The story of Haditha is finally emerging in its ghastly entirety, just the kind of tale this sort of conflict inevitably produces. A war of hostile occupation, fueled by a generalized distaste and even hatred of the people being occupied; a war with no discernible strategy or end point, in which soldiers are sent on patrol after pointless deadly patrol until their hopelessness and anger tears them apart from within. This is a brutal act, but it’s enormously easy for someone like me to sit safe at home and moralize — if I were there on patrol, I don’t know what the fuck I’d be doing, and let’s face it, neither would you. We are all responsible for this crime, because we have been unwilling to restrain our government from committing the larger crime of invading Iraq and compounding that crime with the evils that have proceeded from the occupation. I say “unwilling” because we are free to make our voices heard. If we demanded an end to this war, it would be over. 

One of our biggest problems as a society, in my opinion, is that we let ourselves off the hook too easily. It’s part and parcel of the prevailing trend in modern American politics — separate the voters from the costs of major policy decisions and you will gain their tacit support. This is especially true of anything involving our all-volunteer military. For the first time ever (I believe), our forces have been deployed in a major conflict for an extended period of time without the support of a national mobilization. In essence, the money to fund the deployment is entirely borrowed — another first. We are just barely aware that there’s a war going on, and yet the administration, members of Congress, and political pundits intone Churchillian rhetoric about the long struggle ahead, etc., etc., as if to sell the American public on a flattering image of itself as a defiant, heroic people facing incredible odds (like Britain during the blitz) without the inconvenience of, well, any actual sacrifice… unless you are among the unlucky minority with family members in the military. 

And when the inevitable happens — when it becomes clear that our soldiers are cracking under the stress of multiple tours of duty and shooting civilians like Cheney shoots caged quail — how do we react? Well, the military begins by blaming the messengers, calling the journalists who follow the stories traitors and dupes of al Qaeda, etc. After about 3 or 4 months of that, when they’re forced by mounting evidence to admit to some portion of the ugly truth, it becomes the individual soldiers’ fault. They then apply the dubious remedies of courts martial and sensitivity training slide shows, while the administration and its various flacks encourage us to look at the bigger picture (it took an endless war to get conservatives talking about “context”). But there’s one thing Bush’s cousin Tony Snow won’t tell us at the daily briefing — we are more responsible for those deaths than the soldiers who pull the trigger. This is the result of a criminal foreign policy, and because we enjoy the unparalleled freedoms of American democracy, we must also accept the responsibility for what our elected officials get us into. 

Our soldiers have very few options. We have many. If we don’t want them to kill, we should bring them the fuck home. Now.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pressed the flesh with Dubya this week, collecting his vaguely qualified endorsement of the unilateral “disengagement” plan that would complete the project of dispossession forced upon the Palestinians for the past 39 years. The plan, originally proposed by Sharon, seeks to redraw the borders of Israel to encompass major settlement blocks in the West Bank and virtually all of East Jerusalem, while securing the Jordan valley and dividing the Palestinian population into isolated cantons, cut off from one another and from Jerusalem, their cultural, political, and economic hub. It officially throws all relevant UN resolutions out the window from 242 forward, allowing Israel to claim land it seized in the 1967 war — land that is clearly not part of the State of Israel, illegally occupied by the IDF since that time. Bush’s reservation about the disengagement plan is really just a diplomatic chimera — he would like to see the same result achieved with some level of participation by the Palestinians. What they term being a “partner in peace” is really just taking part in your own oppression. 

There’s no question but that the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza is illegal, and that any Israeli settlements built within those areas violate international law, aside from being so plainly unjust that any 5-year-old could see it. And yet it continues, with the support of our government and both major political parties. And like any occupying power since Roman times, the Israeli government has attempted to replace direct rule of the territories with some form of proxy rule, via compliant (and bribe-friendly) local agents. During the years prior to the first intifada, Tel Aviv tried to accomplish this by imposing collaborationist Palestinians as local officials, mayors, etc., while working to undermine the influence of the PLO. In fact, Israeli intelligence had a hand in getting Hamas established as a component of this divide-and-rule strategy. The Palestinian uprising in 1987-91 demonstrated to Israel that, even with a severely marginalized PLO, Palestinian nationalism could not be countered through the use of individual quislings. Then came Oslo. 

Indeed, the brilliance of the Oslo Accords was that they co-opted Arafat and the PLO as that long sought-after colonial administration, in the form of the Palestinian Authority. The PA was charged with handling security (Israeli security) while the development of Israel’s colonial infrastructure in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and (to a lesser extent) Gaza continued at a steady pace. In return, the PA would distribute all aid and tax moneys (minus graft) and Arafat could call himself “president”. This gave us the spectacle of his overfed lieutenants living opulently amongst the unspeakable squalor that was Palestinian society, while the superimposition of the Israeli settlement infrastructure continued unabated by this sham peace accord, through both Labor and Likud administrations. Though virtually unknown to the American public (which has underwritten much of this construction), Israel’s project in East Jerusalem and the West Bank has been an inescapable reality for Palestinians, its trajectory very clearly discernable. They see the Fatah-dominated PA as an accomplice in this, at worst, or as an institution too ineffective and self-serving to stop the land grab, at best. Recall, too, that Abbas (Abu Mazen) was chosen by Sharon, and that more popular Fatah figures were kept from competing (some by remaining in Israeli jails). That’s largely why Hamas won the legislative elections — because they are obviously not in the pocket of Israel.

One thing hasn’t changed: there can be no peace without justice. We ignore this fact at our own peril. 

Looks like Admiral Rove is settling into his new post (job description: save Republican Congress at all costs). You can see the big juicy cultural issues being tossed out in time for November, as fat boy scrutinizes each race, each district, each county for that crucial wedge. Bush’s loopy plan to station National Guard troops at the Mexican border — in conjunction with fences, barriers, high-tech sensors, and unmanned drone aircraft — is a clear gambit to mobilize the “minuteman” vote in these crucial border districts. Congressional races are all about getting the base (and I do mean base) constituencies in action — that’s why we’ll see various draconian proposals aimed at immigration, gays, abortion, and other brain-stem targeted issues. Even with Bush’s ratings in the low to mid 30s, they can still carry the day if they capture the top-of-mind issues in enough districts and get the American Taliban to march zombie-like to the polling stations. Overall turnout in mid-term elections is usually way below even the poor numbers we see during presidential races, so the X-treme voters are far more influential. 

I can tell you, in my hometown Congressional district (the 24th in upstate New York), we are going to witness the most monumental political clash in living memory. Our 12-term Congressman is retiring this year — he’s a “moderate” Republican, though with an increasingly reactionary voting record as his party has swerved drunkenly to the right. The Democrats have an opportunity to pick up this seat for the first time in decades (the last time Utica, NY, was represented in Congress by a Democrat was 1948), and the GOP is desperate to hang onto it… so both parties will be spending like sailors this fall, bringing in the heavyweight political consultants. It’s going to get ugly, my friends, very ugly, and I can already smell the pungent aroma of the porcine Mr. Rove wafting up from the sewers. For a few brief moments, this backwater district will seem like the most important place on the planet… then, after the November vote, it will recede back into total obscurity, all promises forgotten once the hacks have packed up their tents and beat it. 

How do we stay important? Move the whole bloody district down to the Mexican border. There just aren’t enough economically desperate people of color streaming across the Canadian border for the national focus to remain fixed upon us. Not that all that attention is a positive thing — I for one would not want to live near what is increasingly becoming a militarized zone; a kind of Maginot line against immigration (it’s likely to be every bit as effective as the original, too). And another thing (ahem), how are they going to deal with ordering the National Guard to the southwest when so many of them have served multiple tours in Iraq? How are these guards people going to react to the situation at the border after having been shot at for months on end? Is there anything else we can ask of these citizen-soldiers? I mean, for chrissake, we’re giving them yet another mission? Meanwhile, Bush and company are awarding their rich constituents massive tax cuts — that’s their sacrifice. Some give up their lives, while others give up their tax burdens. They also serve who line their pockets. 

Next: the National Guard will be deployed as hood ornaments for the rich. Expect an address to the nation sometime soon.  

Well, well. Looks like the NSA has been checking into our phone records and keeping a big fat Orwellian eye on whom we’ve been calling, when, and for how long. Oh, damn! I shouldn’t be writing about this — the mere discussion of any topic detrimental to the Republicans gives aid and comfort to our enemies. So get that straight, people — talk = treason, okay? With the cooperation of their good friends and campaign contributors at Verizon et al, the government is opening your mail and checking out your phone bill… and it’s none of your goddamn business. They just want to know if you’ve been talking to any hardcore terrorists, like — say — the folks at the Thomas Merton Center. It’s a matter of national security, so don’t talk about it or you’ll make Senator Jeff Sessions very very angry. Don’t even think about it — the terrorists will read your mind and take comfort in our lack of discipline. There’s nothing they can’t do, nothing!   

Are you afraid yet? Good. So am I. 

God this is idiotic. I mean, does anyone seriously believe that al Qaeda operatives would never suspect their phone records are being scrutinized unless they read about it in USA Today? In this age of disposable cell phones and calling cards you can buy at your supermarket checkout counter, who the hell would plan terrorist attacks using their household phone? The Democrats are treating this like a privacy issue, but it’s more serious than that. Sure, the notion of the government checking my phone bill is annoying and invasive, but the larger question is what exactly are they looking for? When they vacuum up large volumes of calling data, what makes the NSA connect-the-dot-o-tron go ka-ching!? A call to Yemen? No… ’cause these are domestic calls. Once again, the administration is saying “trust us”, but after all we’ve seen in the last few years, that only recalls to mind the line from Animal House: “Hey… you fucked up. You trusted us.”

We know that they’ve been targeting lawful, peaceful organizing and activism. We know that they’ve been painting animal rights activists as “eco-terrorists” and the like. We know that they routinely engage in “pig-fucking” their political adversaries. What is the big picture here… the elephant in the room? Domestic spying is like a narcotic to the executive branch. Once they start using it, it’s hard to stop. Cointelpro is probably the most glaring example, but it’s not the only one. What we’re seeing may be the outlines of another massive abuse of power by an administration that’s politically on the skids, paranoid, and willing to do just about anything to advance its highly unpopular agenda. That’s not conspiracy mongering — I’m just observing that there is reason for concern. It’s similar to the detainee abuse scandal; the many disparate pieces strongly suggest a unifying policy at its base, one that reflects well established patterns of executive behavior stretching back decades. We were expected to believe that the abuses at Abu Ghraib — taken straight from the CIA torture manuals — were the work of rogue subalterns. Now we’re supposed to believe that opening our mail, listening to our phone conversations, and infiltrating our bridge clubs will make us safer, when all the while they’re failing to meet even the minimum standards for preparedness and prevention identified by the 9-11 Commission and dictated by common sense. 

I confess to being a wee bit skeptical. 

The jury in the Moussaoui case handed in a life sentence; one less body on the 9/11 heap, and that’s all to the good… particularly since the government wanted so badly to burn this mad Frenchman, throwing every grisly detail of the terror attacks at the jury. Total victory has been elusive in the prosecutorial war on terror. This perhaps explains the administration’s preference for military tribunals and the legal limbo of “enemy combatant” status. All this due process nonsense really gets in the way when you want to get some decent sentencing done. Still, the news isn’t all bad for the Department of (In)Justice. They managed to put Lynne Stewart away for the heinous “crime” of violating an administrative agreement, once again stoking the jury with a stack of evidence from unrelated terror attacks and playing tapes of uncle Osama. Even more outrageously, they’ve convicted an NYU grad student — Mohammad Yousry — because he performed his normal duties as translator for the defense team. (See David Cole’s essay in last week’s Nation for more.) Don’t you feel a whole lot safer now? Okay, how about now?

Most of these cases are built on sand, wholly dependent on an extremely weak guilt-by-association component. That’s why the Lodi, California terror case is a shambles and why they failed to convict Sami Al-Arian on a single charge (though federal prosecutors pulled a fast one on this one at the last minute, agreeing to a plea bargain that would amount to time served and deportation for Al-Arian, then apparently getting Alberto Gonzales to intervene with judge Moody so that he would add 18 months to Al-Arian’s sentence on the basis of testimony thoroughly discredited in court and rejected by the jury — see John Sugg’s piece in Creative Loafing for details). Washington is looking for people to take the blame, whether or not they are demonstrably guilty. There’s a kind of circus show-trial feeling to the proceedings, like the Moussaoui case, the sentencing phase of which degenerated into an “I won,” “No, we won” dispute with a madman. How is it that the press can still report with amazement the stuff that comes out of that guy’s mouth? What do they expect him to say? Here’s a guy who exaggerated his own importance in the 9/11 plot in an effort to get himself executed — a ploy so lacking in credibility that the jury could not send him to the death chamber. It’s as if the TV reporters are saying, “Yes, Tom… he’s still crazy.” 

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is continually setting new benchmarks for its own illegal and extra-constitutional behavior. Just this week it was revealed that the president has issued “signing statements” on a large number of laws passed by Congress during his tenure — these documents essentially announcing his administration’s intention to ignore the law or apply it as they see fit. Their reading of the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military is extremely expansive, bordering on banana republic-type “strong man” powers. Russ Feingold’s censure motion is designed to call the president on this arrogation of near-dictatorial power and hold him responsible for breaking the law, but it appears the Senate Democrats haven’t got the belly for it. One would think they might want to make an issue of this for the fall elections — you know, position themselves as the party of the constitution, the party of rights and the rule of law, that sort of thing. I for one am not holding my breath. They feel, I’m sure, that if they defend the rights of the accused, it makes them look “soft on terrorism” or, in pop jargon, “gay.” 

Slogan for the Republicans this fall: We suck. Slogan for the Dems: We suck, only less hard.  

Remembering the Holocaust this week, a prominent New York Rabbi described Iran as an existential threat to Israel and the Jewish people. (Never to be outdone in the overstatement game, our own Senator Charles Schumer declared there to be no difference between Hamas and Nazi Germany… Hamas now being the most powerful military/industrial power in the world, hell-bent on territorial expansion.) It does astonishingly poor service to the memory of the millions killed by Hitler and his crew to use them as part of an effort to whip up war fever. Iran is years away from producing nuclear weapons, if they ever shall, and such a capability would only be useful to them as a deterrent. Ahmadenijad may obligingly employ Paleolithic anti-Israeli rhetoric, but I doubt he and the ruling elite of Persia will be ready to commit national suicide any time soon… for that is what the offensive use of nuclear weapons would mean for them, and they know it. The only nations that pose an existential threat to other nations are the major nuclear powers, including Israel (possessed of 200-300 undeclared nuclear weapons ) and, of course, the U.S. with its overwhelming arsenal of potential global destruction. 

So long as there is the threat of attack from hostile foreign powers, Iran will seek a nuclear deterrent. This is a general principle in international relations — one boldly underscored by the Bush administration’s open policy of unprovoked war. Our military forces are on both sides of them, and we have a history of interference in their internal affairs, from World War II through the CIA-sponsored 1953 coup and straight up the present day. Think they’re paranoid? Wouldn’t you be? Hard question for most Americans to answer. We don’t have a history of domination by foreign powers, nor any experience dealing with nations more powerful than we are. What’s more, we seem to have a national incapacity to put ourselves in other people’s shoes — that’s far too “gay” for us. That’s why we treat weighty topics like war with such casualness — we can sit through most of our wars like it’s pay-per view television. Our politicians reflect that distant attitude, advocating the hard line and a very early resort to violence. (See Hillary Clinton.)

With so many willing executioners among us, it doesn’t take much to get us embroiled in some overseas fiasco. Just apply the fear factor. We’re already running down the now familiar checklist with respect to Iran. Nuclear ambitions (or the hysterical accusation thereof)? Check. Semi-unshaven and very ethnic-looking leader whose name may be preceded in print by modifiers like “hard-line” and “extremist”? Check. Inspirational and or material support for groups we identify as terrorist — like the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah — as opposed to practitioners of state terror allied to Uncle Sam? Check. Enough natural resources, such as oil, gas, gold, and other riches, to make Pat Robertson want to invest and Cheney want to rethink his “other priorities”? Double check. Iran gets special bonus points for saying nasty things about Israel and for being provocatively and unrelentingly adjacent to not one but two countries we’ve wanted to invade and many others who live on top of our oil. 

Damning evidence indeed. As our Solomon-like president famously said in the run-up to his Iraq triumph, what else do we need to know?

Iran has nuclear ambitions. We cannot allow them to develop the world’s most destructive weapons. Where have you heard this before? It seems incredible that, with the fire we started in Iraq still burning out of control, we appear to have Iran in the crosshairs. The constant drumbeat of inflammatory rhetoric and hysterical accusations makes open conflict seem more and more inevitable with each passing week. Some say the hostilities have already begun, and there can be little doubt that the more clandestine limbs of our $400+ billion-a-year military octopus are now coiling their way through the Persian hinterlands, just as they did for many years in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. You would think that someone in the administration would understand what a huge mistake such an adventure would be… but it pays to remember that these folks truly believe Operation Iraqi Freedom has been a screaming success. And if today’s Iraq is what “success” looks like, then a bloody, protracted regional war sparked by an attack on Iran will likely be viewed as a great triumph by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld (the never-say-die kid) and Rice. And Hannity and Limbaugh. Did I forget anyone? Good — then we just need six helmets, six rifles, and a flight to Teheran. Let’s get this party started! 

(I’m going to miss Scotty McClellan. Sure
wish I could start missing Rumsfeld, as well.)

Seriously — is there anyone in the U.S.who’s truly convinced by this hokum about Iran? Are we cowering in the shadow ofyet another colossal threat, too enormous to be ignored? As Ross Perot used to say, this is just sad. We seem to be sleepwalking our way into yet another unnecessary war, spurred on by the same kind of transparent exaggerations that brought us to Baghdad. As I’ve mentioned in this column before, the U.S. has now established a very weak standard for invading other countries, and unless we start actively resisting on a grassroots level, this administration and its successors will just do it again and again and again. I’m personally convinced that if there were a draft, resistance to these optional wars would be overwhelming. As long as we can ignore these conflicts, we won’t feel compelled to do anything about them, aside from grumble and perhaps quietly disagree with the policymakers. Not enough to stop a juggernaut. 

Back in February-March 2003 on the eve of Bush’s “shock and awe” campaign, many thousands of Americans took part in candlelight vigils and protests, with turnouts I would have thought inconceivable just a few months before (In my little town of Utica, NY, about 200 people turned out along the main street, and passersby were overwhelmingly supportive). Many thought this might be enough to change a policy long-since decided upon and set in motion. It wasn’t, and I think a lot of people fell into a kind of disillusionment with the process of non-violent resistance. This is where the Iraq war differs most dramatically from Vietnam — during the Vietnam war, most families didn’t have the luxury of simply turning away. You, your child, your sibling, your parent…. perhaps several family members were liable to be sent over there to kill or be killed, so you would tend either to be on the “victory” bandwagon or on the barricades of the anti-war movement. It took a long time even under those circumstances for opposition to build, but eventually it reached a magnitude that deeply troubled policymakers and forced action. Today, the draft would never be tolerated. And the main engine for opposing the Iraq war is resistance by military families, who have been given the full burden to bear on their own. 

When it comes to the actual fighting, this is their war… but when it comes to the ultimate responsibility for ending it, it’s ours. 

You’ve probably heard this, but I’m told Moussaoui is accused of conspiring with failed “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid to make up the fifth 9/11 hijacking team. Talk about the cell that couldn’t shoot straight! For chrissake, Reid was going to name Moussaoui — his fellow suicide bomber — in his will! If Moussaoui gets the death penalty, it will be like putting F-Troop in front of the firing squad for collaborating with the Hawkowis. 

Has anyone else noticed that Zacharias Moussaoui is a lunatic? The man’s ravings go way beyond incoherence, and he has a total disregard for his own well-being — he’s suicidal, as a matter of fact. So… are we going to execute the criminally insane and, if so, what do we hope to achieve by doing so, other than cementing ourselves on the extreme of those great nations (China, Iran, etc.)  who still employ capital punishment with abandon? That special kind of vengeance we Americans call “closure”? Yes, Moussaoui appears to have been part of the 9/11 plot — that’s a lot more than we can say about the vast majority of people our government has killed in the name of those gruesome attacks. But I don’t believe Moussaoui could have actually stopped the attacks from happening precisely because he is a mad man; I think it’s a stretch to consider him responsible  for more than 3,000 deaths when he was obviously cannon fodder too incompetent to evade apprehension by a wholly dysfunctional FBI. If he is executed, it will be because he was addle-brained enough to get caught… and because the government is anxious to make someone — anyone — pay the ultimate penalty for the crimes of 9/11. These, it seems to me, are insufficient reasons for putting someone to death. 

Granted, I’m against the death penalty in general. But this goes beyond the moral issue of whether or not it’s right to allow the state to kill people. The feds are trying to execute an incompetent for crimes perpetrated by others. What is the point of showing the jury photos of charred bodies from the terror attacks on the WTC and Pentagon? Who hasn’t seen these and/or similar images? The jury is obviously being stoked up with scenes of atrocities committed by long-dead co-conspirators of Moussaoui. He may have wanted to be on one of those hijacked planes, but ultimately he wasn’t. And if Moussaoui might have prevented the attacks, so too might the FBI have done so if they’d been doing their jobs properly. It seems to me the gap between Moussaoui’s intentions and the actual deed may have been virtually insurmountable for him, given his mental state and his apparent lack of self-control. What ever the case may have been, he did not kill those people… he just refrained from sparing them. 

Will adding another body to the heap help the dead rest easier? Will it help their families achieve a modicum of justice? The first question is unanswerable; the second is for the families themselves to decide. I’m sure 9/11 families are all over the map on this one. Some have taken very principled stands against the government’s use of violence under the banner of the terror attacks; others have reacted with bitterness and even indiscriminate anger. I for one can’t blame people for feeling rage over the loss of a loved one in such a heinous way. But the law should not be in the business of using that rage to further specific policy objectives. The push for Moussaoui’s execution is one small part of that misappropriation. Probably the most fascinating aspect of this trial has been what it revealed about the FBI and the Justice Department. After all, there has been a concerted effort to tamp down scrutiny of the administration’s actions leading up to 9/11. Dubya fought the establishment of the 9/11 Commission tooth and nail; when he lost that battle, he tried to hamper its effectiveness in a number of ways — by putting Henry Kissinger at the helm, by restricting it to an impossible timetable, by refusing to give it subpoena power, and so on. He refused to allow Condi Rice to appear before the panel, then relented under pressure. He initially refused to testify, then agreed… but only before select members and only in the company of Dick Cheney, without being sworn and without allowing the Commission members to take notes out of the meeting. Why, exactly? 

Probably the same reason they want Moussaoui dead — smoke and mirrors. There’s Dubya’s “culture of life” for you.