Op-Ed
Tomorrow, Thursday, March 24th, Congressman Dennis Kucinich plans to introduce a privileged resolution to end the Afghan War. The resolution requires that the House debate, within the next week, the continuing war in Afghanistan, now the second longest war in American history.
While we may not win a majority vote in the House on this first go-round, and would still have to get past the Senate and the President (a good time if ever there was one to throw Scylla and Charybdis into a blog), we will completely change the conversation and put many congress members on record claiming to oppose the war. While the president can send congressional Democrats out to fall on their swords for unpopular wars and healthcare mandates, they may be less willing to do so if the end of their careers is held up to their noses. To keep their careers alive, congress members in progressive districts will have to claim to oppose the war in/on Afghanistan.
While we may not win a majority vote in the House on this first go-round, and would still have to get past the Senate and the President (a good time if ever there was one to throw Scylla and Charybdis into a blog), we will completely change the conversation and put many congress members on record claiming to oppose the war. While the president can send congressional Democrats out to fall on their swords for unpopular wars and healthcare mandates, they may be less willing to do so if the end of their careers is held up to their noses. To keep their careers alive, congress members in progressive districts will have to claim to oppose the war in/on Afghanistan.
Washington and its willing mouthpieces in the media have for years been trying to sell us the preposterous war in Afghanistan. While they attempt to convince us that the war is predicated on a faultless military logic and moral wisdom, it remains in fact a tragic adventure with no decipherable objectives, and involving several countries, private contractors, and all sorts of firms seeking to make a quick buck.
The intellectual cowardice of some should not blind the majority to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is morally indefensible and militarily unwinnable.
The decision of the US to continue with its brutal military adventurism in Afghanistan can only be understood in terms of its limited and highly selfish political logic.
The intellectual cowardice of some should not blind the majority to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is morally indefensible and militarily unwinnable.
The decision of the US to continue with its brutal military adventurism in Afghanistan can only be understood in terms of its limited and highly selfish political logic.
The American people voted out the policies of George W. Bush’s administration. Voters turned their back on W’s war policies and torture; repudiated his Orwellian anti-environmentalism and demanded green jobs; and rejected his bailout of the big investment bankers that destroyed our economy.
Then, in came the political savior – a seemingly untainted junior first-term senator from Illinois.
The shiny knight was distinguished from other Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry because as a state senator he had made “the speech” opposing the illegal attack on Iraq.
But did he ride in on a Trojan horse?
It’s now clear Obama favors the same failed policies as the Bushites. Obama embraces the same “the surge is working” mantra, simply shifting the location from Iraq to Afghanistan. He echoes W’s nonsensical rhetoric that the massive U.S. forces in Iraq and being dispensed to Afghanistan are “fighting for our freedom.”
Then, in came the political savior – a seemingly untainted junior first-term senator from Illinois.
The shiny knight was distinguished from other Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry because as a state senator he had made “the speech” opposing the illegal attack on Iraq.
But did he ride in on a Trojan horse?
It’s now clear Obama favors the same failed policies as the Bushites. Obama embraces the same “the surge is working” mantra, simply shifting the location from Iraq to Afghanistan. He echoes W’s nonsensical rhetoric that the massive U.S. forces in Iraq and being dispensed to Afghanistan are “fighting for our freedom.”
At Friday's hearing on torture memos, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy asked Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler whether the Department of Justice agrees with John Yoo that a president's powers cannot be limited with regard to such actions as massacring villages. Grindler did not provide an answer.
Liveblog of Leahy Hearing on Yoo and Bybee and Margolis Without Yoo or Bybee or Margolis:
Of course nobody's been subpoenaed.
10:00-10:15 delay and puffery.
10:16 Leahy running his mouth. OPR report has gaps, including Yoo's Emails which were required to be maintained by law. Leahy says he'll ask witness (Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler) about that. Says memos were "shoddy" and "twisted the plain meaning of statutes." But THAT is a violation of the anti-torture statute and a felony.
Liveblog of Leahy Hearing on Yoo and Bybee and Margolis Without Yoo or Bybee or Margolis:
Of course nobody's been subpoenaed.
10:00-10:15 delay and puffery.
10:16 Leahy running his mouth. OPR report has gaps, including Yoo's Emails which were required to be maintained by law. Leahy says he'll ask witness (Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler) about that. Says memos were "shoddy" and "twisted the plain meaning of statutes." But THAT is a violation of the anti-torture statute and a felony.
Playwright Lillian Hellman said: “I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.” The statement was in a letter to the House Un-American Activities Committee. The year was 1952. We tell ourselves that the McCarthy era was vastly different than our own -- but what about the political fashions of 2010? This year’s fashions cut mean figures on Washington’s runways. Conformities lie, and people die.
While the escalating disaster of war in Afghanistan keeps setting deadly blazes, the few anti-war voices on Capitol Hill usually sound like people whispering “Fire!”
In 2010, this is what the warfare state looks like: a largely numbed state, mainlining anesthetics that induce routine torpor. In that context, the conformity of mild dissent is apt to be mistaken for outspoken moral acuity.
On the back of an envelope, or anywhere else, check this math:
$1,000,000 x 100,000 = $100,000,000,000
In round flat numbers, that’s the cost of deploying 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for one year -- $100 billion. The initial “cost” includes none of the human consequences.
While the escalating disaster of war in Afghanistan keeps setting deadly blazes, the few anti-war voices on Capitol Hill usually sound like people whispering “Fire!”
In 2010, this is what the warfare state looks like: a largely numbed state, mainlining anesthetics that induce routine torpor. In that context, the conformity of mild dissent is apt to be mistaken for outspoken moral acuity.
On the back of an envelope, or anywhere else, check this math:
$1,000,000 x 100,000 = $100,000,000,000
In round flat numbers, that’s the cost of deploying 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for one year -- $100 billion. The initial “cost” includes none of the human consequences.
I'm not a big fan of post-partisan America, a notion that seems to amount to running the government through two political parties but taking care that one of them not perform in any significant way better than the other one. But I am a fan of the idea, which nobody ever seems to consider, of actually disempowering parties.
That idea has a precedent in the first dozen years or so of our republic whose Constitution never planned for party rule, although nonpartisanship would obviously have to look very different today. I suspect we could imagine ways of making party-free government work if we tried. At the moment, however, Americans' political thinking is so party-saturated, that any talk of opposing parties is met with the question "Which one?" or with the statement "Yeah, I'm for a third party too!"
Read the following blog post by John Caruso titled We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas
That idea has a precedent in the first dozen years or so of our republic whose Constitution never planned for party rule, although nonpartisanship would obviously have to look very different today. I suspect we could imagine ways of making party-free government work if we tried. At the moment, however, Americans' political thinking is so party-saturated, that any talk of opposing parties is met with the question "Which one?" or with the statement "Yeah, I'm for a third party too!"
Read the following blog post by John Caruso titled We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas
- "John Feffer bewails the lack of any alternative to the Democratic Party:
Playwright Lillian Hellman said: “I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.”
The statement was in a letter to the House Un-American Activities Committee. The year was 1952. We tell ourselves that the McCarthy era was vastly different than our own -- but what about the political fashions of 2010?
This year’s fashions cut mean figures on Washington’s runways. Conformities lie, and people die.
While the escalating disaster of war in Afghanistan keeps setting deadly blazes, the few anti-war voices on Capitol Hill usually sound like people whispering “Fire!”
In 2010, this is what the warfare state looks like: a largely numbed state, mainlining anesthetics that induce routine torpor. In that context, the conformity of mild dissent is apt to be mistaken for outspoken moral acuity.
On the back of an envelope, or anywhere else, check this math:
$1,000,000 x 100,000 = $100,000,000,000
In round flat numbers, that’s the cost of deploying 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for one year -- $100 billion. The initial “cost” includes none of the human consequences.
The statement was in a letter to the House Un-American Activities Committee. The year was 1952. We tell ourselves that the McCarthy era was vastly different than our own -- but what about the political fashions of 2010?
This year’s fashions cut mean figures on Washington’s runways. Conformities lie, and people die.
While the escalating disaster of war in Afghanistan keeps setting deadly blazes, the few anti-war voices on Capitol Hill usually sound like people whispering “Fire!”
In 2010, this is what the warfare state looks like: a largely numbed state, mainlining anesthetics that induce routine torpor. In that context, the conformity of mild dissent is apt to be mistaken for outspoken moral acuity.
On the back of an envelope, or anywhere else, check this math:
$1,000,000 x 100,000 = $100,000,000,000
In round flat numbers, that’s the cost of deploying 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for one year -- $100 billion. The initial “cost” includes none of the human consequences.
Everything you're reading about torture lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee getting off the hook is wrong. They are not torture lawyers, they are not off the hook, there never was any hook, they may not be lawyers for long, impeachment and indictment are on the agenda, and you have a role to play.
The media’s habit of revisiting certain issues at set intervals can be strange and even illogical at times. For example, many news outlets commented on President Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, as well as on the anniversary of his election win, and then again one year after his inauguration day. With every new round number, more commentators joined in and discussions heated up between proponents and detractors of his government’s performance.
I am not exactly sure why we like round numbers. Is it because they make valuations easy, even when the particular number is irrelevant? Some philosophers, Plato included, believed that order and symmetry are innate values in the human psyche. Perhaps. Or, perhaps, in the case of the media, numbers give us the sense, deceptively, that we have a grasp over certain truths. We determine the order in which legacies such as Obama’s should be dissected. After a decided date, the subject can be ignored until the next round number arrives, bringing with it more useless chatter.
I am not exactly sure why we like round numbers. Is it because they make valuations easy, even when the particular number is irrelevant? Some philosophers, Plato included, believed that order and symmetry are innate values in the human psyche. Perhaps. Or, perhaps, in the case of the media, numbers give us the sense, deceptively, that we have a grasp over certain truths. We determine the order in which legacies such as Obama’s should be dissected. After a decided date, the subject can be ignored until the next round number arrives, bringing with it more useless chatter.
When the U.S. military began a major offensive in southern Afghanistan over the weekend, the killing of children and other civilians was predictable. Lofty rhetoric aside, such deaths come with the territory of war and occupation.
A month ago, President Obama pledged $100 million in U.S. government aid to earthquake-devastated Haiti. Compare that to the $100 billion price tag to keep 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for a year.
While commanders in Afghanistan were launching what the New York Times called “the largest offensive military operation since the American-led coalition invaded the country in 2001,” the situation in Haiti was clearly dire.
With more than a million Haitians still homeless, vast numbers -- the latest estimates are around 75 percent -- don’t have tents or tarps. The rainy season is fast approaching, with serious dangers of typhoid and dysentery.
No shortage of bombs in Afghanistan; a lethal shortage of tents in Haiti. Such priorities -- actual, not rhetorical -- are routine.
A month ago, President Obama pledged $100 million in U.S. government aid to earthquake-devastated Haiti. Compare that to the $100 billion price tag to keep 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for a year.
While commanders in Afghanistan were launching what the New York Times called “the largest offensive military operation since the American-led coalition invaded the country in 2001,” the situation in Haiti was clearly dire.
With more than a million Haitians still homeless, vast numbers -- the latest estimates are around 75 percent -- don’t have tents or tarps. The rainy season is fast approaching, with serious dangers of typhoid and dysentery.
No shortage of bombs in Afghanistan; a lethal shortage of tents in Haiti. Such priorities -- actual, not rhetorical -- are routine.