There seems to be a lot of outrage in the US right now, assuming that the press is describing it accurately, about the killing and mutilation of four "civilians" in Iraq. I put "civilians" in quotation marks because these people appear to have been ex-military who were wearing flak vests and were carrying weapons when they were killed and that doesn't really fit my ordinary definition of a civilian.
Be that as it may, they were killed and mutilated which is quite horrible. It reminds me a great deal of how Iraqi civilians died on an hourly basis during the "active phase" of the war, although they were most often killed and mutilated by American soldiers, sailors and Marines whom, I assume, rarely took pleasure in the destruction of such lives. When one loses one or more family members, friends and neighbors to an occupying force, I suspect that one has difficulty in maintaining a positive perception of ones' occupier.
I suppose the thing that I find most peculiar about all of this is that the US broadcast television networks do not show what a war looks like. Americans are constantly criticized for having no understanding of what war means. It's pretty obvious that when you are not seeing any pictures of what's actually happening, it's difficult to form a judgment of what it means. Does this mean that I think that the US media is aiding and abetting American stupidity? Well yes, since you asked, yes I do.
Americans are dying in Iraq. That doesn't bother me. That people are dying in Iraq bothers me, but Americans dying in Iraq leaves me cold. I'm sorry for their families, but I feel no compulsion to grieve any differently for them than for the thousands of Iraqis who have died there.
Finally, I wish to remind everyone of three words. C'est la guerre. This is what war looks like, people die ghastly deaths in war. There is mutilation, torture, rape, pillaging and lots and lots of senseless death. What did you expect?
This has been a gnawing question for quite some time. I have personally pondered that perhaps the Bush administration had promised him the capitalist equivalent of 70 virgins in the afterlife if he went along. This post from Juan Cole however, may, and I say may, explain the reason.
Essentially, Professor Cole suggests (with assistance from Obsidian Wings) that Tony Blair was terrified that the Bush administration was only interested in Iraq and was planning on totally ignoring al-Qaeda and the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Blair therefore made a bargain of almost Faustian proportions; to wit, if you will attack the terrorist camps in Afghanistan with our help we will stand with you and attack Iraq. I have no idea how true this might be, but it has that "ring of truth" to it for me. Incidentally, you can expect the Guardian to have a ball with this. I do think that Blair will deny it, although I must admit I think it might be smarter for him politically to come clean with it, although that would of course leave Bush twisting in the wind in a huge way.
Republicans regularly attack Democrats for not "supporting the troops." I find this criticism rather self-serving much of the time since for most of these Republican would-be patriots seem to feel that supporting the troops means allocating more money to the Department of Defense for weapons programs that are increasingly Brobdingnagian in both the size of their budgets and in the descriptions of what they will do. In many cases, this kind of "support" leads to situations where there is money for new weapons development, but none for the ceramic chest plates that make Kevlar vests "bullet-proof.
In this article about the expanding Defense budget, there is a repetition of the traditional Republican complaint that the Clinton administration cut the budget for the military "too much" after the end of the Cold War. That the Clinton administration "starved" the military budget is a canard that is repeatedly quoted but seldom explained. A former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration attacked this lie in a brief op-ed piece.
Absurdly, because both parties are unwilling to discuss military policy critically, the only criticism comes from the military. This is absurd because the military is because of its obviously hierarchical structure is not well-designed for self-criticism. Nevertheless, there are a few brave soldiers, sailors and Marines who dare to point out the flaws and corruption in the system. Here's a cute little story about corruption in the Navy.
To be continued . . .
There is a finite amount of oil in the ground. As it becomes scarcer, its price will increase. When the demand outstrips the supply, the price will increase rapidly.
"As we hit the peak, soaring prices - $70, $80, even $100 a barrel - will encourage oil companies and oil states to scour the planet for oil. For a time, they will succeed, finding enough crude to keep production flat, thus stretching out the peak into a kind of plateau and perhaps temporarily easing fears. But in reality, this manic, post-peak production will deplete remaining reserves all the more quickly, thus ensuring that the eventual decline is far steeper and far more sudden."
I will write more about this soon, but for the moment you should read the entire short piece from the Los Angeles Times.
In case you've been living in a cave, or are just trying to hide from the reality of it, Wal-Mart is not your friend and if you shop there, you are essentially fucking yourself. Here's yet another reason why, "The Wal-Mart political action committee, meanwhile, has abruptly become the largest corporate PAC in the nation, funneling 85 percent of its congressional contributions to Republicans." This quotation is from a column in the Washington Post.
I remember when people used to get upset about killers going free because of a "technicality." I remember feeling relieved that the judicial process was such that ignoring such "technicalities" led to acquittals and that district attorneys made such errors at their peril. I suppose that was a more innocent time in the United States. Prosecutorial misconduct seems commonplace in the US these days. But I occassionally find hope closer to home.
I will follow the lead offered by the German court in saying that this decision has nothing to do with the innocence of the accused. The crime was horrendous, that does not in any way however, justify judicial "shortcuts." That said, this entire situation could have easily been avoided if the Bush administration had not decided to prevent material witnesses from testifying. If you are upset about this turn of events, be upset at the Bush administration. Honor is due TalkLeft.
I often find myself prejudging the southern United States. I am aware that there are intelligent people there and that many of them despise racism and prejudice against minorities. I am painfully aware of the irony of my feeling intolerant about some of their less broad-minded behaviors. So when I read articles like this one, I find myself filled with mixed emotions. On the one hand, I am very glad, even proud, that there are people who are willing to stand up to the mob. On the other hand, what the fuck is wrong with the majority here?