Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Problem With a "War" Strategy
The eerie juxtaposition of General Betrayus testifying today before Congress, and it being 9/11 (which helped Bush bring us disasters ranging from the PATRIOT Act to the Iraq War and Occupation) brings an opportunity to re-understand what's been happening here and in Iraq these past six years, and offers an insight into a way forward.
Imagine, God forbid, that a major city in America were to be dramatically attacked (a 9/11 level of destruction only on steroids), or fall apart because of a natural disaster. Detroit, for example, or San Francisco. Massive destruction, damaging most of the homes - it could be an earthquake in San Francisco, or a horrific tornado in Detroit, or a nuclear device in either.
Water is cut off, electric wires downed, the phone systems taken out. People are dazed, in shock and awe. The prisons are damaged, and thousands of criminals are now on the streets, quickly melting back into the civilian populace. The destruction is massive.
The federal government then responds. They put up a wall around the city, and remove from office all employees and elected officials of the state and local governments. Fire all the police and fire departments. Stop paying doctors and hospitals. Throw up cordons around each city to prevent nearby communities from coming in to help.
Why? Because the President believes that a mythical force - "The Free Market" - will automatically and magically come to the aid of the damaged city.
He declares that instead of paying normal taxes and getting normal services, nobody will any longer get Social Security payments, food stamps, Medicare or Medicaid. All the "big government" programs are ended, replaced with a flat 15% income tax and an elimination of all regulations on corporate action, either local or multinational. Unions are outlawed. The 200 largest companies - and thus the largest employers - in each city are shut down, because they've been running "inefficiently": they're now for sale to any transnational corporation that wants them, (but, given the devastation, none are showing any interest).
Consistent with the President's belief that the only legitimate function of government is military, he brings 20,000 troops into each city.
But the people are now unemployed. Those with enough assets to do so have already fled the cities forever, knowing they will find better opportunities elsewhere. Those remaining are finding it hard to get gas for their cars, have only sporadic electricity, and are finding themselves the victims of water-borne disease (the government-run water treatment facilities have been abandoned, on the assumption that the "Free Market" will take care of water needs) and the recently freed criminals. Citizens loot the now-closed stores, looking for food and things that they may be able to sell to ward off the danger of their current unemployment.
At first, they protest in the streets, demanding a return of their jobs, their water and electricity, and some federal money so the remnants of the local construction companies can begin to rebuild their cities. But the President orders his soldiers to suppress the demonstration, and soldiers shoot and kill some of the protesters, finding it "impossible" to tell the difference between "protesters" and "criminals."
The people fight back, shooting at the soldiers. The President declares martial law, and in the background brings in John Negroponte, a black-ops specialist who is alleged to have helped organize death squads in Central America, to funnels guns and training to professional hit men to take out those citizens of the two cities who may have any history of political dissent. Within weeks, bodies of young men with their hands tied behind their backs and bullets in the back of their heads begin to show up on the streets.
The people of the surrounding regions - the rest of America - want to know what the President is going to do for and about San Francisco and Detroit. He says that the cities occupied by his military forces will soon be pacified if we'll just give him a bit more time, more troops, and more tanks and bullets. Discussion of the return of "normal" government - Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security payments, free health care, public education, water, electricity, and food stamps - are all absent from the news media, which is owned by big corporations who agree with the President's belief that the mythical "Free Market" will solve everything, eventually.
Meanwhile, people in Detroit and San Francisco are both fighting among themselves and against the army. Black and white, Asian and Hispanic, rich and poor - neighborhoods are creating their own militias to protect themselves, and shooting on sight anybody who "looks different" who enters their own territory. In the power vacuum created by the loss of government, religious leaders emerge as the new power brokers, and churches and mosques and synagogues become centers where people can find food, shelter, and an authority figure who can resolve local disputes.
The President declares these local religious figures "insurgents" and orders his military to find and arrest them. The military is meanwhile coming under increasing attack from local people, pissed off that they are getting progressively less and less water, electricity, and food. Two thirds of all medical personnel have fled the cities, and the hospitals destroyed in the tornado and earthquake have not been rebuilt.
Local contractors want to help out and put people back to work, but they are forbidden from getting any federal monies. Their workers remain unemployed. Meanwhile, the President hires some friends of his from Texas to go into Detroit and San Francisco to rebuild the cities using out-of-town labor with all the money going to his friends in Texas. The locals in SF and Detroit resent this, and begin to shoot at the "contractors" as well.
The insurgency is now well under way. The President pleads with the American people for another few billion dollars to pay for his military operation and his Texas contractors. His generals talk about how they've pacified parts of Grosse Point and Dearborn in Detroit and Nob Hill in San Francisco. The US House and Senate are torn apart between a desire to pull out the soldiers - who are dying in increasing numbers - and those who believe we must first "pacify" the "insurgents" in Detroit and San Francisco. Unable to reach a consensus, and with a general loyal to the President pushing for more time and money to "pacify" Detroit and San Francisco, Congress votes another few billion dollars and more time to the President.
Meanwhile, the President's advisors tell him that if he can just wait long enough, the magical "Free Market" will solve all problems in Detroit and San Francisco. Eventually, transnational corporations will see the huge and cheap labor force in the cities - which are now totally impoverished - as an asset. The 15% flat tax will bring prosperity. The privatization of Social Security and medical services and schools will bring "opportunity" to the people of the two cities. Just wait, it'll happen.
The only solution allowed for discussion is the military solution. After all, we now have to "win back" Detroit and San Francisco. We have to kill off those engaging in racial, religious, regional, or "sectarian" violence.
And, sure enough, as neighborhoods reorganize themselves by race and ethnicity, as the young protesters are killed off, and the local religious leaders take over the functions of government - providing education, health care, and even food and safe water - the violence subsides in those localities. The President claims these reductions in local violence are "proof" that his military strategy to pacify Detroit and San Francisco is "showing progress."
And so, for another year, the nation votes for more military funds, waiting for the magical "free market" solution to take hold, forgetting the lesson of 7000 years of city-state civilization that public services, progressive taxes, and local government are necessary to a civil and functional society.
Sound eerily familiar? This is what the Republicans and the Bush Administration did to Iraq (and partially did to New Orleans).
Lest you've forgotten, the main reason why the Bush Administration had no "Plan B" for Iraq, no planning whatsoever for anything beyond the first 3 months after the successful war to knock down Saddam's government, is because they instead had an economic plan.
Bush's old Andover Prep School roommate L. Paul Bremmer dissolved the 200 largest companies in Iraq, putting people out of work and putting the companies up for sale to transnational corporations. The nation's progressive income tax was replaced by a 15% flat tax. State-subsidized food distribution was phased out, as was the Iraqi equivalent of Social Security for both retirees and the disabled, widowed, or orphaned. State-subsidized higher education was privatized. "Domestic content laws" that required Iraqi labor or components in Iraqi-sold products were done away with; the doors were thrown open to transnational corporations to take up to 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq, and to import into Iraq their cheap-labor-made products from outside the country. Labor unions were banned, and transnationals could bring in cheap labor from outside the nation (no longer "illegal immigrants" because laws on immigration for labor were done away with), displacing Iraqi workers.
The response of the Iraqi people was to fight back. And the response by the Republican True Believers in the mythical "Free Market" was to use the only tool they believe government should have - the military.
Now we're asking if the military will "win or lose" in Iraq.
It's the wrong question.
Instead, we should be asking: When we're going to do in Iraq what we did in Europe after war destroyed that continent? When are we going to begin a "big government" solution, empower labor, raise taxes on the rich to reinstate social welfare programs for the poor, and protect local industries with tariffs and domestic content laws (like the Chinese and Japanese use)?
Only when these things begin will we really see "victory" in Iraq, if "victory" means a functioning and independent nation.
But because such things are a total repudiation of Republican/Rubin-Greenspan-Clinton/conservative economic and political doctrine, odds are that the real questions we should be asking won't even be raised until there is a new President here in the United States. Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning New York Times best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk program on the Air America Radio Network. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?," "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It," and "Cracking The Code: The Art and Science of Political Persuasion."
52 Comments so far
Show AllThis 'war' isn't about trying to help the Iraqi's. There is no intention whatsoever about 'helping' the Iraqi citizens. We have done an excellent job at de-stabilizing the country. The occupation allows Saudi oil prices to skyrocket. A war with Iran will allow Saudi oil to skyrocket even more. The Iraqi citizens are being used as a front. The more that they resist the more they play right into the game. The goal is to keep the country unstable as long as possible to float the Saudi oil market. The ultimate goal is to de-stabilize the entire region and allow the US and Saudi to control world oil. (Hence the Iran rhetoric) An attack on Iran will allow the US to sieze all Arabian Gulf oil platforms.
Whatever government forms in Iraq is irrelevant as long as the country remains weak, unstable, and unable to export.
The effort at analogy is applauded, but it fails because the 'occupation' is forgotten. The localization of 'freedom' in the walled cities is coerced...there is no national unit to keep injecting the military. Taxes are impossible. All the militias fail if there is not a super-militia to keep monies, arms, etc. flowing.
The cities remain 'free' only so long as they are coerced to be free by the invisible hand.
Brilliant, Thom. Simply brilliant.
Brilliant piece! Thanks!
One thought, while I know we owe the Iraqis a lot to make good the destruction we've done, if we are going to shift to a Big Government solution somewhere, shouldn't maybe the first place to try it be New Orleans?
Mr. Hartmann has provided us with a lucid description of life in America when the payments come due on the billions of dollars of debt that our "leaders" had burdened our children and grandchildren with.
The space ship were all traveling on, around and around in this corner of space is becoming over crowded at the rate of a million people every four days. The need for action by one and all is being actively denied by the people who have been elected/appointed to power, and the average "Joe" is expecting our leaders to get a handle on all of this. Excuse me,I have to go-the "games" coming on.
More rhetorical blah blah. Sorry for the condescension but it just doesn't play here in the mid west.
This statement by the author bugs me, a lot:
"Now we're asking if the military will "win or lose" in Iraq.
It's the wrong question.
Instead, we should be asking: When are we going to begin a "big government" solution"
How are we supposed to institute a "Big Government" solution if the military "loses"? How are we supposed to institute any solution if the military "loses"? Is the author's gripe that we are pushing a "free market" economic solution over a more "socialist-labor" market and not that we are at war in the first place? Is this really the problem that we have with Iraq now!!??
First, we have to decide if the U.S. needs to remove all the troops. If we pull out of Iraq then we will have to accept the fact that there will continue to be genocidal bloodshed between the Shiite, Sunni and Kurds which more than likely will get worse. It will also create a power vacuum in the region that will be filled by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all of which have a vested interest in seeing how this plays out. If we accept this and let the powers that be play out in this region then I don't see us having a controlling say whether or not Iraq has a "Free Market" economy or not.
If we want to have a say in whether Iraq is going to have a "Free Market" or "Socialist-Labor" system then we must be committed to securing that country in order to establish these principals.
Are we pulling out of Iraq or are we staying? And are we willing to accept the consequences either way? That is the question! If we do not answer this fundamental question, then the rest is just pipe dreams.
Wow.
"The only solution allowed for discussion is the military solution"
Problem is, as far as anything else goes, on the other side, the Democrats are blaming Iraq.
"... Republican/Rubin-Greenspan-Clinton/conservative economic and political doctrine, odds are that the real questions we should be asking won't even be raised until there is a new President here in the United States."
And if Hillary clinton is the appointed heir apparent?
Captmorgan. What are you recommending? Birth restrictions, forced sterilization, forced abortions, euthanasia or all of the above? Where do you start in the rich nations or the poor nations? Maybe color, genetics or religious preference could be the determining factor on who gets to stay and who gets the axe.
Population control is a lofty idea but one that Humanity as a species does not have the moral fortitude to carry it out properly.
I don't hear too many people calling Bush a failure these days.
Could it be that we are finally beginning to realize that he has done what he was "put in there to do"?
His administration has been a great success ... for the rich and powerful, the haters of the New Deal and Great Society.
It has turned out as it was intended to be.
War with Islam. War with Progressives. War without End.
It will be this way until the last drop of oil is milked from the sands of Iraq.
Unless we do something.
It is September 11 (again). Guliani is on the campaign trail (again).
There are 14 months until we pick a new President.
PS: Ironically, so will Iran.
What will we do?
sugarsmacks:
What do you suppose winning militarily means? Killing every last Iraqi? Wouldn't be the first time we cleared out populations who represented a "threat" to the security of Americans--only to steal land and resorces. Best to get them out of the way and let that oil flow- after all, there are priorities over the ...sanctity of life...
See what a military win looks like:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/inter-s10.shtml
The indoctrination of US exceptionalism is so great there is a kneejerk rection in defense of it. How can the US be anything other than the great beneficial father guiding these ruthless, barbaric terrorists onto the road of civilized decency!
We already opened the gates of hell--Do you suppose our continued presence is going to change things?
Ultimately, the Iraqis decide what kind of government they want.. (they are heir to the oldest civilation in the world) except we decide when they can have it whether it was democratically elected or not. Right?
Although you can't take an analogy too far before it breaks down, I still think this one is well formed and, if nothing else, puts things in a perspective Joe Blow could understand.
But the question behind all this still bugs me -- WHY?
Did they do this with an eye to national politics? Was it the emrgence of "Disaster Capitalism" which Naomi Klein has suggested?
Or was it, when you peel away the lies concealing the falsehoods which cover the disembling dishonesty, what you have left is raving, mad megalomania, a blend of arrogance, ignorance and avarice?
I suspect the latter is the case.
So, is the 'surge' working?
Do the Iraqis have clean water, sanitation, fuel and electric power, jobs and safe streets? Attacking these things, like we did, is a war crime. Repairs and reparations is what the surge and 3775 noble causes is all about, isn't it?
sugersmacks September 11th, 2007 10:13 am
Uhm, so let's compound a mistake with another mistake? Theoretically, what goes on in Iraq is none of our business. However, we went there in the first place to steal all their oil and make massive amounts of money for war profiteers. I assume you're promoting this course of action.
sugarsmacks, you completely miss the point. The military is not going to "win" or "lose". The political solution that they keep talking about is unattainable because it rests on the assumption that powerless and unlikeable leaders are going to get the support of the people.
To bring the situation around, there would have to be a way to enable people to work at their jobs. That means reopening the factories and enabling local contractors to design, plan and build infrastructure. This requires money, which is currently being used to pay American contractors, distribute weapons, and bribe tribal leaders.
When your position has been wrong for five years, don't you think you should stop calling people naive, and start listening?
Vern,
Exactly. The best course of action is to leave now. If Iraq wants to become a strong independent country then it needs to be able to do so on its own. If it wants to break apart then it should be allowed to do so as well. Our presents as a "Stabilizing" force both militarily, economically, and politically is actually counter productive.
Vern,
Sorry to give you the wrong impression. I am completely opposed to this war and would support an immediate withdraw of forces.
When we leave Iraq it is not going to be all sunshine and rainbows. You have to acknowledge that a withdraw of U.S. forces will cause issues.
My comments were directed to the point the Author was trying to make, that we should be setting up a "Big Government" in Iraq. The idea looks good on paper but in order to pull it off Iraq would have to be secure enough to open job centers, social security offices, begin "new deal" construction efforts. This would require a continued military force which I believe is not in the best interest of the U.S.
T. H. is truly one of the sharpest knives in the drawer---Nothing like seeing your own actions in your own hands on your own people as a way to (Imagine!) consider other human beings our actual equals. How 'bout that: FIVE years in Eye-Rack but, we promise (almost), we can win even though this has already failed---AND we'll bring home a few dozen boys real quick so you can hold parades. Oh yeah---by next summer WE'LL BE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE PRE-SURGE, I mean, if everything goes according to plan. No reason to think it won't (says every channel of our "free media"). And I am the Queen of Sheba. IT"S TIME FOR THE BIG MARCH ON WASHINGTON, FOLKS---NOTHING else will even begin to change anything...
To bring the situation around, there would have to be a way to enable people to work at their jobs. What jobs? The economic condition is completely different in a post occupation Iraq; their jobs do not exist anymore.
Reopening the factories. Who is going to reopen them and what products can they produce for a population that has no means to buy them? Who is going to provide the construction machinery, training, and support? Who is going to secure them against the sectarian militias?
Enabling local contractors to design, plan and build infrastructure. What local contactor? Most of the educated people that had the means have fled Iraq and are living in other countries because of the lack of security. They will not return to their country in its present condition. My friend has served two tours in Iraq as an architect because there is such a shortage of local architects and engineers.
This requires money, which is currently being used to pay American contractors, distribute weapons, and bribe tribal leaders. If we just gave them money, other that the American contractors, would they still use it for weapons and bribes? Who would we give the money to, the current corrupt Iraq government?
There is no easy answer here; nothing that can be summed up in a paragraph or two. It's literally placed us between Iraq and a hard place. If we stick with idea that we must help them develop a stable environment because of the "you break it you buy it rule". Then we will have to provide some form a security for the population until that system is in place. This is part of the current Bush/U.S. plan (which I am opposed to).
Or we can acknowledge that it is broken and leave Iraq now, with blood on our hands, and let the chips fall where they may.
So, what happened when the rest of the "coalition" left?
We are an occupation force. Does that shift the perspective? We barge into people's homes in the middle of the night. We torture and shoot to kill. Our presence has made things worse, not better. We can not provide security--we are fighting those who oppose our presence.
You keep tripping over this notion of "big government". What the hell do you think all the trappings of civilization are? Water, electricity, housing--that is simply providing for need--as opposed to, as promised by James Baker, "bombing you back to the stone age". Ironically Bush consigliere, who masterminded the theft of election 2000, now repected statesman in DC, Baker advises the US how to resolve the Iraq quamire.
Not that hard. That is what the Marshall plan was? Butter or guns--that is the choice.
If you studied who (Neo-Cons) and why (Oil, Zionist game plan) we invaded Iraq--do you really think they want a strong, vibrant Middle East that can defend itself and it's resources or a destablized one we try to keep clamped under our thumb? Meanwhile our treasury is being drained and the looting by the arms industry and contractors and the quest for resources--oil and water is still the unplucked fruit.
Don't be a sucker for all the other scenarios about fighting terrorists and providing security. Who protects Iraqis from us?
Transcript of George Bush speech on Sept. 11, 2007.
My fellow Americans:
Six years ago today while I was reading My Pet Goat to children in that great State of Florida, second only to my great State of Texas, a useless aide whispered to me the news that the United States of America was under attack from some hateful raghead devils. The film of me at that time gave the false impression that I was confused and did not know what to do. Later on, I took a flight on Air Force One. Some enemies in the press said that I was hiding out. Well it is now time for me to tell you what really happened during those moments in Florida and later on in the sky.
I had a vision in which God spoke to me. In that classroom, God told me not to worry that He would give me all the guidance I needed. He directed me to come closer to him, to get aboard Air Force One and high in the sky He would give me His plan. He told me who the enemy was, an Arab freak by the name of bin Laden working hand-in-hand with the man who had tried to kill my daddy,. God's plan was for me to chase bin Laden all over the earth and to kill Saddam Hussein. I was also supposed to take all of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and destroy them so that the Iraqi people could experience the joys of Christian democracy. God's chosen instruments for all of this would be revealed to me as the need arose.
The first task I was to carry out was to get bin Laden on the run. I sent troops into Afghanistan where a few remain today. Since their arrival I have ensured that bin Laden cannot get one good night of sleep. We know exactly where he is and will continue to torment him. We don't want to make him a martyr. So we let him live so that he can daily be haunted by the image of the World Trade Center.
Task two was to kill Saddam. God told me how evil Saddam was. It was very important that Saddam be killed before he could share any of his secrets with others in the middle East who would use them against our holy crusade to bring Christian democracy to the middle east. So we moved troops from Afghanistan to Iraq where we hunted him down like a dog until we dug him out of his hole. We gave him a fair trial and hung his ass.
Task three was to get rid of Saddam's WMD. It was falsely reported by the UN and by every other group that studied the problem that there were no WMD. But I know they were there because God told me and I know that we wiped them out so completely that there is now no evidence that WMD ever existed. Anyone who says that there were no WMD is calling God a liar. Such blasphemy is punishable under the Patriot Act-- or should be. 24 straight hours of waterboarding would be too good.
Task four was to bring democracy to Iraq. To do this would require the US military to be involved in nation building, something that that sinful friend of my father, Bill Clinton, tried to do in the Balkans (does anyone know where they are?). I promised I would not use the military to build a nation, since they are more useful for tearing one down. So I hired my friends at Halliburton and Blackhawk and a few other businesses that you will never learn about, to teach those Iraqies how to run a country. They have built a wonderful nation where every Iraqi citizen has two cars in every garage and two pigs in every pot. Our job there is done. We have fulfilled four of the five tasks that God told me to accomplish.
Tonight, on the sixth anniversary of that ungodly attack on our beloved country, I am announcing the beginning of a troop withdrawal from Iraq. We need those troops next door in Iran and Syria. We will keep bases in Iraq so that the remnants of El Quaida don't mess with the flow of oil. . This was the fifth task that God gave me. The Iranians and Syrians are as bad a El Quaida in their ungodliness. As soon as we have thrown the radicals out of power we will have Haliburton & Co., bring the lessons of democracy to Iran and Syria as well. At the end of my term I will have brought Christian democracy to the entire Middle East from the shores of the Mediterranean Sea to the borders of India, from the Indian Ocean to the borders of Russia. Blessed Freedom will reign wherever oil flows. My name will go down in history alongside of Alexander the Great for accomplishing these God given tasks.
Good night and God bless me.
This analogy illistrates perfectly the view points that is the argument between the ideology that exists in the U.S. today.
We have received a national wakeup with the goverment handling of the distruction of the gulf coast. Sadly, it appears that the lessons are lost on many of the public. The general knowledge of the public pretaining to civics are sorely poor. With this education lacking in a formal forum, it seems that self government is barely possible.
We have biases and emotions that cloud any rational education. This is definitely the tool that is employed by the demigods that cover the public airwaves from coast to coast, and sadly 24 hours a day. It is no wonder we are in the mess that is the end of our national sovereignty.
I wish I had a solution.
General Petraeus, and Ambassador Crocker reporting to the congress is nothing more than a smoke screen and a sad display that does not address the problem. We can practice any military tactic we desire. The results will allways be the same. When will the discussion ever address the root problems of political ideology?
The absurdity of what occured is lost on the public and media.
I propose that we leave Iraq and create a massive air drop on a secret location specified by all defence contractors. The contractors shall wait with semi's and forklifts. Then the military can protect the area, while we drop 750 billion dollars for their collection. At least there will be no massive casulties and damaged lives, thus the direct humanitarian costs will be reduced. The end result will be all the same, and possibility less expensive in the long run. Absurd? You bet. Just about as absurd as what is occuring now.
What is victory?
sugarsmacks, I apologize for reading that you were pro-occupation. But, I think, even with the withdrawal of troops, we have a responsibility to rebuild the society there. If Iraq is abandoned in its current state, it will become something horrible. All the professors have left, it is true, as have many of the skilled professionals, like engineers and doctors. To restore the country, it will be necessary to attract these people back.
It is naive to think that the Bush administration is capable of making the situation better. It is probably also naive to think there is a Democrat who can do it. The Republicans are great destroyers, but that does not make the Dems good rebuilders. New Orleans would be on the road to getting better if they were.
Nevertheless, we have to talk about what would work. Other actors exist that can take over after a withdrawal, and they need to plan.
Iraq has lots of unemployment. Whether the figure is 20% or 70%, who knows, but it's definitely serious. Lots of unemployment means lots of employable people, and I don't think a serious effort has been made to put these people to work on projects that will promote peace and stability. I understand that your friend has made two tours as an architect, nevertheless I wonder if the shortage is real or virtual. A shortage of people willing to work for US Army, or Halliburton? Or a shortage of people able to do the jobs, given their own terms? These are very different.
Unless we talk about rebuilding the society, we will never bother to learn these numbers. We are obliged to take the current "worse than failure" situation and invest our resources to fix it.
Thom, Good article. Let us all not forget: U.S. population 305 mil., Iraq pop. +- 25 mil. An equivalent number of U.S. deaths to the very minimal number of Iraqi deaths (according to Bush) of 30,000 would be 366,000; as a result of a foreign invader - we would be enraged! We would react, we would become insurgents!
Mr. Duncan,
I understand your point and the position you are advocating. It is the morally correct position to have. Unfortunately, I am suffering from a complete lack of optimism for this situation and the present course of our government (executive, legislative, and judicial). My pessimism is coming through.
Don't say you weren't warned. Here's Naomi Klein's 2004 report from Baghdad:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
I would just like to point out to sugarsmacks that our military has already lost in Iraq...
the majority there say the surge has made life worse...that is hard to do.
The best thing our President can do is not try to control the destiny of any nation including ours and explain to the world that this new imperialism is destroying our homeland and every land it tries to dominate.
We need a whole new approach to face the future with any real hope.
ForUs,
Jim
Meanwhile, not one word holding to account the Democrat Party who first gave Bush permission to invade Iraq and is currently finding new and exciting ways to capitulate to the Bush Administration. This despite recent Common Dreams articles asserting the same. Why? Hartmann has become a master of obfuscation and playing the Bush fear card to insure Hillary Clinton gets the Democrat nomination and brings her brand of DLC conservatism into the next eight years. As a recent pro business magazine noted with Clinton on the cover asserting: "I am your girl."
Well, so much for the progressive movement and with people like Hartmann who champions mediocraty in the political system.
walt: His administration has been a great success … for the rich and powerful, the haters of the New Deal and Great Society.
Nail on the head! Everything is going according to plan.
Great piece, though I think the Bushies do believe in police as well as military solutions to problems. Bushies hold that police services are the main purpose of local governments just as military force is what the federal government is supposed to offer. And that is true about the Bush approach both at home and abroad. And as an old maxim goes, when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
It does our cause no good to use the cheap attack "Gen. Betrayus." Regulars here know my long and consistent opposition to this debacle, but MoveOn and Hartman shoot themselves in the foot with this kind of rhetoric. We can commiserate among ourselves here in the relative obscurity of this minority forum with any language we like, but to go public with the schoolyard tactic of juvenile name-calling does make us look childish.
It was obvious very early that BushCo intended to turn Iraq into a privatization theme park. When they TOOK power they intended to prosecute policies and initiatives they believed would not be tried by those not possessing absolute power. This is their only abiding belief: power left unexercised is power lost.
What would victory in Iraq look like? From the perspective of their jaundiced cynical view of life and humanity victory will look exactly like a set of documents giving unfair and illegal rights to Iraqi oil to BP, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and thier ilk. Now this is not because the U.S. economy does not or will not have access to middle east oil. Oil, for the producing countries, does them little good if it is not sold, but the cancer that is eating away at America's economic health - the lust for "growth" of profits and returns - requires that energy in the form of oil must be kept at an artificially low cost to American consumers, in order to keep this profit engine running at top speed.
The oil giants consider themselves true American patriots and those that do not recognize this fact as fools. Just watch the crackheads on Wall street swing wildly back and forth at any hint of an "economic downturn" and yesterday the dreaded "R" word was being bandied about (recession.) Now economic "experts" are clamoring for the Fed. Res. to lower the overnight interest rate by 0.5% or double what is usually done to "correct" the market. Average Americans are going to hell in a handbasket and these fuckers are trying to protect their profits. It won't last much longer.
And if indeed Iraqi leadership succumbs to blackmail (your oil rights in return for our withdrawal) giving BushCo a "victory," that victory will disintegrate before half the troops leave.
I truly apologize for this long post. While watching 4 U.S. Reps. discuss Gen. Petreus report to the House yesterday on the News Hour I had an epiphany and a revelation which I am attempting to put in editorial form. Will submit it to CD and if it is not posted will insert into a forum string.
Begging your patience and indulgence.
Ridicule, satire--lampooning politicians and their acolytes is essential and healthy. That is what political cartoons are all about. It is the truth revealed in a flash. If you will recall there was, for a long time, no laughing at Bush allowed--and look how his self-importance was inflated. . Please do not allow demands for "civility" to suppress the outrage.
Vern I completely agree with your point but we're not talking about some boneheaded piece of legislation proposed by a lunatic political whore. We're talking about several hundred thousand dead Iraqis, 3-4 million refuges, the complete disintegration of Iraqi social and economic structure, and the spectre of nuclear aggression against Iran.
I've coined my share of clever satirical salvos against these fools (The Lonesome Cowboy and the Head-Up-Their-Ass Gang) but I know If I want to be taken seriously in public I have to argue seriously.
You mean how they frame Kucinich as "not serious"?
Problem is there is a lot of civil posturing & serious lying, but the truth? the truth isn't relevant to this serious act.
Windhorse, you are reading Thom all wrong --
He HOLDS the Dems accountable all the time --but that wasn't the point of this write-up. (And his rant on his show yesterday on this topic -- 2nd hour -- was even more brilliant. You can podcast it through iTunes.)
Thom Hartmann DECLAIMS the Bush fear card and in today's show explained how Americans have a history to standing up courageously to fear and even invasion (and we didn't have to give up our Constitution). As for his wanting Hillary Clinton to get the DemocratIC [no "ic" --maybe you are a troll?] nomination -- Hartmannites came out strongly for Edwards then Kucinich is an unannounced online poll this past Friday. Those holding were dumped from the lines and for fifteen minutes it was everyone calling in at the same time. The results were telling: Edwards: 26, Kucinich: 12, Obama: 4, Clinton: 3, Biden: 2 and one each for Ron Paul, Al Gore, and Thom's cat Higgens (Yes, his cat: It is a friendly as well as liberal, informative and entertaining show -- stream it at http://www.airamerica.com between noon and 3pm (Eastern time) weekdays.)
Thom wants a Marshall plan for Iraq -- putting the people of IRAQ to work. [Halliburton hired outsiders.] There is no military solution. It is the military occupation that IS the problem. On his show, Thom Hartmann reminds us that the (illegal) war is long over. It is high time to end the occupation -- and work out some sort of Marshall plan which restored Japan and Germany following WWII.
Mr. Hartmann, as Kate Anne points out, requests that a Marshall Plan, of sorts, be proposed, planned, and implemented for the restoration of Iraq. Unlike the current Neocon plan of a utopia of unbridled capitalistic frenzy, with foreign companies providing the labor and other resources, the United States offered up to $20 billion (1947 dollars) for the rebuilding of a devastated Europe, but only if the European nations could work together and develop a rational plan on how they would use the aid. They had to act as a single economic unit and were obligated to cooperate with each other. The same premise, with "Big Government" as the financier, would be the only way to "fix" the calamity that George W. Bush and his administration, so deliberately, "broke".
Of course, any plan should concurrently require full impeachment proceedings, if for no other reason than to expose the criminality and barbaric ideology that this administration has imposed upon Iraq, and our nation, for the past four years running.
And thank you, Zoya, for the link to the Harper's article. Naomi Kline so succinctly captured the essence of what has gone on behind the scenes as our service personnel were employed to be the unwitting shield for the invading multinational corporate takeover, and our national treasure was stolen and bloated to unheard of levels of debt in order to finance the greatest sting against the American people in the history of this republic.
If this article didn't infuriate you beyond your already elevated level of incomprehensible anger and distain, than nothing will. Be in Washington D.C. this upcoming Saturday to let your feelings be known. You owe it to yourself, you owe it to your children, and you owe it to our founding fathers -- who have been continually spat upon by the relentless nerve and arrogance of the current occupant in the White House.
Thom Hartmann, my sweet Windhorse, treats his guests kindly, not superciliously or cruelly. (He and Ralph Nader had an excellent conversation on today's show, fyi.)
If Clinton gets the nomination that the corporatist media is so outrageously trying to award her or Obama, because they would be easier for the Repugs to beat (since we all know that Hillary has a lot of baggage -- see the Rolling Stone on this -- http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15825410/the_real_liberal), I have no doubt that Hartmann will support her. I no doubt will probably have to hold my nose and vote for her myself. As my senator, her lack of response to her many peace-loving constituents has been deafening. I don't trust her BUT Thom contends that if there are enough people speaking up she or any other Democratic leader will get the message and try to get in front of the parade. I also know that she will be checking for which way the wind is blowing and will at least give verbal support to certain issues which could mean something in certain cases, depending on the numbers and/or the amount of wind. (Given her mega dollars in donations from the insurance and health industry, however, I don't see any reasonable healthcare in the offing should she win.)
As for John Edwards, last time around I supported the awesome Dennis Kucinich for way too long and got stuck with John Kerry. I see a lot of potential and growth in John Edwards, despite some votes I wouldn't have cast if I were him. I no doubt will have to be on his case when he wins but with Elizabeth at his side, yes, I think he will be a terrific populist president and the two of them will help heal the world.
Right now John is helping to lead the charge OUT of Iraq and I'm supporting him in this cause -- our cause.
And we've a ways to go in the campaign and the winds are blowing in John Edwards' direction. I trust in angels you are not yet capable of observing. Accentuate the positive, Windhorse -- it expands. There are independent liberal Democrats like me determined to make a positive difference in the Democratic party, our country and the world. Amen.
I see that Hartmann posted then deleted his post about Clinton. This after I provided a response. Does that mean she was indeed on his show?
Why the hell did the Iraqi leaders agree to such neocrazy nonsense, and why do they continue to agree? Are they all loony? Who are "we" to tell them anything? Missed in the piece above - "private security contractors" are IMMUNE from ALL laws in Iraq - murder, rape, theft: can't be arrested, tried, or jailed. Why would the Iraqis ever allow such a heinous "law" to exist? Why don't they just tell the Loonitary Decider to go fu*k himself and start throwing those Blackwater guns for hire in the pokey?
Another good insight from one of America's real patriots.
Maybe the analogy is a little too obvious for the typical CommonDreams reader, but I'm going to forward it to my hometown newspaper. If - by some miracle - they were to print it, it would certainly turn a few conservative heads.
But many of our conservative neighbors already agree that BushCo botched the occupation. The problem is that they want the good 'ole USA to set things right, rather than those untrustworthy Iraqis.
Most of all, they simply do not want America to "lose", and they will believe any lie, and kill any number of people to avoid that unpleasant outcome.
This sits well with the archtiects of the war. The prize - remember - is long term contracts favorable to the Anglo-American oil industry. They can achieve this with a weak, divided, occupied Iraq as well as with a strong, united prosperous, Iraq... perhaps better. After all, the U.S. taxpayer is footing the bill for military expenses, not the U.S. oil industry.
The biggest challenge we face today is that BushCo has steered the purpose of our occupation from "imminent threat" to "liberation" to "peacekeeping". Peacekeeping is a noble cause, right? All you liberals have advocated peacekeeping missions for our troops for years, right? Why not this time?
It's a hard thing to argue against... and we shouldn't. The only way to end the bloodshed is to keep reminding our neighbors that this is a war of conquest, a war for oil and a war started by lies.
Repeat this everywhere:
They lied to me
They lied to you
They lied to our troops
I heard Hartman not too long ago unabashedly saying how he's not against corporations, owns one himself, and -- in defense of the MSM -- that corporations are legally required to do whatever it most profitable to their shareholders.
Yeah, right -- Thom. So why doesn't Faux News, and the rest of the mainstream media quit talking about politics altogether? Just go straight to pornography. Or perhaps abandon media, and mine diamonds or something.
Thom's part of the controlled-fall apparatus, along with Air America in general. They're there to ensure that when -- as it sure will -- America bails from Bush's insanity it doesn't go the full distance it needs to go. The revolt will be caught prematurely by the Bush-enabling Democrats, who'll bring us back to the brink of a future Bush.
Kate Anne September 11th, 2007 7:38 pm
Wouldn't it be great if Edwards got the nomination and chose Kucinich for his VP. After 8 years of watching that "too short to be President" giant in action, he'd be a shoo in for #45. Ah...dream, dream, dream...
To Windhorse: light a match already.
At first, I couldn't tell if Mr. Hartmann was describing New Orleans or Iraq!
In America, we chastise a progressive for a weed in his garden, and commend a neocon for a flower among his turds.
TO BigNoseKate, 10:10 pm who said:
"Wouldn't it be great if Edwards got the nomination and chose Kucinich for his VP. After 8 years of watching that "too short to be President" giant in action, he'd be a shoo in for #45. Ah…dream, dream, dream…
"To Windhorse: light a match already."
Yes -- Edwards and Kucinich would be a wonderful team -- though the mainstream corporate media will probably try to steer him toward a lesser (please, God, NOT a Liebermann type -- maybe the only good thing about Gore "losing" was Liebermann not being vp). I pray he finds someone appropriate to his message.
As for our Windhorse, I chortle at your comment -- I didn't resort to the slight play on his name that I would have liked to in the interest of sticking to the higher ground.
TO Paul Bramscher, 9:13 pm, who said:
"I heard Hartman not too long ago unabashedly saying how he's not against corporations, owns one himself, and — in defense of the MSM — that corporations are legally required to do whatever it most profitable to their shareholders."
I think most Americans aren't against corporations, but like Thom agree in setting a limit to corporations. Currently, they are running amuck, out of control -- thanks to Reagan and the Bush-Clinton-Bush followthrough. And like it or not, Paul, corporations DO have a legal obligation to do whatever is profitable to shareholders. These are reasons we have to get them out of healthcare.
As for your comments on Air America, Paul, I disagree with your characterization. AAR provides food for thought and action and provides an excellent and much needed counter to the abundant rightist media. It is not perfect but American politics is certainly in better shape with AAR on the air.
TO ALL -- I've just downloaded Thom Hartmann's rant version of the above article. It is a keeper, his show of September 10 [second third of the file, fyi]. Check out AirAmerica.com and/or iTunes for the program.
Kate Ann,
Americans have, by and large, not benefited from the current arrangement. Until Americans enjoy the same rights as so-called fictitious individuals, your citing Americans as not being opposed to them is based only on the level of their ignorance and disinformation tossed at them.
But let's look carefully at being responsible to shareholders, Thom's unchecked remark -- smoke and propaganda in its own right.
A publicly traded corporation walks a tightrope between its "mission" or sector versus delivering to shareholders. Today's MSM (mainstream media) has so far deviated from genuine news, that it's really bled into a whole different sector. It's a misnomer to call 99% of American news "news". Entertainment news, child kidnapping news, or simply "echo the administration's line". It's not news.
So if the MSM must be responsible to its shareholders, as Thom would suggest, why don't they drop even entertainment news, and just go straight into pornography, mining of precious minerals, etc. They're more profitable industries.
The answer is that the MSM is a propaganda apparatus, and perhaps some of it even operates as a loss.
Paul -- yes, agreed, the vast majority of Americans have NOT benefited from the current corporate arrangement. But that doesn't mean you have to eliminate corporations entirely, which I believe you are implying. By all means, let's eliminate corporate personhood, which was based falsely on a contrived header note to a late 19th century decision given by a judge who died (if I remember the facts correctly) before the decision was published and thus unable to declaim the header note to his decision. I do not believe Americans by and large are against corporations per se, I DO know, however, that Americans are against today's extravagant corporate greed as evidenced in the outrageous differences between the salaries of the corporate elite and the the corporate peon worker. If we would legislate that corporate CEOs salaries could not be more than 11 or 12 times (as I understand is so in Japan) that of the average worker, or perhaps ever 15 or 20 times that of the average worker -- we would see salaries a lot more reasonable all the way round. (Good luck with the DLC, of course, but We the People have to continue to put them in their place, including my own NY Senator Clinton.)
And yes, you are right, the average worker bees are only beginning to realize how SCREWED they have been. And Thom Hartmann knows that -- get SCREWED by Thom Hartmann and get Thom's well stated facts, which are not propaganda at all but a call for the return to power to the people, to unions, to the worker-bees.
As for MSM (mainstream media), it should be answerable to we the people -- listen to latest episode (Sept. 9) of Bob McChesney's Media Matters show with FCC commissioner Michael Copps, which really portrays the problems and discussions solutions of today's state of communications in ways I certainly agree -- and I'm sure Thom would too -- and from what it sounds like, so would you. Thom Hartmann is clearly on the side of We the People -- if you doubt that read his books.
As for Air America Radio in particular, I somewhat critiqued it over Saturday and Sunday when I wrote my Open Letter to AAR's flagship WWRL (copied to AAR's Mark Green) on my blog, Peace Hugs -- reachable via PeaceHugs.com or directly at http://kateannenyc.blogspot.com. (If you think AAR has problems (and of course it has some), the flagship station has more -- but I am not giving up.) Peace hugs to you!
Kate Anne,
If Thom is the real McCoy, and isn't here just for damage control, the soothsaying let-down that the Dems specialize in, encouraging people to ask for too little, followed ultimately by capitulation or co-option, then time will tell.
As Nov. 08 approaches and the MSM picks the most corporate-leaning Dems, and frames the issues, watch Thom carefully.
Going door to door, busting into peoples homes and looking for the mythical "Al Qaeda" is not winning hearts and minds over there. There is already massive bloodshed and ethic cleansing going on, us being there, or over the horizon is not going to matter. What will matter is that our guys will be out of harms way.
We are NOT going to leave until GW gets his oil law that gives away all of Iraq's oil to the Trans National Oil Companies. Once thats done, we will pull back to our bunkers and massive Fort Apache, opps, I mean embassy and protect the pipelines....
frank1569 - one of the first things done in Iraq was make some laws so the contractors would not be afraid to come. One was that they basically have immunity from all actions done in Iraq. The Iraqis had to agree to these laws before they could get their "sovereignty".
Actually everything is going to plan in Iraq. One of the major objectives (after the oil of course) is to destroy the US Army so it can be replaced with contractors. Contractors are good, they don't swear an oath to support and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, so they won't have such a hard time shooting us when we the people (finally) get pissed off enough to do something about the state of affairs.
One other thing, the Dems keep screwing up like they have, first they had to follow Republican orders because they were the minority and they didn't want to lose the ability to filibuster. That was a disaster. Then they got the biggest vote of confidence in this country's history (okay, disatisfaction on the Repug side) and they squandered it as fast as Bush did his support after 911. Sure they passed some good stuff, but they were voted in because we want the war to end, we want our rights back, and especially we want some criminals in government to take some responsibility for their actions. The Dems are heading straight for a low turnout in 2008 which NEVER helps democratic candidates. Maybe we will get surprised and wake up on November 5th (or whatever day it is) to a President Guilliani - the "Terrorist Disaster Expert". At least Saturday Night Live will have lots to go on with that one.