US not morally superior to Syria

Over on Truthdig, Juan Cole makes a cogent argument for why diplomacy, not cruise missiles, are the best tool for defusing the Syrian crisis. For instance:

I am not arguing that because the United States and its allies have indiscriminately killed large numbers of innocent noncombatants in the past, the Syrian government should be held harmless for its own gas attack at Ghouta, which killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Two wrongs never make a right. I am arguing that the United States is in no moral or legal position to play the Lone Ranger here. The first steps Washington should take are to acknowledge its own implication in such atrocities and to finish destroying its chemical stockpiles and join the ban on land mines and cluster bombs.

Now that we’re in the 21st century, moreover, it is time to cease using the supposedly macho language of violence in response to political challenges. Tossing a couple of Tomahawk cruise missiles on a few government facilities in Damascus is not going to deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons, and it will not affect the course of the war. Sonni Efron, a former State Department official and now a senior government fellow at Human Rights First, has argued that the United States and Europe could have a much more effective impact by announcing that in response to the Baath provocation they were going to close the loopholes that allow Syrian banks to continue to interface with world financial institutions. This strategy would involve threatening third-party sanctions on Russian banks that provide Damascus with a financial backdoor. A united U.S.-EU push on this front would be far more consequential for the Syrian government than a limited military strike.

The price of heroism

I am sorry and shocked, but not necessarily surprised, to learn that Bradley Manning has been sentenced to 35 years in prison for releasing information to Wikileaks that showed evidence of US war crimes. Manning released an eloquent statement in response to the sentence. The statement is reproduced in its entirety below. This text is a rush transcript posted by Common Dreams, and refers to Manning's decision to seek a pardon from President Obama:

The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We've been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we've had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.
I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized in our efforts to meet this risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown our any logically based intentions [unclear], it is usually an American soldier that is ordered to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy—the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, the Japanese-American internment camps—to name a few. I am confident that many of our actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

As the late Howard Zinn once said, "There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."

I understand that my actions violated the law, and I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intention to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.

If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.

The Bradley Manning Support Network has a link to a petition in support of a pardon for Manning.

Unhappy anniversary

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, According to the New York Times, both Democrats and Republicans did their best to ignore this:

Never mind that Iraq remains in perilous shape, free of Saddam Hussein and growing economically, but still afflicted by spasms of violence and struggling to move beyond autocratic government. With American troops now gone, the war has receded from the capital conversation and the national consciousness, replaced by worries about spending, taxes, debt and jobs. Whether the United States won or lost, or achieved something messy in between, seems at this point a stale debate.

This may be evidence that both Democrats and Republicans are morally bankrupt.

But some folks remember. For instance Jan at Can It Happen Here? posted this reminder on Monday. Democracy Now! posted an interactive timeline of all of their Iraq War coverage, which is continuing.

Looking at the consequences of the Iraq War is painful and disturbing. But is worth attending to the consequences of past and present US military interventions in the hope that we might prevent such evil and folly in the future.

Honoring peace workers on Armistice Day

As I remind readers of my blog every November 11th, the holiday we celebrate today was originally called Armistice Day. This interesting essay explains why:

Believe it or not, November 11th was not made a holiday in order to celebrate war, support troops, or cheer the 11th year of occupying Afghanistan. This day was made a holiday in order to celebrate an armistice that ended what was up until that point, in 1918, one of the worst things our species had thus far done to itself, namely World War I.

World War I, then known simply as the world war or the great war, had been marketed as a war to end war. Celebrating its end was also understood as celebrating the end of all wars. A ten-year campaign was launched in 1918 that in 1928 created the Kellogg-Briand Pact, legally banning all wars. That treaty is still on the books, which is why war making is a criminal act and how Nazis came to be prosecuted for it.

As usual on Armistice Day, I want honor those who work for peace. This year I would like to honor the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. WILPF was founded in 1915, at the height of the Great War whose ending is celebrated by Armistice Day. Nearly 100 years later, this organization continues to work for peace, disarmament. economic justice, the environment, racial justice, and human rights. Plus, they sponsor this really cool site dedicated to ending corporate personhood.

WILPF, I salute you. In the words of Holly Near, "the bravest warriors are the ones who stand for peace."

(Hat tip to Coleen Rowley for the link to the post about Armistice Day.)

What is so disturbing about the killing of Bin Laden

Naomi Klein on Facebook posted a link to this useful and disturbing article at thenation.com. Jeremy Scahill reports that Osama bin Laden was killed by sailors from the Joint Special Operations Command. To me, here is the most important part of Scahill's report:

Both President Bush and President Obama have reserved the right for US forces to operate lethally and unilaterally in any country across the globe in pursuit of alleged high value terrorists. The Obama administration's expansion of US Special Operations activities globally has been authorized under a classified order dating back to the Bush administration. Originally signed in early 2004 by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, it is known as the “AQN ExOrd," or Al Qaeda Network Execute Order. The AQN ExOrd was intended to cut through bureaucratic and legal processes, allowing US special forces to move into denied areas or countries beyond the official battle zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Gen. David Petraeus, who is poised to become director of the CIA, expanded and updated that order in late 2009. "JSOC has been more empowered more under this administration than any other in recent history," a Special Ops source told The Nation. "No question."

If elements in the US executive branch, intelligence services, and military think that they have the right to take out bad guys without any kind of international due process, aren't they operating under the same ethical model that the terrorists are?

Malalai Joya allowed visa, calls for US withdrawal

Recently, the US government refused a visa to Afghan activist Malalai Joya for a trip to the US to promote the sescond edition of her autobiography, A Woman Among Warlords. Following a public outcry, the Obama administration has relented and allowed Joya into our country. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed Joya on Monday morning. Part I of the interview describes the recent situation in Afghanistan and why the US government initially denied Joya entrance into the US. In Part II of the interview, Joya calls for the end of the US occupation of Afghanistan.

The down side to DADT repeal

This post on Truthout just brightened my morning. Blogger Jess Guh gives a cogent analysis of the drawbacks of  the recent repeal of the US military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy for gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members. As Guh observes, "yet another oppressed minority group has been pulled into being exploited by the American military-industrial complex."

Guh asks whether she is the "only queer person in the country that is sad about the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'?" I would like to assure her that she is not. Whether she knows it or not, Guh's principled criticism of the US military is not something new. Once upon a time, there was a radical lesbian feminist movement that worked to make the world very, very different.

Like most stories that begin "once upon a time," this one is an oversimplification. For one thing, that movement isn't really gone. (That's a blog post for another time.) For another thing, it wasn't just one movement, it was at least 30 of them. We argued about sexuality, about the best way to get rid of racism, about whether to work with male allies, about dozens of other things. But we were clear that we wanted the world to change in fundamental ways. We didn't just want a piece of the pie, we wanted a whole new recipe. We wanted to get rid of patriarchy, capitalism, US imperialism, and to create an egalitarian world. (I pause after writing that sentence. My Facebook friends--some of whom don't know me very well--are going to see this post. Okay friends, if you didn't know about my radical past, I suppose it's time you found out.)

Sometime during the early 1990s, something shifted. As I recall, it started with the first Gulf War, which, if nothing else, was a great propaganda victory for then-President George H.W. Bush. Or maybe the change was inspired a rash of anti-gay ballot measures in places like Colorado and Oregon. All of a sudden, it seemed that instead of working for radical change, everyone wanted to join the army and get married. In such dangerous and rightward drifting times, I suppose it was a natural response for many activists to try not to appear too subversive to the established order.

But the established order has some fundamental problems of injustice and unfairness, and now new generations of activists are discovering this. As Jess Guh writes:

The American military's track record of inclusion is poor by even the lowest of standards. Black Americans were first allowed to serve in the military during the Revolutionary War, when Lord Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, promised freedom to any runaway slave that fought for the British army. George Washington, needing more soldiers, followed suit. I'll let you guess how many of them actually received their promised freedom. Due to fears of giving Black folks weapons and racist doubts that they were mentally capable of being good soldiers, they were not even allowed to officially serve and enlist until 1862 during the Civil War, despite having fought courageously since the revolutionary war. During WWI, US military leaders decided they would rather use black units for suicide missions where they would likely die, instead of sending their white counterparts. For their valiant efforts, no awards or citations would be given to those soldiers of color until 1996, nearly 80 years later.

This philosophy of contempt and "we'll let you serve, but only on our terms" is not limited to race. Women, even those who meet the physical ability requirements, are officially banned from ground combat. But once again, when bodies are needed, the military conveniently changes its mind. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it's been well known that due to manpower shortages,women have been serving in front-line positions identical to those of men, yet there has been no budge in the official policy. And lest you even entertain the notion that the ban represents some sort of arcane but well-intended form of chivalry, consider that a 2003 survey of female veterans found that 30 percent reported being raped while in the military (women serving in Iraq were reportedly being hospitalized for and even dying of dehydration because they would avoid drinking water in order not to have to make runs to the lavatory alone at night). That's not even counting cases of sexual assault and harassment. In 2007, only 181 out of 2,212 reported sexual assaults were referred to courts martial. The equivalent arrest rate for these charges among civilians is five times that.

It's well worth your while to read Guh's entire post, and then to visit her blog.

Then and now: the failures of US imperialism

Historian Alfred McCoy has written a fascinating comparison of the situation in Vietnam in 1963 and the situation in Afghanistan today, with additional information about US support for dictators in Iran, Cuba, and Nicaragua. I found it courtesy of t r u t h o u t. I'm quoting McCoy's conclusion below.

In this new landscape of sovereign states that emerged after World War II, Washington has had to pursue a contradictory policy as it dealt with the leaders of nominally independent nations that were also deeply dependent on foreign economic and military aid. After identifying its own prestige with these fragile regimes, Washington usually tries to coax, chide, or threaten its allies into embracing what it considers needed reforms. Even when this counsel fails and prudence might dictate the start of a staged withdrawal, as in Saigon in 1963 and Kabul today, American envoys simply cannot let go of their unrepentant, resentful allies, as the long slide into disaster gains momentum.

With few choices between diplomatic niceties and a destabilizing coup, Washington invariably ends up defaulting to an inflexible foreign policy at the edge of paralysis that often ends with the collapse of our authoritarian allies, whether Diem in Saigon, the Shah in Tehran, or on some dismal day yet to come, Hamid Karzai in Kabul. To avoid this impending debacle, our only realistic option in Afghanistan today may well be the one we wish we had taken in Saigon back in August 1963 -- a staged withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Don't know if this is really so wonderful

According to a story posted on t r u t h o u t, former Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed the end of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that excludes open lesbians and gay men from military service.

Meanwhile, Katherine Franke at the Gender and Sexuality Law blog has a post that expresses some of my difficult feelings about this issue. As Franke notes, the end of DADT "comes with no small measure of discomfort on the part of more progressive members of the community in so far as this civil rights issue marries lgbt politics with the values of militarization, state violence, and enormous human suffering." Her thoughtful post explores the changing ways the US military is dealing with sexuality as it struggles to find recruits willing to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, and is well worth reading in its entirety.

US forces execute eight Afghani children

Dawg's Blawg from Canada has this disturbing report of the murder of eight children by US-led forces in Afghanistan.

US lesbian soldier seeks asylum in Canada

Womens eNews reports that after suffering through months of anti-lesbian verbal and physical abuse, Private Bethany Smith received the anonymous death threat that convinced her to leave her post at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky in 2007, and head for Canada in the hopes of receiving asylum there.

"It said that they were going to break into the supply room and get the keys to my room and beat me to death in my bed," Smith said, adding that the letter came only a couple months after she learned the Army was deploying her to Afghanistan. "It was at that point that I knew I was more afraid of the people who were supposed to be on my side than people we were supposed to be fighting overseas."

More than 12,000 service members have lost their jobs because of the U.S. military's so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy. A disproportionate number of those discharges are women, according to 2008 statistics gathered by the Washington-based Servicemembers Legal Defense Network from the government under the Freedom of Information Act.

After two years in Canada, Smith is still fighting to receive asylum. In November, Canadian Federal Court Justice Yves de Montigny ruled that the country's refugee board should reconsider Smith's case, which it had earlier denied.

The entire article is short and well worth reading.

Give war a chance?

I've been trying to fight off a cold, and didn't have a chance to read this thoroughly, but Paul Rosenberg has an analysis of President Obama's War-Is-Peace Prize speech over at Open Left. It looks really interesting, and I'm going to read it sometime soon when I have some mental energy.

Troop surge will "magnify the crime against Afghanistan"

CommonDreams.org has reposted an eloquent opinion piece from The Guardian/UK by Malalai Joya, a feminist activist and former member of the Afghan Parliament. Joya says:

After months of waiting, President Obama is about to announce the new US strategy for Afghanistan. His speech may be long awaited, but few are expecting any surprise: it seems clear he will herald a major escalation of the war. In doing so he will be making something worse than a mistake. It is a continuation of a war crime against the suffering people of my country.

I have said before that by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire. Now Obama is pouring fuel on these flames, and this week's announcement of upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan will have tragic consequences.

Do yourself a favor. Read the whole thing.

The Nation on the crisis in Gaza

In this thoughtful editorial, the editors of The Nation call for President-elect Obama to demonstrate strong leadership now to encourage Israel to take the necessary risks to bring lasting peace to the Middle East. They say that encouragement from Washington is necessary to bring about a solution that will offer dignity, and security both to Israel and the Palestinians.

Tell Obama to work for renewed Gaza ceasefire

Feminist Peace Network has a link to a petition to tell President-elect Obama to end his silence on the situation in Gaza. When I followed the link to sign the petition, I found this interesting site dedicated to peace in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, happening-here? also has a good post on the situation in Gaza.

Who Are the Taliban?

This report from TomDispatch.com and the Nation, via Truthdig, is a bit long, but well worth reading.

When the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan in 2001, "Afghans celebrated the downfall of a reviled and discredited regime," post author Anand Gopal reports. "...But years of mismanagement, rampant criminality, and mounting civilian casualties have led to a spectacular resurgence of the Taliban and other related groups." Apparently now many Afghans support the Taliban, and similar Islamic militant groups, because they see the militants as their protectors against rampant criminal activity.

No "good war" in Afghanistan

Over at truthout, Camillo "Mac" Bica makes The Case Against Escalation of the War in Afghanistan.

Haven't we already caused enough trouble?

JOTMAN reports a US attack on Syria.

This may be scarier than the Wall Street mess

On Wednesday evening the US Senate may done something worse than pass the $800 billion Wall Street bailout plan.

Inter Press Service offers this report on an agreement ratified by the Senate that allows US companies to sell nuclear technology to India. This despite the fact that India refuses to join the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

With passage of the legislation, Washington will officially end a nuclear embargo on India that it first imposed in retaliation for Delhi's explosion of a nuclear device in 1974.

After the test, Washington helped organise the international "Nuclear Suppliers Group" (NSG) that strictly regulated what nuclear technology its members could provide to "non-nuclear states" that refused to join the NPT and submitted to certain International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. India refused to do so and in 1998 conducted yet another test.

In order for the deal concluded between the U.S. and India last year to be ratified by Congress, the 45-member NSG had to agree to largely exempt India from those terms, essentially lifting the ban on civilian nuclear trade. After a strong lobbying campaign by Washington, the NSG agreed to do so in early September.

India has agreed to open 14 of its civilian reactors to international inspectors. But the deal with the US specifically excludes India's 8 military reactors from the inspection agreement.

More on Russia vs. Georgia

JANINSANFRAN also has a good analysis of the situation in Georgia, along with a map.

happening-here?: Enter the arc of mountainous agony