Does The Prez Want Our Resignation?

Our dear Leader was in the news again today saying "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This was in response to a question that asked about our using nuclear weapons. To far too many people around the world the United States is becoming the "rogue nation" who threatens world peace and stability. When the Iraq invasion occurred it was to answer the "single question" as to Saddam's possession of WMD. Answered in the negative the new mission was to bring democracy to Iraq. As we have subsequently learned, the regime knew beforehand that they would find no WMD. This war in Iraq is just a very brutal continuation of longstanding US policy of controlling the world's energy resources. It just coincidentally funnels huge profits into the regime's best buddies in the billionaire business world.

If you actually follow the story in the mainstream press you will discover that even knowledge about refining high-grade uranium is to be denied to Iran. However, as a sovereign nation and a member of NPT Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But this also is to be denied to Iran. In fact, Bush is setting the table in such a way that nothing short of a war will be on the menu. And commentators keep harping that Iran has to meet its international responsibilities with no evidence that Iran is non-compliant, meanwhile trying to work a deal with India which has The Bomb and is not an NPT signatory. And the promised deal with India actually violates US law. But Bush has declared himself above the law. I guess he is the law.

It's weird how they keep demonizing Iranians as the new Hitler since anyone who knows or learns about Nazi Germany and Hitler and his cronies can see the distinct parallels not in Iran or Saddam's Iraq but in the United States. Mussolini, who coined the term fascism, saw it as the corporate state. It's the alliance between the Big Boys in Business and their allies in political office. Think through the past years in America: loss of jobs, diminishing incomes, medical care and other benefits, tax law changes that have hugely enriched the already rich, the income and wealth disparaties, the large corporate profits, the obscene incomes and pension plans of CEOs, the outright corruption in corporations and the Congress. In any society there is always a tension between rising and falling incomes, developing and dying industries, but in the move to an outright fascist state this elasticity is severed: they soar while we sink.

And this develops how?

• frighten us into obedience with demonized enemies;
• push our own version of religious fundamentalism with a mission from god;
• decide only our enemies commit evil deeds while we are immune by definition;
• pass laws that allow for (ruthless) suppression of the home population;
• realize that knowledge is power and thus make government activity secret;
• simultaneously undermine the rule of law (Bush's signing statements) and the laws apply to us but not to him
• international agreements that protect the investors but not the people;
• marginalize government outside the executive, the Congress and the Courts;
• promote the Leader principle.

This only begins to touch on the dangerous and outrageous behavior of the regime and even the above may not be clear to any who have not been following their actions (those few that we can learn about). Since Hitler keeps coming up we should note that pre-Hitler Germany was considered the cultural jewel of Europe, yet it sank into barbarism. Germans, at least not enough of them, didn't see it coming or were too complacent to stop the coming disaster. And I imagine we who live in the US will behave likewise. Our livelihoods are being eroded, our rights restricted, our future endangered. If our ruling junta really cared about protecting us from terrorism it wouldn't be leading us down the road to a generation of war and destruction. But we are ruled by fanatics who don't care about us or our children and certainly don't care about democracy.

Can You See That Train A-Comin'?

The Iran war will happen. Having learned from the mistakes in the Iraqi war buildup, mostly the matter of soothing ruffled feathers among the doubters, this time President Bush will go out of his way to claim he has gone that extra mile in pursuing diplomatic solutions. But this is merely a ploy. The decision to change the regime in Iran was made years ago; the Iraqi invasion was only step one. If one reviews Bush's statements in the past few days, and parses the language, future developments are clear.

Bush has stated very clearly that Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, that they are trying to do so; thus, they must stop all enrichment activities, Iran cannot even be allowed to attain the knowledge of nuclear weapons-grade enrichment. The logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable: they must and will be stopped. Boom! With more sophistication this time but still using a worn-out script, the administration is setting up the scenario that if we accept his premises then war will be the only choice.

We are once again being played for suckers. Evidence exists that we were deliberately misled into war and that Bush is arrogating unconstitutional, dictatorial powers to himself, but there's about zero probability that he will be impeached. And the reasons are simple. Few in the mainstream (the ruling junta, its apologists and all too loyal oppostion) disagree with basic policy; they simply lack the brashness, recklessness, and visionary sweep of the neo-cons and their leader. Most elected officials are more worried about keeping their positions than about our citizenry and our future. If we don't like the way things are going we must make a mighty ruckus about it and hold our officials' feet to the fire, and if they won't work to create the kind of world we want we will have to sweep them away. It would be nice to have increased depth and breadth in our political debates. To do this we need to better our understanding of just what is going on and why.

Since the breakup of the USSR a view has become ascendant: that as the lone superpower there is a unique opportunity for the US to shape the world's future. This view is prominent at the Project for a New American Century where VP Cheney was a leader. With the revulsion and fear created by 9/11 these 21st century imperialists rushed their own program of world redesign through the door opened by Al Qaeda. Not only most Americans but also most in Congress would be squeamish about military interventions presented through ideology but all too willing if needed for self-defense. When Bush speaks of spending his political capital he means the gift Osama gave him of carte blance control of politics and policy. A generational war against terror, a war against Islamic fundamentalism, a war against the Axis of Evil, and soon a war against the "greatest threat America faces" a nuclear-armed Iran. If it weren't so serious it would be silly and the arguments wouldn't survive a high school debate.

The very premise that we are fighting for freedom and democracy implies that we won't and can't, morally or logically, impose our will on other nations. The nuclear genie escaped the bottle 60 years ago. All nations as sovereign entities have the right to develop nuclear energy, including Iran, and the Iranians are not in violation of the NPT. Might they go on to weapons? Possibly, though Ahmadinejad doesn't control the military and the ayatollahs have ruled that nukes violate Islam. Iran, at least modern Iran, has no history of invading other countries. The Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988) was begun with Saddam's invasion and he was pushed into it by the US and Jimmy Carter. Remember the Tehran Embassy hostages? When it comes to military power the US is the elephant and Iran is the gnat. The US has more firepower, including thermonuclear, than the rest of the world combined.

If we really want to stop the spread of nuclear weapons then the thumbs up Bush gave to India was the wrong way to go. To stop proliferation the US needs to take the lead towards disarmament under international treaties and inspections that will apply to all countries including our own. Threatening others with bombs and invasions constitutes terroristic behavior. Peaceful talk and peaceful behavior, like charity, begins at home. Bush isn't really worried about Iran and the bomb; he's worried that Iran will act as a free, independent entity outside the control of America and its economic rule. Independence is what Bush and the neo-cons will not tolerate. Nukes and fiery rhetoric from Ahmadinejad are convenient excuses.

Bush and the neo-cons want the deciding vote in development and control of the world's economy and its energy resources and they'll use any propagandistic tools they can find to convince us to follow their lead. Bush and the neo-cons want dominance over the whole planet. There's nothing democratic or peace-loving in any of this. If we don't want another war then we need to accept nothing on faith and I don't mean just the facts but the beliefs as well. Here's their syllogism:

1. We cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
2. Iran is trying to develop, soon, nuclear weapons.
3. Iran must be stopped.

In fact we can tolerate a nuclear Iran. Yes, proliferation is dangerous but threatening those we dislike while winking at others we like (Israel, Pakistan, India) will increase proliferation. There's little to no evidence that Iran is trying to get "the bomb" and even if they did they are no more likely to use it against us than North Korea will launch a missile towards Seattle. There are a lot of crazies in this world. Some of them are in our leadership.

I expect that nothing short of an unexpected stroke from the blue will stave off the bombing of Iran. The best we can probably do locally is argue with our elected officials and "opinion makers" to not buy Bush's syllogism. Unlike Iraq, I think the regime will work hard to bring along the doubters this time and that's because of the chaos that will occur. Iran has nearly three times the population of Iraq and the disruption in oil supplies would push prices above $100/barrel. It's likely that worldwide recession would ensue, maybe serious enough to rival that old one known as the Great Depression. I think among the neo-cons some are bright enough to have thought this through and think that not only is the risk worth it but so would be the reality. Review the GD and track what happened to capital and its increased concentration. The world will survive, the American economy will survive, the rule of capital will survive and increase its control. My guess is their scenarios include these thoughts. Why do you think KBR has a contract to design detention camps?

My guess is that the neo-cons want this enough that they want to put constraints on future administrations, get us so deeply involved in world rule that future leaders won't feel able to reverse course. And they might use nukes on Iran for just that reason: everyone will sit up, take notice and none will dare challenge US power again. I believe Bush and those who do his thinking for him have grandiose visions and want to seize their opportunity now. Yup, they're insane. What else is new? Already, news commentators seem to be buying the Bush syllogism. I doubt we can stop this locomotive but we must try.

What's Your Worst Nightmare?

I agree with Fred Kaplan in Slate that nuking Iran would be crazy. And because it would be crazy few of us believe it is likely to happen. But as I have blogged, our world has known others with a messiah complex and doing the crazy thing is precisely the intention. Given the way the administration manipulated us into supporting the Iraq war, their continuing disregard for international law, the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress, their seeming disrespect for dissent both within and outside our country, it's hard to feel assured that the unthinkable won't happen just because we think it's unthinkable.

Even for those who are feeling magnanimous and do not believe our leaders totally lied about Saddam and his purported WMD, in the aftermath, the administration itself has admitted that there were many reasons for invading Iraq and toppling that regime. One problem with such after-the-fact admissions is that it lends evidence that our country has broken international law and perhaps committed war crimes. Minimally, with a "new world order" we might have done a better job of spreading our influence in positive ways. Instead we seem to have chosen to instill fear throughout the world. Can we really expect to intimidate an earth population that outnumbers us 20 to 1? And even if we thought we could get away with it (talk about crazy!) would we, United States citizens (we are still a democracy, aren't we?), choose that path?

My take is that the neo-cons saw the elimination of the USSR as a grand opportunity to remake the world to their liking, an opportunity that had never before existed and might never exist again and that any effort, any cost, any damage (mostly done to other peoples) would be justified by the peace and prosperity that would someday ensue. And, lo and behold, Osama did these neo-cons a favor by providing a justification for interventions, and even lower and better to behold, they had a Leader with no desire for mastery of subject matter but who was deeply religious and only too pleased to be given a mission from God. I remember after getting divorced and telling a friend I was unsure what to do and he replied that being once again on my own I could do whatever I wanted. Must be how those neo-cons felt. A whole world open to them, waiting to be shaped. And this is not a fanciful notion; it is demonstrable.

The past year has not shown progress in bringing peace and democracy to Iraq but our leaders seem undaunted. And after all the revelations about the regime overstepping the boundaries of law and the Constitution regarding torture and invasions of privacy, our leaders have not relented, not one little bit. And all that AG Gonzales can offer is that the Fuhrer principle is now operative in 21st century America. I also find the unthinkable unthinkable. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. Perhaps those in DC leadership simply have better imaginations than I, or maybe a looser grip on reality. What I do know is that Bush is doing nothing to reassure us of his peaceful and democratic tendencies; au contraire, he's scaring the hell out of us. Something's gotta give.

What's Your Worst Nightmare?

I agree with Fred Kaplan in Slate that nuking Iran would be crazy. And because it would be crazy few of us believe it is likely to happen. But as I have blogged, our world has known others with a messiah complex and doing the crazy thing is precisely the intention. Given the way the administration manipulated us into supporting the Iraq war, their continuing disregard for international law, the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress, their seeming disrespect for dissent both within and outside our country, it's hard to feel assured that the unthinkable won't happen just because we think it's unthinkable.

Even for those who are feeling magnanimous and do not believe our leaders totally lied about Saddam and his purported WMD, in the aftermath, the administration itself has admitted that there were many reasons for invading Iraq and toppling that regime. One problem with such after-the-fact admissions is that it lends evidence that our country has broken international law and perhaps committed war crimes. Minimally, with a "new world order" we might have done a better job of spreading our influence in positive ways. Instead we seem to have chosen to instill fear throughout the world. Can we really expect to intimidate an earth population that outnumbers us 20 to 1? And even if we thought we could get away with it (talk about crazy!) would we, United States citizens (we are still a democracy, aren't we?), choose that path?

My take is that the neo-cons saw the elimination of the USSR as a grand opportunity to remake the world to their liking, an opportunity that had never before existed and might never exist again and that any effort, any cost, any damage (mostly done to other peoples) would be justified by the peace and prosperity that would someday ensue. And, lo and behold, Osama did these neo-cons a favor by providing a justification for interventions, and even lower and better to behold, they had a Leader with no desire for mastery of subject matter but who was deeply religious and only too pleased to be given a mission from God. I remember after getting divorced and telling a friend I was unsure what to do and he replied that being once again on my own I could do whatever I wanted. Must be how those neo-cons felt. A whole world open to them, waiting to be shaped. And this is not a fanciful notion; it is demonstrable.

The past year has not shown progress in bringing peace and democracy to Iraq but our leaders seem undaunted. And after all the revelations about the regime overstepping the boundaries of law and the Constitution regarding torture and invasions of privacy, our leaders have not relented, not one little bit. And all that AG Gonzales can offer is that the Fuhrer principle is now operative in 21st century America. I also find the unthinkable unthinkable. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. Perhaps those in DC leadership simply have better imaginations than I, or maybe a looser grip on reality. What I do know is that Bush is doing nothing to reassure us of his peaceful and democratic tendencies; au contraire, he's scaring the hell out of us. Something's gotta give.

What Do We Know, And What Can We Guess?

Tell me again, please, why are we in Iraq?

1. Iraq had no WMD and the administration knew this.
2. Saddam had no links to 9/11 and the administration knew this.
3. Saddam was not linked to Al Qaeda and the administration knew this.

I suspect that when we combine

• the lingering dissatisfaction from the Gulf War (that we didn't continue on to Baghdad then) with
• the "fortuitous" occurrence of 9/11 (carpe diem) and
• the neo-con desire to remake the world to their liking (an opportunity created by the dissolution of the USSR, the only other "big boy" on the block)

we have the best, simplest and most comprehensive explanation of all.

What's with the Iran thing? It seems the administration has a list of demons we need to confront and destroy. Once again we are threatened by WMD, though in this case it's in the future, not today. According to international treaties, the UN charter, etc., to which the US is a signatory, the invasion of Iraq was an unjustified war of aggression, essentially making it a war crime and its perpetrators war criminals. The administration likes to fudge things by skirting the issue of Iraq's danger, sort of a fait accompli, nothing to see here, please move along. In Iran's case the best the administration can do is read the crystal ball and thank their lucky stars that Iranian leader Ahmadinejad is so accomodating. Iran doesn't seem to have a "unitary executive" in that Ahmadinejad doesn't really pull the strings and there's even some confusion over his "threats" towards Israel, that he may have been echoing Ariel Sharon who claimed the Gaza pullout simply made that problem vanish. Whatever, Iran does not constitute a direct and imminent threat to US and going to war there would also be illegal. There are news reports, not contradicted by the administration, that we currently have Special Forces in Iran to

• identify targets for bombing
• make contact with and stir up opposition groups, and
• engage in acts of sabotage

If anyone did those things here we would call those people terrorists and those acts terrorism. In America it's an article of faith that we are the good guys and don't do such things. Not everyone agrees.

What's with the Hitler thing? Isn't he dead? Before the Iraq war Saddam was called a Hitler. Now, in just the past few days, our administration tells us that Hitler has moved into Iran. An elusive guy. Being in the library the other day looking up a book on ancient Greece I noticed a bright red book a couple shelves away and discovered it was Mein Kampf. I had never read it nor had any desire to. But I started thumbing through it and checked it out and then went through it cover to cover. Hitler wrote it (he may have dictated it - pun intended) while in jail and it was published a decade before he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. The remarkable thing is that he stated in great detail precisely what he intended to do when he got power:

1. be the supreme Leader, with very anti-parliamentary, anti-democratic plans;
2. separate the population by heritage, racial Aryanism, and forbid the unfit to breed;
3. reunite the Germans into one nation;
4. expand the country by gaining "soil" in the East through Poland and into Russia;
5. conquer France which he saw as Germany's mortal enemy

et cetera, et cetera. I've only touched on a few points and stated his position in much more mild language than he used. Hitler was a nut case, a true megalomaniac, who saw himself as a Messiah. He wrote that his plan was work that would take a thousand years to accomplish.

Mein Kampf is a remarkable book. He doesn't actually say the he will exterminate people (Jews, Marxists, the "unfit") though that is an undercurrent. What is most striking is that Hitler was very open and straightforward: he didn't lie, evade or use euphemisms. For a decade before he seized power and and a decade and a half before war started his desires and plans were out in the open for all to see, yet nobody stopped him, even after gaining power and initiating his plans. Hitler told everyone what he was going to do and no one stopped him.

So what's with this ancient history?In the United States we have a political climate where elected officials go out of their way to duck issues, use double talk, and just plain lie when deemed necessary. Few like the way things are going with Iraq, Iran, the economy, privacy and civil rights but with rare exceptions no elected officials take stands. And the administration acts very authoritarian while claiming to be following the laws and supporting democracy. This is all very Orwellian.

In talking with an acquaintance the other day this person puts trust in Hilary Clinton and the 2008 election. To a liberal Democrat Sen. Clinton has some appeal though mostly over social issues. But when it comes to the war and civil liberties she might as well be a Republican. Tigers can't change stripes and people don't grow spines after winning office. In this regard Hitler was refreshing: be open, shout it from the rooftops and fight to win.

Hey! I've got a crystal ball too. Does the administration really care about us and our democracy and our safety? Consider:

• Terrorists and terroristic incidents are increasing worldwide since our invasion and the administration admits this.
• For all the hoopla about 9/11 reinforced cockpit doors and clear policy for hijackings would prevent a repeat.
• I read we have 11 million illegal immigrants; our borders are porous.
• The true residue of that Dubai ports deal is that only about 5% of incoming shipping containers are inspected. The administration simply won't dedicate enough money and personnel to truly protect our borders.
• Revelations this past week over "vacuum" sweeps of internet traffic by the NSA. If the government really wants to change the Constitution, our social contract, they should introduce proposed amendments in Congress and submit these to the voters. Of course, Hitler didn't bother with legalities either. His was a very unitary executive.
• The latest reporting, totally consonant with the past several years, is that our Leader thinks he's on a mission from God and wants to "solve the Iran problem" as part of his legacy to us. Our Messiah has arrived!
• Where are our own good Germans?
• General Tommy Franks has been quoted saying that another 9/11 and the military will take over.

What makes you think there will even be an election in 2008?

---

Addendum: What should strike any observer reviewing the past few years is that our President and his administration has shown contempt for the truth, contempt for laws, treaties, the Constitution itself, contempt for human rights, contempt for the voters and democracy. Is there any reason to believe that change will occur unless the people actively pursue change? Fool me once....

What Is Going Wrong?

It seems that the occupation of Iraq is not going the way our leaders thought it would, nor the way they told us it would. Chaos seems to reign supreme and "Lebanonization" is the current term of use. During the Reagan regime the US had forces in Lebanon and a truck bombing killed over 200 Marines that led to a hasty US withdrawal. What's happened to imperialism when we can't seem to keep the "little people" down and have them thank us for our presence?

One thought that occurs is the rise of technology, specifically satellite tv and the internet. Governments get away with a lot by controlling the message and that has become increasingly difficult over the past few decades. As people become more and more aware of the 'facts on the ground' they are less and less likely to believe messages, propaganda, that tell a different story. There have always been messengers and there have always been histories; now we have pictures, encapsulating presentations, and contemporaneous reporting. Once people know the facts and can track developments they stir into action. I'm sure the people of Iraq are glad to be quit of Saddam but they seem reluctant to become, once more, a client of the US. After all, it was from "US" that Saddam got those WMD components in the first place. In those days Saddam was our friend. (Maybe we should have picked up the hints then, that democracy can be a code word and a very fickle thing in our leaders' hands.) But then he went after Kuwait and then those bright neo-cons got the idea: Hey! Let's remake the world to our custom order, and let's start with energy supplies. On to the oil wells!

The ideology that has ruled America at least since Woodrow Wilson's day of 'democratizing' the world and which really took off with the dissolution of the Soviet Union has encountered hard reality. Part of hard reality is that democracy is what people want not what some leaders say it is. To the ruling regimes of the West democracy is the rule of capital, a rule enforced globally through the WTO and the IMF. But what serves the interests of capital does not equate to serving the wants of humans. Ruling regimes have always had to rely, in final analysis, on the use of brute force. As Mao put it, political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. And the US has a sorry history of using those guns, particularly in the Americas. I read a lot of discussions about "our" role in the world and the rightness or wrongness of interventions. In a theoretical sense there are three options: offer help without being asked; offer help after being asked; helping whether the victim wants us or not. As with vagrants or the mentally ill we only lock them up for their own good!

It seems that after occupying Iraq Mr. Bremer and his successors acted to uproot "socialism" by eliminating subsidies for gasoline and health care, by taking control of oil but opening all other industries to looting by international corporations, by insisting that the people of Iraq, in a physically devastated land and economy, were to be thrown to the wolves of international competition. I assume this didn't win too many hearts and minds among ordinary Iraqis. No wonder surveys there have something like 87% of Iraqis wanting "US" gone. In physics entropy is more or less the measure of disorder, of lower energy states, and seems to be an inexorable trend over time. Civilization has long been thought anti-entropic, bringing order out of chaos. Maybe the physical reality is catching up with us and entropy is taking over the human realm.

Of course, other empires have fallen; in fact, all of them. Should the American empire be any different? One worrying aspect these days is WMD. You know, the ones we possess and more than hint that we are willing to use. The potential exists that we, not some loony terrorists, might cause the death of humanity itself. I imagine the cockroaches will remain while mammals go the way of the dinosaurs. This is a pessimistic view. But other than the non-violent collapse (surrender?) of the Soviet Union (hey, remember the Evil Empire and how they were dedicated to destroying our way of life?) it seems no empires go down without a fight. Our leaders may not recapitulate Beirut and cut and run. They may stay there in Iraq for decades, hiding in their fortified enclaves and conducting sorties against the enemy (ordinary Iraqis?).

And they may continue that trend here in the US. Gated, well-guarded communities for members of the "ownership society" with a dog-eat-dog existence for the rest of us. And for those who get out of hand, no doubt KBR will do a bang-up job designing those detention camps. Jose Padilla may just be the first of many US citizens to discover that citizenship ain't all it was cracked up to be.