Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
That was then...
This is now...
Three years ago, when I was predicting that Obama's war policies would be exactly the same as McCain's, everyone thought I was crazy. Perhaps now that the President has renewed the Patriot Act, kept Guantanamo open, restarted the military tribunals, launched new offensives in both Iraq and Afghanistan, (not to mention quietly giving up on timetables and admitting that we're not leaving 'til it's done), launched a war "of choice, not necessity" in another Middle Eastern country, and violated the sovereignty of a supposed ally by sending a mordgruppe in to launch an attack on their soil without their permission or consultation, my predictions look a little less silly.
I am not criticizing President Obama; it was, and is my contention that a President's actions are largely defined by physical and political realities, and that Obama isn't, and Bush wasn't a villain. No matter how much they might long to, a President cannot effect real change by himself; I wish people would invest some of their attention into the Congressional, Gubernatorial, and State Legislature races instead of thinking a single vote every four years is going to fix everything.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Those aren't secret "Black Sites", it's just Kinetic Questioning!
From the Associated Press: "“Black sites,” the secret network of jails that grew up after the Sept. 11 attacks, are gone. But suspected terrorists are still being held under hazy circumstances with uncertain rights in secret, military-run jails across Afghanistan, where they can be interrogated for weeks without charge, according to U.S. officials who revealed details of the top-secret network to The Associated Press. The secrecy under which the U.S. runs that jail and about 20 others is noteworthy because of President Barack Obama's criticism of the old network of secret CIA prisons where interrogators sometimes used the harshest available methods, including the simulated drowning known as waterboarding. Human rights advocates say the severest of the Bush-era interrogation methods are gone, but the conditions at the new interrogation sites still raise questions. Obama pledged when he took office that the United States would not torture anyone, but former detainees describe harsh treatment that some human rights groups claim borders on inhumane. "
We can't blame it on the locals or our allies, either; this our project, which the "sovereign" Afghanistan government has no control over: "The status of the temporary facilities likely would be negotiated as part of a future security agreement, transitioning power to the government of Afghanistan."
I did predict in September 2008 that Iraq was a non-issue because candidates Obama and McCain would behave identically regarding the wars. I had hoped I was wrong, but we've already gotten news that we'll be in Iraq past 2012, in Afghanistan past 2014, (after new "surges" in each) started a new war in Libya (and anyone who thinks the no-fly zone is the end of it should read up on the no-fly zone we imposed on Iraq in 1991), re-started the military Gitmo trials, made secret deals to supply arms to the Libyan rebels, and, apparently, opened new Black Sites as fast we closed the old ones. I don't see how McCain could have done more.
Friday, October 09, 2009
That must have been some beer
President Obama is doing a good job. Although he wasn't my choice- I wanted to see a race between Giuliani and Clinton- I have to admit he's performed well so far; he hit the ground running, and has had a good 8 1/2 months. Yes, I oppose some of his programs, but they are the programs he ran on, and he won; he has every right to push them. But that doesn't explain today's surprise announcement: President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Heavens to Hecate. The Nobel Peace Prize? I don't understand. Guantanamo is still in business. We're still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and North Korea are still pursuing nuclear weapons. He hasn't re-submitted Kyoto to Congress, or negotiated a replacement. He hasn't negotiated a peace treaty to settle anyone else's war. He hasn't negotiated a new Middle East accord. He didn't improve our national image enough to even get Chicago to the second round of voting for the Olympics. His only peace accomplishment has been to get a hotheaded college professor to sit down with a hotheaded cop to share a beer. That must have been some beer.
I realize I'm out of step with the world today. Everyone else is singing songs of praise to Obama. Celebrities are pledging to be a good servant to him. And the Nobel committee has such faith that they have awarded him a prize for what he will do. It's ridiculous of me to ask why; nothing I say will stop the chorus. If every tongue were stilled, the songs would still continue- the rocks and stones themselves would start to sing. Obama, Hey Bama, Bama Bama Obama, Hey Bama, Obama...
UPDATE: Turns out it wasn't the beer after all. The Nobel nominations have to be in by February- President Obama had been in office only 12 days.
Heavens to Hecate. The Nobel Peace Prize? I don't understand. Guantanamo is still in business. We're still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and North Korea are still pursuing nuclear weapons. He hasn't re-submitted Kyoto to Congress, or negotiated a replacement. He hasn't negotiated a peace treaty to settle anyone else's war. He hasn't negotiated a new Middle East accord. He didn't improve our national image enough to even get Chicago to the second round of voting for the Olympics. His only peace accomplishment has been to get a hotheaded college professor to sit down with a hotheaded cop to share a beer. That must have been some beer.
I realize I'm out of step with the world today. Everyone else is singing songs of praise to Obama. Celebrities are pledging to be a good servant to him. And the Nobel committee has such faith that they have awarded him a prize for what he will do. It's ridiculous of me to ask why; nothing I say will stop the chorus. If every tongue were stilled, the songs would still continue- the rocks and stones themselves would start to sing. Obama, Hey Bama, Bama Bama Obama, Hey Bama, Obama...
UPDATE: Turns out it wasn't the beer after all. The Nobel nominations have to be in by February- President Obama had been in office only 12 days.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Pentagon lifts media ban on coffin photos
"WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday said he was lifting the ban against media photos of soldiers' coffins returning to the U.S. and will instead leave the decision up to families." About time. Read more at msnbc
Friday, September 05, 2008
Non-issue issue #2: the Iraq war
That might seem crazy at first glance- there's no issue they have more differences on. Senator Obama opposed us going to war in the first place. Ah, but going to war is no longer the question.
President Obama won't bring the troops home one day earlier than President McCain would. All the experts agree that if we leave before a viable government is in place, there will be civil war and a bloodbath. President Obama will be very risk-averse in Iraq; no way in hell is he going to have the legacy of the first black President be "the man who lost Iraq" and "the man who gave us the Middle-East killing fields".
President McCain won't leave the troops in Iraq one day longer than President Obama would. Put these reasons in whichever order you wish: McCain knows that if the troops don't start coming home soon, the nation will become ungovernable- he did live through the Vietnam years, you know. McCain knows the horrors of war personally- he's not going to leave his beloved men and women in uniform in harm's way longer than he has to.
If you've been watching the last six months, the candidates have been moving closer to each other despite their rhetoric. Obama is now talking about not leaving precipitously, and McCain is now mentioning timetables. Both of them will rely on the same State Department and Pentagon experts when in office. So hold their feet to the fire about counterterrorism, and how to balance that against our freedoms- but don't let yourself be swayed one way or the other by emotional rhetoric about the Iraq war.
President Obama won't bring the troops home one day earlier than President McCain would. All the experts agree that if we leave before a viable government is in place, there will be civil war and a bloodbath. President Obama will be very risk-averse in Iraq; no way in hell is he going to have the legacy of the first black President be "the man who lost Iraq" and "the man who gave us the Middle-East killing fields".
President McCain won't leave the troops in Iraq one day longer than President Obama would. Put these reasons in whichever order you wish: McCain knows that if the troops don't start coming home soon, the nation will become ungovernable- he did live through the Vietnam years, you know. McCain knows the horrors of war personally- he's not going to leave his beloved men and women in uniform in harm's way longer than he has to.
If you've been watching the last six months, the candidates have been moving closer to each other despite their rhetoric. Obama is now talking about not leaving precipitously, and McCain is now mentioning timetables. Both of them will rely on the same State Department and Pentagon experts when in office. So hold their feet to the fire about counterterrorism, and how to balance that against our freedoms- but don't let yourself be swayed one way or the other by emotional rhetoric about the Iraq war.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A sobering thought
for the debate on Darfur, Burma, and even Iraq is hidden within Peacebang's post, Panzi Hospital in which she referrences a New York Time article, Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War . She is quite right to use terms such as "evil" and "Satan": "BUKAVU, Congo — Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynecologist, cannot bear to listen to the stories his patients tell him anymore. Every day, 10 new women and girls who have been raped show up at his hospital. Many have been so sadistically attacked from the inside out, butchered by bayonets and assaulted with chunks of wood, that their reproductive and digestive systems are beyond repair... Eastern Congo is going through another one of its convulsions of violence, and this time it seems that women are being systematically attacked on a scale never before seen here. According to the United Nations, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 in South Kivu Province alone, and that may be just a fraction of the total number across the country."
What does this have to do with Darfur, Burma, and Iraq? This quote: "The attacks go on despite the presence of the largest United Nations peacekeeping force in the world, with more than 17,000 troops."
We are already on record calling for UN intervention in Darfur, and many are calling for the same in Burma. The more responsible of the "Get out of Iraq now, not another dollar, not another life" crowd propose having the UN intervene to stop the certain bloodbath that would follow such a precipitous withdrawl. (Rev. Sinkford doesn't mention it in his fax to our congressmen, nor does it appear in the petition he asks us to sign- I guess he isn't worried about the aftermath) The situation in Congo shows just how realistic these calls are; if the largest UN force in the world can't stop mass rape in the Congo, how are they going to do anything in all these other situations? Do our calls for UN intervention really accomplish anything other than making us feel good for having "done something"?
What does this have to do with Darfur, Burma, and Iraq? This quote: "The attacks go on despite the presence of the largest United Nations peacekeeping force in the world, with more than 17,000 troops."
We are already on record calling for UN intervention in Darfur, and many are calling for the same in Burma. The more responsible of the "Get out of Iraq now, not another dollar, not another life" crowd propose having the UN intervene to stop the certain bloodbath that would follow such a precipitous withdrawl. (Rev. Sinkford doesn't mention it in his fax to our congressmen, nor does it appear in the petition he asks us to sign- I guess he isn't worried about the aftermath) The situation in Congo shows just how realistic these calls are; if the largest UN force in the world can't stop mass rape in the Congo, how are they going to do anything in all these other situations? Do our calls for UN intervention really accomplish anything other than making us feel good for having "done something"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)