Published by Billy Joe Mills
on Saturday, January 13 at 10:42 AM. 
Thanks to Erik for this post, which he sent around to many of the newspapers for publication. Also, thanks to my brother, Eric Mills (generalmills211@yahoo.com), for the aesthetic changes to Urbanagora that you see now. He's great with this kind of stuff, so if you need help manipulating your blog's html or with designing header images on Photoshop try asking him for help, he's just 15 years old, so he won't charge you :)It seems that the gap between public sentiment and mainstream debate grows wider every day. This Wednesday the Bush Administration outlined a plan to escalate the violence in Iraq which has, by the CIA’s own admission, bolstered support in the Middle East for Islamic Fundamentalism and weakened US security. The “alternative” offered by Democrats (who owe their newfound power to a public solidly opposed to the war) is at its core woefully similar; blaming current problems on the people of Iraq, who must not want, appreciate or be willing to fight for democracy or security. If I were to punch my neighbor in the face, it would be absurd for me to write off his bloody nose as his own fault, and yet this seems to be exactly what the Democrats are prepared to do—an easy escape, perhaps, but not a lasting solution.
Many of the proposals which have been offered by the peace movement would lay the groundwork for a future reconciliation with the Muslim world (one such proposal recently supplied by Helena Cobban and readily available online), but all share a number of common themes: A sincere apology for the damage wreaked by our war, recognition of Iraq’s sovereignty and control of its own resources and an appeal for international cooperation in repairing the country’s decimated infrastructure—all set to a definite timetable for troop withdrawal.
Some might argue that such a policy would be doomed by its idealism; the same, I believe, could be said of the proposal to escalate the violence which plunged Iraq into chaos in the first place, one which attempts to equate "pacification" with peace. The difference between the two, of course, is that the Bush administration's "troop surge" plan has received such wide attention from the media, politicians and pundits that we have accepted it as a rational option rather than a vain and foolish attempt to defeat an angry beehive with heavier boxing gloves. In the wake of our government’s failure to offer a realistic solution to the Iraq crisis, the time has come for us to investigate options outside the narrow spectrum of mainstream political debate and to reflect amongst ourselves on their possible outcomes: for our credibility and dignity, for international stability and security, and for justice.
~By Erik
Labels: foreign policy, Iraq
we have accepted it as a rational option rather than a vain and foolish attempt to defeat an angry beehive with heavier boxing gloves
Polls indicate that over 70% of Americans oppose the surge and that an nearly equal number do not think it will improve the situation in Iraq. It seems taht a vast majority do not consider it a "rational option" but rather "a vain and foolish attempt to defeat an angry beehive with heavier boxing gloves."
I'll also point out that Bush's already "not good" approval numbers plummeted even further following his official surge announcement.
Its an unavoidable conclusion that this surge strategy is opposed and is not considered a "rational" strategy by all but the most blinded Bush followers.
If anything I'd say it was a calculated political move by Bush. See he asks for more troops which he knows he's unlikely to get because the Dems will oppose it. When everything goes to hell, he can blame the Dems for not letting him do his job as Commander in Chief. Alternatively he'll whine about politicians not letting generals do their jobs blah blah blah. Fun with foreign interventionism!
I don't think there's a snow ball's chance in hell that the Dems actually cut off funding for the surge. They may have the MSM on their side, but it'd be too big an issue to spin. Every subsequent death would be blamed on the funding cut. It may piss off the Cindy Sheehans of the world, but Dems won't pick political suicide to please a noisy few - appearing to not supprot the troops would piss off a lot more.
my point wasn't that people view it as rational... rather that they view it as more of an option than less-talked about but ultimately much saner proposals.
Erik,
You call for "a sincere apology for the damage wreaked by our war, recognition of Iraq’s sovereignty and control of its own resources and an appeal for international cooperation in repairing the country’s decimated infrastructure—all set to a definite timetable for troop withdrawal." But you also criticize the Democrats for their general plan.
I agree that as a matter of rhetoric, your suggestion is pretty different than the Democrats. No Democrat advocates an American apology for the war, and you're right that a lot of Democrats talking up their plans use the type of rhetoric that implies that it's the Iraqis' fault for screwing everything up. That bothers me, but as far as actual action goes, isn't your plan and many Democrats' plans basically the same? Most prominent Democrats I've seen say they want a timetable with certain benchmarks for withdrawal and an appeal to other countries for help, and we have already recognized Iraq's sovereignty and control of its own resources. I don't want to sound like I'm towing the party line, but isn't your basic suggestion quite similar to those of, say, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards?
first off, this was originally written as a 400-word letter to the editor of my paper, then sent here as an afterthought, so i didn't develop my article completely. secondly:
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2132467.ece
I don't think we've affirmed the territorial or subterranean or any other version of iraq's sovereignty in any way. no prominent democrat has, by my count, had a word to say about our many bases peppered throughout the region, the fact that the invasion itself was a violation of international law (even if it isn't really law and doesn't apply to countries that can afford to ignore it, it still bears a large influence on our credibility). furthermore i can understand your implication that an apology isn't that big of a deal compared to leaving, but what if it came along with the type of actions that are supposed to come with sincere apologies? what if iraqi firms were given preference for our reconstruction contracts? how much money would flow into the country instead of lining the pockets of halliburton board members? personally i'm not one to trust rigid capitalist hierarchies, but i bet even giving the contract to a company that has a stake in the country being rebuilt could go a long way. saying that the democrat's "pass the blame and leave" plan is substantially the same only works if you assume that iraq will disappear once it leaves the news, and the consequences for the US down the road will definately, definately be far, far, worse. i'm talking about terror.
as far as i'm concerned pretty much anything in the realm of violence beyond cooperation with local police & military forces is not going to help things here. there was a daily show several years ago where steven colbert (before colbert report) finished a speech with something like "you can kill osama bin laden, but you can't kill the ideas that made him... so what we need to do is invent a bomb that can kill ideas." that seems to be all this administration has to offer in terms of a strategy (even in wwii, according to my comrade chomsky, support for the war was highest in german cities that had been the most bombed out--and that wasn't a war against a supposedly suicidal rage determined to wipe out all western culture). as far as i'm concerned something like cobban's proposal would not be a defeat, but a necessary step in the gwot, if we really have to use that term. reconciliation and the whatnot. i'm tired of typing and have better things to do. god bless america. just kidding!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/china_seizing_chance_to_power.html
Slightly off topic, but along the same lines (military), this is a column discussing China's latest white paper on military buildup in their drive to be the Asian hegemonic power. Obviously, they are able to do this uncontested as they are not in the middle east.
I was just wondering what your thoughts were.
just for the recognition, my letter did run in the sunday daily herald (suburban chicago paper)... i think they were just waiting for all the other letters on the topic and perhaps for the sunday paper. i only took a quick glance at it, but i think the only thing they changed was removing my last sentence, either because it was fluff or because it contained the word "justice."
I'm not familiar with the Herald's attitude towards "justice" but the sentence was pretty fluffy.
no it was definitely the justice they didn't like
In any case, it doesn't matter.
The war is lost. The American/Allied intervention has screwed the pooch and *nothing* at this point is going to find homes for the puppies.
The politicians on both sides of the aisles in Congress are, by and large, attempting to look good for the next round of elections, which more American soldiers are maimed, and occasionally, killed. (3000 dead, 25 thousand wounded)
In Niven and Pournelle's MOTE IN GOD'S EYE, they describe an alien religious figure called "Crazy Eddie."
The importance of Crazy Eddie was that he believed that for every problem, there was a solution--therefore he was undeniably insane, but continued to ruin life for everyone else.
There are some situations that do NOT have a solution. We're in one.
At this point, Iran is going to make a play for the oil. The Saudis and other Arabs are going to act to prevent that. The Kurds are going to try for independence, which quite possibly may send our allies the Turks into an alliance with the Iranians. If this happens, I figure *Republicans* will be calling for impeachment.
We did this. Each and every one of this that voted for those in power that gave the president authority to act in the Middle East. My father always said, "follow the money."
Question for you: "Who made money on the last five years? Who has gotten so rich that they could buy a hundred Halliburtons?"
*They're* the winners in this whole mess.
The thing now is to preempt an escalated war by the bombing of Iran and Syria. There's a bill in Congress now, HJR 14 that forbids presidential action without congressional approval. It might be a good thing is it passed.
Oh, one other note. Why do people keep bringing up this apology nonsense? What is this, 7-th grade girls' gym class?
"OK, Amie, now apologize for killing a hundred thousand of Ira's people. Shake hands, that's the way...."
What utter crap. Apologies do nothing except make some liberals feel better, that perhaps the destruction isn't *really* their fault, which we all know it is, as much as for the neoconservatives.
I mean, really, are we trying to prevent Iran and Syria from developing eating disorders or something?
Here's what we do:
"Hey, you! On the plane. Home. Now!"
Tom
Question for you: "Who made money on the last five years? Who has gotten so rich that they could buy a hundred Halliburtons?"
With a profit margin of 30% I'm going to have to go with... Google?
And the answer is:
The Saudi Princes, who have seen oil go from $17.50 a barrel in November of 2001 to a high of close to $80--all with no loss of production during the war or need for material support for the war effort.
As I said the other day, Iran's possession of the Shi'a areas of Iraq would result in 40% of the Middle East's oil supply being in the hands of a nation that is currently an energy *importer*. The Saudis will not allow that to happen, they don't want the competition.
Considering the Saudi's close ties to the Bush administration and the fact that the princes, al-quaeda *and* the 9/11 Hijackers are all members of the same Wahhabist sect of Islam, it's enough to make me hear black helicopter engines revving up. I try to resist it, lest I end up in the same position as assault-rifle paranoids, but it gets harder and harder every day.
Tom
apologies aren't 7th grade nonsense when they are done in some meaningful way. i'm talking about major and complete reparations, which includes a necessary and major drop in the median "quality of life" for people in this country, among many other things--troops out of the gulf, out of kuwait, Saudi arabia, etc, using our control over israel to bring an end to the occupation... some of these things might sound ridiculous, but not nearly so much as living in a cloud of gamma rays for half a second before my bones vaporize.
i know that i'm in the minority in saying this, but these things need to be done whether the terrorists are going to stop hating us or not. for a country so preoccupied with terrorism we have no connection, have made no sacrifice and have no right to enjoy such comfort while people in iraq (or afghanistan or haiti or palestine or ecuador or mexico or harlem) suffer at the hands of our military and economic policy.
a society deserves all the criminals [terrorists] it produces.
emma goldman
Screw you, erik. I'm not giving up my quality of life for you or anyone else in this world.
You can have it after you crawl across my cleared killzone and pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
It's not a zero sum game. Me having crap does NOT mean that someone from Outer Slobbovia does not have food.
Wealth and standard of living is something that is CREATED by intelligence combined with resources and labor, not something that is stolen from the deserving, unwashed masses. Until the industrial revolution, the majority of the people on earth who were not noble lived short, desperate lives looking over their shoulder for the next ravaging horde that was coming to kill their stock, burn their crops and rape them.
For a part of the world right now, this isn't the case. That's better than we've ever done any time in the last million years, so I'd say we're on the right track.
Tom
Looks like we need to get one of those American Gladiators giant toothpick things and make you boys fight this aggression out...
Brandon, I've watched these theorists wreak havoc upon themselves and those misguided enough to listen to them for the past 35 years.
They're just as dangerous now as they were in 1970. If someone attempts to put my philosophies into practice, they live an interesting life (although they may not get an Endowed Chair or a Ferrari). If they go with the syndical, hierarchial, non-libertarian anarchy, they end up wearing rags and arguing who gets to use the bathtub tonight.
Because the nature of humanity is to be fallen and unperfectable, any system that requires people to reduce their standard of living cannot be voluntary. [The reason for this is obvious--it is human nature to attempt to maximize one and one's family's status, freedom and possessions.]
Therefore, any such system HAS TO, by nature, be coercive. Any government that is coercive to, rather than being the servant of, the populace is evil, EVEN IF FOR VIRTUOUS ENDS.
I call this the French Revolution example.
My way gives you freedom, erik's gives you misery.
Tom
Screw you, erik. I'm not giving up my quality of life for you or anyone else in this world.
You can have it after you crawl across my cleared killzone and pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
That 'killzone' is going to be real effective after they take all your guns. In the absence of the citizenry's ability to defend it, the bill of rights isn't worth the paper its printed on.
Kofi, that's a metaphor. I am perfectly aware of the erosion of civil rights in America.
Tom