JAZZMAN CHRONICLES
VOLUME II
THE WAR CHRONICLES
BY JACK RANDOM
CROW DOG PRESS
MODESTO CA USA
Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication
Random, Jack.
Jazzman chronicles. Volume II / by Jack Random.
p. cm.
LCCN 2003100136
ISBN 0-9727656-1-1
1. United States -- Civilization. 2. United States — Politics and government. 3. Political participation – United States. I. Title.
E169.1.R36 2004 306.2’0973
QBI33-1137
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES
VOLUME II
The War Chronicles
For Sadie
CONTENTS
I. PREFACE: WAR & PEACE.
II. THE GREAT DESTROYER.
III. COLD WAR RESURRECTION.
IV. INFANT NATION.
V. ABSOLUTION.
VI. MEDIA, WAR & PROPAGANDA.
VII. CODE OF SILENCE.
VIII. THE NEW ENEMY.
IX. AMERICAN HEROES.
X. THE CONDUCT OF WAR.
XI. THE LESSONS OF WAR.
XII. AVIEW FROM AFAR.
XIII. THE PEACE CANDIDATE.
XIV. THE WAR PRESIDENT.
PREFACE: WAR & PEACE
In the hearts of people today there is a deep longing for peace. When the true spirit of peace is thoroughly dominant, it becomes an inner experience with unlimited possibilities. Only when this really happens – when the spirit of peace awakens and takes possession of men’s hearts – can humanity be saved from perishing.
Albert Schweitzer
It is the nature of war that it outweighs all other concerns. While I believe that the long-term solution to the systemic problems we face as a nation depends on numerous reforms – most critically, the defeat of the major party system – everything must now yield to the antiwar movement.
In the next election, we confront the possibility that the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike and perpetual superiority will face no political constraint. Imagine what might have happened if this president had not faced a second election. A reinstatement of the draft becomes a distinct possibility. Expansion of the war on terrorism becomes a certainty. The once unthinkable first use of tactical nuclear weapons becomes a viable military option.
There are many reasons to oppose this president – corruption, incompetence, intolerance, indifference to the poor, the environment and the oppressed. None of these compares to the prospect of four more years of an expanding “war on terror.” Study your history: What this president sets in place will not be reversed by succeeding administrations – be they Republican or Democrat. The strategies of intervention and subversion, under the name of the Cold War, were passed on from generation to generation, from president to president, and the likelihood that it will be different with this war is a dismal proposition. It must be stopped now.
The election is about war. There is no other issue. It is not about the economy. It is not about unemployment. It is not about Medicare or Social Security. It is not about democracy or civil liberties. It is not about gay rights, abortion rights, judicial nominees, affirmative action and racial equity. It is not about fair trade. While all these issues are important, they pale by comparison to the policies of war.
The coming election is about young men and women dying on foreign lands. It is about war without end. It is about a philosophy of dominance that promises decades of war. It is about old men and women, who will never see the battlefield, sending young men and women to their last days on earth. Until the soldiers have come home and the Bush Doctrine is forever buried in the desert sands of Arabia, there is no other issue.
These Chronicles have no other ambition but to stop a war machine led by a president obsessed with the dream of glory. There is no more glory in Iraq than there was in Vietnam. These Chronicles are about pounding home the truth and etching it in the American psyche before it is lost to the government propaganda machine. These Chronicles are about changing the course of history.
Jazz.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Thursday, August 12, 2004
TORO! THE CHALLENGE OF HUGO CHAVEZ
By Jack Random
Hugo Chavez, the embattled leader of the Bolivarian movement and president of Venezuela, faces a referendum on his presidency this Sunday. In the balance lies the immediate and foreseeable future of democracy in Latin America.
Given the revelation that the Bush administration has contracted ChoicePoint of Atlanta to gather dossiers on the citizens of Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua, Argentina and Venezuela, it is clear that when the president speaks of fighting for democracy it has less to do with the ideology of our founders than with the manipulation of democratic institutions as practiced in Florida 2000 (see Greg Palast, Venezuela Floridated, August 10, 2004).
In April 2002, the administration failed in a thinly disguised coup directed at Chavez. In March of this year, they directed their efforts against Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti in a successful coup. Aristide accused the administration of forcibly removing him from office and deporting him to the Central African Republic. Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed Aristide’s account as absurd though he did not feel compelled to document that absurdity. Even in the American version, this was an intelligence operation. If Aristide’s accusations were false, the record would have proven so.
When all but the Congressional Black Caucus (the only mainstream political body to challenge the Florida disenfranchisement) fell silent, Hugo Chavez stepped forward. He not only accused the CIA of a coup in Haiti and an attempted coup in his own country, he issued a warning of retaliation. The threat was not as idle as one is tempted to believe. Venezuela owns ten percent of all American oil imports. With the price of oil at a record high, the Saudis have already boosted production in support of their allies in the White House. It is doubtful they can do much more. If Venezuela were to cut supply and demand fair compensation (they currently get a 16% royalty), even the anticipated capture of Osama bin Laden might not be enough to win reelection.
Now that the beast of global dominance has thundered over poor little Haiti (even as it digs deeper in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates), Hugo Chavez takes his stand in the ring, taunting his monstrous nemesis: Toro! Bring it on!
At the time of Aristide’s deposition, Chavez was only days away from securing a Caribbean community alliance to defend the Aristide government. On the heels of failure in Afghanistan and Venezuela, in the wake of the disaster in Iraq, it is clear the administration is emboldened when it should be restrained. They will stand democracy on its head in pursuit of its stated objectives: military dominance and control of vital resources.
Chavez has not only been defiant in the very face of danger, he has been phenomenally resilient. In political terms, he has risen from the dead. He has rallied the support of his people, the working poor and the disenfranchised. He has led the resistance to globalization, which is nothing more than a corporate license to exploit second and third world nations. Given the events in Haiti, the people of Venezuela and throughout the region are no longer fooled by American rhetoric. They recognize the heavy hand of central intelligence. In some ways, the opposition has made Chavez stronger than ever. If he can stand up against American-sponsored insurrection and corporate invasion, it emboldens others to stand with him.
Despite the “victory” over poor and defenseless Haiti, the administration is losing the war in Latin America. We are over-extended and over-exposed. When the self-appointed hemispheric protector is more feared than any perceived enemy, the people will not rally to America’s cause. Mindful of our tortured history throughout the region, they are answering the call to rally against it. Everywhere where democracy exists (Brazil, Canada, Spain, Britain, Mexico), the people have delivered the same message: No to the war, no to an American empire, no to globalization, and no to corporate rule.
On Sunday, the people of Venezuela will stand up to be counted. They will not be bruised and bullied into silence. They will not be barred from the polling place. They have stood with Chavez this far and they will stand with him again. The only thing that can deny them is corruption and fraud sponsored by the enemies of democracy. I do not believe they will stand for that either.
Viva Chavez!
Jazz.
Hugo Chavez, the embattled leader of the Bolivarian movement and president of Venezuela, faces a referendum on his presidency this Sunday. In the balance lies the immediate and foreseeable future of democracy in Latin America.
Given the revelation that the Bush administration has contracted ChoicePoint of Atlanta to gather dossiers on the citizens of Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua, Argentina and Venezuela, it is clear that when the president speaks of fighting for democracy it has less to do with the ideology of our founders than with the manipulation of democratic institutions as practiced in Florida 2000 (see Greg Palast, Venezuela Floridated, August 10, 2004).
In April 2002, the administration failed in a thinly disguised coup directed at Chavez. In March of this year, they directed their efforts against Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti in a successful coup. Aristide accused the administration of forcibly removing him from office and deporting him to the Central African Republic. Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed Aristide’s account as absurd though he did not feel compelled to document that absurdity. Even in the American version, this was an intelligence operation. If Aristide’s accusations were false, the record would have proven so.
When all but the Congressional Black Caucus (the only mainstream political body to challenge the Florida disenfranchisement) fell silent, Hugo Chavez stepped forward. He not only accused the CIA of a coup in Haiti and an attempted coup in his own country, he issued a warning of retaliation. The threat was not as idle as one is tempted to believe. Venezuela owns ten percent of all American oil imports. With the price of oil at a record high, the Saudis have already boosted production in support of their allies in the White House. It is doubtful they can do much more. If Venezuela were to cut supply and demand fair compensation (they currently get a 16% royalty), even the anticipated capture of Osama bin Laden might not be enough to win reelection.
Now that the beast of global dominance has thundered over poor little Haiti (even as it digs deeper in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates), Hugo Chavez takes his stand in the ring, taunting his monstrous nemesis: Toro! Bring it on!
At the time of Aristide’s deposition, Chavez was only days away from securing a Caribbean community alliance to defend the Aristide government. On the heels of failure in Afghanistan and Venezuela, in the wake of the disaster in Iraq, it is clear the administration is emboldened when it should be restrained. They will stand democracy on its head in pursuit of its stated objectives: military dominance and control of vital resources.
Chavez has not only been defiant in the very face of danger, he has been phenomenally resilient. In political terms, he has risen from the dead. He has rallied the support of his people, the working poor and the disenfranchised. He has led the resistance to globalization, which is nothing more than a corporate license to exploit second and third world nations. Given the events in Haiti, the people of Venezuela and throughout the region are no longer fooled by American rhetoric. They recognize the heavy hand of central intelligence. In some ways, the opposition has made Chavez stronger than ever. If he can stand up against American-sponsored insurrection and corporate invasion, it emboldens others to stand with him.
Despite the “victory” over poor and defenseless Haiti, the administration is losing the war in Latin America. We are over-extended and over-exposed. When the self-appointed hemispheric protector is more feared than any perceived enemy, the people will not rally to America’s cause. Mindful of our tortured history throughout the region, they are answering the call to rally against it. Everywhere where democracy exists (Brazil, Canada, Spain, Britain, Mexico), the people have delivered the same message: No to the war, no to an American empire, no to globalization, and no to corporate rule.
On Sunday, the people of Venezuela will stand up to be counted. They will not be bruised and bullied into silence. They will not be barred from the polling place. They have stood with Chavez this far and they will stand with him again. The only thing that can deny them is corruption and fraud sponsored by the enemies of democracy. I do not believe they will stand for that either.
Viva Chavez!
Jazz.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
THE WAR THAT WASN'T
By Jack Random
Of all the manipulations of the Bush propaganda machine, one of the most dangerous was the assertion that the tragedy of September 11, 2001 was the first volley in a war of the ages. While politicians have a predisposition to dramatize all events, the tragedy of that horrific day required no dramatization. This was an assertion with implications far beyond the typical media sound bite. It redefined the event in a manner that would serve a preconceived policy of preemptive war and global dominance. It served to prepare the nation for a state of perpetual war.
In times of war, measures can be taken that would be unthinkable at any other time. Bloated military spending, record deficits, job loss, declining wages and draconian laws can be rationalized. Dissidents can be silenced, harassed and detained without reasonable cause and entire classes of American citizens can be confined to concentration camps. In times of war, fundamental rights can be suspended or denied.
The war in Afghanistan was questionable, the war in Iraq indefensible, but the war on terrorism, like the drug war and the cold war before it, is not a war at all.
For the purposes of international law and international codes of conduct, war has a very specific meaning. It describes an armed conflict between states or nations; Al Qaeda is neither. It is an outlaw organization without status or legitimacy. To define it as an enemy in war is to give it a level of legitimacy it does not deserve. It empowers an organization of criminals and rallies to their cause others who share nothing with Al Qaeda except a grievance – real or perceived – against the United States of America.
This nation would have been far more secure had we attacked the problem of international terrorism with the sword of international justice. The president has squandered an opportunity to form a united front against a common enemy and, in so doing, divided the world into “us and them” for decades to come.
If the war in Iraq ended with the fall of Baghdad, then this nation is no longer at war. We are an occupier of one nation and an occupier-by-proxy of another. Not long ago, the president sent his emissary to the United Nations in an attempt to win for the occupation what he could not win for the invasion. He failed. The president was right though he was clearly insincere. It is time to return to the United Nations – this time with open arms. In the interest of our soldiers and our nation’s security, it is time to give up control of Iraqi oil. It is time to give up control of the contracts. It is time to give up control of the occupying forces. It is time to end this constant state of siege and the public terror alerts that serve no purpose save to maintain a level of fear in the electorate.
We are not a nation at war. We are confronted with a problem that much of the world has long endured. It cannot be eliminated with bombs and missiles. It can only be contained through the decisive actions of nations with a common cause. It can only be defeated when the root causes of discontent are effectively addressed.
The war with terrorism is over. It is the war that never was. Let us now elect a president who can declare the peace.
Jazz.
Of all the manipulations of the Bush propaganda machine, one of the most dangerous was the assertion that the tragedy of September 11, 2001 was the first volley in a war of the ages. While politicians have a predisposition to dramatize all events, the tragedy of that horrific day required no dramatization. This was an assertion with implications far beyond the typical media sound bite. It redefined the event in a manner that would serve a preconceived policy of preemptive war and global dominance. It served to prepare the nation for a state of perpetual war.
In times of war, measures can be taken that would be unthinkable at any other time. Bloated military spending, record deficits, job loss, declining wages and draconian laws can be rationalized. Dissidents can be silenced, harassed and detained without reasonable cause and entire classes of American citizens can be confined to concentration camps. In times of war, fundamental rights can be suspended or denied.
The war in Afghanistan was questionable, the war in Iraq indefensible, but the war on terrorism, like the drug war and the cold war before it, is not a war at all.
For the purposes of international law and international codes of conduct, war has a very specific meaning. It describes an armed conflict between states or nations; Al Qaeda is neither. It is an outlaw organization without status or legitimacy. To define it as an enemy in war is to give it a level of legitimacy it does not deserve. It empowers an organization of criminals and rallies to their cause others who share nothing with Al Qaeda except a grievance – real or perceived – against the United States of America.
This nation would have been far more secure had we attacked the problem of international terrorism with the sword of international justice. The president has squandered an opportunity to form a united front against a common enemy and, in so doing, divided the world into “us and them” for decades to come.
If the war in Iraq ended with the fall of Baghdad, then this nation is no longer at war. We are an occupier of one nation and an occupier-by-proxy of another. Not long ago, the president sent his emissary to the United Nations in an attempt to win for the occupation what he could not win for the invasion. He failed. The president was right though he was clearly insincere. It is time to return to the United Nations – this time with open arms. In the interest of our soldiers and our nation’s security, it is time to give up control of Iraqi oil. It is time to give up control of the contracts. It is time to give up control of the occupying forces. It is time to end this constant state of siege and the public terror alerts that serve no purpose save to maintain a level of fear in the electorate.
We are not a nation at war. We are confronted with a problem that much of the world has long endured. It cannot be eliminated with bombs and missiles. It can only be contained through the decisive actions of nations with a common cause. It can only be defeated when the root causes of discontent are effectively addressed.
The war with terrorism is over. It is the war that never was. Let us now elect a president who can declare the peace.
Jazz.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
AMERICAN MERCENARIES
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
By Jack Random
“This is our situation and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils: a ravaged country, habitations without safety, slavery without hope, our homes turned into barracks and bawdy houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.” Tom Paine – The American Crisis I.
A nation with a righteous cause and the support of its people would never resort to mercenary forces to supplant its legitimate military. The horrid events at Abu Ghraib pointed out the role of private contractors in critical positions of power and influence in the Iraq war. We learned than some 20,000 hired guns are in Iraq and their legal status is somewhere between limbo and blanket immunity. Among them are highly trained black operations specialists from Blackwater USA, former thugs from the terrorist units of former Chilean dictator Pinochet, former apartheid security forces from South Africa, and an assortment of special operations units from the United Kingdom. Some wear uniforms and others do not. Some operate under the banner of intelligence while others appear to operate independent of any chain of command.
It is clear that the use of mercenaries is in part designed to enable our military to avoid accountability. Like civilians and enemies, we do not count dead and wounded mercenaries. It has also been suggested that it is a cover for the obvious fact that we do not have sufficient forces. I would push the accusation a step further: It is a means of forestalling military conscription until after the presidential election. In the end, it does not matter. Both the draft and the use of mercenaries are crimes against humanity and give testament to an immoral cause.
It is the mark of a conquering army whose cause is so dubious it cannot raise an adequate army of volunteers and whose ambitions are so expansive that the need for soldiers is insatiable. The invading armies that rely on corporate warriors are universally resented and despised both for their brutality and for the hypocrisy of hiring others to carry out duties that traditional military personnel cannot or will not do. It carries a high price in both money and prestige. If the American people are committed to this war, why are there not enough volunteers to fight it? It is one thing to support our president; it is another to die for him.
It is an axiom of war that if there are not enough soldiers to fight, then that war should not be fought. It is as true now as it was in the days of the American Revolution, when Great Britain hired an army of indentured warriors from Germanic overlords to supplant British regulars. It was a measure of cowardice and a sign of weakness. The Hessians did not face the same problem as the British Redcoats: there was no reluctance to kill their brethren. They faced a different problem: they had no passion, no conviction, no commitment to the cause or loyalty to its leadership. They were unwilling to sacrifice life or limb for a monarch who thought no more of his hired subjects than of his cattle or sheep.
Recall Tom Paine’s American Crisis papers. His account of the Hessians paid by a corrupt King to kill British colonialists on American soil so roused the righteous indignation of Americans that it helped to raise a colonial army at a time when that army could hardly be fed, clothed and supplied with arms. There is something fundamentally offensive about hiring a third party to do your dirty work. There is something demonic about individuals and corporations that kill for money.
Is this the crusader’s gift to the world: killing machines to the highest bidder? Soldiers without cause or loyalty, who answer to no commander, who are accountable to no authority, are no better than mafia hit men.
Is this what America has become: the biggest thug on the block, putting out contracts on selected enemies, cornering markets for our corporate partners, defying the rule of law, handing out bribes and kickbacks, and letting the foot soldiers pay for the crimes of the overlords?
If the people do not awaken soon our beloved nation, birthplace of democracy, defender of liberty, refuge to the oppressed and weary, will have become the essence of what our ideals have always opposed. The Soviet beast – an authority of force alone, a ruthless oppressor, a power defiant of law and moral restraint, and the evil empire of Reagan’s nightmares – is dead. Shall we now replace that monster with its American equivalent?
We have so offended the nations and citizens of the world that they can no longer distinguish between our terrorists and theirs. This crusade of endless war must be brought to a close. These crimes against humanity must be brought to justice. This doctrine of war that gave them birth must be buried now and forever.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
“This is our situation and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils: a ravaged country, habitations without safety, slavery without hope, our homes turned into barracks and bawdy houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.” Tom Paine – The American Crisis I.
A nation with a righteous cause and the support of its people would never resort to mercenary forces to supplant its legitimate military. The horrid events at Abu Ghraib pointed out the role of private contractors in critical positions of power and influence in the Iraq war. We learned than some 20,000 hired guns are in Iraq and their legal status is somewhere between limbo and blanket immunity. Among them are highly trained black operations specialists from Blackwater USA, former thugs from the terrorist units of former Chilean dictator Pinochet, former apartheid security forces from South Africa, and an assortment of special operations units from the United Kingdom. Some wear uniforms and others do not. Some operate under the banner of intelligence while others appear to operate independent of any chain of command.
It is clear that the use of mercenaries is in part designed to enable our military to avoid accountability. Like civilians and enemies, we do not count dead and wounded mercenaries. It has also been suggested that it is a cover for the obvious fact that we do not have sufficient forces. I would push the accusation a step further: It is a means of forestalling military conscription until after the presidential election. In the end, it does not matter. Both the draft and the use of mercenaries are crimes against humanity and give testament to an immoral cause.
It is the mark of a conquering army whose cause is so dubious it cannot raise an adequate army of volunteers and whose ambitions are so expansive that the need for soldiers is insatiable. The invading armies that rely on corporate warriors are universally resented and despised both for their brutality and for the hypocrisy of hiring others to carry out duties that traditional military personnel cannot or will not do. It carries a high price in both money and prestige. If the American people are committed to this war, why are there not enough volunteers to fight it? It is one thing to support our president; it is another to die for him.
It is an axiom of war that if there are not enough soldiers to fight, then that war should not be fought. It is as true now as it was in the days of the American Revolution, when Great Britain hired an army of indentured warriors from Germanic overlords to supplant British regulars. It was a measure of cowardice and a sign of weakness. The Hessians did not face the same problem as the British Redcoats: there was no reluctance to kill their brethren. They faced a different problem: they had no passion, no conviction, no commitment to the cause or loyalty to its leadership. They were unwilling to sacrifice life or limb for a monarch who thought no more of his hired subjects than of his cattle or sheep.
Recall Tom Paine’s American Crisis papers. His account of the Hessians paid by a corrupt King to kill British colonialists on American soil so roused the righteous indignation of Americans that it helped to raise a colonial army at a time when that army could hardly be fed, clothed and supplied with arms. There is something fundamentally offensive about hiring a third party to do your dirty work. There is something demonic about individuals and corporations that kill for money.
Is this the crusader’s gift to the world: killing machines to the highest bidder? Soldiers without cause or loyalty, who answer to no commander, who are accountable to no authority, are no better than mafia hit men.
Is this what America has become: the biggest thug on the block, putting out contracts on selected enemies, cornering markets for our corporate partners, defying the rule of law, handing out bribes and kickbacks, and letting the foot soldiers pay for the crimes of the overlords?
If the people do not awaken soon our beloved nation, birthplace of democracy, defender of liberty, refuge to the oppressed and weary, will have become the essence of what our ideals have always opposed. The Soviet beast – an authority of force alone, a ruthless oppressor, a power defiant of law and moral restraint, and the evil empire of Reagan’s nightmares – is dead. Shall we now replace that monster with its American equivalent?
We have so offended the nations and citizens of the world that they can no longer distinguish between our terrorists and theirs. This crusade of endless war must be brought to a close. These crimes against humanity must be brought to justice. This doctrine of war that gave them birth must be buried now and forever.
Jazz.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
BRADY BILL BOGUS
A RESPONSE TO NATIONAL SECURITY BY MICHAEL SECORE
Hi. I found your flyer in the city, and am enjoying your site. I must, however, point out a small discrepancy in some information contained in one piece. While it is a small point, it is something that is very powerful and has the potential to shape people's opinions. Here is the line which I refer to: "We are constantly warned that terrorist cells are operating within our borders yet the president has done everything in his power to rescind the ban on automatic weapons (the Brady Bill). "
I can say with confidence that the Brady bill did not have to do with automatic weapons. It did, in fact, have to do with certain aesthetic features of certain rifles in production. It was a lame effort to appease those who fear because they are told to. There were 5 basic points which were identified as constituting an "assault" rifle. These included a separate handrip, a bayonet or lug to mount one, a flash suppressor, a high capacity magazine of more than 10 rounds, and a folding stock. The combination of more than 2 of these features was their definition of an "assault" rifle.
If you would like to refer to a piece of legislation that put a restiction on automatic weapons for the civilian market, please see the National Firearms act of 1934. http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/ch53.html
I had the displeasure of sitting home during the summer of 1994 and watching c-span live when the Brady bill was debated and passed. It was a truly digusting display of self-serving corporate and political agendas, as well as a sad example of ignorance , both by the legislators and the public at large. The end of the Brady bill is something to simply ignore as we did the creation of it. noone will notice a difference in their daily lives without it, just as they noticed no change when it passed. The Brady bill basically failed to do anything to prevent any sort of crime. There is no true evidence to support its effectiveness, as it did not stop any criminals. Criminals don't purchase their guns legally. It did, however, interfere with a number of purchases by people who were lawfully entitled to purchase firearms.
I would like to compliment your publication for doing something to help change the state of things. I do feel that it is important to state the facts accurately, though. That said, keep up the good work!
-Michael Secore
PS Here is another link I found while researching this topic that may interest you
http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm
Hi. I found your flyer in the city, and am enjoying your site. I must, however, point out a small discrepancy in some information contained in one piece. While it is a small point, it is something that is very powerful and has the potential to shape people's opinions. Here is the line which I refer to: "We are constantly warned that terrorist cells are operating within our borders yet the president has done everything in his power to rescind the ban on automatic weapons (the Brady Bill). "
I can say with confidence that the Brady bill did not have to do with automatic weapons. It did, in fact, have to do with certain aesthetic features of certain rifles in production. It was a lame effort to appease those who fear because they are told to. There were 5 basic points which were identified as constituting an "assault" rifle. These included a separate handrip, a bayonet or lug to mount one, a flash suppressor, a high capacity magazine of more than 10 rounds, and a folding stock. The combination of more than 2 of these features was their definition of an "assault" rifle.
If you would like to refer to a piece of legislation that put a restiction on automatic weapons for the civilian market, please see the National Firearms act of 1934. http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/ch53.html
I had the displeasure of sitting home during the summer of 1994 and watching c-span live when the Brady bill was debated and passed. It was a truly digusting display of self-serving corporate and political agendas, as well as a sad example of ignorance , both by the legislators and the public at large. The end of the Brady bill is something to simply ignore as we did the creation of it. noone will notice a difference in their daily lives without it, just as they noticed no change when it passed. The Brady bill basically failed to do anything to prevent any sort of crime. There is no true evidence to support its effectiveness, as it did not stop any criminals. Criminals don't purchase their guns legally. It did, however, interfere with a number of purchases by people who were lawfully entitled to purchase firearms.
I would like to compliment your publication for doing something to help change the state of things. I do feel that it is important to state the facts accurately, though. That said, keep up the good work!
-Michael Secore
PS Here is another link I found while researching this topic that may interest you
http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm
Saturday, July 31, 2004
SEA TO SEA
REFLECTIONS OF A JOURNEYMAN ON THE WAR CHRONICLES
BY DAVID BRUNER
Hey Jack,
was given your cd WAR CHRONICLES at a postapocalyptic newnation party in
Brooklyn over the weekend.
have been itching to get my self to one of the celebration/parties organized
by complacent.org among others.
found m self thirsting and opted for the more accessable cup of earl grey
instead of the mob at the beer counter.
where upon this cd was proffered by a kindred soul.
so cool in its printed page origami cover and underground current.
all the way, now, to Kingston, NY where I finally listened to it.
it engenders instantly images of a video accompaniment.
it needs to be on radio. via pirates.
wonder if how much it would take for wkze to play it at midnight? at noon?
Thank you for the clear, positive-energy innoculation.
David
BY DAVID BRUNER
Hey Jack,
was given your cd WAR CHRONICLES at a postapocalyptic newnation party in
Brooklyn over the weekend.
have been itching to get my self to one of the celebration/parties organized
by complacent.org among others.
found m self thirsting and opted for the more accessable cup of earl grey
instead of the mob at the beer counter.
where upon this cd was proffered by a kindred soul.
so cool in its printed page origami cover and underground current.
all the way, now, to Kingston, NY where I finally listened to it.
it engenders instantly images of a video accompaniment.
it needs to be on radio. via pirates.
wonder if how much it would take for wkze to play it at midnight? at noon?
Thank you for the clear, positive-energy innoculation.
David
THE HYPOCRITICAL OATH
THE CONTRADICTIONS OF GEORGE W. BUSH
By Jack Random
In a moment of candor during the presidential debates, candidate George W. Bush expressed the opinion that America should not be engaged in “nation building.” His team of foreign policy advisors spent months preparing their candidate. Was the president unaware that the Bush Doctrine would be a prescription for nation building or was this just the first in a series of contradictions and inconsistencies which, taken together, would draw a portrait of hypocrisy? When he placed his hand on the bible to take his oath of office, was it an oath of allegiance or oath of deception?
In its justification for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration proclaimed the right and duty to strike anywhere at any time before a threat to this nation’s security emerged. Nations across the globe shuddered at the prospect of the awesome power of the American military unleashed upon the world without the constraints of international law and universal conventions of warfare. For the first time in history, a nation was overtly claiming exemption to the cardinal rule of international behavior: the prohibition against wars of aggression.
Few were persuaded that America’s motives were purely or primarily humanitarian but, in the ever-shifting rationale for war (imminent threat, sponsorship of 9-11, connections to Al Qaeda, liberation, democracy – anything but oil), the administration has raised the bar of mendacity to new heights. Even as they accuse their opponent of inconsistency, the contradictions of George W. Bush are without precedent.
In the State of the Union Address, the president pledged $18 billion to the battle against AIDS. He later tied AIDS funding to his anti-abortion agenda and protection of the pharmaceutical industries monopoly on prescription drugs. Only a trickle of funding has been implemented. Was this a change in policy or did the president know all along that it was an empty promise?
In promoting his education reform package, the president promised to leave no child behind. Subsequently, he has severely under-funded his own program, advocated public funding of private education, leaving every other child behind in ill equipped and financially strapped public schools. Was this a shift in policy or was the initial promise a cynical smokescreen?
Perhaps the candidate’s most salient message in his campaign for the White House was his pledge to be “a uniter, not a divider,” yet his administration has alienated much of Europe, the United Nations, and Islamic peoples all over the world. He refuses even to meet with opposition leaders in Congress. The nation is as divided as it ever has been as the administration peddles fear and delivers wedge issues to increase the divide. It would be difficult to imagine a more devoted effort to break down national unity than the Bush administration has delivered. If the president was sincere in his pledge of unity then his position has clearly changed.
In his pre-conceived rush to war, the president promised the United States Congress that he would work with the United Nations and that he would go to war only as a last resort. The Secretary of State proceeded to present the most blatantly false case for war ever to grace the chamber of the Security Council, the president assembled a coalition of the coerced, the inspections process was slandered and undermined, and the president went to war as scheduled on the anniversary of his father’s invasion. Was the president sincere and, if so, when was his policy reversed?
When the 9-11 Commission was proposed by Congress, the president opposed it. When the Families of 9-11 insisted, he shifted his position and implemented a policy of non-cooperation, suppression, resistance and, finally, politicization of the Commission itself. He has said he wants the truth but he has blocked the path in every conceivable way. Now, as it becomes clear he has not taken the necessary measures to prevent another catastrophe, he fails to support the commission recommendations. Where is the consistency? Where is integrity?
On September 13, 2001, the president stood at ground zero and swore that he would bring the people responsible to justice. Clearly, the subsequent focus on Saddam Hussein was a major shift in policy. We lost the trail of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden when we turned our attention to the invasion of Iraq.
John Kerry’s flaw is that he has played ball with too many administrations. He played ball with Bill Clinton on welfare reform. He played ball on Free Trade. He played ball with the Bush administration on education reform. He played ball on the policy of regime change and the abdication of congressional war powers. Too often, he was fooled by disingenuous politicians. He was not alone. As a senator, he embraced the role of power broker. It is in fact fortunate that he has changed his brokered positions. Hopefully, he has learned from his mistakes. If he is to be faulted for supporting policies not entirely consistent with his own, it is a message to all other members of congress: do not compromise for the opposition will use it against you.
What is the president’s excuse? Was he misinformed and misguided by his own advisors? Why then has he not learned from his mistakes? His steadfast refusal to acknowledge mistakes, errors in judgment, inconsistencies in policy and positions, is not a virtue that grants him redemption; it is the ultimate condemnation.
We have a president who believes he has led the country wisely and well. He has united the world against us. With his free trade and corporate tax incentives, he has delivered jobs to third world nations at slave labor wages while replacing good American jobs with low-wage, unskilled labor jobs. (If the trend continues, there may be no middle class left.) He has promised prescription drug benefits and delivered a Ponzi scheme for the pharmaceutical industry. The economy has stalled and monetary policy (reduced interest rates) has already run its course. He has delivered our soldiers, National Guard and Reserves, into a war we can never win in a part of the world brimming with resentment of our policies and our wars. He has made the enemy stronger while weakening our alliances.
The president’s positions and policies are in constant flux because he has failed in every endeavor he has undertaken. Even now, as the “coalition of the willing” dissolves in the desert sand, he proclaims himself an internationalist, preempting the policy of John Kerry, and believes we will not recognize the contradiction.
“Fool me once…”
There is nothing more dangerous than a leader who can never be wrong.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
In a moment of candor during the presidential debates, candidate George W. Bush expressed the opinion that America should not be engaged in “nation building.” His team of foreign policy advisors spent months preparing their candidate. Was the president unaware that the Bush Doctrine would be a prescription for nation building or was this just the first in a series of contradictions and inconsistencies which, taken together, would draw a portrait of hypocrisy? When he placed his hand on the bible to take his oath of office, was it an oath of allegiance or oath of deception?
In its justification for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration proclaimed the right and duty to strike anywhere at any time before a threat to this nation’s security emerged. Nations across the globe shuddered at the prospect of the awesome power of the American military unleashed upon the world without the constraints of international law and universal conventions of warfare. For the first time in history, a nation was overtly claiming exemption to the cardinal rule of international behavior: the prohibition against wars of aggression.
Few were persuaded that America’s motives were purely or primarily humanitarian but, in the ever-shifting rationale for war (imminent threat, sponsorship of 9-11, connections to Al Qaeda, liberation, democracy – anything but oil), the administration has raised the bar of mendacity to new heights. Even as they accuse their opponent of inconsistency, the contradictions of George W. Bush are without precedent.
In the State of the Union Address, the president pledged $18 billion to the battle against AIDS. He later tied AIDS funding to his anti-abortion agenda and protection of the pharmaceutical industries monopoly on prescription drugs. Only a trickle of funding has been implemented. Was this a change in policy or did the president know all along that it was an empty promise?
In promoting his education reform package, the president promised to leave no child behind. Subsequently, he has severely under-funded his own program, advocated public funding of private education, leaving every other child behind in ill equipped and financially strapped public schools. Was this a shift in policy or was the initial promise a cynical smokescreen?
Perhaps the candidate’s most salient message in his campaign for the White House was his pledge to be “a uniter, not a divider,” yet his administration has alienated much of Europe, the United Nations, and Islamic peoples all over the world. He refuses even to meet with opposition leaders in Congress. The nation is as divided as it ever has been as the administration peddles fear and delivers wedge issues to increase the divide. It would be difficult to imagine a more devoted effort to break down national unity than the Bush administration has delivered. If the president was sincere in his pledge of unity then his position has clearly changed.
In his pre-conceived rush to war, the president promised the United States Congress that he would work with the United Nations and that he would go to war only as a last resort. The Secretary of State proceeded to present the most blatantly false case for war ever to grace the chamber of the Security Council, the president assembled a coalition of the coerced, the inspections process was slandered and undermined, and the president went to war as scheduled on the anniversary of his father’s invasion. Was the president sincere and, if so, when was his policy reversed?
When the 9-11 Commission was proposed by Congress, the president opposed it. When the Families of 9-11 insisted, he shifted his position and implemented a policy of non-cooperation, suppression, resistance and, finally, politicization of the Commission itself. He has said he wants the truth but he has blocked the path in every conceivable way. Now, as it becomes clear he has not taken the necessary measures to prevent another catastrophe, he fails to support the commission recommendations. Where is the consistency? Where is integrity?
On September 13, 2001, the president stood at ground zero and swore that he would bring the people responsible to justice. Clearly, the subsequent focus on Saddam Hussein was a major shift in policy. We lost the trail of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden when we turned our attention to the invasion of Iraq.
John Kerry’s flaw is that he has played ball with too many administrations. He played ball with Bill Clinton on welfare reform. He played ball on Free Trade. He played ball with the Bush administration on education reform. He played ball on the policy of regime change and the abdication of congressional war powers. Too often, he was fooled by disingenuous politicians. He was not alone. As a senator, he embraced the role of power broker. It is in fact fortunate that he has changed his brokered positions. Hopefully, he has learned from his mistakes. If he is to be faulted for supporting policies not entirely consistent with his own, it is a message to all other members of congress: do not compromise for the opposition will use it against you.
What is the president’s excuse? Was he misinformed and misguided by his own advisors? Why then has he not learned from his mistakes? His steadfast refusal to acknowledge mistakes, errors in judgment, inconsistencies in policy and positions, is not a virtue that grants him redemption; it is the ultimate condemnation.
We have a president who believes he has led the country wisely and well. He has united the world against us. With his free trade and corporate tax incentives, he has delivered jobs to third world nations at slave labor wages while replacing good American jobs with low-wage, unskilled labor jobs. (If the trend continues, there may be no middle class left.) He has promised prescription drug benefits and delivered a Ponzi scheme for the pharmaceutical industry. The economy has stalled and monetary policy (reduced interest rates) has already run its course. He has delivered our soldiers, National Guard and Reserves, into a war we can never win in a part of the world brimming with resentment of our policies and our wars. He has made the enemy stronger while weakening our alliances.
The president’s positions and policies are in constant flux because he has failed in every endeavor he has undertaken. Even now, as the “coalition of the willing” dissolves in the desert sand, he proclaims himself an internationalist, preempting the policy of John Kerry, and believes we will not recognize the contradiction.
“Fool me once…”
There is nothing more dangerous than a leader who can never be wrong.
Jazz.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
INDEPENDENCE DEFERRED
THE CASE FOR ADVOCATING KERRY
By Jack Random
“The American nation has been cheated out of self-government by a system that allows itself to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. There is no democracy where the only candidates are those who have already signed the party loyalty oath.” Jazzman Chronicles, Volume I.
There is no stronger advocate of the Independence Movement (third party and independent candidates) than the author of the Jazzman Chronicles. It is the first cause and primary motivation for my entry into the forum of American political discourse. I believe – as Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and even the aristocratic John Adams believed – that party politics is a scourge on democracy and the greatest enemy she will ever confront. I believe that the only means of securing true democracy in America is to break down the stranglehold of the major parties on the political process. I believe that Republicans and Democrats are no longer ideologically or qualitatively distinct and that both are controlled by the same corporate interests.
Believing as I do that a reaffirmation of democracy is dependent on the success of the Independence Movement, how then can I arrive at the conclusion that now is the time for deference?
I condemn with little compassion the philosophy of so-called progressives who decry all votes for independent or third party candidates as meaningless. One could as readily dismiss all votes for Republicans and Democrats as meaningless for, on the grander scale, they only perpetuate the status quo and no action is required for such a result. I hold this as a fundamental truth in the core of my being and still I advocate deference.
There is such a thing as a greater wrong.
I am against not only the war and occupation of Iraq; I am against the policies that have produced the most dangerous acceleration of American imperialism in history. We are confronted with a doctrine that has already declared forty years of war. Now that declaration is being transformed into a war of the century. Shall we remain ideologically pure as uncounted thousands of innocent dead are transformed into uncounted millions and generation after generation falls beneath the shadow of that fateful September morn?
There is such a thing as a greater wrong.
I appeal to you as a member of the human race. The current administration has unleashed a plague upon the earth. It is our solemn and united duty to eradicate it while there is still time. We cannot conquer Rome in a single day but we can stop this administration in its tracks. If we continue down the path of divisiveness, we will not only render ourselves powerless once again, we will give credence to the tired cliché: the left always destroys itself.
A banner at the protests in Boston reads: NO TO BUSH, KERRY, NADER. Is this the logical conclusion of the antiwar movement? Is this where we have arrived? Shall we advocate boycotting the election? Is there some other choice that evades me? Where are our candidates for Congress? Where are our candidates for City Council? Where are our benefactors? Why is there no National Independence Convention? Have we retreated to some imaginary realm where those who are most pure are delivered roles of leadership?
I agree wholeheartedly with Howard Zinn when he argues that those who do not live in battleground states are free to vote for whomever they choose without fear of consequences. I have come to recognize, however, that it is a dangerous line. To split our advocacy according to geography, however well founded in fact, is self-defeating. Common citizens (and I count myself among them) wish to believe that their votes matter. They desire something and someone to vote for, not a pragmatic rationalization. If we cannot offer them a clear, well-reasoned alternative (and this time we cannot), then we must advocate the candidacy of John Kerry.
Swallow hard. Do whatever you must do to acknowledge the political reality of the day: John Kerry is infinitely better than George W. Bush. Securing a Kerry presidency is the logical next step toward achieving our objectives: An end to the war and occupation, progress in the Middle East, a more enlightened foreign policy, an improved economy for the working class, an end to the erosion of civil liberties, greater tolerance for all communities, better education for all our children, a return to the separation of church and state, media reform, electoral reform, environmental protection, and the development of alternative energy resources.
While John Kerry is not the solution to systemic failure, while he is not the answer to America’s greatest needs, he is the man of the hour and his success will move us forward on all fronts.
There is such a thing as a greater wrong.
We are called upon to defer the cause, not to sacrifice our souls. We are called upon to swallow our pride, not a poison pill. We are called upon to compromise in order to move the cause forward, not to bury it. We are called to move – if only temporarily – from the cause of Independence to the cause of peace. We are called to the greater good.
When we have delivered the White House, we will stand before the new president and demand to be heard.
I give you this solemn promise (which is nothing more than the promise I give myself): When George Bush is defeated and his doctrine of war is permanently etched in the annals of archaic thought, I will be among the first to take to the streets in protest. My voice will cry out as never before:
Bring the troops home now!
End the occupation!
Independence now and forever!
Jazz.
The War Chronicles (Jazzman Chronicles, Volume II) is now available at City Lights Books SF and Amazon.com.
By Jack Random
“The American nation has been cheated out of self-government by a system that allows itself to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. There is no democracy where the only candidates are those who have already signed the party loyalty oath.” Jazzman Chronicles, Volume I.
There is no stronger advocate of the Independence Movement (third party and independent candidates) than the author of the Jazzman Chronicles. It is the first cause and primary motivation for my entry into the forum of American political discourse. I believe – as Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and even the aristocratic John Adams believed – that party politics is a scourge on democracy and the greatest enemy she will ever confront. I believe that the only means of securing true democracy in America is to break down the stranglehold of the major parties on the political process. I believe that Republicans and Democrats are no longer ideologically or qualitatively distinct and that both are controlled by the same corporate interests.
Believing as I do that a reaffirmation of democracy is dependent on the success of the Independence Movement, how then can I arrive at the conclusion that now is the time for deference?
I condemn with little compassion the philosophy of so-called progressives who decry all votes for independent or third party candidates as meaningless. One could as readily dismiss all votes for Republicans and Democrats as meaningless for, on the grander scale, they only perpetuate the status quo and no action is required for such a result. I hold this as a fundamental truth in the core of my being and still I advocate deference.
There is such a thing as a greater wrong.
I am against not only the war and occupation of Iraq; I am against the policies that have produced the most dangerous acceleration of American imperialism in history. We are confronted with a doctrine that has already declared forty years of war. Now that declaration is being transformed into a war of the century. Shall we remain ideologically pure as uncounted thousands of innocent dead are transformed into uncounted millions and generation after generation falls beneath the shadow of that fateful September morn?
There is such a thing as a greater wrong.
I appeal to you as a member of the human race. The current administration has unleashed a plague upon the earth. It is our solemn and united duty to eradicate it while there is still time. We cannot conquer Rome in a single day but we can stop this administration in its tracks. If we continue down the path of divisiveness, we will not only render ourselves powerless once again, we will give credence to the tired cliché: the left always destroys itself.
A banner at the protests in Boston reads: NO TO BUSH, KERRY, NADER. Is this the logical conclusion of the antiwar movement? Is this where we have arrived? Shall we advocate boycotting the election? Is there some other choice that evades me? Where are our candidates for Congress? Where are our candidates for City Council? Where are our benefactors? Why is there no National Independence Convention? Have we retreated to some imaginary realm where those who are most pure are delivered roles of leadership?
I agree wholeheartedly with Howard Zinn when he argues that those who do not live in battleground states are free to vote for whomever they choose without fear of consequences. I have come to recognize, however, that it is a dangerous line. To split our advocacy according to geography, however well founded in fact, is self-defeating. Common citizens (and I count myself among them) wish to believe that their votes matter. They desire something and someone to vote for, not a pragmatic rationalization. If we cannot offer them a clear, well-reasoned alternative (and this time we cannot), then we must advocate the candidacy of John Kerry.
Swallow hard. Do whatever you must do to acknowledge the political reality of the day: John Kerry is infinitely better than George W. Bush. Securing a Kerry presidency is the logical next step toward achieving our objectives: An end to the war and occupation, progress in the Middle East, a more enlightened foreign policy, an improved economy for the working class, an end to the erosion of civil liberties, greater tolerance for all communities, better education for all our children, a return to the separation of church and state, media reform, electoral reform, environmental protection, and the development of alternative energy resources.
While John Kerry is not the solution to systemic failure, while he is not the answer to America’s greatest needs, he is the man of the hour and his success will move us forward on all fronts.
There is such a thing as a greater wrong.
We are called upon to defer the cause, not to sacrifice our souls. We are called upon to swallow our pride, not a poison pill. We are called upon to compromise in order to move the cause forward, not to bury it. We are called to move – if only temporarily – from the cause of Independence to the cause of peace. We are called to the greater good.
When we have delivered the White House, we will stand before the new president and demand to be heard.
I give you this solemn promise (which is nothing more than the promise I give myself): When George Bush is defeated and his doctrine of war is permanently etched in the annals of archaic thought, I will be among the first to take to the streets in protest. My voice will cry out as never before:
Bring the troops home now!
End the occupation!
Independence now and forever!
Jazz.
The War Chronicles (Jazzman Chronicles, Volume II) is now available at City Lights Books SF and Amazon.com.
DAVID WENT TO CANADA...& JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN
by Jack Random
www.dissidentvoice.org
July 17, 2004
David went to Canada, Dick received a college deferment, Charlie was granted conscientious objector status, George joined the National Guard, Sam was classified 4-F, and Johnny got his gun (see Dalton Trumbo’s Johnny Get Your Gun).
We all remember what happened to Johnny. He was shot down in Nam, a victim of the Tet Offensive, reduced to the unending nightmare of a living, thinking mind trapped in a body paralyzed to the eyes. He learned to communicate by blinking and by blinking he communicated the horror that was his life.
To those who believe that military conscription is the answer to our growing need for soldiers: There never was and never will be an equitable draft. Those who believe that the inequities of the past can be corrected by legislative means have lost contact with reality. The wealthy and elite will never serve involuntarily and those who volunteer will serve in a manner their wealthy and elite parents demand.
The heroism of John Kerry and John Fitzgerald Kennedy belies the greater truth: The commanders of our military forces are neither fools nor morality’s slaves. They know who butters the bread and who stands between them and promotion. They will not send the prodigal sons and daughters of the ruling class to glorious death on the battlefields of foreign lands.
Johnny got his gun because he was nobody’s son, because he had no pedigree, because he had no connections to members of congress or secretaries of state, and because no one bothered to tell him the truth. No one bothered to tell him there were alternatives. Johnny got his gun because Johnny was a common boy who would never grow into a common man. Johnny got his gun because his life did not matter and his name was not on the social register.
Military conscription is a crime against humanity. Rationalizing the morality of an equitable draft is like condoning slavery or forced prostitution if it can be applied to all victims without prejudice. How is it easier to compel a child to kill than to force a child into hard labor or acts of depraved sex? It is an abomination and one that any mother understands by gut instinct.
Future generations will look back on this practice in wonder and amazement at how primitive this culture was, at how callously we sent our young and innocent souls to their ends, at how carelessly we threw away the best of our species, and how cruel we were to condemn the powerless to horrors beyond belief.
Johnny got his gun and 58,000 of his brothers came home in a box. The Vietnamese did not require conscription yet millions of their Johnnies died by our conscripted hands. Hundreds of thousands of Johnny’s brothers came home with broken bodies and hundreds of thousands more came home with broken hearts, broken minds, broken spirits, and souls shattered by the gruesome realities of war.
Will we send our Johnny off to war once again? Will we add our Mary to the parade? Will we explain to them why they must march? Will we explain why they must die? Will we ask them if they have a different mind? Will we disdain them if they do?
There is no greater scourge on society than to have condemned its own children to the hell of war. There is no greater shame a parent can bear than to have sent a child to the killing fields. There is no child that can understand or forgive such betrayal. There is no medicine that can heal such deep wounds.
Cry, America! Weep for your children! For as sure as votes go uncounted in Florida, your children will be compelled to war.
The people who now hold the reigns of power in this nation have begun to change their tune. When once they spoke of decades of war, now they speak of centuries. If we do not stand up to them now, we are condemned to mourn forever. If we do not stop them while there is still time, our great grandchildren will curse our remains.
We know the way to right this wrong, to end this nightmare and to settle this war on terror. It does not require greater armies and greater weapons; it requires greater understanding. It does not require commanders and warriors; it requires diplomats and peacemakers. War itself is the curse of human kind. We must find a better way.
We have no business in Iraq. Let us withdraw and make amends as best we can. Let us devote our resources, our genius, our devotion and raw effort to the development of alternative sources of energy.
If America harnesses the power of the sun, the power of wind and running water, and the power of ingenuity, there is no limit to what we can accomplish. If we no longer need the remains of dinosaurs, Johnny will not need a gun.
And Johnny’s mother will not need to cry herself to sleep.
Jazz.
[The War Chronicles is at City Lights SF and Amazon.com.]
www.dissidentvoice.org
July 17, 2004
David went to Canada, Dick received a college deferment, Charlie was granted conscientious objector status, George joined the National Guard, Sam was classified 4-F, and Johnny got his gun (see Dalton Trumbo’s Johnny Get Your Gun).
We all remember what happened to Johnny. He was shot down in Nam, a victim of the Tet Offensive, reduced to the unending nightmare of a living, thinking mind trapped in a body paralyzed to the eyes. He learned to communicate by blinking and by blinking he communicated the horror that was his life.
To those who believe that military conscription is the answer to our growing need for soldiers: There never was and never will be an equitable draft. Those who believe that the inequities of the past can be corrected by legislative means have lost contact with reality. The wealthy and elite will never serve involuntarily and those who volunteer will serve in a manner their wealthy and elite parents demand.
The heroism of John Kerry and John Fitzgerald Kennedy belies the greater truth: The commanders of our military forces are neither fools nor morality’s slaves. They know who butters the bread and who stands between them and promotion. They will not send the prodigal sons and daughters of the ruling class to glorious death on the battlefields of foreign lands.
Johnny got his gun because he was nobody’s son, because he had no pedigree, because he had no connections to members of congress or secretaries of state, and because no one bothered to tell him the truth. No one bothered to tell him there were alternatives. Johnny got his gun because Johnny was a common boy who would never grow into a common man. Johnny got his gun because his life did not matter and his name was not on the social register.
Military conscription is a crime against humanity. Rationalizing the morality of an equitable draft is like condoning slavery or forced prostitution if it can be applied to all victims without prejudice. How is it easier to compel a child to kill than to force a child into hard labor or acts of depraved sex? It is an abomination and one that any mother understands by gut instinct.
Future generations will look back on this practice in wonder and amazement at how primitive this culture was, at how callously we sent our young and innocent souls to their ends, at how carelessly we threw away the best of our species, and how cruel we were to condemn the powerless to horrors beyond belief.
Johnny got his gun and 58,000 of his brothers came home in a box. The Vietnamese did not require conscription yet millions of their Johnnies died by our conscripted hands. Hundreds of thousands of Johnny’s brothers came home with broken bodies and hundreds of thousands more came home with broken hearts, broken minds, broken spirits, and souls shattered by the gruesome realities of war.
Will we send our Johnny off to war once again? Will we add our Mary to the parade? Will we explain to them why they must march? Will we explain why they must die? Will we ask them if they have a different mind? Will we disdain them if they do?
There is no greater scourge on society than to have condemned its own children to the hell of war. There is no greater shame a parent can bear than to have sent a child to the killing fields. There is no child that can understand or forgive such betrayal. There is no medicine that can heal such deep wounds.
Cry, America! Weep for your children! For as sure as votes go uncounted in Florida, your children will be compelled to war.
The people who now hold the reigns of power in this nation have begun to change their tune. When once they spoke of decades of war, now they speak of centuries. If we do not stand up to them now, we are condemned to mourn forever. If we do not stop them while there is still time, our great grandchildren will curse our remains.
We know the way to right this wrong, to end this nightmare and to settle this war on terror. It does not require greater armies and greater weapons; it requires greater understanding. It does not require commanders and warriors; it requires diplomats and peacemakers. War itself is the curse of human kind. We must find a better way.
We have no business in Iraq. Let us withdraw and make amends as best we can. Let us devote our resources, our genius, our devotion and raw effort to the development of alternative sources of energy.
If America harnesses the power of the sun, the power of wind and running water, and the power of ingenuity, there is no limit to what we can accomplish. If we no longer need the remains of dinosaurs, Johnny will not need a gun.
And Johnny’s mother will not need to cry herself to sleep.
Jazz.
[The War Chronicles is at City Lights SF and Amazon.com.]
Saturday, July 24, 2004
NATIONAL SECURITY
THE 9-11 COMMISSION REPORT
By Jack Random
“I don’t believe anybody could have predicted that they would try to use a hijacked airplane as a missile.” Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor. [1]
“The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.” CIA Intelligence Briefing to the White House, July 2001. [2]
“I believe the President should be able to hold the July and August briefings in confidence so as to enable him to do the best job for the American people.” Lindsey Graham, US Senator R-SC. [3]
“I think it’s disgraceful that no one will take responsibility for these events. With all that evidence for years about planes being used as weapons, why didn’t they think of this? It’s really shameful.” Stephen Push, Families of September 11. [4]
______________
Are we winning the vaunted War on Terror or, in the twisted terminology of our Secretary of Defense, are we slogging through the muck? Is the leadership of George W. Bush making the world safer for Americans at home and abroad or is the world a more dangerous place for all its inhabitants?
The answers to these critical questions are all too clear to any objective observer. We are not winning the War on Terror when 130,000 of our soldiers are trapped in the crossfire of Iraq. We are not winning the War on Terror when military conscription is the only means of moving our military agenda forward while the enemy has more volunteers than operations to engage them. We are not winning the War on Terror when the president’s reelection strategy is keyed to maintaining a high level of fear in the electorate. What else could explain the fact that his administration has done so little to protect our ports, railways, subways, nuclear facilities, chemical plants and, indeed, our commercial airlines from attack by handheld missiles? What explanation do they offer for these lapses? We have expended our resources on a misbegotten war, a misguided occupation, and record-breaking tax cuts for the ultra elite.
Americans cannot travel anywhere in the world without worrying that we will be shunned, derided, or even targeted by foreign terrorists.
Are we safer now, Mr. President?
We are constantly warned that terrorist cells are operating within our borders yet the president has done everything in his power to rescind the ban on automatic weapons. He has successfully fought back all efforts to close the gaping loophole on gun show purchases, the loophole that allowed two disturbed kids from Columbine High to amass a stockpile of deadly weapons. While he presses on relentlessly in his attack on civil liberties – freedom of speech, the right to assemble in protest, the right to privacy, freedom of the press, habeas corpus, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to confront one’s accusers in a court of law – he goes the extra mile to uphold the right to bear arms. It seems the only article in the Bill of Rights this president values is that singular phrase in the second amendment. Terrorists must be comforted that within this country they are free to purchase truckloads of weapons, cash on demand, without the inconvenience of having to register the transactions.
Are we safer now, Mr. President?
The 9-11 Commission Report, limited as it may be, is sufficient to raise questions that were once unspeakable – if not unthinkable. They are spoken now at dinner tables in Des Moines, at barber shops in Brooklyn, at storefront cafes in Portland and Duluth, and at barbecues in Austin, Texas.
Though it is only a whisper beneath the roar of political posturing, the most stunning and obvious finding of this investigation, no matter how it is spun or tortured by partisan analysis, is that this tragedy could readily have been avoided. Condoleeza Rice notwithstanding, the warnings were powerful and plentiful while the response was muted and dumb. Negligence in this historical context is the mildest of terms.
It is for others to revisit the facts and events preceding 9-11. It is a fertile ground for conspiracy theories and those who dismiss them outright do so to the nation’s detriment. It is sufficient to conclude that our leaders failed spectacularly to protect their people. Members of both major parties obsessed on bitter partisanship, including a ludicrous impeachment process, when they ought to have done their jobs. The Clinton administration lobbed missiles at milk factories when they ought to have reformed the intelligence community. The Bush administration, in its obsession with daddy’s war and daddy’s arch nemesis, clearly lost focus, dismissing direct warnings, dismantling counterterrorist agencies, and ultimately allowing the family of the prime suspect to leave the country without minimal questioning.
When members of both administrations protest that they did all they could to prevent a tragedy that virtually everyone in the intelligence community knew was coming, they are not to be believed. They failed to heed the warnings. They failed to take corrective measures when obvious lapses in security and intelligence occurred. Astoundingly, they failed to sound the alarm when known terrorists entered this country to take flight lessons. Incredibly, given the level of forewarning, they failed to secure the cockpit doors.
We are not likely to learn the full extent of these failures in our lifetimes. What concerns me now is that we are repeating the same pattern. Our leaders are once again embroiled in partisan spin and political gridlock. While measures have been taken to prevent the last attack, we have neglected to secure our most vulnerable targets. Despite all the sound and fury, the administration’s focus is less on terrorism than on the political opposition.
What concerns me now is that the administration’s next failure may alter the outcome of the next election. They have announced their fear that the enemy may wish to repeat what happened in Spain last March. In that horrific event, the innocent citizens of Madrid were made to suffer for the complicity of their government in the war on Iraq. Many believe the attack resulted in the defeat of the ruling party. What happened in Spain, however, is unlikely to be repeated in America. When Al Qaeda struck Madrid, the Asnar government immediately pinned the blame on a Spanish separatist group. They lied to the people and that lie combined with the government’s support for an unpopular American war led to its defeat.
If Al Qaeda were to strike in America before the November election, the probable result would be markedly different. The administration would not blame the Skinheads of Topeka. They would return to the pulpit of the War on Terror and the people would rally to the call. If the terrorists strike now it will not be because they wish to defeat George Bush. It will be because their hatred for America has grown so deep they no longer care. They no longer distinguish between Republicans and Democrats, peacemakers and warmongers, or Americans and their government.
I pray that we will not have to suffer the unthinkable again. I fear for the world that would follow. I worry that this president’s last, best hope for reelection is his repeated failure.
Have we done everything we can to prevent another terrorist attack? No, we have not.
Is there anyone out there who feels safer now?
Jazz.
1. Condoleeza Rice. White House Press Briefing 5/16/02.
2. CIA Briefing to the White House. Newsweek 5/1/03.
3. Stephen Push. Reported online ParaPolitics Forum.
4. Lindsey Graham. Congressional Hearings on 9-11 (ParaPolitics Forum).
The War Chronicles is available at City Lights SF & Amazon.com.
By Jack Random
“I don’t believe anybody could have predicted that they would try to use a hijacked airplane as a missile.” Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor. [1]
“The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.” CIA Intelligence Briefing to the White House, July 2001. [2]
“I believe the President should be able to hold the July and August briefings in confidence so as to enable him to do the best job for the American people.” Lindsey Graham, US Senator R-SC. [3]
“I think it’s disgraceful that no one will take responsibility for these events. With all that evidence for years about planes being used as weapons, why didn’t they think of this? It’s really shameful.” Stephen Push, Families of September 11. [4]
______________
Are we winning the vaunted War on Terror or, in the twisted terminology of our Secretary of Defense, are we slogging through the muck? Is the leadership of George W. Bush making the world safer for Americans at home and abroad or is the world a more dangerous place for all its inhabitants?
The answers to these critical questions are all too clear to any objective observer. We are not winning the War on Terror when 130,000 of our soldiers are trapped in the crossfire of Iraq. We are not winning the War on Terror when military conscription is the only means of moving our military agenda forward while the enemy has more volunteers than operations to engage them. We are not winning the War on Terror when the president’s reelection strategy is keyed to maintaining a high level of fear in the electorate. What else could explain the fact that his administration has done so little to protect our ports, railways, subways, nuclear facilities, chemical plants and, indeed, our commercial airlines from attack by handheld missiles? What explanation do they offer for these lapses? We have expended our resources on a misbegotten war, a misguided occupation, and record-breaking tax cuts for the ultra elite.
Americans cannot travel anywhere in the world without worrying that we will be shunned, derided, or even targeted by foreign terrorists.
Are we safer now, Mr. President?
We are constantly warned that terrorist cells are operating within our borders yet the president has done everything in his power to rescind the ban on automatic weapons. He has successfully fought back all efforts to close the gaping loophole on gun show purchases, the loophole that allowed two disturbed kids from Columbine High to amass a stockpile of deadly weapons. While he presses on relentlessly in his attack on civil liberties – freedom of speech, the right to assemble in protest, the right to privacy, freedom of the press, habeas corpus, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to confront one’s accusers in a court of law – he goes the extra mile to uphold the right to bear arms. It seems the only article in the Bill of Rights this president values is that singular phrase in the second amendment. Terrorists must be comforted that within this country they are free to purchase truckloads of weapons, cash on demand, without the inconvenience of having to register the transactions.
Are we safer now, Mr. President?
The 9-11 Commission Report, limited as it may be, is sufficient to raise questions that were once unspeakable – if not unthinkable. They are spoken now at dinner tables in Des Moines, at barber shops in Brooklyn, at storefront cafes in Portland and Duluth, and at barbecues in Austin, Texas.
Though it is only a whisper beneath the roar of political posturing, the most stunning and obvious finding of this investigation, no matter how it is spun or tortured by partisan analysis, is that this tragedy could readily have been avoided. Condoleeza Rice notwithstanding, the warnings were powerful and plentiful while the response was muted and dumb. Negligence in this historical context is the mildest of terms.
It is for others to revisit the facts and events preceding 9-11. It is a fertile ground for conspiracy theories and those who dismiss them outright do so to the nation’s detriment. It is sufficient to conclude that our leaders failed spectacularly to protect their people. Members of both major parties obsessed on bitter partisanship, including a ludicrous impeachment process, when they ought to have done their jobs. The Clinton administration lobbed missiles at milk factories when they ought to have reformed the intelligence community. The Bush administration, in its obsession with daddy’s war and daddy’s arch nemesis, clearly lost focus, dismissing direct warnings, dismantling counterterrorist agencies, and ultimately allowing the family of the prime suspect to leave the country without minimal questioning.
When members of both administrations protest that they did all they could to prevent a tragedy that virtually everyone in the intelligence community knew was coming, they are not to be believed. They failed to heed the warnings. They failed to take corrective measures when obvious lapses in security and intelligence occurred. Astoundingly, they failed to sound the alarm when known terrorists entered this country to take flight lessons. Incredibly, given the level of forewarning, they failed to secure the cockpit doors.
We are not likely to learn the full extent of these failures in our lifetimes. What concerns me now is that we are repeating the same pattern. Our leaders are once again embroiled in partisan spin and political gridlock. While measures have been taken to prevent the last attack, we have neglected to secure our most vulnerable targets. Despite all the sound and fury, the administration’s focus is less on terrorism than on the political opposition.
What concerns me now is that the administration’s next failure may alter the outcome of the next election. They have announced their fear that the enemy may wish to repeat what happened in Spain last March. In that horrific event, the innocent citizens of Madrid were made to suffer for the complicity of their government in the war on Iraq. Many believe the attack resulted in the defeat of the ruling party. What happened in Spain, however, is unlikely to be repeated in America. When Al Qaeda struck Madrid, the Asnar government immediately pinned the blame on a Spanish separatist group. They lied to the people and that lie combined with the government’s support for an unpopular American war led to its defeat.
If Al Qaeda were to strike in America before the November election, the probable result would be markedly different. The administration would not blame the Skinheads of Topeka. They would return to the pulpit of the War on Terror and the people would rally to the call. If the terrorists strike now it will not be because they wish to defeat George Bush. It will be because their hatred for America has grown so deep they no longer care. They no longer distinguish between Republicans and Democrats, peacemakers and warmongers, or Americans and their government.
I pray that we will not have to suffer the unthinkable again. I fear for the world that would follow. I worry that this president’s last, best hope for reelection is his repeated failure.
Have we done everything we can to prevent another terrorist attack? No, we have not.
Is there anyone out there who feels safer now?
Jazz.
1. Condoleeza Rice. White House Press Briefing 5/16/02.
2. CIA Briefing to the White House. Newsweek 5/1/03.
3. Stephen Push. Reported online ParaPolitics Forum.
4. Lindsey Graham. Congressional Hearings on 9-11 (ParaPolitics Forum).
The War Chronicles is available at City Lights SF & Amazon.com.
Monday, July 12, 2004
CRUSADE FOR DEMOCRACY
“We think the Americans are not looking out for the interests of the Iraqis. The elections they most care about are the ones in America.” -- Abu Hasan al-Ameri.
Of all the lies and deceptions the administration has asked the electorate to accept, perhaps the most insidious is the Crusade for Democracy in the Middle East.
In the Middle Ages, one might have expected the Crusaders for Christianity to faithfully represent the morality of Christ. History records that they were in fact antithetical to Christian values. They not only failed to establish a Christian Kingdom in the Middle East, they left an indelible mark of shame that forever stained western relations to the Arab-Islamic world.
Now, as the most non-secular president in history lays claim to champion the cause of democracy, we are compelled to demand evidence that he is faithful to the cause.
Where was the president’s support for democracy in Haiti when his agents orchestrated a coup to depose a lawfully elected leader? Where was his love for democracy when his clandestine representatives failed to depose Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? Where is the president’s allegiance to democracy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the will of the people is ignored in favor of heavy-handed and unqualified support for Ariel Sharon’s oppressive and faltering regime? What evidence of true democracy has emerged in Afghanistan, where a handpicked president is wholly dependent on international security forces and cannot stray from his palace in safety? Where is the president’s support for democracy in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, where governance is by the iron hand of despotism, aristocracy and hereditary succession? Indeed, where was the president’s love of democracy in the election of 2000? In Iran, they vetted the candidates for a general election. In Florida, they vetted the electorate.
The Grand Old Party is the party of the most egregious gerrymandering to deny equal representation in the history of the republic, yet its leader expects us to believe that he is chosen to defend and promulgate the principles of democracy. He must pardon his subjects if we remain skeptical.
We do not believe that the president is democracy’s champion. We do not believe that his crusade is in behalf of the American people. We believe that his constituents are the new aristocracy: the economic elite. We believe that he has led this nation to war, spilling the blood of Americans and Iraqis alike, in order to fatten the pockets of those who already possess more than they could ever need.
“Again and again and again: The more you say it is not about oil, the more certain we are that it is.” (Jazzman Chronicles, Volume II: The War Chronicles.)
In early June, the president gave a promise to the world that, if delivered, would mark the end of the American occupation and the beginning of democracy in Iraq: the transference of “full sovereignty.”
Though it has scarcely been two weeks since the secretive transference ceremony, it is time enough for an initial assessment. Has the president made good on his word? Has he delivered the sovereignty of Iraq to the Iraqi people?
In a previous Chronicle (The Sovereignty of Iraq 6/6/04), this writer proposed four fundamental conditions of sovereignty: 1) No undo American influence on the selection of Iraqi governing officials, 2) Iraqi control of Iraqi oil, 3) Iraqi authority over government contracts, and 4) Iraqi control of military forces.
Even before the impromptu ceremony, it became clear the president was less than a man of his word. The new government would not be granted control of the military. They would be allowed to request withdrawal of occupying forces but those forces would be under no obligation to do so. Further, the Iraqi government would not have authority to alter existing contracts. Sovereignty denied the new government would be retained by Halliburton, contracted mercenaries and American generals. As for the oil, while the new oil minister makes a great show of proclaiming control, when the contracts are signed, sealed and delivered, how is Iraqi control anything but nominal?
The failure of the administration to deliver on these essential conditions of sovereignty is sufficient to dismiss the American effort as disingenuous and deceptive. When one considers the nature of the new government, however, that dismissal rises to a level of condemnation for blatant hypocrisy.
The first thing to understand about the new Iraqi Interim Government is that its power is concentrated in the office of the Prime Minister. Even when a National Assembly is selected, its role will be advisory. The president and vice presidents have a right of approval in some cases but their roles are essentially symbolic.
So, who is the new Prime Minister of Iraq and how was he selected?
Curiously, thought the United Nations was initially granted control of the selection process, Dr. Iyad Allawi (who is not a real doctor), was not the choice of UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. He was certainly not the choice of the Iraqi people (polls indicate less than 5% support). A powerful Iraqi exile, Prime Minister Allawi’s primary qualifications for head of state appear to be his extensive connections with British and American intelligence (MI-6 and CIA). He figured prominently in a failed 1996 CIA-backed coup and likely contributed to the misleading intelligence used to justify the invasion.
There are more questions than answers regarding the background of this man (replete with rumors of assassinations, sabotage and terrorism). What is certain is that he is very well connected, well financed and protected by powerful organizations. He has invested a small fortune in lobbying and public relations within the United States of America.
Our president speaks fervently about freedom of choice. We must now demand of the president: Given freedom of choice, would the Iraqi people choose a man who is at best an asset of the Central Intelligence Agency to lead their country to democracy?
The president has failed utterly to deliver his promise. Now that Prime Minister Allawi has proclaimed the right to impose martial law and the intent to bring back the same security forces that terrorized dissidents under Saddam, it is clear that he is less interested in building electoral support and more interested in imposing order with an iron fist. Allawi’s colleagues in the new government have strange notions concerning the democratic process:
Oil Minister, Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum: “We must keep out of the conference (to select a national assembly) … anyone who does not believe in the new democracy, who has anti-progress ideas. That will not be allowed.” -- SF Chronicle 7/7/04.
It seems the oil minister has learned from the Republican operatives in Florida.
Vice President, Ibrahim Jafari: “Martial law is the only way to protect the democratic process.”
It seems our president could learn from Jafari.
There will be no sovereignty in Iraq as long as oil is in the equation. Where there is no sovereignty, there can be no democracy. The war within Iraq will go on, the occupation will continue, and democracy will remain a desert mirage.
Jazz.
Of all the lies and deceptions the administration has asked the electorate to accept, perhaps the most insidious is the Crusade for Democracy in the Middle East.
In the Middle Ages, one might have expected the Crusaders for Christianity to faithfully represent the morality of Christ. History records that they were in fact antithetical to Christian values. They not only failed to establish a Christian Kingdom in the Middle East, they left an indelible mark of shame that forever stained western relations to the Arab-Islamic world.
Now, as the most non-secular president in history lays claim to champion the cause of democracy, we are compelled to demand evidence that he is faithful to the cause.
Where was the president’s support for democracy in Haiti when his agents orchestrated a coup to depose a lawfully elected leader? Where was his love for democracy when his clandestine representatives failed to depose Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? Where is the president’s allegiance to democracy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the will of the people is ignored in favor of heavy-handed and unqualified support for Ariel Sharon’s oppressive and faltering regime? What evidence of true democracy has emerged in Afghanistan, where a handpicked president is wholly dependent on international security forces and cannot stray from his palace in safety? Where is the president’s support for democracy in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, where governance is by the iron hand of despotism, aristocracy and hereditary succession? Indeed, where was the president’s love of democracy in the election of 2000? In Iran, they vetted the candidates for a general election. In Florida, they vetted the electorate.
The Grand Old Party is the party of the most egregious gerrymandering to deny equal representation in the history of the republic, yet its leader expects us to believe that he is chosen to defend and promulgate the principles of democracy. He must pardon his subjects if we remain skeptical.
We do not believe that the president is democracy’s champion. We do not believe that his crusade is in behalf of the American people. We believe that his constituents are the new aristocracy: the economic elite. We believe that he has led this nation to war, spilling the blood of Americans and Iraqis alike, in order to fatten the pockets of those who already possess more than they could ever need.
“Again and again and again: The more you say it is not about oil, the more certain we are that it is.” (Jazzman Chronicles, Volume II: The War Chronicles.)
In early June, the president gave a promise to the world that, if delivered, would mark the end of the American occupation and the beginning of democracy in Iraq: the transference of “full sovereignty.”
Though it has scarcely been two weeks since the secretive transference ceremony, it is time enough for an initial assessment. Has the president made good on his word? Has he delivered the sovereignty of Iraq to the Iraqi people?
In a previous Chronicle (The Sovereignty of Iraq 6/6/04), this writer proposed four fundamental conditions of sovereignty: 1) No undo American influence on the selection of Iraqi governing officials, 2) Iraqi control of Iraqi oil, 3) Iraqi authority over government contracts, and 4) Iraqi control of military forces.
Even before the impromptu ceremony, it became clear the president was less than a man of his word. The new government would not be granted control of the military. They would be allowed to request withdrawal of occupying forces but those forces would be under no obligation to do so. Further, the Iraqi government would not have authority to alter existing contracts. Sovereignty denied the new government would be retained by Halliburton, contracted mercenaries and American generals. As for the oil, while the new oil minister makes a great show of proclaiming control, when the contracts are signed, sealed and delivered, how is Iraqi control anything but nominal?
The failure of the administration to deliver on these essential conditions of sovereignty is sufficient to dismiss the American effort as disingenuous and deceptive. When one considers the nature of the new government, however, that dismissal rises to a level of condemnation for blatant hypocrisy.
The first thing to understand about the new Iraqi Interim Government is that its power is concentrated in the office of the Prime Minister. Even when a National Assembly is selected, its role will be advisory. The president and vice presidents have a right of approval in some cases but their roles are essentially symbolic.
So, who is the new Prime Minister of Iraq and how was he selected?
Curiously, thought the United Nations was initially granted control of the selection process, Dr. Iyad Allawi (who is not a real doctor), was not the choice of UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. He was certainly not the choice of the Iraqi people (polls indicate less than 5% support). A powerful Iraqi exile, Prime Minister Allawi’s primary qualifications for head of state appear to be his extensive connections with British and American intelligence (MI-6 and CIA). He figured prominently in a failed 1996 CIA-backed coup and likely contributed to the misleading intelligence used to justify the invasion.
There are more questions than answers regarding the background of this man (replete with rumors of assassinations, sabotage and terrorism). What is certain is that he is very well connected, well financed and protected by powerful organizations. He has invested a small fortune in lobbying and public relations within the United States of America.
Our president speaks fervently about freedom of choice. We must now demand of the president: Given freedom of choice, would the Iraqi people choose a man who is at best an asset of the Central Intelligence Agency to lead their country to democracy?
The president has failed utterly to deliver his promise. Now that Prime Minister Allawi has proclaimed the right to impose martial law and the intent to bring back the same security forces that terrorized dissidents under Saddam, it is clear that he is less interested in building electoral support and more interested in imposing order with an iron fist. Allawi’s colleagues in the new government have strange notions concerning the democratic process:
Oil Minister, Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum: “We must keep out of the conference (to select a national assembly) … anyone who does not believe in the new democracy, who has anti-progress ideas. That will not be allowed.” -- SF Chronicle 7/7/04.
It seems the oil minister has learned from the Republican operatives in Florida.
Vice President, Ibrahim Jafari: “Martial law is the only way to protect the democratic process.”
It seems our president could learn from Jafari.
There will be no sovereignty in Iraq as long as oil is in the equation. Where there is no sovereignty, there can be no democracy. The war within Iraq will go on, the occupation will continue, and democracy will remain a desert mirage.
Jazz.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
NADER, KERRY & THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT
“For those of us who believe…that the two party system is corrupt beyond redemption, the prospect of supporting a Democrat is agonizing … and yet, John Kerry versus George W. Bush is something akin to Hubert Humphrey versus Genghis Khan. Such is the nature of war.”
Jazzman Chronicles, Volume II: The War Chronicles.
Barring an “October surprise,” (or perhaps despite it) members of the antiwar movement hold the key to the outcome of the next election. The Bush-Cheney machine is breaking down. Ironically, they appear to be as inept at repair and maintenance as they are at foreign policy. Ironically, they are running out of gas well short of the finish line.
It is not the time for an open assault on the policies of Democratic candidate John Kerry but it is time to reconsider the role of independent candidate Ralph Nader. It is hardly a dark secret that we are discontent with the war policies of Senator Kerry. The idea that we “cannot fail in Iraq” is as tired as the latest appearance of the band of brothers. The admonition against a “cut and run” approach is more appropriate to a football game than a foreign policy. Senator Kerry should mind Einstein’s admonition that folly is repeating the same pattern of behavior while expecting a different result. We have lost in Iraq and no declarations of resolve or pipedreams of internationalization will alter that solemn fact. What remains to determine is the cost.
Either John Kerry does not believe that an antiwar candidate can win the presidency or he has painted himself into a corner. Given the record contributions he has collected and his steady climb in presidential polls, he has every reason to stay the course. Given the rising sentiment against the war, however, the Senator would do well to consider the distinct possibility that he cannot win without the antiwar movement.
Already the more impassioned of our numbers have begun zeroing in on the Senator’s policies and who can blame them? He has seemingly done everything in his power to alienate us. He has issued a call for more troops in Iraq. He has groveled at the feet of John McCain. He has refused to disavow military conscription. He has taken a stand against Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He has backed away from criticizing the Bush coup in Haiti. If we were to rely on his campaign to inform us on the issues of the day, we would never know there is a war going on for the Senator scarcely mentions it.
Enter Ralph Nader to deliver a well-earned rebuke: There is a limit to our patience and pragmatism. If the good Senator has no ear for our message, if in fact he demands that we vote for a policy of escalation, he will leave us in a quandary like the soldiers in Baghdad.
We have listened to the lamentations of Democrats too long. It becomes a drone like elevator music before Pink Floyd. Ralph Nader did not lose the 2000 election, the disenfranchisement of black Americans did. Why not drone about that? Ralph Nader did not run the most inept presidential campaign since Walter Mondale. Why not drone about that? Would Albert Gore be president today if Ralph Nader had not run? We will never know. My informed opinion is that the fix in Florida was in. Republican operatives were primed and ready to pull as many votes out of the hat as needed. The fact that the Democrats chose to dispute the results based on hanging chads rather than high treason is a scandal equal in proportion to the Republican disgrace. But why drone on about the past?
Ralph Nader is right. We all know it. When he speaks, he speaks our views. When he strikes out against the war machine, he does not pull his punches. He is against the war and the occupation. He favors a scheduled withdrawal of our troops. Most importantly, he is right on target when he claims that he is the only practical means of influencing the Democratic party and its candidate.
Realistically, for most Americans, a vote for Ralph Nader is not evidence of political lunacy. For most Americans a vote for Nader will have no more influence on the election than a vote for Bush or a vote for Kerry. If you live in California, New York or Texas, you can vote freely or not vote at all and it will have no impact on the outcome of the election. In fact, if you live anywhere outside the estimated fourteen or fifteen “battleground” states, your vote is as meaningful as a vote in Moscow. As the Republicans in Florida were so fond of reminding us: We do not live in a democracy. We live under a representative system so corrupted that political parties game it as Enron and El Paso Gas gamed the electrical power system.
For most of us, the only hope of influencing the direction of our nation resides in a vote for independent, third party or mainstream antiwar candidates (that rarest of breeds) in every race from city council to Senator. In congressional elections, we may actually find some success. The major parties have gerrymandered districts to such an extreme, concentrating progressive voters in Republican states and conservative voters in Democratic states, that they are vulnerable to the challenges of true progressives and true libertarians, respectively.
So where does all this leave us in the presidential election?
We must continue to support John Kerry as an alternative to the Bush war machine but, as we do so, we should also support Ralph Nader as he pushes Kerry to assume an antiwar stance, to open his thinking to the possibility of withdrawal, to oppose the draft, the Bush doctrine and the Wolfowitz approach to the war on terror.
Until John Kerry gives us something to vote for we must regard him with the same indifference that Albert Gore inspired in 2000. We are not naïve or stupid and we will not be taken for granted. We are counting on the Kerry campaign to hear our voices. We are imploring the Democrats to embrace the cause of peace. If they fail us, we will still make John Kerry president but we will also make him a one-term president.
Jazz.
FREE COPIES OF THE WAR CHRONICLES NOW AVAILABLE.
Jazzman Chronicles, Volume II: The War Chronicles.
Barring an “October surprise,” (or perhaps despite it) members of the antiwar movement hold the key to the outcome of the next election. The Bush-Cheney machine is breaking down. Ironically, they appear to be as inept at repair and maintenance as they are at foreign policy. Ironically, they are running out of gas well short of the finish line.
It is not the time for an open assault on the policies of Democratic candidate John Kerry but it is time to reconsider the role of independent candidate Ralph Nader. It is hardly a dark secret that we are discontent with the war policies of Senator Kerry. The idea that we “cannot fail in Iraq” is as tired as the latest appearance of the band of brothers. The admonition against a “cut and run” approach is more appropriate to a football game than a foreign policy. Senator Kerry should mind Einstein’s admonition that folly is repeating the same pattern of behavior while expecting a different result. We have lost in Iraq and no declarations of resolve or pipedreams of internationalization will alter that solemn fact. What remains to determine is the cost.
Either John Kerry does not believe that an antiwar candidate can win the presidency or he has painted himself into a corner. Given the record contributions he has collected and his steady climb in presidential polls, he has every reason to stay the course. Given the rising sentiment against the war, however, the Senator would do well to consider the distinct possibility that he cannot win without the antiwar movement.
Already the more impassioned of our numbers have begun zeroing in on the Senator’s policies and who can blame them? He has seemingly done everything in his power to alienate us. He has issued a call for more troops in Iraq. He has groveled at the feet of John McCain. He has refused to disavow military conscription. He has taken a stand against Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He has backed away from criticizing the Bush coup in Haiti. If we were to rely on his campaign to inform us on the issues of the day, we would never know there is a war going on for the Senator scarcely mentions it.
Enter Ralph Nader to deliver a well-earned rebuke: There is a limit to our patience and pragmatism. If the good Senator has no ear for our message, if in fact he demands that we vote for a policy of escalation, he will leave us in a quandary like the soldiers in Baghdad.
We have listened to the lamentations of Democrats too long. It becomes a drone like elevator music before Pink Floyd. Ralph Nader did not lose the 2000 election, the disenfranchisement of black Americans did. Why not drone about that? Ralph Nader did not run the most inept presidential campaign since Walter Mondale. Why not drone about that? Would Albert Gore be president today if Ralph Nader had not run? We will never know. My informed opinion is that the fix in Florida was in. Republican operatives were primed and ready to pull as many votes out of the hat as needed. The fact that the Democrats chose to dispute the results based on hanging chads rather than high treason is a scandal equal in proportion to the Republican disgrace. But why drone on about the past?
Ralph Nader is right. We all know it. When he speaks, he speaks our views. When he strikes out against the war machine, he does not pull his punches. He is against the war and the occupation. He favors a scheduled withdrawal of our troops. Most importantly, he is right on target when he claims that he is the only practical means of influencing the Democratic party and its candidate.
Realistically, for most Americans, a vote for Ralph Nader is not evidence of political lunacy. For most Americans a vote for Nader will have no more influence on the election than a vote for Bush or a vote for Kerry. If you live in California, New York or Texas, you can vote freely or not vote at all and it will have no impact on the outcome of the election. In fact, if you live anywhere outside the estimated fourteen or fifteen “battleground” states, your vote is as meaningful as a vote in Moscow. As the Republicans in Florida were so fond of reminding us: We do not live in a democracy. We live under a representative system so corrupted that political parties game it as Enron and El Paso Gas gamed the electrical power system.
For most of us, the only hope of influencing the direction of our nation resides in a vote for independent, third party or mainstream antiwar candidates (that rarest of breeds) in every race from city council to Senator. In congressional elections, we may actually find some success. The major parties have gerrymandered districts to such an extreme, concentrating progressive voters in Republican states and conservative voters in Democratic states, that they are vulnerable to the challenges of true progressives and true libertarians, respectively.
So where does all this leave us in the presidential election?
We must continue to support John Kerry as an alternative to the Bush war machine but, as we do so, we should also support Ralph Nader as he pushes Kerry to assume an antiwar stance, to open his thinking to the possibility of withdrawal, to oppose the draft, the Bush doctrine and the Wolfowitz approach to the war on terror.
Until John Kerry gives us something to vote for we must regard him with the same indifference that Albert Gore inspired in 2000. We are not naïve or stupid and we will not be taken for granted. We are counting on the Kerry campaign to hear our voices. We are imploring the Democrats to embrace the cause of peace. If they fail us, we will still make John Kerry president but we will also make him a one-term president.
Jazz.
FREE COPIES OF THE WAR CHRONICLES NOW AVAILABLE.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
A DOOMED IDEOLOGY
A RESPONSE TO JACK RANDOM’S
IRAQ & VIET NAM: THEY WON’T KILL THEIR OWN
By Dragon Lady
Dear Sir,
You have acquitted yourself with such passionate eloquence in validating an uncomfortable reality - one my father once stated with equal passion and conviction. Being a war-hardened soldier, his words were taken seriously by all of us kids. He had fought 'the good fight' to liberate Europe - and always denounced colonialism and imperialism. None of our family 'volunteered' for Vietnam, or endorsed any of America's idealistic brush-wars.
The one unfortunate circumstance this time though, is that the world's oil reserves will be depleted in short shrift. Already the greedy are fighting over the scraps of a doomed philosophy and a doomed ideology. This is one war that won't go on for hundreds of years - the treasure, once looted, will leave the desert blood-soaked and empty. The Iraqis - those that survive this atrocity - will be abandoned. There will be bigger problems occupying those that pillage and loot - the ability to roam the world at will ends when the oil runs out. Then it's back to basics - wind, water, and sunlight will create new realities on the ground - and new challenges for society.
I do hope the Iraqis are successful in ridding their country of conquering invaders bent on looting and exploitation - hoarding their national treasure might force these modern day pirates to change their ways. If the Iraqis succeed in defeating the military super-power that claims dominion over the entire planet, it might lead to hope - and freedom - for billions of others. Iraq just might be the new Armageddon - the evil forces of violence against the resistance of ordinary people. That would be a lesson in democracy to make despots tremble - a true David-and-Goliath struggle of epic proportions.
It's ironic that the fate of the world might just hang on the actions of a handful of unemployed, uneducated, disillusioned, misguided Iraqis - the fundamentalist dogma of some insurgents hardly merits admiration - but their dogged resistance is pure inspiration. It's unfortunate that the resources of the 'civilized world' are aligned against their noble endeavor - imagine what might be if we co-operated and encouraged freedom instead of so violently opposing it! How dare they dream of sharing in prosperity? How dare they envision freedom? How dare they insist on being masters of their own destiny? Can't they see that Americans know better? Impudent ingrates!
Being intimately familiar with colonialism, it pained me to see Vietnam so brutally devastated - the mendacious ruses of the current US administration make me wonder if there isn't a fatal flaw in American mythology. In spite of a long and damning history of brutality and exploitation, they had no trouble rousing the people again, to indiscriminate mob violence against an innocent non-enemy. Creating imaginary enemies to be subjugated by the brute force of unimaginable atrocities seems to be deeply imbedded in the American psyche. A persecution complex born of guilt, much akin to that of the Zionists.
I have little trouble with the assessment of much of the world that the US is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity - the record is undeniable. There is a fatal flaw that seems to thwart the best of intentions - Americans just don't 'learn' anything - from anyone. They really believe they are the epitome of civilization - that they have achieved the limits of 'perfection' in human evolution. The arrogance is stunning. My father had a piece of advice about that too - he always said 'You'd better learn from the mistakes of others - you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.' Every soldier in this new conquering army is proof that one ignores history at their own peril. I might grieve for their stupidity - but not for any of them. Every time I see the 'Stars and Stripes' I am reminded of other arrogant follies - the swastika, the rising sun - symbols of hubris and impending doom. I can't help wonder how so many people can embrace cognitive dissonance as some kind of achievement - is it racism? Is ignorance a normal human state? Is morality relative? Then why do some of us see so clearly what others are so busy denying? Are we the vanguard of a new philosophy? Or the remnants of one in dissolution? Or just a constant minority that laments the needless waste of so much talent? Sometimes I can't help but feel that I'm watching an ant farm.
You've raised a lot of questions in my mind - and I thank you for that. Maybe that's the highest compliment anyone can pay to a writer. Maybe challenging those around us is all that we can hope for - and more than we can appreciate. One thing for sure - when the oil runs out, life will be very interesting - maybe all that energy can then be devoted to real social progress. Maybe oil just stagnated evolution. But the despots have always found an excuse - we just have to keep fighting.
IRAQ & VIET NAM: THEY WON’T KILL THEIR OWN
By Dragon Lady
Dear Sir,
You have acquitted yourself with such passionate eloquence in validating an uncomfortable reality - one my father once stated with equal passion and conviction. Being a war-hardened soldier, his words were taken seriously by all of us kids. He had fought 'the good fight' to liberate Europe - and always denounced colonialism and imperialism. None of our family 'volunteered' for Vietnam, or endorsed any of America's idealistic brush-wars.
The one unfortunate circumstance this time though, is that the world's oil reserves will be depleted in short shrift. Already the greedy are fighting over the scraps of a doomed philosophy and a doomed ideology. This is one war that won't go on for hundreds of years - the treasure, once looted, will leave the desert blood-soaked and empty. The Iraqis - those that survive this atrocity - will be abandoned. There will be bigger problems occupying those that pillage and loot - the ability to roam the world at will ends when the oil runs out. Then it's back to basics - wind, water, and sunlight will create new realities on the ground - and new challenges for society.
I do hope the Iraqis are successful in ridding their country of conquering invaders bent on looting and exploitation - hoarding their national treasure might force these modern day pirates to change their ways. If the Iraqis succeed in defeating the military super-power that claims dominion over the entire planet, it might lead to hope - and freedom - for billions of others. Iraq just might be the new Armageddon - the evil forces of violence against the resistance of ordinary people. That would be a lesson in democracy to make despots tremble - a true David-and-Goliath struggle of epic proportions.
It's ironic that the fate of the world might just hang on the actions of a handful of unemployed, uneducated, disillusioned, misguided Iraqis - the fundamentalist dogma of some insurgents hardly merits admiration - but their dogged resistance is pure inspiration. It's unfortunate that the resources of the 'civilized world' are aligned against their noble endeavor - imagine what might be if we co-operated and encouraged freedom instead of so violently opposing it! How dare they dream of sharing in prosperity? How dare they envision freedom? How dare they insist on being masters of their own destiny? Can't they see that Americans know better? Impudent ingrates!
Being intimately familiar with colonialism, it pained me to see Vietnam so brutally devastated - the mendacious ruses of the current US administration make me wonder if there isn't a fatal flaw in American mythology. In spite of a long and damning history of brutality and exploitation, they had no trouble rousing the people again, to indiscriminate mob violence against an innocent non-enemy. Creating imaginary enemies to be subjugated by the brute force of unimaginable atrocities seems to be deeply imbedded in the American psyche. A persecution complex born of guilt, much akin to that of the Zionists.
I have little trouble with the assessment of much of the world that the US is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity - the record is undeniable. There is a fatal flaw that seems to thwart the best of intentions - Americans just don't 'learn' anything - from anyone. They really believe they are the epitome of civilization - that they have achieved the limits of 'perfection' in human evolution. The arrogance is stunning. My father had a piece of advice about that too - he always said 'You'd better learn from the mistakes of others - you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.' Every soldier in this new conquering army is proof that one ignores history at their own peril. I might grieve for their stupidity - but not for any of them. Every time I see the 'Stars and Stripes' I am reminded of other arrogant follies - the swastika, the rising sun - symbols of hubris and impending doom. I can't help wonder how so many people can embrace cognitive dissonance as some kind of achievement - is it racism? Is ignorance a normal human state? Is morality relative? Then why do some of us see so clearly what others are so busy denying? Are we the vanguard of a new philosophy? Or the remnants of one in dissolution? Or just a constant minority that laments the needless waste of so much talent? Sometimes I can't help but feel that I'm watching an ant farm.
You've raised a lot of questions in my mind - and I thank you for that. Maybe that's the highest compliment anyone can pay to a writer. Maybe challenging those around us is all that we can hope for - and more than we can appreciate. One thing for sure - when the oil runs out, life will be very interesting - maybe all that energy can then be devoted to real social progress. Maybe oil just stagnated evolution. But the despots have always found an excuse - we just have to keep fighting.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
IRAQ & VIETNAM: THEY WON'T KILL THEIR OWN
By Jack Random
“So they stood on the sidelines as the parade marched on and 50,000 of our soldiers died in a war they did not understand. And they watched and cheered as millions of Vietnamese died at our hands, while the silent enemy went to Sunday barbecues and John Wayne movies and trotted out the flags for the Fourth of July. They watched and applauded, year after year, as presidents spoke of victory and light at the end of the tunnel, as the body count grew and soldiers came home in boxes. They watched until their silence turned to sickening horror and they began to whisper among themselves: What have we done?”
Jazzman Chronicles, Vol. II: The War Chronicles
Confronted with the Tet Offensive in 1968, American warlords publicly professed confidence in our campaign to liberate Viet Nam. There was a light at the end of the tunnel. Secretly, they lamented the ineffectiveness of South Vietnamese forces: Vietnamese would not kill Vietnamese. We know now that the presidency of Lyndon Johnson would not survive long enough to see that light revealed as Vietnamese liberation.
Confronted with the rising tide of Iraqi resistance in the wake of Fallujah, our president assures us it is only the remnants of Saddam loyalists and isolated foreign terrorists. Secretly, our generals know better. They have expanded the targets to include noncooperative journalists (Al Jazeera) and civilians who refuse to collaborate with the occupying force. Like Operation Phoenix in Viet Nam (a CIA operation that killed 20,000 South Vietnamese), we are targeting the very people we are supposed to be liberating. Openly, our warlords lament the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi security force. It seems we must learn again another lesson of Viet Nam: Iraqis will not kill Iraqis – at least not for a foreign invader.
What has become clearer than any light at the end of the tunnel is that there can be no American victory in Iraq. The people of Iraq have delivered a strong and unambiguous message: Victory is an end to the occupation. They do not believe we are liberators. They believe we are there to secure their oil and to establish a permanent military base in the Middle East. As long as our president flatly refuses to disavow such claims, those beliefs will persist and harden into a conviction that will feed the resistance. We cannot kill enough Iraqis to suppress the will of the nation and the more we kill, the stronger the resistance will become.
The president is right for the wrong reason: Failure is not an option because it has already been secured. America will never be allowed to establish permanent bases in Iraq. America will never be allowed to control Iraqi oil. And whatever form of government evolves in Iraq, it will be one of their own choosing.
The Vietnamese fought against foreign invaders for centuries before securing independence. Are the Iraqis so very different? How many lives are we prepared to sacrifice to find out? How many lives must be sacrificed before America can admit: We are wrong? How many more must we ask to give their lives for this mistake?
You cannot convert wrong to right by prolonging the occupation. You can only increase the cost in lives, money, and the respect of all nations. You can only fuel the fires of our true enemies and further alienate our true friends.
Let us undo the harm insofar as it can be undone. Let us use our resources not for weapons but to rebuild the nations we have destroyed. Let us make amends as best we can. Let us admit wrong and withdraw our troops. Let us pledge our support to the United Nations. At this critical juncture, we can do little else.
Jazz.
“So they stood on the sidelines as the parade marched on and 50,000 of our soldiers died in a war they did not understand. And they watched and cheered as millions of Vietnamese died at our hands, while the silent enemy went to Sunday barbecues and John Wayne movies and trotted out the flags for the Fourth of July. They watched and applauded, year after year, as presidents spoke of victory and light at the end of the tunnel, as the body count grew and soldiers came home in boxes. They watched until their silence turned to sickening horror and they began to whisper among themselves: What have we done?”
Jazzman Chronicles, Vol. II: The War Chronicles
Confronted with the Tet Offensive in 1968, American warlords publicly professed confidence in our campaign to liberate Viet Nam. There was a light at the end of the tunnel. Secretly, they lamented the ineffectiveness of South Vietnamese forces: Vietnamese would not kill Vietnamese. We know now that the presidency of Lyndon Johnson would not survive long enough to see that light revealed as Vietnamese liberation.
Confronted with the rising tide of Iraqi resistance in the wake of Fallujah, our president assures us it is only the remnants of Saddam loyalists and isolated foreign terrorists. Secretly, our generals know better. They have expanded the targets to include noncooperative journalists (Al Jazeera) and civilians who refuse to collaborate with the occupying force. Like Operation Phoenix in Viet Nam (a CIA operation that killed 20,000 South Vietnamese), we are targeting the very people we are supposed to be liberating. Openly, our warlords lament the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi security force. It seems we must learn again another lesson of Viet Nam: Iraqis will not kill Iraqis – at least not for a foreign invader.
What has become clearer than any light at the end of the tunnel is that there can be no American victory in Iraq. The people of Iraq have delivered a strong and unambiguous message: Victory is an end to the occupation. They do not believe we are liberators. They believe we are there to secure their oil and to establish a permanent military base in the Middle East. As long as our president flatly refuses to disavow such claims, those beliefs will persist and harden into a conviction that will feed the resistance. We cannot kill enough Iraqis to suppress the will of the nation and the more we kill, the stronger the resistance will become.
The president is right for the wrong reason: Failure is not an option because it has already been secured. America will never be allowed to establish permanent bases in Iraq. America will never be allowed to control Iraqi oil. And whatever form of government evolves in Iraq, it will be one of their own choosing.
The Vietnamese fought against foreign invaders for centuries before securing independence. Are the Iraqis so very different? How many lives are we prepared to sacrifice to find out? How many lives must be sacrificed before America can admit: We are wrong? How many more must we ask to give their lives for this mistake?
You cannot convert wrong to right by prolonging the occupation. You can only increase the cost in lives, money, and the respect of all nations. You can only fuel the fires of our true enemies and further alienate our true friends.
Let us undo the harm insofar as it can be undone. Let us use our resources not for weapons but to rebuild the nations we have destroyed. Let us make amends as best we can. Let us admit wrong and withdraw our troops. Let us pledge our support to the United Nations. At this critical juncture, we can do little else.
Jazz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)