Europe - The New Terror Front? What I said to the BBC.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge On occasion, I am a guest on the BBC program World Have Your Say and yesterday the topic was Michael Chertoff's statements about how Europe was the next platform for terrorists. Chertoff wants the EU to adopt America's Patriot Act and other civil right stripping laws and programs. Suffice it to say, Europe is cheesed-off. The question put to the guests was "Should Americans be afraid of Europe?" My response was "no." I think, and most guests agreed, Europe isn't the problem, the Bush Administration is. Chances are I will go my entire life without ever meeting someone from Al Qaeda, however there is a big chance I will be confronted by someone from MS13 - a street gang primarily populated by Hispanics. During the last month in North Carolina there have been four murders by MS13 members for their ritualized initiations. Their modus operandi is to approach an random bystander and ask them for directions, then shoot them in the face. MS13 is not the only criminal street gang operating in America - we still have the Crips, the Bloods, and the White Aryan Resistance. Scholars have published study after study pointing to crime being an intersection of poverty and lack of education opportunity. You solve these two things with social programs, not with a War on Drugs or a War on Terror. MS13, the KKK and Al Qaeda are all progenies of the same problem. However, that problem is not Europe.

What happened to Al Qaeda in Baghdad?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeGo read this full bore, 100% Bingo article by Kossack, Brandon Friedman. From the diary... As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: "Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?" Simply put, the answer is no. The surge is not working and George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan were not right. Despite what right-wing blogs are saying, and despite what conservative observers are noting, the plunge in violence is actually the result of an Iraqi political decision made by and implemented by Iraqis—and the drop has little to do with the "surge"—an infusion of 30,000 troops (which wouldn’t fill a Major League stadium) into Baghdad, a city of six million people. What’s happening is really simple—and it’s happening in plain sight, in the traditional media. But it just so happens that, as far as I can tell, no one is connecting the dots. As Friedman points out, The Madhi Army went into a state of cease fire and the violence greatly retracted. Here is my question, where is Al Qaeda? We have been told for months about Al Qaeda being in Iraq and Bush Administration has been trumpeting Al Qaeda as a reason for extending the war in Iraq. Following that line of questioning, where are the Iranian elements? You know, the Iranians that have flooded Baghdad over the years with the sole purposes to kill Americans? What happened to them? Maybe the Iranians and Al Qaeda weren't there to begin with? Maybe this really was a civil war? It isn't the first time Bush claimed something was in Iraq and it turned out it wasn't there. Anyone remember the weapons of mass destruction?

Portrait of a Chicken-Hawk

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. Frederick W. Kagan Glenn Greenwald, whose forthcoming book is on the meaningless chest-thumping of chicken-hawk culture, offers the following illustration. He quotes Fred W. Kagan, whose argument against Jim Webb's proposal for allowing our troops more time at home between deployments, is that it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. So this amendment would actually require the Army and Marine Corps staffs to keep track of how long every individual servicemember had spent in either Iraq or Afghanistan, how long they had been at home, how long the unit that they were now in had spent deployed, and how long it had been home... Greenwald makes the point, and it's a good one, that weighing some paperwork concerns against the welfare of our troops is "almost too much to bear." But, with all due respect to Mr. Greenwald, the bureaucratic difficulty argument offered by Kagan isn't worth its weight in paper. My first thought reading that statement: I'm pretty sure they do that now. So, I called my husband at work. Being a Marine Corps officer, he has a little experience with these matters. His thoughts: That's what admin shops do. All of that data is tracked now. At most you might have to collate it into a central database, a spreadsheet if you will, and post it. It might add a step, maybe two. Apparently Mr. Kagan is laboring under the misconception that we don't currently keep records on "every individual servicemember" (I mean, they're just cannon fodder, right?) and that all of our current deployment logistics, after-action reports, awarding of medals, combat pay, hazardous duty pay, tax deferments, supply, specialized training, activating reservists, reporting of deaths and casualties, etc., etc., etc... All of it is just happening by magic. War is a bureaucratic nightmare, Mr. Kagan. That is reason number... ok, I've lost count... why lazy, fat fucks, with no military experience, whatsoever, should shut the fuck up about what is and isn't a hardship for our men and women in uniform. But Kagan's defense against Webb's defense of our troops is even more disingenuous than his erroneous inflation of a few paperwork headaches. Kagan goes on to explain that Webb's plan to legislate hard rules about the length of "dwell time" will "severely constrain the pool of units and personnel that could be sent." And that's the heart of the problem, now isn't it. We. Don't. Have. Enough. Troops. Not to fulfill the grand vision of global of hegemony envisioned in his lazy, fat-fuck, neocon, wet dream. And we can't possibly go to a draft, because that would mean that Bush's chicken-hawk base might have to actually put their own tiny dicks into this fight and whatever support is left for this catastrophe will evaporate in a nanosecond.

Blackwater: Throwing Out the Mercs

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. The Iraqi government wants Blackwater out of Iraq, following an incident that has left at least 8 Iraqi civilians dead. "We have revoked Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq. As of now they are not allowed to operate anywhere in the Republic of Iraq," Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said Monday. "The investigation is ongoing, and all those responsible for Sunday's killing will be referred to Iraqi justice." But the Iraqi government will face an uphill battle. Blackwater, like other private military contractors, is functioning virtually outside the law. The question of whether they could face prosecution is legally murky. Unlike soldiers, the contrators are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under a special provision secured by American-occupying forces, they are exempt from prosecution by Iraqis for crimes committed there. Blackwater will most assuredly fight their de-licensing and they will have the full backing of the Bush Administration, because these extra-legal corporate warriors are integral to the "war on terra." I fully expect the Iraqi government to cave to US pressure. Tens of thousands of foreign private security contractors work in Iraq some with automatic weapons, body armor, helicopters and bulletproof vehicles to provide protection for Westerners and dignitaries in Iraq as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war. . . . Many of the contractors have been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys, but none has faced charges or prosecution. BLACKWATER: THE SHADOW WAR

Al Qaeda Map of the World

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge I had the most depressing meeting of my life yesterday (and in some ways uplifting but on a personal level that would bore you to tears). The reason it was depressing is because of who it was with and our discussion of the state of the world. My meeting was with a friend of mine who is a military contractor and a former Republican. This guy is one of the last bastions of business leaders in America who "get it." He has no problem making piles of cash, but he makes sure he EARNS it and he sure as hell does. He is one of the hardest workers I know and can work magic with troubled companies. He strives to keep manufacturing and jobs in the US but I believe in his heart, those days are numbered. As we discussed the state of the world, and the tragedy of the Bush Administration, he has declared the American Dream is dead as a doornail. "If you want the American Dream, go work in Europe, it is alive and well there. Bush has so destroyed the middle class, I doubt it can return with the business leaders we have now." Then we lamented the lack of leadership in corporate America. Over the last few years I have met with a lot of CEOs that frankly of no business running a business. The level of corruption and total lack of foresight is very troubling. These anti-CEOs are either running their business into the ground or flip the business and cash out - then go on to ruin another company. We talked more about how to fix it. One of his fast "emergency fixes" is "Vote Hillary Or Else!" The "else" being the total collapse of American society, economy and government. Keep in mind this is coming from a "life-long Republican" who voted straight tickets up until 2004 - Kerry was his first Democratic vote and remember, he is a military contractor. Maybe I am depressed for no reason. If someone like my friend can make such an extreme turnaround, maybe the rest of the country has had similar flashes of Jeffersonian insight? Regardless, we both agreed the Bush Administration is just a front for Big Oil and Cheney is guiding the chariots to secure and exploit the last of the fossil fuel resources in the world. It is all about oil - everything. Iraq? Oil. Gonzales? Oil. Warrantless wiretaps? Oil. All of it. In every scandal there it the recurring stain of fossil fuel. I am very tired of BushCo's oil slick.

Blacks and War

Watch video Jill at Jack and Jill politics recently posted another one of her challenging post. Yes, I said challenging post, because she challenges all of us. This challenge is about America's war on Iraq and the lack of conversation on black blogs about the disguised hypocrisy of America on this critical issue. Jill recently wrote that she is frustrated like most African Americans on the continuing failure to set a timetable on Iraq. She feels that members of Congress and the political blogs are ignoring African-Americans, in part I think because we have not blogged as much about Iraq as other issues. I agree we Jill. Black bloggers should get more vocal about the war. We need to do what Malcolm and Martin taught us, become more international in our conversation. We need to comment of the Iraq war as they did about the War in Vietnam and the war against our people. I just finished taking another look at my blog(s). At African American Opinion we have posted on issue of the war many times see below: War (41) War and Peace (30) War on Iraq (15) I'm reminded of what Martin Luther King said during his Christmas Sermon back in December of 1967, which reminds me of 2007, just change the name President Johnson to Bush, Just change the country North Vietnam to Iraq: "And the leaders of the world today talk eloquently about peace. Every time we drop our bombs in North Vietnam, President Johnson talks eloquently about peace. What is the problem? They are talking about peace as a distant goal, as an end we seek, but one day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. All of this is saying that, in the final analysis, means and ends must cohere because the end is preexistent in the means, and ultimately destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends." --Martin Luther King, Jr., "A CHRISTMAS SERMON" 24 December 1967 Read more of Jill's thoughts below: African-Americans on the Iraq War -- The Military and Electoral Impact What's interesting is that you don't see a lot of discussion about the Iraq War among black bloggers. That's because we all agree on it and solutions seem obvious. If other bloggers are like me, I am just so sick of talking about it. The difference among black folks is that we were largely against the war before it started and have quietly been protesting it ever since. Most African-Americans can point to someone they know personally who has been impacted in some way -- negatively -- by this war. Could be a neighbor, relative, classmate, co-worker, relative of a relative. You nah mean. Me -- I've had 2 cousins go over to Iraq. And my cousin's half-sister's husband. This colors our view of those who believe in a wait-and-see or worse yet, a "surge" approach. Discussions in the black community tend to focus on Osama bin Laden -- isn't he still at large? -- and on the Money -- it sure seems like a lot of money is being spent over there in Iraq. How is it that none of that money was seen fit to spend on helping the victims of Katrina or re-building New Orleans? Or on better healthcare, education, poverty, our cities, the environment for folks living right here in the United States? Still it's critical to talk about it because Democratic candidates looking for black votes will need to speak to us on those terms to be heard. And it also impacts the current national security. Quietly, the military has been dependent for generations on regular enlistment by young black soldiers. Why do you think that the educational and career opportunities are always touted. That's been the lure for young men and women eager to join (or stay in) the middle class. More HERE

Serve Your Country -- Lose Your Kids

Appearing at The Blogging Curmudgeon, My Left Wing, and the Independent Bloggers' Alliance. Now there's a trade off, huh? Add this to the list of sacrifices that the small minority of Americans known as "our troops" is making for Bush and his cronies. Men and women in the armed services are losing their kids in custody battles for no reason other than being deployed. Such was the reality of Lt. Eva Crouch, who returned from her National Guard duty to find that she had stumbled into a legal gray area. A federal law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is meant to protect them by staying civil court actions and administrative proceedings during military activation. They can't be evicted. Creditors can't seize their property. Civilian health benefits, if suspended during deployment, must be reinstated. And yet service members' children can be _ and are being _ taken from them after they are deployed. Some family court judges say that determining what's best for a child in a custody case is simply not comparable to deciding civil property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers. And so, in many cases when a soldier deploys, the ex-spouse seeks custody, and temporary changes become lasting. Family court judges have a fair bit of latitude because their mandate is best interest of the child; not necessarily what seems fair to parents. And in a sense, judges such as the one who handed Eva's daughter over to her ex-husband have a point. Endless war is terrible for the children and family members of the troops who have to fight it; especially given that many of them are serving in back to back deployments of ever-increasing duration. Two years and $25, ooo dollars later, Crouch has regained custody of her daughter Sara. But an unknown number of other service people have returned from battle to fight on another front; the courts. Military and family law experts don't know how big the problem is, but 5.4 percent of active duty members _ more than 74,000 _ are single parents, the Department of Defense reports. More than 68,000 Guard and reserve members are also single parents. Divorce among military men and women also has risen some in recent years, with more than 23,000 enlisted members and officers divorcing in 2005. Isn't it wonderful having a President who is so devoted to family values?

Kicking the "war on terror" habit

I saw this headline a couple days ago while on a break at work, but didn't get a chance to look for the story until now. Thought this was worth sharing--from Time Magazine... Edwards rejects the "War on Terror" At last month's Democrat (sic) debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror." And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase." It's about bloody time. More like this, please, Dems? 'K thanx.

Russia and the Oil Revolution

click to enlarge As we all know, we have troops deployed around the world. Yet I wonder why we have so many deployment locations. Then it occurred to me that we still have a lot of military in place where it would be strategically viable should other oil wars spring up. Do we really need all those troops in Europe? Yes, if you need a strong force to seize East European and Russian oil resources. All those Pacific forces would also come in handy for a Siberian offensive. Are we really spending almost half of our income to the US Treasury on what-if scenarios for oil grabs? Maybe. Even though most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis, we attacked Afghanistan. Right after we went in, construction on the Afghanistan pipeline began and the next oil target was Iraq. I really hate to think I need a tin-foil hat today, but are we keeping all these troops deployed globally for peaceful missions? Do we really need to be in Japan, 60 years after World War 2? How about Germany, France, Italy and Spain? Are there any Al Qaeda elements these days on Guam?

"Law & Order" Star Bashes Gandhi

As protesters rang in the fifth year of Operation Endless Bloody Occupation with demonstrations around the country, Fred Thompson lashed out at that favorite whipping-boy of all chicken-hawks: Mahatma Gandhi. To follow Gandhi's example, he admonishes anti-war activists, would cripple our foreign policy. Like Dubya who recently tried to compare his quest to that of General George Washington, he is completely misunderstanding the lessons of history. Will these angry white men never stop painting themselves and the country they've commandeered as noble underdogs? Oh the righteous anger of the enfranchised! What the "Law & Order" star doesn't appreciate is that in any Gandhi analogy, we would be the British Empire, not India. Here are some words of wisdom from the mediocre actor. (Yes. I'm still smarting from the loss of Steven Hill.) The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When American’s think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein. Gandhi probably wouldn't approve, but I can live with that. What both the right-wing hawks and the left-wing peace movement don't get about Gandhi is that he was really a tactician and a master of asymmetric warfare. He knew India could never have defeated the British Empire in open combat and their violent uprisings were resulting needless deaths. Gandhi's strategy made their deaths effective. It was a strategy with two major prongs: economic (boycotts) and military (peaceful civil disobedience). Passive resistance leveraged the morality of the British occupiers. You can only slaughter so many peaceful, unarmed people before your stomach starts to turn from the shame of it. Thompson also misrepresents Gandhi's role in WWII. While it is true that Gandhi recommended to the British: I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them. He was also a pragmatist: At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before. It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they had become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan's influence. Their bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets. [emphasis added] Lest we forget that Gandhi, ever the politician and tactician, was using his possible support of the British as a bargaining chip, twisting the arms of his nation's occupiers. After lengthy deliberations, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied in India herself. As the war progressed, Gandhi increased his demands for independence, drafting a resolution calling for the British to Quit India. This was Gandhi's and the Congress Party's most definitive revolt aimed at securing the British exit from Indian shores. Bloody peacenik! Fred Thompson should worry less about Code Pink's identification with Gandhi. What should concern the war party would be the possibility that a leader of Gandhi's stature and tactical acumen could emerge in Iraq.