Dammit, he got away!
“Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of ‘ordering and authorizing’ torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military’s detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.”
General David Petraeus testified to Congress today giving his much anticpated report on "progress" in Iraq. There were no surprises in what it contained.
Once again, John Andrew Prime of The Times asked me to comment on the Iraq issue, specifically Petraeus' testimony.
Here's what I said:
General Petraeus' recommendations are sneaky. His plan would only reduce current post-surge troop levels in Iraq to their pre-surge level within about a year. It's akin to the shameful business practice of raising prices to then have a sale. Further decisions on troop reductions would be deferred at least six months.
The American people don't want that. Poll after poll shows we have lost patience with the war, with the horrible suffering on both sides. Most Americans want out, and we want it to happen starting now. In one CBS/New York Times poll, a majority believe the surge has either had no impact or made matters worse.
I grant that Iraq withdrawal is a challenge. We must find a plan that will disengage us from the Iraq debacle while maximizing chances for an end to violence there and a stable government that can keep the strategically vital oil flowing. Long term, we need a better oil plan for the country that reduces our dependence substantially. And we need to change our focus in the War on Terror from large-scale military engagement of whole countries to smaller, more-focused attacks against only those who truly threaten the country.
We need principled representatives willing to take political risks to resolve this issue. Who will step up to lead? I am not confident in our current leadership to do so.
Ambassador Crocker also testified, but I consider his report the least reliable. While Petraeus I think, despite his slanted statistics, had some independence, Crocker was just carrying Bush's water. There was nothing from him that wasn't standard administration propaganda.
The whole affair is mostly portrayed as a partisan battle. But both parties are ignoring what most people want -- to get out of Iraq now. Instead, Democrats are trying to craft a position that will allow the U.S. to stay in Iraq permanently while somehow "ending the war." Of course, that can't be successful, so it's ridiculous to think of the Democrat party as any real help, despite the admirable positions of a few loners within the party.
Many comments I'm reading are savvy to that. Some urge voting Green or Libertarian to elect people who will end the war. Both of those parties oppose it on principle. It's looking good for alternative parties this year. I know I'll be voting Green.
John Andrew Prime of The Times is working on a story about the Iraq War and asked me a few questions. The opportunity made me cohere my thoughts into something short and sweet.
Here’s what John asked:
And here’s my response:
Over the past year, measured public opinion about the war has remained relatively constant. Only about 35 percent “approve” of the war. The rest express various degrees of “disapproval.” Locally, more people support the President’s policies than that, but his support is rapidly waning.
Essentially, what’s left is a hard core of supporters pitted against growing opposition. The rhetoric from both sides will get worse.
Regardless of our Iraq War opinions, we can all agree the war merits civil discussion. We can treat each other respectfully in disagreement, and rhetoric of the right-wing-talk-show or leftist-rant ilk only puts us further from a solution.
My personal opinion about Iraq has remained constant since it started. We should withdraw all of our forces, abandon plans for permanent bases, turn control over to the Iraqis assisted by a regionally-based coalition and begin reparations payments.
I don’t think a massive conflagration will erupt if we withdraw. The same prediction was made of Vietnam and proved to be gross exaggeration. Iraqis can manage their own country better than we can manage it for them.
Profiteering corporations should be booted from Iraq, particularly oil companies and mercenary armies like the Blackwater forces. The growing trend to use these mercenary armies is troubling.
In Afghanistan, we have a better prospect. Our conduct there, while not exemplary, has generated some goodwill to build on. The people there are ready for peace. There is ample opportunity for coalition building if we respect all interests. I think we can manage with our special forces aiding indigenous forces. We must settle the Osama Bin Laden problem finally and unequivocally.
The Democrats are just as much a war party as Republicans. Regardless of who wins the White House, the next president won’t withdraw from Iraq entirely. A Democrat might withdraw some forces, but the plan of opening permanent bases will continue, the oil companies will still get their due and mercenaries will still operate without oversight.
The main problems in ending the war comes from two areas. First, we spend so much money on the military that the war industry dominates our polity. And we've built a propaganda machine that constantly trumpets how great our nation is because of that military spending.
Anyone who challenges the war machine is either ignored or ridiculed. But I think soon we'll be discussing these issues seriously. I hope that’s the big change this election -- getting the nation to really look at industries supporting and profiting from war and what that means for our way of life.
I don’t know what of that, if anything, will make it to the final article, but I’m glad to have had the opportunity to comment. We’ll see what happens.
This week Democracy Now! has been featuring both Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. The two noted humanitarian dissidents commented on a variety of matters, especially, as you might guess, the Iraq War. Here are some of their more piquant observations from the transcripts.
Zinn urges soldiers to practice civil disobedience from Thoreau's example:
And so, that (Thoreau's essay on civil disobedience) stands as a classic statement for Americans, that it's honorable and right to not to pay your taxes or to refuse military service or to disobey your government when you believe that your government is wrong. And so, the hope is that today more soldiers who are asked to go to Iraq, more young people who are asked to enlist in the war against Iraq, will read Thoreau's essay on civil disobedience, will take its advice to heart, realize that the government is not holy, that what's holy is human life and human freedom and the right of people to resist authority. And so, Thoreau has great lessons for us today.
Zinn on patriotism:
So today, for instance, the highest act of patriotism I suggest, would be opposing the war in Iraq and calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Simply because everything about the war violates the fundamental principles of equality, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, not just for Americans, but for people in another part of the world. So, yes, patriotism today requires citizens to be active on many, many different fronts to oppose government policies on the war, government policies which have taken trillions of dollars from this country's treasury and used it for war and militarism. That's what patriotism would require today.
Chomsky on the Iraq war:
This is one of the worst catastrophes in military history and also in political history. The most recent studies of the Red Cross show that Iraq has suffered the worst decline in child mortality, infant mortality, an increase in infant mortality known. But it’s since 1990. That is, it's a combination of the affect of the murderers' and brutal sanctions regime, which we don’t talk much about, which devastated society through the 1990's and strengthened Saddam Hussein, compelled the population to rely on him for survival, which probably saved him from the fate of a whole long series of other tyrants who were overthrown by their own people supported by the U.S.
And then came the war on top of it which has simply increased the horrors. The decline is unprecedented. The increase in infant mortality is unprecedented; it's now below the level of, worse than some of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It's one index of what's happened. The most probable measure of deaths in a study sponsored by M.I.T. incidentally carried out by leading specialists in Iraq and here last October was about 650,000 killed, soon to be pushing a million. There are several million people fled including the large part of the professional classes, people who could in principal help rebuild the country. And without going on, it's a hideous catastrophe and getting worse.
Chomsky on whether the U.S. can "win" the Iraq War:
It depends on what you mean by win. The United States certainly has the capacity to wipe the country out. If that's winning, yeah, you can win. It's -- in terms of the goals that the United States attempted to achieve, the U.S. Government, not the -- the United States, to install a client regime, which would be obedient to the United States, which would permit military bases, which would allow U.S. and British corporations to control the energy resources and so on, in terms of achieving that goal, I don't know if they can achieve that. But that they could destroy the country, that's beyond question.
Zinn on the same:
Noam said, yes, we could win in Iraq by destroying all of Iraq. The Russians could have won Afghanistan by destroying all of Afghanistan. We could have won in Vietnam by dropping nuclear bombs instead of killing two million people in Vietnam, killing 10 million people in Vietnam. And that would be considered victory, who would take satisfaction in that?
Zinn applies the Viet Nam lesson to Iraq:
Just as today when they say, oh, there will be civil war, there will be chaos if we withdraw from Iraq. There is civil war, there is chaos and no one is pointing out what we have done to Iraq. Two million people driven from their homes and children in dire straits, no water, no food. And so the remembrance of Vietnam is important if we are going to make it clear that we must withdraw from Iraq and find another way, not for the United States, for some international group, preferably a group composed mostly of representatives of Arab nations to come into Iraq and help mediate whatever strife there is among the various fractions in Iraq. But certainly the absolute necessary first step in Iraq now is what we should have done in Vietnam in 1967 and that is simply get out as fast as ships and planes can carry us out.
Chomsky on the current U.S political climate for progressive change:
There are periods of regression. We're now in a period of regression, but if you look at the cycle over time, it's upwards. And there's no limits that it can't reach.
