The Longest War?

THE LONG WAR: As of Saturday (Nov. 25, 2006), the war in Iraq has lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, which destroyed Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. At three years and over eight months, "only the Vietnam War (eight years, five months), the Revolutionary War (six years, nine months), and the Civil War (four years), have engaged America longer." More troubling is that multiple factors suggest the Iraq conflict will continue on indefinitely if U.S. troops remain. A classified U.S. government report made public this weekend concludes that the insurgency in Iraq "is now self-sustaining financially, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, connivance by corrupt Islamic charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its American patrons have been largely unable to prevent." Alarmingly, the report concludes that "if recent revenue and expense estimates are correct, terrorist and insurgent groups in Iraq may have surplus funds with which to support other terrorist organizations outside of Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/world/middleeast/26insurgency.html

George Washington - The blame America first president

In 1789, George Washington issued the first national Thanksgiving proclamation. After giving "sincere and humble thanks" for the many blessings our young country had enjoyed, he urged Americans to "unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions."

If Washington were alive to express those sentiments today, he'd be pilloried by Bill O'Reilly as a member of the "Blame America First Club." National transgressions? Who, us?

But, yes, even the U.S.A. screws up sometimes. The invasion of Iraq, for instance, will go down in history as a national transgression of epic proportions — and our original screw-up (an unjustified invasion based on cooked intelligence books) was compounded many times over by our failure to plan for the reconstruction of post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

I visited Iraq in August 2003, back when it was still possible to believe that some good would come out of the U.S. invasion. True, we hadn't found any weapons of mass destruction — but Hussein was out, and ordinary Iraqis were eager to embark on a freer and more prosperous future. On the pedestal that had once supported the famous statue of Hussein (toppled in April 2003 by jubilant Iraqis, with a little help from U.S. troops), an Iraqi graffiti artist left the Americans a pointed message, written in blood-red paint: "ALL DONNE GO HOME."

We should have done just that.

For a long time, I remained ambivalent about whether the U.S. should pull out of Iraq. However foolish the invasion had been, however negligent the post-invasion planning had been, didn't we have a responsibility to stay and make things right again?

But at this point, our presence is manifestly making things worse. Ask the Iraqis, who ought to know. In a poll released this week, 78% of Iraqis told researchers that the U.S. military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing"; 71% said they want U.S. troops out within a year; 58% said they think inter-ethnic violence will diminish if the U.S. withdraws; and 61% think that a U.S. withdrawal will improve day-to-day security for average Iraqis. We should listen to them, this time.

And no, adding another 20,000 or 30,000 troops won't magically turn the tide. It's too little, too late. Adding another 200,000 to 300,000 troops might make a difference, but troops don't grow on trees. They grow in families, and this war has already damaged thousands of those.

 It's hard to imagine our current president asking anyone's forgiveness for our "national transgressions," but this Thanksgiving season would be a pretty good time for him to start. 

Excerpted from an article by Rosa Brooks

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-nov-24-oe-brooks24-story.html

US is top purveyor of WMD

The last thing poor people in developing countries need is more efficient killing machines, but that is exactly what the US is giving them.

The United States last year provided nearly half of the weapons sold to militaries in the developing world, as major arms sales to the most unstable regions -- many already engaged in conflict -- grew to the highest level in eight years, new US government figures show.

According to the annual assessment, the United States supplied $8.1 billion worth of weapons to developing countries in 2005 -- 45.8 percent of the total and far more than second-ranked Russia with 15 percent and Britain with a little more than 13 percent.

Arms control specialists said the figures underscore how the largely unchecked arms trade to the developing world has become a major staple of the American weapons industry, even though introducing many of the weapons risks fueling conflicts rather than aiding long-term US interests.

The report was compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

 "We are at a point in history where many of these sales are not essential for the self-defense of these countries and the arms being sold continue to fuel conflicts and tensions in unstable areas," said Daryl G. Kimball , executive director of the nonpartisan Arms Control Association in Washington. "It doesn't make much sense over the long term."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/13/us_is_top_purveyor_on_weapons_sales_list/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

Public Sector and Private Fortunes

 The Public Sector and Private Fortunes The best way to understand the right-wing social vision - and what is wrong with it - is to start with a very simple "thought experiment". Imagine a millionaire is marooned on a desert island - kind of like Mr. Howell on "Gilligan's Island", for a corny example. What is his fortune worth? The answer is absolutely nothing. In fact, his fortune is less than worthless. It is meaningless. "Wealth" has no tangible reality outside of the social system that creates and regulates its social conventions and symbols. In fact, "wealth" is based on an entire infrastructure of legal concepts. 

These are things like "property rights", "contract rights", "legal tender", "negotiable instruments", "corporations" and the "stocks" and "bonds" those "fictitious persons" issue. On a desert island, your trunk full of cash and your stocks and bonds are so much toilet paper - and they aren't even very good for that. So when cheap-labor conservatives say that "government plays no role in the private economy", I just laugh. In fact, government has created a vast web of infrastructure, conventions and institutions that make our advanced industrial society possible. 

The right-wing social vision often fails to recognize the role of the public sector in creating and maintaining the infrastructure that allows private fortunes to exist. This thought experiment of a millionaire being marooned on a desert island illustrates how wealth is only meaningful in the context of a thriving social system. This system is made up of many components, such as property rights, contract rights, legal tender, negotiable instruments, corporations, and stocks and bonds. These components are all created and regulated by the government, and without them, private fortunes are meaningless. Therefore, it is impossible for the private economy to exist without the public sector playing an essential role.

Truth in time of war.

Truth in times of war has always been a difficult and contentious issue. Wars are frequently characterized by propaganda, misinformation, and factual manipulation, making it difficult for individuals to understand what is truly going on. Here, we'll look at the concept of truth in the context of war and how it relates to pacifism.

Pacifism is the belief that war and violence are wrong and should be avoided at all costs. Pacifists believe that nonviolent conflict resolution methods such as diplomacy, negotiation, and civil resistance should be used. Pacifists are often seen as being out of touch with reality during times of war because they refuse to participate in what is seen as necessary self-defense. They argue, however, that war only perpetuates the cycle of violence and causes more problems than it solves.

Truth can be elusive in war because warring parties have competing interests and frequently manipulate information to gain an advantage. The media is frequently controlled by the state, especially during times of war, making it difficult for individuals to obtain accurate information. In this context, the role of journalists and independent media in providing a balanced and impartial view of events becomes critical.

Pacifists argue that in times of war, the pursuit of truth should be a guiding principle. They believe that war only serves to obscure the truth and that nonviolent conflict resolution is more honest and peaceful. They also contend that war fosters a culture of fear and mistrust, making it more difficult for individuals to seek the truth and for society as a whole to make sound decisions.

Truth in a time of war is a complicated issue. Individuals must have access to accurate information, regardless of those in power's political and ideological biases. Pacifists argue that the pursuit of truth and nonviolent conflict resolution is necessary for achieving a more just and peaceful world. In times of war, it is critical for people to critically examine the information they are given and to seek out alternative viewpoints. Only then can we hope to gain a better understanding of the events that shape our world.