Man in the Street

Why War?

2010-07-22T19:23:00.000-07:00

It is a common for one to look around and wonder just how things came to be the way they are; it is the curse of the historian to not be able to shrug and go on to other things. So it is, then, that we will consider war, its’ roots, and why it plays such a large part in our lives today.

The roots of war predate civilization; they can be found in the division of labor of pre-civilization hunter-gatherer societies, and the effect of this division on the development of early civilization. While there are certainly exceptions, this division was along gender lines; females largely specialized in gathering, while males similarly specialized in hunting. These tasks almost certainly led to the invention by women of the first basis for civilization, agriculture: it may have been something as simple as the realization that concentrating a preferred vegetable in a close-by area would reduce the need to walk, though it is also likely that being able to stay close to camp to care for children and allow pregnant women to work more are factors, along with others; the issue is still being studied and debated.

What is not debatable is that by concentrating valuable plants into a specific area, the value of that piece of land was greatly increased. It became precious-and thus made a tempting target for those gatherers or raiders of another group or tribe. It became necessary to defend this piece of land, and thus was born the second basis for early civilization: warfare. Warfare was almost certainly the invention of men, who brought the tools and weapons of hunting and killing animals to bear against other humans. The first battles probably consisted of no more than a few dozen combatants, and it is likely that the first massacres of humans by humans followed shortly thereafter. The foundations of modern civilization, then, are simple: adequate population; the ability to produce a surplus of food-organized agriculture-and the ability to defend one’s resources and take the resources of others-organized warfare.

An important point to note here is that as civilization has spread across the globe, and population-human capital-mining, trade, natural resources, and manufacturing have also created methods of making land valuable, they-along with agriculture-have also created foundations of civilizations, in addition to warfare. The one constant has been war.

This early militarization of human society paid dividends: attackers succeeded often and profitably enough to spur a major reaction-the walled city. Walled cities appear as early as Jericho, 7000 BCE, and the presence of this fortification implies much: the ability to mobilize a huge population into non-food-producing labor, and thus highly developed agriculture, as well as a competent army that could both defend the agricultural areas and prevent the sack of the city while the wall was being built. Likewise, no ruler diverts wealth-producing laborers into non-productive wall-building without some pressing need, which further implies the existence of other similarly-capable societies (and armies). The walled city, of course, became the city-state.

It is not too early to begin to develop some conclusions, the largest being the strong implication that warfare is socially, not biologically, determined. The almost complete absence of large-scale slaughter of people in pre-civilization societies is a strong indicator of this-most “warfare” in pre-civilized societies were status displays or small skirmishes by young males seeking status, which, while dangerous, were not often lethal, and almost never led to mass slaughter. We fight wars because our civilization-our system of working together in a complementary way to enable large numbers of humans to live together and better is founded on war. War is a feature of our culture, not our DNA. It is in our cultural operating system-which can be reprogrammed.

It is easy to draw a thread between the complementary evolution of war and the State-more effective methods of warfare sped the evolution of the state, which continually developed more effective methods of warfare. They are conjoined concepts and institutions-the state and war. Indeed, until recently, they were completely indivisible; for most of the history of civilization, most of a ruler’s time was spent preparing for and fighting wars, often with the ruler himself leading at the front. The idea of the state and the army as separate entities is a novel concept, and while in theory the army is subordinate to the state, this is obviously often untrue, as a million military coup d’états demonstrate: for the state, the military is the most treacherous of weapons, that weapon with a mind and interests of its own. Yet the state and the military continue their relationship of necessity, as only the state can provide the resources that modern war fighting demands, and only sufficient military power can provide the state the security it demands. In other words, the dynamics of the relationships between large groups of people, whether tribes or nations, have not changed, since those hunter-gatherers fought off that raiding party trying to strip their field.

So, then, is the problem insoluble? Are we doomed to a short, brutal future of heavily-armed nation-states fighting endless wars, until the big one finally brings the curtain down? All organisms must adapt or die, and adaptation is often violent, even deadly, but a law of systems is that there are no static conditions- all systems are evolving or devolving, rising or falling (although entropy is always maximized in the end-all systems break down). If one applies this to the evolution of states, one sees a steady progression from city, to city-state, to nation-state, to superstate, to….world state. This must be the ultimate goal if the threat of war, and especially total nuclear war, is to be functionally eliminated, but the birth of an evolving world state would require the willful diminution of the sovereignty of individual nation states along with the effective elimination of individual national control over the arsenals of power projection-those weapon systems that can be used to attack other lands. The world is even now busily forming superstates, such as the EU, and similar efforts are underway in both Americas and Asia. Simultaneously, all nations vociferously defend their sovereign right to use military force, even as the trends strongly favor cooperative alliance, in which military force, especially nuclear, has no role. Nations resist this, seeking to maintain the status quo-this can be seen in the relentless attempt to undermine and discredit even a faltering step like the UN. Both institutions-the nation and the military-are expressing the will to survive, in accordance with the idea that sufficiently complex systems, even intangible, will mimic the behavior of living organisms, and if cornered, will certainly fight-and the cycle will continue, at least temporarily. There will be a world state-or there will be a catastrophic crash of the nation state as an entity. The role of the corporate state in the resulting vacuum is unclear…

To say war is uncivilized could not be more wrong-war is a fundamental feature of civilization, as it has developed so far.

(The author would like to acknowledge the work of, and thank, Dr. Gwynne Dyer, whose excellent study War was publlished in 1985, and re-edited and re-issued in 2005.)

Crossposted at The Seminal

Some Thoughts on the Beijing Olympics

2008-08-14T08:14:00.000-07:00

I have a problem with China, I must admit upfront-and it has nothing to do with the fact that this blog has been blocked by the great firewall of China since June '07. in response to my posting of pictures from the Tianenmen Square Uprising. My basic problem with the People's Republic, and in particular, the Chinese Communist Party, is one of definitions: in a nominally communist system, the means of production are owned collectively, by all, through the State. This is clearly not the case in China. Likewise, in a capitalist economy, the means of production are privately owned, and decisions about location, production, and finance are the exclusive province of the owners-also, clearly, not the case in China. However, there is a third system-we have seen it before-that allows capital to operate privately, but exercises strict governmental control.
That, Street, is called fascism, in it's original, purest, sense.
So, can we stop calling China a communist country? They are not. They are a fascist nation, with all that implies.
It is without doubt that the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics was a spectacle of overwhelming proportions. The sheer scale, the coordination, the beauty...the sight of that field of cubes rising and falling, creating waves, shapes, and that recurring Chinese character for "Harmony".
Simply stunning.
The telling moment for me was at the end of the Cubes display, when first flowers, and then the people under the cubes emerged. That's right-that entire performance, executed with computer-like precision-was operated by people.
Like the Pharoahs with their Pyramids, it's quite amazing what can be accomplished with inexhaustible quantities of slave labor.
Then there was that symbol for harmony. Who could be opposed to harmony? Everyone on the same page, working together for the common good, no conflict, no dissent...
It's that last part that bothers me. Harmony implies a lack of dissent. Whereas, as one who believes deeply in democracy and personal freedom, I believe dissent, debate, and the free exchange of ideas to be absolutely necessary in a free society. I don't care if it is messy or "undignified". I like all the messiness that comes with the engagement of free peoples in the democratic process. I could do without the indignity of character assassination campaigns or government-sponsored propaganda-but if those are the price, distasteful as it may be, then it is a price I am willing to pay.
I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice democracy for harmony. Especially a harmony under the fascist dictatorship of China.
Many people have commented that this Olympiad represents a "coming out" party for China, and I agree, but I think it goes further than that. I think what we are seeing is the first flush of a new, rising superpower, moving on to the world stage. I would be willing to wager large coin that the leaders of China see it that way too; I am reminded of nothing so much as Berlin in 1936, when another rising, fascist, would-be superpower used the Olympics to make a statement about their self-image, and a larger statement about the role they intend to play in the world beyond the present.

The FISA Disaster

2008-07-13T18:16:00.000-07:00

So, as pointed out below, the Bush Administration with the acquiescent Senate of Harry Reid, has effectively turned the Fourth Amendment (already tottering from 20- odd years of the Drug War) into a relic of what once was. For those who are interested in the what, how, why, and when questions, we are blessed witth the superb work of Selise and emptywheel. If you want to know, and not avert your eyes or seek solace in ignorance, then start here:

Looking Back on FISA's Year in the House.

The FISA Loss: Recommendations for the Future.

I truly begin to question how much of this police-state-ness is reversible, even with leadership that has the best intensions. With substandard leadership...

The Class War?

2008-07-13T18:04:00.000-07:00

The Class War is over, and you lost.
Now comes the occupation.

How Liberty Dies...

2008-07-09T13:29:00.000-07:00

(h/t to Daniel)

And that is just how it happened today, July 9th, 2008, the day the Fourth Amendment died, by a 69-28 vote in the US Senate.

Malignant Reaganoma

2008-06-20T09:15:00.000-07:00

Ringing speech, isn't it?

"Government is not the solution to the problem-government is the problem."

This is the ethic that forms the cornerstone of the current Republican party in the US, in several ways, and it comes directly from the mouth of Ronald Reagan. While I consider the Reagan Administration a disaster for this country, based on the decline in race relation that characterized the times, the S&L debacle, the terrorist wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador, creating the mujahedin that became al-Queda, trillions in debt, the Iran-Contra affair, CIA drug smuggling, the creation of the secret-police infrastructure, selling chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, ignoring the AIDS crisis, dismantling the clean-energy initiatives put in place in the late '70's, and the dismantling of the middle class, all of that may not include the worst of it. I believe the previous well makes the case for "disaster" status...but I would like to discuss what may turn out to be his most toxic and long-lived influence: his philosophical legacy, best expressed by the "government is the problem" bumper-sticker soundbite. It is the philosophical foundation behind the disturbing symbolism of Reagan ally and lobbyist Grover Norquist : "I...want to reduce it [the government]to the size where I can...drown it in the bathtub."

Creepy. And the funny thing is, nobody treats this guy like someone who has just said, "I want to destroy the U.S. Government, but I'll settle for torturing it to death." Let us note something else-no political theorist in their right mind can truly argue that this is a conservative position. Conservatism acknowledges government as a necessary evil, some thing to be kept carefully in check, while serving to defend the coasts, deliver the mail, and provide a level playing field for business. The reason the Reagan/Norquist ideal cannot be defended as a conservative position is because it is not. It is a radical position, espoused by radicals, as surely as the stated plans of those radicals in the SDS, Weatherman, and SLA thirty-five or so years ago were radical. The biggest difference between the two in my eyes is, unlike those wild-eyed New Leftists who thought the Soviet System was IT, the children of Reagan and Norquist want to replace the elected, publicly accountable government as regulator with an unelected, unaccountable, unregulated, government-by-corporation, where the "invisible hand of the market" will decide who gets what services.

So, if this is your position, how do you create this reality? I don't mean, how do you seize power, steal elections, stack the courts, or exempt yourself from the law-although all that certainly helps. How do you generate privatization? How do you prove yourself right? Two methods- "starve the beast", which dries up the resources and leaves little alternative to privatization; and sabotage the operations of the recipients, to undermine public confidence in the institution and weaken public resistance. This is accomplished either by overtly bringing in people dedicated to dismantling the government's regulatory authority, or by turning operations over to incompetent political appointees.

People like, oh, Michael Brown.

You remember him, right?

Brown was a commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, a position he was forced to resign. He landed on his feet, though-he had people. After the election of 2000, remember, Bush essentially gave FEMA to his 2000 campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh, as a political payoff. Allbaugh then had his old college roommate, "Brownie", installed into first the general counsel position at FEMA, and then the Deputy Director position, the number-two job at FEMA.

A horse show commissioner. A stellar background for a career in emergency management.

Anyway, Allbaugh resigned shortly after Brownie's confirmation, to become a blood-sucking war profiteer in Iraq, selling access to the CPA-and Brownie was installed as the director of FEMA.
We all know what happened next-Katrina came to New Orleans, and the hundreds who died there from lack of an adequate response from FEMA cry out for justice before the Altar of Judgment.

Why is this kind of thing acceptable, even desirable, for a "drown-it-in-the-bathtub" radic-con?

Because it makes the point. The ghost of Ronald Reagan can now stand over the GOP and wail, "See? Government doesn't work! Government was obviously the problem in New Orleans, not the solution! All those people died because they had been made dependent by the welfare state! Government has no business in emergency management-it should be the domain of the private sector. States or cities could contract for services, and companies could compete! It would create jobs, lower costs, and be more efficient...". And so on-that it's mostly bullshit hasn't stopped it from becoming standard-one can see the model all over the place, if one goes looking. Blackwater is a good place to start, before moving on to the privatization of our intelligence agencies.

So it comes full circle. The Republican Party, recreated in the supposed image of Ronald Reagan, has become something truly unique. It has become, in essence, a party with a vested interest in governing badly, in order to prove their point that government doesn't work and is the problem.
A political party that governs badly, on purpose, in order to further feed its power bases-the very corporate entities with which government functions are being merged.

Hmmm. Interesting historical echo: Benito Mussolini once said "fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

Mussolini would be proud.

The Republican Party, and its enablers and allies in the Democratic Party, has become a cancer. A malignant Reaganoma, growing on the body politic, eating our freedom and excreting fascism.

I blame Reagan.

P.S.: This post is dedicated to my friends Mike, Ashley, and Mary, (who helped me through a difficult time), and James, who asked the question.

The Secret History of the Gulf War

2008-05-16T13:19:00.000-07:00

Greetings all...Wow. I don't really have a lot to add to this, other than to encourage all to check it out immediately. Just a staggeringly comprehensive history, with much info rarely mentioned elsewhere (and aren't we all suckers for that?). Courtesy of those wonderful subversives at The Memory Hole.

The Gulf War: Secret History by William Arkin

P.S.: I would like to welcome the Armchair Admiral from Information Dissemination to the blogroll. This is an excellent, informative site dedicated to the activities of the US Navy, and, for hard information and analysis, I encourage all to check it out.

P.P.S: Check out Man in the Street's new feature, up near the top left of the page, called Where are the Carriers? This page keeps a continually-updated list of all US carrier deployments, for those who like to play RISK (or read tea leaves). Enjoy!

On Taking It to the Streets

2008-04-18T11:33:00.000-07:00

Man, have I been having fun with this report from the Navy.

Okay, "fun" is probably not the right word...not when a careful reading of how diplomacy should be conducted (if one wishes to avoid war) leads to the strong implication that the US wants war with Iran (and is probably going to get it), as I explore here. No, fun is not the right word...it's just so strange to come across something that seems so intellectually honest. It's comforting to know that somewhere, someone is crunching the data who isn't "fixing the facts around the policy". Sad, too-that the simple act of an analyst trying to do his job should be so noteworthy.

Anyway...the report I am referencing comes from the US Navy's Center for Contemporary Conflict, and the primary focus of it is to consider all the factors that led to the end of the Cold War (as opposed to the knee-jerk Reagan-worship that characterizes so much of US history of the era). The section I will be focusing on here is about the role of peace and human-rights campaigns, and their effectiveness.

As an activist, it can be very difficult to maintain one's sense of hope. Activists in this nation for the last forty years have been blamed for every variety of pathology that has afflicted the American body politic-from the widely-accepted talking point that says American protesters, fueled by the media, undermined US troops in Vietnam and "lost" the Vietnam War. Protesters are blamed (or credited) for freezing the US nuclear power industry. Protest movements against environmental destruction are blamed for the lack of newly-constructed oil refineries in the US, and thus blamed for high gas prices today. Protesters against apartheid in South Africa were routinely mocked and ridiculed, even as the US government was calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist. And the protests against the atrocities carried out during the covert war in Central America, by the pro-government death squads in El Salvador, and by the anti-Sandinista Contra terrorist army in Nicaragua-those were like nothing I had seen in this country since Vietnam, and they were treated the same way: with mockery and derision in the State Media, with surveillance and infiltration by the FBI, and with tear gas and rubber bullets in the streets.

So why protest? Why put oneself through it?...

Because it works. From the Navy:

In response to the development of new nuclear weapon systems... and statements by Reagan...suggesting the United States could... win a nuclear war, massive protest movements arose in both Western Europe and the United States. These movements sought an end to... the nuclear arms race. Reflecting this focus, in the United States the campaign emphasized the call for a bilateral "freeze" in nuclear weapons development. It may sound strange to give some credit for ending the Cold War to both Reagan and his most vociferous opponents, but there is good reason to do so. The peace movements of the 1980's did not succeed in getting their explicit policy demands adopted...However, they did succeed in moderating Western policy. In response to the peace movement's success in appealing to public opinion..Reagan...ceased all rhetoric suggesting the idea of a winnable nuclear war; instead, President Reagan began speaking regularly about his own concerns regarding the dangers of nuclear weapons. In addition, the United States entered new nuclear arms talks earlier than the Reagan administration had originally intended, and, after talks broke down in fall 1983, the administration worked to ensure talks would resume again as soon as possible.

You mean...protest movements DID help end the Cold War?

Another, even more important strand of grassroots activity was centered in Eastern Europe... The efforts of groups like Solidarity in Poland and Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia paved the way for the revolutions of 1989 that swept away the existing Communist rulers across Eastern Europe. The most decisive events in ending the Cold War...took place on the ground in Eastern Europe. The citizens of these countries who organized and participated in these events have the most obvious, direct links to the crumbling of the Soviet bloc, so their contribution to the end of the Cold War should not be underestimated...Gorbachev's response to these events was also critically important. In the past, most notably in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviet Union had responded to stirrings of independence in its satellites with military intervention. In 1989, Gorbachev made it clear that the Soviet Union would not use its military to assist the Communist governments in these countries in suppressing the opposition movements. This decision had nothing to do, at least directly, with U.S. strength... In fact, many of the ideas and proposals embraced by Gorbachev had their origins in liberal-leaning Western NGOs and research institutes and were transmitted to the Soviet leader through transnational channels rather than through government-to-government communication...

So...protests DO work. Activism works. All that marching, protesting, demanding accountability...WORKS. Not only does it work to end unjust policies, it works to encourage just policy. So to all of you working to end the occupation of Iraq and the tide of "friendly fascism" here at home, be of good cheer. It will work. Know that you are doing the right thing, and in a way that will actually accomplish something good.

Diplomacy, and the Coming War with Iran

2008-04-12T16:52:00.000-07:00

(Updated)

And now, events begin to accelerate...

I've been reading some interesting analysis from the US Navy, in particular this. While the document itself is a look at the Reagan-era Cold War, the part I'm excerpting is a general look at diplomatic theory, that, to me, seems particulary relelvant to our ongoing war of nerves with Iran:

This research suggests that a purely hard-line strategy aimed at forcing the other state out of existence is unlikely to be successful...Coercive diplomacy is a strategy that employs threats, especially military threats, to pressure a target state to change its behavior. Research...finds that the strategy fails much more often than it succeeds...Coercion is especially unlikely to succeed when the other side would threaten its survival by giving in to the demands placed on it...
In contrast to coercive diplomacy, which seeks to stop or change a course of action already underway, deterrence seeks to prevent an action from being initiated by threatening to impose costs on the target state if it takes that action...the most powerful threat the deterrer can issue is the threat to eliminate the ruling regime in the other state.

So...coercive diplomacy is threatening them to change their behavior, and deterrence is threatening them if they change their behavior.

For this deterrent... to work, the target state must have assurance that, as long as it does not take the action being deterred, it will not suffer the threatened punishment...If the deterrer announces plans to try to change the regime in the other state whether or not it acts aggressively, then the other side has no incentive to be deterred. Without the assurance that the regime will be permitted to survive if it behaves itself, the target state might as well take a chance on obtaining the benefits of aggression... an expressed intent of forcing the other side's collapse undermines the chances that coercive diplomacy will lead to behavior modification. Without an assurance that a change in behavior will result in the lifting of the coercive pressure, why would any state give in? In contrast, coercive diplomacy is more likely to succeed when it is accompanied by positive incentives...The net benefits of changing its behavior are made greater if, in addition to the lifting of coercive pressure, the target state can also obtain new, positive rewards. This also provides a degree of face saving for the other side, which can claim it accepted a bargain and did not simply cave in to outside pressure. Coercion is most likely to be effective, therefore, if it seeks to change the other side's behavior without seeking to cause the other side's collapse and it includes the promise of positive benefits...

So. A stick and a carrot. The classic tools of conditioning. Let's look at this a little more closely. And any effort to coerce is more likely to succeed if accompanied by an opportunity.

For this deterrent threat to work, the target state must have assurance that, as long as it does not take the action being deterred, it will not suffer the threatened punishment.

Therefore, if we were truly trying to change Iran's behavior, we would be offering some positive re-inforcement, negotiations, perhaps the groundwork for some sort of diplomatic reconciliation, or something else-but something. We are not. Not only that...one thing the invasion of Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein proves is that neither nations nor individuals must always be guilty, or if guilty, not of the stated charges.

If the deterrer announces plans to try to change the regime in the other state whether or not it acts aggressively, then the other side has no incentive to be deterred.

This was the whole point of Iran's inclusion on the "Axis of Evil" target list, and is considered policy by no less than General William Odom, in his testimony to the Senate..."If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force... " Another thing the Iraqi tragedy demonstrates is the willingness of the US to use a pretext to effect a regime change, which in Saddam's case has been sought since 1991. Iran and the US have been engaged in hostilities since 1979. Hence, Iran would be wise to assume that any excuse would do for the US, and they thus have very little to gain by cooperating.

Without the assurance that the regime will be permitted to survive if it behaves itself, the target state might as well take a chance on obtaining the benefits of aggression.
Therefore, the motive exists for an Iranian first-strike, possibly in southern Iraq, possibly in the Gulf or Straits of Hormuz, probably through its assymetrical surrogates like Hezbollah and Hamas. It seems that a goal of diplomacy, any diplomacy, should be toward reducing incentives for a first-strike, instead of provoking one. Therefore...what would a policy designed to be provocative towards Iran look like? It would threaten military action, and therefore demand a ready Iranian hair-trigger response; and it would have a covert-action component, gathering intelligence, marking targets, and probably running operations inside Iran, trying to provoke that response. It makes me wonder about this.

Research...on...attempted coercive diplomacy finds that the strategy fails much more often than it succeeds.

Simply stated, the likelihood of "success" in this impending misadventure is small. Why pursue it? Who benefits?

So. The whole point of the campaign against Iran is regime change, just as it has been since 1979 (except when Reagan was selling them weapons). There are frequent comparisons of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad to Adolf Hitler in the US media. US naval forces are massing in the region.

And then there are those bitterly cynical political questions re attacking Iran: benefits? risks? opportunities?
Americans will simultaneously rally around the flag and denounce the attack, splitting the country into a bitter division that politically benefits reactionary conservatives by disillusioning and demoralizing the young and newly-idealistic. The Straits of Hormuz may be closed, sending oil into a price spike, with the resultant unemployment and inflation echoing through the economy. Spiking prices means spiking profits. Hmmm. The opportunity to further extend military control over the oil resources of the Middle East, although this would require declaring victory in Iraq and sending that Army into Iran.
I think I am somewhat measured in my take of most things. However, I believe that a cold reading of the theory, juxtaposed, with the reality of our actions, lead to a conclusion: our intentions are either to start a war with Iran, provoke Iran into starting one with us, or create the climate where a mistake or accident that can be claimed as just cause will occur. I am not an alarmist...but it sure looks to me, for the first time, like Bush might really do it. If so, my current prediction is: new moon, first week of August. Knock the Democratic Convention right off the TV. Secondary prediction: new moon, 29th October. An "October Surprise" to help elect John McCain, make all of the Democrats Iraq arguments irrelevant, and put opponents neatly back into that "support the troops" trap, which no tactician has yet learned how to effectively counter. A divided and disillusioned electorate stays home in November, further helping McCain...
I reserve the right to change my mind, and I pray to the powers that I am wrong, but as I write this, I really think Bush may go for it.

God help us all. I'd like to wake up now, please.

In Case You Missed These, Part 3...

2008-04-03T18:13:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone.
Well, it's that time again. Time to make sure some things don't get lost in the shuffle...first of all, If you are new to the site, welcome and thank you, and I hope you consider the time well spent. To you regulars, as always, thank you more...
Anyway, here are some earlier posts you may have missed...

Dien Bien Phu, Iraq
How to Start a Nuclear War by Accident
An Iran-Contra Reflection
What's a Little Espionage Between Friends?
Wrong Then, Wrong Now
First the Surrender, Then the Alliance
The Shape of the Beast
A Surge of Misunderstanding
An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton
In Case You Missed These, Part 2...

Thanks again all, and enjoy!

John McCain's Secret Identity-REVEALED!!

2008-04-03T15:07:00.001-07:00

Ever wondered why John McCain seems so creepy, aside from the bizarre policy positions and the repudiation of all the things for which he once seemed so honorable? Man in the Street can now reveal the truth behind John McCain's secret identity:

John McCain can no longer deny it. He is The Nemesis. Once one recognizes this, suddenly, the answers to many questions become clear.

/snark

(Thanks to FDL for the McCain pic, and ResidentGamer4 for the Nemesis)

Lieberspheric Cosmology

2008-04-03T15:07:00.000-07:00

(Credit to Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake for the title. This post is an edited form of a comment I originally left at her place.)

Lieberspheric Cosmology: The Universe as Seen Through a Veil of Utter Contempt for Joe Lieberman.

13.8 billion years ago, Joe Lieberman exploded from a point the size of a proton at many times the speed of light, an process known as “cosmic Joflation”. At this point, the natural laws of the Joniverse stabilized, light assumed its characteristic velocity, and the spirit of Joe interacted with the Higgs field to produce matter and energy. As Joe condensed into form, the shameless treachery levels and incredible density produced a warping effect on space-time-henceforth known as black JoHoles-that would suck in any positive aspect of anything and destroy it with such force that not even the light of good ideas an escape. These JoHoles sometimes form the core of entire galaxies of stupidity. The incredible energy levels generated by the collision of good sense and honor particles with the body of the Joniverse continue to fuel and accelerate the cosmic Jospansion-and Lieberspheric cosmologists predict, using new data from the W-JOE satellite, that the Joniverse will expand into infinity, as there is not enough attraction to honor and truth in the whole freakin’ Joe Lieberman Universe to cause Joe to collapse back down into a Democrat.

Arthur C. Clarke, 1917-2008: A Star Extinguished

2008-03-22T15:25:00.000-07:00

I will keep this short, but I cannot really relate how I feel about the passing of famed author and futurist Arthur C. Clarke, without a brief explanation.

The year was 1975, and I had just discovered a book in my school library: The Lost Worlds of 2001, by Arthur C. Clarke. It was a memoir of the writing and filming of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and included the short story The Sentinel, which had provided the initial root that would later grow into 2001.

Well...as they say, that was all she wrote. I devoured Lost Worlds, then moved to Odyssey, and Childhood's End, Rendezvous with Rama...and on, and on, through the catalog, alternately spellbound by the visions of possible futures glimpsed as well as by the towering intellect of the author and the sheer audacity with which he would apply that intellect to problems and situations both futuristic and universal.

And it didn't stop at his fiction. The more I read, the more I learned of his early work on radar, the communication satellite, and the real-world science and engineering that undergirded all of his work, and lent both his fiction and non-fiction their credibility and air of authority. My world would never be quite the same after reading Clarke's work, and of people I never met personally, none have exerted as much influence on my life as he.

In the end, what Clarke did was nothing less than offer humanity one possible immortality. An immortality based on leaving Earth and spreading outward, to the planets, then the stars, beyond the reach of any single catastrophe that might depopulate a single planet. He did not offer a hope of salvation based on magic, but a solid future based on science, intellect, and the embrace of all as one human family. Should humanity find a way to survive, and escape this planetary cradle, no one will deserve more of the credit than he.

Fare thee well, Sir Arthur. May you sail beyond the sunset, and fall between the stars, like dust.

A History Teacher's Case for Obama

2008-03-19T10:01:00.000-07:00

These videos are the product of a History teacher friend of mine, and I strongly recommend them for your consideration. While Man in the Street has endorsed no candidate since the withdrawal of John Edwards from the race, Mr. Ruane makes a powerful case for Obama, based on the historical record and the current parallels. Check it out.

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

2008-03-06T19:22:00.000-08:00

(be sure to see the Sick of it Day flyer)

Dear Senator Clinton:

We've been through a lot together, you and I. I first became aware of you in '92, when you said that thing about Tammy Wynette Standing By Her Man and baking cookies, and I have to tell you, I laughed like hell. It was wonderful to see you slap the little weasel down, and I instantly admired you.

After the inauguration, the knowledge that you would be chairing the universal healthcare plan development cheered me greatly, as your very obvious intelligence, energy, and committment to the idea struck me as the ideal combination of traits necessary for the task, and though it failed, it was a noble effort; but you must know it was ultimately crippled as much by its desire to preserve the insurance industry in a paradigm when they were no longer necessary as it was destroyed by the Republican PR effort, and their corporatist allies. My admiration grew.

Then it was off to the races, through the Scaife-financed campaigns to destroy your husband's Presidency, your marriage, your family, and all through it, you remained strong, committed, someone upon whom I could hang some hopes. My huge admiration now included a huge amount of sympathy, and respect, for your toughness as well as your capacity to forgive.

Your destruction of Rudy Giuliani in the run-up to your Senate election in 2000 was a joy, and gave us an unusually popular, powerful, Democratic Senator with a national constituency, such a natural choice for a Presidential campaign, it seemed to me you would hardly have to run a primary campaign.

Then there was that vote for war thing. Not so good-you've been studying politics for as long as I have and more, so you had to have been able to see as well as I did that the case for war was built on shadows. The not voting on the bankruptcy bill thing. In the first case, it looked like you were simply trying to avoid charges of weakness and soft-on-defense, and in the second, like you were refusing to stand up against the credit-card companies, at the expense of the poor and the people teetering on the last little edge of credit before financial ruin, to avoid making a powerful political enemy, and thus help preserve your future political viability.

Hardly a profile in courage, Senator.

The enormous store of goodwill you had built up with me carried us through these dark days, however, and I greeted your Presidential run with a mixture of hope, excitement, and impatience to be rid of the mad authoritarians who've seized our Executive Branch, and...sorry.
That's for another letter.

So now we're in the primaries, all inevitable, and nobody could ever have predicted they would use planes as...I mean, nobody could ever have predicted that that Obama guy would catch fire like that, huh? Freakin' nuts!

It must really frost you to have worked so hard, and been through so much, for so long, and be so close, and then to have that skinny upstart from Chicago just walk in and take it all away...and I'm sure you're pissed. You've done the time. You've paid your dues. You've earned the shot.
However, some of the things you seem willing to do to enforce that claim disturb me greatly, Senator. Two things, in particular.

First, the negative campaigning. Senator, this has got to stop. Now. Running a negative campaign against Obama now is simply doing opposition research for McCain and the Republicans. You know this-I'm sure you remember that it was Jerry Brown who first raised the allegations about Bill, you, and Rose Law in '92, not the Republicans. Running a negative campaign against another Democrat damages the party as a whole and our chances in November, and if you take the damage the Republicans have done to this country as seriously as I do, then you know that a Democratic victory in November is imperative to reversing the catastrophe of the Bush years. Therefore, every time you run an ad saying that you and McCain are qualified and Obama is not, you are endorsing McCain over Obama (just like Lieberman). If you would do that, not just once but repeatedly, you clearly do not understand that in this war for the future, it is more important-FAR MORE important- that the victor in November be a Democrat than that it be you. The issues and risks are bigger than any one person, and the cause far bigger-and this requires the sublimation of individual egos and senses of entitlement. For you to be willing to hamstring and destroy a fellow Democrat, who may yet be your party's nominee, for your personal benefit, is a reprehensible thing, and I implore you, please, to stop the negative campaigning. If the voters decide your ideas aren't as good as his, he deserves to win. You do no one any favors by waging a campaign of personal destruction against Obama.

All for one, and one for all.

Item number two is the small matter of the superdelegates. It was interesting hearing Tom Daschle on The Daily Show, talking about how the superdelegates were set up to be able to stop someone like Steven Colbert, who might fool enough people into voting for him to get the nomination-but that's not really true, is it, Senator? It's to stop another George McGovern from getting the nomination. Oh yeah, I remember the Anybody But McGovern movement at the Convention in Miami in '72. It was far less entertaining to hear you talking about the superdelegates on 3/5, to paraphrase:"I've raised a lot of new questions about my opponent in the last two months, and the superdelegates are available to make the decision that the voters would have made if they had had this information sooner."This sounds disturbingly like saying,"It's perfectly fine for the superdelegates to throw the nomination to me even if Obama gets more delegates, because everyone who voted for him wouldn't have if they knew what I was going to say about him." This is a fundamentally un-American system, where the party bosses, established pols, and incumbents can override the voter's choice and select the nominee themselves-it sounds a lot like what Hunter S. Thompson said about Mayor Daly: he saw nothing wrong with telling his son to go round up a bunch of thugs with bullhorns and kick the shit out of anyone who challenged his right to name the next Democratic candidate for President of the United States. I urge you not to allow this sort of sham to occur-it would be the worst possible thing, a frenzy of treachery and backstabbing, and street actions in Denver of a sort not seen here in many years.

I realize this letter is running a little long, Senator, so I'll summarize:

NO MORE negative campaigning, and the superdelegates vote with their citizens. Okay? All can still be salvaged, and forgiven, but you've got to work with us.

Oh-
Tell Bill to stay the hell off the Rush Limbaugh Show. Rush is the most hateful, vile, vituperative, and successful demagogue of the last thirty years, which you most certainly know-your husband, you, your daughter, for pity's sake, were and are targets for this repulsive thug, and for Bill Clinton to go on his show to appeal to Republicans to cross open primary lines and vote for you against another Democrat is a disgrace. Think about that. Your husband doing a get-out-the-Republican-vote effort on the Rush Limbaugh program, for you, after what he said and did, and is doing, to you, your family, and the nation, to this day. I am most suspicious of Rush's preferred candidates. He would gladly see you and Bill in prison, (and tried to help put you there) yet you accept his help and Bill inflates his ratings.

It is almost dazzling.

Senator, will you denounce AND reject Rush Limbaugh?

Come back towards the light, Senator. Come back to us. There's STILL TIME!!!

Oh, and please tell Monsanto to go Cheney itself. Immediately. You know the reason why.

All of my best wishes to you and yours,
RonD

Sick of it Day

2008-02-24T20:30:00.000-08:00

Croissant, Coffee, and Blood

2008-02-09T11:36:00.003-08:00

(This post is a reprint of an article that appeared in Uncle John's Great Big Bathroom Reader (1998) I would like to thank all at the Bathroom Reader's Institute for their gracious permission to reprint, and I encourage all to check out their site, as well as the entire series of Bathroom Readers. They are incredibly informative as well as entertaining, and are a rich source of important bits of forgotten history-such as the following.)

Croissant, Coffee, and Blood

This article was contributed by BRI member Jeff Cheek. It's a good example of the role serendipity plays in history (and our diet). At the very least, it should make ordering a cup of coffee and a croissant more interesting.

ON THE ROPES

From July 17 until September 12, 1683, the Austrian capital of Vienna was beseiged by a Moslem army commanded by the Grand Vizier, Kara Mustafa. Historians note this as the high-water mark of Islamic influence in Europe. If the Moslems had succeeded here, it's likely they would have taken all of Europe.
After Vienna was encircled, a Polish mercenary named Kulczyski volunteered to go for help. Disguised as a Turk, he made his way through enemy lines. He was discovered, but his linguistic ability made his cover story believeable. He escaped, made his way to Bavaria, and led an 80,000-man army back to Vienna.
The Viennese people had no way of knowing this-they were completely isolated as they beat back repeated Turkish assaults on their walled city. Their outer defenses were lost, but the beseiged city held out.

ROLL TO VICTORY

In the early morning hours of September 12, a Viennese baker was preparing his dough for the next day's bread. He noticed that a tray of delicate breakfast rolls were vibrating. Why? They were acting as a seismograph, transmitting vibrations made by Turkish pickaxes. The Turks, it turned out, had decided to tunnel up to Vienna's walls, then launch a final assault. The baker sent his son to warn the city fathers, and the Austrians rushed to the ramparts just in time to repel the Grand Vizier's forces.

Kulczyski and the Bavarian army arrived a few hours later, sealing the Moslem defeat. After a bloody, 15-hour battle, the Turkish army fled, abandoning their tents and stores of food. The latter included thousands of sacks of hard, black beans, which the Austrians began to burn, because they believed the beans had no value.

A NEW TWIST

When the heroic baker was told to name his own reward, he asked to become chief baker in the royal palace. The request was granted. To impress his new masters, and to commemorate their narrow escape from the Moslems, he created a new breakfast roll. The star and crescent had long been a symbol of Islamic faith, so instead of making ordinary round or oblong rolls, he rolled the dough out, then cut it into six-inch triangles. He rolled these from the top corner, creating a humpbacked center, with tapering horns. Just before baking, he twisted these horns down, forming a crescent.

Eighty-five years later, in 1770, a tactless Austrian princess named Marie Antoinette married Louis XVI of France. To ensure her supply of crescent rolls, she brought her own bakers from Vienna. The Royal French bakers were furious at this insult, but didn't dare protest. Instead, they fought back by creating a new and better breakfast roll. They retained the crescent shape to appease Her Majesty, but used pastry dough. Thus, the noble croissant was born.

BACK TO 1683

Meanwhile, back in 1683, Kulczyski was asked what reward he wanted for saving Vienna. His request was surprisingly modest: all he asked for was the sacks of black beans that the Austrians were destroying...and permission to open a business in Vienna.

Both were immediately granted.

It turns out that while making his way through the surrounding Moslem Army, Kulczyski had been served a sweet, black beverage, which seemed to restore his energy. It was coffee-virtually unknown in Europe at that time, but a staple for the Turks.

Kulczyski collected all the Turks' unburned sacks of coffee beans and opened the first coffee house in Eastern Europe. Soon all of Europe was drinking Viennese coffee, and Kulczyski became a wealthy and respected citizen of his adopted homeland.

( For me, since I first read this nearly ten years ago, breakfast has never been the same. Again, please be sure to stop by the BRI, and say hi from Man in the Street.)

A Surge of Misunderstanding

2008-02-09T11:36:00.002-08:00

Well, it seems there is no way to avoid wading into the "Surge" argument: on one side, as troops remain bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight, critics of the war and occupation point to the quagmire and say "the Surge has failed." On the other hand, war supporters and those with a vested interest in defending their position of advocacy point to the reductions in American combat deaths, civilian casualties, and IED encounters, and say, "the Surge is working."

Both are missing the point, one through a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between strategy and tactics in Iraq, and one deliberately, for political gain.

Contrary to what John McCain says, the surge is not a strategy. The surge is a tactic-an action designed to produce a tangible result-one tactic, within the larger framework of an integrated conceptual plan, comprised of multiple, scaffolded operations, all designed to accomplish a strategic goal-a strategy. In World War 2, Eisenhower's instructions were to "undertake operations directed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces." This is a strategic goal-how Ike chose to accomplish this-his tactics-were largely up to him, and it is important to note that a shift in tactics does not necessarily indicate a shift in strategy. The corresponding strategic goal in Iraq could be written as: "undertake operations designed to defuse the risk of an Iraqi civil war and create political reconciliation between the warring factions." The actual strategy would be the body of integrated operations (tactics), each built upon the success of the last, that accomplishes the strategic goal.

So, the tactics:

A surge in troop strength, along with a redeployment of forces from large concentrations into smaller, foward-operating bases, where American forces can react flexibly to local, fluid, conditions. Increased use of airpower to minimize US troop exposure. Making contact with Sunni insurgent groups and assuring them that they will be protected from a Shia-conducted genocide, and cementing the committment by supplying these same insurgent groups-so recently bombing, shooting, and killing Americans-with both money and weapons, in return for their cooperation. Using political pressure on the Shia-dominated Maliki government to reconcile with the Sunnis and the Kurds: the primary sticking points here being allocation of Iraq's oil wealth for the benefit of all Iraq, and protection of political rights for the Sunni and Kurdish minorities.

What has happened here is this: The combination of troop-strength increases and bribery has indeed improved security. US casualties, Iraqi civilian casualties, roadside-bombing, and IED incidents are all sharply down. What has failed is the reconciliation effort, easily seen in the absence of passage of any oil law and the lack of political rapproachment,-and, in the same way a tripod will collapse if a leg is removed, the US strategy in Iraq collapses, though two legs may stand tall.

On a political, Presidential-election level, the danger is this: by incorrectly lumping the entire strategy under the label "the Surge", the Democrats give John McCain and the Republicans the ability to say things like this:

"Post-surge troop strength levels have improved security. Since improved security was the goal of the surge, the surge is a success. Since we agree that the surge is the strategy in Iraq, our strategy in Iraq is therefore a success."
"What, you Democrats-you liberals-say? The Surge has failed? You are blind to reality by your own partisan bile. If the Surge has failed, how do you account for the reductions in casualties? You simply wish to raise the white flag of surrender. You are obviously dishonest, inept in international relations, and are clearly unqualified to be President."

To the layperson, this sounds convincing, and protestations to the contrary sound like the whining technicalities of someone caught in the act. Of course, the argument is predicated on the acceptance of "the Surge" as "the Strategy". No Democrat or war opponent should ever refer to the "Surge strategy". If the Democrats fall into that semantic trap, they lose the argument...and, quite possibly, the election.

No; the surge-and-bribery tactic has been a success, for now. It is the strategy that has failed.

It Hadda Be Playin' on a Jukebox

2008-02-09T11:36:00.001-08:00

(I am re-posting this from below, for those who may have missed it).
This is a poem entitled It Hadda be Playin' on a Jukebox, written by Allen Ginsberg in 1975. Performance by Rage Against the Machine.

It had to be flashin’ like the daily double.
It had to be playin’ on TV.
It had to be loud mouthed on the comedy hour

It had to be announced over loud speakers

The CIA and the Mafia are in cahoots

It had to be said in old ladies’ language
It had to be said in American headlines

Kennedy stretched and smiled and got double-crossed by lowlife goons and agents

Rich bankers with criminal connections

Dope pushers in CIA working with dope pushers from Cuba working with a big time syndicate from Tampa, Florida
And it had to be said with a big mouth

It had to be moaned over factory foghorns

It had to be chattered on car radio news broadcasts

It had to be screamed in the kitchen

It had to be yelled in the basement where uncles were fighting
It had to be howled on the streets by newsboys to bus conductors

It had to be foghorned into New York harbor

It had to echo onto hard hats

It had to turn up the volume in university ballrooms
It had to be written in library books, footnoted

It had to be in the headlines of the Times and Le Monde

It had to be barked on TV

It had to be heard in alleys through ballroom doors
It had to be played on wire services

It had to be bells ringing

Comedians stopped dead in the middle of a joke in Las Vegas

It had to be FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover and Frank Costello syndicate mouthpiece meeting in Central Park, New York weekends, reported Time magazine

It had to be the Mafia and the CIA together starting war on Cuba, Bay of Pigs and poison assassination headlines

It had to be dope cops in the Mafia who sold all their heroin in America
It had to be the FBI and organized crime working together in cahoots against the commies
It had to be ringing on multinational cash registers

A world-wide laundry for organized criminal money

It had to be the CIA and the Mafia and the FBI together

They were bigger than Nixon

And they were bigger than war

It had to be a large room full of murder

It had to be a mounted ass- a solid mass of rage

A red hot head

A scream in the back of the throat

It had to be in Kissinger’s brain

It had to be in Rockefellers’ mouth

It had to be central intelligence, the family, all of this, the agency Mafia

It had to be organized crime
One big set of gangs working together in cahoots

Hitmen

Murderers everywhere

The secret

The drunk

The brutal

The dirty and rich
On top of a slag heap of prisons
Industrial cancer
Plutonium smog
Garbage cities
Grandmas’ bedsores, fathers’ resentment

It had to be the rulers
They wanted law and order

And they got rich on wanting protection for the status quo
They wanted junkies.

They wanted Attica

They wanted Kent State

They wanted war in Indochina
yeah
It had to be the CIA and the Mafia and the FBI
Multinational capitalists

Strong armed squads

Private detective agencies for the oh so very rich

And their armies and navies and their air force bombing planes
It had to be capitalism
The vortex of this rage

This competition

Man to man
The horses head in a capitalists’ bed

The Cuban turf

It rumbles in hitmen

And gang wars across oceans
Bombing Cambodia settled the score when Soviet pilots manned Egyptian fighter planes
Chile's red democracy

Bumped off with White House pots and pans
A warning to Mediterranean governments
The secret police have been embraced for decades
The NKVD and CIA keep each other’s secrets

The OGPU and DIA never hit their own

The KGB and the FBI are one mind
Brute force and full of money
Brute force, world-wide, and full of money
Brute force, world-wide, and full of money
Brute force, world-wide, and full of money
Brute force, world-wide, and full of money.
It had to be rich and it had to be powerful.
They had to murder in Indonesia 500,000
They had to murder in Indochina 2,000,000
They had to murder in Czechoslovakia

They had to murder in Chile
They had to murder in Russia

And they had to murder in America.

Happy Birthday to Me

2008-02-09T11:36:00.000-08:00

Well, today is February ninth, and "Man in the Street" is one year old! (blows party horn)!!

I think this first year has been a very good year. While a low-traffic site, I am happy and proud to report that the site currently receives traffic from 51 countries:

Argentina-Australia-Belgium-Bermuda-Bolivia-Bosnia/Herzogovina-Brazil-Bulgaria-Cambodia-Canada-Chile-China-Denmark-England-France-Germany-Greece-Holland-Hungary-India-Indonesia-Ireland-Israel-Italy-Ivory Coast-Japan-Jordan-Lebanon-Lesotho-Malaysia-Mexico-Nigeria-Norway-Paraguay-Philipines-Poland-Portugal-Russia-Slovakia-Solomon Islands-South Africa-South Korea-Spain-Sweden-Switzerland-Thailand-Tonga-Turkey-United Arab Emirates-US-Vietnam

This is small potatoes for a big site, but for a one-man job, to me at least, this is thrilling. Thank you, all of you who have taken the time to read the site, and especially you regulars! I hope you consider the time well-spent. Another special thank you to all of my friends and fellow seekers at FireDogLake, who've been so kind, encouraging, funny, and committed. (blows party horn again!)

I am also happy to report the honor of some rather distinguished company. As regular readers of this site know, much of my work involves the intelligence community, military affairs, and their respective histories; therefore, I am happy and honored to report that distinguished visitors to Man in the Street include:

The Department of Justice
The Joint Forces Command
NASA
The USMC /San Diego
The Department of Defense / CIFA (Counterintelligence Field Activity)-Fort Revoir, Virginia
The USAF /Headquarters
Central Command/Iraq- Manassas, Virginia
DoD Network Information Center/CIFA-Columbus, Ohio
The Library of Congress
The US Navy Network Information Center

Thank you all. You cannot imagine how it feels for me, nobody special, just some guy sitting out here on the perimeter and wondering "why?" about a lot of things, to have had people in positions of authority over these matters take the time to read my thoughts. I thank you again. It is humbling and flattering, and I hope you, as well, consider the time spent here on the Street to have been well-spent.

(blows out birthday candles-all one of them).

Happy Birthday to Man in the Street. Thank you, all of you who've made the last year so much fun.

How to Start a Nuclear War by Accident

2008-01-28T20:25:00.000-08:00

(Hi all-great to be back, and thank you for your patience and support. I hope this post finds you well-)

The year was 1981, and the Cold War was heating up...again.

The Reagan Administration, inaugurated early that year, had abandoned the strategy of detente, of negotiated coexistence with the Soviet Union, in favor of a much more aggressive strategy of overt confrontation, building on the covert actions of the Carter Administration that had so successfully "drawn the Soviets into the Afghan trap." No longer would the US pursue peaceful reconciliation-the President had recently denounced the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire"-so henceforth, no matter where, the Soviets would find themselves confronted by covert operations or overt military force. This attitude was expressed in another way-psychological operations, or psyops. US bombers flying near their fail-safe points began breaking off and flying straight for Soviet territory, peeling off just before entering Soviet airspace, with the objective being to constantly test the Soviet air-defense network, observe the command structure in operation, and rattle the Soviet command authority. US naval maneuvers covertly approached Soviet naval bases, such as in the April-May '83 Pacific Fleet exercise where 3 US carrier battle groups comprising 40 ships, operating jointly with B-52's under AWACS control, came within 450 miles of a Soviet naval base in Kamchatka. The combination of rhetorical threat, increased military spending, and psyops apparently had the desired effect-the Soviets felt the danger of nuclear annihilation by a US first strike. Therefore, that year, the Soviets launched the largest peacetime intelligence operation in its history-Operation RYAN, the purpose of which was to determine whether the US was planning and preparing a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. From the CIA:

Three categories of targets were identified for priority collection. The first included US and NATO government, military, intelligence, and civil-defense installations that could be penetrated by agents or visually observed by Soviet intelligence officers...The second target category consisted of...consultations among the US and other NATO members. The third included US and NATO civilian and military "communications networks and systems." Rezidenturas were instructed to focus on...operations of US/NATO communications networks and in staffing levels. They also were ordered to obtain information on "the organization, location, and functioning mechanism of all forms of communications which are allocated by the adversary for controlling the process of preparing and waging a nuclear war"--that is, information on command-and-control networks."

So, the progression begins. A new US Administration takes office, makes bellicose statements about war and nuclear war, and launches a new round of anti-Soviet propaganda. This is followed by ramped-up military operations by the naval and air forces of the United States, specifically designed to unsettle and scare the Soviet leadership. The Soviets react by treating these as genuine threats-for which they can perhaps be understood, in view of what happened the last time they ignored the signs of impending attack (1941, when the Nazi invasion of the USSR-Operation BARBAROSSA-marched all the way to the gates of Moscow before being blunted by the Russian winter and Zhukov's counterattack). Operation Ryan is launched to determine America's motives, and compiles a checklist of triggers by which to judge whether the US intends to strike.

Events now begin to accelerate.

Shortly after the April-May exercise, where "...the Navy had demonstrated that it could...elude the USSR's large and complex ocean surveillance systems...Defeat Soviet tactical warning systems...[and] penetrate air defense systems.", Reagan announced the inception of SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars). This was answered by an angry Soviet Premier Yuri Andropov, who accused the United States of preparing a first-strike attack on the Soviet Union and asserted that President Reagan was

"inventing new plans on how to unleash a nuclear war in the best way, with the hope of winning it."...[SDI], Andropov said,"would open the floodgates of a runaway race of all types of strategic arms, both offensive and defensive. Such is the real significance, the seamy side, so to say, of Washington's "defensive conception." ...The Soviet Union will never be caught defenseless by any threat.... Engaging in this is not just irresponsible, it is insane....Washington's actions are putting the entire world in jeopardy..."

Three months later, in this tense atmospere, a Soviet fighter shot down KAL 007, an off-course civilian airliner which had twice violated their airspace, first by flying over Kamchatka, then Sakhalin Island. All 269 aboard were killed, and Reagan had this to say:

"...This was the Soviet Union against the world and the moral precepts which guide human relations among people everywhere. It was an act of barbarism, born of a society which wantonly disregards individual rights and the value of human life and seeks constantly to expand and dominate other nations..."

As one might expect, Yuri Andropov had a different view:

The sophisticated provocation, organized by the US special services and using a South Korean airplane, is an example of extreme adventurism in policy. We have given the factual aspect of this action a detailed and authentic elucidation. The guilt of its organizers--no matter how they twist and turn or how many false stories they put out--have been proved.

The Soviet leadership has expressed regret in connection with the loss of human lives that was the result of this unprecedented act of criminal sabotage. It is on the conscience of those who would like to arrogate to themselves the right to disregard the sovereignty of states and the inviolability of their borders, who conceived of and carried out this provocation, who literally the next day hurried to push through Congress colossal military appropriations and now are rubbing their hands in satisfaction.

The stage is set. Tensions are high. American air and naval forces are constantly probing the Soviet defences. Pershing II missiles have been placed in Europe. The Soviets are feeling the threat. The civilians of KAL 007 are dead. US forces had invaded the island of Grenada, a member of the British Commonwealth, and the resultant spike in communications between Britain and the US concerning this had been noticed by the Soviets...who noted it on their checklist.
All that remained was to fill in the rest of the Operation RYAN checklist...and the US would oblige two months later.

"...on the night of November 8 or 9...KGB Center sent a flash cable to West European residencies advising them, incorrectly, that US forces in Europe had gone on alert and that troops at some bases were being mobilized. The cable speculated that the (nonexistent) alert might have been ordered in response to the then-recent bomb attack on the US Marine barracks in Lebanon, or was related to impending US Army maneuvers, or was the beginning of a countdown to a surprise nuclear attack..."

This was the beginning of ABLE ARCHER 83, "a practice drill that took NATO forces through a full-scale simulated release of nuclear weapons." From wiki:

Able Archer 83 was a ten-day NATO Command post exercise starting on November 2, 1983 that spanned Western Europe, centred on SHAPE's Headquarters situated at Casteau, north of the Belgian city of Mons. The exercise simulated a period of Conflict escalation, culminating in a coordinated nuclear release.[1] It incorporated a new, unique format of coded communication, radio silences, participation by heads of state, and a simulated DEFCON 1 nuclear alert.

You have to love that timing. From CNN:

"Able Archer" was designed to test NATO's nuclear-release procedures. It called for temporary radio silence and a shifting of NATO codes and frequencies as the pretend alerts changed from conventional to nuclear...But the Soviets apparently believed that "Able Archer" was merely cover for an imminent NATO attack. U.S. "elint," or electronic intelligence, observed at the time a number of nuclear-capable planes being placed on standby at East German bases. The original plans for "Able Archer" had called for the U.S. president, vice president and Joint Chiefs of Staff to take part. But Robert McFarlane, the U.S. national security adviser, thought the Soviets might consider such activities provocative -- and decided the top officials would not be included in the exercise.
"The sudden disappearance of such figures, the disruption of usual schedules and the swift movement of the military high command around Washington were precisely the signs the Soviet intelligence had been told to look for under RYAN...".

After all, we don't want to be provocative when we're practicing for nuclear war, right? From wiki:

The Soviet Union, believing its only chance of surviving a NATO strike was to preempt it, readied its nuclear arsenal. The CIA reported activity in the Baltic Military District, in Czechoslovakia, and it determined that nuclear capable aircraft in Poland and East Germany were placed "on high alert status with readying of nuclear strike forces".[9][32] Former CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry goes further, saying he suspects that the aircraft were merely the tip of the iceberg. He hypothesizes that — in accordance with Soviet military procedure and history — ICBM silos, easily readied and difficult for the United States to detect, were also prepared for a launch.

Was the danger real? From current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, again via wiki:

"Information about the peculiar and remarkably skewed frame of mind of the Soviet leaders during those times that has emerged since the collapse of the Soviet Union makes me think there is a good chance — with all of the other events in 1983 — that they really felt a NATO attack was at least possible and that they took a number of measures to enhance their military readiness short of mobilization...I don't think the Soviets were crying wolf. They may not have believed a NATO attack was imminent in November 1983, but they did seem to believe that the situation was very dangerous. And US intelligence [SNIE 11-9-84 and SNIE 11-10-84] had failed to grasp the true extent of their anxiety.[38]

In other words, yes. The danger was real.

Within a few weeks after ...ABLE ARCHER 83, the London CIA station reported...that the Soviets had been alarmed about the real possibility that the United States was preparing a nuclear attack against them. [National Security Adviser Robert] McFarlane...discounted them as Soviet scare tactics...and told Reagan of his view in presenting them to the President. But a more extensive survey...in 1984 by CIA director William Casey...had a more sobering effect. Reagan seemed uncharacteristically grave after reading the report and asked McFarlane, "Do you suppose they really believe that? ...I don't see how they could believe that--but it's something to think about."

Reagan would reflect on this period later in his memoirs, again via wiki:

Many people at the top of the Soviet hierarchy were genuinely afraid of America and Americans. Perhaps this shouldn't have surprised me, but it did…

During my first years in Washington, I think many of us in the administration took it for granted that the Russians, like ourselves, considered it unthinkable that the United States would launch a first strike against them. But the more experience I had with Soviet leaders and other heads of state who knew them, the more I began to realize that many Soviet officials feared us not only as adversaries but as potential aggressors who might hurl nuclear weapons at them in a first strike…

Well, if that was the case, I was even more anxious to get a top Soviet leader in a room alone and try to convince him we had no designs on the Soviet Union and Russians had nothing to fear from us.[45]

The destruction of the world would have to wait for another day.

Checking In From the Ruins

2007-12-28T12:06:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone...I've been offline for several weeks now, after a good old-fashioned Central Florida-style lightning strike at my place went right through the surge suppressor and destroyed my TV, cable box, cable modem, and computer, as well as much of the cable itself. Interestingly, the DVD player escaped. Repairs and replacement are underway, and I hope to be back up to speed within a week or two. Until then, I encourage all to browse the archives, where there are such nuggets as the strange tale of Southern Airways Flight 49, an actual analysis of fascism beyond the level of a buzzword, a brief history of the Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, and Eisenhower's personal opinion of Texas-oilman-style neoconservativism (though he didn't use that particular word). Some of my particular favorites can also be found here:

In Case You Missed These, and,

In Case You Missed These, Part 2.

In the meantime, thank you for your continued patronage and support, and I hope all of you are enjoying a wonderful holiday season no matter the holiday!

(Thanks to Glenda and Matt for the use of their computer, and so many other things as well.)

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on Executive Power

2007-12-10T14:24:00.000-08:00

By way of the efforts of the keeper of the Congressional Hearings schedule and frequent FDL stalwart Selise, we have, from former US Attorney and current Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, this very succinct exploration of the President's concept of his own authority, as claimed by Bush's Office of Legal Counsel:

Here's the second part:

This is what we're dealing with-the Beast continues to take shape.

Digital Life and Evolution?

2007-12-07T13:11:00.000-08:00

Several years ago, an article was published in Discover magazine about the Digital Life Laboratory, an ongoing project at Michigan State University. Simply put, the lab, now known as the Digital Evolution Laboratory(the "DevoLab") , studies digital "worlds" inhabited by digital organisms, whose code occasionally mutates. These mutations are sometimes beneficial, enabling the organism to process numbers more efficiently and thus reproduce more readily. Thus, all the mechanisms of natural selection are in place- and the scientist can then study the evolutionary process in detail and document every step of the process, including the evolution of complexity. From the article:

These are digital organisms-strings of commands-akin to computer viruses. Each organism can produce tens of thousands of copies of itself within a matter of minutes. Unlike computer viruses, however, they are made up of digital bits that can mutate in much the same way DNA mutates.

The computer program that makes this possible is called Avida.

..."Avida is not a simulation of evolution; it is an instance of it,” Pennock says. “All the core parts of the Darwinian process are there. These things replicate, they mutate, they are competing with one another. The very process of natural selection is happening there.

The program has also dealt with such questions as Why Sex?, Why Are There More Than One Species?, and, of course, Complexity:

...The shortest equals program Ofria could write is 19 lines long. The chances that random mutations alone could produce it are about one in a thousand trillion trillion.To test Darwin's idea that complex systems evolve from simpler precursors, the Avida team set up rewards for simpler operations and bigger rewards for more complex ones. The researchers set up an experiment in which organisms replicate for 16,000 generations. They then repeated the experiment 50 times...In 23 of the 50 trials, evolution produced organisms that could carry out the equals operation. And when the researchers took away rewards for simpler operations, the organisms never evolved an equals program.

Oh, but wait, it gets even better...
In the original experiment, the organisms evolved the equals routine in 23 out of 50 trials. But when the experiment was run with a limited supply of numbers, all the trials produced organisms that could carry out the equals routine. What's more, they needed only a fifth of the time to do it. Ofria suspects that the difference comes from the fact that several species are now evolving in the experiment rather than just one. More species mean more opportunities for success.
This is an extremely exciting, and even somewhat disquieting, development. Read the article, and ponder well the implications, which are potentially staggering.

Digital Life that can evolve. Wow.

Fascism, Anyone?

2007-11-29T14:22:00.000-08:00

(Haaa! Ron has learned how to embed video!)

I first saw this video about two years ago, here. Happy to be able to present it here for your consideration.

An Iran-Contra Reflection

2007-11-29T08:37:00.000-08:00

This travesty of democracy I remember well. The US government selling weapons to Iran, then using the proceeds to fund a a guerrilla army trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, all in violation of the law. Then when they were caught red-handed, they lied, shredded, perjured, and pardoned themselves. Sound familiar? It should-some of the same people are responsible for the current mess in which the US finds itself, both in its resource wars abroad and in its transition to a police state at home. People like Oliver North (seen in the video), John Poindexter, Elliot Abrams, and Robert Gates.

First, let us deal with the common charge of Republicans that the Iran-Contra affair was a partisan witch hunt. The Independent Counsel who investigated this scandal was Lawrence E. Walsh, former judge, Deputy Attorney General under Eisenhower-and a Republican.

To discuss this, some summary is appropriate. From the Report of the Independent Counsel Executive Summary:

The Basic Facts of Iran/contra
The Iran/contra affair concerned two secret Reagan Administration policies whose operations were coordinated by National Security Council staff. The Iran operation involved efforts in 1985 and 1986 to obtain the release of Americans held hostage in the Middle East through the sale of U.S. weapons to Iran, despite an embargo on such sales. The contra operations from 1984 through most of 1986 involved the secret governmental support of contra military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua, despite congressional prohibition of this support.

The Iran and contra operations were merged when funds generated from the sale of weapons to Iran were diverted to support the contra effort in Nicaragua. Although this ``diversion'' may be the most dramatic aspect of Iran/contra, it is important to emphasize that both the Iran and contra operations, separately, violated United States policy and law.2 The ignorance of the ``diversion'' asserted by President Reagan and his Cabinet officers on the National Security Council in no way absolves them of responsibility for the underlying Iran and contra operations.

Just so everyone knows what we're talking about here. Let's look at some highlights from the timeline:

Oct. 5, 1986: Nicaraguan soldiers shoot down a contra-resupply plane; Eugene Hasenfus, an American, survives.
Nov. 3, 1986: Lebanese newspaper Al-Shiraa reports that the United States secretly sold arms to Iran.
Nov. 6, 1986: President Reagan denies arms were sold to Iran.
Nov. 13, 1986: President Reagan acknowledges weapons were sold to Iran but denies that the arms were sold to win the release of American hostages.
Nov. 25, 1986: White House discloses contra diversion from the Iran arms sales.
Dec. 19, 1986: Walsh appointed Independent Counsel.
March 11, 1988: McFarlane pleads guilty to withholding information from Congress.
March 16, 1988: North, Poindexter, Secord and Hakim indicted on conspiracy to defraud the United States and other charges.
Jan. 31, 1989 to May 4, 1989: North trial, resulting in three-count conviction.
April 7, 1989: Secord is indicted on nine additional charges of obstruction, false statements and perjury.
Nov. 8, 1989: Secord pleads guilty to making false statements to Congress.
March 5, 1990 to April 7, 1990: Poindexter trial, resulting in five-count conviction.
Sept. 6, 1991: Clair E. George is indicted on 10 counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction.
Oct. 7, 1991: Elliott Abrams pleads guilty to withholding information from Congress.
June 16, 1992: Former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger is indicted on five felony charges of obstruction, perjury and false statements in congressional and Independent Counsel investigations.
Dec. 9, 1992: George is found guilty on two counts of false statements and perjury before Congress; sentencing is set for February 1993.
Dec. 11, 1992: White House informs Independent Counsel that President Bush has kept diaries relevant to Iran/contra, which have never been produced to investigators.
Dec. 24, 1992: President Bush pardons Weinberger, Clarridge, McFarlane, Fiers, Abrams and George. Independent Counsel denounces pardons.

President Ronald Reagan and Vice President (and former CIA director) George H.W. Bush both avoided possible prosecution by claiming ignorance. From the Walsh Report:

...Reagan stated that he did not monitor the details of the Iran arms sales and had no specific knowledge of such key matters as North's role or Secord's role. The President said he did not authorize any profits from the sale of arms to Iran and that he was unaware that there were excess proceeds and that some of them were diverted to aid the contras.
...on November 3, 1986, the President convened a series of meetings with his top national security advisers and permitted the creation of a false account of the Iran arms sales to be disseminated to members of Congress and the American people.4 These false accounts denied the President's knowledge...during a discussion of the need for funds to keep contras in the field until an expected congressional appropriation became available, President Reagan said: ``Can't some of Ollie's people help out?'' ...[Reagan]:``These [the contras] are people who are fighting for democracy and freedom in their country. And here there's no question about my being informed. I've known what's going on there...And to suggest that I am just finding out or that things are being exposed that I didn't know about -- no. Yes, I was kept briefed on that. As a matter of fact, I was very definitely involved in the decisions on the support to the freedom fighters. It was my idea to begin with.''
...By July 1992, when Reagan agreed to a final, extensive interview with Independent Counsel, it was obvious that the former President truly lacked specific recollection of even the major Iran/contra events which took place in 1984-1987.

Reagan would be diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease two years later. What about Bush 41's role?

...In an early interview with the FBI in December 1986 and in the OIC deposition in January 1988, Bush acknowledged that he was regularly informed of events...These statements conflicted with his more extreme public assertions that he was ``out of the loop''...Before Bush's election as President, the investigation was primarily concerned with the operational conspiracy and the careful evaluation of the cases against former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter and Lt. Col. Oliver L. North of the National Security Council staff, prior to their indictment... On December 24, 1992, twelve days before former Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger was to go to trial, Bush pardoned him...President Bush also pardoned former National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, former CIA Central American Task Force Chief Alan D. Fiers, Jr., former CIA Deputy Director for Operations Clair E. George, and former CIA Counter-Terrorism Chief Duane R. Clarridge. The Weinberger pardon marked the first time a President ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the President was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case.
The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete...In issuing pardons to Weinberger and five other Iran/contra defendants, President Bush charged that Independent Counsel's prosecutions represented the ``criminalization of policy differences.''

From 2001 to 2003, John Poindexter headed the DARPA Information Awareness Office, as the father of the Total Information Awareness Program. As of this writing, Elliot Abrams has the job title "Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy" in the administration of GW Bush. Oliver North has a high-profile position as an administration mouthpiece on their house organ, FOX News. Other Iran-Contra figures inside the current syndicate-in-charge include John Negroponte, and Otto Reich. Aided and abetted by these and others, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W.Bush, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush-criminals all-have cut a swath of destruction through our country and our world of such a magnitude as can hardly be overstated. We can likewise thank Gerald Ford for making the pardon of criminal Republicans politically acceptable, establishing the idea that Republicans only commit crimes for noble, patriotic reasons. A recent example of this is the prosecution of Cheney Chief of Staff and serial perjuror "Scooter" Libby, convicted by a jury and commuted by Bush, all the while being lionized in the right-wing propagandasphere. Like those other cases, as well as the current torrent of scandal pouring from the Bush 43 White House, the Iran-Contra scandal represents democratic government being usurped and reduced to Kabuki theatre, while the covert-operations apparatus, under the direction of an Imperial Unitary Executive, goes about their daily business, which is assuming the functions of government.

What's a Little Espionage Between Friends?

2007-11-11T09:23:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time, 1987 in fact, there was a case which at the time seemed to largely disappear among the revelations of the criminal actions of numerous Reagan administration officials, and quite probably Reagan himself, in what is quaintly remembered as the "Iran-Contra" scandal. A retrospective on I/C is certainly called for, but not here and now. Current events to which we will refer momentarily force a reappraisal of that "other" case, a case involving US nuclear submarine technology, espionage, and the ultimate loyalty of business to profit over loyalty or patriotism.
The case to which I refer involved the Toshiba Corporation, and its illegal sale of the machinery necessary to produce the nearly-silent propellors of the US nuclear submarine fleet to the Soviets.
From wiki:

"...illegally selling CNC milling machines used to produce very quiet submarine
propellers to the Soviet Union in violation of the CoCom agreement, an international embargo on Western exports to East Bloc countries. The Toshiba-Kongsberg scandal involved a subsidiary of Toshiba and the Norwegian company Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk. The incident strained relations between the United States and Japan, and resulted in the arrest and prosecution of two senior executives, as well as the imposition of sanctions on the company by both countries.[1] The US had always relied on the fact that the Soviets had noisy boats, so technology that would make the USSR's submarines harder to detect created a significant threat to America's security. Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania said "What Toshiba and Kongsberg did was ransom the security of the United States for $517 million."

Yep. Japanese industry selling US propellor-machining technology, to the Soviets, during the Cold War, with immediately-observable results: the Soviet Akula-class submarines immediately afterward became much quieter.

So why should this come to mind now, twenty years later?
Headlines, and stories, like this one from the Cleveland Leader, are the reason why:

"Chinese Sub Pops Up Undetected in U.S. Navy Exercise"

So, evidently what happened is, a Chinese submarine recently surfaced in the middle of a US carrier battle group during fleet exercises. From the Leader:

"...when a Chinese submarine popped up undetected in the middle of a Pacific Ocean exercise, dangerously close to the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, American military chiefs were left dumbfounded and red-faced...At least a dozen warships are used to provide a physical guard, and using advanced technology... By the time the Chinese sub surfaced, the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missles at the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, a 1,000ft. supercarrier with 4,500 military personnel onboard."

So we're clear on what happened here, correct? A Chinese submarine, a diesel-electric boat of the type America phased out in the late '50's-early 60's, successfully evaded all surveillance aircraft, all destroyer, cruiser, and attack-sub screens, all of the combined, integrated sonar technology of the most advanced anti-submarine technology ever, penetrated the perimeter of a carrier task force, and then revealed itself by surfacing in the middle of the battle group.

Okay, I will grant that as yet I know of no ironclad linkage between the Toshiba Corporation's treachery and the appearance of a Chinese sub which is quiet enough to compromise a US Navy battle group-any statistician will tell you that correlation is not causation-but the converse is certainly true: the Chinese sub could not have done what it did without that technology, either stolen or developed independently. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask, "Would it have been quicker and cheaper for the Chinese to simply buy this technology, or pay in both money and time to develop it independently?"

Of course they bought it. The only question is from whom.

First, General van Riper shows how an assymmetric battle plan could put a carrier task force on the bottom. Now we have the Chinese announcing to the world, through a stunning demonstration, their ability to defeat state-of-the-art US Navy anti-submarine technology.
That the US Navy is losing the overwhelming technological superiority it has enjoyed for thirty years seems obvious: the question and debate will be what to do about it. Technology is the force-multplier that enables the US to project power across and essentially dominate the oceans of the world, and without that advantage, those US aircraft carriers are suddenly converted from symbols of pride and power into the world's largest mobile targets.
Another calculation to consider is, what is the strategic goal of the Chinese in carrying out this mission? No Chinese submarine skipper is going to throw away his career and very likely his life by doing such a thing on his own authority-therefore it can be safely assumed that this mission was conceived and ordered at the highest levels of the Chinese government. Why? I believe a correct analysis of this event will identify it as a psyop. A psychological operation-to demoralize the US, to bolster China's international standing, and through embarrassing the US Navy, to claim a certain practical equivalence. It may also function as an advertisement for Chinese military hardware, as China could possibly gain an increased share of the world's military-hardware market by providing effective, cheaper alternatives to US and Western hardware. It also serves as a warning to the US, phrased something like this: You cannot protect those carriers. Think about that before you decide to interfere in Chinese affairs.
Other than technology and protection of trade routes, what is the intersection point of the interests of China and the US Navy?

Taiwan, of course.

A couple other points-1), it should be obvious at this point why it is dangerous to let corporations make policy, and 2), excepting Taiwan, no nation on Earth should fear the Chinese as much as Japan, as a result of Japanese conduct of the war against China from 1933-1945 and their subsequent whitewash of the history. In light of these facts and the ongoing decline of American power in the region, it would amaze me at this point if Japan were NOT working on a nuclear-weapons program.

This does not bode well for the future of the Empire.

Update: After the Toshiba case became public and the Congress voted to ban Toshiba's sales in the US, who do you suppose was the spin doctor the Reagan Administration sent out to suddenly reverse course and claim the case was no big deal?

Give up?

Richard Armitage.

That's right-the same Richard Armitage who would go on to infamy as the original source for Robert Novak's leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity and status. I guess one just can't keep a good traitor down.

Time to Stand and be Counted

2007-11-03T11:15:00.001-07:00

"By the power and authority invested in me as the Commander in Chief under Article II of the US Constitution, I hereby proclaim..."

2007-11-03T11:15:00.000-07:00

(This post was adapted ((from the declaration of emergency rule by Pakistani President and Army head Pervez Musharraf)) by Alaskan blogger and frequent FDL commenter Ed*ard Teller, and cross-posted here with the gracious permission of he and FireDog Lake. My thanks to them, as well as to BobbyG for posting the original in the first place. I have edited only the sign-off title. If you've ever wondered what a Declaration of Martial Law in the United States would look like, this is it.)

Proclamation of Emergency declared by UNITED STATES Commander-In-Chief, Field Marshall George W. Bush, on Saturday, October 25, 2008:
“WHEREAS there is visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and the banding together of some militant groups have taken such activities to an unprecedented level of violent intensity posing a grave threat to the life and property of the citizens of the United Sates of America;
WHEREAS there has also been a spate of attacks on State infrastructure and on law enforcement agencies;
WHEREAS some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism thereby weakening the Government and the nation’s resolve and diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace;
WHEREAS there has been increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy, adversely affecting economic growth in particular;
WHEREAS constant interference in executive functions, including but not limited to the control of terrorist activity, economic policy, price controls, downsizing of corporations and urban planning, has weakened the writ of the government; the police force has been completely demoralized and is fast losing its efficacy to fight terrorism and Intelligence Agencies have been thwarted in their activities and prevented from pursuing terrorists;
WHEREAS some hard core militants, extremists, terrorists and enemy combatants who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released. The persons so released have subsequently been involved in heinous terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life and property. Militants across the country have, thus, been encouraged while law enforcement agencies subdued;
WHEREAS some judges by overstepping the limits of judicial authority have taken over the executive and legislative functions;
WHEREAS the Government is committed to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and holds the superior judiciary in high esteem, it is nonetheless of paramount importance that the Honorable Judges confine the scope of their activity to the judicial function and refrain from judicial activism;
WHEREAS an important Constitutional institution, the Supreme Court, has been made entirely irrelevant and non est by a recent order and judges have, thus, made themselves immune from inquiry into their conduct and put themselves beyond accountability;
WHEREAS the humiliating treatment meted to government officials by some members of the judiciary on a routine basis during court proceedings has demoralized the civil bureaucracy and senior government functionaries, to avoid being harassed, prefer inaction;
WHEREAS the law and order situation in the country as well as the economy have been adversely affected and trichotomy of powers eroded;
WHEREAS a situation has thus arisen where the Government of the country cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution and as the Constitution provides no solution for this situation, there is no way out except through emergent and extraordinary measures;
AND WHEREAS the situation has been reviewed in meetings with Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Abrams, House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, and with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Boylan, the Chiefs of the Armed Forces, and the owners of Blackwater Industries;
NOW, THEREFORE, in pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said meetings, I, Field Marshall George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America’s Armed Forces, and newly controlling partner of Blackwater Industries.
2. I hereby order and proclaim that the Constitution of the United Sates of America shall remain in abeyance.
3. This Proclamation shall come into force at once.

Field Marshal George W. Bush, President and Commander-in-Chief of the United Sates of America.

The Nuclear Second Amendment, Explored

2007-11-02T11:59:00.000-07:00

(A few weeks ago, I asked a question here, and promised to revisit the question in some depth. Hope you find it worthwhile! Also, a big shout-out to Edmonton-Go Oilers!)

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in total. One of the areas where I part company with many of my comrades in the liberal blogosphere is in the interpretation of this Amendment. The courts have held, with the support of many on the left, that this Amendment does not protect an individual right of individual citizens to keep arms, but a "collective" right, which is satisfied by the existence of a national militia, i.e., the National Guard. I don't know exactly what a "collective" right is, but it is my contention that all of the Bill of Rights-including the Second-protect individual rights-indeed, this is the very reason for their existence. The flaw in the reasoning behind the "collective" argument is easily perceived if this reasoning is extended to the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights-can one imagine the uproar that would ensue if the Unitary Executive, or his minions on the Supreme Court, were to pronounce that freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, of religion, freedom from search and seizure without warrants, habeus corpus, and so forth, were not individual rights at all, but "collective" rights of the society, which no individual could claim. Yet this reasoning is routinely embraced by both the courts and a large part of the citizenry when it pertains to the Second. As I have stated before, I know the courts have ruled otherwise-I just happen to believe they are wrong.

So, you ask, why bring this up? Doesn't the National Rifle Association have this area of debate solidly staked out?

I bring it up because I believe, fervently, in philosophical consistency. There are not many things in this world I hate more than double standards-one standard will do just fine, thank you very much.

Since the end of the Second World War, and the founding of the UN, we have heard much about collective security and the community of nations. Among the governing structures of the present day is this thing called the NPT-the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which limits, among signatory nations, the possession of nuclear weapons to those nations already having them at the time: the US, the USSR (now Russia), China, Britain, and France-coincidentally, or maybe not, all members of the UN Security Council. The NPT has three facets: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peaceful use. In this context, we will consider the NPT to be Gun Control, on a global scale. Among nations not signatory to the NPT we find some familiar names-Israel. North Korea. India. And probably the biggest proliferator of them all-Pakistan. Every single one with covertly-developed nuclear weapons. Clearly, these are those citizens who've bought themselves what we used to call a "Saturday Night Special"-a cheap, untraceable, concealable, usually stolen firearm, bought for nefarious purposes by people not legally entitled to own one. Again, black-market, criminal weapons, obtained covertly, the classic response to gun control measures.

One of the lessons of the Axis of Evil appellation applied to Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea when seen through the lens of the conquest and occupation of Iraq is the value of a credible deterrent. Consider Iraq, the subject of an arms embargo-a successful gun-control effort-and thus largely disarmed. Nothing..with the results being thousands of American dead and wounded, tens or even hundreds of thousands of dead or wounded Iraqis, a decapitated, ruined state, with all the human suffering that implies. North Korea? Quite a credible deterrent, on the other hand-a huge military, with massive amounts of artillery and missiles, backed up by nuclear weapons. Yes-a BIG gun. The end result? A Stalinist dictator, Kim Jong-Il, happily ensconced in his capital, with no fear of US military action whatsoever. The obvious lesson? If you fear a US invasion, build nuclear weapons as fast as you can. Of course, it also helps that they have no oil to speak of.

Which brings us back to the subject of Iran.

There is no nation on Earth with more reason to fear a US invasion than Iran. The US has had a festering grudge against Iran for twenty-eight years as this is written, and, with the launching of the War on Terror in 2001 and the War in Iraq in 2003, has found itself at the very top of the Axis of Evil target list. I for one have seen no convincing evidence whatsoever that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon-but I know this: If I were Iran, and Bush/Cheney were rattling their sabers at me daily, sending SpecOps forces into my country, and making ominous statements as to what is "not acceptable"-if I had just seen Saddam Hussein, America's former ally, who incidentally killed three-quarters of a million Iranians at America's behest, have his head nearly torn off by a gruesome, long-drop hanging, all while being tormented by Sadrites and America's new Iraqi allies-if I had seen all this, and I lived in that neighborhood, and I had vast oil reserves-man, I would be building a nuke as fast as humanly possible. And why not? We have ignored the first tenant of the NPT, non-proliferation, when it suits us, specifically with regards to the covert development of nuclear weapons by what Noam Chomsky has called "the regional superpower"-Israel (incidentally, the only nation in this discussion to have actually attacked the US). The second facet of the NPT calls for disarmament, which the US is clearly in violation of, as our drawdowns of older nuclear technology are constantly updated by newer, more accurate, more reliable designs-which continues, as seen in the US announcement of the development of nuclear "bunker-busters". Our moral authority as a stable, reliable, force for stability and restraint in the world is gone, destroyed as certainly as the rubble of what used to be much of Iraq (and Afghanistan). Combine that with the casual discussions and even promises to use nuclear weapons against Iran being bandied about by the Republican Presidential candidates, and the case is made-were I Iranian, I would see nothing as more important.

And why not?

If we reconsider the Second Amendment, but writ large?

"A well-regulated deterrent being necessary to the security of a State, the right of the nation to keep and bear nuclear weapons shall not be infringed."

What good conservative could argue with that? If gun-control is bad for the citizen of the nation, because it leaves him disarmed and helpless, isn't it also bad for the citizen of the World, the Nation, for the same reason?And please, spare me the argument that rights are forfeited by criminal behavior. Any nation that has illegally invaded Iraq, run Iran/Contra, the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, sponsored countless terrorist and sabotage operations all over the world right up until the present day and harbored the terrorists involved, ad nauseum, has no moral authority to accuse, or business accusing, other nations of being dangerous terrorist states.

One standard will do just fine, thank you very much.

The Nuclear Second Amendment

2007-10-23T22:11:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone. To my new and returning friends, I thank you-and you that are new, I encourage you to poke around! There is much to find you may not expect.

I will explore this idea in depth in an upcoming post, but for now:

Tonite, on Keith Olbermann, I heard Valerie Plame Wilson say positively that Iran was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. She is the first person I have heard say that whom I believe is credible.

Okay........

If the Second Amendment is good for individuals, why shouldn't Iran be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon?

Back soon.

Update: as promised, I give you-The Nuclear Second Amendment, Explored.

Wrong Then, Wrong Now-Echoes of Imperialism

2007-10-11T21:55:00.000-07:00

The speech these excerpts are from was given on the floor of the Senate by Senator George F. Hoar, Republican from Massachusetts, in 1902. The subject was US conduct in the Philipines, taken from Spain four years earlier, and the larger question of US imperialism in general. It has that eerie ring of timeless truth, and I was amazed at how applicable to the current US occupation of Iraq this eloquent denunciation of imperialism seems today. To make my point, I am going to make some edits-I am going to substitute "Iraq" for "Philipines" or "Cuba", adjust the dollar figures, times, and context to the present-all edits will be boldened and italicized-and ask you to judge for yourself whether the comparison is just. And also to go read the whole thing for yourselves.

"...You also, my imperialistic friends, have had your ideals and sentimentalities. One is that the flag shall never be hauled down where it has once floated. Another is that you will not talk or reason with a people with arms in their hands. Another is that sovereignty over an unwilling people may be bought...and another is that sovereignty may be got by force of arms, as the booty of battle or the spoils of victory. "
"What has been the practical statesmanship which comes from your ideals and your sentimentalities? You have wasted 500 billions of treasure. You have sacrificed nearly four thousand American lives-the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of the people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest, bringing their sheaves with them, in the shape of other thousands of sick and wounded and insane to drag out their miserable lives, wrecked in body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of numerous people the emblem of sacrilege...and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the water torture...Your practical statesmanship has succeeded in converting a people who three years ago were ready to kiss the hem of the garment of the American and to welcome him as a liberator...into sullen and irreconciliable enemies, possessed of a hatred which centuries cannot eradicate...And now, what have we to say?...we repealed the Bill of Rights? We changed the Constitution from a document of eternal righteousness and justice, resting on the consent of the governed, to a doctrine of brutal selfishness, looking only to our own advantage...We converted a war of glory to a war of shame. We vulgarized the American flag...We inflicted torture on unarmed men to extort confessions. We put children to death. We devastated provinces. We baffled the aspirations of a people for liberty..."
No, Mr. President. Never! Never!
Let us at least have this to say: "We, too, have kept the faith of the fathers. We took Iraq...we delivered her from her generations-long bondage. We welcomed her to the family of nations. We set...an example never beheld before of moderation in victory...We returned benefit for injury, and pity for cruelty. We made the name of America beloved in the Middle East as it is in the West. We kept the faith with the Iraqi people. We kept faith with our own history. We kept our national honor unsullied. The flag we received without a rent we handed down with out a stain."

Now, I ask you-is that not a speech that could have been given today? Is that not a speech that should have been given today?

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"-George Santayana

First the Surrender, Then the Alliance

2007-09-28T11:24:00.000-07:00

Well, with the broadcast of the Ken Burns documentary "The War" this week, it seems like we've been bombarded with images and shows about World War 2, and I suppose it should be encouraged, as more knowledge of the history of the war is a good thing...but this saturation research and myth-making also makes it very difficult to make an original contribution to the pool of knowledge, as there are very few aspects that have not been considered, and dissected, ad nauseum.

However, I think I may have found one.

From the diary of Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister, and one of Hitler's closest and truest confidants, comes this report of a conversation with Hitler in September, 1943, as reported by William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich(pg.1011):

The English don't want a Bolshevik Europe under any circumstances...Once they realize that...they have a choice only between Bolshevism or relaxing somewhat toward National Socialism they will no doubt show an inclination toward a compromise with us...Churchill himself is an old anti-Bolshevik and his collaboration with Moscow today is only a matter of expediency.

It seems the Nazis believed that the Western Allies would, in the end, make an alliance with them rather than see the Soviet Union overrun all of Europe. Hitler himself had raised this possibility earlier, in conversation with Grand Admiral Doenitz, commander of the Kriegsmarine (the German Navy), and Hitler's eventual successor as Fuehrer, so it seems to have been simmering in his mind for at least several months. So...was this a pipe dream? Another one of the Feuhrer's flights of fantasy? A desperate construct that would allow him to deny reality for a little while longer?
Let's look at the record.
On April 25, 1945, units of the US Army 69th Infantry Division met forward elements of the Russian 58th Guards division on the Elbe River, the previously-agreed line of demarcation separating the Western and Russian forces. Eisenhower was bitterly criticized for not racing to, and taking, Berlin before the Russians could arrive-but Ike was loath to expend American lives in taking territory that would have to be given to the Russians anyway, a decision many American soldiers who were thus permitted to live no doubt appreciated. Hitler would shoot himself on April 30, as the Red Army approached the Chancellery, and Germany would surrender unconditionally on May 7th.
So, what happened then?
Well, Germany was divided into four occupation zones, American, Russian, British, and French. The American, British, and French would later combine their zones into West Germany, while the Russian Zone became communist East Germany. The Nuremburg war-crimes trials went forward, and Jodl, Keitel, Ribbentrop, and many more top Nazis either met the hangman, committed suicide, were imprisoned-or escaped (It is a post for another time to consider the cultural factors that made it possible for so many former Nazis to find refuge in South America after the war).
From 1949 to 1952, the High Commissioner for Germany was John J. McCloy. Beginning in 1950, McCloy had stymied French efforts to locate war criminal Klaus Barbie, who was cooperating with US intelligence agencies in the fight against communism, by hiding him at a safe house in the American Zone, and later arranging for Barbie's passage to Bolivia with new identity in hand. McCloy had also recruited Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's former chief of military intelligence for the Eastern front and war criminal, to build a new German intelligence agency, which Gehlen did, partly by hiring hundreds of former Nazis, including some known to be war criminals (like Franz Six). The Gehlen Organizatin would be turned over to the West German government in 1956 as the core of the Federal Intelligence Service-which Gehlen would continue to head. McCloy would go on to commute the sentences of others convicted at Nuremburg, including arms maker Alfred Krupp (who would have his fortune and companies returned to him) and financier turned slave-labor-beneficiary Frederich Flick, whose property was also returned. This wholesale release of convicted Nazi war criminals led former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt to write McCloy, asking him, "Why are we freeing so many Nazis?"

There were other operations afoot. As early as 1950, the GDR had begun secretly rearming, a process that accelerated with the formation of NATO and West Germany's acceptance into it in 1955. The German Army, the Bundeswehr, would become the backbone of NATO forces in Europe. High-ranking Wehrmacht officers involved with NATO would include General Hans Speidel, the anti-Hitler conspirator, who, among those involved in the July 20th Plot, would survive the war (almost alone), and Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, architect of the victory over France in 1940, who would serve as the unofficial Chief of Staff and advisor to the Bundeswehr, and whose annual birthday party would become a major annual NATO gathering.
So...let's summarize:
Germany is conquered, defeated. The war ends. The war criminals are imprisoned or executed. And then...and then, it seems, former Nazis were pardoned, restored to their industries and fortunes, put in charge of the German intelligence services, or spirited to the US to work on the space program (or to South America). Germany was then rearmed, had billions of dollars of aid money poured into it, and was enlisted, through NATO, in the Cold War fight against Russia.

Thus, we come full circle. It seems Hitler and Goebbels had been right about one thing-the Western Allies would make alliance with them in the fight against the Soviets. Though their understanding of the dynamic that would lead to the Cold War is spot-on, their miscalculation, one of many, was in failing to understand that they must first surrender.

First the surrender, then the alliance.

The Shape of the Beast

2007-09-12T19:58:00.000-07:00

Until recently, as every Civics student knows, the US government was a three-branch system. According to our beloved Constitution, it still is-but in the world of practical reality, our system has been slowly dismantled over time, as Presidents from both parties have strove to amass more power for the Executive Branch, and as the others, particularly the Congress, have ceded their authority to the Executive.
Let's examine this, shall we? Starting with some rather interesting aspects of the Patriot Act:

Sec. 106...give[s] to the President…the power to confiscate and vest in the United States the property of enemies of the United States during times of national emergency...The new provision permits the President...to confiscate property of any foreign country, person, or organization involved in hostilities or attacks on the United States. This section also permits courts…to consider classified evidence.

But wait a minute...doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment say something about that?

14th Amendment, Section1: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

"Classifed evidence"? Obviously, the "right to confront one's accusers", also mandated under the Constitution, has seen better days.

There are three conclusions one can infer from this: being declared an enemy of the State by the President constitutes"due process of law"; the 14th Amendment has been repealed; or the US is not a "State". Choose your poison.

It has long been a hallmark of American jurisprudence that it is better to err on the side of caution, as stated in the long-standing dictum of famed English jurist William Blackstone, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," that has been drilled into law students in the US for more than two centuries. One expression of this has been the use of limited access to information, in that a department of the government with legal access, i.e. warranted access to information, can only share this information with departments so authorized. The clearest example of this is the historic relationship between the CIA and the FBI. The CIA is (was) legally prohibited from running operations inside the US, or sharing information about US citizens it might have obtained by extra-legal means with domestic law enforcement. This seems, to me, eminently reasonable: if one is concerned with the civil liberties of the US population, one must legally enjoin a criminal intelligence agency from turning its weapons on the citizens it is supposed to protect.

Now wait a minute, you say. A criminal intelligence Agency? Isn't that a bit strong?

News flash for you. Covert ops contrary to law is what the CIA is for. If you doubt this, I will refer you to former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies, recalling an incident in the White House during the Clinton Administration. The White House had intelligence on the location of Osama bin Laden, and the decision was being undertaken as to whether to attempt to kill him. Late to the meeting, Vice President Al Gore was hurriedly advised that an attempt was feasible, but contrary to international law. Gore's response? "Of course it's against international law-that's why it's covert!"
So this is definitely not an agency a freedom-loving person wants operating inside the US, right?

Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information …to authorize disclosure of foreign intelligence information obtained by such interception…to any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, national security, national defense, protective or immigration personnel...

According to your Patriot Act, then, all US foreign-intelligence agencies-not just the CIA, but the DIA, the NSA, CIFA, and who knows how many others-can share any and all info they may collect with any and all domestic law enforcement. Speaking of CIFA, what do we know?
From the Washington Post:

CIFA is a three-year-old agency whose size and budget remain secret. The Pentagon's newest counterterrorism agency...is carrying out intelligence collection, analysis and operations within the United States and abroad, according to a Pentagon fact sheet on the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, provided to The Washington Post. In a new move to centralize all counterterrorism intelligence collection inside the United States, the Defense Department this month gave CIFA authority to task domestic investigations and operations by the counterintelligence units of the military services. CIFA manages the Pentagon database that includes Talon reports, consisting of raw, unverified information picked up by the military services on suspicious activities that could involve terrorist threats...the Talon database contained reports on peaceful civilian protests and demonstrations that should have been purged long ago under Defense Department regulations.

In one fell, breathtaking swoop, then, all US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, both foreign and domestic, are fused into one monolithic bureau, which includes intelligence, law enforcement, electronic surveillance assets beyond imagination, and the Pentagon's secret-police agency, operating without any meaningful oversight, and bound by no law. This was forseen and planned from the outset, as can be demonstrated by the fact that the budget of our intelligence community is classified, in spite of the Constitutional mandate that all departments publish a budget. Hmmmm. A monolithic state-security secret-police apparatus that covers both foreign and domestic issues and recognizes no legal restrictions?

We've seen that before, in the Soviet Union. It was called the KGB.

It doesn't stop there, not by a long shot. One of the effects of the digital revolution of the last thirty years has been the explosive growth of the "paperless economy", where the vast majority of financial transactions in the US are electronic, either credit or funds-transfer. One facet of this is the records are preserved forever in cyberspace, and the totalitarians who've seized our government made sure to exploit this, in their assault on the Republic:

Sec. 314. Cooperative efforts to deter money laundering …to encourage cooperation among financial institutions, financial regulators and law enforcement officials, and to permit the sharing of information by law enforcement and regulatory authorities with such institutions… This section also allows…the sharing of information among banks.

So...got that? All intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, banks, financial institutions, , and regulatory authorities are all working from the same pool of info-which means, really, that they are all one.

The Beast continues to take shape.

Since no Unitary Executive worthy of the name would ever let himself be constrained by something as piddling as warrants or the law, we have the rather ironically-named "Protect America Act". You are by now getting a sense of how these things go, so what is contained herein should not be much of a surprise.
From the ACLU:

The so-called “Protect America Act of 2007,"...allows for massive, untargeted collection of international communications without court order or meaningful oversight by either Congress or the courts. It contains virtually no protections for the U.S. end of the phone call or email, leaving decisions about the collection, mining and use of Americans’ private communications up to this administration... The...Act allows the Attorney General (AG) to issue program warrants for international calls without court review...The law is silent on how to treat... American phone calls and emails — leaving the administration to decide how to collect, store, datamine and use Americans’ private communications...The AG is directed to submit to the intelligence court the procedures by which this new program will operate. However, the report...does not require the AG to explain how it treats Americans’ calls or emails when they are intercepted. The court will have no information about how extensive the breach of American privacy is, nor the authority to remedy it...The new law requires the AG to report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees twice a year. But those reports will only contain information about activity in violation of the AG’s own secret guidelines...The AG does not have to report on how many Americans’ calls it has tapped, incidentally picked up or how many Americans have become targets...

And there is still more. One of the most insidious aspects of this rush to a police state has been the programs which have been stopped, like Total Information Awareness (the brainchild of convicted Iran-Contra conspirator John Poindexter) and the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act", aka "Patriot Act II", only to have their most nefarios characteristics resurface under other names. Again, from the ACLU:

The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen...until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201). Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312). The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129). Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible. (sec. 103). Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202). The reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism would be expanded individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure...A new defense would be created, shielding wiretappers acting without a court order from prosecution, so long as they had authorization from senior officials (sec. 106). The bill would deny the press, and the public, access to the following important information: Arrests of terrorism suspects who have not been charged with a crime (sec. 201) - which might include material witness detainees, immigration detainees, or Americans citizens or others labeled "enemy combatants" by the President; Grand jury proceedings in connection with terror investigation (sec. 206); Public information about health and safety hazards of chemical and other plants (sec. 202).

Damn it all. One, exhausted and shocked, might think they would be quite finished by now-but, sadly, no. Now we turn to the two aces, the guarantee of victory over lawful, principled, republican(small r) government, lying face up for all to see, the Military Commissions Act and the Executive Order. Having neutralized the Congress, the Executive may now complete the destruction of that other check, the Judiciary, with this from the Military Commissions Act, via wikipedia:

...(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

If accused of a crime, does one have a right to his day in court, as a free citizen?

No. You do not.
You simply must be declared an enemy combatant, and an enemy combatant is whoever the President or Secretary of Defense says it is. Don't think so? Ask Jose' Padilla, an American citizen recently convicted on all charges despite being held incommunicado and tortured for three years under that very status. Once one is declared an enemy combatant, all rights under the US Constitution are void. Be very clear on this.

Finally, plugging whatever holes may be left in this wall of police-state and Enabling-Act legislation is the Executive Order, as used to confiscate assets (from EO 13048-7/17/07):

“…all property and interests in property of the following persons...are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have...provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for...such an act...or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by...any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that...there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 6....The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law.
[signed:] George W. Bush
THE WHITE HOUSE

If they decide you are obstructing Administration policy in Iraq, this means you.

And in case you're wondering what your detention may be like, I will refer you the Commander Guy again (from EO13440-7/20/07):

(b) I hereby determine that a program of detention and interrogation approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3...

What follows is a long list of prohibited acts, ironic in the extreme since the entire world has seen pictures of US personnel doing everyone of these thing with very little repercussion.

And finally, one activating the State of Emergency that the Enabling Legislation calls for (from EO 13441-8/1/07):

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, determine that the actions of certain persons…to infringe upon or undermine Lebanese sovereignty contribute to political and economic instability in that country and the region and constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

So, thus is a political crises in a small nation far away exploited for the benefit of would-be tyrants at home, and the edifice of tyranny complete. The Shape of the Beast is plain for all to see. A huge, malevolent cephalapod, with countless, dark tentacles of surveillance, terror, and the inhumanity of unchecked AUTHORITY, intruding into every aspect of your lives and thoughts, being sure to wave a flag while trumpeting patriotic songs and propaganda. For you in the US, I have but one question: Do you still think you live in a free country? Do you REALLY???

Dien Bien Phu, Iraq

2007-08-28T08:30:00.000-07:00

As a student of military history, I am fascinated by the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the 1954 battle that destroyed the French colonial forces that participated and effectively ended the First Indochina War. This is, to me, one of the arch-examples of an old saying: Amateurs talk tactics, while professionals talk logistics. This makes an ideal backdrop for a comparison to Iraq, where the viability of the American presence will also be determined by logistics.

I have written at length about the war and ongoing occupation in Iraq, generally from a strategic view. For those interested, I would recommend Green Zone Tet, All a Part of the Plan?, and The Logic of Withdrawal. I don't really believe that Tet will be the model for what's going to happen in Iraq, however. Tet was a large number of simultaneous nationwide attacks on US and ARVN forces, bases, and interests, including the Embassy in Saigon, and the start of what became the largest main-force engagement of the Vietnam War, the Battle of Hue. Tet, for the US, was largely a military victory, while at the same time, a crushing PR and psychological defeat. No-the model will still come from Vietnam, but from 14 years earlier, in a place called Dien Bien Phu, way up in what was later North Vietnam.

In GZT, I noted that one of the key deficiencies in the armaments of the Iraqis resisting the occupation is a lack of heavy artillery. They also lack air, armor, and naval support-but there is a key difference. The Iraqi Air Force will not be a challenge to the USAF for many years. But artillery-tough, durable, easily maintained-is equally lethal, no matter which way it is fired. My assessment of the Iraqis' lack of artillery may have been overly optimistic, as I have since been assured by a credible source that this is not the case-that in fact, when the depots were looted after the fall of Baghdad, the first thing that disappeared was the heavy artillery. In World War 2, care to hazard a guess as to which weapon system was the greatest killer on the battlefield?

Artillery. Over 60% of battlefield casualties in WW2 were inflicted by artillery.

The battle of Dien Bien Phu was launched on March 13,1954. The French had re-occupied a deserted complex in November of '53, and rebuilt and refitted it. Incorporated were 2 airfields and extensive defensive fortifications, including artillery swept kill-zones, minefields, and trenches. The French also had overwhelming air superiority, which was necessary for aerial supply, as DBP was a relatively remote, isolated base, surrounded by mountains, jungle, and a hostile population, and thus vulnerable to being cutoff. The French strategy was based on the belief that they could draw Viet Minh General Giap and his PAVN forces into a European-style main-force engagement and destroy them with superior firepower, while also employing DBP as a staging area for air operations and harassment raids.

Though the geography differs, Baghdad, for the Americans, presents similar tactical problems. The Green Zone is a heavily defended region built along the Tigris River, deep in the enemy capital and thus inherently isolated, surrounded not by vegetation but by concrete jungle, and five million or so hostile natives. The Zone is also separated from its main artery of air supply-Baghdad Intrenational Airport. Interdiction of air traffic into Baghdad would be a grievous blow to the US effort in Iraq, just as it was to the French effort in DBP.

In the months prior to the battle, Giap had devoted his energies to logistics. Using mostly human transport and by disassembling the heavy weapons and artillery pieces, PAVN forces had, unknown to the French garrison, moved the better part of four infantry divisions and a heavy weapons division into the hills and jungle around Dien Bien Phu. Gun emplacements were camouflaged and defended by antiaircraft guns, and forces totalling approximately 50,000 soldiers and half that many support troops encircled DBP by early March.

Something conceptually similar seems like an obvious strategy for the Iraqi resistance. If a strong nationalist leader-let's say Muqtada al-Sadr, since he already commands the largest militia in Iraq (the Mahdi Army)-were to begin assembling weaponry, specifically, artillery and antiaircraft assets, in two concentric rings around the Green Zone. Concealed antiaircraft positions around the Baghdad airport can be emplaced, to both attack air traffic and protect the mortar positions that will be used to crater the runways. Move as many infantry units into the western neighborhoods as possible, and assemble the field guns inside of buildings where they can be easily concealed. Sudden, massed fire will be key here, so patience and preparation are the paramount considerations. Another important consideration will be sufficient numbers, so the Mahdi would be well-served by raising an irregular militia from among the million residents of Sadr City, which is situated east of the river and thus almost ideally situated to close the bridges into the Green Zone.

Giap launched his assault in the classic manner, with a massed artillery barrage followed by human wave assaults. While eventually successful in taking some of the outer defenses, the casualty numbers were frightful , and Giap abandoned this method. It was replaced by digging trenches and earthworks, continually moving closer, while the concealed artillery ceaselessly pounded the defenders and runways, firing far more rounds than the French had ever even faintly believed possible. French artilleryman were later to estimate that during the battle, Dien Bien Phu was hit by over 30,000 105mm rounds alone.

The Iraqis could announce their assault with a surprise, saturation artillery barrage on the Green Zone, the airport, the road running between the two, and the bridges. The object of this will be to cut off all resupply of US forces, no matter what method is used. The Iraqis will skip the human waves, and instead attempt to rapidly exploit the shock and surprise of the artillery assault by using the buildings in place of Giap's trenches. Maneuver in small units, avoiding direct contact with the Americans until they reach jumping-off points as close to them as possible. This is critical: close-in fighting is the only way to nullify the overwhelming US superiority in airpower, as the US will be unable to attack the insurgents without hitting their own forces. Coordinated car bombings and suicide bomber attacks aimed at US forward operating bases will fix those troops in place, and the outer ring of beseiging Iraqis will continue to bombard the approach lanes and defend the inner ring, while the inner ring presses its assault. By dropping selected buildings, US armor can be funneled into favorable avenues of approach, upon which artillery is already targeted. As local commanders pull troops out of the peripheral areas to attempt to relieve Baghdad, those areas will fall, and thus attacking the US in Baghdad will also create defeat for the US in other areas.

At this point, the US has to make a fateful decision, one that will be studied no matter how it is decided. Does the US:

-attempt to evacuate the Green Zone by air?
-attempt to break the seige by saturation bombing the residential areas around the Green Zone, with the certain, horrific civilian casualties that would ensue?
-attempt to hold their positions and be supplied from the air, a la Stalingrad?
-attempt to hold their positions and negotiate a cease-fire/withdrawal agreement?
-attempt a mass breakout, a withdrawal under fire toward Kuwait, using the USAF to "plow the road", so to speak?

An aerial evacuation is Saigon in '75 all over again, plain and simple. With the airport closed, any mass evac by air would necessitate leaving behind most, if not all, armor and heavy guns.
This is also a politically unacceptable option for the US, as there are many US politicians still smarting from the US withdrawal from Vietnam, still feeling the shame of that defeat, and the idea they would allow that to happen again is unthinkable. There are US politicians who would see that Army exterminated, rather than evacuated by helicopters.

Likewise, a strategic bombing campaign in Baghdad would make the US a pariah, with all that entails. It seems to me, then, that the US strategy will be a combination of the remaining three:
The US will attempt to hold position, while resupplying from the air, and trying to negotiate a cease-fire/withdrawal agreement. While this is happening, US troops will be destroying all non-essential equipment, performing hurried repairs and essential maintenance, forming columns and convoys, and distributing fuel and ammunition.

The signal for the breakout to begin will be B-52 strikes south of the Zone, along the west side of the Tigris. This will give the withdrawing troops a protected flank on the east, and avoid the Sadr strongholds (like Sadr City) SE of the Zone. It is important to remember at this point that the US Army is NOT roadbound-GPS gives the Army the ability to take the shortest route, even through the desert, and this will likewise help avoid ambushes and traps along the way. These convoys will be provided with air cover from Apache and Spectre gunships, operating under Rules of Engagement that declare an "exclusion zone", i.e., a free-fire zone, within a mile or so of either side of the route. It is traditional in the US military to drop leaflets warning civilians away from projected action sites, but in this case, the leaflets would simply tell the insurgents where to plant their IED's. Therefore, they will be foregone, with the corresponding sacrifice of Iraqi civilians who have the bad luck to get in the way. In view of their available firepower, it is reasonable to assume they will make it to Kuwait, but they will take casualties, and will create widespread devastation in the process.

Those rearguard forces which stay in the Zone will have to be evacuated by helicopter. As Iraqi forces pour into the Zone from the west, the rearguard will fall back towards their evac zone, where they will form a "hedgehog" in an attempt to defend against both the Iraqi forces to the west and the Iraqis coming into the Zone from across the remaining eastern bridges. The rearguard will take a horrific toll on the attacking Iraqis, but they too will take casualties, and there will be nightmarish fighting and death on world-wide TV. Helicopters will be shot down. Prisoners will be taken, some tortured and executed, and by both sides. Some Americans will escape in boats on the Tigris, and the final folly of combining regular US troops with mercenaries will be revealed, as fighting breaks out over access to the rescue helicopters between troops, mercenararies, and Iraqi collaborators desperate to escape . The forces attacking from the west, comprised of the Mahdi Army and the large numbers of regular Iraqi Army and police who have joined them, will meet the Sadrists now pouring across the bridges from the east, and, as the collaborators are shot, there will be joy and celebration in the burning, chaotic former Green Zone.

When the battle of Dien Bien Phu ended on May 8, 1954, General Giap and his victorious Viet Minh forces took around 6,500 prisoners, many of whom did not survive capture and internment. The Iraqis will not take nearly so many prisoners...but their fate will be just as short, and their end as violent.

Withdraw when you can, not when you have to.

I would like to acknowledge the work of and thank Colonel J.D. Morelock, whose excellent short history of the battle of Dien Bien Phu appears in "The Army Times Book of Great Land Battles (1994)"

In Case You Missed These, Part 2...

2007-08-11T13:47:00.000-07:00

Greetings! Again, if you're new to the site, welcome and thank you, and here are some earlier posts you may find worthwhile:

The Logic of Withdrawal
A History of Violence
How to Succeed in Journalism
Full Spectrum Resistance
The Grand Wager and the Flash Point
Kurdistan 2.0
The Challenge of Paul Van Riper
The Nightmare Scenario, pt.1: The Political Metastasis
The Nightmare Scenario, pt.2: Redeployment, The Election, and the War
The Nightmare Scenario, pt 3: The Great Unraveling
The Phoenix Program
Falling Off the Cliff in Vietnam
In Case You Missed These…
…earlier material from Man in the Street.

Again, thank you for being here, and welcome to Man in the Street.

My Favorite Death

2007-08-03T10:04:00.000-07:00

Since I started this blog, it has been my policy generally to avoid discussing my personal life and business. I have done this for a number of reasons, but two are foremost: privacy and credibility. I don't remember who said that thing about the personal computer being to personal privacy what the machine gun was to horse cavalry, but I have no doubt it's true. The other is credibility: I would like my ideas to be judged on their merits, rather than on who writes them. My general fields of interest, as anyone who reads this site knows, are history and politics; however, the recent heart attack of one old friend, and the long-term terminal disease of another, have had me contemplating death, and the philosophy that underlies how we think about it. In particular, I would like to explore the conflict between how we are condemned to die, versus how we can choose to die.
It seems to me inarguable that the instinct to survive, at all costs, regardless of situation, is the native reaction hard-wired by millions of years of evolution. The strength of this impulse is demonstrated every day around the world, from battlefields and prisons, to the terminally-ill laborer who struggles to work one more day, to hospitals and nursing homes. The tales of those who have persevered through impossible circumstances in the face of certain, inevitable death are both legion and exemplary, and they have served well as both object lessons and moral guideposts. I take nothing away from them or their struggles, however, their struggle is not my focus. My focus, then, is rather than preserving life at whatever cost, is, when and why is it appropriate or even desirable to die?

It seems to me there are two answers: to alleviate hopeless suffering, or in the service of a cause greater than oneself.

The alleviation of constant suffering is the easy one. My father, when terminally ill, once told me that his continued existence was a sentence of daily torture. While this experience, along with several others, taught me that assissted suicide should certainly be an option, I also am sympathetic to those in the medical community who feel deeply the conflict between the desire to alleviate a patients' suffering versus their Hippocratic oath to "first, do no harm." This was the irony of Dr. Kevorkian to me: Why would one want a suicide machine designed by someone sworn to preserve life? Perhaps there should be a non-Hippocratic specialty: a "mortalogist", if you will, whose job it is to help people die with a minimum of suffering. Be that as it may, the niche is there, and anyone who is in or has a family member in the medical field knows that physician-assissted suicide is a long-established practice: it simply is not discussed, and its' existence is officially denied.
The willful death is far more nebulous. Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg, a student of death if ever there was one, once said that often the only way one can give meaning to one's death is by choosing the time and means, as opposed to passively waiting to be overwhelmed by fate.
I like that idea: the notion of spitting in the eye of Death, of making hash of his well-laid plans by clocking out before He has his way, appeals very much to my deeply-held disrespect for authority in general. The best example of this approach recently, to my mind, was the suicide of beloved author Hunter S. Thompson, who chose to make a very Hemingwayesque exit (about which Thompson had written at length). Thompson, like Hemingway with his shotgun, beset by numerous health conditions and physically unable to live as he chose, instead took a .45 automatic and made his final statement about the importance of quality of life issues. He is sorely missed, but how can one not admire the purity of his committment to living as he chose?
The death for a cause is the one that really fascinates me. I'm sure there is a whole generation of would-be suicide bombers out there who would say, "well, duh", but these are the people, both virtuous and evil, of whom myth is made: From Samson pulling down the Temple, to King Leonidas of Sparta at Thermopylae, to those Russians who died at Stalingrad rather than disobey Stalin's order #227, the order to take "not one step back". Or consider the words of Stalin's opponent, Adolf Hitler, (in a contest of devils if ever there was one) after German Field Marshal von Paulus had surrendered at Stalingrad: "What is life? It is the Nation-the individual must die anyway. Here is this man (von Paulus) who...could have ascended into national immortality, but instead he prefers to go to Moscow!" Or consider the hordes of young people who have willingly enlisted in causes greater than themselves through history, and the great characters of fiction, from Homer to Shakespeare to the present, whose tales have been told and re-told through the years. In considering a worthy death, one of these fictional characters often occurs to me, the character Gard from Stephen King's "The Tommyknockers". For those who've not read it, this character carries a plate in his head which immunizes him from the gas and radiation emanating from an unearthed alien ship. In the end, pursued by alien hordes and injured, he makes the final committment to fate: using a fire to delay his pursuers, he makes it to the now-unearthed ship, powers it up, and heads for the stars, leaving the bands of mutants behind, where they are rounded up. The final scene is Gard, lying on the floor of the saucer, hemmorhaging his life away, while watching the Earth get smaller and smaller through the viewport as the ship heads out into space.

That, Street, is Death With Style.

Sometimes, it's more important than whether You live or die.
Sometimes, my friends, you have to steal the saucer. Regardless of the consequences.

The Nightmare Scenario, Part 3.

2007-07-28T09:14:00.000-07:00

The Great Unraveling

(This post is third in a series about how current political trends could lead the nation and the world off the edge of a cliff. Earlier installments are here):
Part 1. Part 2.

As the invasion of Iran really begins to roll, the price of oil breaks $100/barrel. The resultant economic shock in the US causes a recession and the beginning of contingency planning for a rationing system. The US strategy in Iran becomes clear: make no effort to attack or seize Tehran, but go straight for the nuclear sites, with the Navy and USAF bombing Iranian positions in order to keep them fixed in place and unable to counter the US ground attack. After the cross-Iraq border assault has drawn the bulk of Iranian strength into western Iran, a complementary assault into Eastern Iran is launched by US forces in Afghanistan, again aimed toward known or suspected nuclear sites, with the USAF paving the way. In protest of the use of Afghanistan as a launching site, EU and NATO forces begin withdrawal from Afghanistan. Having either destroyed or otherwise neutralized the western Iranian nuclear sites, the forces in the west continue a relentless march eastward in a redux of Sherman's March, pushing toward a linkup with the US forces in the east. In a strategy dubbed "The Road to Afghanistan", the now-joined forces cross the border back into Afghanistan, leaving behind a trail of devastation, suffering, and refugees.
Meanwhile, the departure of US forces from Iraq removes the last inhibition of the Turks, who launch a massive invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan, and of the Shia militias in Iraq, who launch a war of religious/ethnic cleansing against the Sunni minority, which heralds the beginning of all-out civil war in Iraq. The inability of Sunni Saudi Arabia to protect or defend the Sunni minority in Iraq leads to massive unrest in Saudi Arabia and a harsh government crackdown, leading to more unrest.
The price of oil breaks $150/barrel.
In the US, the legal theory authorizing the use of so-called "Free-Speech Zones" is expanded into the media, with all critical media restricted to certain times, channels, or websites.
In Northern Iraq, after fierce fighting, the Turks occupy all of Iraqi Kurdistan, followed by the inevitable ethnic cleansing of the Kurds from Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. After the destruction of the Sunnis in Iraq, the Shia governments of Iran and Iraq announce an alliance, while US forces in Afghanistan mass on the border of Pakistan.
Facing huge uprisings and riots, the royal family Saudi Arabia flee the country, after which the Kingdom's security forces lay down their arms in the absence of anyone to defend. The government of Saudi Arabia is taken over by an alliance of Sunni ayatollahs.
US forces in Afghanistan invade Pakistan from the north and west, encircling Waziristan and seizing or bombing known or suspected nuclear sites, as well as bombing Pakistani Army and Taliban positions. In what is now almost an item of minutiae, Osama bin Laden is killed in the fighting.
With Pakistan engaged, India launches invasion of Kashmir, occupies it, and begins ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the region.
The EU and South Korea request the removal of US troops from their territory, and talks on Korean reunification begin, while in Pakistan the fighting continues. China dumps all of it's US debt, causing the US dollar and economy to crash, and then launches a full-scale assault on Taiwan, as the Japanese start crash general rearmament and nuclear-weapons programs, and the leftist governments of South America begin talks of confederation, on the model of the EU. Here, it is Brazil with the secret nuclear weapons program.
In Central Asia, Russia, watching the US Army and able to read a map, invades and occupies the Caspian Sea oil basin.
Oil breaks $200/barrel.
Unemployment, shortages, rationing, and class divisions in the US create unrest, and a severe police response, while in Pakistan, the US completes the destruction of Waziristan, and begins withdrawal to Afghanistan. In Taiwan, desperate fighting continues between PRC and ROC forces. China warns the US and Japan to stay out of it, and threatens Japan further. US troops withdrawn from overseas bases, over 700 of them, begin returning home, to a nation bankrupted and suffering, though militarily still strong.
US troop positions in Afghanistan are destroyed by a Pakistani nuclear weapon, carried by a SCUD missle, and launched from Pakistan. The ensuing US retaliatory strike destroys the launch site and surrounding area with a nuclear warhead launched from a submarine. The President orders the strategic conventional bombing of Pakistan.
Terrorist attack by a domestic resistance group inside the US. Government declares martial law, and begins roundups of aliens, dissidents, and anyone else marked as an "enemy combatant", to be interred at the KBR-built "detention centers". US Army units which survived the Pakistani nuclear attack are encircled and destroyed in Afghanistan.

The dream of every political theoritician from the Enlightenment till now is thus extinguished.

The Nightmare Scenario, Part 2.

2007-07-27T07:15:00.001-07:00

Redeployment, The Election, and the War

So, the exploration I began in The Nightmare Scenario, Part 1 of what appears to be an increasingly likely Future History (apologies to Heinlein) continues thus:

As the '08 campaign season heats up, the White House announces that their Iraq strategy has been vindicated, the "surge" an unqualified success. Included is the first in a series of what appear to be draw-down redeployments: the transfer of US troops from the urban centers and interior of Iraq to the border areas, which allows the American people a "light at the end of the tunnel" in Iraq, and boosts the fortunes of Republican Presidential candidates. Tactically, this redeployment also allows for the isolation of Syria, the separation of Kurdish and Turkish forces in the North, the refit and repair of US equipment, and the massing of US forces on the border with Iran.
Meanwhile, at home the RNC is busy in the states who have Republican Secretaries of State( the state officials responsible for the conduct and certification of elections), recruiting or compromising these officials by whatever means neccessary, and appointing them to be either the State chair or co-chair of the Republican Presidential candidate's campaign, as they did in FL in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, and having compliant US Attorneys laying the groundwork for voter-fraud and voter-suppression operations in heavily contested areas.
During this period, news reports, official leaks, and ongoing terror operations in Kashmir and India serve as the basis for an enhanced media campaign against the government of Pervez Musharraff in Pakistan, the end result being either he is marginalized, his government falls, or he is assassinated. The ascension of an Islamist state in Pakistan is the final justification needed for the foundation of the justification for war with Pakistan.
Election Day '08.
The combination of a bottomless well of corporate cash, a compliant news media, and a vitriolic campaign of personal destruction against the Democratic Party is not enough to win the day: in the end, it is the threats, intimidation tactics, misallotment of voting machines, voter-roll purges, and certification of bogus election results that enable the Republicans to steal the '08 election, resulting in the election of a Republican President and a Republican takeover of the Senate, while the in the House the Democrats retain a small majority. Shortly after Inauguration Day, Senator Joe Lieberman announces he is switching parties and Justice Anthony Kennedy announces his impending retirement, giving yet another Supreme Court nomination to a Republican President.
Shortly thereafter, after a typically hyperbolic and fundamentally dishonest media campaign, the US attacks Iran with carrier-based fighter-bombers, cruise missles, B-52's flying from Diego Garcia, and USAF installations in Iraq, while the army massed on the border of Iran storms across the border in another of its characteristic high-tech blitzkriegs, seizing large areas of Iran in the initial onslaught as the Iranians strategically withdraw and leading to predictions of a quick American victory.

Legislation to reinstate a military draft is introduced.

Continue to The Nightmare Scenario, Part 3.

The Nightmare Scenario, Part 1.

2007-07-27T07:15:00.000-07:00

The Political Metastasis

So, what happens if all legal attempts to reign in this Administration fail?

Think about it. The vapidity of George Bush, the malevolence of Dick Cheney, the incompetence of Condi Rice, and the contemptuous dishonesty of Alberto Gonzales, all glued together by the opinions of John Yoo and David Addington, into a peculiarly American form of neo-fascism. All this-and no one is guilty of anything. No one is fired, impeached, imprisoned, or otherwise held accountable-for anything. The end result of all the efforts at bi-partisan cooperation and appeasement is the foundation of the New American Order. The things that will make this so are already in place, and if they are not repudiated, then they are accepted. A temporary aberration becomes permanent-a localized cancer growing on the Republic metastasizes into a general condition.

This, unfortunately, seems very likely. The clock is running down on any attempt to impeach or otherwise hold accountable this Administration most foul, and in the end the most profound result will be a new paradigm of what the President is-and it will, in many ways, much more resemble a Regent or a Chancellor than our traditional understanding of the role of the President. The short version goes like this: Since we are At War, the President runs the country-period. The only role for Congress is to appropriate funds, while the only role of the Judiciary is to provide legal justification for the Executive, as the demise of judicial review and the warrant process requires the Judiciary to be largely an academic pursuit. Sadly, this is likely to be the New Way no matter who is elected. The Unitary Executive Theory will be codified, and likely reinforced by several species of small furry Security Enhancement Acts. Shazam! You're all enemy combatants now, and that Military Commissions Act suddenly seems a whole lot more relevant. Separating us at this point from a pure dictatorship is the ability to appropriate money being retained by the Congress, but any good authoritarian dictator wanna-be has the covert apparatus, i.e., surveillance, blackmail, and intimidation, to keep the Congress in line-or at least the parts of it that haven't themselves willingly participated in the dismantling of the Republic. Those will be targeted for destruction by the propaganda machine.

P.S.: To those who say this is temporary, and limited to the duration of the War, I say: this war is forever. Terrorism is a tool, not an enemy. A war on terror can no more be won than a war on hammers-or drugs.

Continue to The Nightmare Scenario, Part 2.

To the Ends of the Earth, with Dogs

2007-07-07T20:29:00.000-07:00

Once again, I will begin a post with a comment I left on another site, in this case Firedoglake:

We do not forgive. We do not forget. We do not let bygones be bygones, and we sure as hell do not “get over it”. We do not “stop living in the past”, and we damn sure keep crying over spilt milk. To err is human; to forgive is divine; but to impeach, try, and imprison the whole lot of them is transcendental.We run them down, to the ends of the Earth, with dogs if necessary, for however long it takes to repudiate what these people have done to our country.

The subject in question was whether or not a Democratic administration, in the interests of healing the nation from the partisan warfare that has so damaged our once-vaunted ability to govern ourselves, should suspend or curtail the various and sundry investigations into cases of suspected or demonstrated Republican criminals in the current Administration. The argument seems to be that somehow the country will heal more quickly if the sins of the past are quietly ignored, in the spirit of "bipartisanship".

Screw bipartisanship. Clinton tried it by letting the whole Iran-Contra hangover from Reagan/Bush drop, and was repaid for it with the most vitriolic campaign of personal destruction to be endured by an American President in recent history. The Democrats in Congress, both houses, tried it by giving Bush everything he wanted after 9/11, and were repaid for it with a malignant campaign of character assassination and charges of "soft on terrorism". "Run on the war", Rove said, and they did. In campaign after campaign, Democrats, even decorated and disabled veterans, were portrayed as indifferent to, or even sympathetic, with terrorists in general, and Osama bin Laden in particular.
Bipartisanship, in this case, is for suckers. Bipartisanship simply endows Republicans with an assumption of invulnerability, as seen in the fact that the President claims the rights of warrantless surveillance, secret arrest, indefinite detention, and torture, even while denying their existence. The VP claims he is not part of the Executive branch and is thus above Congressional oversight-and the law. The President commutes the sentence of a convicted felon and former aide who hasn't spent a day in jail, after that same aide prejures himself and obstructs an investigation that implicates the President and VP in a criminal conspiracy to ~~commit treason~~ betray the identity of an undercover CIA asset in wartime. Got that? The President has obstructed justice by his inappropriate use of Executive clemency powers to shield his supporters and aides who are convicted of crimes from the consequences of their actions, with Alberto Gonzalez standing at the bridge to the Justice Department, ready, willing, and able to block any further investigation into these crimes, or others.

Let's call it what it is! Betraying the identities of undercover agents in wartime is treason, plain and simple. Shielding from jail those whom obstructed justice to protect you is obstruction of justice. But to them it was all justified, all in the name of partisanship.

This is beyond partisanship-this is now a question of statesmanship. Repudiating the Bush Doctrine should now be the patriotic duty of every public official who meant it when they said "support and defend the Constitution...", and the best way to do so is dogged determination: Investigate. Investigate. Impeach, or Indict. Trials. Sentences. Consequences for these who've governed our nation like drunken teenagers behind the wheel of a stolen car.
Just to say it again: We run them down, to the ends of the Earth, with dogs if necessary, for however long it takes to repudiate what these people have done to our country.

The Logic of Withdrawal

2007-06-30T14:42:00.000-07:00

So, it occurs to me thus:

If you are one of those who favor keeping the US military in Iraq, because of fear of sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni, then you are in favor of:

American troops dying to keep Iraqis from killing each other.

Iraq disarmed? Check. Saddam Hussein held to account? Yup. Iraq's got a new Constitution? Affirmative. Iraq has an elected Parliament and Prime Minister? 10-4, good buddy.

All of the objectives of this tragedy were met long ago-unless the objective was to control the oil for as long as possible, and unless you're afraid you may be held responsible on world-wide television for the inevitable bloodletting that will certainly follow a US pullout, whether it's tomorrow or ten years from now, unless a ruthless authoritarian regime clamps down Hussein-style and prevents it. From this, we can develop a corollary:

If you favor the US staying in Iraq to prevent sectarian violence, then you are in favor of:

Occupying Iraq forever.

or,

Installing a repressive authoritarian regime.

Sure. Because Sunni and Shia are fighting a 1300-year-old war over who is the just heir of Muhammed. Resolution of the dispute seems no closer.

Adding these together, we get:

If you favor the US staying in Iraq to prevent sectarian violence, than you support:

Americans dying to save Iraqis forever.

or,

Americans supporting a repressive regime to prevent sectarian violence while enabling America to disengage from Iraq.

But what about the fight against al-Queda in Iraq?

Al-Queda is a Sunni organization. I have no doubt that the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government would be more than capable of dealing with a Sunni terrorist organization inside their borders. Iraqis loath to cooperate with American occupation forces would be far more supportive of an Iraqi effort, and al-Queda sanctuaries would rapidly disappear. In fact, it could be argued that the best way to shut them down in Iraq would be for the US to get out of the Iraqis' way: knowing what was coming for them, al-Queda assets would be fleeing the country so fast you could catch them in nets at the borders.

The war in Iraq, just or not, was won years ago. It may have been won the day the statue was pulled down, but it was definitely won the day after the Iraqis inaugurated their new government.

It's time to end this occupation, and bring the troops home from Iraq.

Unless you want to admit that it was all about the oil from the beginning.

The Psychological Effects of the Cold War on America’s Youth, or, How Did Knowing You Might be Incinerated at Any Moment Affect Your Childhood?

2007-06-25T19:54:00.000-07:00

I was born towards the end of the baby boom, and I cannot remember a day of my childhood that did not have a Sword of Damocles hanging over it. That sword was nuclear war, and the accepted certainty of an eventual nuclear war between the US and the USSR among the civil authorities, academics, and the society in general infused many of us with a stark, ruthless belief: we shouldn't expect to live for very long.
I believe any truly comprehensive understanding of the latter 20th Century requires an understanding of this attitude. It was arguably a contributing factor to many of the social trends appearing in the US in the post WW2-era, particularly those trends toward the self-indulgent and especially self-destructive behaviors that grew out of a simple, "I had better get/buy/do/take it now, or I may never." Things like "The Me Generation". From rampant drug use to peoples' interest in conspicuous consumption versus savings, a myriad of issues has been affected by this overriding fatalism- and I'd like to hear about them.
Therefore, for the first time, I am actively soliciting comments. If you grew up during the Cold War, or remember the time, tell me your story! How did the Cold War affect you childhood? Post a brief account of your thoughts and experiences in the Comments, and let's see where this leads!
Also, welcome, and thank you for visiting the site. My regards to the Firedoglake community, from whose comments grew this post.

The Challenge of Paul Van Riper

2007-06-22T21:24:00.000-07:00

This story is several years old, but is still not widely known, and deserves to be told again, in pursuit of an understanding of what is happening to the US military.

The year was 2002, and the event was the Millenium Challenge '02, reputedly the most expensive war game exercise ever conducted. Running from July 24th to August 15th, 2002, and sponsored by the Joint Forces Command, the MC02 was supposed to be a test case for the new concept of "network-centric warfare" and Rumsfeld's theories of "transformation" of the US military in general. The game involved both computer simulations and real-world exercises involving 13,500 troops drawn from all branches of the military, 17 simulation locations, and 9 live-fire locations. The exercise was an engagement with an unnamed Middle Eastern rogue state, alternately described as Iraq, Iran, and even Israel. The US, represented as the Blue team, commanded by retired Army General Gary Luck, against the Red team, commanded by retired Marine Lt. General Paul Van Riper. General Van Riper has been a frequent participant in these exercises, and is widely considered an expert at commanding Red. The rules were simple: this was to be an unscripted, "free-play" exercise, with both sides free to adapt and improvise, and no prohibition against Red winning. In other words, a fair, objective, experiment, designed to produce results as close to the real world as possible.

Things did not go entirely according to plan. From The Guardian(9/6/2002):

What really happened is...in the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics... [Van Riper] sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt. What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more.

Do...what?

Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet's only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.

So...a reasonable person might assume at this point that the plans would be redrawn, right? As Joseph Galloway explains it:

The referees stopped the game, which is normal when a victory is won so early. Van Riper assumed that the Blue Force would draw new, better plans and the free play war games would resume. Instead he learned that the war game was now following a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory: He was ordered to turn on all his anti-aircraft radar so it could be destroyed and he was told his forces would not be allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.

This wasn't from a lack of trying on Van Riper' s part:

Van Riper said that when he discovered [Air Force Brigadier General Jim Smith] was countermanding his orders July 29, he immediately raised objections with both Smith and retired Army Gen. Gary Luck, a senior adviser to Joint Forces Command who was serving as the Blue Force commander. Van Riper said they told him they would meet with him later that day to discuss the issue, but then failed to follow through. “They never met with me at any time in the exercise,” he said.

Van Riper would resign as Red commander shortly thereafter. As he pointed out to PBS later, the biggest problem wasn't even that the objectivity was compromised, it was the danger that the concepts in question would become doctrine without being successfully tested, in the name of transformation.

"I had a great deal of concern about the ideas that they were experimenting with in this particular exercise. I say that because I didn't think the ideas were intellectually worthy of being tested for that sort of money. Unfortunately, from where I sat, and I think I had a pretty good view, these ideas were never truly tested. Yet the conclusion drawn at the end of the exercise was that they had been and that they were worthy of adoption by our operating forces. I think they're very shallow. They are fundamentally flawed. They have no true intellectual content. And yet they're being, in my view, foisted on our operational commanders... I'm angered that, in a sense, $250 million was wasted. But I'm even more angry that an idea that has never been truly validated, that never really went through the crucible of a real experiment, is being exported to our operational forces to use. What I saw in this particular exercise and the results from it were very similar to what I saw as a young second lieutenant back in the 1960s...The computers in Saigon said we were winning the war, while out there in the rice paddies we knew damn well we weren't winning the war. That's where we went astray, and I see these new concepts potentially being equally as ill-informed and equally dangerous."

It brings to mind the words of Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI-6 and the author of the Downing Street Memo:

"The...facts were being fixed around the policy."

Still-and again.

Introducing the Spy Who......

2007-06-15T22:02:00.000-07:00

I would like to introduce and welcome to the blogroll Dr. R.J. Hillhouse, who is doing exceptional and even groundbreaking research, analysis and blogging on intelligence matters at her site, The Spy Who Billed Me. Her articles on the outsourcing and privatization of intelligence capabilities are, as far as I know, some of the best work currently being done in the field and they, as well as her upcoming book Outsourced, deserve a serious, thoughtful read by everyone who is concerned about America's intelligence agencies, how much they cost, what they are doing, and what is being done to them. Welcome, Dr. Hillhouse, to the Street, and I encourage everyone to check out her work.

The Phoenix Program

2007-06-15T10:20:00.000-07:00

Over the years, we have been told many stories of the Vietnam War, some noble and heroic, some twisted and barbaric. Those who have made even a cursory study of the subject know of such things as the Tet Offensive, the My Lai massacre, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Well-known indeed are the stories of the fortitude of John McCain under torture, of the heroism of John Kerry and his Swiftboat(in spite of the treacherous, disgusting attempts to slander the now-Senator during the 2004 Presidential campaign), of the brilliance of David Hackworth in combat, and the bravery of Randall "Duke" Cunningham in his F-4 Phantom (It is a sad irony indeed that Cunningham today is more famous for his role as a corrupt, bribe-taking Congressman currently serving time than as the war hero he truly was). We have all seen Platoon, Oliver Stone's Oscar-winner based on his own service, and the garish spectacle of Apocalypse Now, Coppola's treatment of Conrad's Heart of Darkness set in Vietnam. Less well-known are the stories of the the grunts, the individual soldiers and Marines who did their jobs and never made it home, like my Uncle Jack. And almost completely unknown, except to students of the war, is the Phoenix Program.

For my younger friends on the Street, it is important to distinguish between the combatants here-the war was fought between the Republic of South Vietnam, backed by the US, versus a domestic insurgent group officially known as the National Liberation Front (NLF), aka the Viet Cong (VC), allied with the regular North Vietnamese Army (NVA), with both the NVA and VC backed by the Communist governments of China and the Soviet Union.

So, what was the Phoenix Program? Simply stated, Phoenix was an "internal security" program for South Vietnam, designed to provide security by destroying the VCI-the Viet Cong Infrastructure-in other words, anyone sympathetic to or lending aid to the Viet Cong. Informers would report the names of sympathizers, which would be compiled into blacklists. Once someone's name appeared on more than two blacklists, a special ops team would be dispatched to either kill or capture the target. If captured, the target would then be brought for interrogation to a Province Interrogation Center (PIC). There was one in every province in Vietnam. Detainees would then be questioned, often tortured, and then disposed of-usually by killing them. It is important to remember that this was the civilian population of a friendly nation. Assassination, abduction, torture of the most vile sort, and murder. To those who would argue the appropriateness of the terms "abduction" and "assassination", I will refer to William Colby, former director of the CIA and one of the officials responsible for the program, during his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 17 Febuary, 1970:

Senator Cooper: Perhaps you have answered this question, but is there a record of the assassinations of local South Vietnamese officials or people for 1969 and 1968?
Mr. Colby: Yes. For 1969 there were a little over 6,000 people who were killed, of those about 1,200 were selective assassinations. There were about 15,000 wounded and about 6,000 abducted, as I recall.
Senator Cooper: Well, those figures were for 1968 or 1969?
Mr. Colby: Those were 1969, Senator. I have it here for 1968, Senator. The number killed was 6,338. But that is only 11 months of 1968, because the month of February we do not have any figures on. There were about 15,918 wounded and about 10,000 abducted during 1968.
Senator Cooper: What were the figures for 1969?
Mr. Colby: Killed, 6,086; wounded, 15,052; and abducted, 6,095. That is the entire 12 months; that is the whole year.

As to the appropriateness of the terms "torture" and "murder", I refer to Douglas Valentine, author of The Phoenix Program (1990) :

"The students had been tried and convicted by a military field court," Valentine wrote. "Some were in shock and being fed intravenously. Some had had bamboo splinters shoved under their fingernails. One was deaf from having soapy water poured in his ears, and his ears pounded. The women students had been raped as well as tortured." Following the tiger-cage spectacle, a congressional delegation traveled to Saigon and discovered a South Vietnamese military camp where several tiger cages were hidden behind a woodpile. "From three to five men were shackled to the floor in each cage," Valentine continued. "Their legs were withered, and they scuttled like crabs across the floor, begging for food, water and mercy. Some cried. Others told of having lime buckets, which sat ready above each cage, emptied upon them."
"I never knew in the course of all those operations any detainee to live through his
interrogation,"Bart Osborn, a former CIA agent, told Congress in 1971. "They all died. There was never any reasonable establishment of the fact that any one of those individuals was, in fact, cooperating with the VC, but they all died and the majority were either tortured to death or . . . things like thrown out of helicopters." (h/t to
OC)

Barbaric methods were used to produce an unreliable product. The blacklists were often unreliable, due, among other things, to agents compiling them being paid by, and required to, fill quotas. This lead to every sort of corruption of the process, as agents, ofter mercenaries, met their quotas by blacklisting personal enemies, political critics of the Administration, unfriendly business interests, and by contracting out the blacklisting-or by shaking down targets to keep them, or even actual VC, off the blacklist. Phoenix reached the height of its bloodthirsty arc shortly ater Tet, when thousands of VC who had broke cover were rounded up and "neutralized" by Phoenix, particularly around Hue, where hundreds of Vietnamese and even entire villages were allegedly loaded on to C-130's and dumped into the Gulf of Tonkin. The rationale was, everyone living in the area was a sympathizer, as they could not have survived in that area if they were not. As the process of "Vietnamization" took effect, the program was turned over to the Vietnamese and announced to the public, ironically, in an effort to gain public acceptance and support.

How something like this could ever have been expected to help win hearts and minds is beyond me.

Casualties of Phoenix? No one really knows. From wikipedia:

American statistics showed 19,534 members of alleged Viet Cong "neutralized" (a word used by the Phoenix Program) during 1969: 6,187 killed, 8,515 captured, and 4,832 defected to the South Vietnamese side. By 1971, William Colby put the number of killed at 20,857. South Vietnamese government figures were much higher with 40,994 dead [2]. The record by one team was held by Karl Sherrick and Gary Leroy of 23 people killed in one month. Their units accounted for more than 200 during their tours. However, fewer than 10% of the casualties attributed to Phoenix
operations were actually targeted by program operatives, with most of the remaining casualties being assigned VCI status after they were killed. Efforts by provincial chiefs to meet quotas also led to manipulation of statistics by counting non-VCI arrests, arresting the same person multiple times, and attributing military casualties to the Phoenix program. It was widely recognized that statistical record keeping during the first few years of Phoenix program operations was subject to distortion, embellishment and was very inaccurate.

Some of the children of Phoenix have pursued us through the years. These methods have been used repeatedly since that time, in Europe, Central and South America, Iran, and Egypt, and there is good reason to at least suspect that Phoenix-like programs are underway in both Afghanistan and Iraq. This method has even taken hold in in the US. One can see in Phoenix the model for much of what domestic law enforcement in the US has become in recent years, as police departments make more use of networks of confidential informants than in the past, and then deploy special-ops units, aka SWAT teams, to do the strike-force work.Don't believe it? Then I urge you to read about the FBI's program COINTELPRO and its sucessors, some of whom are operational in the US today.

Any theories on what those CIA "black sites" are for, not to mention Guantanamo?
Today. Right now. As you sit and read this, and for the last forty years.

Testimony of William Colby. Memory Hole collection of Phoenix documents. Douglas Valentine's "The Phoenix Program".

On the Confederate Flag

2007-06-14T20:54:00.000-07:00

For Flag Day, something a little different:

The persistent debate over the appropriateness of displaying the Confederate battle flag continues to surprise me. I had thought that, as people discovered the history, there would be a moment of mass consciousness-raising, and this relic of what once was would be relegated to history-not for what it was, but for what it has become.
Let me explain.
First, what is frequently and incorrectly called the "Confederate Flag" is not. For most of the short life of the Confederate States of America, the official flag was what is commonly known as the "Stars and Bars"-not the more widely known battle flag, also known as the "Cross of St. Andrew".
Second, of those states that prominently display the battle flag on their state flags, I believe only one had it on there before the mid-1950s: Mississippi. The rest put it on their flags in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision ordering the desegregation of the schools, as a symbol of defiance to the Supreme Court and what can only be characterized as a declaration of war against the Civil Rights movement.
To those who say,"It's heritage, not hate", I say three things: one, if that is true, then why aren't you displaying the Stars and Bars?; two, why wasn't it there all along, instead of conveniently appearing after Brown?; and three, if it was so important to you, if you were concerned that people might draw the wrong conclusions, then why did you let this beloved symbol of your heritage, this statement of principle, get hijacked by a bunch of racists and the Klan to make a racial statement?
Because that's what happened. It may have been possible to make the heritage argument before Brown, but not after. A symbol of rebellion against oppression, of the defiance and independence of an agrarian-centered political movement was transformed into a statement of racial discrimination and white supremacy, and its defenders shouldn't be surprised that it is now seen that way.
And that is why the Confederate battle flag, like the flaming cross, the swastika, and every other symbol of institutionalized hate, should be retired from polite company, and most certainly not displayed at public buildings or installations, or by sporting events and teams. It should be consigned to the history books, or maybe taught as an object lesson and a cautionary tale about protecting one's heritage from those who would pervert and besmirch it by using its symbols as symbols of unthinking, reactionary hatred.

Falling Off the Cliff in Vietnam

2007-06-05T10:39:00.000-07:00

That is the only way I can think of to describe the dynamic that it took to create a war which produced 58,000+ American dead, 153,000 American wounded, somewhere between 1.5 and 5.1 million Vietnamese dead, and 1.8 million or so Vietnamese wounded, from a relationship that started like this:

"When Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the independence of Vietnam from French rule on September 2, 1945, he borrowed liberally from Thomas Jefferson, opening with the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." During independence celebrations in Hanoi later in the day, American warplanes flew over the city, U.S. Army officers stood on the reviewing stand with Vo Nguyen Giap and other leaders, and a Vietnamese band played "The Star-Spangled Banner." Toward the end of the festivities, Giap spoke warmly of Vietnam's "particularly intimate relations" wih the United States-something, he noted, "which it is a pleasant duty to dwell upon." The prominent role played by Americans at the birth of modern Vietnam appears in retrospect to be one of history's most bitter ironies.

The understatement of the 20th century, quoted from George C. Herring's America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam 1950-1975, 2nd Edition.

A New Wish List

2007-06-02T11:59:00.000-07:00

1). Create and install mechanisms in place to ensure the integrity of our electoral system, beginning with mandatory paper trails.

2). Begin the process of identifying and removing from positions of power every single appointee in every single department of the US government who was appointed to politicize their department (Henceforth referred to as "MG's", i.e., Monica Goodling. Short form-Identify and remove all MG's).

3.) Begin the process of restoring a progressive nature to our tax code. Especially vital if we are going to avert the coming destruction of Medicare and Medicaid caused by the "starve the beast" tax policies of the last 6 years.

4.) Begin the process of drawing down the occupation of Iraq. This means:
-Rescinding the AUMF with respect to Iraq.
- Supporting the Dodd Amendment.
-Reframing the debate on Iraq by language: no Democrat should ever again use the word "war" with respect to Iraq. The word used should be "occupation".

5.) Begin the process of restoring some respect for the rule of law in this country. This means:
-Subpoenas for every official potentially responsible for the burgeoning number of scandals currently plaguing and calling discredit upon our government.
-Contempt of Congress citations and appropriate enforcement action against all officials refusing said subpoenas.
-Robust investigations of the President's and Vice President's role in the CIA leak case, the implications of the Downing Street Minutes, and the politicization of intelligence by the Administration.
-Prompt perjury and obstruction of justice charges against those officials where the evidence justifies them.
-Dispense with the silly idea that "impeachment is off the table". Begin laying the groundwork for the impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales, and whomever else is revealed to be culpable for the too-numerous-to-mention crimes and misdemeanors of this Administration most foul.

More to come.

Where Are You, Judge Sirica?

2007-06-01T13:26:00.000-07:00

It is not often that one truly feels grateful for advancing age, with all its attendent maladies-but I find myself in that position at the present, with regards to the Scooter Libby trial and his impending sentencing. I am speaking specifically of being old enough to remember Watergate, the Waterloo of Richard Nixon, the first in a since-unbroken chain of criminal Republican Presidents, and the conduct of the presiding judge in the criminal trial of the Watergate burglars-Judge John Sirica. Sirica did not accept the attempts to stonewall the investigation and firewall the Administration with good grace; and it is the pre-eminent example in my lifetime of a jurist striking a blow for justice and the rule of law that day when Sirica started passing out sentences for the Watergate conspirators ranging from twenty to forty years, with the possibility of the sentences being reduced if those convicted decided to cooperate with the investigation. And it worked-it was amazing to see what people could suddenly remember when faced with twenty years. What John Dean called a "cancer growing on the Presidency" was excised.

Let us hope that Judge Reggie Walton, who will sentence Scooter Libby in a few days, is a man of similar character.

The Political Expediency of Bold Leadership

2007-05-27T20:21:00.000-07:00

I have tried, as have many others, in the spirit of keeping one's eye on the ball, to not be distracted, to stay focused, and pay attention to what is happening in Afghanistan. And that is why I was so surprised to become aware-as I often am, by the good offices and great people of Firedoglake-of someone of whom I had never heard, a certain Ms. Malalai Joya.Ms. Joya is a former-for-the-moment member of the Afghan Parliament who, simply stated, has the courage to not back down. While Siun's excellent profile makes truly inspired reading, I was struck not only by the woman's exceptional courage, but by the lesson it teaches to politicians, particularly ours. To wit: In our leaders, we are looking boldness and courage. We are looking for daring, for action, for fearless truth-telling. We are NOT looking for appeasement, or expediency, or betrayal of our principles masked as "centrism" and "moderation". That's the brutal irony-the path to power for those leaders who crave it is paved with the blood, sweat, toil, and tears of those with the courage to not back down, while those spineless appeasers of those who would destroy this country to guarantee their own position will be quickly dismissed and quietly forgotten. To Siun's post, I could only add the following comment:

"This is what a LEADER looks like. It would be nice if some of our leaders and/or candidates, especially those who routinely sacrifice their principles and courage on the altar of political expediancy, would understand this lesson of the example Ms. Joya demonstrates: Taking a strong stand inspires fervent devotion. Bold, fearless action by a candidate/official produces a loyalty and faith and political base that can never be matched by any so-called moderate or centrist. The sad irony is that those candidates who wish power for themselves would find the surest path in fearlessly taking one position rather than trying to appeal to every position -the curse of Democrats at every level, especially the top. Stand up! Speak clearly! Say loudly and proudly what you think, and give people a vision to pursue they can believe in! Don’t be afraid of what the Republicans say-they’re going to say it anyway, so you may as well do the right thing! The path to victory is bold, clear, decisive leadership toward a future most of us want. GIVE IT TO US!
Ms. Clinton, this means you."

Read the whole post. An amazing post about an amazing woman.

A Mea Culpa for Afghanistan

2007-05-14T17:53:00.000-07:00

-Deep breath-,
I am/was one of those who, after working like a mad fiend against Bush in 2000 and considering the first 8 months of his Administration to be a sad, almost comedic failure, found myself moved and even somewhat inspired by the Bush-with-the bullhorn moment after 9/11. Shortly afterward, I wrote the first hard-copy letter to a public official I've ever written-it was one of those "Well, we've had our disagreements, but we're all Americans now" kind of letters-to Bush, still riding the wave of inspiration and patriotic fervor, and with a desire to do the small bit of which I am capable. If the situation called for war in Afghanistan, then so be it. Though I thought it was stupid for Bush to say This is a Crusade out loud, I agreed with him, as I thought ridding the world of the transnational terrorist groups would be a service to all humankind. And I know I'm not the only one. Maybe that makes me a sucker-I hope not, though it certainly feels that way in retrospect.

I supported the war in Afghanistan-but I DID NOT support THIS:

I DID NOT support an undermanned and incompetently managed effort that left the warlords in charge, permitted the opium poppy trade to explode, and allowed Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar to escape.

I DID NOT support leaving in place an al-Queda sanctuary across the border in Pakistan, with its coup-installed military President, its Taliban-and-al-Queda sympathetic intelligence service, its illicitly-distributed nuclear technology, and its illegally developed nuclear weapons.

I DID NOT support an effort that left, as Richard Clarke put it,"[fewer] American soldiers in Afghanistan than there are cops in Manhatten."

I DID NOT support an effort that would be used as an excuse to install a secret police and surveillance apparatus inside the US, that could, without warrants, be used against Americans.

I DID NOT support the construction of prison camps for "their" terrorists, while "ours" are released from prison and treated like heroes.

I DID NOT support the creation of a "Unitary Executive", or King, or Emperor, or Dictator.

I DID NOT support the destruction of everything that made the US one of the last artifacts of the Enlightenment.

I DID NOT support the mass arrests and imprisonment of innocent Afghan civilians, the use of torture, rendition, and psyops to terrorize the populace into submission, or the use of airpower to make up for the lack of personnel on the ground, with all of the collateral damage which thus ensued.

I DID NOT support 1-in-4 Afghan children dying before age 5.

I supported an effort that would strictly adhere to the Just War doctrine, with its regard for civilians and other non-combatants. I supported an effort that would remove the Taliban, roll up al-Queda, win the hearts and minds of people by building schools, hospitals, roads, powerplants, sewer systems, and civil institutions that would teach people the value of democracy by responding to their needs. A justice system that would fight crime and respect peoples' rights. A civil order that would treat women as, oh, I don't know, um, PEOPLE. A noble effort that would demonstrate to the world our essential goodness, and show the Afghan people through deeds, not empty words, why it was wise to welcome and support the US.

This is not what we, or the Afghan people, got.

And that is why, now, after all the death, destruction, and disillusionment, I must say this:

I'm sorry. I was wrong. I truly believed I was right at the time-there was not a shred of cynicism or desire to exploit in my being. In spite of that, or maybe perhaps because of that, I was misled-but that does not excuse me. I should have looked more closely, and made sure I wasn't being lied to. People like me are the ones who made it possible for this hell to come to your land.
I was wrong, and I am sorry. I hope one day, peace will come again, and you will find it in your hearts to forgive.
Peace be unto You.

War Funding and Benchmarks.

2007-05-10T15:48:00.000-07:00

Since Bush seems so wedded to his "surge", I would like to suggest a change in strategy for the Democrats as it pertains to the various war funding proposals out there. One of the places where I differ from a lot of my liberal comrades in the blogosphere is my belief that the war in Afghanistan fits the criteria of Just War doctrine, in that the US was the victim of a mass-casualty attack, the perpetrators of which were finding refuge in Afghanistan. The perpetrators were enjoying the hospitality of the Afghan government (at the time), and being supplied, supported, and defended by the armed forces of same. Of course, they were also being succoured by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as I have noted before-and it could be argued that engaging those two would also be just. Be that as it may, by uniting the funding of the just war in Afghanistan with the unjust war in Iraq, it seems to me that the Democrats are giving refuge to Republicans (and Democrats) opposed to cutting off the funding for the war by enabling them to say they're "not going to cut funding for the troops fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11." Okay-
My suggestion is this-separate the funding of Iraq and Afghanistan. Send Bush a clean bill funding the war in Afghanistan, but attach benchmarks to the plan for funding the Iraq adventure. But not the vague, uncertain, eye-of-the-beholder "benchmarks for the Iraqi government" proposals that have been floated, no. As the Maliki government is biased along sectarian lines, corrupt, and infiltrated by Shiite militias, it is in my opinion an exercise in futility and a waste of blood and time to try and enforce a workable regimen on it, and equally futile to replace it with a government headed by CIA-asset Iyad Allawi. Instead, since the surge is a military operation, set military benchmarks. The number of attacks per day on US troops must be reduced by "x" by July, "y" by September, and so forth. The number of IED's must drop by at least a specified amount, and continuously. The number of suicide attacks on US troops must fall, and continuously. The amount of sectarian violence must fall, also continuously. The exact figures and rates can be figured by calculating a rate that works as a statistical vector toward relative tranquility within a reasonable period of time, and definitions must be clearly stated, to avoid linguistic gymnastics that can be used to hide failure. Then, if these clearly-measurable targets ARE NOT met, it can be empirically stated that the surge has failed-and it is time to bring the troops home from Iraq. No one on either side of the aisle will then be able to say the President's plan wasn't given a chance, or that the US has surrendered to "the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11". All of the partisan posturing and obfuscation will be nullified. General Petraeus, I wish you all the luck in the world-because you have the hardest job in the world.

Chuck Yeager on War

2007-05-08T12:21:00.000-07:00

General Chuck Yeager is an American icon-he was a decorated fighter pilot in World War2, the first person to break the sound barrier, commanded fighter wings in both Europe and Southeast Asia, and was immortalized in popular culture in the book and movie The Right Stuff. Therefore, I thought this quote from him on war was very telling:

"Our seventy-five Mustangs were assigned an area of fifty miles by fifty miles inside Germany and ordered to strafe anything that moved. The object was to demoralize the German population...we weren't asked how we felt zapping people. It was a miserable, dirty mission, but we all took off on time and did it...by definition, war is immoral; there is no such thing as a clean war. Once armies are engaged, war is total. We were ordered to commit an atrocity, pure and simple, but the brass who approved this action probably felt justified because wartime Germany wasn't easily divided between innocent civilians and its military machine. In war, the military will seldom hesitate to hit civilians if they are in the way...I'm certainly not proud of that particular strafing mission against civilians. But it is there, on the record and in my memory."

For an additional bit of the surreal, this quote is taken from Joseph Martino's 1988 work, A Fighting Chance: The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons.I bet you didn't know there was such a thing, did you?

The Wolfowitz Solution

2007-05-05T14:24:00.000-07:00

It was bad enough that he signed off on the Project for a New American Century, the blue print for a militarist Imperial America. It was very bad the way he promoted an unnecessary war, and lied about its costs to help make it happen. It was worse that he didn't ensure that there was a competent plan in place to win the war he helped start, thereby guaranteeing a maximum loss of life on both sides. It was disgusting to see him rewarded for his malevolent dishonesty by being given the seat as the head of the World Bank. It was sickening to see him use his position to, of all things, promote and enrich his girlfriend. It was revolting to listen to CommanderGuy support and defend this pathetic excuse for a public servant. And finally, it is a sick comedy to hear him blame it on somebody else.
Can someone please fire this disgusting wretch already? With, maybe, a severance package consisting of an all-expenses-paid trip to The Hague?

Why Did the Iraqi Chicken Cross the Road?

2007-05-02T18:04:00.000-07:00

(The following is quoted in its entirety from Rajiv Chandrasekaran's excellent book on life in the Green Zone, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City".)

Question: Why did the Iraqi chicken cross the road?

CPA: The fact that the chicken crossed the road shows that decision-making authority has switched to the chicken in advance of the scheduled June 30th transition of power. From now on, the chicken is responsible for its own decisions.
Halliburton: We were asked to help the chicken cross the road. Given the inherent risk of road crossing and the rarity of chickens, this operation will only cost $326,004.
Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr: The chicken was a tool of the evil Coalition and will be killed.
US Army Military Police: We were directed to prepare the chicken to cross the road. As part of these preparations, individual soldiers ran over the chicken and then plucked the chicken. We deeply regret the occurrence of any chicken-rights violations.
Peshmerga: The chicken crossed the road, and will continue to cross the road, to show its independence and to transport the weapons it needs to defend itself. However, in the future, to avoid problems, the chicken will be called a duck, and will wear a plastic bill.
Al-Jazeera: The chicken was forced to cross the road multiple times at gunpoint by a large group of occupation soldiers, according to witnesses. The chicken was then fired upon intentionally, in yet another example of the abuse of innocent Iraqi chickens.
CIA: We cannot confirm or deny any involvement in the chicken road-crossing incident.
Translators: Chicken he cross street because bad she tangle regulation. Future chicken table against my request.

A History of Violence

2007-05-01T22:42:00.000-07:00

I remember the launching of the War on Terror, and the mixed feelings of shock and horror generated by the carnage of 9/11, versus the quietly sad hope that something good could come out of it-namely, the elimination of the international terrorist organizations, which would have been a service to all of humankind. So it was then, in the attempt to understand the scope of the problem, that I began and have pursued a study of these networks, their origins, their support structures, and the conditions that ensure their survival.
I did not find what I expected.
In the immediate post-World War 2 enviroment, amid the fear of a Soviet invasion of Europe, there was implemented a NATO plan in Western Europe called "Operation Gladio". Gladio was a "stay-behind" covert network of paramilitary groups, set up in the late 40's and early 50's, ostensibly to form the infrastructure and nucleus of a guerilla army that would fight the Soviets in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. There were cells, weapons caches, recruiting operations, and networks set up in both NATO and non-NATO countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Greece ,Austria, Finland, The Netherlands, and Belgium. In the absence of a Soviet invasion, however, Gladio had adopted by 1959 a new mission: fighting "subversion", which it proceeded to do through bombings, assassinations, and false-flag terrorist operations, which were blamed on left-wing organizations and used to justify right-wing security policies in the affected countries. Some examples, just from Italy:
1969 Piazza Fontana, bombing.
1970 Golpe Borghese, attempted coup.
1972 Peteano, massacre.
1973 Argo 16, airliner bombing.
1973 Piazza del Loggia, bombing.
1973 Italicus Expresses, train bombing.
1980 Bologna massacre, bombing.
The Supreme Commander of NATO (the aegis under which Gladio functioned) from 1963-1969, was US General Lyman Lemnitzer. Lemnitzer is justly infamous for his creation of Operation Northwoods, a 1962 plan to run false-flag terrorist operations against US citizens and cities, to include bombings, shootings, sabotage of aircraft, and the sinking of US ships, in order to provide justification for a US invasion of Cuba. The plan was approved by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent to the White House for approval, where it was allegedly killed by either Robert MacNamara or President Kennedy (the record is unclear)-although an uncomfortable resemblance is borne by the 1967 Israeli air and naval assault on the USS Liberty, a US Navy intelligence ship operating in the international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The Liberty was, over a three-hour period, bombed with both conventional explosions and napalm, strafed with machine-gun and cannon fire, hit with rockets, and finally torpedoed by Israeli patrol boats. Aircraft scrambled by US aircraft carrriers in the Mediterranean were recalled not once but twice, on the specific orders of Lyndon Johnson, who allegedly told Admiral Lawrence Geis, the commander of the Sixth Fleet, "I want that goddamn ship on the bottom." The official Israeli explanation was mistaken identity, although this is widely disputed by people ranging from US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Thomas Moorer, the JAG official ordered to cover it up, the surviving crew of the Liberty, and even one of the Israeli pilots ordered to carry out the attack. Casualties: 34 dead, 172 wounded. The Captain was awarded the Medal of Honor, secretly, and then he and the surviving crew were ordered to keep the attack secret. Note that this was 13 years after Operation Suzannah, aka "the Lavon affair", which was comprised of Israeli false-flag attacks in Egypt against Egyptian, British, and American targets, designed to prevent the impending British withdrawal from the Suez Canal, which Israel feared would strengthen Egypt's Pan-Arab nationalist leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Now, we have entered into what I call the "overlap" period, where Operation Gladio overlaps with another of the large-scale terrorist networks in the Western hemisphere, Operation Condor. Operation Condor was a campaign of terror and assasination carried out by an alliance of intelligence agencies and paramilitary groups from Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay, ostensibly set up to fight left-wing and Communist subversion, and responsible for the disappearance, torture, and death of literally tens of thousands of people. In fact, these operations were far more often targeted at trade unionists, reformers, socialists, and political enemies of the regimes in question. Condor's reach, actually, extended into the US, where elements of the Condor operation, including Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, assassinated Orlando Letelier with a bomb in Washington DC. Condor also attempted or carried out bombings and assassinations in Venezuela, Cuba, and Panama, bombed a Cuban airliner, and provided operatives for reciprocal operations in Europe, under the auspices of...wait for it...Operation Gladio. Many were graduates of the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, GA. Many were veterans of the CIA covert action apparatus that participated in everything from the Bay of Pigs invasion (Operation Zapata) and the overthrow of the government of Guatemala, to the Contra War in Nicaragua ( with its associated Iran-Contra Scandal) and the right-wing death squads that operated in El Salvador, to the anti-Castro operations (Operation Mongoose) based in south Florida, which employed violent paramilitary organizations like Operation 40 and Alpha 66, which maintains an office in Miami, FL, to this day, as well as a presence on the Internet.
Of course, before both of these, there was Operation Ajax, the CIA operation run by Theodore Roosevelt's grandson in Iran, which overthrew (with the encouragement of the British, whose oil concessions had been nationalized) the elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the government of Reza Pahlavi-the Shah, who ruled using the methods of a brutal secret-police organization-SAVAK, and thus set the stage for the Islamic revolution of 1979. Notice, we have not even touched on the creation of al-Queda, with the tacit approval of the CIA for the purpose of fighting the Soviets, or the nuclear proliferation network of Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.
So there you have it. A worldwide alliance of right-wing terrorist groups, operating with the tacit or even overt support of complicit governments, unified by a common purpose, and utterly ruthless.
Which brings us to the present. Are we fighting a "War on Terror"? Or a "War of Terror?"
You decide.

Postscript:

Orlando Bosch was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush on July 18th, 1990.
Luis Posada Carriles was released from prison in Texas in April 2007, and escorted to Miami, where he received a hero's welcome and remains on house arrest, awaiting trial on immigration charges. Requests by Cuba and Venezuela for his extradition have been denied.

UPDATE: On May 8th, 2007, US District Judge Kathleen Cardone, El Paso, Texas, dropped all charges against Luis Posada Carriles. His defense attorneys announced that he was elated, and returning to Miami as a free man.

Republican Debate Question

2007-05-01T00:02:00.000-07:00

Watching MSNBC earlier, I saw the opportunity to send in a question for the Republican debate coming up Thursday, so I did. The question your Man in the Street asked was this:

"Do you support the so-called "unitary executive theory", and do you support the President's claim of the power to disregard the law by the use of signing statements?"

I hope they ask them. I think the answers ~~should be~~ are important to every American, whether they know it or not.

UPDATE: Of course they didn't ask it.

Domestic Surveillance Follies

2007-04-30T09:45:00.000-07:00

So, I'll bet you didn't know that when you supported the war in Afghanistan , you were also supporting the creation of a Department of Defense agency, size and budget classified, whose job it is to spy on Americans. Did you? I wish someone had told ME that's what I was supporting.
The march toward a police state continues. I fear for my country.

In Defense of the 'Lake

2007-04-27T10:01:00.000-07:00

Ever since the CIA leak scandal originally broke, I have watched the story develop and play out with a mixture of fascination and abject horror: surely they wouldn't do this. I didn't put much past them, but still! I mean, there are all sorts of ways the Administration could have attacked Joe Wilson, fair or foul( I know of no fair ways, but I assume there is some way), that would have discredited or even destroyed him personally. Fake pictures. A corrupt cop and some planted drugs. There are a million ways, and while all are despicable, none are worse than blowing the cover of a CIA officer trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons: the most important thing in the world. I simply couldn't believe they could be that stupid, reckless, even evil.

Boy, did I turn out to be wrong.

Anyway, it was while watching Ambassador Wilson speak that I first heard a name that has since become very important to me personally, and the name was...Firedoglake.
Of all the sites I read, and there are many, there are a few who stand out for their courage, intelligence, integrity, and patriotism. You will find them on the left side of this page. Among them, Firedog is truly the best of the best. They and their community of commenters go after every angle of every story with a deep knowledge, relentless intelligence, and uproarious humor, including real-time liveblogging of every major political story that breaks-as it happens. I have found no other site that consistently brings a higher level of coverage and analysis to their readers-and Street, that's sayin' something. They have also, I must say, very kindly welcomed me to their community and patiently endured my fumbling efforts to measure up. For this, I am deeply indebted and humbly grateful.
This is why I was so disgusted to read this. The fact that a surrogate of a treacherous mole like Joe Lieberworm would attack Firedoglake using such unethical, underhanded tactics is a far clearer picture of the moral bankruptcy of Lieberworm and his toadies than any picture I could paint. At Salon, Glenn Greenwald is also(along with Josh Marshall), one of the best, and he lays it out in language I can only envy:

More significantly still, Gerstein hates blogs because blogs defeated his mentor in the Connecticut primary and continuously criticized Gerstein himself. So not only are Gerstein's anti-blog views aberrational, they are also the by-product of his own personal vendetta, not any thought-out ideas or beliefs. Basing anti-blog stories on comments from Dan Gerstein would be like writing a negative profile of Patrick Fitzgerald based on interviews done with Lewis Libby and his lawyers. FDL has a readership of 100,000 highly active, mainstream Democrats. Dan Gerstein has a constituency of one neoconservative non-Democratic warmonger Senator. When the latter criticizes the former, it signifies many, many things. But how "Democrats" or "Democratic political circles" think is not one of them.

How dare they. To Jane, Christy, TRex, and all of the FDL staff and community, you are the best. I look forward to reading you every day, and I hope you are of good cheer: these that attack you are not worthy to shine your shoes, and criticism from Lieberworm and his surrogates is a badge of honor to be proudly held aloft-and saluted.

The "W" Edited for Accuracy

2007-04-23T22:45:00.002-07:00

Justice for FOX News

2007-04-23T22:45:00.001-07:00

In the history of modern media, I don't think many reasonable people would argue the thesis that FOX News is the most ruthlessly dishonest, reprehensibly manipulative Republican propaganda organ of them all, rivaled only for slavish devotion to one-party rule by the Soviet-era house organs Tass and Pravda, and fulfilling much the same function. They follow the doublethink naming-formula, as pointed out by PTT, where one names a thing the exact opposite of what it is, as best demonstrated in the most breathtakingly dishonest slogan of them all: "Fair and Balanced". To the Democratic hopefuls in '08, they are going to do everything in their power, fair or foul, to not only defeat but destroy you, both professionally and personally. It will be no-holds-barred character assassination of the highest order-and you know this. You have already taken a good first step by refusing to appear in debates hosted on FOX-the next step will be for ALL Democrats to stop appearing on FOX at all. Let them talk to each other. I bring this all up only to suggest a good third step:
No matter which Democratic candidate winds up being elected President in '08, I hope the first thing he/she does is strip FOX of their White House press credentials.
They are not a news organization-they are a subsidiary of the RNC. Treat them as such.

For What it's Worth

2007-04-23T22:45:00.000-07:00

If I could write the platform for the next Administration, it would go something like this:

* This platform repudiates the repellent practice of employing so-called “free-speech zones” and embraces the idea that the whole of the US is a free-speech zone. This platform also repudiates the use of any public funding for any religious group, establishment, or so-called “faith-based initiative” in any way whatsoever.

* Congruent with the idea that all Amendments in the Bill of Rights are intended to protect the rights of individuals, the 2nd Amendment shall be read as meaning exactly what it says: “shall not be infringed”. I know the courts have ruled otherwise. I just happen to believe they are wrong.

* There will henceforth be no compromise of any sort of the rights and protections contained in the 4th Amendment. This shall be read as forbidding any use of the police powers of the State against a citizen without appropriate and specific warrants, including the odious practices of wiretapping, data mining, telephone or electronic interception or monitoring, the construction of any databases containing a citizen’s private data, and the use of so-called “National Security Letters”.

* A repudiation of the use of signing statements by the President to circumvent the law, and the repeal of the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act.

* This platform will embrace the concept of “harm reduction” in law enforcement. Henceforth, no one shall be charged or imprisoned for any action they may take which endangers no one but themselves. Private behavior will not be a concern of law enforcement unless or until it violates the rights of someone else. Likewise, it shall not be a crime to charge a fee for anything it is legal to do for free. Any and all persons currently incarcerated in violation of these principles shall have their sentences commuted and be released.

* A ban on private prisons and the use of private military forces, i.e., mercenaries.

* A trade policy that rewards companies who manufacture products here. Likewise, any company with its headquarters outside the US shall be considered a foreign company, and further, no funds whatsoever may be used to help or encourage a company to leave the US.

* A progressive tax policy that operates both to raise revenue and to limit the acquisition of disproportionate political power by the upper class.

* An absolute ban on any gifts to public officials, their families, businesses, or trusts.

* A single-payer universal healthcare system.

* A unified national effort to replace fossil fuels, particularly oil, as an energy source.

* US troops around the world will be withdrawn from countries where there is no immediate possibility of war, and US troops will not henceforth be deployed without a declaration of war.

* A repudiation of the concept of “corporate personhood”, a requirement that corporate charters be periodically renewed, moratoriums on commerce and/or seizure of corporations convicted of crimes, including the employment of illegal immigrants, and a “corporate death penalty” for repeat corporate criminals or companies guilty of willfully or negligently causing death.

* A not-for-profit system of higher education that bans the use of so-called “legacy admissions”.

* A system of funding the public schools that derives from state revenue instead of local property taxes. Also, standards and testing requirements shall be uniform for both public and private schools.

* Any and all medical decisions shall be a private matter between patient and doctor.

* Public financing of all Federal elections.

This is the point where the little boy falls out of bed and wakes up.

God Speed, Mr. Yeltsin

2007-04-23T13:32:00.000-07:00

Man in the Street mourns the passing of Boris Yeltsin, the man who saw the fork in the road of Russian communism and chose freedom.

Picture: AP

Full Spectrum Resistance

2007-04-19T06:06:00.001-07:00

Well, wasn't that interesting?
After watching the Judiciary committee hearing where they roasted this dishonest, contemptible, disgusting, pathetic, excuse for a ~~President~~ Attorney General and following the liveblogging on Firedoglake, a couple of things come to mind. First of all, Gonzales shouldn't be allowed to run a sandbox, much less the DoJ. In a humble attempt to make a meaningful contribution, I kept a running count (the Gonzales Perjury Count) of what I considered lies or clear attempts to mislead the Committee. Now-this does NOT include Abu's countless claims of faulty memory. That is a different count-74, I believe, according to that patriotic freak with the posterboard in the hearing room. When I left at the lunch recess, my count was an even 60. That's right-SIXTY.It is patently obvious that, if nothing else, he is either woefully incompetent, a relentless liar, or some combination of the two-any of which, in the reality-based community, should disqualify him for the position and qualify him for an orange jumpsuit-but hey! He's GWB's buddy, so who cares if he wrecks the Justice Department? Second-and this is the larger point made clear by this litany of malfeasance-It is time to abandon the pretense and go for the throat. These thugs shouldn't be allowed to open their bathroom doors without seeing a process server with a big bag of subpoenas. Contempt citations for refusals. Charges for perjury and misleading testimony. Federal marshals with search warrants. Sunset provisions on every power they've been given. Malfeasance charges wherever possible. Articles of impeachment wherever possible. Invoke the War Powers Act. Rescind the AUMF. Slather public mockery and humiliation on these bastards everytime they dare show their face. Lay the groundwork to put these people in jail:
Bush. Cheney. Rice. Gonzales. Rove. Miers. Libby. Hadley. Perle. Armitage. Feith. Sampson. Goodling. Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld. Addington. Tomlinson.
Full Spectrum Resistance. The time is now.

The Abu G Show

2007-04-19T06:06:00.000-07:00

Okay Street, this is the day...Fire up C-Span 3 at 9:30am, for the live perjury show by the most corrupt Attorney General since John Mitchell. Gonzales told so many ~~lies~~ conflicting stories about his involvement in the fired-US attorney scandal that he is now trapped in a perjurous cul-de-sac of his own making. It's now up to Patrick Leahy, and to him and all of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I say: This is your day to stand forth, boldly, on behalf of the PEOPLE. Don't let us down!
I'll be following the liveblogging at Firedoglake, and I strongly recommend to ~~both~~ all of you that you do the same.
UPDATE:
Had to step out briefly and deal with the world, but by my count(and I'm sure I missed some), Gonzo has said things flagrantly dishonest at least SIXTY(60) times. The words of Joe Wilson come to mind(although he was referring to Rove) :"...frogmarched out of the building in handcuffs".
Lid off, worms all over the place...
More to come at 2pm Eastern.

Abraham Lincoln on the Enemy

2007-04-16T21:38:00.001-07:00

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarch, more insolent than autocracy and more selfish than a bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at the rear is my greatest foe."

And-

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Yowza.

Simple Navigation

2007-04-16T21:38:00.000-07:00

This is the funniest thing I have seen in quite a while.

Go to Google.com .
Click on "Maps".
Click on "Get Directions".
From: New York, New York
To: Paris, France
Now read line #23.

Thanks to Patty!

How to Succeed in Journalism

2007-04-15T22:14:00.000-07:00

Report one side of an issue. Report opposing viewpoint as partisan regardless of reality. Treat both sides as equally valid and credible even though one side is obviously full of shit. Ignore anything that might force you to notice that one side is full of shit. Treat any criticism no matter how valid as a cynical partisan attack. Suck up to Power. Everything is off the record. Don't follow up. Make friends with your subjects. Don't rat on your friends. Protect officials no matter how corrupt and dishonest. A reporter who blows it for a member of Congress is Mud on the Hill, so remember, friendly reporting = access. Try to be funny. Try to be cute. The Correspondent's Dinner with Bush doesn't make you look compromised. Try to get in the picture. Have perfect hair. Make sure the story is about you. Roll your eyes at the word "blogger".

Make sure to sign the application at the bottom.

Only a Theory

2007-04-12T09:22:00.005-07:00

Read this, and repeat:"Evolution is only a theory. Evolution is only a theory. Evolution is..."
Maybe it will help block out the truth.

In Case You Missed These...

2007-04-12T09:22:00.004-07:00

Greetings! If you're new to the site, welcome and thank you, and here are some earlier posts you may enjoy.

All a Part of the Plan?
A Moment of Clarity
Sir, It's All a Free Speech Zone
A Vision of the Future, Darkly
The Executive Hydra
Military Commissions and Signing Statements
A Sane Immigration Policy
We Are at War With al-Queda. We Have Always Been at War With al-Queda
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
Green Zone Tet

Again, thanks for being here, and welcome to Man in the Street.

Iacocca Speaking the Truth

2007-04-12T09:22:00.003-07:00

I must admit, I've always had it in for Lee Iacocca a bit, ever since learning that he was in charge of Ford when, because it would be cheaper to pay the wrongful death suits than recall and actually fix the Ford Pinto, the decision was made to allow the Pinto to continue in production as designed-body count and all. Therefore, it is a pleasure to see old Lee saying things like this:

"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening?" Iacocca writes. "Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.'"

Even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while.
There's a bunch more-Thanks to Truthout.

1984, Meet 2007

2007-04-12T09:22:00.002-07:00

From a commenter at TPMMuckraker, this quote from George Orwell:

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate sublety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.
-George Orwell, 1984

Sound familiar?

Kurdistan 2.0

2007-04-12T09:22:00.001-07:00

So it seems, (unfortunately), that I'm not the only one thinking a lot about the Kurds in Northern Iraq. I truly believe this is going to be the deciding issue: all of the brains of General Petraeus and total security in Baghdad and Anbar province can't stop the Kurds from declaring independence, and founding a Kurdish state, and when that happens, Street, it is on. It is not a good turn for diplomacy when the Turkish Prime Minister and the leader of Iraqi Kurdistan are threatening each other in public. From USAToday:

(Iraqi Kurd leader) Barzani on Saturday....said in an interview with al-Arabiyah television that Iraqi Kurds could "interfere" in Kurdish-majority Turkish cities if Ankara interfered in northern Iraq.
"He's out of place. He'll be crushed under his words," (Turkish PM) Erdogan said of Barzani Monday.

So it begins. In gaming out the possibilities:

Iraqi Kurdistan, having taken control of oil-rich Kirkuk, declares independence and: -is attacked by Turkey in the north, Iran in the east, and/or Iraq in the south, quickly crushed, and reverts to a persecuted minority in Iraq and Turkey. Perhaps the only thing that could unite Sunni and Shia, other than anti-Americanism, is a desire stop the Kurds from taking Kirkuk, and instantly creating an oil-rich Kurdish state.

-is attacked by Turkey and/or Iraq and repels the invaders. In this case you can look for a massive uprising, where the Kurdish separatist group the PKK has already killed 37K people in 23 years of fighting. Iraq, arguably, doesn't have the organization to run itself, much less mount a coherent military campaign against a tough, organized, and committed Kurdistan. Turkey may very well be on its own-and in this case look for the Kurds to use the Americans as shields in every way possible. This is probably the death knell for Turkey's close relationship to the US, and possibly for Turkey's hopes of joining the EU, as it seems more and more apparent that the end product of US policy in the area is going to be an independent Kurdistan and civil war in Turkey, possibly resulting in the partitioning of Turkey-and you can't really reasonably expect them to go along with that. An uprising is also possible in Iran, possibly destabilizing Ahmedinijad. That could even be a desired result: Iranian troops in northern Iraq, possibly killing American troops and providing an airtight justification for war would be a gift to Bush no money could buy.

What is all this leading to? It's leading to the sacrifice of the loser. There's no way Petraeus is going to be sucked into a war between two of our allies-and in that fact lies the Exit Strategy. It goes something like this:

"Turkey is our ally, as is Iraq, This is clearly an internal matter, and, as we would never dream of interfering in our allies' internal matters, we are now going to begin drawing down our deployment, after liberating 25 million Iraqis from a brutal dictator, ridding Iraq of WMD's, and instilling democratic institutions where there were none. We urge our friends to resolve their differences peacefully."

And, as I asked before:

Would you want to be the Kurdish leader who didn't father the nation when he had the chance?

The Kurdish people around the world would curse your name for a thousand years. And if the administration can extricate themselves from Iraq, and attack Iran, all on the same premise- how can Bush possibly pass that up?

Billy Pilgrim, R.I.P.

2007-04-12T09:22:00.000-07:00

The passing of Kurt Vonnegut demands only a sad silence that this voice has been silenced.

The Grand Wager and the Flash Point

2007-04-09T19:59:00.000-07:00

In the Cosmic Casino of human events, the game to me seems to be shaping up like this:
So there you have the Kurds, living in Northern Iraq, Northern Iran, Syria, Armenia, and, yes, Turkey. Therein lies the rub.
The Kurds in Northern Iraq are in the best position strategically they'll ever be in. They have a highly developed infrastructure, a stengthening economy, a professional, highly motivated military (the Peshmerga), and access to the oil fields of Kirkuk. They are the largest ethnic group in the world without its own nation, and their political leadership, citizenry, and military all seem united by patriotic fervor and a common purpose: an independent Kurdistan. They will never have a better chance.

So what happens if Kurdistan declares independence?

What will the Turkish Kurds do? Intensify the separatist movement that's been simmering in Turkey, or flock to the new country? Build it and they will come-but will they try and bring a big piece of Turkey with them?
It may not matter. Either possibility is probably enough to trigger a Turkish invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan, and if that happens, Street, all bets are off. Turkey is a NATO country, an applicant to the EU, and a Cold War ally who allowed American missiles to target the USSR from their territory, while the Kurds have been loyal US allies against Saddam and under the protection of the USAF since Desert Storm. The idea that the US could avoid involvement in a Turkish-Kurdish engagement is silly-and the US has obligations to both sides. Will the US stand for a Turkish invasion of a nation the US is occupying? Will the US decline to intervene if the Turks decide to exterminate the Kurds (see Armenian Genocide)? Will the US stand for a partition of Turkey? What if that would help incite separatist movements in Iran and Syria? Would a US bombing campaign against Iran launch a Kurdish separatist movement there? Start wars in Syria, Iran, and Turkey, in addition to those already running in Iraq and Afghanistan? And don't forget Waziristan, the al-Queda and Taliban sanctuary inside Pakistan right over the Pakistan/Afghan border. Pakistan is engaged in a long-running assymmetric war against India over Kashmir, and may very well decide to go for it, knowing, like the Kurds, that there will never be a better chance.
Creeping Jeebus.
You know they're going to do it. They have to. Would you want to be the Kurdish leader who didn't father the nation when he had the chance?
Get ready.

To Pay for the War

2007-04-06T21:56:00.001-07:00

A typically brilliant suggestion from my friend and oracle Greg, on how to pay for the war in Iraq:
Divide the annual number of gallons of gasoline used in the US by the amount of money spent on the war in Iraq. Levy the appropriate tax on gasoline to pay for the war. Stop this deficit spending BS, this borrowing-and-spending hemorrhage that is pawning our childrens' future.
To Greg's suggestion I would add:
Stop all federal subsidies to the oil industry. Windfall profits tax on the oil conglomerates.
Do it now.

6-4-89

2007-04-06T21:56:00.000-07:00

Never forget.

The Illegal Immigration Void and an Opportunity

2007-04-06T11:54:00.000-07:00

There is a huge void in the range of positions on the issue of illegal immigration in American political discourse, and it goes something like this:
On the Republican side, views seem to be divided between the "guest worker" position, which effectively legalizes sub-minimum wage-slavery exploitation of immigrants and furthers the destruction of the American middle class, and the "detention camp" position, which effectively creates a police-state structure for immigration-law enforcement. On the Democratic side, views seem to vary between official tolerance, and wholesale amnesty with complete government benefits. Meanwhile, the element conspicuous by its absence is a problem-solving approach, divorced from an ideological bias-and it is in just that spirit of scientific problem-solving that I have attempted to craft just such a plan: see "A Sane Immigration Policy". I'm sure there are many flaws, but I believe it is a fundamentally sound basis for negotiation. I bring it up now because circumstances have conspired to grant me a personal audience with a director of ICE a couple of weeks from now, and I'm going to pass it on to him, and see what is said.

BTW, the first party that seizes the problem-solving approach to the issue as far as the American electorate is concerned will own the issue. People are crying for a solution, and it's high time they're given one. Are you listening, Governor Dean?

Just a man in the street, trying to make a small contribution.

A Personal Disclosure

2007-04-04T20:07:00.000-07:00

It has been pointed out to me that I may have created a false perception, so let me set the record straight: It is true I have never attended the University of Florida, home of the Fightin'Gators, the National Champions in every variety of contest ever imagined by mortal man. True; however, let me plead proximity-during the Eighties and Nineties, I lived within 1-and-a-1/2 miles of Florida Field. When I moved to Gainesville in 1984, I was as apathetic about collegiate sports as any houseplant could be. Yeah. This is not a mindset that can survive for long in Gainesville. The Gators are in the air you breathe, the water you drink. Every waking moment is suffused with Gator culture, and it doesn't take long. One day you're cool and aloof, and the next you're screaming in outrage at the latest atrocity committed by the hated FSU Seminoles or Tennessee Volunteers ( Haven't heard much from them lately.)-and it feels like coming home. Gainesville in the 80's was a wonderful place to live, and Gator culture is a wonderful thing to be a part of. So it is, then, that I raise my glass in congratulations to my adopted home town and adopted home team, and give a loud "GO GATORS" to all citizens of the Gator Nation everywhere.

Thanks to Greg for the pic.

Go Gators

2007-04-01T20:52:00.001-07:00

Go Gators.

Selah.

Help is on the Way

2007-04-01T20:52:00.000-07:00

This must be what it feels like to see help on the way. To see, on a national scale, a helicopter with a rescue basket coming, and for the Democrats to not make this a centerpiece of the 2008 campaign would be insane: make the Republicans the Party of warrantless wiretapping and surveillance, the party of secret arrests and detentions, the party of treason and torture, not to mention the Party of debt, and deficits, and incompetence, and cronyism, and corruption. I mean, how bad do they have to be before they can just be swept from public life by candidates even halfway competent?!

In the meantime, read this, contact your Senators and Representatives (both sides of the aisle), and inject some iron into their veins. Strongly support this just cause, this patriotic duty-and stress it doesn't go far enough. Even if they supported this police-state stuff at first, we'll forgive them if they help get rid of it now. It's simple-it's the borrowed-car crash-ethic applied to the Constitution, that they swore to uphold and defend:

Mr. Bush, a little over six years ago as this is written, We, the Nation you serve, entrusted you with our Constitution. We would like it back with the damage you've done to it repaired.

And please remove the "Govern it Like You Stole It" bumper sticker.

Thank You.

Firedogs and a Wish List

2007-03-29T20:19:00.000-07:00

So, after a few days off, it was a sublime pleasure to watch the testimony of Kyle Sampson before the Senate Judiciary committee, and follow the liveblogging at Firedoglake. Liveblogging is something to which I am new, and to which I am becoming totally addicted. Being totally immersed in this community of bloggers and analysts all united by a common purpose, in real time, is like nothing else I've tried. Strongly recommended, and let me send a long, loud, shout out to all of the wonderful people at Firedog. You guys are the best, and thanks for letting me hang out.
Now.
If we are to believe Sampson, I would like to know if he remembers how he got to the hearing-because he sure as hell didn't remember anything else about his tenure as Chief of Staff to the AG of the US! Arianna points out a count of 122 separate claims of forgetfulness, and that is leaving aside the claims of not knowing. Even then, it was impossible for him to avoid contradicting his boss. It was an obvious case of Horatious at the Bridge, with Evil Radar holding off the hordes of Democratic savages while senior staff escapes. I have not been so contemptuously disgusted by a political figure in more years than I care to admit. Now it is obvious why these traitorous suits with RNC email addresses all need to be subpoenaed. Now is the time for these vermin to be dragged out into the sunlight! Now is the time for bold, decisive action to bring a bunch of these out-of-control fascists-in-flags to heel. This means you, Senators Leahy and Rockefeller, and Representatives Waxman and Skelton. Now is the time to stiffen your spines, set your jaw, and sally forth to battle on behalf of the people! This is not the time to flag or fail! Know that you will be justified by the results, and carried on the shoulders of the citizenry who cry for people to represent them! Forget campaigning for re-election. Let your publicly-demonstrated patriotic defense of the truth, and justice, and the American people be your campaign! To that end, then, let me suggest these items:

1) Repeal the Military Commissions Act.
2) Curtail the use of signing statements by the executive to flout the law.
3) Aggressively pursue perjury, obstruction of justice, and misleading Congress charges against the Executive Branch officials who have lied under oath as a matter of course, and continue to do so.
4) Forbid the interception and/or collection of Americans' personal data without warrants.
5) Forbid the use of National Security Letters by the FBI.
6) Forbid the monitoring of phone calls and reading of mail without warrants.
7) Ban the practices of secret arrests and detentions, without exception.
8) Ensure the restoration of the Geneva Conventions.
9) End the use of no-bid contracts.
10) Repeal the Real-ID Act, with its odious national ID card.

It's good to be back-more to come soon.

Justice Brandeis on Economic Inequality

2007-03-24T11:36:00.000-07:00

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."

-Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, 1856-1941

Constitutional Evolution

2007-03-19T18:16:00.000-07:00

While I have a certain respect for the idea of strict constructionism, to me it flies in the face of the observable data on the operations of systems of all types, in all places. A constitution is the operating system of the governmental organism, i.e., a system for channeling resources and efforts where necessary to provide for a sustainable order in which people can live together in groups in relative peace. Biological organisms as systems have survived and even thrived in the face of everything from magnetic pole reversal to cataclysmic asteroid impacts because they adapt and evolve (or die-therefore, if they lived, it's because they adapted) over time, to whatever the prevailing conditions are at the time. All systems, whether biological, mechanical, or-here's the leap-intangible (like ideological, religious, or financial), must over time change and adapt as their external world changes, else that external world become inimical to the systems' continued existence. Knowing this, it becomes clear that, for the US Constitution to survive in a form that honors the wisdom and intent of the Enlightenment geniuses who wrote it, not only should it be changed over time, but it must change over time-or die.
This is why, after hearing Republican complaints about "judicial activism" all my life, it is so funny to consider this intellectual torpedo from Paul Abrams: Challenge a strict constructionist to find the words "executive privilege" in the US Constitution. Hint: you won't. This means, as Abrams points out, that Bush is about to invoke a "privilege" that is not found in the Constitution.
Yeah. And he's going to do it to try and shield his aides from having to testify to Congress over the now-obvious purge of any US attorney suspected of not being a "loyal Bushie", and especially those involved in corruption investigations of certain "loyal Bushies". Meanwhile, as Seymour Hersh reported, the US is indirectly supplying violent Sunni jihadist groups in Lebanon, some allied with al Queda, to fight Hezbollah.
Nixon had Watergate. Reagan had Iran-Contra. Bush, God forbid, may be about to have both at the same time-and right in the middle of not one, but two wars, neither of which he has been able to bring to a favorable conclusion.
And he thinks Administration officials shouldn't have to testify before the Congress.

2007-03-16T11:49:00.001-07:00

It's only funny because it's true.

Brought to you by the fine folks at the Center for American Progress.

Wilson Speaks

2007-03-16T11:49:00.000-07:00

Nothing more important today than watching the C-Span coverage of Waxman's oversight committee hearing and the liveblogging at FireDogLake-consistently the best analysis of the case from the very beginning. The nut of the testimony from Plame/Wilson was this:

Wilson said Friday the leak of her identity as a covert operative "has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents." "If our government cannot even protect my identity, future foreign agents who might consider working with the Central Intelligence Agency in providing needed intelligence would think twice."

And that's the real tragedy, even bigger and more far-reaching than the destruction of the career of a courageous CIA officer and the attempted character assassination of her distinguished husband.

All a Part of the Plan?

2007-03-10T12:03:00.006-08:00

Since before the Iraq war started, I have been consistently baffled by the transparency and incompetency of the strategems and lies employed by the promoters of this tragedy, from the justifications for the transfer of focus from the just war in Afghanistan and the total lack of hard evidence in Colin Powell's UN speech, to the inadequate force levels deployed to Iraq in the first place. So, let's consider the opposite-does the obvious answer all the questions?

Let's assume that everything is exactly as it was intended to be. Why would someone want to do it this way? Why send in too few troops? Why fire Jay Garner, who wanted a short-term post war administration, and bring in Paul Bremer? Why let the militias run wild? Why allow porous borders? The thinking goes like this:
If you do it this way, you are in a position to control access to the bulk of the world's oil reserves-but only for as long as you stay. If the US succeeds too quickly and withdraws from Iraq, this long-term benefit of the invasion is lost.
One person's quagmire is another's strategic placement. If the US sends in 3-4ook troops, deposes Hussein, pacifies the country, sets up adequate civilian services, and then gets the hell out, the advantages of having a large field army deployed in the heart of the Middle East is lost. Should, as seems almost certain, more war come to the region, the US is forward-deployed to engage Syria and Pakistan, and/or seize the oil fields of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates-not to mention Central Asia and the Caspian Sea basin-on a moment's notice, and without the long build-up or requisite diplomatic necessities. Russia and China are both much closer to these areas than the US, so the value of this strategic position cannot be overstated. In view of this, it is hard to envision a circumstance where the US would willingly resign the game while in such a strong position. It would follow then that the greater the pressure to withdraw from Iraq, the greater the pressure to establish a presence elsewhere. This is related to the open-borders and militia questions: make it easy for Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria to smuggle in supplies and fighters, and allow a corrupt Iraqi administration allied with radical militias to pursue a sectarian war, which keeps them from uniting to fight the US. That way, when convenient for the US, we point to whichever condition suits our purposes as the justification for whatever we want to do next. Hint: "whatever we want to do next" will almost certainly involve oil.

If it were a baldly-stated war for oil, how would it look any different?

More than ever, we need a Manhatten Project to replace oil as an energy source-and soon.

Foreign Service Follies

2007-03-10T12:03:00.005-08:00

Without question, the most bizarre story of diplomatic extra-curricular hijinks I've ever heard. Words you don't expect to read in a story about diplomats: "naked, bound and drunk...", "...gagged with a ball...".

And people think diplomacy is boring.

Hat tip to Arianna.

V for Vendetta

2007-03-10T12:03:00.004-08:00

Missed this in the theater, and finally just caught it on cable-unbelievable. That such a movie could be made today, in this day and age, and released by a major studio is a cause for hope such as I have not seen in the mass consciousness in quite awhile.(the election results in '06 were pretty nice, but jeesh, how bad did it have to get before that happened?) V is something different-a blatant, unapologetic, justification of violence in the cause of justice.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
- Abraham Lincoln

Go Edwards

2007-03-10T12:03:00.003-08:00

Aravosis has the story here. All I'll say is this: Go John Edwards. The sooner people stop treating FOX like a news organization and more like the Republican propaganda outlet that it is, the better off we'll all be.

A Moment of Clarity

2007-03-10T12:03:00.002-08:00

So...to recap:

Corralling citizens who wish to protest the activities of their government in pens, ironically known as "Free Speech Zones", guarded by armed police and distant from any government official who wishes to not be bothered, is freedom of speech in today's America; the US military and the FBI surveilling and infiltrating peace groups is freedom of assembly; activist conservative churches flouting their tax exemption and Air Force officers shoving evangelical Christianity down the throats of cadets at the AF Academy honors the freedom of religion thing; twenty thousand or so gun-control laws are in harmony with "...shall not be infringed."; as for the rest of the Bill of Rights, well, between the Drug War and the GWOT, it is now legal, at any time, with no warrant whatsoever, to tap your phone and computer; read your mail and search your house; run a "data mining" operation on you and compile every educational, official, professional, legal, financial, or medical record into a profile of who you are; declare you an enemy combatant and deprive you of any and all legal rights; arrest, hold, and interrogate you in secret, using methods permissible "up to the point of death, [or] organ failure "; transfer you to Egypt or Syria to be tortured further; try you by a military tribunal in which you will not have access to accusers or the evidence against you; wiretap your communications with your attorney if you are granted civilian status; seize your property "on suspicion", or for private economic interests; organize a "shadow government" to take over in times of emergency; invade and occupy foreign countries on false pretenses; and last but certainly not least, execute you.

That all this has been done by people who swore an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution is the disgrace; that all this has been allowed to happen by the people is the tragedy. Is it apathy, pure head-in-the-sand whistling-past-the-graveyard apathy, or fear? Fear of the apparatus of the State being turned on you. Fear of being destitute makes a most efficient whip-so does fear of the knock on the door, of the anonymous call, the unfamiliar car outside. It appears to be a consumer conditioning experiment: know your role and don't make waves, and you'll be rewarded with more inexpensive luxury items from China than you can imagine; make waves, and....

The amazing thing is this: this doesn't even include normal bad-government stuff, like withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, or faith-based initiatives, or deficit spending, or tax cuts during time of war, or incompetent appointees, or gag rules on scientists, or scrapping Social Security.

Just what does it take anymore to get the people into the streets with torches and pitchforks?

The Slippery Slope

2007-03-10T12:03:00.001-08:00

The FBI engaged in illegal wiretapping? Shocked! Shocked I am, I tell you!

Pearl Harbor Pictures, Vol. 2

2007-03-10T12:03:00.000-08:00

Background here.

Sir, It's All a Free-Speech Zone

2007-03-06T21:21:00.000-08:00

Here's something refreshing: a piece of traditional conservative philosophy that any good liberal could support, as opposed to a piece of the neo-conservative propaganda that passes for conservative thought these days. The reason this issue needs to be picked up is because when we quit fighting them, then things like this become the established paradigm-and is this really what we want, in this, my beloved Land of the Free?

The Asian Auschwitz

2007-03-05T15:01:00.000-08:00

Part of the continuing obsession of the Man in the Street is history, especially the secret, the little-known, the unspoken. The Phoenix Program, the assault on the U.S.S. Liberty, Operation Northwoods, the October Surprise-I have sought to leave no stone unturned. I have heard of Japanese Army Unit 731. I can even accept as a possibility the idea that FDR may have maneuvered the US into WWII because he believed it was desperately important to be in the war against Hitler. It is an interesting philosophical question about the morality of committing evil to prevent a greater evil that underlies the reasoning behind dropping the atomic bomb on Japan even if it was not a military necessity-if it did indeed deter the Soviets from marching to the Atlantic, by intimidating Stalin, one could argue the benefit of having saved millions of Europeans from the horrors of an all-out war between the US and the USSR. But in all my years, and all my readings, I have never really understood just why the Chinese resolutely refused to leave the past behind and get over the Sino-Soviet War, in the interest of Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity, until I read this:

A jovial old Japanese farmer who in the war had been a medical assistant in a Japanese army unit in China described to a U.S. reporter recently what it was like to dissect a Chinese prisoner who was still alive. Munching rice cakes, he reminisced: "The fellow knew it was over for him, and so he didn't struggle when they led him into the room and tied him down. But when I picked up the scalpel, that's when he began screaming. I cut him open from the chest to the stomach and he screamed terribly, and his face was all twisted in agony. He made this unimaginable sound, he was screaming so horribly. But then finally he stopped. This was all in a day's work for the surgeons, but it really left an impression on me because it was my first time." The man could not be sedated, added the farmer, because it might have distorted the experiment. The place where these atrocities occurred was an undercover medical experimentation unit of the Imperial Japanese Army. It was known officially as the Anti-Epidemic Water Supply and Purification Bureau - but all the Japanese who worked there knew it simply as Unit 731.

We're just getting started:

The strategy was to develop biological weapons which would assist the Japanese
army's invasion of south-east China, towards Peking. There were at least seven
other units dotted across Japanese-occupied Asia, but they all came under [Shiro] Ishii's command. One studied plagues; another ran a bacteria factory; another conducted experiments in human food and water deprivation, and waterborne typhus. Another factory back in Japan produced chemical weapons for the army. Typhoid, cholera and dysentery bacteria were farmed for battlefield use. Most of these facilities were combined at Unit 731 so that Ishii could play with his box of horrors. His word was law. When he wanted a human brain to experiment on, guards grabbed a prisoner and held him down while one of them cleaved open his skull with an axe. The brain was removed and rushed to Ishii's laboratory.

To continue:

Japan's prime minister Hideki Tojo, who was executed for war crimes in 1948,
personally presented an award to Ishii for his contribution in developing biological weapons. Vast quantities of anthrax and bubonic plague bacteria were stored at Unit 731. Ishii manufactured plague bombs which could spread fatal diseases far and wide. Thousands of white rats were bred as plague carriers, and fleas introduced to feed on them. Plague fleas were then encased in bombs, with which Japanese troops launched biological attacks on reservoirs, wells and agricultural areas. Infected clothing and food supplies were also dropped. Villages and whole towns were afflicted with cholera, anthrax and the plague, which between them killed over the years an estimated 400,000 Chinese.

And, of course, the punchline:

Why, then, after the war, were nearly all the scientists at Unit 731 freed? Why did Dr Josef Mengele, the Nazi 'Angel of Death' at Auschwitz, have to flee to South America and spend the rest of his life in hiding, while Dr Shiro Ishii died at home of throat cancer aged 67 after a prosperous and untroubled life? The answer is that the Japanese were allowed to erase Unit 731 from the archives by the American government, which wanted Ishii's biological warfare findings for itself. In the autumn of 1945, General MacArthur granted immunity to members of the Unit in exchange for research data on biological warfare...From then on, a curtain of secrecy was lowered. Unit 731 was not part of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. One reference to "poisonous serums" being used on the Chinese was allowed to slip by for lack of evidence. Lawyers for the International Prosecution Section gathered evidence which was sent directly to President Truman. No more was heard of it. The Americans took the view that all this valuable research data could end up in the hands of the Soviets if they did not act fast. This was, after all, the kind of information that no other nation would have had the ruthlessness to collect. Thus the Japanese were off the hook. Unlike Germany, which atoned for its war crimes, Japan has been able to deny the evidence of Unit 731. When, as now, it does admit its existence, it refuses Chinese demands for an apology and compensation on the grounds that there is no legal basis for them - since all compensation issues had been settled by a treaty with China in 1972. Many of the staff at Unit 731 went on to prominent careers. The man who succeeded Ishii as commander of Unit 731, Dr Masaji Kitano, became head of Green Cross, once Japan's largest pharmaceutical company. Many ordinary Japanese citizens today would like to witness a gesture of atonement by their government. Meanwhile, if they want to know what happened, they can visit the museum that the Chinese government has erected in the only building at Pingfan which was not destroyed. It does not have the specimens kept at Unit 731: the jars containing feet, heads and internal organs, all neatly labelled;
or the six-foot-high glass jar in which the naked body of a Western man, cut vertically in two pieces, was pickled in formaldehyde. But it does give an idea of what this Asian Auschwitz was like. In the words of its curator: "This is not just a Chinese concern; it is a concern of humanity."

Suddenly, the Chinese attitude seems a little more reasonable-even magnanimous.

Hat tip to Raw Story.

A Vision of the Future, Darkly

2007-03-02T13:01:00.005-08:00

So this is the kind of thing that keeps one awake at night. Of all the soulless golems shambling across the landscape of American life, not many face a more certain damnation than Robert McNamara. At least, however, he does have a legitimate claim to a certain expertise in the field of large-scale human extermination-so when he decides to opine on the subject, I believe he can be granted a certain credibility(would that it were not so). This is about a year-and-a-half old, but is probably one of the scariest things I've ever read in my life. Thus, it deserves to be resurrected, as the issues it raises are still current and desperately need to be addressed. Try this:

It is time - well past time, in my view - for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of appearing simplistic and provocative, I would characterize current US nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the US nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power - a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current US nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years.

To continue:

The destructive power of nuclear weapons is well known, but given the United States' continued reliance on them, it's worth remembering the danger they present. A 2000 report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War describes the likely effects of a single 1 megaton weapon-dozens of which are contained in the Russian and US inventories. At ground zero, the explosion creates a crater 300 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter. Within one second, the atmosphere itself ignites into a fireball more than a half-mile in diameter. The surface of the fireball radiates nearly three times the light and heat of a comparable area of the surface of the sun, extinguishing in seconds all life below and radiating outward at the speed of light, causing instantaneous severe burns to people within one to three miles. A blast wave of compressed air reaches a distance of three miles in about 12 seconds, flattening factories and commercial buildings. Debris carried by winds of 250 mph inflicts lethal injuries throughout the area. At least 50 percent of people in the area die immediately, prior to any injuries from radiation or the developing
firestorm.

And:

I have worked on issues relating to US and NATO nuclear strategy and war plans for more than 40 years. During that time, I have never seen a piece of paper that outlined a plan for the United States or NATO to initiate the use of nuclear weapons with any benefit for the United States or NATO. I have made this statement in front of audiences, including NATO defense ministers and senior military leaders, many times. No one has ever refuted it. To launch weapons against a nuclear-equipped opponent would be suicidal. To do so against a nonnuclear enemy would be militarily unnecessary, morally repugnant, and politically indefensible.

If the United States continues its current nuclear stance, over time, substantial proliferation of nuclear weapons will almost surely follow. Some, or all, of such nations as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Taiwan will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programs, increasing both the risk of use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and fissile materials into the hands of rogue states or terrorists...The knowledge of how to construct a simple gun-type nuclear device, like the one we dropped on Hiroshima, is now widespread. Experts have little doubt that terrorists could construct such a primitive device if they acquired the requisite enriched uranium material. Indeed, just last summer, at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry said, "I have never been more fearful of a nuclear detonation than now.… There is a greater than 50 percent probability of a nuclear strike on US targets within a decade." I share his fears.

Now do you see why I get so upset when all I can find on the news is Anna and Britney?
Sleep well.

The Executive Hydra

2007-03-02T13:01:00.004-08:00

I realize that a lot of things have changed in the last few years, but I thought it was just the President and the Vice President who were above the law; I didn't realize the Attorney General was also. John Mitchell would have liked to have known that, I bet.
From the Union-Leader, by way of Arianna:

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has indicated he is too busy to answer letters from Democratic congressional leaders about his firing seven U.S. attorneys involved in probes of public corruption, though a lower-level Justice Department official rejected their proposals.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus chairman, had written Gonzales two letters suggesting that he name Carol Lam, fired as U.S. attorney in San Diego, as an outside counsel to continue her pursuit of the Duke Cunningham case. Asked by Melissa Charbonneau of the Christian Broadcasting Network about this column’s report that Gonzales did not respond, Gonzales said: “I think that the American people lose if I spend all my time worrying about congressional requests for information, if I spend all my time responding to subpoenas.”
Richard A. Hertling, the acting Justice Department lobbyist, responded Wednesday, 22 days after Emanuel’s letter. He contended “the Justice Department would not ever seek the resignation of a U.S. attorney if doing so would jeopardize a public corruption case” and rejected naming Lam as a special prosecutor. "

The Executive Hydra, growing new heads as necessary.

Military Commissions and Signing Statements

2007-03-02T13:01:00.003-08:00

I am currently engaged in a long-running debate with an acquaintance on the subject of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed into law by GWB 17 October 2006. The root of the disagreement concerns applicability, i.e., does the MCA apply only to non-citizens, or does it appy to American citizens as well? Can this truly frightening piece of legislation be turned against Americans? My contention is, Yes it does, and yes it can-and I am unfortunately reinforced in this opinion by some fairly serious folks. Marty Lederman at Balkin gets to the nub of it:

"...the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any person "who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.

I don't see anything in the language that limits the bill to non-citizens. Further confirmation is provided in this excerpt from Keith Olberman's interview with Jonathan Turley:

OLBERMANN: To assess what this law will truly mean for us all, I’m joined by Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.
I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, “a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”
Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.
And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.
So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he’s going be putting on this board.
OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
TURLEY: It does. And it’s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn’t rely on their good motivations.
Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.
It couldn’t be more significant. And the strange thing is, we’ve become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, “Dancing with the Stars.” I mean, it’s otherworldly.

Wow.
And lest one be deceived into believing that "habeas corpus" can be limited without the Bill of Rights as collateral damage, consider this, also from Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: The reality is without habeas corpus, a lot of other rights lose their meaning. But if you look at the actual Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of that pesky Constitution, you’ll see just how many remain for your protection.
OK, No. 1 is gone. I mean, if you’re detained without trial, you lose your freedom of religion and speech, press, assembly, all the rest of that. So, you don’t need that any more.
And you know, you can’t petition the government for anything.
No. 2, While you are in prison, your right to keep and bear arms just might be infringed upon even if you’re in the NRA, so that’s gone.
Three, well OK, no forced sleepovers at your house by soldiers.
Three’s all right.
Four, you’re definitely not secure against searches and seizures, as it says here, with or without probable cause. And, in prison that’s not limited to just the guards, so forget the fourth.
Five, grand juries and due process, obviously out, so forget five and the little trailer up here.
Six, well trials are gone too, let alone the right to counsel. Speedy trials? You want it when?
Seven, well this is about—I thought we just covered trials and juries earlier so forget the seventh.
Eight, well, bail’s kind of a moot point isn’t it?
And nine, other rights retained by the people. Well, you know, if you can name them during your water boarding, we’ll consider them.
Ten, powers not delegated to the United States federal government. Well, they seem to have ended up there anyway. So as you can see, even without habeas corpus, at least one tenth of the Bill of Rights, I guess that’s the Bill of Right, now—remains virtually intact. No. 3 is still safe.
We can rest easy knowing that we will never, ever have to quarter soldiers in our homes as long as the third amendment still stands strong.
The president can just take care of that with a signing statement.

A signing statement? What's the problem with that?
Let's ask John Dean! He knows a little bit about executive power!

Dean:
"Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law. "
"Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."
The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all."

I'll give the last word to Patrick Leahy:

"Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse -- is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill."

I agree, Senator. So...what are you going to do about it? Where does this stop?

Pearl Harbor Pictures

2007-03-02T13:01:00.002-08:00

Hello, Street-
This was forwarded to me several days ago. I do not know the original source, nor have I checked the figures that are provided. Having said that, I have to second the statement below-I, too, think the pics are spectacular.
Thanks to Glenda.

PHOTOS STORED IN AN OLD BROWNIE CAMERA

Thought you might find these photo's very interesting, what quality from 1941.
Pearl Harbor photos found in an old Brownie stored in a foot locker.

THESE PHOTOS ARE FROM A SAILOR WHO WAS ON THE USS QUAPAW ATF-110 -
I THINK THEY'RE SPECTACULAR!
(Editor's note: just to recap-)

PEARL HARBOR December 7th, 1941.
On Sunday, December 7th, 1941 the Japanese launched a surprise attack against the U.S. Forces stationed at Pearl Harbor , Hawaii . By planning his attack on a Sunday, the Japanese commander, Admiral Nagumo, hoped to catch the entire fleet in port. As luck would have it, the Aircraft Carriers and one of the Battleships were not in port. (The USS Enterprise was returning from Wake Island, where it had just delivered some aircraft. The USS Lexington was ferrying aircraft to Midway, and the USS Saratoga and USS Colorado were undergoing repairs in the United States.) In spite of the latest intelligence reports about the missing aircraft carriers (his most important targets), Admiral Nagumo decided to continue the attack with his force of six carriers and 423 aircraft. At a range of 230 miles north of Oahu, he launched the first wave of a two-wave attack. Beginning at 0600 hours his first wave consisted of 183 fighters and torpedo bombers, which struck at the fleet in Pearl Harbor and the airfields in Hickam, Kaneohe and Ewa. The second strike, launched at 0715 hours, consisted of 167 aircraft, which again struck at the same targets. At 0753 hours the first wave consisting of 40 Nakajima B5N2 "Kate" torpedo bombers, 51 Aichi D3A1 "Val" dive bombers, 50 high altitude bombers and 43 Zeros struck airfields and Pearl Harbor Within the next hour, the second wave arrived and continued the attack. When it was over, the U.S. losses were:
CasualtiesUSA : 218 KIA, 364 WIA. USN: 2,008 KIA, 710 WIA. USMC: 109 KIA, 69 WIA. Civilians: 68 KIA, 35 WIA. TOTAL: 2,403 KIA, 1,178 WIA.
Battleships:
USS Arizona (BB-39) - total loss when a bomb hit her magazine.
USS Oklahoma (BB-37) - Total loss when she capsized and sunk in the harbor.
USS California (BB-44) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS West Virginia (BB-48) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS Nevada - (BB-36) Beached to prevent sinking. Later repaired.
USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) - Light damage.
USS Maryland (BB-46) - Light damage.
USS Tennessee (BB-43) Light damage.
USS Utah (AG-16) - (former battleship used as a target) - Sunk.
Cruisers:
USS New Orleans (CA-32) - Light Damage.
USS San Francisco (CA38) - Light Damage.
USS Detroit (CL-8) - Light Damage.
USS Raleigh (CL-7) - Heavily damaged but repaired.
USS Helena (CL-50) - Light Damage.
USS Honolulu (CL-48) - Light Damage.
Destroyers:
USS Downes (DD-375) - Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Cassin - (DD-37 2) Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Shaw (DD-373) - Very heavy damage.
USS Helm (DD-388) - Light Damage.

Minelayer USS Ogala (CM-4) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.
Seaplane TenderUSS Curtiss (AV-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.
Repair ShipUSS Vestal (AR-4) - Sever ely damaged but later repaired.
Harbor TugUSS Sotoyomo (YT-9) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.

Aircraft:188 Aircraft destroyed (92 USN and 92 U.S. Army Air Corps.)

There's more-it just won't all post at once. More to follow-