When the Bush administration acted surprised by the widespread insurgency and the spreading sectarian violence in Iraq, I wondered if any of them ever took a history course.
Although many insurgencies have failed over the years and resistance movements been crushed, the list of invaded countries that mounted no resistance after its army fell isn't all that big. Union soldiers invaded their own country during the US Civil War and found recalcitrant citizens of the South shooting and attacking them from behind. Stories of the resistance during World War II are legendary.
At first the administration said the Iraqi resistance were "Saddam loyalists" or "Ba'ath party extremists." After the Shi'ites started resisting in Fallujah they became "elements of extreme Islam." Soon after that members of the resistance styled themselves members of Al Qaeda. This worked well for the Bush administration that had for months before, during and after the invasion tried to link Bin Laden to Saddam.
Of course they ignored the obvious; that Zaraqawi and Bin Laden didn't even know each other, that Bin Laden and his operatives were busy fighting their own insurgency in Afghanistan and really didn't have the manpower to start a second front.
But because most Americans have little understanding of Al Qaeda, they think that all people claiming to be members must be in touch with the leadership. It's the same as saying everyone who owns a Chicago Cubs shirt must be a member of the Major League Baseball franchise. If a man wearing a Cavaliers jersey robs a bank, the FBI doesn't go knocking on LeBron James' front door.
To show just how impotent the occupation forces have become (in part as an effort to reduce their own casualties), the different sects in Iraq are killing each other with impunity. The numbers of executed are staggering. If Saddam is a war criminal for killing Kurds and other dissident factions — and he undoubtedly is — then the leaders of these groups are making him look like an amateur. They come dressed in uniforms, identifying themselves as Iraqi government troops as they arrest husbands and sons. Often as early as the next morning the arrested are found murdered, their bodies dumped unceremoniously throughout Baghdad.
It has gotten so bad that some news agencies are reporting that Iraqis are actually relieved when American troops arrest one of their family members.
Maybe the administration was right in its predictions because the Iraqis are finally happy to see US troops.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Earning It
I'm at a new paper now in the suburbs. It's smaller than my last one, has almost no staff, makes me work a thousand hours a week and pays me next to nothing. It's not great, but as managing editor I get to set the tone for the paper. Unlike my right wing colleagues at the old paper, I'm not going to preach any party line.
I wrote the editorial for the Memorial Day issue and decided since no one is reading this anyway, I might as well include it here.
A solemn day of remembrance
For many Americans, next Monday’s holiday serves as the unofficial kick-off to summer. The weather has turned warmer, summer baseball leagues have begun, and students can almost sense the weeks of freedom that await them. But Memorial Day should be more than that, something solemn.
The holiday, started in 1868, was originally called Decoration Day. General John Logan issued General Order No. 11 that said in part that May 30 be "designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country." In 1971, Congress designated the last Monday in May for the observation.
Unlike Veterans Day, Memorial Day does not celebrate the service of citizen soldiers but rather mourns their loss.
In Steven Spielberg’s epic film "Saving Private Ryan," a dying Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) whispers one last order to the title character.
"Earn this, James," he says as he lays bloody amid the detritus of war, smoke and death hanging in the air. "Earn it," he says again before his life breath escapes him.
Too often Hollywood gets it wrong; in this case it’s right.
The character’s final words, while directed to one man, are a challenge to us all to earn the right to the freedoms that so many Americans have died protecting. Memorial Day is a national recognition of those men and women who left this life amidst the savagery that is man at his most inhuman. Their shortened lives, with all the hope and promise that resides in the souls of each life, are the price paid for our freedom.
Even now, men and women pay the last full measure in service to the novel idea that the rule of law is more powerful than any king, more inspiring than any philosophy. We must forever earn their sacrifice. Not through empty sentiment or patriotic platitude, not through commercial anthems on radio or magnetized ribbons on bumpers.
Instead we must ensure that we never turn a blind eye to injustice, never allow the usurpation of the Constitution those dead swore to defend. Earning it requires eternal vigilance against those who would blind us with lies or cripple us with fear. Earning it requires each of us to stand on guard here in this blessed country against those who wish to deny others their inalienable rights in the pursuit of personal power or enrichment. Earning it requires that the strong protect the weak, that the empowered include the powerless.
The blood and tears of these men and women, not yet dried in the streets of Fallujah, not yet washed from the clothes of their comrades, demands more of us and our leaders.
We can not — we must not — ever forget that our freedom was paid for with their ultimate sacrifice.
As we fire the grill, as we toss the ball, as we enjoy the sun or rest in the shade this solemn holiday, there is a question that should linger in the air, swirl around us like the smoke of barbecues, prick deep inside the heart of every free American. The question each must ask himself is have I earned it?
I wrote the editorial for the Memorial Day issue and decided since no one is reading this anyway, I might as well include it here.
A solemn day of remembrance
For many Americans, next Monday’s holiday serves as the unofficial kick-off to summer. The weather has turned warmer, summer baseball leagues have begun, and students can almost sense the weeks of freedom that await them. But Memorial Day should be more than that, something solemn.
The holiday, started in 1868, was originally called Decoration Day. General John Logan issued General Order No. 11 that said in part that May 30 be "designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country." In 1971, Congress designated the last Monday in May for the observation.
Unlike Veterans Day, Memorial Day does not celebrate the service of citizen soldiers but rather mourns their loss.
In Steven Spielberg’s epic film "Saving Private Ryan," a dying Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) whispers one last order to the title character.
"Earn this, James," he says as he lays bloody amid the detritus of war, smoke and death hanging in the air. "Earn it," he says again before his life breath escapes him.
Too often Hollywood gets it wrong; in this case it’s right.
The character’s final words, while directed to one man, are a challenge to us all to earn the right to the freedoms that so many Americans have died protecting. Memorial Day is a national recognition of those men and women who left this life amidst the savagery that is man at his most inhuman. Their shortened lives, with all the hope and promise that resides in the souls of each life, are the price paid for our freedom.
Even now, men and women pay the last full measure in service to the novel idea that the rule of law is more powerful than any king, more inspiring than any philosophy. We must forever earn their sacrifice. Not through empty sentiment or patriotic platitude, not through commercial anthems on radio or magnetized ribbons on bumpers.
Instead we must ensure that we never turn a blind eye to injustice, never allow the usurpation of the Constitution those dead swore to defend. Earning it requires eternal vigilance against those who would blind us with lies or cripple us with fear. Earning it requires each of us to stand on guard here in this blessed country against those who wish to deny others their inalienable rights in the pursuit of personal power or enrichment. Earning it requires that the strong protect the weak, that the empowered include the powerless.
The blood and tears of these men and women, not yet dried in the streets of Fallujah, not yet washed from the clothes of their comrades, demands more of us and our leaders.
We can not — we must not — ever forget that our freedom was paid for with their ultimate sacrifice.
As we fire the grill, as we toss the ball, as we enjoy the sun or rest in the shade this solemn holiday, there is a question that should linger in the air, swirl around us like the smoke of barbecues, prick deep inside the heart of every free American. The question each must ask himself is have I earned it?
Sunday, May 14, 2006
It's crazy, right?
It doesn't take a genius to understand that members of this Administration aren't strict constitutionalists. Their overwhelming dismissal of the Bill of Rights is understandable; they're Republicans.
Since the 60s, the GOP has railed against "substantive due process" and "activist courts" whenever a court issues a ruling that expands the rights of a few over the rights of many. When courts struck down miscegenation laws in the 60s, conservatives decried it as federalism run amok as they did with desegregation and gender bias. They hated affirmative action, civil rights, women's rights, voter's rights, rights of the accused, a woman's abortion rights and the rights of the minority to be free from the religious expressions of the majority.
They attacked each expansion of individual rights as favoring federal power over state power.
But when they gained all three branches of the government in 2001, Republicans changed their minds about federalism. The president has pushed for federal legislation to overturn state laws that allow gays to marry, cancer patients to use marijuana and set pollution standards.
But those things are really just politics as usual. The states they were opposing in these cases are either overwhelmingly blue states, or they have a history of being moderate.
But Thursday's revelation in the USA Today that the NSA is tracking "thousands, maybe millions" of domestic phone calls is the proves that this administration ignores the Constitution.
According to Voice of America, "The technique the NSA is reportedly using is known as "data mining" and has long been utilized by commercial businesses. Companies gather data on consumers' buying habits to track product popularity. For example, using a discount card at a store tracks purchasing patterns, which helps companies create and market products."
Examine this argument for a second. The administration is trying to compare what the grocery store does when the consumer uses an opt-in service and compare it to examining the records of private citizens using a public utility. I know when I get groceries that the company keeps track of this data. I get coupons in my mail and email. I don't know if the NSA has any records on me -- they probably do; I'm a liberal loudmouth and I have an Arab-sounding last name -- but I never gave them permission unless they're somehow part of the Men's Wearhouse club or the Frequent Readers card.
But what got lost in the mix last week with these latest revelations was the White House's use of Presidential signing statements wherein he obviated the purpose of 750 laws by declaring the executive branch above the law. The most dramatic case comes in the McCain torture ban. According to the Boston Globe, the White House "can ignore ... military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research."
For example, when Congress created the Institute of Education Sciences in the Department of Education in 2002 whose director was by law permitted to conduct and publish research "without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department," Bush declared that all employees in the department come under his authority. Of course last week investigators from the Justice Department revealed that the NSA had ignored requests for information. Effectively the White House is saying that it runs everything in the executive branch, even those agencies that are empowered to be independent of interference. W. is using virtually the same arguments that Nixon used during the FBI investigation of the Watergate break-in.
Last year while covering hurricane relief efforts in Mississippi I met a guy who I considered more than a little paranoid. He told me that the White House was listening to his phone calls. He said that they tracked who he called and how long he talked to folks. As crazy as he sounded, it appears now that he could have been right.
I just hope he's delusional about his other prediction. I mean it's a crazy thought right out of survivalist pulp fiction. He predicted that W. would find a way to stay president beyond the 2008 elections by creating a constitutional crisis effectively ending democracy in the US.
Crazy. Right? RIGHT???
Since the 60s, the GOP has railed against "substantive due process" and "activist courts" whenever a court issues a ruling that expands the rights of a few over the rights of many. When courts struck down miscegenation laws in the 60s, conservatives decried it as federalism run amok as they did with desegregation and gender bias. They hated affirmative action, civil rights, women's rights, voter's rights, rights of the accused, a woman's abortion rights and the rights of the minority to be free from the religious expressions of the majority.
They attacked each expansion of individual rights as favoring federal power over state power.
But when they gained all three branches of the government in 2001, Republicans changed their minds about federalism. The president has pushed for federal legislation to overturn state laws that allow gays to marry, cancer patients to use marijuana and set pollution standards.
But those things are really just politics as usual. The states they were opposing in these cases are either overwhelmingly blue states, or they have a history of being moderate.
But Thursday's revelation in the USA Today that the NSA is tracking "thousands, maybe millions" of domestic phone calls is the proves that this administration ignores the Constitution.
According to Voice of America, "The technique the NSA is reportedly using is known as "data mining" and has long been utilized by commercial businesses. Companies gather data on consumers' buying habits to track product popularity. For example, using a discount card at a store tracks purchasing patterns, which helps companies create and market products."
Examine this argument for a second. The administration is trying to compare what the grocery store does when the consumer uses an opt-in service and compare it to examining the records of private citizens using a public utility. I know when I get groceries that the company keeps track of this data. I get coupons in my mail and email. I don't know if the NSA has any records on me -- they probably do; I'm a liberal loudmouth and I have an Arab-sounding last name -- but I never gave them permission unless they're somehow part of the Men's Wearhouse club or the Frequent Readers card.
But what got lost in the mix last week with these latest revelations was the White House's use of Presidential signing statements wherein he obviated the purpose of 750 laws by declaring the executive branch above the law. The most dramatic case comes in the McCain torture ban. According to the Boston Globe, the White House "can ignore ... military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research."
For example, when Congress created the Institute of Education Sciences in the Department of Education in 2002 whose director was by law permitted to conduct and publish research "without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department," Bush declared that all employees in the department come under his authority. Of course last week investigators from the Justice Department revealed that the NSA had ignored requests for information. Effectively the White House is saying that it runs everything in the executive branch, even those agencies that are empowered to be independent of interference. W. is using virtually the same arguments that Nixon used during the FBI investigation of the Watergate break-in.
Last year while covering hurricane relief efforts in Mississippi I met a guy who I considered more than a little paranoid. He told me that the White House was listening to his phone calls. He said that they tracked who he called and how long he talked to folks. As crazy as he sounded, it appears now that he could have been right.
I just hope he's delusional about his other prediction. I mean it's a crazy thought right out of survivalist pulp fiction. He predicted that W. would find a way to stay president beyond the 2008 elections by creating a constitutional crisis effectively ending democracy in the US.
Crazy. Right? RIGHT???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)