, that Iraq will not be an American colony. If setting a specific date for American withdrawal would be wrong, what about specific EVENTS that would trigger or lead toward American withdrawal? What are the EVENTS that must occur for the exit strategy (if one exists) to be implemented?

Some argue that the presence of American troops is doing more harm than good. Even aside from Abu Ghraib and allegations of chemical weapons use, the American military is creating a culture of dependency that is slowing down the quest of Iraqis for self-sufficiency. Some argue that we are doing more harm than good because American troops remain a target of the insurgency and the American presence is a powerful recruiting tool both for insurgents in Iraq and terrorists outside it. That we have no long-term plan, clue or idea about anything furthers the belief in some quarters that we'll be their forever. Is this all paranoid? Perhaps. But US troops remain in Korea 52 years after the fighting stopped on the peninsula.

The 'Bring them home now' movement is getting stronger every day. The only way the administration can defuse this movement is by dropping their hostilty to self-critique and develop a coherent vision for a future Iraq to sell. A vision based in reality, pragmatism and the acknowledgement that a future sovereign Iraq might want to retain control of their natural resources; a vision not based on the self-delusion they relied upon before the invasion. The administration need to explain to people what the ultimate goals of this mission are, especially since the original reasons for the aggression have been discredited. And the goals have to be specific, concrete objectives, not some vague, manipulative pap about 'fighting Evil' or 'opposing terror.' People may be more inclined to patience if they know what they're looking for even if they don't know exactly when they're going to find it.

'The Iron Lady' to become Madame President

This essay is part of a weekly feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.


Kudos to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who was the convincing winner in Liberia's presidential runoff election. The 'Iron Lady' was credited with 59.4% of the vote against former soccer star George Weah. Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf, 'Ellen' to supporters, thus becomes Africa's first elected female president (though Ruth Perry briefly served as Liberia's appointed interim head of state in the mid-90s).

While Weah's supporters originally took to the streets and their champion cried fraud, things appear to have settled down. Weah called on supporters to abandon protests and his concession is reported to be imminent.

Owukori over at Black Looks blog opines that George Weah never had a chance. I profess to being surprised by Ellen's victory and shocked by the margin of her win.

Weah is a high school dropout whose main claim to fame is as a soccer star and UN goodwill ambassador. He also achieved appreciation from Liberians for personally funding the country's national soccer team for several years. Ellen, for her part, has served as Liberia's finance minister and held positions with the UN, World Bank and Citicorp. She has a master's degree in public administration from Harvard.

There is no question who was the more qualified candidate, but as everyone knows, such candidates don't always win. Weah had strong support from young men, traditionally soccer fans. He was also endorsed by all the losers in the first round runoff, including former warlords Alhadji Kromah and Sekou Conneh (something which may have done more harm than good in the end). And frankly, she did have to overcome the perception that women don't belong in the presidency.

On the other hand, she probably appealed to those who figured: men have completely messed up Liberia for the last 150+ years, particularly the last quarter century, so why not give a woman the chance? She also stood up to former dictators Charles Taylor and Samuel Doe, so there can be little question about her courage.

She has a very difficult task, rebuilding a completely destroyed country where corruption is rampant and the rule of law weak. The last three heads of state (save the appointed Perry) have left office involuntarily. But I can't think of a single Liberian more qualified for the job.

I also congratulate Liberians for looking beyond flashiness and celebrity and self-interested endorsements and choosing the most qualified person to lead their country.

Remembrance Day

This weekend, I went up with a friend of mine to Montreal to see a hockey game. Friday was Remembrance Day in Canada, just as it was Veterans Day here in the USA. Earlier in the day, I’d heard President Bush exploit the supposedly sacred Veterans Day ceremony to launch an angry attack against opponents of the Iraq aggression. The pot-calling-the-kettle-black nature of Bush’s vitriol ("it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began") is too breathtakingly Orwellian to lend itself to rational analysis.

Incidentally, many well-intentioned people think I'm nuts for saying that "Support our troops" has been made equivalent to "Support the war." They swear up and down that the two are completely separate. Yet even the president himself takes every opportunity to fusion the two.

Even if you forget about this shameless attempt by an increasingly mistrusted president to co-opt a supposedly sacred day to selflishlessly shore up his sagging poll numbers, the difference in tone of Remembrance Day ceremonies was striking.

Even when the honor of US Veterans Day and Memorial Day ceremonies are respected, what is usually said at those ceremonies is something like this: “We honor these veterans/deceased who risked/gave their lives for our freedom.”

Though no soldier has died in a war for our freedom in the last 60 years, it’s right and proper to honor those few living veterans who HAVE risked their lives in such important wars.

Yet when I watched Canadian TV in Montreal, I saw that the tone of Remembrance Day ceremonies was a bit different. The ceremonies did honor those who died in Canadian uniform, particularly in World War II. But I was struck by the fact that officials made a point to honor those Canadians who’d died as international peacekeepers, trying to preserve a little peace and sanity around the world. It was then-Canadian foreign minister (later prime minister) Lester Pearson who conceived of the whole concept of international peacekeeping forces, an idea for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. So Canadians rightly take pride at this.

[Interestingly, at this year’s Memorial Day ceremonies in my town, I saw a guy in a New Zealand military uniform, with a UN patch on the sleeve. When I asked, he said he’d served in a peacekeeping mission either in Papua New Guinea or East Timor. I don’t recall seeing anyone thanking him for his service.]

I commend Canadians for not only honoring those who defended their own country but who tried to help humanity as a whole.

Maybe the anti-evolution crowd has a point

I wonder how God feels about this joker pretending to be his spokesman.

On the other hand, maybe the anti-evolution crowd has a point. Doesn't some of the stuff coming out of the mouth of Robertson and those like him raise serious questions about humans being a species that is highly evolved and of superior intelligence?

President Bush honors a real hero

My friend Matt often reminds people that while Martin Luther King Jr is almost universally remembered as a civil rights pioneer, far fewer people are aware of his activism against the Vietnam War. Muhammad Ali is another who has gone from outspoken anti-Vietnam protester to warm and fuzzy grandfatherly type.

Long before he was a generic hero to mainstream America, Muhammed Ali was one of the more hated men in the country. First, he converted to Islam and adopted a Muslim name. But what got raised people's ire is Ali's decision to go to prison rather than fight in Vietnam. Many people considered him a traitor, but Ali remained defiant. "I Ain't Got No Quarrel With The VietCong," he said. "No VietCong Ever Called Me Nigger."

I'm not quite how he went from being so reviled to being widely loved (Jane Fonda still arouses much bile to this day), but that's what happened.

He's become such a universally admired figure that he was even awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Though it is pleasantly surprising to see President Bush lauding a courageous individual rather than rewarding incompetence, the award is a bit odd.

I wonder if the president realizes the irony of honoring a man who preferred to go to jail rather than fight in an immoral war.

Shows how much I know

In ballot propositions yesterday, New York state citizens decided two things:

-that New York state's highest-in-the-nation $46.9 billion debt wasn't high enough

and

-that having the nation's most dysfunctional budget process and 20 late budgets in the last 21 years was an acceptable status quo.

Just goes to show that this blog's endorsements aren't quite as influential as those of The New York Times.

Hypocrisy, cowards and journalistic ethics

Today's poll question: Is hypocrisy a prerequisite to work for The Post-Star or a consequence of it?

After presenting the national hypocrite of the week ‘award’ yesterday to the Bush administration, the local version goes to the Glens Falls daily.

Every day, the paper runs a column which takes cheap shots and makes snide observations. Of course, the so-called professionals are too pathetic to actually sign their name to these petty little comments so they hide behind the pseudonym ‘Don Coyote.’ It’s pretty lame to attack people from behind the veil of anonymity (even in this amateur blog, I use my real name), especially when the paper has plenty of space to run signed commentary by reporters, editors and guests. I may not like managing editor Ken Tingley’s burn-the-witches hysteria about teen drinking but at least I can respect the fact that he had the guts to sign his name and defend what he wrote.

Maybe they’re so busy working on tough front page stories like dogs jumping off a bridge in Scotland (Aug. 4) or on hard-hitting investigative pieces on big events like the return of ambulant beer vendors to the local hockey arena (Nov. 6), that they don’t have time to worry about trivialities like journalistic ethics or basic decency.

Yesterday, ‘Don Coyote’ took a cheap shot at former Glens Falls mayoral aspirant Esmond Lyons, who withdrew from the race last week and endorsed Conservative candidate Peter McDevitt.

‘Don Coyote’ sniffed: I’ll bet Bud [Taylor, the Republican candidate] and Roy [Akins, the Democrat] breathed a sigh of relief when Esmond announced his endorsement and it turned out not to be one of them.

This was on the very same editorial page that ran its customary ‘bravo’ to all those who are running as candidates in [today’s] election.

Many people talk about what’s wrong with government and how to improve, the paper wrote, but few are willing to put in the time and effort to actually step up and make things better. The citizens need good public servants. Those who aspire to this job deserve our praise…

Maybe the reason there are so few ‘good public servants’ who ‘put in the time and effort to actually step up’ is because while they’re putting forth a vision and standing behind their ideas, they face ridicule from cowards like ‘Don Coyote’ who are too gutless to stand behind theirs.

Do as the Bush administration says, not as it does (pt. 4912)

From a US State Department press release on clashes in Ethiopia following contested elections in that country.

Senior opposition leaders arrested today [Nov. 2] should be treated humanely and, if charged, assured of a just and timely trial before an impartial court of law.

These people had been in prison for less than a day and the administration was deeply concerned, but there are detainees who've been in Guantanamo Bay for years without trial or charge and the folks in Washington don't seem to be the least bit bothered.

Despite the warning to the Ethiopian government, the Bush administration argues for the right to treat its own detainees inhumanely and for the right to deny them a just and timely trial before an impartial court of law.

Just click your heels and repeat after me, "They hate us because we're free" until you delude yourself into believing it.

Generally speaking, people tend to not give hypocrites much credibility, even when what they're saying is sensible. How the Bush administration expects to douse anti-American sentiment with such a yawning chasm between its words and its practices is beyond the reach of any rational person.