A Good Reason Not to Blog

"My silence is a form of kindness."

Whitey

The news that white births are now a minority in the US, as shocking as it may be to some fellow Caucasians, sounds good to me.  Racial distinctions are inherently meaningless and often destructive so the sooner we dispense with them, the better.

Juan Cole states the matter well in his discussion of whiteness: 

Whiteness as it was constructed in the nineteenth century was not about skin color but about being Protestant and propertied...[s]o not all whites were equally white. Moreover, Catholic immigrants such as the Irish, the Poles and the Italians were either not considered white when they first came or were denoted as a lesser category of white. Jews, Arabs, Japanese and Chinese were also not considered white.... The Latinos have for the moment been categorized as non-white, but surely everyone can see how arbitrary that is. Many Latinos in Argentina and Brazil are of Italian ancestry. If they come to the US now, they are a ‘minority’ or ‘brown.’ But their cousins who just came straight to Rhode Island are ‘white.’

[...]

Ultimately, the whole idea of whiteness can only be kept going through a set of racial and class exclusions. Working-class African-Americans eternally get the short end of the stick. Recent immigrant groups are often excluded along with them.
The better outcome would be to just stop using the word ‘white.’ As should be clear from the above, it doesn’t actually mean anything. If you really had to categorize citizens of the US by ancestry (why?), use geographical terms. We have African-Americans. Why not have European-Americans or Euros? Since there may not be a currency called that much longer, we can repurpose the term.

 Best of all if we can just say that in the US, we are all Americans and stop categorizing people with regard to their adaptation to ultraviolet waves. It is anyway a temporary adaptation.

 Racial distinctions, like national borders, privilege some and exclude many.  No doubt that is why they are so useful.

Other chroniclers of whiteness, in case you are interested, include  Neil Irvin Painter and Martin Mull.

Word Dance

BushCheney's shell game of political non-accountbility is once again brought forth to bamboozle a gullible public. The NYT reports today of greater White House involvement in the destruction of the CIA "harsh interrogation tapes". True to form, though, everything is a bit vague and uncertain. We know Jose' Rodriguez actually gave the order for which he claims written legal advice; so far that document has not been verified. Besides, others also had a say. John Negroponte advised against destruction; other advise was less certain. In the end, it's a matter of interpretation and understanding, not entirely clear. Nobody's fault, really.

I find one great culprit in the quote, “There was an expectation on the part of those providing legal guidance that additional bases would be touched,” said one government official with knowledge of the matter. “That didn’t happen.” Whose expectation? What bases? "There was" is the most vague of passive constructions, indicating neither actor nor action. I learned early in my writing career that an informative sentence tells "who's kicking whom?", subject, verb, object. Clear and simple. Which, of course is why the phrase is so common in modern discourse: officials want to cover up while journalists can't quite tell. Just perfect for CheneyBush. No one ever is rally to blame. You know? Well, we do have Mister Rodriguez but he was acting in good faith and on the advice of legal staff. Time to move on.

Just like the distorted intelligence prior to invading Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi Army or firing the US attorneys. These things...well, there was a misunderstanding...These things happen. Let's move on.

If America believes these actions are consistent with the idea of accountable, representative government under law, the American Republic has accepted its first Caesar.

Destroying the tapes tells me one thing: The CIA was afraid of what they had done. On that basis alone, I conclude they knew their actions well illegal under US law and treaty obligations. They wanted to HIDE those actions. Which makes me wonder why they taped the interrogations in the first place. Hell, you'd think the CIA would remember that tapes destroyed Richard Nixon. At any rate, the CIA knew it had a "ticking time bomb" (a delicious irony in itself) on it's hands and wanted to defuse it.

As for the ticking time bombs that require harsh interrogation in order to save lives, the jury is still out.

Why “Supporting the Troops” is Wrong

All week long politicians of various stripes declared “Support the troops!” as they debated Iraq war supplemental funding bill. Actually, I’ve been hearing that mantra pretty much ever since the war began. The big difference is that early on, Americans had other goals to pursue: finding weapons of mass destruction, destroying evil and bringing democracy to a benighted region. These days supporting the troops is about all that we have left.

“We can’t let the troops down. Not after they’ve given so much.”

“The troops know they can succeed, if only we give them the tools they need.”

“The nation must show itself worthy of these brave men and women.”

The debate, such as it was, seemed to center on the troops. America’s war aims are apparently not nearly as important.

At this point I will note that CheneyBush does talk about the war and its importance in protecting (insert “vulnerable America” image here; this week it was “your children”) against a growing, alien danger. Regular readers of this space know that I consider anything he says to be “...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Today, I want to consider one way that Americans blind ourselves to this distressing reality.

“Support the troops” provides cover for all sides in the debate about the war and occupation. It’s an all purpose phrase that works well as both offense and defense. But, in reality, the politicians are supporting war, not troops. At the most fundamental level, the troops are a basic tool of war, previously funded with regular appropriations. The funding bill is about equipment and operations, about how and where those troops will apply the lethal force that CheneyBush has decided is necessary in Iraq to achieve his policies. You might as well say you support the tanks and helicopters, too.

The troops may be cogs in our war machine but they are still our daughters, sons, husbands, wives, parents, siblings and friends, far more precious than mere equipment. Now that over 3400 Americans are dead and another 25,000 wounded, we apparently cannot change to a more successful strategy because that would be a “defeat”, a “loss”. “Their sacrifices would be in vain,.” we are told. “It will destroy morale.” Note that nothing in these words speaks to the national interest for which we are asking these men, women and their families to sacrifice. Here’s where CheneyBush starts bleating “Al-Qaeda!”, “Terrorist!”, “Fear!” to conjure up a threat worth dying for. As noted above, I consider this highly bogus.

Listening to the debate on funding the Iraq occupation, it seems that the politicians care far more for individual soldiers and less about the reasons for their sacrifice. It seems that we dare not tell the troops that their sacrifices did not make America safer because CheneyBush led them into an impossible situation. So the nation tells them “Keep going, keep sacrificing, we’ll make it work somehow.” We “support the troops” by continuing to put them at risk in pursuit of failed policy.

And the troops will keep on doing what they are told. They want to. That’s why most of them joined. As an organization, the military wants to demonstrate its ability to serve the nation, even under difficult, hazardous circumstances. The troops will accept challenge and risk because that’s what they prepare and train for. It’s their job to take risks for the nation, the more challenging the better. Think Normandy, Iwo Jima, Chosin Reservoir or Ia Drang Valley. Street fighting in Baghdad may not be so dramatic or large scale but it’s very deadly and tests our troops as greatly as any previous military challenge.

After four years of war, death and sacrifice, we are afraid to tell our forces–and ourselves–that invading and occupying Iraq was a mistake, that all their sacrifice did nothing to strengthen America. Even worse, the war and occupation has nourished future terrorists and tarnished the nation’s reputation. By any objective standard, Iraq has been a waste. That does not diminish our troops’s sacrifice, their courage or their determination. Those achievements are beyond success or failure. The nation asked. They served. We must never forget their sacrifice. But we also must continue to ask why that sacrifice was needed if it did not serve our national interests. We can truly honor that sacrifice by releasing them from CheneyBush’s lies.

A majority of Americans now see through these lies and distortions. But apparently, we dare not tell the troops. I guess we don’t think they can handle it. That’s bullshit. Not only do most of them know what their fellow Americans think, many of them think the same. They can handle the truth. They’re trained to handle just about anything. I’m pretty sure our troops can redeploy and stand down as well as they have performed in combat, if the focus of American policy becomes Iraqi responsibility and regional diplomacy rather than occupation.

Many, I am sure, will welcome the change, the chance to escape a nightmarish futility. Others will be disappointed, believing they were denied the opportunity to succeed. But, in the end, they are soldiers. Their job is to apply force, as directed, in pursuit of policy objectives. If that policy does not succeed, our troops (and especially the military leadership) should be able to understand and adapt to the change. Explaining why we asked them to sacrifice in the first place will be the tricky part since the original reasons were so dramatic, coming on the heals of the 9-11 attacks and so patently false. That’s where we must face up to CheneyBush’s lies. It seems that America is unwilling to do that just yet. CheneyBush is clearly unwilling. Instead politicians claim to “support the troops” when, in fact, they support war and occupation, a policy that has cascaded from one disaster to another, degraded our military, wasted lives and distracted our attention from real economic, diplomatic, environmental and social issues that threaten our nation.

“Supporting the troops” ignores questions of policy and war. It’s an all purpose mantra that keeps us from asking how and why we are sacrificing these brave men and women. “Supporting the troops” is wrong because it keeps us from thinking about why our leaders called for this sacrifice. If we really want to support the troops, we will continue to ask, "Why?".

Words to Remember

Came across this quote in a biography of Earl Warren. Justice Robert Jackson wrote these words in the 1943 case, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

To repeat, "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

Eloquent and true words. They speak of and to the most fundamental American ideal.

Language Skills 101

CheneyBush and his Republican parrots are screeching "enemies", "defeat", "bloodbath", "dire consequences" at Harry Reid and the Democrats who advocate ending the American occupation of Iraq. Reid replies that the war is already "lost" and America should invest no more of its sons and daughters.

What I find amazing is why the Democrats accept CheneyBush's framework for this debate. America "loses" only when we accept defeat, only when we say as a nation that we will or can no longer pursue and protect legitimate national interests. Nothing I've heard in any of the alternatives to CheneyBush's war and occupation suggests to me that those alternatives compromise America's ability to protect itself. Rather, I see them enhancing our security by abandoning a costly, failed policy in favor of something that works, something that promotes regional involvement and responsibility. If we're really good (or lucky) this appoach will stop the bloodbath that CheneyBush now uses to justify continued occupation.

Keep in mind, too, that the "victory-defeat" framework works the other way as well. America cannot win until our adversaries accept defeat. That's why we're still fighting long after "Mission Accomplished". Even worse, who exactly will surrender? America has a multitude of adversaries in Iraq, any one or more of whom may continueto fight. Much easier with an actual state and its army. Under these circumstances "victory" is elusive.

Finally, I question the concept of "the enemy" of whom CheneyBush constantly speaks. Why is it that I or my country has enemies? Exactly what does that mean? To me, enemy means inplacable and never-ending hatred. I cannot think of why I should hate any individual or nation without end. I may be angry at them. I may think they act against me or my country's legitimate interests. But these actions are a matter of circumstance, environment and human weakness rather than specifically directed at me or my country. I certainly left Vietnam feeling that way toward my VC and North Vietnamese adversaries, despite their persistent attempts to kill me. Once I and my nation left Vietnam, that nation has not been any real threat to America. That's why I prefer to have adversaries rather than enemies. I can deal with an adversary to overcome differences. Force and violence are not part of that relationship.

For me, Iraq is a problem to be solved not a war to be "won". Iraq's problems are best solved locally by the parties most at interest. America will win when the killing stops and Iraq governs itself. Iraq will only govern itself when its leaders make their own decisions with the confidence (ideally) or acquiesence (at least) of its people. In a nation that overwhelmingly objects to foreign occupation, the people will not give their confidence to allies of the occupier.

That makes the first real step toward a real solution very simple. No doubt too simple for CheneyBush.

Devil's Dictionary, Iraq Edition

Tom Englehardt has a fine piece at TomDispatch on the evolution of language in the Iraq war. Like Ambrose Bierce over a century ago, Englehardt demonstrates how CheneyBush has used language to avoid the reality of his failed vision in the Middle East.

The developing administration language for the President's surge plan in Baghdad (and al-Anbar Province) does several things. It manufactures "newness" from some of the older and less promising materials around; it creates a "new" plan out of ancient, failed strategies, not to say, the thinnest of air. It also strips Iraq of some of its recent horrendous past, and us of our responsibility for it. In this case at least, that is what "starting over" really means.

This new, hopeful language offers one group -- and only one -- a "second" chance: the top officials of an administration that otherwise looked to be in its last throes. It has bought a little time for George Bush, while adding some new twisted definitions to an American Devil's Dictionary of War in Iraq, all the while carefully leaving blank pages where significant definitional chunks of reality should be.

But make no mistake, whatever words may be wielded, that "clock" of General Petraeus's is indeed ticking --loudly enough to be a bomb. Sooner or later, it will go off and whether it proves to be an alarm, waking Congress and the American people, or an explosion demolishing some aspect of our world remains unknown. In June or August or October, when horrific reality in Iraq outpaces whatever the Bush administration tries to call it, we may have our answer and perhaps then reality will name us.