"The Myth of the Surge"

The mainstream media quotes members of Congress and the president describing the surge in Iraq as an unqualified success.

From The Washington Post on February 27th, "Senate Agrees to Debate Bill on Iraq Pullout": “The Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to begin debating a bill that would require the administration to start withdrawing forces from Iraq in 120 days and cut funding for battlefield deployments, a surprise move supported by Republicans who want to highlight the security achievements over the past year under President Bush's troop buildup strategy. [emphasis mine]

“Republicans remain almost unanimously opposed to any required withdrawal timeline, but they supported opening the debate because they want to draw attention to the decreased violence and other military progress in Iraq since the United States sent an additional 30,000 U.S. troops there last year. [emphasis mine]

"There's been so much improvement in the situation in Iraq. Since [Democrats] are the ones who want to turn back to the subject, we'd like to spend the time talking about the dramatic improvements in Iraq," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters moments before a preliminary vote on the withdrawal measure.” [emphasis mine]

Dan Froomkin, who blogs for The Washington Post, reported on Bush’s comments at the February 28th press conference here: “President Bush today defended his unpopular war in Iraq, accusing Democratic leaders of being in denial about progress there…. [emphasis mine]

"It seems that no matter what happens in Iraq, opponents of the war have one answer: retreat," Bush said at a press conference this morning. "When things were going badly in Iraq a year ago, they called for withdrawal. Then we changed our strategy, launched the surge, and turned the situation around. . . . [emphasis mine]

"It's interesting that many of the same people who once accused me of refusing to acknowledge setbacks in Iraq now are the ones who are refusing to acknowledge progress in Iraq."

I wonder why mainstream media journalists, with a few exceptions, don’t report on what Nir Rosen and Chris Hedges have to say about the surge. I’ve read Rosen’s In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs of Iraq and Hedges’s War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.

Both men have risked their lives to report on what is really happening in war zones. Rosen’s Rolling Stone March 6th article "The Myth of the Surge" is a first-hand account of what he learned from meeting with both Sunnis and Shiites last December. It’s a stunning report about how the U.S. arming of Sunni Iraqis is already starting to backfire. It’s long, but you have the whole weekend to read it.

On February 25th, Hedges posted "The Calm Before the Conflagration" at Truthdig. Excerpts: “The supporters of the war, from the Bush White House to Sen. John McCain, tout the surge as the magic solution. But the surge, which primarily deployed 30,000 troops in and around Baghdad, did little to thwart the sectarian violence….

“The Sunni Arab militias, though they have ended attacks on U.S. forces, detest the Shiite-Kurdish government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and abhor the presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil. They take the money and the support with clenched teeth because with it they are able to build a renegade Sunni army, a third force inside Iraq, which they believe will make it possible to overthrow the central government…. There are several hundred thousand well-trained Sunni Arabs who lack only an organizational structure. We have now made the formation of this structure possible. These militias are the foundation for a deadlier insurgent force, one that will dwarf anything the United States faced in the past. The U.S. is arming, funding and equipping its own assassins. “

(photo by Danfung Dennis: A father cares for his daughter after she fainted when US soldiers of Eagle Company, 2-2 Stryker Cavalry Regiment entered the house during an operation in the East Rashid neighborhood of Baghdad, Iraq on Dec. 12, 2007: Rolling Stone)

In defense of Ralph Nader

Some Democrats won’t speak to me because I don’t hold Ralph Nader responsible for George W. Bush’s election in 2000.

In January, 2005, my friend, Tod Brilliant, and I arranged a venue in Healdsburg for Ralph to come talk with us and raise funds to pay off the debts related to his run for president in 2004. Everything he had to say made sense.

Ralph Nader has always made sense to me. I realize that many Democrats think he was a “spoiler” in the 2000 election, resulting in GWB’s running our country for eight disastrous years. To them, Nader’s run in 2000, 2004, and 2008 doesn’t make sense.

Here’s what I ask these Democrats:
1. Is there any substantive issue on which you don’t agree with Ralph Nader? The answer is always, “No.”
2. Why do you blame Nader instead of blaming the Democratic Party for moving so far to the right that Nader stands almost alone in support of Democratic principles? Typically I don’t get an answer to this question.
3. Why don’t you blame the Democratic Party for not supporting public funding of campaigns so that those who are running for office can afford to listen to the citizens? Again, I usually don’t get a response.

Yesterday I posted "The Paul Wellstone Way." Wellstone, whom I admire very much, urged us to vote for what we believe in. For those that believe that Ralph Nader best exemplifies the principles Democrats should stand for, he deserves their support.

On February 25th, I posted ”Zinn and Nader .....hold presidential candidates' feet to the fire." Nader came up with 12 questions to ask Clinton and Obama, questions they should be addressing. I even got some flack for this post.

If the issue of whether or not Ralph Nader is a plus or a minus for our country is worth your time, I urge you to read the following and make up your own mind:

1. Transcript of Ralph Nader's February 24th interview on "Meet the Press."

2. Chris Hedges’s February 26th Truthdig article in support of Nader running for president, "Pariah or Prophet?"

3. "Robert Scheer debates Ralph Nader," a transcript of their conversation on The Nation cruise in July of 2007. Friends who were on the cruise told me they thought Nader won the debate. The debate was presented as “Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer goes head to head with progressive icon Ralph Nader, who denies the charge that he has been a spoiler and challenges the value of the Democratic Party.”

Scheer’s final comments: “Ralph Nader has been one of the great citizens in this country’s history. And I don’t think he cost Gore or Kerry the election. I agree with that analysis, I think that they shot themselves in the foot. And I think they should have run a more vigorous, progressive campaign. In Gore’s case, no one has mentioned it, but he distanced himself from Clinton, who was enormously popular, and he failed to carry his own home state. And if you can’t carry your own home state, you haven’t done something right in that connection. So I agree with Ralph that he should not be held responsible for the state of the country, in any negative way. I think he has been an incredibly useful person, I’m not being condescending here—this is heartfelt. I think he’s a great person. And I do think he has the right to run. ...”

I’ve already decided that Ralph is a plus for our country. I haven’t yet decided whom to vote for, but if I take the late Senator Paul Wellstone’s advice, I’ll be voting for Ralph Nader.

Sidebar: If The Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles captures the feelings of a majority of Democrats, Tuesday's cartoon makes me sad.

(photo of Ralph Nader: World Prout Assembly)

Recommended reading: Chris Hedges on "The War Against Tolerance"

When I first started blogging a year ago, I posted "Does fear of Islam stalk the land?" about the beliefs of three of my friends who are indeed afraid of Islam, aka Muslims. I still find their fear disturbing.

So does Chris Hedges. Go to my November 30th post for more information about Chris.

On February 11th, Chris posted "The War Against Tolerance." It’s pretty alarming. It describes three self-described former Muslim terrorists who have converted to Christianity and are touring in this country spewing “…[R]acist filth about Islam on behalf of groups such as Focus on the Family

“These men stoke these irrational fears. They defend the perpetual war unleashed by the Bush administration and championed by Sen. John McCain. McCain frequently reminds listeners that “the greatest danger facing the world is Islamic terrorism,” as does Mike Huckabee, who says that “Islamofascism” is “the greatest threat this country [has] ever faced.”

It’s hard to read stuff like this, but we need to.

(poster: RumorsDaily.com)

Chris Hedges - A pessi-realist

Reading what Chris Hedges writes is not easy. That’s why I decided to describe him as a “pessi-realist,” not knowing whether or not such a word existed. A Google search reveals that I’m not the first person to use that description. It applies to Hedges because he writes about issues we’d rather not think about, avoiding a patina of optimism to beguile us into thinking that things aren’t quite as bad as they really are.

Hedges is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City and a Lecturer in the Council of Humanities and the Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, where he spent fifteen years.

Hedges was part of The New York Times team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism. He received the 2002 Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism.

My introduction to Hedges was in 2003, when I read his book, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. I try to read everything he writes. Since I know he writes for Truthdig, I frequently check this link to find his most recent articles.

Here are two that I consider must-reads:

1. America in the Time of Empire posted November 26th;

2. Chris Hedges' Civil Disobedience, posted November 21st.

Hedges aptly expresses how I feel in both these articles. Rather than excerpt from them, I hope you’ll take time to read both of them and join me as a Chris Hedges fan.

(photo of Chris Hedges – Truthdig)

A thought while babywalking - Why isn't war obsolete?

I’m back home from spending a couple of days helping care for my youngest grandchildren, who are now 8 months old. I don’t “babysit,” I “babywalk,” spending hours pushing their jogger-stroller up and down their 2 ½ mile, hilly, bumpy dirt driveway.

I’ve been watching Ken Burns’s documentary on World War II. Last night I saw Part Five, which included a description of a US soldier taking gold teeth out of a Japanese solder’s mouth before he was dead, slashing his cheeks to get at them.

Because war appears to dehumanize almost everyone including the good guys, I wonder why it isn’t obsolete.

I pondered on this question while pushing the stroller with two beautiful babies up and down the dirt driveway. I don’t want any of my grandchildren to become cannon fodder. I thought of Chris Hedges’s book, War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.

From the back cover of Hedges’s book: By
“[d]rawing on his own experience and on the literature of combat from Homer to Michael Herr, Hedges shows how war seduces not just those in the front lines but entire societies, corrupting politics, destroying culture, and perverting human desires.”

I plan to reread Hedges’s book because I don’t know why war isn’t obsolete.

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war"

Yesterday in an interview on French TV and radio, French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said, "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war." According to the BBC World News, Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme. The short news item concluded with, “The United States has not ruled out a military attack against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

On September 14, the BBC reported US Iran report branded dishonest: The UN nuclear watchdog has protested the US government over a report on Iran's nuclear programme, calling it "erroneous" and "misleading.": “In a leaked letter, the IAEA said a congressional report contained serious distortions of the agency's own findings on Iran's nuclear activity…. A Western diplomat called it ‘deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period.’”

Are you asking yourself what the likely unintended consequences are of an attack on Iran? Chris Hedges can help you with that. He’s been a foreign correspondent for more than two decades, which included coverage of the Middle East. On September 3rd, Hedges posted The Next Quagmire at Truthdig: “…The Pentagon has reportedly drawn up plans for a series of airstrikes against 1,200 military targets in Iran. The air attacks are designed to cripple the Iranians’ military capability in three days…But then what? We don’t have the troops to invade. And we don’t have anyone minding the helm who knows the slightest thing about Persian culture or the Middle East. There is no one in power in Washington with the empathy to get it. We will lurch blindly into a catastrophe of our own creation.

“It is not hard to imagine what will happen. Iranian Shabab-3 and Shabab-4 missiles, which cannot reach the United States, will be launched at Israel, as well as American military bases and the Green Zone in Baghdad. Expect massive American casualties, especially in Iraq, where Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies will be able to call in precise coordinates. The Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, will be shut down. Chinese-supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-shipping missiles, mines and coastal artillery will target U.S. shipping, along with Saudi oil production and oil export centers. Oil prices will skyrocket to well over $4 a gallon. The dollar will tumble against the euro. Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, interpreting the war as an attack on all Shiites, will fire rockets into northern Israel. Israel, already struck by missiles from Tehran, will begin retaliatory raids on Lebanon and Iran. Pakistan, with a huge Shiite minority, will reach greater levels of instability. The unrest could result in the overthrow of the weakened American ally President Pervez Musharraf and usher into power Islamic radicals. Pakistan could become the first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon. The neat little war with Iran, which few Democrats oppose, has the potential to ignite a regional inferno.” [emphasis mine]

(photo: courtesy of Bill Sheppard, who attended the September 15 anti-war rally in Washington, D.C.)