Putting Bush in jail will serve justice.

And Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice, Wolfowitz, Pearl...

Useful things to do, granted, but that's just catharsis. The wounds these people have inflicted on our country are not going to heal the second the jailhouse doors close. We've got a lot of rebuilding to do here and the less we do, the harder it's going to be. Believe it or not, there is going to come a time AFTER our war in Iraq (whether our exit is willing or not is another story) and the time to start thinking about what to do is right now.

1. The 9/11 Commision was a coverup in the style of the Warren Commision investigation into the death of JFK. NO steel framed building before or since 9/11 has collapsed due to fire. Ergo, the buildings were rigged for demolition by as yet unrevealed third parties. QED.

2. If the Pentagon releases all it knows about Iraq ala the 'Pentagon papers', they just provided enough evidence to have the entire US military high command executed by the Intenational Criminal Court in the Hague.

3. The end of the Volunteer Army is the reinstatement of the draft. Yeah. That will go over REAL well.

4. Peace with Islam. Pipe dream. Christainity has to much collectively invested in it's centuries long ideological war to stop demonising the other major monotheist religon.

5. Bush Interviews, as posited by the author would be a series of pathetic softball lobs mixed with slavish bootlicking sycophancy. What is needed is hard questioning under cross examination durng a war crimes and crimes against humanity trial.

In all I would like to congradulate the author of this puff piece with his choice of recreational pharmacuticals, and his ability to type while under their influence.

Galen,,,great post!

I wish people would stop calling this a war. It is an occupation and an act of thievery. And it is not, by any indications, over.

by James Reston Jr,

I'll remember not to read his articles from now on.

How can we refer to a postwar ere when our troops continue to occupy a country where we're not wanted?

Yesterday's NY Times talked about an occupation lasting until 2018.

Bring the troops home and end the war.
There is no other way. Peace is the way.

Right on Galen!!!

A big missing piece of the puzzle is how we atone for all the death, suffering, and pain we have inflicted on Iraq illegally "in our name".

Curmugeon99: How about an International panel that supervises the immediate dismantleing of the US nuclear arsenal, and destruction and cutting up for scrap of every warship, warplane, attack helicopter and armored vehicle in the US military inventory, along with the destruction of the facilities and capability of producing more, and the prosection for crimes against humanity and executions of US military scientists who research and develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the systematic stripping of the assets of the corporations who build these weapons?

"Why aren't presidential candidates talking about the postwar era..."

Because there never was a WAR to begin with, chief. Hence, no post-war era to worry about. Candidates could talk about a post-illegal invasion and illegal occupation era - except that era isn't expected to end until... er, Sen. McCain? "A hundred years." Hard to talk about what we're gonna do in 2108, though, ever since the Psychic Network went belly up.

"A universal draft or universal public service requirement needs to be enacted as part of reconstruction." Nothing is more un-American than FORCING free citizens to serve the State against their will. Why not "draft" citizens to work the farms so the "illegal immigrants" can be purged and our borders protected from said potential terrorists, er, illegal immigrants?

Why is it so hard to accept that most of us Americans like being arrogant, murdering bullies who steal whatever we want from anyone we want, including ourselves - with God's blessing?

Galen: And would it not be hopeful if as well as supporting the letter and the spirit of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and disarming the US could add an article like the following to their constitution instead of, as now, encouraging Japan to abrogate Article 9 in their's;

"ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."

Lucitanian: Amen.

How about simply getting out of Iraq-Nam and letting the people who live there sort it out. You can not achieve anything without them.

As for compulsory national service, absolutely not. At least not without some things in return -- lowering the voting age to 16 to make damn sure troops aren't dying who didn't get a say in the debate about the war (and no more troops outside the US without congressional approval), free college education for all, a GI Bill that makes housing affordable again, and that's just for starters. Otherwise, national service is indentured service.

"A universal draft or universal public service requirement needs to be enacted as part of reconstruction."

I disagree strongly with this, as I see military--or any other---conscription as slavery. Our young people's lives do NOT belong to the government, to dispose of as the government sees fit.

POSTWAR?
What do you mean by post-war? Are infering that the 'war' in Iraq is 'over' or will be 'over' by the end of 2008?
Here's a news flash for you. The Iraq conflict has been downplayed by the media. It is FAR from over. By the end of 2008 another 1000 US soldiers will be dead and civil war will still be raging across the country.
The conflict in Afghanistan isn't even finished yet and won't be by the end of 2008 as well.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
If we attack Iran, then it hasn't even started yet. Afghanistan and Iraq were just warm-ups.

I don't think enacting a draft will go over very well simply because forcing Americans to do anything seems to be contradictory to the idea of personal freedom. But, I have heard this authors point before. Would it be harder for our leaders to sell a war if the youth were being forced to fight it? I think it would. I'm 24, so I could very well be drafted if they reinstated it. And I would be one of the first people in the streets protesting if I didn't think that the war was worth dying for. Of course, the whole idea of dying for a "country" is prepostorous to me. Countries are made up. They are ideas! The greatest achievement that our government has been able to accomplish over the last 2 centuries is convincing someone in Florida that they have anything in common with someone living in Oregon.
I would die to protect my family, my friends, things that are real in my life. I don't think I'm alone in this.

The author says a year from now, the war will end and the new president and we Americans will be in a post war era.

Uhhhhhhh, really? The unjust war in Iraq ended when Bush declared, "Mission accomplished". Ever since then we have been in a continual mode, or era, of occupation of Iraq and our troops also running around Afganastan like a bunch of dodo birds, and I don't see those disasters ending anytime soon, certainly not in another year, or the costs of such to decrease one little bit.

If John Edwards is elected we may see the end of it, but I don't see him being elected either, unless some miracles occur. I don't see anything changing from what we now have in regards to Iraq or Afganistan, except to see it may become even more costly than it already is. There won't be any post war era to worry about and neither do the candidates, except for John Edwards. That's why they aren't talking about it.

"A true reconstruction of America after the disaster of the past seven years must involve a process of historical purification"

What about the reconstructions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

It's the third sentence I like, "But essentially the nightmare of Iraq will be over and a new era of US history will begin."

Now I get it, tinkerbell will spread fairie dust,"A year from now", and we all awaken once again to our prewar happiness.

I'm not so sure about reinstating the draft either. Yes, it would cause more youth protest, but look how much protest there was during the Vietnam war and it still took many years to stop that. In the meantime, Bush would have just had an unlimited supply of soldiers to send to Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably would have had thousands more to send to Iran and Syria too. What we should really do is forbid the use of mercenaries by the U.S. The limited number of soldiers partially constrained the Bush adminstration's madness, but using for profit companies without many rules applied to them has created some other deeply disturbing problems. I think keeping the military to limited size is a good thing. I'm not sure to whom to attribute this quote but I'm sure I've seen it in a CD post somewhere: forced military service is an unfair tax imposed upon the young. At 25, I'm sure glad we didn't have to have a draft back in 2003...too many young Americans have died for this mistake as it is.

The war is over? Tell it to this guy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/world/middleeast/15military.html?ex=1358139600&en=06c310b613c589ed&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Actually, the U.S. isn't at war, at least in the conventional World War II sense of the word. Rather, what the U.S. is involved is a series of continuous imperial skirmishes, much like those that the British were involved in at the height of their empire ca. 1750-1914. Putting down a tribal rebellion here, overthrowing an unfriendly government there, defending territory from the proxies of imperial rivals everywhere; it's just part of the day-to-day life of an empire, and unless there's a major military setback somewhere, it all just fades into the background for the population of the home country. The army is reduced to volunteer adventurers leading local native troops, so there's no need for a divisive draft, and a constant stream of propaganda emphasizing the benevolent aspects of the empire and assurances that it's the natural order of things, bolstered by an endless supply of bread-and-circuses distractions courtesy of pop culture, lulls most people into acceptance, or at least indifference. Nevermind that the demands of empire ultimately corrode the institutions of democracy; by the time most people realize that, it's too late.

Is Mr. Reston an apologist for the Bush/Cheney Regime and the morally corrupt Republican/Democrat Congress who have gone along with American imperialism abroad and fascism at home?

By the way, the author of this article either does not know or intentionally left out the reasons for the all- volunteer Army, established in 1973. These include insurrection within the ranks in Vietnam, fraggings of junior grade officers and sergeants in some units, the Vietnam Veterans Against The War people plus college campus unrest against another imperial adventure of American death and destruction.
.
The troop insurrections and refusals to go on combat operations in South Vietnam were paramount in establishing a military force without draftees. The Pentagon was worried that "drafted" educated or knowledgable young men were more likely to question our raison d' etre in that region.

In today's U.S. military, money is the name of the game. Big bonuses, much better pay plus the benefit package. Without the economic incentive, the draft would have to be re-instated.

scarredhippie,

When the French writer, Albert Camus was asked if he was willing to die for his belief in a cause, he replied "no." When the interviewer asked why, Camus said, "what if I was wrong." Words to that effect.

Have you noticed how many warmongers lead the troops into battle?

You're on the right track, my friend!

"Mission accomplished"

...for that god-flailing *Missionary's Position* view:

http://fangedfem.deviantart.com/art/america-the-blind-53631856

(click on the photo to enlarge it)

xx

"So why are none of the candidates putting forward their vision of the post-Iraq era in America?"

Because Mr. Reston Jr. your entire premise is false. The "war" we are engaged in will not end with Bush. None of the repug, save Ron Paul, and none of the tow dims likely to get the nomination, have any intention of being post war presidents. Not since Bush has shown what a "WAR President" can get away with. AS Bush keeps telling us Iraq is but the current front in the never ending "WAR ON TERROR", which was designed as a perpetual war. I see no evidence that the next president is likely to change that.

I agree that the premise is bogus. The nightmare will not end for Iraqis. We will leave Iraq worse off than we found it, even if we stay another 20 years.

But this raises an interesting question: would USA Today publish such a radical prescription for justice and reconciliation if the premise were NOT bogus?

Actually, a year from now, no matter who is elected, the country will inaugurate a president who will either end the occupation of Iraq with integrity, or a president who will perpetuate Bush's imperial folly openly as a true believer, or else hypocritically by adopting the Nixonian guise of gradual, phased withdrawal.

"The details might be different"? No shit, Sherlock. And de debble himself be in dem details.....

James Reston's belief that 2009 will magically end our national nightmare, and usher in some new post-war, feel good era in US history, is a grandiose exercise in wishful thinking.

Last time I looked, every single potential Republican nominee (except Ron Paul, who's really not a potential) plans to stay the course at least a decade more, if not actually up the ante further and march on to Persia. On the Democratic side, it's like pulling teeth to get a straight forward committment - one not larded up with weasle words - to actually bring the troops back home within a single election cycle.

Given the venomous partisan divisions of the political spectrum stoked by the Bush/Cheney era (25% of the country see a war criminal, 25% see a warrior patriot, and the other 50% remain undecided), I don't look for the lions to lie down with the lambs any time soon, unless its just for a quick lunch.

For my taste, Mr. Reston's nostalgic analogies to Reconstruction in the ante bellum south, and the healing balm of the Ford/Carter 1970's era prove a bit too much. Lincoln was scarcely buried before we had the rise of the Klan and Jim Crow lynch law, and Ronald Reagan/Bush I waged a concerted, malignant propaganda campaign for over a decade to "cure the malaise", and "exorcise the ghosts", that were Vietnam (in order that American militarism abroad could be revived).

Finally, of the five suggested elements for post-Iraq national reconstruction that this article suggests, two are developments that all sane citizens of good conscience should oppose outright.

First, no way in the world does this nation ever, ever, want to bring back military conscription, particularly when the troop shortfall of the Pentagon's current all-volunteer force has been exposed as a constraint that works to mitigate against rampant imperial adventurism abroad.

If you give the Cheneys and the Rumsfelds of military industrial complex a draft to dip into, the body counts will sky rocket, and the domestic repression will be infinitely more ugly.

True, many young people will take to the streets to protest the injustice. But Blackwater will just start warming up the busses to take them to the Halliburton camps.
Military conscription is a real lose-lose zero sum game no matter how you package it.

Second, the image of Little George kicking back for some David Frost style TV interviews a few years from now, in which he smirks, shrugs and fancies himself another Harry Truman while waxing on wistfully about the good old days in the White House with Dick, Fredo, Condi, and Turd Blossom, is such a revolting scenario that I really must close now, because I really must go puke.

Bill from Saginaw

I agree with all the posters here: this article is a piece of.....and (poor US!) when will our national nightmare end? What about Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan? What about their national nightmare?

Iraq is a non-class issue at this point. One of the world's strategic blunders to be sure, a great tragedy to the men and women who fought it, the children (on the Iraqi side) who suffered for it, the taxpayers who paid for it, the future generations who'll pay for it, the irreparable damage to the US, and the destabilizing effect on the region. Nevermind all that. These are things that smart people like CD readers warned about years ago.

The chief concern should generally be quality of democracy + class interest.

great posts! Reston is stupidly optimistic. But yes to Article 9! Too bad there is no discussion of the Financial Cost of rebuilding Iraq... perhaps the entire US Federal Budget for a few years will buy back our international respect (sic)...

Yes the students admit that without a draft there will be no protest on campus. They just can't seem to care much nowadays...The youth of the Fourth Reich are much too liberal, consumerist, rich, arrogant and ignorant to possibly be expected to see what lies ahead. Is it the cheap beer and pot?

.
But when the US economy finally collapses over 300 dollar oil , THEN we will have an opportunity to organize and demand some sanity from our authorities..... In the meantime pray for those being massacred in our names, and give $$$ to all those non-=profits who are willing to actually push the agendas for planetary survival.

While it's commendable that James Reston is thinking of repairing the incalculable damage we have inflicted on Iraq, it is disappointing that he ignores the war crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney junta as well as the massive damage done by those war criminals to our Constitution with the complicity of members of Congress from both major parties. True accountability requires justice.

Only war crimes trials, convictions, and life imprisonment for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Tenet, Addington, Yoo, Bolton, and all the other war criminals responsible for waging illegal wars of aggression against the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq will truly repair the damage done to our world. But, since many Democrats are so complicit in these war crimes, such necessary trials will never occur. and so, our damaged pseudo-democracy will be further weakened and justifiable anti-U.S. anger and resentment will tragically lead to more violence.

The BushCos have intentionally avoided the draft. If a draft had benn in place, the illegal activies would over. Average citizens as well as members of congress would be affected PERSONALLY. Then they would pay attention to the anguish, death and sorrow meted out by our military around the world and maybe, just maybe rise up against their 'masters'. As it is now the consequences of our actions have been hidden from view in the US by our MSM Pentagon lackeys, the mouthpieces of the corporations and rich folks getting richer, both from war profiteering and the outsourcing of jobs overseas (via WTO, NAFTA, globalization strategy.

Just ask the workers in the American heartlands.

The corporate empire requires that global invasion and occupation and theft of resources, particularly oil and water, and tyranny in the homeland, continue as long as the empire lasts.

Times are different now. All positions of power now ignore
opposition and only respond when it comes from inside their own camp, threatens them somehow (as in Karl Rove quietly stealing away to avoid prosecution--he did not leave because of pressure "from the people"--he left to protect his own butt) or it threatens profits.

I am amazed at how people talk about these times as if the power brokers are the slightest bit interested in what "the people" want. When the Iraq war started, 3 million people worldwide marched against it. 3 million people. How do you ignore 3 million people? It was done. They bombed the shit out of Iraq anyway.

So I think it would be helpful for folks to get it through their heads we are being ignored and this is the most powerful thing you can do--ignore. It is not illegal. It causes no harm (to you). You just go deaf. If I dare take this further, imagine sharing an office with someone with a squeaky chair. You complain to this person. He ignores you. So you go to management. They ignore you. So you move to another office. Their response: we didn't notice anyone upset about a chair.

We are being strategically ignored. Democracy gone deaf. These are different times now.

Why did Common Dreams print this?

The line about the continued success of the surge was all I needed to ask this question.

I saw a copy of USA Today or whatever recently, and it is even worse than I had thought.

Please, no more.