Fernando

 
Fernando was one of ABBA's biggest hits. There's a lot of debate about which war it refers to. The song mentions crossing the Rio Grande and that prompts many people in America to think of the Mexican revolution of 1910-1920. However, there aren't many examples of fighting that took place near the Rio Grande and there aren't too many examples of revolutionaries who crossed into Mexico from the USA.

Most people assume the song is about the Spanish civil war and the reference to the Rio Grande is just a generic reference to a river. Keep in mind that ABBA is a European group and the Spanish Civil War is still fresh in the memories of many europeans. For many it was glorious, but losing, fight against fascism.

The song refers to Fernando, a man who fought on the losing side against tyranny and fascism. Fernando was a revolutionary and a guerrilla fighter. He is now old and gray like many of the freedom fighters from all over Europe who went to Spain in the 1930's.

John McCain likes ABBA. I hope he appreciates that this song is about people who fought to defend their country from foreign domination. (Franco was supported by Hitler and Mussolini.)

---

Nuclear War Is Bad for You

 
A couple of scientists at the University of Colorado have modeled what might happen if there was a nuclear war between India and Pakistan [Regional nuclear conflict would create near-global ozone hole, says CU-Boulder study].

A limited nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near-global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade, according to a study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The computer-modeling study showed a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side would cause massive urban fires and loft as much as 5 million metric tons of soot about 50 miles into the stratosphere, said CU-Boulder Research Associate Michael Mills, chief study author. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, said Mills.

Wow! That sounds really bad. By the way, they forgot to mention one other nasty little detail—about 100 million people will die in the blasts and of radiation poisoning in the aftermath of the attacks.

Sort of make an ozone hole seem insignificant, doesn't it?

---

1,2,3, What're We Fightin' For?

 
From The Independent (United Kingdom) [Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights].

Everyone who supports Canada's role in Afghanistan should be very certain they know what kind of "freedom and democracy" we're supporting. The conclusion is obvious. It's time to cut and run and let the Afghans sort out things for themselves. We're not helping by choosing to support a government that; (a) can't control more than a tiny percentage of the country; and (b) shouldn't even be allowed to control that small bit. As for the rest of the country, we seem to be fightin' for warlords and the drug trade. Oh yeah, we also support Pakistan who allows a bunch of thugs to control 20% of the country where the meaning of "freedom" is very different from what we mean. [See the following links for other examples of rational thinking: This is what 77 Canadian lives buys]
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana (1905)

A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country's rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after "liberation" and under the democratic rule of the West's ally Hamid Karzai.

The fate of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has led to domestic and international protests, and deepening concern about erosion of civil liberties in Afghanistan. He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.

Mr Kambaksh, 23, distributed the tract to fellow students and teachers at Balkh University with the aim, he said, of provoking a debate on the matter. But a complaint was made against him and he was arrested, tried by religious judges without – say his friends and family – being allowed legal representation and sentenced to death.

---

[Photo Credit: Reuters]
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

Backwards Bush Countdown Clock

 
Trust me, it's not just Americans who are counting the days.

---

FOX News Anchor Want USA to Support Terrorism

 
This is really quite incredible. Brain Kilmeade is the co-host of of the Fox and Friends morning news program. He thinks the USA should support terrorists inside Iran who will set off car bombs in Tehran. The conservative right really doesn't get it, do they?

The war against Iran is coming soon to a theater near you.

---

[Hat Tip: Jim Lippard]

Do You Think Iran Will Get the Messsage?

 
Here's a scary report from the New York Daily News [ Bush eyes 'surgical' strikes vs. Iran, sez mag]. The Daily News article is based on an analysis by Seymour M. Hersh in the New Yorker magazine [Shifting Targets]. Hersh describes the increasing rhetoric about Iran's involvement in Iraq and the intelligence evidence that links Iran to the killing of American soldiers. This ties in with the growing realization that Iran is not about to develop nuclear weapons anytime soon. With that excuse gone, America needs another reason to justify the war against Iran. Here's how Hersh describes the situation ...

This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

It looks like the American people weren't buying the nuclear bomb spin so something new was needed. Who do you think is behind this new tactic? It's Dick Cheney, of course. Hersh quotes his unnamed source,

The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

Judging from what I saw on television last week, the media is buying into the switch in tactics. Almost everyone who interviewed Ahmadinejad asked about "killing American soldiers in Iraq." Is it really this easy to trick the media? Doesn't anyone have the gumption to stand up to the propaganda machine and ask the hard questions?

Realistically, what do you expect Iran to do? There's a bloody civil war going on just across the river. It involves, among other things, religious groups with which Iran has some sympathy. In addition, Iraq is being occupied by 150,000 troops from a foreign country that labels Iran as a member of the axis of evil. It would be shocking if Iran didn't have people in Iraq with a view to influencing the outcome. I suspect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are also sending "advisors" and supplies into Iraq.

The logic of the "surgical strike" tactic escapes me. Does the American administration really believe that Iran would roll over and play dead as soon as American bombers attacked supply bases in Iran? Isn't it likely that such an attack would galvanize Iranian public opinion leading to greater involvement in Iraq? Is it possible that some foreign nations like China or Russia would ship anti-aircraft missiles to Iran so it could defend itself? What if Iran retaliated by firing surface-to-sea missiles at the next aircraft carrier to pass through the Strait of Hormuz [Iran tests upgraded surface-to-sea missile]?

“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”

That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”

Surely those who advise the American President can't be this stupid? You'd think they would have learned a thing or two from their previous mistakes in 2003, wouldn't you? This is a dangerous game. Expanding the war into Iran is not going to make America safer and it's not going to win any friends. America needs people like Zbigniew Brzezinski to speak up now. It's clear that you can't rely on Congress, just like you couldn't rely on it in October 2002 [Iranian Army Is a Terrorist Organization - What's This All About?].

Inflating a Little Man

 
TIME magazine gets it (mostly) right in a column by Joe Klein [Inflating a Little Man].

Well, at the top of the list are our old friends the neoconservatives, the folks who provided the intellectual rationale for Bush's war in Iraq, many of whom are now itching for a war with Iran. Norman Podhoretz, the neocon paterfamilias, has written a trifle called World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism and loves to posit Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden—a far more dangerous character—as the heirs to Hitler and Stalin. "They follow the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism," he writes. This is incendiary foolishness. Terrorists have the ability to wreak terrible damage intermittently, but they don't represent an existential threat to the U.S. Ahmadinejad commands no legions—not even the Hizballah forces in Lebanon that attacked Israel in the summer of 2006—and if Podhoretz doesn't know that, he should. Taking Ahmadinejad literally, as the neoconservatives do, is being disingenuous with lethal intent. It gives license to a conga line of politicians—especially Republicans running for �President—to strut their stuff by jumping on Ahmadinejad and Columbia University and liberals in general. Mitt Romney runs an ad in which he brags that he denied the milquetoast reformer Khatami a police escort to Harvard University in 2006. Now there's a man! The New York Daily News, owned by neoconservative Mort Zuckerman, runs the headline the evil has landed. The cable news networks hyperventilate. Even the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, feels the need to demolish Ahmadinejad — elegantly, I must say — before the speech. A giant toxic bubble overwhelms the public square.

And then, there he is — and laughter is freedom's only appropriate reaction. The bubble bursts. He denies not only the Holocaust but also homosexuality? Suddenly, it all becomes obvious: We are being played by extremists on both sides. To be sure, Iran does arm Hizballah, and it does have an active nuclear program that may or may not be proved to have hostile intent, and it is making trouble for the U.S. in Iraq, supplying weapons to our enemies. These are all problems to be addressed soberly and perhaps even, eventually, with multilateral force. But the neoconservative campaign to transform Ahmadinejad into Hitler or Stalin, to pretend that he has the ability to destroy the world, to make a hoo-ha over letting the little man speak, is a cynical attempt to plump for war. Ahmadinejad may be ridiculous, but Podhoretz—who recently spent 45 minutes with Bush arguing for more war—isn't very funny at all. 

---

[Hat Tip: John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts (How to fix Iraq, and not invade Iran)]

Life in Modern Iraq.

 
Maclean's magazine has the story by Patrick Graham [How George Bush became the new Saddam].

It was embarrassing putting my flak jacket on backwards and sideways, but in the darkness of the Baghdad airport car park I couldn’t see anything. “Peterik, put the flak jacket on,” the South African security contractor was saying politely, impatiently. “You know the procedure if we are attacked.”

I didn’t. He explained. One of the chase vehicles would pull up beside us and someone would drag me out of the armoured car, away from the firing. If both drivers were unconscious—nice euphemism—he said I should try to run to the nearest army checkpoint. If the checkpoint was American, things might work out if they didn’t shoot first. If it was Iraqi . . . he didn’t elaborate.

Arriving in Baghdad has always been a little weird. Under Saddam Hussein it was like going into an orderly morgue; when he ran off after the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003 put an end to his Baathist party regime, the city became a chaotic mess. I lived in Iraq for almost two years, but after three years away I wasn’t quite ready for just how deserted and worn down the place seemed in the early evening. It was as if some kind of mildew was slowly rotting away at the edges of things, breaking down the city into urban compost.

---

[Hat Tip: Jennifer smith Best Cover. Ever]

The Domino Theory

 
I watched President Bush on TV the other day. I was wondering where his buddy was hiding. Ahh, here he is ...

According to the Washington Post Vice President Dick Cheney has some words of advice on Iraq [Cheney: chaos if U.S. pulls out too soon from Iraq].

If U.S. and coalition forces left Iraq before Iraqis could defend themselves, moderates would be "crushed," extremists would push the country into "chaos," and competing factions including groups backed by Iran "would unloose an all-out war, with the violence unlikely to be contained within Iraq," Cheney said.

"The ensuing carnage would further destabilize the Middle East and magnify the threat to our friends throughout the region," he said.

Now, where have I heard that before. Google is my friend ....

Here it is. It's called the Domino Theory.

The domino theory was a mid-20th century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated that if one land in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect suggests that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. The domino theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify American intervention around the world.

Referring to communism in America and Mexico, Eisenhower vocalized the theory:

"Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences."

It worked before. Americans stayed in Viet Nam for years because of the Domino Theory. Eventually 58,000 soldiers died and another 350,000 were wounded. Between one and two million Vietnamese citizens died. And the dominos didn't fall when America pulled out.

But who cares about history?

Harper Says Canada Should Stay in Afghanistan

 
I'm really annoyed at all you Australians. We sent you our Prime Minister on the understanding that you would keep a muzzle on him and give us a bit of a break. Instead, you allowed him to hob-nob with John Howard. Now look what you've done. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has caught the war bug from yours. According to Reuters Canada this is what Harper said in your parliament [Harper vows continued support for Afghanistan].

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper, under fire at home for a troop commitment to Afghanistan that has cost 70 lives, said on Tuesday he would not abandon the country.

"This cause is global and necessary," Harper said in a speech to Australia's parliament on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

"Because as 9-11 showed, if we abandon our fellow human beings to lives of poverty, brutality and ignorance, in today's global village, their misery will eventually and inevitably become our own," said Harper.

9-11 showed no such thing. Don't you remember? They didn't attack America because they were poor, miserable, and stupid, they attacked because they hate freedom and democracy. If we stay in Afghanistan and force them to be free and democratic then they'll hate us even more,

Hmmm ... there seems to be something wrong with that argument ....

Okay, let's try this. If we stay in Afghanistan we'll have just as much success as the British did before World War II and the Russians did in the 1980's.

Nope .... that one doesn't work either.

The heck with it. Let's just get out as fast as we can and allow the people of Afghanistan to deal with their own problems.

By the way, you Australians can keep him. We don't want him back.

---

[Photo Credit: REUTERS/Tim Wimborne]

Where Are the Musicians and the Poets?

 

Over on Tangled Up in Blue there's a posting about Country Joe McDonald and his new anti-war song [1,2,3 What Are We Fighting For?]. Country Joe was at Woodstock 39 years ago. He's an old geezer. So is Neil Young who is just about the only other singer to speak sing out.

The anti-war movement of the 60's was supported by all kinds of artists and some of their songs can still stir up powerful feelings today. Where are today's singers? Why are there no protest songs about the war in Iraq? Why are there no demonstrations in the streets and on the campuses? Where are the young firebrands and their passionate speeches? What's wrong with today's younger generation?

Do You Support Our Troops?

 
A. Whitney Brown explains why he supports the brave American troops fighting in Iraq. His talk applies to my support of brave Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan—or at least it raises the same questions.



[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

Fool me once .... shame on you ...

 
See Can You Hear the Drums Beating?, Bush Flubs the Message and A Prelude to War.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
                                                   George W. Bush 2002

[Hat Tip: John Lynch]

On this day in 1945 ....

 
At 8:15 AM on August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb was detonated over Hiroshima, Japan. Approximately 78,000 civilians were killed on that day. Six months later the death toll had risen to about 140,000 people.

There are many arguments in favor of dropping the bomb just as there are many arguments against it. What's clear is that in the context of 2007 we are not in a good position to judge the actions of countries that had been at war for many years.

The most important lesson of Hiroshima is that war is hell and many innocent people die. It's all very well to enter into a war with the best of intentions—as the Japanese did on December 7, 1941—but it's foolish to pretend that when you start a war there won't be any suffering. When you do that you can really say that the victims of Hiroshima died in vain.

The killing and maiming of civilians is an inevitable outcome of war, no matter how hard you might try to restrict your targets to military objectives. Before going to war you need to take the consequences into account and decide whether the cost is worth it.

One of the many mistakes in Iraq was the naive assumption that it would be a clean war with few casualties and no long-term consequences for the Iraqi people. Yet today, the numbers of innocent lives lost in Iraq is comparable to the numbers lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And what is the benefit for Iraq that outweighs the cost in human lives? Is it "freedom" and "democracy"?

Hiroshima was not a glorious victory. It was ugly, heartbreaking, and avoidable. War is not an end in itself, it is the failure of peace. War is not an instrument of your foreign policy—it is an admission that you don't have a foreign policy.

[The top photograph shows the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima on the morning of August 6, 1945 (Photo from Encyclopedia Britanica: Hiroshima: mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, 1945. [Photograph]. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. The bottom image is taken from a Japanese postcard (Horoshima and Nagassaki 1945). It shows victims of the attack on Hiroshima.]

Propaganda Techniques: Observational Selection

 
There's a list of common propaganda techniques at [Propaganda and Debating Techniques]. It's well worth reading in order to familiarize yourself with common fallacies that we all commit from time-to-time.

There's one trick we know all too well. You've probably been guilty—I know I have. It's called Observational Selection.

Observational Selection

Observational selection, also known as "cherry-picking", is a tactic like counting the hits and forgetting the misses. See only what you wish to see. Overlook and ignore evidence you don't wish to see. And encourage your audience to be equally blind. Observational selection will destroy the validity of any statistical study.

Here's an example of this technique from the CNNMoney.com website [A Turn For The Better In Iraq?]. In this case, the author picked out a single article from The New York Times written by Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack [A War We Just Might Win]. Those scholars pointed out that some progress was being made in Iraq in stabilizing the country. The significance of the New York TImes piece is that O'Hanlon and Pollack have been, and continue to be, critical of the Bush policies in Iraq. The other significance is that some editor selected a misleading title for their article, "A War We Just Might Win." The authors have appeared on television to criticize that choice of title as misleading.

Here's part of what O'Hanlon and Pollack say,

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

The author of the CNNMoney.com article cherry-picked from this opinion piece and published the following under the title "A Turn For The Better In Iraq?"

War In Iraq: It's quite likely that, as you read this, U.S. troops under the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus are winning the war against terrorism in Iraq. And no, it isn't just war-crazed neocons who think so.

The possibility that the U.S. is winning this war -- and not losing, as Democrats would have it -- was raised in the pages of no less than the New York Times just this week.

In a long, thoughtful op-ed following an eight-day trip to Iraq, Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack wrote about the progress there -- and what's at stake.

Remember: Brookings generally is a liberal -- not conservative -- think tank, though neither O'Hanlon nor Pollack is in any sense a doctrinaire leftist. That said, the two have been to Iraq before and are no great fans of President Bush. But the changes they saw this time were, in their words, "significant."

Notice that this particular article by Brookings Institute scholars is "thoughtful." I wonder how many other articles from the Brookings Institute are "thoughtful." Perhaps all of them? I doubt it.

Also, note that according to this CNNMoney.com article "U.S. troops ... are winning the war against terrorism." There's nothing in the O'Hanlon and Pollack article that suggest any such thing. What they said was that by backing moderate militia groups, the U.S. army was helping to suppress the most extreme insurgents like those who fight for Al Qaeda. There was no mention of a war against terrorism. I suspect this is because O'Hanlon and Pollack know the difference between a war against terrorism and trying to establish peace and security in Iraq.

They conclude their article with,

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

That doesn't sound like "winning" to me. What happened was that someone who is likely to be a supporter of the war on terrorism picked out a single article by two Bush critics and used it as evidence that "liberals" are now seeing the light and have come 'round to supporting the war on terrorism.

[The photograph is from the US Dept. of Defense and is in the public domain. See Wikipedia: Army.mil-2007-02-13-104034.jpg]

Here's an Example of Pro-War Thinking

 
Steve Huntley has a column in Today's Chicago Sun-Times [Careful, Iraq may be key to al-Qaida]. It's a really good example of the irrational thinking behind the pro-war crowd. Huntley begins with,

The Iraq war critics seized upon a new intelligence report that al-Qaida has been rejuvenated by the Iraq war as proof that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. OK, that should be good for a few minutes of bashing President Bush, but it doesn't change the reality that al-Qaida is in Iraq and is our enemy.

No, the reality is that al-Qaida is now in Iraq and it wasn't before the invasion. The reality is that al-Qaida has been rejuvenated by the invasion and occupation of Iraq but we were told that this wasn't going to happen. We were told that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was part of the war on terror, but it wasn't really. It is now, because terrorism has been unleashed in Iraq since the breakdown of civil order. The breakdown of civil order was caused by the invasion and by the presence of foreign occupying troops.

Here's another thought: What would be the reaction of the quit-Iraq advocates should al-Qaida in Iraq's fingerprints be found in a terrorist attack in America?

This is not an idle question. After all, the National Intelligence Estimate released last week also said Osama bin Laden's organization will "probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission has said another attack on America by Islamist terrorists is inevitable, and a new threat assessment a week ago from the National Counterterrorism Center suggested al-Qaida is working to renew attacks on America. Now we're told al-Qaida in Iraq could be the agent for it.

My reaction would be "I told you so." The invasion of Iraq has caused a huge increase in the number of people who hate America. Some of these people are going to be easy recruits to al-Qaida and some of them are, quite possibly, going to attack America.

Most of the damage has been done but we may be able to prevent further damage by getting the heck out of the Middle East and letting the people there solve their own problems their own way.

No doubt, even as the bodies were being recovered, the wounded treated and survivors consoled, the implacable Bush haters would blame his policies for an attack by al-Qaida in Iraq. But what would be the view of the majority of Americans who have been telling pollsters that it's time for America to withdraw the troops from Iraq?

I'm hoping that the majority of Americans would see the truth. It's the Bush policy that led to more people hating American and an increased probability that the war would be brought to America. I'm hoping that the impeachment of Cheny would be swift and that it would be followed by the impeachment of George Bush.

But then, I tend to be overly optimistic about these things.

[The image is from the US Dept. of Defense and is in the public domain. See Wikipedia: Army.mil-2007-02-13-104034.jpg]

Dead Soldier's Mother Asks Us to Support Troops

 
Here's one of those difficult situations that can cause much confusion. The Toronto Star recently reported on the funeral of a soldier killed in Afghanistan [Support troops, dead soldier's mother asks Canadians]. Here's what was printed in the newspaper.

The mother of a soldier recently killed in Afghanistan beseeched Canadians on the day of her son’s funeral to support the country’s troops in Afghanistan.

Shortly before an honour guard piped the flag-draped coffin of Pte. Lane Watkins into an open field today, his mother Wanda read a family statement that suggested people should be extremely proud of the military’s efforts in a country that desperately needs Canada’s help.

"We don’t want any family to experience the terrible pain of losing their son or daughter, but if Canada and NATO abandon the Afghan people, the sacrifices Lane, our family and others have made will be for nothing," Watkins said.

"They deserve your respect. In supporting them, you’ll make our loss much easier to bear."

It's statements like this that make supporting our troops more difficult [What Does the "Support Our Troops" Ribbon mean to You?]. While we can all understand Wanda Watkins' grief, she conflates supporting our soldiers with supporting the mission. Since this is a common mistake, it means that any overt support for our soldiers—such as putting a yellow ribbon on your car—will usually be interpreted as support for Canada's role in Afghanistan.

I do not support the mission in Afghanistan and I urge the Canadian government to withdraw as soon as possible. Does this mean that I don't support individual soldiers who are carrying out the role assigned to them to the best of their ability? No it doesn't. They're are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing and they deserve our respect and support because it's a dangerous job. As a matter of fact, they deserve even more support, and sympathy, because they're involved in a messy situation that they don't necessarily agree with.

Ms. Watkins wants us to stay in Afghanistan because otherwise her son will have died in vain. Unfortunately there's no way to avoid the obvious. If we eventually recognize that it is a mistake to be in Afghanistan then we will not have achieved "victory" and it will be difficult to justify the sacrifice of her son and the dozens of others who have died. To be blunt, they will have died in vain because we made a mistake by sending them into a dangerous situation where victory wasn't possible.

We cannot let such passionate appeals dissuade us from withdrawing if that's the best course of action. What would be the point of staying in Afghanistan if more lives will be lost for no gain? How many have to die in vain before we call it quits?

[The image is from The Royal Canadian Regiment Kit Shop]

Can You Recognize Propaganda When You See it?

 
Michael Yon is a (very) freelance reporter in Iraq. He has a blog where he solicits support for his mission in Iraq. The mission is to bring the "truth" to the American public. Why does he do it?

I do it because we need to see this clearly: what happens in and to Iraq is a defining moment for our nation, and the world. This enemy is smart and they are deadly, but they are also losing. Iraq can become a strong and free nation. But it will take the constant application of pressure over time to stem the flow of blood. If we back off too soon, they will rebound. If we cut our losses and run, they will follow us home. Peace can prevail here, if we can use our strength to maintain our progress.

It's sort of refreshing to see a "journalist" who lays his cards on the table. At least he doesn't pretend to be objective, like many other journalists.

But, having declared his intentions, it falls upon his readers to interpret his writings with a great deal of skepticism. That doesn't seem to have happened recently when his story about "baked Iraqi boys" attracted the attention of the right-wing warmongers in the USA and elsewhere. It spread like wildfire.

Here's what Michael Yon wrote on July 5, 2007 [Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007].

At a meeting today in Baqubah one Iraqi official I spoke with framed the al Qaeda infiltration and influence in the province. Although he spoke freely before a group of Iraqi and American commanders, including Staff Major General Abdul Kareem al Robai who commands Iraqi forces in Diyala, and LTC Fred Johnson, the deputy commander of 3-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the Iraqi official asked that I withhold his identity from publication. His opinion, shared by others present, is that al Qaeda came to Baqubah and united many of the otherwise independent criminal gangs.

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

We're used to thinking of propaganda as something that's just made up by a disinformation committee whose job it is to discredit and demonize the enemy. But that's not how effective propaganda works. The best kinds of stories are those that can be attributed to an apparently reliable but unnamed source such as an "Iraqi official." That way you can repeat it ad nauseum without invoking any of the normal skepticism that a journalist should use. This is how we learned about rape rooms [Rape Rooms: A Chronology] and weapons of mass destruction. In some cases the source is identified but later exposed a liar (e.g. the Kuwait incubator story [ The Lie]). It doesn't seem to matter if a story turns out to be untrue once it has served its purpose.

Remember that the point of propaganda is to make your enemy look as evil as possible. That's how you justify killing them and sacrificing the lives of your troops. Both sides do it. In the case of the insurgents, the propaganda consists of endless stories about the brutality of the occupying forces and this includes stories that are just as horrible as the one quoted above.

The key for rational people is to recognize that the "good guys" aren't all that "good" and the "bad" guys aren't all bad. War is hell.

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

How's It Working So Far in Iraq?

 
ABC News reports on the latest poll results from Iraq [Voices From Iraq 2007: Ebbing Hope in a Landscape of Loss].

Violence is the cause, its reach vast. Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby — car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It's worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there.

The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.

And how do they feel about the troops who are there to help them?

The survey's results are deeply distressing from an American perspective as well: The number of Iraqis who call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. and coalition forces, 17 percent in early 2004, has tripled to 51 percent now, led by near unanimity among Sunni Arabs. And 78 percent of Iraqis now oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil, though far fewer favor an immediate pullout.

That's not a good sign. But at least they're better off than they were under Saddam Hussein, right?

Given all this, for the first time since the 2003 war, fewer than half of Iraqis, 42 percent, say life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein, whose security forces are said to have murdered more than a million Iraqis.

Forty-two percent think their country is in a civil war; 24 percent more think one is likely. Barely more than four in 10 expect a better life for their children.

Three in 10 say they'd leave Iraq if they could.

It's time for the foreign troops to leave. Get out as fast as possible.

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

War is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things

For the longest time we had a poster on our wall that said "War Is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living things" [War Is Not Healthy: The True Story].

The sentence seems trite if you didn't live though the 60's but it's taking on more and more significance every day. The point is that war is hell. People die. Innocent people. We better not forget that.

But there are people who do want to forget. They want to purge war of all of it's ugliness and remember only the bravery and the glory. In Canada the movement to glorify a deadly First World War battle—the battle of Vimy Ridge—is gaining ground. In this battle there were 30,000 casualties and the front advanced a few miles. There was no strategic gain. This was a war that should not have happened and a battle that wasted thousands of lives. It was not glorious and it should be something to be embarrassed about, not celebrated.

But there's an even more important illustration of our tendency to forget the horrors and the mistakes of war. Tuesday's Globe and Mail has an article about veterans protesting a sign at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. The issue concerns strategic bombing in World War II and it's a hot button issue in Canada because of a documentary televised several years ago.

The goal of Bomber Command during World War II was to destroy German cities and reduce Germany's will to continue the war. Nobody was under any illusions about the consequences because London and other British cities had been bombed in 1940. They knew that flower gardens would be wiped out and so would little children [Strategic bombing during World War II]. The image below is of bombed out apartment buildings in Hamburg in 1944. People used to live in those buildings. Thousands and thousands died during the firestorms created by massive bombing raids by British and American forces during 1944 and 1945.

These are facts. The controversy is about whether the bombing raids were effective. There are many who say they weren't; in fact, there seems to be a consensus among historians that strategic bombing of Germany did not have as much negative effect as the High Command believed.

Thousands of Allied airmen died in planes over Germany. Many of them were Canadians. The Canadian War Museum has a display dedicated to those airman. I have seen it. I have shown it to my children. My father was a pilot during World War II.

There are plaques and pictures describing the planes and the crews. One of the plaques is titled An Enduring Controversy. It reads,

The value and morality of the strategic bombing offensive against Germany remains contested. Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations.

Although Bomber Command and the American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only a small reduction in German war production until late in the war.

This is what the controversy is all about. The Royal Canadian Legion objects to this plague because it calls into to question the morality of strategic bombing and the morality of bomber crews who served during World War II.

Last year, the veterans complained that the panel made them look like war criminals. Art Smith, a veteran leading the attack, said, "Ten thousand crewmen didn't make it back. It really distresses me that people want to knock their memory." A former member of Parliament, he lobbied for a private member's bill to force a rewrite of the text.

Guess what? War is hell. War is immoral. You can't pretty it up by ignoring the truth. Bombs killed women and children. Lots of them. Their lives may have been wasted because nothing was gained by their deaths.

We owe it to our sons and daughters to leave that plaque just the way it is. We need to remind them that war isn't healthy for children and other living things. The children of Iraq and Afghanistan know this.