War & Peace

The Democrats ran in 2008 on the platform of ending the Iraq war, and won largely on that platform. Now they are failing to deliver upon it.

It is true that they have a thin majority in the Senate and a not much wider one in the House. It is also true that it takes 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, which they don't have.

But here's the thing. It takes 60 votes to pass legislation. That means that they can easily defeat any massive Republican war spending bill.

I think they are worried about the Republicans painting them as being against the troops. So what? If the Republicans vote against a Democratic funding bill that provides adequate funds for an orderly withdrawal, aren't they doing the same? "No" votes on both are votes to prevent the funding from passing.

They easily have the votes to defeat massive Republican spending bills. So why not advance a spending bill like they campaigned for, and watch all the Republicans vote against it? If no funding at all passes, they achieve their objective, just not as cleanly, and the Republicans would be the ones voting against funding. Make the Republicans take some heat for a change, and give them no choice but to compromise.

I was surprised by the reactions to my story Saturday on Israel and Lebanon. Several pro-Israel posters are apparently in complete denial about what the Israeli military forces are doing.

Today, the American network ABC reported that Israel had bombed a Kleenex manufacturer, numerous farms, and all the major roads out of Lebanon. And they showed pictures of all of these during their evening newscast.

I find it highly unlikely that ABC is making this up.

One person asked, essentially, "do you really think a democracy could do this?" Yes. It's happened many times before. The United States and Britain did this sort of thing when they destroyed tens of thousands of homes and killed over 25,000 people, most of them civilians, in the bombing of Dresden. The United States also was responsible for the nuclear bombs dropped over japan, killing 140,000 people instantly and countless more due to the effects of the atomic weapon.

Being a democracy is no guarantee against extremism. Some Israel supporters need to take a hard look at what their military is doing.

As I explained, none of this is to defend the attacks against Israel, which of course are also terrible.

But I think Israel's strategy is going to wind up costing them -- they are creating huge numbers of angry Lebanese, that perhaps didn't have the motivation to attack Israel before, but now do. (Of course, the same error could be attributed to their enemy)

And both sides are catching innocent civilians more than military targets.

It's very sad.

You know, I'm sick and tired of this whole "you wronged us, therefore you will pay" attitude that there seems to be in international politics today. Both sides of the whole terrorism thing seem to have that attitude.

But the latest sanity-defying news is that Israel is bombing wheat silos, food stores, and lines of civilians trying to escape Lebanon. Huh? What is the strategic value in having starving civilians in Lebanon? To me, it seems like a recipe to make things worse for Israel. You kill people's family in Lebanon, and you create large numbers of very mad family members that now have a reason to plan terrorist attacks on Israel.

It defies sense.

Why don't people try to value human life for once, everywhere?

I got an e-mail yesterday evening with a link to this article at the Atlantic Monthly: If America Left Iraq: The Case for Cutting and Running by Nir Rosen.

This article does a good job of explaining what just about everybody else has failed to do: why leaving Iraq now actually does more towards building a stable, free, and peaceful Iraq than keeping our military there does. (And does less to embolden terrorists.)

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil - Guardian Unlimited Jun 4 2003 10:57AM ET [Top News Composite]

In recent days, various footage has surfaced that has not been shown on American networks. Some, such as the Iraqi video of American POWs, has been widely discussed in the United States. Others, such as pictures of Iraqi civilian injuries, have barely been discussed at all in the US.

People might remember that photos of the war in VietNam were a key element of turning the tide of public opinion against that war. A similar thing happened with the now-infamous incident on Somalia more recently. Because of this, I wonder whether the mainstream American media is acting this way in an effort to avoid altering public opinion against a profitable ratings-grab for them.

I think that Americans should be able to see important footage of the war that our government has instigated. Moreover, I believe that the idea of hiding these photos from Americans because an American audience can't take it goes directly against all the "strong and mighty" talk the government is spreading, and is, in fact, wrong. Americans can process these images just like the rest of the world can. And, fundamentally, anyone, anywhere, looking at these images cannot help but conclude that war is a terrible thing. I personally see these as even more reasons why the Bush administration should not have rushed into this.

Watching the video makes me think Rumsfeld's claims that the Iraqis are violating the Geneva POW accords are shaky at best. That assertion rests on the Iraqis humiliating the prisoners, and from my view, it looks like the prisoners are humiliating the Iraqis.

In any case, below are links to what people are seeing everywhere in the world except the United States. I link to these resources so that Americans can get a glimpse of what people all across the globe are seeing. I want everyone reading this to understand that I am absolutely against poor treatement of POWs and civilians.

Please beware that these images are graphic and people, especially children, easily disturbed by this content should exercise due discretion.

The Arab television network Al-Jazeera has been widely running these photos of Iraqi war victims. One of them shows a child with half its head missing. NPR has reported that particular image running all over the Arab world, and solidifying public opinion against the war there.

The Iraqis recently released a video of interrogation of American POWs. This video has been seen by US military officials, networks, and others, but has not been released to the public. Several people on the Internet made recordings of this. There are several copies, apparently from a Dutch TV network. You can find them here and here.

The Village Voice has a good article listing some media sources on the Internet that provide better, more in-depth Iraq coverage than American media does. Why should you care? The article lists a few recent questions posed to Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld by Tim Russert: "How's your health?" and "Do you prefer French fries or freedom fries?"

Along with those sites, make sure to check out the Iraqi blog.

Iraqi Blog - This blog from Baghdad is must-read for two reasons. First, it will tell you more about what the coming war feels like than 24 hours of network babble. Second, it is a vivid example of why blogging matters. (Thanks to Kathy Quirk for the link.)... [David Weinberger]

Those who wage war in pursuit of the name of peace themselves cause the failure of their professed goal.

After listening to Mr. Bush rightly claim that the Iraqi placement of human sheilds in military installations is an atrocity, then assert that we will spare no agression, I can but wonder how one can justify the slaughter of innocent lives as "peacemaking".

One wonders about the Iraqis, too. If Hussein truly cared about the well-being of his country, he did have ample opportunity to leave the country and at least hinder American plans to attack.

We must also remember that many people in the Iraqi military do not want to be there (just like many people in the American military in VietNam did not want to be there), and would rather not kill. Military casualties are innocent too.

My final thought for tonight: several countries proposed a compromise resolution in the UN spelling out specific conditions the Iraqis must meet in 30 days. Why was 30 days too long for Bush?