This is Not a Pipe*

In all the debate about health care, this article may be the most accurate.


(*with apologies to Rene' Magritte.)

Looking for a Hard Rain

In case you don't already know, I also blog at Mockingbird's Medley, usually with content different from my posts here, sometimes not. I was on my way to posting an item there today when I and found head Mocker, Mimus Pauly's, post on the alienation and disappointment he has experienced as a thinking American who loves his country. The entire post is worth the read so you will truly understand his final words.

And it is the idea of shattering of that bond [faith in our Constitution, laws and ideals] that the pretenders in Washington on St. Patrick's Day saw fit to honor. Forget about al-Qaida for a moment -- that is the existential threat America faces. People who know deep down that this country is porked beyond remedy if things don't change soon, yet maintain their bogus fronts because it makes them feel less apprehensive. Neo-cons. Thirty-percenters. War fetishists. Fake Christians. Empty vessels.

I don't know when that stormcloud is finally going to burst open, but the longer it takes, the harder that rain is going to pour when it finally does. I hope those pretenders know how to swim...

I'm not sure I want them to swim. I want the rain to wash that kind of ignorance and hatred away.

Don't Say That Word

How to properly speak bureaucratese.

Affairs of the House

House Democrats look to have the votes to fund another year of war in Iraq and some gratuitous pork. Like the long-time anti-war Democrats, I am conflicted about the bill. It does not really constrain CheneyBush and continues a pattern of Democratic support for an ill-advised policy that goes back at least five years.

But it does set a date to end combat. That's worth something. It's a statement that the House of Representatives wants the occupation to end in a given time. It could also mean that some members want their agricultural subsidies. Not the compelling statement of opposition I think is merited but at least a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, CheneyBush and his allies are afraid of even this small sign of opposition, so it has a symbolic value. Weak and feeble as the House bill is, it's not likely to survive the Senate, CheneyBush's veto or his willfull disregard for law.

Funding military operations in Iraq is not my main objection to the bill. Our military is there and should be able to protect itself and carry out its mission. What I object to is continuing the mission. I want to change the mission from active combat to withdrawal in favor of local and regional control and containment of potential external threats in a less destructive manner in cooperation with neighboring nations and our world partners. I believe Congress has every right and to insist that the executive change a failed policy. What this Congress is likely to produce will fall far short of meeting that responsibility.

Congress is not completely hopeless, though. The House yesterday passed the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act which directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop and carry out a comprehensive program designed to reduce the incidence of suicide among veterans. Last week the House Armed Services Committee reported out the Wounded Warrior Act of 2007 to improve the management of medical care, personnel actions, and quality of life issues for members of the Armed Forces who are receiving medical care in an outpatient status. The bill is still awaiting action by the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

I'll take progress where I can find it. You legislate with the Congress you have, not the one you wish you had.

Why the Democrats Aren't Much of an Alternative

Tony smith, professor at Tufts University tells us why we should not expect too much change with the change of party control in Washington.

Many Democrats, including senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, embraced the idea of muscular foreign policy based on American global supremacy and the presumed right to intervene to promote democracy or to defend key U.S. interests long before 9/11, and they have not changed course since. Even those who have shifted against the war have avoided doctrinal questions.

[...]

In fact, these neoliberals are nearly indistinguishable from the better-known neoconservatives. The neocons' think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), often salutes individuals within the PPI, and PPI members such as Marshall signed PNAC petitions endorsing the Iraq invasion. Weeks after "With All Our Might" appeared, the Weekly Standard, virtually the PNAC house organ, gave it a thumbs-up review. And why not? The PPI and PNAC are tweedledum and tweedledee.

Sources for many of the critical elements of the Bush doctrine can be found in the emergence of neoliberal thought during the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War. In think tanks, universities and government offices, left-leaning intellectuals, many close to the Democratic Party, formulated concepts to bring to fruition the age-old dream of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson "to make the world safe for democracy." These neolibs advocated the global expansion of "market democracy." They presented empirical, theoretical, even philosophical arguments to support the idea of the United States as the indispensable nation. Albright's self-assured declaration descended directly from traditional Wilsonianism.

[...]

It isn't easy to offer a true alternative. The challenges to world order are many, as are the influential special interests in this country that want an aggressive policy: globalizing corporations, the military-industrial complex, the pro-Israel lobbies, those who covet Middle Eastern oil. The nationalist conviction that we are indeed "the indispensable nation" will continue to tempt our leaders to overplay their hand. The danger lies in believing that our power is beyond challenge, that the righteousness of our goals is beyond question and that the real task is not to reformulate our role in the world so much as to assert more effectively a global American peace.

Professor Smith clearly identifies the challenge for those of us who want real change in American policy throughout the world: developing a world view that supports American interests in a muturally cooperative world. It's not as sexy as the robust hegemony of the neo-cons and neo-libs but it is reality based in that it recognizes the limits of power. Right now, I am part of an anti-war movement that is concerned with a disastrous war. Professor Smith reminds us to look beyond our immediate pain and ask what should be the goals and means of American foreign policy. Many in the anti-war and other progressive movements have, in fact, asked this question but there is lilttle serious discussion among the major parties. We will have to force the issue.

Unfortunately, the only real vehicle for this purpose is the Democratic Party. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go with the party you have, not the party you wished you had. I guess. That's why I have my doubts about the prospects for real change. Even so, I know what I want for America: peace and prosperity, the same goal I have for the rest of the world. Which is why I will continue to press Democrats to offer real change.

The Iraq debate is very, very important but it is only the beginning. I want Democrats to move American policy away from unilateral military action to diplomacy and negotiation. I want policy that acknowledges and understands the traditions, culture and needs of our partners in the world, the many peoples who share this planet with us. I want America to be a nation that is respected for our ideals, not scorned as a foreign occupier or cynical corporate and cultural manipulator.

America's history has always encompassed the twin threads of idealism and opportunisim with the latter often cloaked in the former. No doubt as human beings, we will always be subject to greed and self-interest but I am always rooting for the better angels of our nature to keep up the fight, to look beyond the immediate to see a new world of possibility.

The Word We Dare Not Speak

God forbid that I defend John McCain. But he recently spoke the truth about the Iraq war. Because the war in Iraq has been mismanaged and bungled, McCain said that American lives–“our most precious treasure”–were “wasted”. He quickly changed his wording to “sacrificed” and insisted that more “sacrifice” is in order in order to protect America from an “even greater danger if we are defeated there”. Amazingly, McCain’s new wording came after howls of protest from–are you ready for this?–Democrats who, of course faced a similar contretemps when Barak Obama used the waste word to characterize the failed war and occupation.

So let me get this right. Democrats are unwilling to admit that the United States has wasted lives in Iraq? A war that should have never been launched? A war that has been characterized by failed vision, poor planning and distorted intelligence? A war that has cost this nation the sympathy and understanding of the entire world since 9-11? A war that has given new life and opportunity to the small scale but lethal terrorists who have pledged their enmity toward this nation, its allies and interests? Even the fucking DEMOCRATS won’t call this catastrophe a waste?

With leaders like this America will never escape Iraq and begin to repair the self-inflicted damage caused by what is arguably the greatest strategic blunder in American history. Vietnam was bad but at least the policy makers of that era had not previous example of a horrible waste that did us no good. Hell, I knew invading Iraq in 2003 was a bad move and I’m just a schmuck who knows a little history. Our so-called leaders just assumed it would be a piece of cake and walked into it. And they are SO unable to control the chaos and violence they unleashed. Why isn’t this considered a waste? What perverted and distorted values keep Americans from recognizing a truly bad deal when they see it? A bad deal that kills and maims daughters, sons, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers.

John McCain was right. Iraq is a waste. He claims that those lives will only be sacrificed–not wasted–if we are not defeated. No, John, they are wasted no matter what the outcome because Iraq never threatened the United States in a manner that called for an unilateral invasion. None of the brave Americans who have been killed and wounded need have given their lives, limbs and peace of mind to protect America from any danger that could not have been addressed diplomatically and with international cooperation. That, John, is my definition of waste.

An even greater waste is to send more lives into the meat grinder in the vain hope of creating a result that will any way benefit America. Much of the world, our neighbors on this small planet, probably don’t think we are have earned the right to expect a favorable outcome. We have squandered American lives and treasure and will reap only more animosity and terror from a world that only five years ago stood with us against Al-Qaeda.

What I find so infuriating about this whole thing is the waste. That’s why I agree with your original wording. What is wasted along with the lives and treasure is Americans patriotism. Patriotic Americans are sacrificing, performing heroically to NO END. All that sacrifice and heroism goes for naught. You want to believe that America can somehow manage Iraq to a satisfactory conclusion but it won’t happen until Iraqis can come to their own agreement. In the meantime we are simply creating more instability and chaos.

Americans want out. Iraqis want us out. A growing number of the soldiers you ask to sacrifice yet again question their purpose and mission, especially returning for a third or fourth time only to see a more deteriorated, violent “nation” than the one they left a year or 18 months before. IT’S NOT WORKING! IT’S A WASTE!

John Kerry has made two statements in his life that are unassailable. In 1971 he asked How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake? More recently he noted that half of the names on the Vietnam Memorial came after Americans had decided that war was not in our interest. I served with the men who were among the last few of the 58,000 dead. It sucked. Big time. It was a waste. I knew that even as I served. If someone was killed, we said he’d been “wasted”. We knew what our lives were worth.

But at least the danger was limited. Failure in Vietnam was embarrassing but hardly catastrophic. Iraq is already a catastrophic failure. It has broken the Army in a way not seen since Vietnam. It bleeds our treasury and distracts us from the real job of building an economy that can serve America and the world in the 21st century. It even distracts us from combating the terrorists who threaten us. Yes, they do threaten us. I acknowledge that but I don’t believe we need to occupy and destroy other nations and peoples in order to effectively fight that terrorism. In fact, I believe our ill-advised war and occupation strengthens our adversaries

So, John, for once I will defend your words as correct. I also support your restatement because you don’t really think it’s a waste. You are willing to send more lives into harm’s way. But it’s a waste, John. An obscene, fucking waste.