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

The Sulfur Smell of John McCain

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeMeet The Press is hard enough to watch with Tim Russert asking pointless questions, but yesterday's show was brutally painful, mostly due to the appearance of John "Baghdad Walkabout" McCain. From the transcript: SEN. McCAIN: ...I hope that we will have the patience and the understanding on the part of the American people that they’ve made great sacrifice and all of us are saddened by it. But I hope we can also point out the consequences of failure, which is what the Democrats are proposing now. SEN. KERRY: Listen to that. You just said the Democrats are proposing failure. We’ve had... SEN. McCAIN: Yeah. (Unintelligible)...failure. SEN. KERRY: ...four and a half years of failure. The Republicans stood up and cheered for Rumsfeld, who had a policy of not enough troops. To his credit, John at least said he needs more troops. But the fact is they’ve supported every step of this president, misleading America about the course of this war. Last January the president stood up to Americans. You know what he said, Tim? He said, “We will hold them accountable to their benchmarks.” They’re not holding them accountable. They have no means of holding them accountable because they’ve said we’re going to stay there with 130,000 troops into next summer. They have no leverage. We are not proposing failure, as John loves to assert and Republicans loves to assert. We are proposing a way to strengthen America in the region. We’re proposing a way to, in fact, make Iraq successful to the degree that it can be by playing to the real undercurrents of their, of their cultural and historical divisions. Nothing in the surge addresses the question of Shia, Sunni divide. Nothing in the surge is going to resolve the fundamental reluctance of Iraqi politicians to make a decision, Tim. Now, we’re not talking about abandoning the place. Why do the Republicans have a complete inability to envision a foreign policy, as we used to have, Republican and Democrat alike, which plays to our strengths and builds alliances with other countries? Bring the United Nations back in. Bring the neighbors into this. Have a standing summit in a standing conference where we resolve these differences as best as can be. The United States can’t do it alone. And we have to change the equation so we regain leverage and initiative. That’s not walking away, that’s walking forward and putting us in a stronger posture. No where in the show does McCain offer any hint, solution, idea or Divine Jesus-Speak of a way for us to get out of Iraq. McCain and the GOP are constipated and can't think of any other idea other than to stay on the pot and hope everything comes out OK. You know, like Saigon.

The Huntress

New York Daily News: Fired Knicks VP puts Rangers' sex book in play She's going one on one with the Knicks, but Anucha Browne Sanders may know something about a little black book that could have New York Rangers executives skating on thin ice. The fired Knicks honcho claims she told her Madison Square Garden bosses in 2005 that members of the Rangers' front office were keeping a Kama Sutra wish list they would like to try out on members of the team's on-ice cheerleading troupe, her lawyer says. "Ms. Browne Sanders received information from her staff . . . that there had been some book being maintained by some Rangers executives," lawyer Kevin Mintzer told Judge Gerald Lynch. Mintzer said the book "reflected sexual positions and things like that that they were interested in keeping track of versus what they wanted from what skater." He added that Browne Sanders "was aware from one of her staff members that supposedly the book existed." That kind of recordkeeping could boost the chances of a second sex harassment case in which a former Ranger cheerleader is facing off against Madison Square Garden brass. In that suit, Courtney Prince, former captain of the Rangers City Skaters, claims she was fired after complaining to her bosses about X-rated come-ons by members of the team's public relations staff. The Garden has denied her allegations; a spokesman declined to comment yesterday. The revelation came during a break Wednesday in Browne Sanders' testimony in the bruising $10 million sex harassment trial pitting the team's former marketing director against coach Isiah Thomas and Garden Chairman James Dolan. Garden lawyers immediately objected to airing the Rangers' dirty laundry at the Knicks trial. "The Rangers situation has nothing to do with Ms. Browne Sanders," Garden lawyer Ronald Green said. "It's a different team." Lynch barred Browne Sanders from detailing the salacious allegation. She was allowed to tell jurors about the indifferent reaction she got when she brought the information to Garden President and Chief Operating Officer Steve Mills. "One of my employees, Petra Pope, brought something to my attention with regard to the sexual harassment claims by Courtney Prince at the Rangers, so I wanted to make Steve aware of it," Browne Sanders testified Wednesday in Manhattan Federal Court. "He [Mills] just shook his head." Browne Sanders claims she got similar reactions when she came to Mills with complaints that Thomas referred to her as a "bitch" and a "ho" and that star guard Stephon Marbury lobbed similar profanities about her behind her back. Mills' duties included oversight of the Rangers. You go, girl. Back when Whoopi Golberg used to be funny, I remember a monologue she did about Loretta Bobbett: "O.K., I want y'all to know that I don't condone what she did to her husband, no matter how much the asshole deserved it," she said. After a few seconds, a demonic smile slowly grew on Whoopi's face before she laughed out loud and added, "But I understand. Most women do. Even better, although I know it's wrong, it feels damned good to see guys going around being uncomfortable, being nervous, being scared. Why? Because that's how women feel all the time. It's fear, and that fear is a big part of our lives all the time." Whoopi was silent for a moment. Then she said quietly, "How does it feel, guys?" I wouldn't be surprised if Ms.Saunders saw that scene in Chinatown where Faye Dunaway coldly says to Jack Nicholson, "I don't get even, Mr. Gittes. My lawyer does." No, Ms. Saunders isn't using a knife, but by the time this trial is over, the corporate rapists at Madison Square Garden will probably wish she did. Good. What's tying everybody's jockstraps in a knot is the fact that the former vice president of the New York Knicks is refusing to play the Blame The Victim game. First of all, Anucha Browne Sanders understood from the beginning that it was a lose-lose situation. Offices, factories, and retail stores shouldn't be hostile snake pits of inequitable gender politics. But they are. By the sadistic rules of the armed penises who are either wearing Timberland boots or hiding behind their Armani suits, women are sluts if they say "yes", and whores if they say "no". (Not that the word "No" is in their dictionary, of course) A woman's status is dictated not by her intelligence but by her looks. Women are expected to ignore the inappropriate touching, pretend not to hear the misogynist insults, and not do anything when the raises and promotions they deserve are consistently given to somebody else [men]. So now we're supposed to feel sorry for the MSG honchos crying "Foul!" because Ms. Saunders is fighting back, and she's not playing fair? How does it feel, guys?

Purgatory For Alan Greenspan

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as the Independent Bloggers Alliance, The Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust. Alan Greenspan belongs to the Club of Emasculated Moderate Elites who enabled corporate theocrats to destroy the American Dream at home and annihilate our moral authority abroad. A prerequisite for membership is to first allow crazy ideologues to exploit their prestige and later disown the disastrous policies their reputations facilitated. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is a charter member of this club and a pathetic figure who criticizes the Bush Administration about Iraq when it no longer matters. Powell’s domestic policy soul mate, Alan Greenspan, joined him with his new memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures In a New World. Actually, one could argue that Greenspan was a charter member as early as 2001. The prescient and sagacious Paul Krugman wrote the following for his column entitled “Reckonings; Doing the Wrong Thing” on February 14, 2001: “Three weeks ago Alan Greenspan, in his now-famous testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, gave decisive aid and comfort to the advocates of huge, irresponsible tax cuts. Rumor has it that Mr. Greenspan himself was taken aback by the feeding frenzy unleashed by that testimony, and that he is now engaged in a backdoor campaign to limit the damage. (Damage to the nation, or to himself? Good question.) The Medley Report, a newsletter on economic affairs, says that ‘many Congressional Democrats have heard Mr. Greenspan -- or his aides -- tell them that he actually favors something like $1 trillion in total tax cuts rather than $1.6 trillion.’ But if those rumors are true, Mr. Greenspan's performance yesterday, in his first official testimony since he let the genie out of the bottle, was a profile in cowardice. Again and again he was offered the opportunity to say something that would help rein in runaway tax-cutting; each time he evaded the question, often replying by reading from his own previous testimony. He declared once again that he was speaking only for himself, thus granting himself leeway to pronounce on subjects far afield of his role as Federal Reserve chairman. But when pressed on the crucial question of whether the huge tax cuts that now seem inevitable are too large, he said it was inappropriate for him to comment on particular proposals. In short, Mr. Greenspan defined the rules of the game in a way that allows him to intervene as he likes in the political debate, but to retreat behind the veil of his office whenever anyone tries to hold him accountable for the results of those interventions.” The upshot is that Greenspan’s reputation in 2001 was at stratospheric levels following eight years of prosperity under President Clinton. It was a flawed prosperity to be sure, aided by the Internet bubble and trade policies that rewarded corporate elites at the expense of too many working people. Nevertheless, the fiscal management of the country was far superior under President Clinton and most were better off than they are today. Greenspan and Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin were regarded as the architects of an economic renaissance. As Krugman illustrated in his column over six years ago, Greenspan allowed the tax cutting privatization fundamentalists to exploit his reputation so wayward congressional moderates would go along. And when he had the chance to correct the record and prevent the fiscal insanity to follow, he choked. As Krugman put it in that column’s final paragraph: “Mr. Greenspan faced a test of character yesterday. He didn't have to admit to a mistake; to do the right thing, all he had to do was ‘clarify' his previous remarks. Yes, the headlines would have said ‘Greenspan Makes U-Turn.’ But isn't it worth accepting some brief personal embarrassment in order to head off a looming policy disaster that you yourself have helped create? Apparently not.” And what a disaster it’s been! Even without 9/11 and the Iraq War, the tax cutting privatization fundamentalists had us headed toward a path of deficits minus meaningful investments. It’s one thing to accumulate deficits if we make investments in infrastructure and human capital that deliver a return such as education, health care, renewable energy, bridges and levies. Contrary to generations of conservative propaganda however, the super wealthy don't "invest" their wealth into the economy and create jobs. Most horde it because they don't need to spend frequently on necessities. Greenspan's conduct in 2001 resulted in less money for people who truly are the engine of economic growth: small business entrepreneurs, salaried employees earning under $100,000 per year and low wage earners. Yet Greenspan continues to reject any accountability for his transgressions. According to the New York Times, Greenspan is “chagrined about his role in the Bush tax cuts.” The article describes Greenspan as surprised at how his endorsement of the Bush tax cuts would be perceived even as he recounts how Robert Rubin and Senator Kent Conrad, of North Dakota warned him. Yet Greenspan’s bewilderment is at best disingenuous. Rather like Claude Raines “shock” at finding gambling in Casablanca. He endorsed Bush’s tax cuts because they empowered the Ayn Rand economic fetishists who promote wealth redistribution in favor of the wealthy while claiming to champion liberty and a culture of work. Indeed, as Harriet Rubin reported in the New York Times, Greenspan was an admirer of Rand’s work. As a reward for his disservice to the American people, Greenspan’s book will no doubt soon become a best seller as the republic spirals towards fiscal insolvency. That is Alan Greenspan’s legacy unless a true progressive is elected president in 2008. Either way Greenspan’s reputation should be condemned to a special purgatory for so-called moderates such as Colin Powell who mortgaged America’s standing and future for their own self-aggrandizement.