Wednesday, January 31, 2007

 

WP: President's Portrayal of 'The Enemy' Often Flawed


President's Portrayal of 'The Enemy' Often Flawed

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 24, 2007; A13

In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush presented an arguably misleading and often flawed description of "the enemy" that the United States faces overseas, lumping together disparate groups with opposing ideologies to suggest that they have a single-minded focus in attacking the United States.

Under Bush's rubric, a country such as Iran -- which enjoys diplomatic representation and billions of dollars in trade with major European countries -- is lumped together with al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat," Bush said, referring to the different branches of the Muslim religion.

Similarly, Bush asserted that Shia Hezbollah, which has won seats in the Lebanese government, is a terrorist group "second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken." Bush is referring to attacks nearly a quarter-century ago on a U.S. embassy and a Marine barracks when the United States intervened in Lebanon's civil war by shelling Hezbollah strongholds. Hezbollah has evolved into primarily an anti-Israeli militant organization -- it fought a war with Israel last summer -- but the European Union does not list it as a terrorist organization.

At one point, Bush catalogued what he described as advances in the quest for freedom in the Middle East during 2005 -- such as the departure of Syrian troops from Lebanon and elections in Iraq. Then, Bush asserted, "a thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics and in 2006 they struck back." But his description of the actions of "the enemy" tried to tie together a series of diplomatic and military setbacks that had virtually no connection to one another, from an attack on a Sunni mosque in Iraq to the assassination of Maronite Lebanese political figure.

In his speech, Bush argued that "free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance." He also said that terrorist groups "want to overthrow moderate governments."

In the two of the most liberal and diverse societies in the Middle East -- Lebanon and the Palestinian territories -- events have undercut Bush's argument in the past year. Hezbollah has gained power and strength in Lebanon, partly at the ballot box. Meanwhile, Palestinians ousted the Fatah party -- which wants to pursue peace with Israel -- from the legislature in favor of Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction and is considered a terrorist organization by the State Department.

In fact, many of the countries that Bush considers "moderate" -- such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- are autocratic dictatorships rated among the worst of the "not free" nations by the nonpartisan Freedom House. Their Freedom House ratings are virtually indistinguishable from Cuba, Belarus and Burma, which Bush last night listed as nations in desperate need of freedom.

Bush also claimed that "we have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism." But Monday, a poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries was released that showed that global opinion of U.S. foreign policy has sharply deteriorated in the past two years. Nearly three-quarters of those polled by GlobeScan, an international polling company, disapprove of U.S. policies toward Iraq, and nearly half said the United States is playing a mainly negative role in the world.

In his State of the Union address a year ago, Bush said that progress in Iraq meant "we should be able to further decrease our troop levels" but that "those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C." Bush now proposes to increase troop levels, after having overruled the concerns of commanders. In his speech last night, he sidestepped this contradiction, saying that "our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options" and "in the end, I chose this course of action."

On domestic policy, Bush at one point said that "the recovery" has added more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003. But the net number of jobs created since Bush became president in January 2001, is much lower -- just 3.6 million. The Bush administration's performance is fairly mediocre for the sixth year of a presidency, according to historical statistics maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nearly 18 million jobs were added by the sixth year of Bill Clinton's presidency -- and nearly 10 million were added at this point in Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Bush claimed credit for cutting the budget deficit ahead of schedule and proposed to eliminate it over the next five years. He did not mention that he inherited a huge budget surplus -- $236 billion in 2000 -- compared with a $296 billion deficit in the 2006 fiscal year, largely as a result of Bush's tax cuts and spending increases. Bush claimed that the No Child Left Behind Act has helped students to "perform better at reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap." But states made stronger average annual gains in reading during the decade before the law took effect, education researchers have found, and half a dozen recent studies have shown little progress in narrowing the test-score gap between minority and white students.

Staff writer Amit R. Paley contributed to this report.



Tuesday, January 30, 2007

 

NYT: Et Tu, George?


January 23, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Et Tu, George?

Maybe George W. Bush is the education president after all. Whatever one thinks of his No Child Left Behind initiative, he has made the classics powerfully resonant today.

So for those schoolchildren and university students out there struggling through “Moby-Dick” or the “Aeneid,” take heart! They’re not just about white whales or Trojan wanderers — they’re also about President Bush and Iraq.

Forget the Vietnam analogy that critics of the Iraq war usually toss out. A more trenchant analysis of Iraq-style adventures appears in the histories of Thucydides, written 2,400 years ago.

Great Athenian diplomats of the day, like Nicias, warned against military involvement in Sicily, calling it “a war that does not concern us,” according to Thucydides. But smooth-talking neocons of the day, like the brilliant Alcibiades, said in effect that the Sicilians would welcome the Athenians with flowers. He promised that they would be treated not as occupiers but as liberators.

“We shall have many barbarians ... join us,” Alcibiades declared, and he argued that the enemy would be easily defeated “rabble.” “Never were the Peloponnesians more hopeless against us,” he told the crowds.

So the Athenians rallied around the flag and dispatched a huge force. But as Thucydides notes, they had suffered a grievous intelligence failure: they did not get the support they had counted on, and the enemy was far larger and more organized than they had anticipated. The war went badly, and eventually Athens was forced to confront two options: withdraw or escalate.

The Athenians, deciding that defeat was not an option, went with the “surge.” They dispatched an additional 70-odd ships and 5,000 troops.

The result was a catastrophic defeat. Thousands of Athenians were killed far from home, and others were sold into slavery. The Athenian navy was destroyed, and the double-or-nothing gambit meant that other nonaligned states sided with the Athenians’ enemy, Sparta.

Within a few years, Athenian democracy had collapsed, and Athens, the great city-state of the ancient world, had been conquered by Sparta.

President Bush has lent a new thrill to readers of Virgil’s account of the adventures of Aeneas from Troy to Rome. A marvelous new translation of the “Aeneid,” by Robert Fagles, has just been published, and critics (and Professor Fagles himself) have noted its relevance: Virgil is suddenly newsy.

That’s because this is a tale of war and empire, and a constant subtext is how easy it is to be uncivilized when promoting civilization.

Aeneas is an exponent of reason who at the end of the book confronts an enemy who pleads with him to “go no further down the road of hatred.” Aeneas sees that the enemy is wearing the sword-belt of his slain friend, and reason dissolves into fury: “Blazing with wrath,” he plants his iron sword “hilt-deep in his enemy’s heart.” In war, moderation is the first casualty.

Yet the single best guide to Mr. Bush’s presidency may be “Moby-Dick.” Melville’s book is, of course, about much more than Captain Ahab’s pursuit of the white whale — a “nameless, inscrutable, unearthly” symbol of all that is dark and unknown in the world.

Rather, it is an allegory about the cost of obsession. Ahab has a reasonable goal, capturing a whale, yet he allows this quest to overwhelm him and erode his sense of perspective and balance. Ignoring warnings, refusing to admit error, Ahab abandons all rules and limits in his quest.

Ahab finally throws his pipe overboard; he will enjoy no pleasures until he gets that whale. The fanaticism becomes self-destructive, eventually destroying Ahab and his ship.

To me at least, Melville captures the trajectory of the Bush years. It begins with a president who started out after 9/11 with immense support at home and abroad and a genuine mandate to fight terrorism. But then Mr. Bush became obsessed by his responsibility to prevent another terror attack.

This was an eminently worthy goal, but Mr. Bush abandoned traditional rules and boundaries — like bans on torture and indefinite detentions — and eventually blundered into Iraq. And in a way that Melville could have foretold, the compulsive search for security ended up creating insecurity.

Melville’s lesson is that even a heroic quest can be destructive when we abandon all sense of limits. And at a time when we hear the siren calls of moral clarity, the classics almost invariably emphasize the importance of moral nuance, an appreciation for complexity, the need for humility.

So, students, study those classics. They are timeless — and in the days of the Iraq war and Guantánamo, they have never been more timely.

______
Are there other classics beyond “Moby-Dick” or the “Aeneid” that you think would be appropriate analogies for President Bush and Iraq? Post your thoughts and comments here in my blog, On the Ground.



Monday, January 29, 2007

 

AFP: US soldier sentenced to 18 years for killing Iraqi detainees

check out a funny flash cartoon - King of Oppositeland - http://www.markfiore.com/animation/land.html



US soldier sentenced to 18 years for killing Iraqi detainees

Thu Jan 25, 4:35 PM ET

A soldier with the storied 101st Airborne division was sentenced to 18 years in jail after he pled guilty to his role in the killing of three Iraqi detainees during a raid north of Baghdad, the military said.

Private first class Corey Clagett, 22, was the third soldier to plead guilty in the May 9 incident in which soldiers cut the plastic cuffs binding the detainees to make it look as though they were shot trying to escape.

They then threatened to kill a fellow soldier if he reported what happened.

The investigation of the four men from the famed Kentucky-based "Rakkasans" -- the 3rd Combat Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division -- focused a critical light on the US military's controversial and opaque rules of engagement in Iraq.

The soldiers said they were ordered to "kill all military-aged males" in the assault on a suspected insurgent base on an island in the Tigris river.

Some of the witnesses who confirmed they had heard that order from Colonel Michael Steele testified at a military hearing last year that this did not apply to suspects who were clearly surrendering.

The unit's motto, which is emblazoned in front of brigade headquarters in Tikrit, the hometown of executed former president Saddam Hussein, is: "We give the enemy the maximum opportunity to die for his country."

A witness at the hearing confirmed that the unit kept a board recording a "kill count," but that it had been taken down because it was felt to be in "bad taste" after it was used to record the death of a pregnant woman shot at a roadblock.

Clagett pled guilty to attempted premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit premeditated murder, premeditated murder, conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice.

Staff Sergeant Raymond Girouard is scheduled to face court martial March 5.

Specialist William Hunsaker was sentenced to 18 years in jail after pleading guilty earlier this month to attempted premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit premeditated murder, premeditated murder, conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice.

Specialist Justin Graber pled guilty to aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon and was sentenced to nine months in jail.




Sunday, January 28, 2007

 

NYT: It Has Unraveled So Quickly



Johan Spanner for The New York Times

VACATED Sunni areas in the Baghdad neighborhood of Mansour began emptying out six months ago. Many businesses have closed down on this once-bustling shopping street.



Johan Spanner for The New York Times

TRASHED The neighborhood of Dawoodi is so plagued by violence that streets lie empty and trash piles up. Municipal services have all but disappeared.



January 28, 2007

It Has Unraveled So Quickly

BAGHDAD

A PAINFUL measure of just how much Iraq has changed in the four years since I started coming here is contained in my cellphone. Many numbers in the address book are for Iraqis who have either fled the country or been killed. One of the first Sunni politicians: gunned down. A Shiite baker: missing. A Sunni family: moved to Syria.

I first came to Iraq in April 2003, at the end of the looting several weeks after the American invasion. In all, I have spent 22 months here, time enough for the place, its people and their ever-evolving tragedy to fix itself firmly in my heart.

Now, as I am leaving Iraq, a new American plan is unfolding in the capital. It feels as if we have come back to the beginning. Boots are on the ground again. Boxy Humvees move in the streets. Baghdad fell in 2003 and we are still trying to pick it back up. But Iraq is a different country now.

The moderates are mostly gone. My phone includes at least a dozen entries for middle-class families who have given up and moved away. They were supposed to build democracy here. Instead they work odd jobs in Syria and Jordan. Even the moderate political leaders have left. I have three numbers for Adnan Pachachi, the distinguished Iraqi statesman; none have Iraqi country codes.

Neighborhoods I used to visit a year ago with my armed guards and my black abaya are off limits. Most were Sunni and had been merely dangerous. Now they are dead. A neighborhood that used to be Baghdad’s Upper East Side has the dilapidated, broken feel of a city just hit by a hurricane.

The Iraqi government and the political process, which seemed to have great promise a year ago, have soured. Deeply damaged from years of abuse under Saddam Hussein, the Shiites who run the government have themselves turned into abusers.

Never having covered a civil war before, I learned about it together with my Iraqi friends. It is a bit like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Broken bodies fly past. Faces freeze in one’s memory in the moments before impact. Passengers grab handles and doorframes that simply tear off or uselessly collapse.

I learned how much violence changes people, and how trust is chipped away, leaving society a thin layer of moth-eaten fabric that tears easily. It has unraveled so quickly. A year ago, my interviews were peppered with phrases like “Iraqis are all brothers.” The subjects would get angry when you asked their sect. Now some of them introduce themselves that way.

I met Raad Jassim, a 38-year-old Shiite refugee, in a largely empty house, recently owned by Sunnis, where he now lives in western Baghdad. He moved there in the fall, after Sunni militants killed his brother and his nephew and confiscated his large chicken farm north of Baghdad. He had lived with Sunnis his whole life, but after what happened, a hatred spread through him like a disease.

“The word Sunni, it hurts me,” he said, sitting on the floor in a bare room, his 7-year-old boy on his lap. “All that I have lost came from this word. I try to avoid mixing with them.”

“A volcano of revenge” has built up inside him, he said. “I want to rip them up with my teeth.”

In another measure of just how much things have changed, Mr. Jassim’s Shiite neighborhood is relatively safe. The area is now largely free of Sunnis, after Shiite militias swept it last year, and it runs smoothly on a complex network of relationships among the local militias, the police and a powerful local council. His street is dotted with fruit stands. Boys in uniforms roughhouse. Men sit in teahouses sipping from tiny glass cups.

Just to the south, the Sunni neighborhood of Dawoodi is ghostly at almost any time of day. Wide boulevards trimmed with palm trees used to connect luxury homes. Now giant piles of trash go uncollected in the median.

A serious problem is dead bodies. They began to appear several times a week last summer on the railroad tracks that run through the neighborhood. But when residents call the police to pick up the bodies, they do not come. The police are Shiite and afraid of the area.

“Entering a Sunni area for them is a risk,” said Yasir, a 40-year-old Sunni whose house is close to the dumping ground.

A few weeks ago, a woman’s body appeared. It was raining. Yasir said he covered her with blankets and called the police. A day later the police arrived. They peeked under the waterlogged blanket and drove away. It was another day before they collected the body. They took it at night, turning off their headlights and inching toward the area like thieves.

For those eager to write off Iraq as lost, one fact bears remembering. A great many Shiites and Kurds, who together make up 80 percent of the population, will tell you that in spite of all the mistakes the Americans have made here, the single act of removing Saddam Hussein was worth it. And the new American plan, despite all the obstacles, may have a chance to work. With an Iraqi colleague, I have been studying a neighborhood in northern Baghdad that has become a dumping ground for bodies. There, after American troops conducted sweeps, the number of corpses dropped by a third in September. The new plan is built around that kind of tactic. But the odds are stacked against the corps of bright young officers charged with making the plan work, particularly because their Iraqi partner — the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki — seems to be on an entirely different page. When American officials were debating whether to send more troops in December, I went to see an Iraqi government official. The prospect of more troops infuriated him. More Americans would simply prolong the war, he said.

“If you don’t allow the minority to lose, you will carry on forever,” he said.

The remarks struck me as a powerful insight into the Shiites’ thinking. Abused under Mr. Hussein, they still act like an oppressed class. That means Iraqis are looking into a future of war, at least in the near term. As one young Shiite in Sadr City said to me: “This just has to burn itself out.”

Hazim al-Aaraji, a disciple of the renegade Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, understands this. A cleric himself, he is looking for foot soldiers for the war. On a warm October afternoon, as he bustled around his mosque in western Baghdad, he said the ideal disciples would have “an empty mind,” and a weapon. Surprised by the word choice, an Iraqi friend I was with stopped him, to clarify his intent. Once again, he used the word “empty.”

The frank remark spoke of a new power balance, in which radicals rule and moderates have no voice. For many families I have become attached to here, the country is no longer recognizable.

I met Haifa and her husband, Hassan, both teachers, in a driveway in western Baghdad. They had just found the body of their 12-year-old son, who had been kidnapped and brutally killed, and were frantic with grief. They finally decided to leave Iraq, but its violence tormented them to the end. They paid a man to drive them to Jordan, but he was working with Sunni militants in western Iraq, and pointed out Hassan, a Shiite, to a Sunni gang that stopped the car. Over the next several hours, Haifa waved a tiny Koran at men in masks, pleading for her husband’s release, her two remaining children in tow.

Hassan, meanwhile, knelt in a small room, his hands behind his back. His captors shot a man next to him in the neck. Haifa, a Sunni, eventually prevailed on them to let him go. The family returned to Baghdad, then borrowed money to fly to Jordan.

Now they live there, in a tiny basement apartment without windows in a white stone housing project on the side of a hill. Like many Iraqis there, they live in hiding. Residency permits cost $100,000, far beyond their means. Hassan cannot work, nor even risk leaving the house during the day for fear the Jordanian police will deport him.

He tries not to talk to people, afraid someone will recognize his Iraqi accent. He doesn’t bargain in the vegetable market. He accepts mean remarks by Jordanian cabdrivers wordlessly.

Most of all, he wants to go home. “But death is waiting for us there,” he tells me. “We are homeless. Please help us.”




Saturday, January 27, 2007

 

The Raw Story: 'Shocking' video: Shi'a Iraqi soldiers beat Sunnis as US trainers watch




'Shocking' video: Shi'a Iraqi soldiers beat Sunnis as US trainers watch

01/25/2007 @ 1:36 pm

Filed by David Edwards

Dramatic footage of mostly Shi'a Iraqi soldiers delivering a "brutal beating" to several local Sunnis has been obtained by a British public-service television station.

Advertisement

US soldiers assigned to train the Iraqi troops look on as the Iraqi soldiers push the beaten men into the rear compartment of an armored vehicle.

"It is a shocking insight into the sectarian violence that is tearing Baghdad apart," Jonathan Miller reports for Channel Four. "Two journalists – embedded with the First Cavalry division – witnessed suspected insurgents being viciously beaten and abused."

According to Channel Four, American troops then threatened the journalists and held them under armed guard while attempting to "seize their footage."

"US Army commander Lieutenant Colonel Dale C. Kuehl told Channel 4 News he had taken administrative action to include suspending the platoon sergeant," Channel Four reports.

A clip from Channel Four's report can be watched below:



http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Shia_Iraqi_soldiers_beat_Sunnis_0125.html

Thursday, January 25, 2007

 

AlterNet: The World Agrees: Stop Bush Before He Kills Again

The World Agrees: Stop Bush Before He Kills Again

By Robert Scheer, AlterNet
Posted on January 24, 2007, Printed on January 25, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/47179/

Stop him before he kills again. That is the judgment of the American people, and indeed of the entire world, as to the performance of our president, and no State of the Union address can erase that dismal verdict.

President Bush has accomplished what Osama bin Laden only dreamed of by disgracing the model of American democracy in the eyes of the world. According to an exhaustive BBC poll, nearly three-quarters of those polled in 25 countries oppose the Bush policy on Iraq, and more than two-thirds believe the U.S. presence in the Middle East destabilizes the region.

In other words, the almost universal support the United States enjoyed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks has been completely squandered, as a majority of the world's people now believe that our role in the entire world is negative.

"The thing that comes up repeatedly is not just anger about Iraq," said Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which helped conduct the global poll. "The common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to be: 'You were a champion of a certain set of rules. Now you are breaking your own rules, so you are being hypocritical.' "

More depressing, that judgment is shared by those who know us best: our allies in Britain, the only country still willing to share our sacrifices in Bush's once ballyhooed "Coalition of the Willing." Despite British Prime Minister Tony Blair's dogged support of his American chum, fully 81 percent of Britons told the BBC they are opposed to U.S. actions in Iraq, while a scant 14 percent still believe the United States is a stabilizing force in the Mideast.

But it is not just our failure in that all-important region that disgraces us. Those around the world who still believe we play a positive global role has dropped to a miserable 29 percent, strikingly similar to Bush's overall performance numbers at home, according to the most recent CBS poll. So it's true: Bush is "a uniter, not a divider" -- uniting people across the world in their opposition to his policies.

With a whopping 71 percent saying in an ABC-Washington Post poll that the country is seriously off track, the Post called it "the highest such expression of national pessimism in more than a decade." And that's at a time when the economy, presumed to be the all-important bellwether, is in halfway decent shape.

It's the war, stupid, and ending it is the major concern of most Americans, while all other issues are in single digits of importance to them.

In a shocking twist, Americans are now turning to the Democrats in Congress for leadership on foreign policy. "Three in 5 Americans trust congressional Democrats more than Bush to deal with Iraq, and the same proportion want Congress to try to block his troop-increase plan," reported the Post. That is a mandate the Democrats ignore at their own peril.

Even an increasing number of congressional Republicans, most recently Sen. John Warner of Virginia, have made it clear that ending this disastrous adventure is vital to their electoral future. Warner, along with several moderates in both parties, proposed legislation on Tuesday opposing Bush's sending of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

In fact, it seems as if everyone gets it except the president and those still hunkered down with him in the White House. "They've backed themselves into a tough corner," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio told the Post, "and the problem is his continued insistence for the troop increase, which flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want."

He added that it makes Bush seem to say, "I'll listen to you, but I'll do what I want anyway." Hardly the message that the leader of the world's greatest experiment in representative democracy should be sending to the world. It is a message voters in the midterm election soundly rejected, along with the association of this great country with torture and chicanery, and it is the basis of what the Post calls a mainstream America "honeymoon" with the Democrats.

Americans understand in their gut that the long-term consequences of disillusionment with democracy, here and abroad, would be disastrous. In the same way Congress repudiated an out-of-control president three decades ago, the House and Senate must show the world today that our celebrated system of checks and balances is not just a fanciful mirage.

Spreading the ideal of democracy throughout the world remains a compelling obligation of those who enjoy freedom, making this an excellent occasion to demonstrate that we still possess a system capable of holding a deceitful and egomaniacal leader accountable.

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/47179/


Wednesday, January 24, 2007

 

(BN ) Bush Iraq Plan May Be Last Chance to Avoid History's`Dustbin'



Bush Iraq Plan May Be Last Chance to Avoid History's `Dustbin'
2007-01-21 19:01 (New York)


By Catherine Dodge
     Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- George W. Bush came to power in 2001
vowing to make his mark on history by overhauling taxes, pensions
and schools. Instead, an item not on the original agenda -- the
war in Iraq -- may consign him to the bottom tier of U.S.
leaders.
     That's the view of a number of historians and presidential
scholars, who say that unless Bush's decision to inject some
20,000 more troops succeeds in quelling sectarian violence, he
risks joining the ranks of such poorly regarded American leaders
as James Buchanan and Warren G. Harding.
     ``Iraq has done enormous damage'' to Bush's standing, says
Robert Dallek, the biographer of Presidents John F. Kennedy and
Lyndon B. Johnson. Bush, he says, will rank ``somewhere at the
bottom.'' Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University
of Texas in Austin, says Bush's effort to reverse the course of
events in the war is ``his last chance to avoid the dustbin of
history.''
     As Bush puts the finishing touches on tomorrow's State of
the Union address, the chaos in Iraq is emboldening political
opponents and putting his presidency under siege. In a
Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll conducted Jan. 13-16, 49 percent
of respondents said Bush will be remembered as a poor or below-
average president, with 28 percent ranking him as average. Only
22 percent said Bush will be judged a success.
     In January 1999, when President Bill Clinton was being tried
in the U.S. Senate after his impeachment, 35 percent said he
would be viewed as a poor or below-average leader, with 23
percent rating him average and 37 percent calling Clinton above
average.

                       Premature Judgment

     Some historians are reluctant to give Bush flunking grades
just yet, saying Iraq is just one battlefield in a multi-front
war on terrorism and cautioning that it's premature to declare
the intervention a failure.
     ``Were there to be palpable signs of progress by the end of
his administration or even if it occurred in the early time of
his successor, people will say, `Wow, he persevered,''' says Marc
Landy, a political scientist at Boston College and co-author of
the book ``Presidential Greatness.''
     Bush ``will not end up among the worst presidents,'' says
John Fortier, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a
Washington research organization that favors limited government.
``The war on terror will be a longer-term effort where he'll be
seen as important.''

                        Truman's Travails

     Presidents who make tough decisions, especially amid
wartime, often look better with the passage of time. A prime
example is Harry S. Truman, who endured approval ratings as low
as 23 percent near the end of his term, and left office with
jeers like ``to err is Truman'' ringing in his ears.
     Bush himself has taken an interest in Truman; references to
the nation's 33rd president pop up regularly in his speeches.
Many people thought Truman's policies were ``hopelessly
idealistic,'' he said in a Chicago speech last spring. ``But he
had faith in certain fundamental truths.''
     Several scholars, though, say parallels between Bush and
Truman may not be apt. Comparisons ``don't make sense,'' says
Sean Wilentz, a Princeton University history professor. ``Though
Truman was unpopular, he had more political support for what he
was doing.''

                   Hobbling Future Presidents

     Truman, by virtue of the Marshall Plan, aid to Greece and
Turkey and his drive to create NATO, built a network of alliances
to contain communism's advance. In contrast, Bush has pursued a
largely unilateral approach to the war on terror that, critics
say, weakened U.S ties with its allies and may hobble future
presidents if international support is needed to confront a
nuclear Iran or another threat to peace.
     Charles Calhoun, a historian at East Carolina University in
Greenville, North Carolina, says that due to Bush's ``Lone
Ranger'' foreign-policy approach, ``trust in the U.S. is at a
very low point overseas, and future presidents will be hard-
pressed to rebuild those bridges.''
     Political scientists have debated presidents' historical
standing since at least 1948, when historian Arthur Schlesinger
Sr. undertook the first informal attempt at a ranking. While
there's no agreement among scholars on the worst U.S. president,
many lists include Buchanan, scorned for failing to preserve the
union on the eve of the Civil War, and Harding, whose 1920s
administration was rocked by oil-lease bribes in what became
known as the Teapot Dome scandal.

                      Pierce, Hoover, Nixon

     Many lists also include Franklin Pierce, another pre-Civil
War leader; the unlucky Herbert Hoover, president at the onset of
the Great Depression; and Richard M. Nixon, tarred by the
Watergate scandal and the only president to resign.
     Bush, in a Jan. 14 interview with CBS correspondent Scott
Pelley, said he isn't worried about how history will judge him.
``I really am not the kind of guy that sits here and says, `Oh
gosh, I'm worried about my legacy.'''
     If that's true, it makes him the exception rather than the
rule among presidents heading into the twilights of their
tenures.
     Clinton, tarred by a House impeachment vote, intensified
peace initiatives in the Mideast and Northern Ireland to burnish
his image. Ronald Reagan surprised many in his party by pushing
an ambitious second-term agenda of arms control with the Soviet
Union and sweeping bipartisan reform of the tax code.

                         Bush's Options

     Bush's options are more limited than many of his
predecessors', since nothing short of a turnaround in Iraq can
rejuvenate his presidency, many analysts say.
     ``If the Iraq venture fails, so also will he fail in terms
of the ranking of his administration,'' conservative commentator
William F. Buckley said in a March interview. ``There is nothing
conceivable, in my judgment, that could rescue him if we proceed
toward disaster in Iraq.''
     Iraq has already overwhelmed what might otherwise have been
Bush's signature moments: rallying the nation after the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks; three rounds of tax-cutting; a national
student-achievement program; and the Medicare prescription drug
benefit.
     ``He'll be remembered for his eloquent speech in the
immediate aftermath of Sept. 11,'' says Wilentz. ``He'll be
remembered for rallying the country and the world behind him. He
very quickly thereafter blew it.''

                      `Very, Very Mistaken'

     Erwin Hargrove, a retired political scientist at Vanderbilt
University in Nashville, Tennessee says that ``historians will
see the decision to invade Iraq as a very, very mistaken
decision.''
     Hargrove predicts Bush will probably go down in history as
``one of our worst presidents,'' his reputation dragged down by
Iraq in much the same way that Vietnam consumed Lyndon B.
Johnson's. But unlike Johnson, who is credited with the Great
Society web of social-welfare programs and for advancing civil
rights, Bush, Hargrove says, ``has nothing to counter-balance
Iraq.''
     While a 2004 poll of 415 presidential scholars conducted by
George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, found 81 percent
deemed Bush's presidency a failure, several scholars say things
might have turned out differently but for Iraq.
     Wilentz says the invasion squandered an opportunity to unite
the nation behind a concerted anti-terror strategy focusing on
the pursuit of al-Qaeda. Hargrove says that ``if Bush had decided
to govern from the center, fight in Afghanistan and not Iraq, and
reform Medicare and Social Security, he could have been a highly
successful president.''
     Edwin Meese III, U.S. attorney general under Reagan and now
a scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington group that
backs small government, says such judgments are too harsh.
History, he says, ``will think well'' of Bush ``for taking on and
leading the country in the global war on terrorists.''
     Bush ``had no choice but to go into Iraq and to topple the
dictator Saddam Hussein, since all the intelligence reports, even
though erroneously, warned that Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction,'' Meese says. ``It's going to take the perspective
of history to really determine what his place is.''

--Editor: Walczak (rxj/scc)

Story illustration: For more of the day's top government and
politics stories, see {TOP GOV <GO>}.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Catherine Dodge in Washington at +1-202-624-1828 or
cdodge1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Michael Forsythe at +1-202-624-1940 or mforsythe@bloomberg.net

[TAGINFO]
NI GOV
NI US
NI GREET
NI FEA
NI GEN
NI EXE
NI IRAQ
NI WAR



#<545561.500134.1.0.32.28506.25>#
-0- Jan/22/2007 00:01 GMT



Tuesday, January 23, 2007

 

NYT: Double Bomb Attack Kills Scores in Baghdad


 
Ali Abbas/European Pressphoto Agency

An Iraqi man mourning a victim of the bomb attacks in Baghdad.

 
Ahamd al-Rubaye/Getty, via AFP

Two bombs exploded today in a predominantly Shiite area in central Baghdad.

 
January 22, 2007

Double Bomb Attack Kills Scores in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Jan. 22 — A pair of bombs killed at least 72 people in a crowded marketplace here this afternoon, capping a weekend in which at least 27 American service members died.

The bombs exploded nearly simultaneously in the Bab al-Sharqi market in the city center. At least 110 people were wounded, Iraqi officials said.

The market caters primarily to lower-income Shiites, selling everything from DVDs to food. The blast was the deadliest since bombs killed at least 215 people in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in November, and follows bombings last Tuesday that killed at least 70 people at a primarily Shiite university here.

After the market blast today, the air was filled with the sound of heavy gunfire for close to an hour, although it was not clear who was firing at who.

Elsewhere in Iraq, the mayor of the troubled city of Baquba, Khalid al-Sanjari, was kidnapped by gunmen who then blew up his office, Iraqi officials said.

The string of deadly bombing attacks in Baghdad comes as American forces prepare for a stepped-up effort to secure Baghdad, and just after a weekend of heavy casualties.

The United States military said that two marines died Sunday in western Iraq and that an additional seven service members had died Saturday, making it the third-deadliest day for United States forces since the war here began.

Seven of the deaths announced Sunday, including those of three marines, were caused by “enemy action” in Anbar Province, a restive stronghold of the Sunni insurgency, while another soldier was killed Saturday in Baghdad by a roadside bomb, the military statements said.

New details also emerged about clashes on Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, which left five Americans dead. Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, an American military spokesman, said the gunmen who stormed the provincial governor’s office during a meeting between American and local officials were wearing what appeared to be American military uniforms in an effort to impersonate United States soldiers.

The sophisticated attack hinted at what could be a new threat for American troops as they start a fresh security plan centered on small bases in Baghdad’s bloodiest neighborhoods, where soldiers will live and work with Iraqi forces. Military officials have said that one of their greatest concerns is that troops will be vulnerable to attack from killers who appear to be colleagues.

It is not uncommon for gunmen to impersonate Iraqi security forces, but this seems to be the first time that attackers have tried to disguise themselves as Americans.

Colonel Bleichwehl declined to provide further details about the Karbala attackers, emphasizing that the attack was still being investigated. But Iraqi officials said the gunmen disguised their intent with uniforms, American flak jackets, guns and a convoy of at least seven GMC sport utility vehicles, which are usually used by American officials in Iraq.

Karbala’s provincial governor, Akeel al-Khazaali, said at a news conference that the local police at a checkpoint on the city’s edge waved the vehicles through because they believed the convoy held important Americans. At other checkpoints, the police said, the vehicles sped through without stopping. In one case, some of the impersonators fired their weapons, and when they reached the provincial offices, they simply attacked.

The police in Babil said the disguises were imperfect — officers at checkpoints saw that the men were bearded, they said — but sufficient to get the gunmen through a crowded, heavily patrolled city without being searched.

After the attack, which was repelled by American forces, the police said, the gunmen fled north into Babil Province, where several sport utility vehicles matching the description of those used in the attack were found Sunday.

Mr. Khazaali said the identities of the gunmen were unknown. Other Iraqi officials said the clues pointed to Sunni groups based in Elbu Alwan, a Sunni stronghold about 25 miles north of Karbala in Babil Province. Four of the vehicles were found there early Sunday morning, the police said.

They said American and Iraqi troops immediately surrounded the town and were still searching the area on Sunday.

Some police commanders in Babil Province and Mr. Khazaali said one of the recovered vehicles in Elbu Alwan held three American bodies and a fourth soldier who was critically wounded. Mr. Khazaali also said that at least one additional American had been kidnapped. But American military officials said they were not missing anyone, and other police commanders in Babil said the men found in the vehicle were gunmen.

The sport utility vehicles also held clues of the attackers’ elaborate efforts to pass as American. One had a sign on its back window warning drivers to stay back, in English and Arabic, the authorities said, a close copy of those used on some official American vehicles. They also said a bag of civilian American clothing, guns and body armor had been found in the vehicles.

The police said two other empty vehicles were found in Sadda, about 15 miles north of Hilla, the major city in the province.

Uncertainties also lingered Sunday about Saturday’s deadliest incident, the crash of a Black Hawk helicopter north of Baghdad that left 12 service members dead. Though local authorities said the helicopter was shot down, the military said once again on Sunday that the crash was still under investigation. It provided no information about the cause of the crash.

The deadliest day for American service members in Iraq also involved a helicopter crash. On Jan. 26, 2005, 37 uniformed Americans died, including 31 when a Marine helicopter crashed in a sandstorm. The second-deadliest day was March 23, 2003, when 28 Americans were killed and Pfc. Jessica Lynch, among others, was captured.

In Baghdad, lawmakers loyal to the militant cleric Moktada al-Sadr ended their nearly two-month boycott of Parliament and ferociously lashed out at American officials for their recent arrest of a cleric and senior adviser to Mr. Sadr, Abdel Hadi al-Daraji.

Falah Shashal, one of 30 members in the bloc supporting Mr. Sadr, said the American raid, in which one of Mr. Daraji’s guards was killed, “was inhuman and against human rights.”

Two separate car bombs in the capital killed at least seven people and wounded 20 more, an Interior Ministry official said. A roadside bomb killed a British soldier north of Basra in southern Iraq, according to the British military.

In Mosul, the Iraqi police detained three Iranians on Saturday, said Wathiq al-Hamdani, the police chief for Nineveh Province. He said the men were found without passports and claimed that they had permission to travel in an adjacent Kurd-controlled area and were lost. American forces detained six Iranians on Jan. 11 after raiding an office in Erbil, a major city in Iraqi Kurdistan.

In Dibis, in Kirkuk Province, gunmen fired on guards protecting local oil facilities on Sunday, setting one oil well on fire. Iraq’s oil minister, Hussein al-Sharistani, said that such attacks appeared to be on the rise. He said at a news conference that 289 Iraqi oil workers had been killed in 2006, and an additional 179 wounded. He called on Iraqis to inform the authorities if they saw anyone “target the interests of Iraq and those who kidnap ministry staff from the work sites to stop Iraq from exporting its oil.”

Reporting was contributed by Khalid al-Ansary, Ahmad Fadam and Qais Mizher in Baghdad, and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times in Karbala.


 


Monday, January 22, 2007

 

The New Yorker: The Planner






COMMENT
THE PLANNER
by Steve Coll
Issue of 2007-01-22
Posted 2007-01-15

Watching George Bush’s televised speech last week, when he revealed what he called “the main elements” of his plan to rescue Iraq, was like watching a slightly nervous lieutenant colonel read PowerPoint slides. There was an unmistakable presence of bullet points; the plan is not altogether clear, but it seems to involve two deputy Iraqi commanders in Baghdad, nine administrative districts, eighteen Iraqi brigades, a large number of neighborhood police stations, and, oh yes, the dispatch of twenty-one thousand five hundred additional American troops. In a sincere tone of voice, the President also announced a door-to-door campaign “to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.”

Bush said that America’s military commanders had assured him that “this plan can work”—an oddly hedged phrasing. It was one of several fudges in his text, which recalled some of the rhetorical tactics his Administration employed to build support for the disastrous invasion of Iraq, almost four years ago. The President implied, for example, that his escalation had been conceived to support “the new Iraqi plan” to bring security to Baghdad, when it is well established that Iraq’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, did not ask for any additional American troops and has agreed to accept them only under pressure. There were other tortured uses of language: Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the plan was just a “temporary surge,” but temporary, he continued, in the sense of having no fixed end.

The President cowed Democrats in early 2003 by describing his choice then as a stark one between the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and a state of indefinite peril. He now claims that his opponents in Congress, who increasingly include members of his own party, face a choice between his “surge” and complete withdrawal from Iraq, with its attendant risk of chaos—more chaos, that is, than Bush’s war has already created. Of course, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group made clear in its report last month, there are many policy choices besides an increase of troops which do not entail a total military withdrawal in the foreseeable future.

As Bush prepared to announce his plan, the White House overruled dissenters at the Pentagon in a manner reminiscent of its management of intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the invasion. On November 15th, General John P. Abizaid, the commander of all American military forces in the Middle East, testified publicly to Congress that he did not see a need for more American troops in Iraq. He apparently changed his mind later; in any event, he announced his retirement just before Christmas. Around the same time, the Washington Post reported that the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously opposed sending fifteen thousand or more troops to Iraq. There is no indication that the chiefs have all abandoned their doubts since then; they seem only to have agreed to follow orders. Gates told Congress late last week that the plan for more troops had originated with commanders in Iraq. But a short time later the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Peter Pace, testified that the commanders had requested considerably fewer troops than President Bush ultimately decided to send.

Presumably, the skepticism among uniformed officers is influenced by the numerous cases in recent military history, of diverse countries and diverse armies, which indicate that a counterinsurgency plan of the type Bush has embraced is very unlikely to succeed. The last British campaign in Northern Ireland was fought for three decades, and tens of thousands of Russian troops are still trying to subdue Chechnya more than ten years after a rebellion erupted there—and these are examples involving the sovereign territory of the occupying army, not some distant land conquered by an expeditionary force. The stabilization of Bosnia by NATO troops is sometimes cited as a recent and exemplary success, but in that case all the warring parties had agreed to forswear violence before the occupying troops arrived, and, even so, the size of the NATO force, in comparison to the size of the local population, was considerably larger than the American force in Iraq will be after Bush’s planned deployments. By none of the common measures of counterinsurgency doctrine—ratios of force size, the strength of local political agreements, or the credibility of the occupying army—does the President’s plan look convincing.

Bush has appointed Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno to implement the new approach as the leader of day-to-day combat operations in Iraq. Odierno commanded the 4th Infantry Division in Iraq during 2003 and 2004; he oversaw the capture of Saddam Hussein. He also has a record of either misreading the war or glossing over its difficulties. Odierno said in the summer of 2003 that the Sunnis were “not close to guerrilla warfare” and that the enemy had no will to fight. Early in 2004, he declared at a news conference that the insurgents he was facing were a “fractured, sporadic threat” who had been reduced to just a “handful of cells.” He said, “We see constant improvement. And so it is getting better.”

In this Elizabethan milieu of flawed and ambitious men, none arrive onstage with more complex motivations than Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus, whom Bush is sending to Iraq as Odierno’s supervisor. Petraeus graduated from West Point the year before the fall of Saigon and later earned a doctorate in international relations from Princeton; the subject of his thesis was the hobbling impact of the Vietnam War on the uses of American military power. His most recent assignment was to rewrite the Army’s counterinsurgency manual, which, amazingly, had not been updated in two decades. Petraeus is one last Quiet American, off to pacify a country that has proved to be a graveyard of theories.

In a competitive democracy, it is difficult to rescue a war built on distortions and illusions, because, to protect falsehoods proffered to voters in the past, a President and his advisers may find it tempting to manufacture more of them. It does not require a cynic to see that even an implausible escalation plan has the virtue of putting domestic political opponents back on their heels. This was the advice given by McGeorge Bundy to Lyndon Johnson in a memo dated February 7, 1965, concerning an escalation plan for Vietnam that Bundy thought might have as little as a twenty-five-per-cent chance of success:

Even if it fails, the policy will be worth it. At a minimum it will damp down the charge that we did not do all that we could have done, and this charge will be important in many countries, including our own.

The Bush Administration is now reworking this sad axiom, and, once again, American soldiers will be asked to give their lives for its assumptions. Under the Constitution, only Congress can prevent this from occurring, but its members have exhibited little evidence in the past that they possess the skill or the will to do so.





Sunday, January 21, 2007

 

LA Times: Military members make an antiwar plea on Capitol Hill



Take a look at this very interesting documentary by former “60 Minutes” producer and author Barry Landoon about Saddam's American allies entitled "Saddam Hussein: The Trial the World Will Never See".

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070117_saddams_american_allies/

--------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-antiwar17jan17,0,3792201.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Military members make an antiwar plea on Capitol Hill

'We will not be silent while thousands die,' campaign's leader says.
By Noam N. Levey
Times Staff Writer

January 17, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq is facing public opposition from a slice of the American population that rarely speaks out: the military rank and file.

A group of service members came to Capitol Hill on Tuesday armed with signatures from more than 1,000 military personnel who oppose the war.

"We will not be silent while thousands die," said Sgt. Liam Madden, a 22-year-old active-duty Marine and Iraq war veteran who is helping lead the effort to organize resistance to the war from inside the military.

Madden and other service members leading the campaign, which they are calling Appeal for Redress, urged Congress to stop the troop escalation and find a way to begin bringing forces home from Iraq.

When the campaign began three months ago, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow dismissed the first signatories as "65 people who are going to be able to get more press than the hundreds of thousands who have come back and said they're proud of their service."

The 1,000 signatories still represent a tiny fraction of the military personnel who have served in and around Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

But according to the group, those who have signed the appeal include about 100 officers. Approximately 70% of the signatories are active-duty military, while the rest are reservists or members of the National Guard, said Madden, who added that the group would not reveal the names of the signatories to protect them.

The Appeal for Redress reads simply: "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home."

Madden and other leaders of the campaign arrived on Capitol Hill as members of Congress moved closer to challenging Bush's plans to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Al Anbar province.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said senators plan to introduce a resolution opposing the plan today or Thursday, with a vote planned for next week after the president's State of the Union speech Tuesday.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said a House vote on a resolution would soon follow.

Democrats also announced Tuesday that newly elected Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a pugnacious war critic whose son has served in Iraq, would deliver the party's response to the State of the Union.

Today, a group of antiwar members of the House, led by California Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) and Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), plan to introduce legislation outlining a detailed plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq over the next six months.

The servicemen who came to Capitol Hill were greeted Tuesday by other newly energized antiwar lawmakers, including Reps. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).

They were also joined by the antiwar group Military Families Speak Out, which says it has more than 3,200 members.

And drawing a deliberate link to another controversial war, a group of Vietnam veterans, several in green jungle camouflage jackets, also stood with the current military members outside the Cannon House Office Building across the street from the Capitol.

"The movement in the military is growing just as the movement grew in the military 30 years ago," said David Cline, president of Veterans for Peace, a St. Louis-based group founded more than two decades ago.

Madden and other members of the Iraq war opposition have been careful to avoid the more extreme actions of some of their antiwar forebears who openly challenged their officers in Vietnam.

But they have said they were inspired by how soldiers helped build public opposition to the war in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

"If the war is to end, there needs to be a movement from within the military that is heard from," Madden said Tuesday.


noam.levey@latimes.com



Saturday, January 20, 2007

 

The Nation: Iraqi Death Toll: Why the UN Can't Count


Iraqi Death Toll: Why the UN Can't Count

By Jon Wiener, TheNation.com
Posted on January 17, 2007, Printed on January 18, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/46872/

The new UN estimate of 34,000 Iraqis killed in 2006 made headlines around the world, but it's almost certainly far too low. The number, as the New York Times reported, was "the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths for an entire year," and was based on information from "morgues, hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq."

The first problem with the UN count is that refers only to civilians -- and thus almost certainly omitted deaths of Iraqi policemen, soldiers, insurgent fighters, and members of private militias like the Badr brigade. News media failed to report how the UN separated "civilian" casualties from the total, and the UN notably failed to report the total including non-civilians.

The second problem is the UN's methodology, which relied mostly on tallying official death certificates. The UN, according to the Times, argues their methodology is reliable because "a vast majority of Iraqi deaths are registered" with officials because Iraqis want to "prove inheritance and receive government compensation." But many bodies found in mass graves or ditches are unidentified. And there's another problem: according to the L.A. Times, "Victims' families are all too often reluctant to claim the bodies ... for fear of reprisals." And of course chaotic wartime conditions in several provinces make it difficult for officials there to issue death certificates even when victim's families do not fear reprisals.

None of the reports in leading newspapers mentioned the other count of Iraqi deaths: the Johns Hopkins study reported last October in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. They estimated that 650,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war -- 600,000 from violence and 50,000 from other war-related causes. President Bush rejected that figure -- "I don't consider it a credible report," he told a press conference last October -- and most of the media seem to have agreed.

But The Lancet study used state-of-the art demographic techniques, the same methodology employed to estimate war deaths in Kosovo, Congo, and Rwanda, and in natural disasters around the world. World leaders have cited those figures repeatedly without questioning their validity. It's the same methodology used in political polls in the US: the random sample.

Instead of trying to find documentation for individual deaths, The Lancet demographers, led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins University, interviewed 12,000 people in 1,800 randomly selected households across Iraq. At each household, they asked how many people were living there currently, and whether anyone who had lived there had died since Jan. 1, 2002, and if so, whether they died before or after March 2003, when the war began. That made it possible to compare wartime death rates with pre-war rates.

Critics like Fred Kaplan at Slate.com objected. They said 12,000 was far too small a sample for a country of 30 million. But in the US, as country of 300 million, 1,000 people are interviewed in the typical political poll, and nobody objects to that sample size.

Critics also questioned whether The Lancet demographers really were able to interview all the people selected by their randomizing methodology. The demographers respond that they employed Iraqi physicians rather than Americans to do the interviewing, and that the response rate was extremely high, much higher than with political polling in the US.

There's one caveat about The Lancet study -- their estimate of 650,000 wartime deaths covers the period that ended in July 2006. By all accounts the violence has increased significantly since July -- so The Lancet figure now itself is undoubtedly too low.

Jon Weiner is a history professor at the University of California, Irvine. His most recent book is Historians in Trouble: Plagiarism, Fraud and Politics in the Ivory Tower (New Press).

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/46872/


Thursday, January 18, 2007

 

The Nation: For America's Sake



This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070122/moyers


For America's Sake

by BILL MOYERS

[from the January 22, 2007 issue]

The following is an adaptation of remarks made by Bill Moyers to a December 12 gathering in New York sponsored by The Nation, Demos, the Brennan Center for Justice and the New Democracy Project. --The Editors

You could not have chosen a better time to gather. Voters have provided a respite from a right-wing radicalism predicated on the philosophy that extremism in the pursuit of virtue is no vice. It seems only yesterday that the Trojan horse of conservatism was hauled into Washington to disgorge Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist and their hearty band of ravenous predators masquerading as a political party of small government, fiscal restraint and moral piety and promising "to restore accountability to Congress...[and] make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves."

Well, the long night of the junta is over, and Democrats are ebullient as they prepare to take charge of the multitrillion-dollar influence racket that we used to call the US Congress. Let them rejoice while they can, as long as they remember that while they ran some good campaigns, they have arrived at this moment mainly because George W. Bush lost a war most people have come to believe should never have been fought in the first place. Let them remember, too, in this interim of sweet anticipation, that although they are reveling in the ruins of a Republican reign brought down by stupendous scandals, their own closet is stocked with skeletons from an era when they were routed from office following Abscam bribes and savings and loan swindles that plucked the pockets and purses of hard-working, tax-paying Americans.

As they rejoice, Democrats would be wise to be mindful of Shakespeare's counsel, "'Tis more by fortune...than by merit." For they were delivered from the wilderness not by their own goodness and purity but by the grace of K Street corruption, DeLay Inc.'s duplicity, the pitiless exploitation of Terri Schiavo, the disgrace of Mark Foley and a shameful partisan cover-up, the shamelessness of Jack Abramoff and a partisan conspiracy, and neocon arrogance and amorality (yes, amoral: Apparently there is no end to the number of bodies Bill Kristol and Richard Perle are prepared to watch pile up on behalf of illusions that can't stand the test of reality even one Beltway block from the think tanks where they are hatched). The Democrats couldn't have been more favored by the gods if they had actually believed in one!

But whatever one might say about the election, the real story is one that our political and media elites are loath to acknowledge or address. I am not speaking of the lengthy list of priorities that progressives and liberals of every stripe are eager to put on the table now that Democrats hold the cards in Congress. Just the other day a message popped up on my computer from a progressive advocate whose work I greatly admire. Committed to movement-building from the ground up, he has results to show for his labors. His request was simple: "With changes in Congress and at our state capitol, we want your input on what top issues our lawmakers should tackle. Click here to submit your top priority."

I clicked. Sure enough, up came a list of thirty-four issues--an impressive list that began with "African-American" and ran alphabetically through "energy" and "higher education" to "guns," "transportation," "women's issues" and "workers' rights." It wasn't a list to be dismissed, by any means, for it came from an unrequited thirst for action after a long season of malignant opposition to every item on the agenda. I understand the mindset. Here's a fellow who values allies and appreciates what it takes to build coalitions; who knows that although our interests as citizens vary, each one is an artery to the heart that pumps life through the body politic, and each is important to the health of democracy. This is an activist who knows political success is the sum of many parts.

But America needs something more right now than a "must-do" list from liberals and progressives. America needs a different story. The very morning I read the message from the progressive activist, the New York Times reported on Carol Ann Reyes. Carol Ann Reyes is 63. She lives in Los Angeles, suffers from dementia and is homeless. Somehow she made her way to a hospital with serious, untreated needs. No details were provided as to what happened to her there, except that the hospital--which is part of Kaiser Permanente, the largest HMO in the country--called a cab and sent her back to skid row. True, they phoned ahead to workers at a rescue shelter to let them know she was coming. But some hours later a surveillance camera picked her up "wandering around the streets in a hospital gown and slippers." Dumped in America.

Here is the real political story, the one most politicians won't even acknowledge: the reality of the anonymous, disquieting daily struggle of ordinary people, including the most marginalized and vulnerable Americans but also young workers and elders and parents, families and communities, searching for dignity and fairness against long odds in a cruel market world.

Everywhere you turn you'll find people who believe they have been written out of the story. Everywhere you turn there's a sense of insecurity grounded in a gnawing fear that freedom in America has come to mean the freedom of the rich to get richer even as millions of Americans are dumped from the Dream. So let me say what I think up front: The leaders and thinkers and activists who honestly tell that story and speak passionately of the moral and religious values it puts in play will be the first political generation since the New Deal to win power back for the people.

There's no mistaking that America is ready for change. One of our leading analysts of public opinion, Daniel Yankelovich, reports that a majority want social cohesion and common ground based on pragmatism and compromise, patriotism and diversity. But because of the great disparities in wealth, the "shining city on the hill" has become a gated community whose privileged occupants, surrounded by a moat of money and protected by a political system seduced with cash into subservience, are removed from the common life of the country. The wreckage of this abdication by elites is all around us.

Corporations are shredding the social compact, pensions are disappearing, median incomes are flattening and healthcare costs are soaring. In many ways, the average household is generally worse off today than it was thirty years ago, and the public sector that was a support system and safety net for millions of Americans across three generations is in tatters. For a time, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by more work and more personal debt. Both political parties craftily refashioned those major renovations of the average household as the new standard, shielding employers from responsibility for anything Wall Street didn't care about. Now, however, the more acute major risks workers have been forced to bear as employers reduce their health and retirement costs--on orders from Wall Street--have made it clear that our fortunes are being reversed. Polls show that a majority of US workers now believe their children will be worse off than they are. In one recent survey, only 14 percent of workers said that they have obtained the American Dream.

It is hard to believe that less than four decades ago a key architect of the antipoverty program, Robert Lampman, could argue that the "recent history of Western nations reveals an increasingly widespread adoption of the idea that substantial equality of social and economic conditions among individuals is a good thing." Economists call that postwar era "the Great Compression." Poverty and inequality had declined dramatically for the first time in our history. Here, as Paul Krugman recently recounted, is how Time's report on the national outlook in 1953 summed it up: "Even in the smallest towns and most isolated areas, the U.S. is wearing a very prosperous, middle-class suit of clothes, and an attitude of relaxation and confidence. People are not growing wealthy, but more of them than ever before are getting along." African-Americans were still written out of the story, but that was changing, too, as heroic resistance emerged across the South to awaken our national conscience. Within a decade, thanks to the civil rights movement and President Johnson, the racial cast of federal policy--including some New Deal programs--was aggressively repudiated, and shared prosperity began to breach the color line.

To this day I remember John F. Kennedy's landmark speech at the Yale commencement in 1962. Echoing Daniel Bell's cold war classic The End of Ideology, JFK proclaimed the triumph of "practical management of a modern economy" over the "grand warfare of rival ideologies." The problem with this--and still a major problem today--is that the purported ideological cease-fire ended only a few years later. But the Democrats never re-armed, and they kept pinning all their hopes on economic growth, which by its very nature is valueless and cannot alone provide answers to social and moral questions that arise in the face of resurgent crisis. While "practical management of a modern economy" had a kind of surrogate legitimacy as long as it worked, when it no longer worked, the nation faced a paralyzing moral void in deciding how the burdens should be borne. Well-organized conservative forces, firing on all ideological pistons, rushed to fill this void with a story corporate America wanted us to hear. Inspired by bumper-sticker abstractions of Milton Friedman's ideas, propelled by cascades of cash from corporate chieftans like Coors and Koch and "Neutron" Jack Welch, fortified by the pious prescriptions of fundamentalist political preachers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, the conservative armies marched on Washington. And they succeeded brilliantly.

When Ronald Reagan addressed the Republican National Convention in 1980, he a told a simple story, one that had great impact. "The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership--in the White House and in Congress--for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us." He declared, "I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself." It was a speech of bold contrasts, of good private interest versus bad government, of course. More important, it personified these two forces in a larger narrative of freedom, reaching back across the Great Depression, the Civil War and the American Revolution, all the way back to the Mayflower Compact. It so dazzled and demoralized Democrats they could not muster a response to the moral abandonment and social costs that came with the Reagan revolution.

We too have a story of freedom to tell, and it too reaches back across the Great Depression, the Civil War and the American Revolution, all the way back to the Mayflower Compact. It's a story with clear and certain foundations, like Reagan's, but also a tumultuous and sometimes violent history of betrayal that he and other conservatives consistently and conveniently ignore.

Reagan's story of freedom superficially alludes to the Founding Fathers, but its substance comes from the Gilded Age, devised by apologists for the robber barons. It is posed abstractly as the freedom of the individual from government control--a Jeffersonian ideal at the root of our Bill of Rights, to be sure. But what it meant in politics a century later, and still means today, is the freedom to accumulate wealth without social or democratic responsibilities and the license to buy the political system right out from under everyone else, so that democracy no longer has the ability to hold capitalism accountable for the good of the whole.

And that is not how freedom was understood when our country was founded. At the heart of our experience as a nation is the proposition that each one of us has a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As flawed in its reach as it was brilliant in its inspiration for times to come, that proposition carries an inherent imperative: "inasmuch as the members of a liberal society have a right to basic requirements of human development such as education and a minimum standard of security, they have obligations to each other, mutually and through their government, to ensure that conditions exist enabling every person to have the opportunity for success in life."

The quote comes directly from Paul Starr, one of our most formidable public thinkers, whose forthcoming book, Freedom's Power: The True Force of Liberalism, is a profound and stirring call for liberals to reclaim the idea of America's greatness as their own. Starr's book is one of three new books that in a just world would be on every desk in the House and Senate when Congress convenes again.

John Schwarz, in Freedom Reclaimed: Rediscovering the American Vision, rescues the idea of freedom from market cultists whose "particular idea of freedom...has taken us down a terribly mistaken road" toward a political order where "government ends up servicing the powerful and taking from everyone else." The free-market view "cannot provide us with a philosophy we find compelling or meaningful," Schwarz writes. Nor does it assure the availability of economic opportunity "that is truly adequate to each individual and the status of full legal as well as political equality." Yet since the late nineteenth century it has been used to shield private power from democratic accountability, in no small part because conservative rhetoric has succeeded in denigrating government even as conservative politicians plunder it.

But government, Schwarz reminds us, "is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions." That is one reason the notion that every person has a right to meaningful opportunity "has assumed the position of a moral bottom line in the nation's popular culture ever since the beginning." Freedom, he says, is "considerably more than a private value." It is essentially a social idea, which explains why the worship of the free market "fails as a compelling idea in terms of the moral reasoning of freedom itself." Let's get back to basics, is Schwarz's message. Let's recapture our story.

Norton Garfinkle picks up on both Schwarz and Starr in The American Dream vs. the Gospel of Wealth, as he describes how America became the first nation on earth to offer an economic vision of opportunity for even the humblest beginner to advance, and then moved, in fits and starts--but always irrepressibly--to the invocation of positive government as the means to further that vision through politics. No one understood this more clearly, Garfinkle writes, than Abraham Lincoln, who called on the federal government to save the Union. He turned to large government expenditures for internal improvements--canals, bridges and railroads. He supported a strong national bank to stabilize the currency. He provided the first major federal funding for education, with the creation of land grant colleges. And he kept close to his heart an abiding concern for the fate of ordinary people, especially the ordinary worker but also the widow and orphan. Our greatest President kept his eye on the sparrow. He believed government should be not just "of the people" and "by the people" but "for the people." Including, we can imagine, Carol Ann Reyes.

The great leaders of our tradition--Jefferson, Lincoln and the two Roosevelts--understood the power of our story. In my time it was FDR, who exposed the false freedom of the aristocratic narrative. He made the simple but obvious point that where once political royalists stalked the land, now economic royalists owned everything standing. Mindful of Plutarch's warning that "an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics," Roosevelt famously told America, in 1936, that "the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man." He gathered together the remnants of the great reform movements of the Progressive Age--including those of his late-blooming cousin, Teddy--into a singular political cause that would be ratified again and again by people who categorically rejected the laissez-faire anarchy that had produced destructive, unfettered and ungovernable power. Now came collective bargaining and workplace rules, cash assistance for poor children, Social Security, the GI Bill, home mortgage subsidies, progressive taxation--democratic instruments that checked economic tyranny and helped secure America's great middle class. And these were only the beginning. The Marshall Plan, the civil rights revolution, reaching the moon, a huge leap in life expectancy--every one of these great outward achievements of the last century grew from shared goals and collaboration in the public interest.

So it is that contrary to what we have heard rhetorically for a generation now, the individualist, greed-driven, free-market ideology is at odds with our history and with what most Americans really care about. More and more people agree that growing inequality is bad for the country, that corporations have too much power, that money in politics is corrupting democracy and that working families and poor communities need and deserve help when the market system fails to generate shared prosperity. Indeed, the American public is committed to a set of values that almost perfectly contradicts the conservative agenda that has dominated politics for a generation now.

The question, then, is not about changing people; it's about reaching people. I'm not speaking simply of better information, a sharper and clearer factual presentation to disperse the thick fogs generated by today's spin machines. Of course, we always need stronger empirical arguments to back up our case. It would certainly help if at least as many people who believe, say, in a "literal devil" or that God sent George W. Bush to the White House also knew that the top 1 percent of households now have more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. Yes, people need more information than they get from the media conglomerates with their obsession for nonsense, violence and pap. And we need, as we keep hearing, "new ideas." But we are at an extraordinary moment. The conservative movement stands intellectually and morally bankrupt while Democrats talk about a "new direction" without convincing us they know the difference between a weather vane and a compass. The right story will set our course for a generation to come.

Some stories doom us. In Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond tells of the Viking colony that disappeared in the fifteenth century. The settlers had scratched a living on the sparse coast of Greenland for years, until they encountered a series of harsh winters. Their livestock, the staple of their diet, began to die off. Although the nearby waters teemed with haddock and cod, the colony's mythology prohibited the eating of fish. When their supply of hay ran out during a last terrible winter, the colony was finished. They had been doomed by their story.

Here in the first decade of the twenty-first century the story that becomes America's dominant narrative will shape our collective imagination and hence our politics. In the searching of our souls demanded by this challenge, those of us in this room and kindred spirits across the nation must confront the most fundamental progressive failure of the current era: the failure to embrace a moral vision of America based on the transcendent faith that human beings are more than the sum of their material appetites, our country is more than an economic machine, and freedom is not license but responsibility--the gift we have received and the legacy we must bequeath.

In our brief sojourn here we are on a great journey. For those who came before us and for those who follow, our moral, political and religious duty is to make sure that this nation, which was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that we are all created equal, is in good hands on our watch.

One story would return America to the days of radical laissez-faire, when there was no social contract and the strong took what they could and the weak were left to forage. The other story joins the memory of struggles that have been waged with the possibility of victories yet to be won, including healthcare for every American and a living wage for every worker. Like the mustard seed to which Jesus compared the Kingdom of God, nurtured from small beginnings in a soil thirsty for new roots, our story has been a long time unfolding. It reminds us that the freedoms and rights we treasure were not sent from heaven and did not grow on trees. They were, as John Powers has written, "born of centuries of struggle by untold millions who fought and bled and died to assure that the government can't just walk into our bedrooms and read our mail, to protect ordinary people from being overrun by massive corporations, to win a safety net against the often-cruel workings of the market, to guarantee that businessmen couldn't compel workers to work more than forty hours a week without extra compensation, to make us free to criticize our government without having our patriotism impugned, and to make sure that our leaders are answerable to the people when they choose to send our soldiers into war." The eight-hour day, the minimum wage, the conservation of natural resources, free trade unions, old-age pensions, clean air and water, safe food--all these began with citizens and won the endorsement of the political class only after long struggles and bitter attacks. Democracy works when people claim it as their own.

It is only rarely remembered that the definition of democracy immortalized by Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address had been inspired by Theodore Parker, the abolitionist prophet. Driven from his pulpit, Parker said, "I will go about and preach and lecture in the city and glen, by the roadside and field-side, and wherever men and women may be found." He became the Hound of Freedom and helped to change America through the power of the word. We have a story of equal power. It is that the promise of America leaves no one out. Go now, and tell it on the mountains. From the rooftops, tell it. From your laptops, tell it. From the street corners and from Starbucks, from delis and from diners, tell it. From the workplace and the bookstore, tell it. On campus and at the mall, tell it. Tell it at the synagogue, sanctuary and mosque. Tell it where you can, when you can and while you can--to every candidate for office, to every talk-show host and pundit, to corporate executives and schoolchildren. Tell it--for America's sake.



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?