The problem with self-indulgent war

Daily Kos :: Army recruitment crisis.
In summing up the impact of the Iraq war as it relates to the US army recruitment crisis, one of the things Kos notes is this: "The perception of US invulnerability has been shattered. After the US and its Northern Alliance allies routed the Taliban, the world quivered in the face of US military might. Saddam caved on every demand presented him -- destroy his missiles, allow inspectors back in. The US could've used that perception to push for meaningful concessions in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere. Instead, we're bogged down in an unecessary war in Iraq, our military spent and depleted, and with Americans unwilling to replenish the ranks. The diplomatic fallout is obvious, but our inability to use force as a tool is a bigger casualty."
Absolutely -- as I have said before, the world needs a strong United States to project a vision of civilization and democracy, and to deter rogue states from starting trouble. But the US elephant has to tiptoe, not stomp.
Previous presidents realized that the only way the United States could maintain an image of invulnerablility was by resisting the temptation to engage in self-indulgent wars of choice -- Kennedy didn't resist the Bay of Pigs, and the US looked pretty weak and foolish after that one. Korea and Vietnam could be portrayed as righteous proxy defensive wars against communist expansion -- the domino theory, don't you know. Afghanistan was defensive, too in the sense that it was a legitimate response to an attack.
Iraq was a war of choice. And the Bush administration is reaping what it sowed -- the US public will neither support a draft nor let their sons and daughters enlist. And if Bush tries to goose the nation to another war, the public won't believe him again. THEY know "fool me once", even if Bush does not.

Rest now, in peace

Fallen Canadian soldiers hailed as heroes:
"It's not a political gesture. This is coming from the men on the ground. This is coming from the heart." -- Lloyd Smith
"Marc fought with his brothers and now he's with his brothers. It means an awful lot to me to understand that." -- Richard Leger
"Our son fought side by side with the Americans and he was proud to do so. So for them to at least recognize that is really heart-warming. He was proud and I'm glad they are proud." -- Claire Leger.

Good, bad, ugly

Good
Or, at least, funny --


Bad:
US to consolidate forces into four huge bases in Iraq: "Top US military officials in Iraq confirmed Monday that they are planning to consolidate the more than 100 bases where US personnel are now stationed in Iraq into four huge, more permanent bases."

And Ugly:

If Stalag 13 Had Been Like Bagram Hogan would not crack. He would not give up the names of anyone who had collaborated with him to enable the Allies to stop so many attacks, so many Nazi plans. By the time they threw him into the freezing cold cell, near the cells where LeBeau, Kinch, Newkirk, and Carter cowered, all naked, all chained into forced kneeling positions, Hogan had been beaten repeatedly, he'd had electrodes attached to his nutsack, he'd been half-drowned over and over, but he wouldn't give them a name. Even when they raped him with Klink's swagger stick, Hogan stayed true to his men, his mission

Thanks to Steve Gilliard's News Blog for the link.

The heart of darkness -- in a single-source scoop

News junkies like me, and like the people who comment on this blog, sometimes forget that many, many people pay virtually no attention at all to politics and political news.
These people are the Skimmers -- they skim a newspaper in the morning and listen with half an ear to the radio news on the way to work, but they're not really paying close attention. They just develop a simple, generalized impression about what is going on in the world, and then they start thinking about the next sales call or project or meeting or task and that is it. The Skimmers are not going to follow the ins and outs of a lengthy, controversial and complex news story. No criticism here -- we are all Skimmers of one kind or another. For myself, I am a skimmer for most of the sports and entertainment news, only paying attention when Canada or a Canadian does something extraordinary or when the next plot twist for Desperate Housewives is leaked.
The Skimmers are the people for whom the sound bite was invented.
Now, over the last week, us news junkies have been following Newsweek vs. White House Koran abuse story and questioning its contradictions -- the Pentagon had said the week before that the Muslim riots were not caused by the Newsweek story, but then this week suddenly the party line changed and everybody was blaming Newsweek's "lies" about prisoner abuse. The White House and the syncopant pundits piled on with solemn intonations about the danger of single-source stories, saying the "scoop" mentality was outmoded -- just too, too last-century, you know. And the 101st Fighting Keyboarders piled on with their "Newsweek lies and people die" outrage.
I started to wonder whether there was actually an agenda here -- with the Bush administration, it seems like we're often waiting for the other shoe to drop. Did they want to intimidate the news media about running any more prisoner abuse stories? Or were they trying to give Skimmers the impression that prisoner abuse stories are just media lies?
Well, guess what? It's both.
On Friday the New York Times posted an old-fashioned single-source scoop. The military investigation file into detainee deaths in Afghanistan was leaked to them "from a person involved in the investigation who was critical of the methods used at Bagram and the military's response to the deaths". And the Times had the guts to go with it: In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths. It's the kind of story which, depending on where it leads, could win author Tim Golden a Pulitzer. It is the Pentagon Papers for the Bush administration's Muslim wars.
I do not doubt that the White House knew this was coming, because the Times would have been calling the military leadership for comfirmation and comment, as well as searching out the military torturers named in the story.
The Bush administration couldn't stop the Times from publishing. Now they can only try to deter other news media from picking it up. And try to persuade the Skimmers that it is a media lie.
I think -- I hope -- that they will not succeed.

This tells it like it is

In his post Galloway Spares No One Gazetteer writes: ". . . we have to realize what we are really fighting for here. It is not just Left vs Right. It is not just New Labour vs. Old Labour. It is not just the CRAP vs. the NDP. It is not just Republican vs Democrat.
No.
This is a cage match, for all the marbles, between Corporate Fascism and Liberal Democracy. . . . there is no room in the ring for the rhetorically squeamish."

Carolyn is the one who they should be thanking

The Globe and Mail credits Chuck Cadman for saving the Liberal government. And, yes, he did.
But so did Carolyn Parrish.

The Globe story Liberals Survive Key Budget Vote dismisses Parrish rather abruptly. I thought: "Thursday evening's momentous vote rested on Mr. Cadman, who ended up being the sole MP to ensure the vote would pass. The MP, who has cancer and who flew into Ottawa especially for the vote, said afterward that he decided only 30 minutes before which side he would support, but in the end went with what the constituents of Surrey told him -- that they did not want an election right now . . . The votes of the other two independent MPs basically cancelled each other out . . . Earlier in the day, independent David Kilgour said he was disturbed by the government's assignment of new Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who crossed the floor, to a cabinet post. He also said he could not, in good faith, back the NDP amendment. A third independent, Ms. Parrish, came and voted in favour of the Liberals despite the fact that she was suffering from severe stomach pains."
Now, Kilgore left the Liberals, so his vote against Martin wasn't surprising. And Cadman was denied the Conservative nomination in his Surrey riding when another candidate hijacked his nominating meeting -- and Harper didn't step in. Cadman won anyway as an independent, but I could understand that he might not have any particular affection for this party.
But Parrish had good reason to dislike Martin, yet she voted for him anyway.
Martin kicked Parrish out of the Liberal party in November after she kicked around a George Bush doll on This Hour has 22 minutes. Wikipedia writes ". . . Canadian Press quoted her as saying Martin . . . could "go to hell" . . . she had no loyalty towards the Liberal Party and that if it were defeated in the next election she "would not shed a tear" . . . (she also said)that the party under Martin had fallen into disarray and that Martin and his inner circle ran the party using guerrilla warfare tactics." Ouch!
But there never seemed to be any question that she wouldn't support Martin, and she didn't go around like Kilgore demanding troops for Darfur (which apparently they don't want anyway) then complaining it wasn't good enough. And, like Cadman, Parrish was also sick today too, and apparently she too had to drag herself into the House to vote.
Martin should thank her for putting her party's future ahead of her personal pique.

Sauce for the goose

1. Who said this: "It was a blow. I didn't see it coming . . . Never turn your back on your friends and your family and your colleagues like this. It's not the way you conduct yourself in an honourable fashion, I don't think."
2. Who said this: "[It is}an abomination, sired in betrayal and born out of deception."
Answers:
1. Peter MacKay
2. David Orchard
You know, I have always liked Peter MacKay, but I found his TV interview tonight a little creepy -- an uncomfortable mixture of self-pity and robotic repetition of Conservative talking points.

A calmer head but not wiser

Tories backpedal -- sort of So the Tories are going to support the budget after all.
If he had announced this sensible approach two weeks, Harper might not have lost Stronach.
But even though he finally did the right thing on the February budget, it seems he still cannot control his temper. In the middle of what was an awful day for the Conservatives, Harper goes and picks another fight.
Here's the background: not surprisingly, the Maritimes premiers were agitated about what would happen to the Atlantic Accord if the budget didn't pass. But now that Harper has announced the Conservatives will support the budget, I would think that this problem has been resolved, right?
So what does Harper do? When he is annoucing that he will support the budget after all, he seizes the opportunity to throw a hissy fit and wag his finger at Conservative premier Danny Williams in Newfoundland.
"Flanked by [Nfld MPs] Hearn and Doyle, Harper lashed out at Williams on Tuesday. "They stood by Danny Williams, they stood by Newfoundland, they always will," he said of the MPs. "And it's about time Danny Williams stood by some of his boys down here too. That's the only way Newfoundland and Labrador is going to get anywhere in this country." He insisted a Conservative government would ensure the province would get its money. "Danny's going to get his money. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going get(their) money," he said. "And I don't care whether Danny likes me today, or doesn't like me. We'll give the money to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because they deserve it, and it's the right thing to do."
Harper seems to have forgotten that Danny Williams holds the Canadian Hissy Fit National Championship.
In an area of the country where the Conservatives need to pick up some seats, Harper threw away the chance to see some stories in tomorrow's papers praising Harper. Instead, the voters will be reading Williams trash-talking response to Harper's needlessly indignant remarks.

Oops!

Well, considering all the comments on the post below, I am intending to look into the questions raised about Canadian defense and blog on this some more.
But in the meantime, I got a kick out of this story: Man Admits 'Bad Judgment' in Raze Blaze
Sounds amazing I know, but it reminded me of the time we watched the dentist across the street do something similar.
He was trying to kill some weeds in the walkway next to his garage, see. But instead of going to the garden centre and getting some weedkiller, he though it would be simpler to just put some gasoline on them and set them on fire. From across the street we noticed him pouring something on the weeds, but we didn't realize what it was until he lit the match.
Well, you can guess what happened. The flames shot up about 15 feet and he almost set his hair and his garage on fire.
He got the fire out -- but then, of course, he had to repair and repaint the garage!

Americans surrender in Iraq

New York Times: Some Sunnis Hint at Peace Terms in Iraq, U.S. Says: "The Bush administration, struggling to cope with a recent intensification of insurgent violence in Iraq, has received signals from some radical Sunni Arab leaders that they would abandon fighting if the new Shiite majority government gave Sunnis a significant voice in the country's political evolution, administration officials said this week."
This, of course, is total bullshit -- neither the US military nor the embassy have any contacts with the insurgency except for the 9.000 Iraqis they have arrested and thrown into concentration camps throughout the country, without trials or hearings or habeus corpus. And, as in Guantanamo, they have no idea who most of these people are or whether they are with the insurgency or not.
So, not knowing who the insurgency is, the US in now trying to negotiate with them through the New York Times.
It's not the insurgency which is suing for peace here, it is the Bush admistration. I think this article is actually a declaration of surrender. It offers the insurgency leaders a trade-off - we'll give you political power if you will stop shooting at our troops.
As you read further down the article, the truth becomes more apparent:
-- The US has realized that their so-called anti-insurgency strategy (of capturing or killing insurgents, training more Iraqi forces, etc) is not producing results and so they now say that "quelling the insurgency would also require an effective political strategy to stabilize areas where insurgents have been most active, including Baghdad and Mosul, two of Iraq's biggest cities." In other words, surrender.
-- The problem is finding someone to negotiate surrender with: "American officials, two years into the war, acknowledge that they have little understanding of who the leaders are, apart from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" and of course possibly some of those 9,000 detainees
-- So the US wants the Iraqi government to do the negotiating instead: "the United States is urging Dr. Jaafari, the new Iraqi leader, to renew talks with a coalition of Sunni Arab groups known as the National Dialogue Council, which has links to elements in the insurgency who it says are ready to explore openings toward a political settlement" even though there are "doubts that the council has the influence with the insurgents that it claims",
-- But they're having a hard time bullying the Iraqi government to not sabatoge these negotiations before they even begin: "the [National Dialogue] council's leaders have been deeply angered by raids by Iraqi forces on its Baghdad offices in the past 10 days. The raids resulted in the arrests of more than a dozen people, including some who had played a role in earlier contacts with the Shiite leaders."
-- So, even though Bush promised to stay until Iraq was stable, the US going to declare victory and leave, by blaming the continuing violence on the Iraqi government itself: "many [Sunnis] wanted to join in the political system, including the writing of a permanent constitution. But the political feuding that delayed the formation of the government for nearly three months after the elections has so far blocked the kind of concessions the Sunnis are demanding" and the article later quotes a "US military official" as saying "The Iraqis are going to have to figure this out for themselves".
And in the meantime, we're outta here!

Hero dogs

I love heroic dog stories.
Meet Shannon

She is the Missouri dog who won a Hero Award for 2005. Shannon's owner Ted Mandry was unloading debris about a quarter-mile from his house when a parked tractor popped out of gear, rolled down a ravine and toppled into a 10-foot deep gully. The tractor's front end loader trapped Mandry's right leg. "I was calling for help and whistling for two hours, but no one knew where I was," he said. Peggy Mandry, who thought her husband was out mowing hay, stepped out for a while and Shannon, a border collie/golden mix, was locked inside the house. When she returned, Shannon was howling and scratching at the door. When she was let out, Shannon bolted from the door, dragging Peggy Mandry through the pasture and into the wood. "I was bleeding, I began to get weaker. I reached a point where there was either going to be a minor miracle or this was it for me," said Ted Mandry, 65. "At that point, my wife and my dog came to the edge of the gully."
And some previous Hero Dog winners:
Here's Rocky's story - During a late Sunday night while the Staples slept in their Hatboro, PA home, they were startled by the screams of their 8-year-old daughter, Laura. An intruder and known sex offender had snatched her from her bedroom and was carrying her down the stairs as he covered her mouth trying to prevent her from screaming. All Laura could do in the midst of her restrained horror was to kick her bedroom door as the intruder carried her out. It was this hard sound that woke Rocky, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, from a deep sleep on the third floor and alerted him that something was wrong. Rocky flew down two flights of stairs and threw his massive body against the man. The would-be kidnapper then dropped Laura and ran with Rocky in close pursuit. Rocky managed to bite the intruder numerous times before racing back to check on Laura, who frantically screamed in the comfort of her parent's arms. The intruder had managed to escape, but was soon found by police in a nearby park, bleeding from multiple wounds. "Rocky has spared our family an unspeakable horror," says Joan Staples, Laura's mother. "There's no way we can overstate our gratitude for his bravery and quick response."
And Shadow This story reports that Alaskan wilderness guide Don Mobley was gathering firewood on a sandbar of the Nakochna River when he found himself between a grizzly sow and her cub. The sow growled and charged. Mobley, convinced he was about to be mauled, ran. The bear was within 10 feet of him when Shadow, his 3-year-old German shepherd mix, zipped out of the woods and lunged at the advancing bruin. Barking madly, Shadow chased the bear and cub into the woods. "The only thing that saved me was my dog," Mobley said.
And Brutis a seven-year old golden whose owner Fram Oreto said she was picnicking with her grandchildren in September when Brutis snatched a 6-inch-long snake that was just five feet from them. Brutis suffered a bite and was taken to an animal emergency hospital, where he received antivenin more than three hours after the attack. "It's quite an amazing feat that he survived at all," Oreto said. "He was a strong enough dog to pull through."
And Shilo also received a Courage award because she followed her companion, 11-year-old Sarah Irmen of Littlerock, Calif., when a kidnapper forced her into a car in June. When the kidnapper tried to get Sarah out of the car, Shilo bit him and the girl escaped.
Heros all.

Remember the budget? Anyone?

Well, I see the columnists in today's Globe and Mail agree with me -- What a jerk! I cannot, of course, actually link to these columns, because the Globe now charges extra for online access to these parts of its newspaper, and I refuse to pay it because I already subscribe to the paper version of the paper.
So here I am actually complimenting their columnists, whom I often criticize, but they cannot benefit from being quoted directly in my widely-read blog --oh well, their loss.
Anyway, several Mop and Pail columnists do write about how it would be the height of arrogance and stupidty for Harper to defeat the budget next Thursday -- the most popular budget in a decade and one that a huge majority of Canadians want to see implemented.
Remember the budget? I think Harper, in particular, has forgotten all about it.
Here is what we will lose if the budget is defeated.
From the February budget:

• $12.8 billion over the next five years for Canada's military, the biggest increase in defence spending in two decades. About $3 billion will go to boosting the strength of the Canadian Forces by 5,000 troops and the reserves by 3,000 soldiers and another $3.2 billion to bolster training, improve medical care, cover supply and repair shortages, and repair infrastructure.
• An increase in the basic personal exemption on income-from $8,012 in 2004 to $10,000 by 2009, allowing Canadians to earn more money tax-free.
• Increases the annual contribution limit on registered retirement savings plans and registered pension plans to $22,000 by 2010, and eliminates the 30 per cent foreign content rule on RRSPs and pension plans immediately.
• Ottawa to share gas tax revenues with municipalities – 1.5 cents per litre, or $600 million in 2005, rising to 5 cents a litre or $2 billion annually by 2009-2010.
• $700 million in a trust fund this year and next for national child care program, with a total commitment of $5 billion over the next five years.
  Ottawa to share gas tax revenues with municipalities.
• $170 million over five years to improve Canada's drug safety oversight.
• A pledge to reduce the general corporate tax rate from the current 21 per cent to 20.5 per cent in 2008, 20 per cent in 2009 and 19 per cent by 2010.
• A promise to eliminate the corporate surtax by 2008.
• $1 billion for a Clean Fund for projects to combat climate change.

PLUS the Liberal/NDP accord in April:

• $1.6 billion for affordable housing construction, including aboriginal housing.
• A $1.5-billion increase in transfers to provinces for tuition reduction and better training through EI.
• $900 million for the environment, with one more cent of the federal gas tax going to public transit.
• $500 million for foreign aid to bring Canada in line with a promise of 0.7 per cent of GDP.
• $100 million for a pension protection fund for workers.
• Promised tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses will remain but cuts for large corporations will be deferred.

So irregardless of whether every single Tory turns up in Ottawa on Thursday, I am hoping that Harper will arrange for a few of them to get the flu or to develop "urgent family emergencies" by which means they would be unavoidably delayed in reaching the Commons in time to vote against this budget.

So much for the meek

Here is a website posting about The Forceful Men Of FORCE Ministries.
The goal of FORCE Ministeries is "equiping military personnel for Christ-centred duty."
And as one of the comments said: "Man, the meek are fucked. They're NEVER going to inherit the earth now." So true, so true.

Good, bad, ugly

Good:


Brian Gable, The Globe & Mail

Bad:

M. e. Cohen, New Jersey, Freelance

Ugly:

Marshall Ramsey, Jackson Mississippi, The Clarion Ledger

And just a note to say I get most of my weekly "good,bad,ugly" cartoons from Daryl Cagle's cartoon index on Slate. Its a great site.

"Nice little military base you've got here, Senator. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it"

Democrats should beware of false hope.
I am concerned that the Senate Dems and the progressive bloggers have talked themselves into believing a fairy tale -- that they actually have a serious chance to stop Bolton, and to retain the filibuster, and to stop those seven awful judges.
This Financial Times article about the Bolton nomination Bolton set for long battle on Senate floor says that "questions from [foreign services ] committee Republicans could pave the way for more opposition when the Senate takes up [the Bolton nomination]"
Well, yes, that may well be true -- the discussion may well go on for a week! Or ten days even!
But in the end, the Democrats will most likely lose.
The White House has turned all these votes into a do-or-die situation, a 'you're either with us or with the terrorists' kind of vote. So the chances that six republicans will actually risk their careers to vote against the Wnite House are miniscule -- three, maybe four, is possible; six is highly unlikely.
The American people may be lukewarm now about Boy George, but they aren't angry enough at the Bush administration to cheer Senators who would vote against him. But the Christian Right and the right-wing media/blogosphere, who have wholeheartedly accepted the do-or-die framing, would crucify any senator who voted against Bush (and they are also the ones who wouldn't forgive Bush unless he pulls out all the stops to win). On the filibuster and judges issues in particular, there is the added pressure from prolifers who think they can eliminate abortion if they can eliminate the filibuster and get some anti-abortion judges in the lower courts and then get a Supreme Court which would overturn Roe v Wade.
While presidents in the past would have realized that appointees like Bolton and the Ridiculous Seven will be seen as biased and ineffective in their positions without a bipartisan majority in favour of their appointment, the Bush administration has demonstrated repeatedly since the election that they don't care whether any vote is 90 to 10 or 51 to 49. they only care about winning in whatever way they can.
Finally, the announcement about those military base closings is suspisciously well-timed -- as in "Nice little military base you've got here in your state, Senator. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
Chances are that well before the 2006 midterms, the filibuster will be gone and Bolton will be in and the Ridiculous Seven will be in and so will at least one, or maybe two, anti-abortion Supreme Court justices. And Cheney's fishing buddy Scalia will be Chief Justice.
Though democrats should, and must, keep fighting on every vote, they also need a Plan B.
I just have no idea what that could be.