To Bring You Another War Politicians in Washington Suddenly Find Ways to Cooperate

As I Have Always Said... Americans Love Their Wars... War Is America's Favorite Pastime.

Have you noticed how these jackasses in Washington have suddenly found a way to work together to support war? It's as if someone lit a fire under their asses. This Congress has been one of the least productive in American history... because the divide has been too great and the House (led by the GOP) has been on a mission to block Obama's every move....no matter what he has wanted to do. It had become a reliable formula...that if Obama wanted something... Boehner and the House (and sometimes the Senate) would find a way to block it just because Obama wanted it. When it has to do with improving the lives of Americans, a jobs bill, investing in infrastructure, student loan relief, green energy, immigration reform, improving education, managing the debt, helping the poor/most vulnerable, & all of the other business that Americans need their representatives to attend to... they have never been able to find the time or the willingness to get anything done. Also... they say they couldn't come up with the money anyway. But when the issue is war (something both Parties love to support.... because it's the national fetish)...then all of a sudden these shysters are shuffling around... scrambling... making committee agreements in the Senate in record time, finding time for meetings, are cooperating & working together just fine. Furthermore.. finding the money is suddenly no problem. Unbelievable.

American citizens have made it clear that they don't want this. But they are being ignored. Yet all of a sudden members of Congress are cooperating. It just goes to show you, that when it has to do with the needs of ordinary Americans...members of Congress couldn't care less about taking care of their responsibilities. But when it's something that THEY want, they find a way to get it done (even in the face of public opposition). The U.S. is a sick, sad Country indeed.

Obama Moving to Enter Syria's Civil War

It looks as if the U.S. is planning to enter the civil war in Syria. For a nation that can't even keep planes flying, can't build roads and bridges, can't create jobs and can't fix schools because it's broke... it blows my mind that the U.S. would want another war, especially when the country has already had enough war.

But the U.S. has been looking for any reason it could find to jump into this conflict...as I mentioned in my previous posting "Just Another War President...". Now with flimsy reports of chemical weapons use (reports pushed by Assad opposition groups and by other countries that want the U.S. to do their dirty work by going in... those that have an insentive to fake and exaggerate to get a U.S. response) the U.S. has the excuse it needs. I say stay the Hell out of Syria, even if chemicals may have been used. The U.S. has to stop being the global sheriff.

Leslie Gelb sums up some of my frustrations with this insanity in a Daily Beast piece from last month.

This country is seriously addicted to war.

America's Gravest Threat - It's Own Foreign Policy

America Is Facing A Crisis

Once again, the nation is engaged in a fundamental debate about its future. What should we do with Medicare? How do we protect social security? How do we fix the tax structure? What should we do about energy? These are all important questions. However, none of them represent the most pressing, underlying problem facing the country. All of the debates around domestic issues are really irrelevant right now in my view. If we don't get the underlying problem fixed, we won't have much money for any of the domestic items that we need.

America’s gravest threat is not healthcare spending, social security, or energy. The national debt? That’s not it either. The debt problem is fixable, what is lacking is the political will to do it. America’s gravest threat is its own foreign policy. It is amazing that neither political party wants to discuss the elephant in the room. This is mainly because both parties are completely beholden to the industries involved…in this case, the defense industry.

Current American foreign policy, still largely built on the outdated 65 year old Truman Doctrine, is not in line with the realities of the present. The nation has a much leaner military, the largest total debt that it has ever seen, the biggest debt to GDP ratio since WWII, and it is still mired in an over decade long period of war that has cost taxpayers over $3 trillion - money that we will never get back. I am still wrapping my head around the fact that $3 trillion was wasted on two (unfunded) wars that were not worth it. Under a misguided Bush foreign policy, the U.S. tried to kill a fly by burning down the house. What was needed all along was a fly swatter -- good intelligence, human intelligence, allowing law enforcement to do its job, improving diplomatic relations and forming global partnerships, improving the nations image around the world, taking covert action, responsibly beefing up security where needed, using our economic power for positive change, changing foreign policy priorities to meet the realities of a new world, and only when necessary…use special operations forces. But trillions of dollars were wasted on failed adventures that left the Muslim world more radicalized than before. Never has more treasure been wasted to kill one man or even a ragtag group of men. Not to mention that the country is crawling back from the biggest economic collapse since The Great Depression. Yet the nation lacks a sensible, realistic foreign policy. In fact, the nation’s policymakers have pushed for more of the same.

Time to Mobilize On This Issue

The fact of the matter is, America desperately needs a new, more reasonable foreign policy if it wants to avoid becoming present day Greece…. Or worse yet, an ancient Rome. This is a crisis for the country. None of what we do with medicare, social security, energy, taxes or anything else to get the debt under control will matter if nothing is done about the true problem - America’s use of military power and its role in the world. The other issues facing the country did not create the debt crisis (which eventually hurt the credit rating)… it was the foreign policy that led the nation into two unfunded and unnecessary wars that, when totaled (to included care for wounded soldiers), could cost as much as $4 trillion, according to a report from Brown University. So it makes no sense to talk about these other issues, without dealing with this underlying problem. The fundamental problems surrounding the debt will not go away unless this country deals with the issue of foreign policy and what its role in the world should be.

Despite a new world and budget realities, the U.S. is still playing the role of global empire with over a half million troops airmen and sailors deployed to well over 100 bases around the world, all despite a smaller military.  Furthermore the country has far too many defense obligations around the world which keeps us entangled in conflicts between nations in every corner of the globe from the Korean Peninsula, The South China Sea, The Persian Gulf, Israel and Europe. Now the U.S. is working hard to get a foothold in the former Soviet Union. We have reached a point where any sort of conflict anywhere could easily drag the U.S. in. The U.S. is always a skirmish away from a very dangerous & costly war. We are overexposed and overstretched. Most of these defense obligations are not vital to our national security (particularly the homeland). Most of these treaty agreements were made under the Truman Doctrine’s Domino Theory for which our political establishment wholeheartedly still believes in. However, this is a concept that is mostly outdated.

Defense spending is about one-fifth of the total U.S. budget. A little more if you count related spending. While it’s not the largest part of the budget, it is the most bloated and adds more to the debt than any other expenditure. The reason? Wars often go unfunded and are tracked off the books. Taxes are not raised to meet the need, and other important programs are not cut. Instead, these wars (driven by a foreign policy that is more aggressive now than ever) become deficit balloons…and just get added onto the national debt. Other costs, such as Veterans Affairs budget are often counted separately…. But when you factor in costs to support veterans returning home… the deficit spending is unbelievable. A President Romney would be even worse. He pledges to vastly increase military spending by about $2 Trillion over 10 years, but does not say how he would pay for it.  We’ve heard that tune before - George W. Bush also failed to mention how he would pay for the 2 disastrous wars we stumbled into. Romney’s spending would likely be added to the debt.

It is an aggressive foreign policy that maintains this situation. However, America’s current foreign policy approach is unsustainable. We simply cannot afford to be global cop. It is going to continue to drag the nation down, both at home and abroad. A nation that is already broke cannot afford wars every few years.
I’m no fan of Pat Buchanan by any means… but he is one of the few Republicans who has a more realistic view of U.S. foreign policy. Even this staunch conservative believes that the U.S. is not on the right track when it comes to its role in the world.



Unfortunately there is no sign that the U.S. is changing course anytime soon. As a progressive, the biggest problem that I have with Obama and the Democrats is that their foreign policy is not vastly different from that of the Republicans. Support for the bloated military industrial complex is, in fact, a tradition for both parties. Strangely enough, with all of the dysfunction between the two parties and all of the gridlock, one would think that cooperation would be almost impossible. But one area where both Republicans and Democrats miraculously agree is on defense and the use of force around the world. Both parties believe that the U.S. must somehow maintain its role as the worlds police force, inserting itself even in internal conflicts and where the security of the U.S. itself is not at stake. The difference between the two parties is only on the surface. The core aims are the same.

In a poignant piece for the Atlantic, James Joyner describes the U.S. as being stuck in a “perpetual state of war” and points out the similarities between the two parties. While he describes conservative pro-war hawks as neo-cons, he also points out that pro-war hawks - which he calls “liberal interventionists” - also dominate the progressive side: 

are neoconservatives and liberal interventionists really so different? Neoconservative bastions like the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are passionate advocates of spreading American values. In Iraq, the toppling of Saddam Hussein and discovery that there was no WMD program to speak of were both accomplished in the first weeks of the war and with a relative handful of American casualties. If these had been our chief concerns we would have left immediately; the apparent U.S. goals in staying on so many years were democracy promotion and nation-building, both ideals the neoconservative White House leadership shared with liberal interventionists.

Further, while neocons are doubtless less patient than liberal interventionists when it comes to exhausting diplomatic options and achieving international consensus, what does it really matter if the end result is the same either way: military action.

Dr. Stephan Walt, in an outstanding article in Foreign Policy magazine, made a similar point on U.S. foreign policy:

The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power — and especially its military power — can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America’s right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect.

So if you’re baffled by how Mr. “Change You Can Believe In” morphed into Mr. “More of the Same,” you shouldn’t really be surprised. George Bush left in disgrace and Barack Obama took his place, but he brought with him a group of foreign policy advisors whose basic world views were not that different from the people they were replacing. I’m not saying their attitudes were identical, but the similarities are probably more important than the areas of disagreement. Most of the U.S. foreign policy establishment has become addicted to empire, it seems, and it doesn’t really matter which party happens to be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Obama Administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in particular, has embraced an assertive foreign policy. I refer to U.S. foreign policy under this Administration as neo-con lite. Many of the misguided initiatives carried forward under the Bush Administration; such as missile defense, the push for unnecessary (and destabilizing) NATO expansion, Gitmo, the compromising of civil liberties and the use of drones, have been embraced wholeheartedly by the Obama Administration. Most troubling is that Obama & Co. never renounced the Bush era doctrine of pre-emptive war. The Obama Administration still sees this nonsensical and dangerous policy as useful. Hillary Mann Leverett, a former member of the NSC and an expert on the middle east, has become a critic of Clinton’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, pointing out the lack of an even-handed approach. Leverett is also critical of Clinton’s hawkish approach on Iran. I recommend the work of Hillary Mann Leverett, Stephen M. Walt, Stephen F. Cohen, Juan Cole, John Mearsheimer and other experts who are critical of both Republican and Democrat administrations and who have been expressing their displeasure about the direction of the Obama team. These experts can’t be written off as far left like Zinn, Chomsky or Michael Parenti. They are very much within the mainstream. It is just that American foreign policy has gone so far off the rails towards the interventionist side that rational thinkers who are looking out for the best interest of the U.S. are seen as too dovish. 

Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was himself a hawk during his career as national security advisor and advisor to several other Presidents (even opposing efforts to thaw relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union) sees trouble ahead for the United States:
Brzezinski Says Hillary Stands With Neo-Cons 
This is the area of greatest disappointment when I reflect back on President Obama’s first term. As Secretary of State, Clinton has been marginal at best. It’s a myth that she has done an awesome job. As a result of the current misguided policies, relations with key countries have suffered. She was late on supporting the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt. She has most recently pushed for full throated U.S. intervention in Syria. A recent trip abroad resulted in eggs being thrown at her motorcade because the foreign policy that she has promoted is so out of step with current realities and in many cases out of step with the desires of citizens from a number of countries.

The so-called reset with Russia fell flat. Relations are now the worse they have been since the Soviet era. It is my belief that the Cold War never really ended and that it simply experienced a lull. We are now entering a new phase of the same Cold War. The U.S. and Russia have been competing adversaries since 1999, in a tiff sparked by the U.S. led war against the former Yugoslavia (led by another Clinton). More recently Russia-U.S. relations have deteriorated over the U.S. push to install a missile shield in Europe (a shield that makes no sense and that experts believe will not work), as well as the unnecessary & destabilizing push to expand NATO. U.S. presence in the former Soviet Union also raised tensions. The U.S. approach towards Syria and Iran have also soured relations.

Iran

Another War On The Horizon



Now the U.S. is about to go to war yet again. The U.S. is sleepwalking into another disaster. American policymakers really do love their wars, even if they do not always want to pay for them or fight themselves. It is looking more and more likely that the Obama Administration is going to allow Israel to draw this country into a disastrous war with Iran. This war would be even more nonsensical than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Israel, likely with the help of the U.S. (being beholden to Israel, the U.S. has no choice) is about to launch an attack based on a nonsensical idea of pre-emptive war-  surely Israel is looking at the U.S. as an example. It will be a war started under the irrational premise that Iran might one day attack Israel … completely nonsensical. Unfortunately American policymakers are able to get away with this. Why? Interest groups like AIPAC and the defense industry lobby carry a tremendous amount of weight. But more importantly, I believe that it has to do with the U.S. having one of the dumbest populations of any country in the industrialized world. Americans allow themselves to be sheeple.

Natanyahu, is an absolute radical when compared to other more responsible heads of government. At times brash and maniacal. He is certainly one of the most hawkish leaders in the free world. He is aware that an attack could harm the U.S., particularly the economy and Obama's standing as President. He would have preferred having Romney as President so that he would have an ally and enabler for his aggressive policies toward Iran and other countries in the Middle East. This will be a disaster for the U.S. Yet our policymakers have made this country a hostage of Natanyahu. Our foreign policy has essentially been signed over to him. When it comes to Iran and Middle East policy, the Capital of the U.S. may as well be Jerusalem. Luckily an October (or November) surprise never came. But whether it happens 6 months, 1 or 3 years from now really makes no difference. It will be a disaster no matter when it comes...and just as nonsensical.

Under the rules of the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, Iran has the right to engage in nuclear research & development. The demands being made on Iran have no basis in international law and are themselves, in fact, extralegal. Iran has the right to enrich uranium for industrial purposes. Western media always fails to explain the NPT rules.

Even if Iran were looking to build a nuclear weapon, a pre-emptive attack (which would start by air and Sea only) would not accomplish the goal of killing the program...again IF it exists. In fact, the opposite would occur. An attack would only ensure that Iran gets the bomb. They would kick out international inspectors and would go into bomb making full steam ahead. The only way to stop Iran once the U.S. and Israel start such a stupid war would be an all out ground invasion and occupation, requiring an amount of troops & equipment that the U.S. simply does not have. I encourage all to read the 'Iran Project Report' which spells out just SOME of the requirements and consequences of a war with Iran. The report, endorsed by dozens of current & former diplomats as well as top political and military leaders, basically confirms that such a war would be a disaster. A war would require hundreds of thousands of troops, many billions of dollars, would require a ground invasion and occupation and would be a mess. In fact, just an initial air attack on Iran would probably require ground forces because of the Iranian response. So an attack makes absolutely no sense.

A war with Iran would also have all sorts of other unintended consequences. It could drag in other nations. Russia has already hinted that it is making preparations to provide Iran with assistance in the event of an attack. Russia largely stood on the sidelines during the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and during U.S. deployments in the former Soviet Union. This time Russia, and to some extent China, have drawn lines in the sand around Syria and Iran. Russian and Chinese leaders have recently made remarks raising the possibility of a military conflict with the West, with Russia’s Medvedev in particular, mentioning the use of nuclear weapons (comments aimed at the U.S.).  Chinese officials were even more blunt, threatening to go to war over Iran.Although it may be just tough talk designed to deter the U.S., there could be substance behind the statements. This kind of bellicose talk has not been heard for a generation or more. In some cases it is worse than at the height of the Cold War. China enjoys some level of trade with Iran and gets a portion of its energy from the Persian State.

Another consequence, as if a major disastrous war is not enough, would be a backlash among Iranians. Currently many young Iranians are fond of U.S. freedoms and have adopted western culture and fashion. Although many believe in their nations right to develop nuclear technology. Many of these young Iranians have little sympathy for their hardline government. But launching a war against Iran will turn supporters away from the West and towards the very regime that the U.S. would like to see gone. The Iranian leadership is well aware of this. This is why they would like nothing more that to see the U.S. or Israel blunder and take some sort of military action. Such an attack would finally give the Iranian leadership what it has not been able to get for itself: widespread legitimacy & support from its own people. An attack would give them the support that has been elusive for the past few years and would validate their negative propaganda about the U.S. and Israel.

What makes this situation worse is that rational thought and common sense are not guiding the hands or minds of policymakers on either side. Religious fervor is informing both sides. Both sides believe that they are doing Gods work on some grand divine mission. Whenever you have a mix of religious dogma and defense policy, it creates a very dicey situation. With Israel and Iran, you have two religious States. These are not your typical secular institutions we are dealing with. Instead of playing grownup, the U.S. is about to allow Israel to make this colossal mistake. It appears that the U.S. is going to allow Jerusalem to pull us into a war (yet another) that we don’t need, and that will go against our interests. Relations with other nations will be irreparably damaged and the conflict could spread. Iranians will rally to support their leaders. Global oil prices will spike and Europe, already teetering on a cliff….will fall over it, into an even bigger crisis and we would likely see a global recession, possibly like 2008.…perhaps worse. The U.S. economy will certainly suffer.  All for a military attack that will not accomplish the desired goal. It makes no sense whatsoever. After all that we have gone through (and are still going through) to crawl out of the recent near Depression, and after getting to a point where Americans are rebuilding their lives and going back to work, we are about to throw away many of those gains because of the irrational fears of Israel.

I see no reason to be optimistic.

Unfortunately the chorus of public anger is not loud enough to get their attention. There does not seem to be much of an effort to stop a war in Iran or military intervention in Syria. This is unfortunate, because the drumbeat for war with Iran is getting louder by the day. There isn’t even an effort to make the need for a new foreign policy part of the national debate. It’s totally absent. All we hear are chest thumping statements from both camps, proclaiming their willingness to go to war with Iran because Israel wants them to. During the Presidential campaign Romney publicly promised war with Iran on Israel’s behalf. Quite unbelievable. Obama has been more nuanced... but Hillary Clinton is no dove. So it seems that America may be screwed no matter who is in office. This is why (knowing that Missouri was not a competitive State for Obama) I decided to support Jill Stein (Green Party Candidate) for President, because of her strong progressive domestic policy ideas and ultimately because her views were more in line with my own... particularly on foreign policy. But I just wish President Obama would listen to progressives like myself who have no voice under the so-called big tent.

The majority of Americans want to see a reduction in military spending in favor of other more important needs. This includes both Republicans and Democrats. Yet, policymakers have not pursued efforts that reflect that public sentiment. It is fascinating to me that members of Congress don’t seem to have a clue as to why two-thirds of Americans believe that the Country is on the wrong track or why the public approval of Congress has been as low as 12%. A misguided foreign policy is an example. Attention President Obama, White House Staff and members of Congress: Here is a clue. Americans are tired. We are war weary. 10 plus years of war…. 20 years of off & on military conflict is enough. $3 trillion dollars wasted is all that we can take, especially when pressing needs here at home are not being taken care of.

I suspect that the mandatory budget cuts for military spending, which are scheduled to automatically kick in under the Budget Control Act, actually won’t. There will be a last minute deal to keep that money flowing. Why? Because the Defense lobby has a lot of influence over Congress. Taxes won’t likely cover the cost because Republicans will block any effort to change the current tax situation. Draconian cuts in other parts of the budget will have to take place or we are looking at more deficit spending.  

Time To Act

There is still something that could be done. If enough people spoke up about this issue, perhaps we could at least get the topic on the table. Right now, the candidates won’t even mention foreign policy unless they are arguing about who is the toughest and most pro-war man for the job. Contact your member of Congress and press them on making this issue a part of the national debate. Reach out to the candidates and force them to answer questions about commitments that they have made to take us into yet more war. Something has to be done to bring this into the national consciousness and soon. Stop a war with Iran before it happens.

None of the other big problems can be solved in this Country without dealing with the foreign policy issue - an underlying problem that, directly or indirectly, impacts just about everything else. The potential nomination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice (a hardcore interventionist, ...from the Albright/old Brzezinski/Kissinger/Clinton school of foreign policy thought, far more pro-war than pro-dove) for the post of Secretary of State will be an indication of what direction the Obama Administration will take with foreign policy in its second term. The Russians (and others) have already taken the unusual step of saying (warning) that they don't want her... because she is too brash, rigid and aggressive. If she is nominated instead of someone more sensible, and more progressive like a John Kerry, I will puke. I am keeping my fingers crossed in hopes that this nomination isn't made. *****

“What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” ~ Then UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright to Colin Powell on intervention in Bosnia.

Powell's response:
"I thought I would have an aneurysm. American GIs were not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board".

Susan Rice as Secretary of State would be many times worse.

Endgame in Afghanistan - Real Life Look at Troops in War

In his piece "Endgame in Afghanistan", British reporter Sean Smith provides a rare glimpse of the raw reality of the war in Afghanistan for American troops.

I initially supported the idea of a surge in troops for Afghanistan because it was sold as part of a comprehensive strategy to make sure that the U.S. would get out or reduce its presence in a reasonable amount of time. But as I have read more, and observed the situation...it is becoming clear that this is not the case. So, for me, the pendulum is swinging the other way. I actually had doubts about Afghanistan as far back as 2005, when it became clear that it was becoming a misguided quagmire. Without a comprehensive approach and not enough troops, the situation was allowed to get out of control under the Bush Administration. Without addressing the economic situation, the dire poverty of the people, education, the poppy farming (a huge problem), failing to win the support of the people, and not having enough troops to hold ground... it was bound to turn into an ugly stalemate. But I also understood from the beginning - a belief that is now reaffirmed- that trying to build a nation out of a part of the world where the ingredients for such a task simply don't exist in any practical sense. In Afghanistan there is generally no sense of nationalism, a fractious & heterogeneous population with verious different tribal and ethnic groups, life being driven at the local level, and thus no sense of collective national pride to motivate men to want to stand up an Army and fight for their own Country. In other words, the whole mission is built on a false premise.

It is clear that corruption is strangling efforts there. Furthermore, it is clear that the Afghans are not taking responsibility for their own security... at least the enthusiasm just doesn't seem to be there. So if they aren't willing to fight... we certainly shouldn't have our soldiers fighting and dying there. In order to gain control of Afghanistan, it would require at least 500,000 American/NATO troops. I (and others) have said that for years. There is no way that the U.S. or its NATO allies will ever send that many troops into this war. Hell, the U.S., with its military stretched so thin...and with its hunger to maintain some sort of empire with troops all over the world, doesn't have the troops to send. So what are we doing? Furthermore, we have to consider the fact that the nation is broke. We can't afford it. With no clear definition of what success is...what winning is.... and no clear, achievable goals... this war (with an initial attack that I believed was warranted back in 2002, although dubious) has changed over the last 9 years into something that no longer makes sense. So my view of this war has changed quite a bit, especially over the last 18 months.

But it is clear that the Obama Administration has no plans to get out of Afghanistan anytime soon. Americans were sold fools gold with the promise of a troop drawdown...as I suspected. President Obama can't leave & is planning to have our troops there for a number of years down the road (I will go into that a little more in a separate commentary). Although I think the crap about terrorists attacking us from Afghanistan...and it will be doomsday if we leave... we must stay there so they don't hit us at home...is all a bunch of BS.

We are looking at 3-5 more years of this madness (at a minimum). Hard to understand...and getting harder everyday. I will write more on that in a future post.

From The Guardian:

As the war in Afghanistan enters its final chapter, Sean Smith's brutal, uncompromising film from the Helmand frontline shows the horrific chaos of a stalemate that is taking its toll in blood. Warning: contains distressing scenes and strong language

Obama Administration Easing Rules For Soldiers With PTSD

From the NYTimes:

V.A. Is Easing Rules to Cover Stress Disorder
By JAMES DAO
Published: July 7, 2010

The government is preparing to issue new rules that will make it substantially easier for veterans who have been found to have post-traumatic stress disorder to receive disability benefits, a change that could affect hundreds of thousands of veterans from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.

The regulations from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which will take effect as early as Monday and cost as much as $5 billion over several years according to Congressional analysts, will essentially eliminate a requirement that veterans document specific events like bomb blasts, firefights or mortar attacks that might have caused P.T.S.D., an illness characterized by emotional numbness, irritability and flashbacks.

For decades, veterans have complained that finding such records was extremely time consuming and sometimes impossible. And in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, veterans groups assert that the current rules discriminate against tens of thousands of service members — many of them women — who did not serve in combat roles but nevertheless suffered traumatic experiences.

Under the new rule, which applies to veterans of all wars, the department will grant compensation to those with P.T.S.D. if they can simply show that they served in a war zone and in a job consistent with the events that they say caused their conditions. They would not have to prove, for instance, that they came under fire, served in a front-line unit or saw a friend killed.

The new rule would also allow compensation for service members who had good reason to fear traumatic events, known as stressors, even if they did not actually experience them.

When someone volunteers to join the Armed Services of this country...to put their lives on the line for this country..

the least, and I do mean the least we can do in return, is make sure that they are taken care of if they return to this country damaged - IN ANY WAY.

This has not been the case, especially during the Bush years, where they fought increasing services to the common soldier, and did what they could to rig the system so that the soldiers that needed help, couldn't get help.

This sea change from the Obama Administration is wonderful, and should be praised.

The U.S. Still Seems to Be Itching For A Fight With Russia

NATO plans to hold major military exercises in Georgia next month - in a Country that just finished a war...and for all practical purposes is still at war. The exercises appear to be part of a continuing U.S. effort to instigate conflict in the former Soviet Union.

I was hoping that this madness would cease once Obama took office….but in the back of my mind I knew that there wouldn’t be much “change” on the foreign policy front, especially when it came to NATO and Russia policy.

The continued U.S. instigation in the Caucasus and the push to expand NATO will kill any efforts by the Obama Administration to reboot relations with Russia (which were just cosmetic efforts to begin with). As I stated before…the whole “reset button” nonsense was more photo op than real substance. In fact, these policies may eventually lead to a breakdown in relations altogether and to a renewal of the Cold War... or a rekindling of the Cold War that never really ended. If the U.S. continues in this direction regarding Russia Obama can forget about his dreams of a fresh nuclear arms reduction agreement, or the idea that Russia will help the U.S. with Iran and North Korea….or with any other major conflicts.

Obama Will Soon Be Faced With A Serious Military Crisis

Livni, Netanyahu, Barak
And it will likely come from the Middle East.

One of the Most Dangerous Men In The World Is Close To Taking Power In Israel

Americans should be focused very closely on the Parliamentary Elections that will be held in Israel in a few days (Feb. 10). These elections will likely determine whether Israel drags the U.S. into a serious military conflict or not in the next couple of years. Why this isn't getting more coverage in the U.S. is a mystery to me.

The three main candidates vying for the Prime Minister post are former Prime Minister and current defense chief Ehud Barak, foreign minister Tzipi Livni, and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Barak and Livni are from more Centrist Parties (Labor and Kadima respectively) and they are considered moderates when it comes to the Palestinians and Iran. However, Benjamin Netanyahu is a hardliner. I consider Netanyahu to be one of the most dangerous pro-war political figures in the World... (Donald Rumsfeld or John Bolton on speed). He's an extreme version of a Bush neocon...and a dangerous megalomaniac.

This is why I have stated on more than one occasion that Obama's biggest challenge will be his foreign policy.... not his domestic policy. If his foreign policy is in crisis, he won't be able to deal with the domestic problems we face... World events have the potential to drain his time, and the nations resources. This is why the make-up of his foreign policy team was so important. The U.S. needed a Secretary of State that could tell Israel "No"...and if necessary could tell them to go to Hell. Instead... Obama (like every other President since 1948) has set himself up to be a lapdog for Israel. That's going to be a very serious problem... probably within the next year or two.

It is very likely that Netanyahu will launch an attack on Iran, with or without U.S. backing. This will draw a military response from Iran (with the support of Syria and Russia). And of course as a lapdog of Israel, Obama will commit this Country to war once again...and it could put us on a collision course with the Russians. Russia will likely send ships, troops and equipment to assist the Iranians (because Russia has assets and interests in Iran). Russian military leaders (off the record) have already indicated that they may join the fight...alongside Iran in any military conflict with Israel or the United States. And it appears this nightmare might be setting itself up like many had feared.

Why voters in Israel want this.... I don't know. I don't understand their logic. They learned nothing from the war in Lebanon in 2006....or the latest conflict in Gaza.

MLK - Beyond "I Have A Dream"

This is an update to my annual MLK remembrance. I really wanted to post "A Knock At Midnight"... the greatest of all the MLK sermons/speeches in my opinion. But I have not been able to convert this sermon from my analog tape to digital. Unfortunately I don't have a Cassette-CD converter.

But there is still plenty of material here to read/watch/and listen to.

NPR has a story about a project by Jazz Bassist Christian McBribe showing his appreciation for Dr. King.

There is also a two hour special from American Routes, celebrating King and the Civil Rights Era through music...and pointing out the role of music during the height of the movement. Definitely a program that you should not miss. Listen while you can... I don't know how long the audio will be available.

Hear Hour 1

Hear Hour 2

I have also added "I've Been To the Mountaintop" in its entirety.

This is definitely an historic year (already...just a few weeks into 2009). Barack Obama... the first non-white U.S. President...or first U.S. President of Color will be sworn in the day after Kings birthday is officially observed. If that's not enough, Obama- the product of the Union of a Kenyan Father and White mother from Kansas- will take the oath of office at the U.S. Capitol built largely with African Slave labor. He will then enter the White House for the first time as President... a House built by African Slaves. They don't even attempt to make movies with pendulums that swing this far... because it just seems too unreal. A journey like this has only been the purview of Comedy writers, and the SNL skits... because it just couldn't happen in real life. It was only a couple of years ago that there was a TV drama and a movie depicting a Black President in a serious role.

I just hope Obama understands Kings' message in The Drum Major Instinct, and Kings' passion for international peace, and his feelings toward growing U.S. militarism & imperialist tendencies.... a passion which was just as strong as his passion for Civil Rights, if not stronger. I can already conclude that Hillary Clinton does not get it...and has probably never gotten it, and never will. This is a woman who has been quoted threatening Iran.... saying that she would destroy obliterate Iran (with U.S. nukes) if she were President. But, as Secretary of State, I am hoping that she will reflect the policy and vision of the President. That's really the only hope we have for any sort of Progressive, peaceful international policy over the next 4 years; because left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton would go in a much more Neo-Conservative direction. Under these circumstances, I am hoping that Obama really has an understanding of what King stood for. Obama's policy choices... especially on the economic and foreign policy fronts, will show if Dr. King is really part of his conscience in any serious way, or if he is simply paying lip service when he speaks of his admiration for King.

***************************

NOTE:

And while we remember the true essence of King, I can't help but mention what some of the Traditional "Black Leaders" & Black "Luminaries" will be up to on this day... apparently they will be at another Corporate event... (surprise surprise) using the King Holiday & the Obama inauguration to help Pepsi Co. with branding and relaunching their products under a new image, with the motto of "Refreshing the World". Are they kidding me? I thought this was a joke at first glance... but it's apparently true. There is something disturbing about the whole idea. Maybe it's just me. And i'm a little disappointed to see Dr. West participating in such an event.

**************************

There was much more to Dr. King than I Have A Dream. Americans will be bombarded today (and in February) with loops of the famous I Have A Dream speech being played 10,000 times. But you won't see or hear the speech here. The U.S. uses that speech as a way to disarm Kings message. It has been ironic to watch the U.S. government "honor" King over the last few years, particularly while the U.S. has been at war, yet they avoid mentioning anything about his well known moral and political position on War....and the War in Vietnam in particular. Just take out the word Vietnam and replace it with Iraq, and it sounds like King is talking in the present.

It's a shame that his Holiday is not truly celebrated in this country. Most people see it as just another day. Most White Americans barely recognize the day. It's a shame and very ironic that a man who spoke against segregation has a national Holiday that is segregated in terms of how people recognize it.

Below, I have included 5 great speeches from Dr King, some of them dealing with his feelings about war.

What Would MLK Say About The World Today?

What Would Dr. King Think About What Was Going On In The World Today?

He basically told us 4 decades ago.... we were just a little late arriving to the show.
If we would just listen to these Prophets when they are here sounding the alarm, maybe we could avoid more disasters. Many of the things that King spoke of 4 decades ago, we see today. It is a combination of things not changing, and King being way ahead of his time, foretelling issues and threats decades ago that we are now seeing develop today in our lifetimes.

Listen to the speech The Drum Major Instinct, given in February of 1968. This is one of my favorite speeches, and one that never gets old. It is so relevant for today. It's also one of Kings great messages. However, his greatest & most powerful speech, in my opinion, has to be a speech titled "A Knock At Midnight". Scary speech. Unfortunately I don’t have A Knock At Midnight in a digital format. But Drum Major Instinct is also one of his great messages….one of my top 3 favorites.

I Have a Dream is a great speech but it is not his greatest work. But America often uses I Have a Dream to try to sanitize King, and box him into being a Civil Rights/Racial Equality leader. The fact is, between 1965 & 1968, King was the leading anti-war voice and leading voice for economic equality in the country. I think that is part of the reason that he was gunned down. This is the part of Kings history that is hardly ever told. It's the part of his history that America tries to smother every year when the nation goes through its so called "remembrance". If they really wanted to honor King they would rewrite the school books to tell the true story about his efforts. He was not just a civil rights leader. If they wanted to honor him, they would try to live up to his vision....a vision that went beyond race and civil rights. Peace was at the heart of his struggle. He was just as passionate as an anti-war advocate as he was as a civil rights advocate....and perhaps maybe even more so as a Peace advocate.

Other Great Speeches

Sticking Together

Beyond Vietnam (Speaking Out Against The Vietnam War in front of a national group of Clergy in New York, April 4, 1967; exactly one year before he died. )

See Text of Beyond Vietnam Speech

Related Article

Why I Oppose The War In Vietnam RIGHT CLICK AND SAVE FOR EASIER PLAYBACK (similar speech given in front of his own congregation at the Ebenezer Baptist Church)

But If Not

I've Been To The Mountain Top - His Final Speech, April 3, 1968, given in Memphis Tennessee. Under an unusually high number of death threats, and feeling ill, King went to speak anyway, braving the assassins and the bad weather.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

See a video interview with Rev. Joseph Lowery from a couple of years ago. Link To Webpage.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Democracy Now Covers MLK

Great Story About Kings Last Hours In Memphis Helping the Sanitation Workers

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Great Article

Reclaiming King: Beyond “I Have A Dream” Read Here.

Worlds Most Dangerous Flashpoints for 2009

Here is my new list of the Worlds most Dangerous Flashpoints.

Here is the list from the previous year.... and it looks like I was pretty close on a few. In parenthesis below, you will see last years spot for each location or conflict zone. Notice which locations and conflict zones moved up.

New list (for the coming year, 2009)


1. Israel - Iran (4) **
2. Persian Gulf/U.S. - Iran (3) (How will Obama’s Neo-Con Light Foreign Policy Team approach this situation? It bothers the Hell out of me…I have been let down by the signals given by Obama’s transition so far). **
3. Georgia (6) **
4. Pakistan (1)
5. Afghanistan (10)
6. Russia (13) (Russia can officially be called a dictatorship) **
7. Pakistan - India (14) **
8. Caspian Region (12) **
9. Ukraine- Russia (17) **
10. Darfur (Sudan) (5)
11. Iraq (2)
12. Somalia (22)
13. Chad (7)
14. Congo (15)
15. Turkey/Iraq border (Turkey's battle with Kurds) (11)
16. Chechnya, Russia (18)
17. Israel- Lebanon (9)
18. Israel - Syria (8)
19. China - Taiwan (16) ** (now that the Olympics are over... and with the global economy tanking, China may again make a push to take Taiwan. A Nightmare scenario. The good news is... a much less bellicose Government is now in charge in Taiwan-- the confrontational Pro-Independence Party was recently defeated-- which may decrease the chance of a conflict with China).
20. North Korea (the North Koreans have been waiting for a Democratic Administration… but with the Neo-Cons simply being replaced by Obama's Neo-Con Light, it is unclear how negotiations will play out.) **
21. Kosovo (23)
22. Thailand (new to the list)
23. China - Japan (26)
24. Poland - Russia /NATO vs. Russia (new to the list) Not so unthinkable anymore, thanks mostly to U.S. foreign policy. In fact, it’s more likely today than 30 years ago during the height of the Cold War. Eastern Europe is nearing powder keg status once again thanks to Bush's plan to place an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland- one of many Bush policies that Obama and his Neo-Con Light crew are likely to continue.
25. Israel- Palestine (new to the list) I typically think of this long never ending conflict as being isolated to the region. That's mostly true...but it still manages to heighten tensions and affect negotiations elsewhere.
26. Greece- Turkey (25)

Dropped from list: Myanmar/Burma, Sri Lankan Civil War, Venezuela

** = locations and conflicts of particular interest.

How Much Is The War In Iraq Costing Your Area?

See an excellent website for the National Priorities Project, which explains (in plain terms) how Federal tax dollars are used. They have a great tool that tells you how much local communities have theoretically spent on the War in Iraq.

Our County Executive almost blew his top when he saw the cost for St. Louis County.

Colin Powell Discusses Georgia Conflict

Powell joins the World of the sane with his assessment of the conflict in Georgia. He hinted that McCain's response was hasty.

Excellent Campaign Ad

Hat tip to Open Left for this.

This is an example of the type of attack ad the Obama campaign should be producing. It hits you straight in the gut and should be enough to wake people up from their Palin-induced stupor. This is still and should remain an election about serious issues, folks, not about personalities or if you feel this or that candidate is someone you can identify with or have a beer with.

Say Hello To Your Next President

An unmitigated nightmare...

The U.S. Is Playing Russian Roulette In Georgia and Beyond

And the Sane people of the World, myself included, cannot understand why.

The Bush Administration Seeks To Insert The U.S. Into the Conflict

Why is the military always the answer to every problem for the United States? It is always the first thing U.S. leaders think about in a crisis. It’s as if no other options exist for these people.

Well, it appears that the Georgian conflict could eventually escalate. The Bush administration has announced that it will send humanitarian aid to Georgia via the U.S. military. The Bush administration also says that it will take control of Georgian ports. The question is - how are they going to do this without a possible confrontation? They know that Russia has blockaded Georgian ports, taking full control of most of them.

The following is from the International Herald Tribune:

On a day the White House evoked emotional memories of the cold war, a senior Pentagon official said Wednesday that the relief effort was intended "to show to Russia that we can come to the aid of a European ally, and that we can do it at will, whenever and wherever we want." At a minimum, American forces in Georgia will test Russia's pledge to allow relief supplies into the country; they could also deter further Russian attacks, though at the risk of a potential military confrontation.

"We expect Russia to ensure that all lines of communication and transport, including seaports, airports, roads and airspace, remain open for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and for civilian transit," Bush said. "We expect Russia to meet its commitment to cease all military activities in Georgia, and we expect all Russian forces that entered Georgia in recent days to withdraw from that country."President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, who has sharply criticized what he called a failure of the West to support his country, declared the U.S. relief operation a "turning point" in the conflict, which began last Thursday when Georgian forces tried to establish control in the breakaway region of South Ossetia, only to be routed by the Russians.

And what did the Russians do right after the U.S. came out with these statements about keeping Ports and rail lines open? They re-captured a Western port, took more prisoners, and blew up the rail line between Tblisi and Gori, cutting off an important link. And that was simply to prove a point and it allowed the Russians to thumb their noses right back at the U.S. .....you see, everytime that the U.S. makes these grand statements and demands that Russia do something (instead of talking to Russia, listening and truely negotiating in good faith about solving these wider issues once and for all) it only complicates the situation. It makes it more difficult for EU and OSCE diplomats to mediate.

Complicating matters even more....John McCain issued a statement last week stating that if he becomes President, he would push hard to have Georgia included in NATO. Thanks a lot John McCain. Essentially he is saying that he wants to all but guarantee a U.S. conflict with Russia if he is elected, as if we need any new wars, not to mention a war of that magnitude. The U.S. can't handle the two wars that it is currently entangled in. Complete madness!!!

Amazingly Barack Obama, the so-called "change" candidate, followed suit... saying that Georgia should be a part of NATO. That was the last straw for me in terms of how I view Barack Obama and his candidacy.

I knew that the longer this conflict dragged on, there would be a greater risk of the Bush administration doing something stupid like sending in the military's "humanitarian aid". Why in the world would the U.S. send troops (of any kind) to a conflict zone like Georgia unless it was seeking confrontation?

The danger with this situation is that a misunderstanding could lead to a larger conflict. We are dealing with 3 irrational government leaderships - In Georgia, Russia, and the United States. Increased involvement by the U.S. will only increase the risk of an incident. No one will be able to say that it was unforeseen if an incident occurs.

This new U.S. mission may be a deliberate attempt by the Bush administration to inject the U.S, further into the conflict. This “humanitarian” mission in Georgia may also be an effort by the Bush Administration to get the U.S. involved in a war without seeking Congressional approval. The guise of “humanitarianism” is always a convenient tool for avoiding Congressional approval for wars. Why a large humanitarian mission now in the absence of a permanent peace deal? And why is the U.S. so eager to take the lead role, when the EU had already taken this responsibility?

I also find it interesting that Bush is sending a humanitarian mission via the military so soon in Georgia. It all seems so disingenuous. If the U.S. were really concerned about humanitarianism, then why in the Hell hasn’t he sent significant help to Darfur, where there is a real genocide underway….responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Africans, and displacing hundreds of thousands more?

What is really going on here is that the U.S. seems to be itching for a fight with Russia. At the least, the U.S. wants to continue poking Russia in the eye. In fact, we are in a frightening situation where war hawks control the governments of all 3 principal Countries in this conflict, particularly in the U.S. and Russia. In the U.S., we have an administration still controlled by neocons who long for a return of old Cold War tensions. They dream of taking us back to that period. They seem to welcome the idea of confrontation with Russia. Consequences? Who cares about consequences? They don’t care about the consequences of their hard-line approach. The rush they get from Cold War nostalgia overshadows the consequences.

On the Russian side….you have some of the same nonsense going on…. A group of ex-KGB men who also want to return to their old Cold War glory. Putin has made clear that he wanted to return Russia to the kind of status that it held during the Soviet days.

Any humanitarian mission should be part of a larger international effort - not an effort led by the U.S. military. The “humanitarian” mission seems to be about machismo…ego, and an effort by the U.S. to puff its chest. In fact, this whole conflict is about egos. Pride and emotionalism have trumped rational thought in Georgia, Russia and the U.S.

The U.S. intends to entrench itself even deeper into Georgia, by stepping up military contacts (despite the U.S. trained Georgian Army being trounced once already), and providing more economic aid. Senator Joe Biden - a possible VP choice for Barack Obama, recently took a trip to Georgia promising more money from American taxpayers. (I am amazed at how fast they move for European Countries, but have yet to provide the same urgency for Darfur, where tens of thousands have been killed....where there really is a genocide taking place).

As if that's not enough, the U.S. and Germany, among others, have essentially promised NATO membership for Georgia, with Ukraine not far behind. This is despite the fact that it makes no good sense whatsoever, and many experts have sounded the alarm about such a move. Some believe that NATO is like a book club, or a treehouse gang. They seem to forget that NATO is a one for all, all for one military defense alliance. The risks of a conflict increases, and the burden on member countries increases (esp. the larger nations) whenever a new nation is added. Furthermore, NATO has not traditionally been in the business (until recently) of including unstable Countries, and countries that are in conflict, and have regular skirmishes with their neighbors. Why The U.S. wants to make this move is beyond comprehension and goes against everything that is sane & rational.

Related Links

Article On Georgia and NATO from March 08

Article from the New York Times

More on NATO

Georgia Still on Course for NATO membership

The Drum Major Instinct

I was going through my archives and ran across one of my favorite MLK Sermons - The Drum Major Instinct. This speech never gets old. With everything going on in the World, it always seems to be on target. Take a listen from one of my previous posts.

Unfortunately Barack Obama just doesn't seem to get it. John McCain? I don't expect him to get it... but I have been disappointed to learn over the last several months just how much Obama doesn't get it. (i'll be posting on that soon).

I wonder what MLK would think of Barack Obama if he were still with us. He would probably be o.k. with many of Obama's domestic policies.... but I am sure that MLK would have problems with Obama's hawkish foreign policy positions.

Obama Reads From The Bush Script on Georgia

Obama's response to the situation in Georgia shows a lack of understanding for what is going on in the region.

His comment today (pretty generic):

"Russia should respect the territorial integrity of Georgia".

In other words.... an Obama advisor told him what to say. But it shows that he would likely be a blind supporter of Georgia just like Bush and McCain... daring Russia into a confrontation. NOT GOOD Senator Obama. This is right from the Bush Administration talking points. Here you have a situation where the two war mongers and the Democrat all agree. This is one of the main problems with the Democrats that I often discuss here on this blog.

Bush was in Beijing while all of this was going on, and once again he was asleep at the wheel (what a joke of a President). Instead of immediately going into a crisis meeting with PM Putin to resolve the issue, he reiterated his flawed position, likely agitating the Russians even further....as he often does. I have said it a million times... that this is the wrong Administration to have in the middle of a crisis like this.

If Obama actually understood the situation, he should take a more neutral, middle of the road approach...taking no sides. He should also remove U.S. troops from Geogia... that's if we manage to get through this crisis. This just raises more questions about Obama...and reminds me of the other instances where he has been willing to sell out the best interests of the American people, for the sake of what foreign governments want- namely his approach to Israel... but there have been others.

Senator Obama, the U.S. either supports self determination or it doesn't. You either support self determination or you don't. You can't have one set of rules for Kosovo, and another set of rules for South Ossetia or any other region, just because they don't want to align themselves with the U.S.

Obama is just as hypocritical as Bush and McCain on this. On one hand, Obama wants to break U.S. dependence on foreign energy & he claims that the U.S. should not have conflicts over oil...but I guess he doesn't understand one of the reasons why the U.S. is in Georgia - to maintain oil pipelines and to secure more oil pipeline deals for America's big oil industry. Oil is one of the root causes of the competition between Russia and the U.S. in that particular region.

This is why the U.S. is doomed as a nation. This kind of reckless and nonsensical foreign policy cannot be sustained. There will have to be a fundamental change to the American imperialist mentality.

Hopefully Obama will take some time to study the situation in Georgia a little more...and refine his position. The U.S. should be in the role of mediator and peacemaker in Georgia, rather than an instigator. It should be a neutral party that will push hard for negotiations. It should not entangle itself in this conflict...or any other like it in that part of the World. These conflicts have been raging on and off for generations, with ethnic and cultural differences that were well defined long before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Obama should be calling for an end to fighting and for Peace Talks.... from a neutral position...and he shouldn't waste anymore time doing so.

Fighting Breaks Out In Georgia

The U.S. and the Russians Are Once Again In A Standoff in Europe - Thanks to the Bush Administration

Conflict has erupted in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. Georgian troops have attempted to reclaim the breakaway territory of South Ossetia. South Ossetia is a small enclave of about 70,000 people that is culturally & economically connected more with Russia. The breakaway region, backed by Russia, wants independence. Abkhazia is another region that wants to break from the Georgian government.

On the other side is Georgia, backed by the United States. The Georgian government does not want to give up control of the South Ossetia region. The U.S. has been ignoring warning signs of a conflict for months. In fact, the U.S. has been an instigator, escalating tensions. Ironically, this is all taking place as the Olympic Games are starting in Beijing. Leave it up to Bush and the United States to screw up the Olympics. Almost everywhere the U.S. goes, it brings nothing but war, chaos and trouble. This is why the U.S. is a growing pariah in the World. The U.S. couldn't even agree to call an end to the fighting at the UN. And it's ironic that Bush lectures the Chinese and other Countries about Democracy, freedom and allowing self determination, yet at the very moment that the U.S. is giving these lectures, it does not support self determination for the people of South Ossetia. This is despite pushing for Kosovo Independence. It is clear that U.S. political leaders only support freedom and self determination when it is convenient.

I have warned several times before that this was one of the biggest hotspots in the World. It is more volatile than the Korean DMZ in terms its likelihood for conflict...and it could have global consequences. Russian troops patrol the disputed region and thousands of U.S. troops are in Georgia. This could get as ugly as Berlin.... maybe worse. In Berlin, conflict was averted. We seem to be already past that threshold in Georgia. It's amazing how a tiny region of just 70,000 people could have the potential to create a regional conflict that could impact so many others. Remember WWI began over nonsense and it ended up being one of the most costly wars in human history, killing millions upon millions of people. And nations ended up in a stalemate.... gaining very little if anything that was worth the cost.

The Georgian conflict is another example of the U.S. being asleep at the wheel. The incompetence and recklessness of the Bush Administration exacerbates these conflicts, and has wasted so many lives already. Will we survive the next 6 months of this administration? Will we survive the policies of the next President? Who knows. My confidence that we will come out o.k. keeps eroding from one week to the next. But U.S. foreign policy has to change. In the Georgian conflict, the U.S. has allowed the Georgians to dictate policy, potentially at our expense, and even when it is not in our interests. It's another case of U.S. foreign policy decisions being made by foreign Presidents and Prime Ministers...and we simply follow along.

This latest conflict centers around oil and oil transit routes. The U.S. and Russia are competing for defacto control of the region so that they can control the flow of the regions natural resources. Another reason why the U.S. needs to end its dependence on foreign energy. The U.S. has few compelling, overriding interests in Georgia. Yet we sent a few thousand U.S. troops there after 9/11 under the guise of terrorism. The U.S. promised the Russians and other nations that U.S. troops would be out by now, but the Bush Administration did not keep its word. As a result, we have a situation that some analysts had feared...a new Cold War front.

See More Information About Georgia and the Roots of the Current Conflict

Congress Will Soon Pass An Iran War Resolution

You may have heard about the massive Isreali wargames conducted earlier this month that were aimed at Iran. But you may not be aware of the Iran War Resolution that is close to a vote in Congress. The Resolution (#362) will ask President Bush to impose a full Naval Blockade on Iran, including the blocking of gasoline imports. Now imagine if a Country decided that it would block imports of gasoline into the U.S.

Sure, Iran has plenty of oil, but it actually imports much of its gasoline, because the country does not refine enough oil for its own domestic fuel needs. Such a blockade would not be backed by the UN Security Council and would be an act of war. It would practically destroy the Iranian economy, and impact its Trade with other Countries. This (by design) would force the Iranian military to take action in response- exactly what the U.S. wants.

This idiotic legislation is being pushed by AIPAC, Israels most powerful lobbying group. This is probably the most powerful lobbying group in Washington. The Bill is supported by both the House and Senate, and appears to be bi-partisan. Barack Obama was quick to throw in his support. He jumped on the bandwagon long ago, promising AIPAC that he would put the interests of Israel over the interests of the United States. This is one of the main problems with the Democratic Party - it's foreign policy, especially as it relates to Israel. The Democrats are essentially as hawkish as the Republicans. Foreign policy is one of the areas where Democrats and Republicans read from the same script. This is why I often refer to members of Congress as the "Republicrats". It is also one of the main reasons why I cannot fully endorse a candidate like Barack Obama. I can never fully embrace him as a real change candidate- NEVER. The way that he so eagerly co-signs with the imperialist pro-war U.S. policies of the past puts his change platform in doubt. On one hand he criticizes Bush for warmongering, then he reveals that he pretty much believes in the same kind of "Truman Doctrine" imperialism that has shaped U.S. Foreign policy for the past 50+ years; the same imperialism that drives the Bush Administration.

A few weeks ago I wrote about how ridiculous an attack on Iran would be. If the U.S. and Israel wanted to strengthen the Iranian government, they would launch an attack. An attack would be a gift to the Iranian regime. And such an attack would not even destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. So instead of solving a problem, the U.S. and Israel will only make matters far worse.

The U.S. and Israel are moving in the same familiar pattern here as they did leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They are both listening to Iranian exile groups who have a political agenda, just like they did before the Iraq disaster. The Iraqi exile groups turned out to be frauds, who admitted that they provided false information about Iraq's non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. But here we are yet again.

An attack on Iran would be a disaster, and would accomplish nothing. Even the IAEA Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that an attack would be a disaster for the region and would threaten World Peace and would impede his work. An attack on Iran could easily drag other nations into a much wider confrontation. Russia, for example, has invested quite a lot in Iran over the past few years, and has not only built one nuclear facility, but is in the process of building more. The two Countries also have several other military and business Trade links.

The U.S. wants the World to believe that Iran is doing something that is against international law with its nuclear research. That is a lie! The NPT agreement allows for peaceful civilian use of nuclear technology. That includes research of various kinds. What is tricky is that some of the activities have both civilian or military applications. Not even the IAEA is close to saying that Iran is making a nuclear bomb. And even if they were, that would not be illegal, although it would violate their previous NPT agreement. The NPT, however, is a voluntary agreement, not a compulsory agreement. There is no UN mandate that says anything about a country being attacked if they violate NPT or CTBT agreements. When the NPT was created, there were specific provisions included that allowed signatory States the right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The real issue behind this nonsensical game that the U.S. is playing is the fact that Iran is a Muslim State and it does not want it to even have the technology or the ability to possibly make a bomb. Iran doesn't have to be close to actually making a nuclear weapon in order to be targeted. It is being targeted simply for doing research and for developing its own nuclear technology, peaceful or not (all legal under international law).

I am now more convinced than ever that the U.S. (or through its proxy & 51st State Israel) is headed for a military confrontation with Iran - an event that could lead to regional war. While I don't think anything will take place in the immediate future (within the next few weeks or months), everything is pointing towards a military conflict in the longterm. The constant hawkish tone of Barack Obama gives me the feeling that he will be a lapdog for AIPAC and will allow Israel to make his foreign policy decisions, even if those decisions are not in my best interests as an American. If Bush doesn't launch this idiotic war, the next President likely will, no matter who wins in November. The major candidates are like two apples from the same poisonous tree, both heavily influenced by the Israel lobby.

You think gas prices are high right now? Wait until the war with Iran begins. You will be looking at gas prices of $6.00 - $7.00 per gallon or more. And that's not the only thing that you will need to worry about.

New Iraq Documentary - No End In Sight

Former Diplomats Speak Out About The Lack of Leadership and Planning That Led To The Disaster In Iraq.

There have been plenty of Documentaries on the disaster in Iraq, but No End In Sight appears to be a definitive examination of this Quagmire.




Film Reviews

MSNBC

Washington Post

Philly.com

Watch an interview of Col. Paul Hughes & Filmmaker Charles Ferguson from Tavis Smiley's Public Television Program.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Also listen to a discussion from the On Point Public radio program. (choose the realplayer audio option for best results)

Bush & Co. Pushing For War With Iran

Bush Administration Is Determined to Launch a War With Iran Before Term Ends.

The Effort Appears to Be Led By Neo-Con Dick Cheney. A Man Who Ironically Never Served (avoided service) his Country in Battle is Itching to Send Americas Sons and Daughters To War.


From the Guardian

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The recent PR blitz by Bush & Co. to blame Iran for the disaster in Iraq has been part of a campaign to prepare the American Public for a new war. This report appears to confirm that this is the policy of the Bush administration, even amid signs that negotiations are having some positive impact.

More from the report….

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Once again, the White House is putting the interests of Israel above the interests of the American people. One of the driving forces behind the foolish U.S. approach towards Iran appears to be the security of Israel. But are Americans willing to create a disaster with a magnitude several times worse than Iraq just to calm the nerves of Israelis? I don’t think the American public would vote for this if they actually lived in a Democracy and had a choice.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

I am not so sure that I would buy into the idea that Bush & Co. would start another war in 2008. I have always thought that if we reached 2008 without anything happening that a war with Iran would be less likely during Bush’s term. Unless Iran does something dramatic to provoke a U.S. attack, then I don’t see this changing. It would do more harm than good for the Republicans. Although Bush and Cheney no longer have anything to work for in terms of a legacy and are not running for re-election, I can’t imagine that they would be willing to do such extreme harm to their Party in an election year.

Unless Americans see an imminent threat from Iran, I don’t believe that they would support another war. But then again, Bush & Co. are experts at fooling the American people to support just about anything. If the neo-cons used their influence over Americas corporate media, they would not have much trouble selling a new war, even in the aftermath of the war in Iraq. Telling the American public that Iran is responsible for the disaster in Iraq is a good place for the brainwashing to start…. It remains to be seen if the American public will swallow this PR campaign hook, line and sinker like they did leading up to the war in Iraq.

(Source)

_____________________________

Democracy Now has more on this story.

______________________________

Recent Postings on This Issue

Lieberman Calls For Attack On Iran

Mirror On America Iran Page