War is the health of the state (and hack columnists)

Not every dimwitted and bloodthirsty pundit mouthing off on the Israeli invasion of Gaza is worth legitimizing with a response, but some commentators are more stridently obtuse and vicious than others -- and benefit from the prominent platforms handed to them by publications like Newsweek and The Washington Post -- and sometimes it's worth examining the actual arguments made by the over-compensating La-Z-Boy brigade. Take Carlos Alberto Motaner, "one of the most influential and widely-read columnists in the Spanish-language media," who pens an entire disingenous column on the notion that all critics of Israeli military actions are more or less driven by either 1) anti-semitism, or 2) a desire to kill Jews. Here's the nuanced argument:

Israelis are being accused of suffering too few casualties in their confrontation with the Hamas terrorists. Those who reason thus usually speak the words "disproportion" or "asymmetry" in an indignant tone. While at this writing close to a thousand Arab Palestinians have died or been wounded as a result of the bombings, the Israeli losses amount to just over a dozen.

Tel Aviv's critics -- from whom an anti-Semitic stench often rises -- do not say whether Israel should increase its quota of cadavers or if it must reduce the Arabs' quota to achieve the reasonable proportion of blood that will soothe the peculiar itch for parity that afflicts them. Nor do they specify the morally permissible number of casualties to end the rain of rockets that for years has been constantly falling on the heads of Israeli civilians.

Unfortunately, Mr. Motaner never gets around to citing any prominent voices stating the sentiments he decries, possibly because there aren't any -- a fact that would seem to undermine the straw man he constructs. Also, it never seems to occur to Motaner that perhaps some crtics of the Gaza invasion object to killing people, regardless of nationality and , and see no great moral principle behind the Israeli government's distinction between attacking civilian populations with ineffectual rockets (cold-blooded terrorism) and attacking them with the finest in U.S.-subsidized munitions (legitimate self-defense). Murder is murder, whether it's caused by a Qassam rocket or a smart bomb -- though chances are if it'll be one, it'll be the latter.

Here's more from Motaner, who seems genuinely perplexed as to why the concept of total, "all-out" war is abhorrent to some people:

This demand for "proportionality" can only be called surprising. Until this conflict began, history books everywhere always expressed great satisfaction and a certain chauvinistic pride when a nation's army inflicted on the enemy a large number of casualties, vis-à-vis a trifling price paid by "our boys." Israel is the only country expected to behave differently and, in fact, it does; I know of no other nation that announces where and when it will drop its bombs, thus enabling civilians to evacuate the territory. Of course, in this it behaves asymmetrically, because the Hamas terrorists, forever eager to cause the greatest damage possible, never announce when or where they will launch their rockets against Israel's civilian population.

First, a legalistic point -- namely, article 57, 2(c) of the Geneva Conventions, Protocol I: 

effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

In other words, warning civilians of an impending attack isn't a courtesy (sometimes) granted the Palestinians out of the Israeli government's benevolent goodness, it's a law of war that if ignored (as it often is) could open up Israeli officials to charges of war crimes -- as if their actions to date haven't already. It should also be mentioned that the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip notably don't have the freedom to merely flee the conflict as Israel has maintained an increasingly stringent blockade on the region since Hamas came to power, preventing both the exodus of people and goods as well as the importation of fuel and humanitarian goods. And when residents of the Strip have heeded Israeli warnings and evacuated to several of the UN schools in the region designated for refugees, the Israeli military has had no compunction blowing up said schools up if a suspected Hamas militant (that is, a Palestinian male over the age of 12) is thought to be in the area.

But talking of "war crimes" at times feels a bit academic, as war itself is a crime against nature that -- like government -- is at best a necessary evil, and at worst an intolerable one. Indeed, the only thing mass armed conflict is really healthy for is the state, as Randolph Bourne pointed out during World War I, which invariably expands its power while spawning dime-a-dozen courtiers like Motaner (who wistfully bemoans the loss of stature the mass murder of civilians has suffered over the years). That's all the reason to give Bourne's radical advice -- that one should seek not to stop some wars, but to abolish the power structure that enables them -- a little thought:

War is a very artificial thing. It is not the naïve spontaneous outburst of herd pugnacity; it is no more primary than is formal religion. War cannot exist without a military establishment, and a military establishment cannot exist without a State organization. War has an immemorial tradition and heredity only because the State has a long tradition and heredity. But they are inseparably and functionally joined. We cannot crusade against war without crusading implicitly against the State. And we cannot expect, or take measures to ensure, that this war is a war to end war, unless at the same time we take measures to end the State in its traditional form. The State is not the nation, and the State can be modified and even abolished in its present form, without harming the nation. On the contrary, with the passing of the dominance of the State, the genuine life-enhancing forces of the nation will be liberated. If the State's chief function is war, then the State must suck out of the nation a large part of its energy for its purely sterile purposes of defense and aggression. It devotes to waste or to actual destruction as much as it can of the vitality of the nation. No one will deny that war is a vast complex of life-destroying and life-crippling forces. If the State's chief function is war, then it is chiefly concerned with coordinating and developing the powers and techniques which make for destruction. And this means not only the actual and potential destruction of the enemy, but of the nation at home as well. For the very existence of a State in a system of States means that the nation lies always under a risk of war and invasion, and the calling away of energy into military pursuits means a crippling of the productive and life-enhancing processes of the national life.

An inconvenient truth

President-elect Barack Obama in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

Iran is going to be one of our biggest challenges and as I said during the campaign we have a situation in which not only is Iran exporting terrorism through Hamas, through Hezbollah but they are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies: 

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.

Naturally, Stephanopolous asked Obama -- as any competent, professional journalist would -- to explain why he disagreed with the findings of the intelligence community and of the international inspectors on the ground:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you have to do something about it in your first year.

So it goes. 

Meanwhile, with Dennis Ross reportedly Obama's pick to advise him on and help conduct U.S. policy toward Iran, those expecting a huge break from the Bush administration policy would seem to have every reason to be discouraged. Obama's stated willingness to at least talk with the Iranians is encouraging, but that willingness to engage will be of little comfort if his administration's ultimatums are the same as the Bush administration's -- e.g. requiring Iran to permanently outsource its enrichment of uranium, which it will never do for many nationalistic and historical reasons, while threatening military action if it does not comply.

As IPS Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe writes, Ross -- a former AIPAC lobbyist and co-founder along with Clinton-era CIA director (and prominent neoconservative) James Woolsey of the hawkish group, United Against Nuclear Iran -- is slated to "effectively manage the relationship with Iran in all its various forms, from nuclear proliferation, to support for non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah, to Iraq, and the Gulf, etc. (although at least one anti-Ross source told me that even that much has not been nailed down completely)."

For a look at what that might mean, consider this editorial in The Wall Street Journal that Ross -- along with Woolsey and fellow United Against Nuclear Iran and likely future Obama official Richard Holbrooke -- penned concerning the "threat" of Iran, which "is now edging closer to being armed with nuclear weapons." Notable for its attempts to reach the most fearful conclusions imaginable while never mentioning that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have found no evidence Iran is diverting nuclear material to a weapons program, the editorial also includes the whopper that, because of its "vast supplies of inexpensive oil and natural gas," there "is no legitimate economic reason for Iran to pursue nuclear energy."

While nuclear power may be an exceedingly expensive form of energy, that did not stop John McCain from advocating the building of dozens of new reactors over the next decade despite the U.S.'s large supplies of fossil fuels -- a platform I saw James Woolsely defend on numerous occasions for its supposed climate change and "energy security" benefits. Meanwhile, it would probably make more economic sense for Iran, as a major oil exporter, to pursue nuclear energy seeing as how every barrel of oil Iran does not use domestically it can sell on the world market -- a fact U.S. policymakers realized when they backed the Shah's nuclear efforts in the 1970s. (Whether nuclear energy is actually the best way for any country to achieve that goal is another question.)

Further insight into how Ross is likely to pursue Iranian policy can be seen in this op/ed in The Washington Post by former Senators Daniel Coats (R-IN) and Charles Robb (D-VA), which summarizes a report on Iran -- which Lobe generously terms "dreadful" -- put out by the Bipartisan Policy Center and endorsed by Ross:

[W]hile a diplomatic resolution is still possible, it can succeed only if we negotiate from a position of strength. This will require better coordination with our international partners and much stricter sanctions. Negotiations with Iran would probably be ineffective unless our European allies sever commercial relations with Tehran.

-----

If such a strategy succeeds in bringing Iran to the table, it is important that the United States and its allies set a timetable for negotiations. Otherwise, the Iranians may seek to delay until they achieve a nuclear weapons capability.

Fourth, so that Israel does not feel compelled to take unilateral action, the next president must credibly convince Jerusalem that the United States will not allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capability.

Fifth, while military action against Iran is feasible, it must remain an option of last resort. If all other approaches fail, the new president would have to weigh the risks of a failure to impede Iran's nuclear program sufficiently against the risks of a military strike. The U.S. military is capable of launching a devastating strike on Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure -- probably with more decisive results than the Iranian leadership realizes.

An initial air campaign would probably last up to several weeks and would require vigilance for years to come. Military action would incur significant risks, including the possibility of U.S. and allied losses, wide-scale terrorist reprisals against Israel and other nations, and heightened unrest in the region.

Both to increase our leverage over Iran and to prepare for a military strike, if one were required, the next president will need to begin building up military assets in the region from day one.

Ross' reported appointment to a high-level position in the Obama administration having anything to do with Mideast policy should be a major cause of concern. Indeed, when someone like Hilary Mann Leverett -- a former ambassador to Egypt and onetime "terrorism fellow" at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (i.e. no pachouli-burning peacenik) -- says on national television that "There is a lot of fear and consternation that the advisers, in particular, that Hillary Clinton is bringing with her are going to make us long for the Bush days," one shouldn't expect the next four years to be all rainbows and unicorns.

Pelosi mourns "collateral damage" in Gaza

At her weekly press conference with Capitol Hill reporters this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed how ever so concerned she was about Palestinian "collateral damage" -- euphemistic military jargon for "dead innocent men, women and children" -- but said Israel had an absolute right to defend itself and blah blah blah. See this exchange she had with one reporter (whose hand I'd like to shake):

Q: [On the House floor Dennis Kucinich] raised the issue of the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits U.S. weapons from being used to escalate a conflict.

I have two questions. How can Israel claim self-defense when it bombs Gaza, which has no army, no air force, no navy and has been under a constant blockade? And how can Israel claim self-defense when its bombs destroy U.N. schools killing children?

So I wonder if you could answer those questions and whether you agree with him that Israel is in violation of the Arms Export Control Act?

SPEAKER PELOSI: We will have on the floor tomorrow, hopefully, tomorrow, a resolution about what is happening in the Middle East. I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert Saturday, the 3rd of January and expressed to him concerns that we have about the collateral damage that is occurring in Gaza, but also reiterating my statement that Israel does have a right, any country has a right to defend its people; in fact, it is all of our responsibility to protect and defend our people.

Q: What about the questions from Congressman Kucinich?

SPEAKER PELOSI: You know what? I understand your characterization and I'd have to see why he specifically said that, but let me say in a larger sense that we will address this issue in our resolution tomorrow and the resolution addresses the issue of a two-state solution, a cease-fire, two-state solution with a Palestinian state that is independent and secure and a Jewish democratic state that is independent and secure as well.

The funny thing about Pelosi's response is her remark that she understands the reporter's "characterization" of the events in Gaza -- as if there were any dispute of the fact that the Israeli military deliberately targeted UN schools housing hundreds of Palestinian refugees, killing more than 40 innocent civilians. Meanwhile, the resolution on the Gaza crisis she refers to does call for the protection of civilians, but only after declaring that the House of Representatives: "expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas’s unceasing aggression." 

If your hoping it mentions Israel's total air, water and land blockade of the Gaza Strip in the months leading up the current crisis -- sorry, no. 

By the way, for those keeping score at home: the number of Palestinians killed so far by (U.S.-subsidized) Israeli attacks? More than 760, with another 3,200 injured. The total number of Israelis killed by rocket fire since June 2004? 18.

But wait, there's more!

At this morning's press conference, in response to another question concerning Gaza and whether she had spoken to any of Israel's leaders regarding the (dis)proportionality of their military offensive, Pelosi reminded the troublesome journalist that "you're talking about certain things from one perspective. There's a picture of some good things that are happening on the ground there as well."

Perhaps this is what she had in mind?

Blessed be the warmongers

It's bad enough when a Republican or some would-be Jerry Falwell type attempts to use religion for a reactionary political purpose like banning gay marriage, but even more egregious is the use of the pulpit to propagandize in favor of state-sponsored murder and terrorism -- a rather common phenomenon that tends to receive little attention from the mainstream media. 

Indeed, it seems only when a religious leader uses his or her position to oppose government-organized slaughter and to preach against the killings of others -- even when sanctioned by our noble, democratically elected leaders -- does the media pay any attention, as the much-maligned Jeremiah Wright learned. John McCain, after all, was only forced to distance himself from crazed "Christians United for Israel" leader and Iran war advocate John Hagee after some old tapes surfaced of him claiming the Jews brought the holocaust upon themselves.

During the Bush years many liberals became aware of the role religion appeared to play in regard to U.S. foreign policy, at least in terms of ramping up support among the religious right for armageddon-inducing wars and unflinching support for Israeli military actions. Besides being sacrilegious -- it's hard to imagine the Creator of all things endorsing militarism of any kind, "humanitarian" or not -- the use of religion to bolster the policies pursued by secular nation-states is a sure way to suppress dissent.

Perhaps that's why I found the following event listed in the January 7th Reuters Daybook so disturbing:

(MIDEAST/GAZA/CARDIN) EVENT -- Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Sallai Meridor; participate in a Jewish Community Relations Council forum "to assert Israel's right to self defense and hold Hamas responsible" for the conflict in Gaza." [sic] Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett also speaks.

Location: The Sixth and I Synagogue, 600 I Street NW

While I suppose every religious congregation has a right to hold the events and support the policies of its choosing, it strikes me as exceedingly offensive for supporters of the Israeli government -- a secular state, mind you, which represents only a minority of Jews -- to pretend to speak on behalf of the Jewish faith in defending whatever military actions the Israeli Defense Forces deign necessary, however brutal. If Senator Cardin and the Israeli ambassador wish to defend Israel's invasion of Gaza, let them do so at the National Press Club rather than hiding behind their religion at a synagogue and pretending to speak on behalf of Jews everywhere. Or is that too much to ask?

For what it's worth, when Israel was engaged in its last destructive and counterproductive war against Lebanon in 2006, I asked Cardin's fellow Maryland senator, Democrat Barbara Mikulski, whether the U.S. government's increased shipments of cluster bombs to Israel along with its refusal to call for a ceasefire in the conflict (which killed more than 1,000 Lebanese) just might encourage acts of terrorism against the United States. Her response was telling, for just as supporters of the current assault on Gaza seem incapable of any cogent argument other than shouting "rocket fire" to defend Israeli military aggression, she simply repeated the same old talking points about Israel-as-besieged-democratic-ally, declining to answer the question of whether dropping U.S.-made and paid-for munitions on innocent civilians was the best way to win Muslim hearts and minds.

The most depressing aspect of the current war on Gaza, at least from my comfortable perch in the U.S., just might be the fact that apologists for the Israeli state seem incapable of developing any new forms of argument. Instead, many only appear capable of repeating the same old tired tripe that is trotted out year after year to rationalize whatever Israeli war crimes are taking place, which "journalists" like NBC/GE's David Gregory are all too ready to parrot. Sigh.

The war on schools continues

While U.S. political leaders from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to George W. Bush are busy competing over who can issue the most effusive, over-the-top praise for the Israeli government's brutal collective punishment of the Palestinian people, the Israeli military has once again illustrated its "exemplary" commitment to avoiding civilian casualties (that is, according to respected Council on Foreign Relations fellow Max Boot) by deliberately targeting a school housing hundreds of refugees:

JERUSALEM — The Israeli military struck near a United Nations school in Gaza on Tuesday, killing at least 30 people among hundreds who had sought refuge at the school from the fighting in the beleaguered territory, the United Nations and hospital officials in Gaza said.

The officials said those killed included men, women and children. The Israeli military, in a statement, confirmed it had carried out a mortar attack on the school, saying an initial investigation suggested its forces had responded to mortar fire coming from the school.

Meanwhile, as the carnage in Gaza and the disproportionate response of the Israeli government becomes ever more apparent, Messiah-elect Barack Obama is A.W.O.L., reduced to uttering talking points about there being only one president at a time (a talking point that, peculiarly, doesn't apply to his efforts to "stimulate" the U.S. economy). As Chris Floyd notes, Obama's conspicuous silence is being read by some of his more earnest, "serious" (and deluded) supporters as simply good politics, and perhaps evidence that deep, deep down, he secretly, maybe-kinda opposes the invasion of Gaza -- all evidence to the contrary be damned.

This flight of fancy -- that Obama is some crafty, closet peacenik who will come out of his militaristic cocoon when the clock strikes midnight on January 19th -- is one that continues to pop up among both progressive supporters and conservative detractors of Obama, but it's one that has no grounding in reality. While Obama, to his credit, did indeed oppose the Iraq war, his opposition was always couched in purely pragmatic reasoning, with his 2002 speech against the invasion including several references to his opposition to "dumb wars," but most certainly not to all of them.

During the presidential campaign, meanwhile, Obama openly embraced unilaterally attacking Pakistan -- a nuclear armed "ally" of the United States -- sending thousands more troops to Afghanistan to repeat the "success" of the "surge" in Iraq (the latter which he said had succeeded beyond his "wildest dreams"), and maintaining a significant U.S. presence in Iraq until at least the end of his first term. Furthermore, since the November 4th election Obama has appointed a slew of hawks to key foreign policy positions in his administration, including the potential appointment of Dennis Ross as Special Envoy to Iran (Ross, who presumably would take the lead on talks with Iran, recently backed a startlingly hawkish, establishment-endorsed report that portrayed war with that country as inevitable should it not abandon domestic uranium enrichment, which Iran's leadership almost certainly will never do voluntarily).

Yet despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, Good Democrats and party-line Republicans continue to act as if Obama is something other than an establishment consensus-seeking politician more interested in maintaining power than in upsetting entrenched interests and political constituencies (an institutional desire not limited, by any means, to Mr. Obama). No doubt a sizable portion of those anti-war liberals awaiting the "real" Obama on inauguration day will be sorely disappointed -- before they slap "Obama/Biden 2012" stickers on their cars and begin clucking about the moral imperative of keeping [*insert nasty old Republican here*] out of the White House.

On eating in DC

Though much of this blog is dedicated, as one commenter points out, to my "utter preoccupation with injustice seeking," sometimes even us journalists with pretenses of fighting the power need to eat. In fact, over the holiday break eating is an activity I engaged in at least twice, with varying results.

Good Stuff Eatery

Started by a failed cable "reality" cooking show contestant -- which makes liking the place that much more difficult -- this Capitol Hill burger joint is actually quite good, from the potato bread rolls to the assortment of mayos to dip one's fries in. On my second trip there this past week, the owner, "Chef Spike" himself, was in the house having promotional photos taken (complete with his trademark fedora). So far, so good. However (and you should have seen a "however" coming), about 10 minutes into enjoying my burger my girlfriend and I were asked by a photographer to relocate, immediately, so she could take some pictures of Mr. Spike looking cool -- on top of our table. Not being a terribly fussy person, this normally would have been fine with me. Just one thing: there was no place else on the first floor to sit (despite the fact that said photographer redirected us to a table with one -- count it -- one seat), meaning we were expected to take our half-eaten food up a flight of stairs. Weak. Instead, we inhaled our remaining burgers and fries (not as good as the burgers) and left.

All that said, I'll probably still go back. I'll just hate myself for doing so.

Busboys and Poets

A local coffee shop/restaurant with a penchant for progressive politics (where in August I interviewed former U.S. senator Mike Gravel concerning the case of Sami al-Arian for a story published by Inter Press Service), this past Sunday I attended a screening there of the documentary "Tulia, Texas," which recounts the story of a small, rural town where 46 men and women -- 39 of whom were African-American -- were imprisoned based on the word of one undercover narcotics agent who had an outstanding warrant and a reputation for habitual lying. The event, co-sponsored by "A.C.T.O.R.", a community group dedicated to dialogue on issues of race, was packed, a hopeful sign that more and more people are beginning to see the folly of the so-called "war on drugs". However, the packed room also meant getting any food or drink was a bit of problem.

Nonetheless (and after 30 minutes of waiting), my girlfriend was finally able to speak to a waitress and order some food, a chicken salad sandwich and some chili, both of which were delicious. Paying the check, however, induced major irony in light of the racial awareness theme of the night. While one might suspect such an event to be so politically correct it bordered on conservative satire, the bringing of the check was a moment in decidedly non-PC irony, for instead of listing my girlfriend's order by her table number, the receipt (viewable here) described her only by her race: Asian. Though not malicious and actually kind of funny, the incident is a reminder that, despite the claims of some of the more deluded that the election of Barack Obama has ushered in an era of post-racial bliss, many continue to view others as a member of a race first, and a person-with-a-name (or a table number) second.

-----

After this post, I assure you I'll be back to issues of, you know, importance. Unless, of course, this post gets more hits than my writings about Palestine or U.S. foreign policy, in which case this blog will be dedicated to restaurant reviews and cute dog pictures from here on out.

The destruction of civilization

The Israeli government's continuing assault on Gaza, cast as a targeted strike against Hamas militants, is looking more and more to be an all-out war on the fabric Palestinian society, as the Associated Press reports:

An Israeli air strike flattened one of Gaza's best private educational institutions, the American International School which had been targeted by Islamic militants in the past.

The Israeli army said the campus on a northern Gaza hilltop overlooking the Mediterranean had been used as a launching base for rockets and was a legitimate target.

Israel has been bombing Hamas targets in Gaza for the last eight days to stop the group from sending rockets into southern Israel. More than 470 Palestinians have died so far, along with four Israelis.

Most of the school's buildings, which offered American-style curriculum in English for kindergarten through 12th grade, were destroyed by the strikes, which also killed the night watchman.

"This is the most distinguished and advanced school in Gaza, if not in Gaza and the West Bank," said Iyad Saraj, chairman of the school's board of trustees. "I cannot swear there was no rocket fired, but if there was, you don't destroy a whole school ... this is the destruction of civilization."

The school was founded in 2000 to provide "progressive education," according to the school's Web site. The school has no connection to the US government.

Saraj said the school had 250 students and many of its graduates went on to US universities such as Harvard, MIT and Princeton. "They are very good, highly educated open-minded students who can really be future leaders of Palestine," he said.

(via Lenin's Tomb)

"Take some war and call me in the morning"

Israel's continuing assault on Gaza -- which has killed at least 428 people and injured another 2,100 -- has been widely condemned by the world community, but according to the Associated Press, it has been received as an effective, albeit brutally violent, means of national mood enhancement in Israel itself:

Israelis feel empowered by attacks against Hamas
By MATTI FRIEDMAN and ARON HELLER

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel's crushing aerial assault on Gaza has caused a significant shift in the country's mood, replacing lingering helplessness and frustration over Hamas rocket attacks with a sense of might and vindication.

-----

In Sderot, a working-class border town that has been bombarded by thousands of Hamas rockets in recent years, residents said they haven't been this satisfied in a long time. On Wednesday, they cheered to each sound of distant explosions from Israeli airstrikes.

"You see people walking with their heads up in the air again. Finally there is some hope," said Itzik Biton, 38, who sells falafel at a fast-food stand.

As Randolph Bourne noted during WWI in his classic essay, "War is the Health of the State," military conflicts are unique in their ability to reinvigorate the public's faith in the very leaders whom, during peacetime, would rightly be seen as fallible if not outright evil and corrupt. But beyond raising support for increasing state power at the expense of civil liberties and other hallmarks of a free people, war also turns otherwise non-violent men and women into bloodthirsty monsters. 

Consider that many of those who would never dare start a fight have no compunction blessing the dropping of heavy munitions on their enemies (and their families) amid the belligerent amorality that accompanies military conflict -- a phenomenon Mark Twain captured during the Spanish-American War, and one which former New York Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges covered in-depth in his powerful book, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning:

The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. Trivia dominates our conversations and increasingly our airwaves. And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least meaning in their lives, the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised North African immigrants in France, even the legions of young who live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world, are all susceptible to war's appeal.

Don't fly Airtran

As I learned on a recent trip to Las Vegas, Airtran is a rather lousy "budget" airline. But beyond the petty complaints one could raise against practically any airline these days, the company appears to have gone above and beyond its competitors in using fear of terrorism to engage in what appears to be a clear case of anti-Muslim bigotry:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Muslim family removed from an airliner Thursday after passengers became concerned about their conversation say AirTran officials refused to rebook them, even after FBI investigators cleared them of wrongdoing.

Atif Irfan said federal authorities removed eight members of his extended family and a friend after passengers heard them discussing the safest place to sit and misconstrued the nature of the conversation.

Irfan, a U.S. citizen and tax attorney, said he was "impressed with the professionalism" of the FBI agents who questioned him, but said he felt mistreated when the airline refused to book the family for a later flight.

AirTran Airways late Thursday said they acted properly and that the family was offered full refunds and can fly with AirTran again.

"AirTran Airways complied with all TSA, law enforcement and Homeland Security directives and had no discretion in the matter," the company said in a prepared statement.

Family members said FBI agents tried to work it out with the airline, but to no avail.

"The FBI agents actually cleared our names," said Inayet Sahin, Irfan's sister-in-law. "They went on our behalf and spoke to the airlines and said, 'There is no suspicious activity here. They are clear. Please let them get on a flight so they can go on their vacation,' and they still refused."

"The airline told us that we can't fly their airline," Irfan said.

Though irrational fear is to be expected at U.S. airports, especially when the speakers on the PA system are continually braying about "terrorist alert level orange" and guards carry around intimidating semi-automatic weapons, but it should be obvious that this family never would have been treated this way had they been pasty white Midwesterners. Because they happen to be a shade darker and practice the world's third largest religion, however, benign comments about plane safety are conflated into terrorist threats.

Shame on Airtran and the hysterical passengers who ruined this family's vacation.

Bold, transformational leadership

Israel's war on the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated  and impoverished areas in the world, has now killed almost 350 Palestinians (and probably more by the time you read this):

Israel bombs Gaza in 'all-out war' on Hamas

GAZA CITY (AFP) — Warplanes pounded Gaza for a third day on Monday as tanks stood by to join the "all-out" war Israel vowed would wipe out Hamas, as the death toll rose to 345 and militants responded with deadly rocket fire.

Israel made it clear the offensive was just beginning, even as UN chief Ban Ki-moon called on world leaders to work urgently to end the "unacceptable" violence.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who has threatened to launch ground incursions alongside the aerial blitz, said Israel is in "an all-out war with Hamas and its proxies."

Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon said the goal of the Israeli offensive "is topple Hamas."

With Israeli tanks idling just metres (yards) away from Gaza, the army decreed the area along the border a closed military zone -- a move that in the past has often been followed by ground operations.

"After this operation there will not be a single Hamas building left standing in Gaza, and we plan to change the rules of the game," said armed forces deputy chief of staff Brigadier General Dan Harel, quoted by the YNet News website.

"We are hitting not only terrorists and launchers, but also the whole Hamas government and all its wings," Harel said.

Meanwhile, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, elected on a mantra of change, is signaling that there is little hope his administration will give serious thought to reconsidering the U.S. government's reflexive, unflinching support for whatever brutal, short-sighted and counterproductive policies the state of Israel pursues:

Obama Defers to Bush, for Now, on Gaza Crisis

(NY Times) By STEVEN LEE MYERS and HELENE COOPER 

WASHINGTON — When President-elect Barack Obama went to Israel in July — to the very town, in fact, whose repeated shelling culminated in this weekend’s new fighting in Gaza — he all but endorsed the punishing Israeli attacks now unfolding.

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that,” he told reporters in Sderot, a small city on the edge of Gaza that has been hit repeatedly by rocket fire. “And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

Now, Mr. Obama’s presidency will begin facing the consequences of just such a counterattack, one of Israel’s deadliest against Palestinians in decades, presenting him with yet another foreign crisis to deal with the moment he steps into the White House on Jan. 20, even as he and his advisers have struggled mightily to focus on the country’s economic problems.

Since his election, Mr. Obama has said little specific about his foreign policy — in contrast to more expansive remarks about the economy. He and his advisers have deferred questions — critics could say, ducked them — by saying that until Jan. 20, only President Bush would speak for the nation as president and commander in chief. “The fact is that there is only one president at a time,” David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, reiterating a phrase that has become a mantra of the transition. “And that president now is George Bush.”

Israel's war on Gaza (and international law)

On NBC/General Electric's "Meet the Press" this morning, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was asked by host David Gregory to explain why Israel chose this moment to launch a full-scale assault on the open-air prison known as the Gaza Strip  -- an assault that has (so far) killed more than 300 people in under two days, including a significant number of women and children, dwarfing by a factor of more than 10 the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian rocket fire in total. Her response?

MS. LIVNI: Oh, why now? Because after Israel decided to leave Gaza Strip a few years ago and we got Hamas in return. About a half a year ago, according to the Egyptian Initiative, we decided to enter a kind of a truce and not to attack Gaza Strip. Hamas violated, on a daily basis, this truce. They targeted Israel, and we didn't answer. But unfortunately, Hamas misunderstood the fact that Israel didn't retaliate, and only last week we had in a day 80 rockets, missiles, mortars on Israeli civilians. More than that, they used the field of truce in order to rearm themselves. They smuggled weapon, they built a small army in Gaza Strip, so the situation was unbearable.

The idea that Israel "didn't answer" and "didn't retaliate" to rocket fire from Gaza would be news to the Palestinians suffering under the Israeli-imposed blockade, which bars both fuel shipments and much-needed humanitarian aid to Gaza. 

As UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay notes, the blockade has certainly made the situation in Gaza unbearable for those unfortunate enough to live there, having "forcibly deprived" 1.5 million Palestinian men, women and children "of their most basic human rights . . . in direct contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law." 

The UN has also documented numerous violations of the erstwhile cease-fire by Israel, including IDF soldiers firing at Palestinian farmers who had the temerity to farm their own land. That notoriously radical news service, the BBC, also reported that the cease-fire had been "violated repeatedly" by both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Naturally, being a well-prepared and unbiased journalist, Mr. Gregory cited this widely available information in his followup question, calling Ms. Livni on her blatant attempt to rewrite history:

MR. GREGORY: What is Israel's goal right now? Is it to re-establish the cease-fire, or is it to invade Gaza and remove Hamas from power?

Oh well. At least GE/NBC, being a respectable mainstream news outlet dedicated to balanced and objective journalism, brought on another guest as a counterpoint to the Israeli government who pointed out that the attack on Gaza is tantamount to even more collective punishment -- a war crime -- destined to fuel evermore violence and extremism:

MR. GREGORY: Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, thank you very much for your time.

Ms. LIVNI: Thank you.

MR. GREGORY: And turning back home, we are now joined from Chicago by senior adviser to President-elect Obama, David Axelrod. Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

I guess no critics of Israeli actions, or persons familiar with recent history, could be found on such short notice. Funny how the same thing happened in 2006 when Israel attacked Lebanon, killing over 1,000 innocent civilians in response to the kidnappings of a couple soldiers. It's almost like there's a pattern . . .

John Warner: Great Senator, or Greatest Senator?

When a prominent U.S. politician either dies or retires, the press and his or her fellow lawmakers can be expected to fall over themselves to praise their dignity, their devotion to country over party, etc. (see: Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, et al.) no matter how corrupt or immoral they actually were.

The latest beneficiary of bipartisan hosannas is retiring Senator John Warner, a Republican from Virginia who did his best to gloss over the Bush administration's responsibility for the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq and helped shepherd the Military Commissions Act of 2006 through Congress -- the bill that abolished habeas corpus for those accused of acts of terrorism and retroactively legalized torture.  And when I last spoke to Warner in the summer of 2006, amid rampant bloodshed in Iraq, what issue was the respected senator focused on? Pushing a constitutional amendment to ban the national epidemic of flag burning, which he told me was necessary in order to honor our nation's veterans (which, via his support of the Iraq war, he was ensuring there would be many more of).

Of course, these details -- you know, actual facts about Warner's record -- seem not to matter to his colleagues in the U.S. Senate, including his fellow Virginia Senator, Democrat Jim Webb, who offers this howler:

"There is not a person who is wearing the military uniform today who has not benefited from the wisdom and judgment of John Warner."

Yeah . . . except maybe all those wearing military uniforms who are being bombed and shot at in the quagmires that are Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, I'm not entirely naive -- I realize politicians spout b.s. about "my good friend" this and "my esteemed colleague" that all the time. Nonetheless, it's a bit disconcerting to see Webb -- an opponent of the Iraq war whose son is currently deployed in that country, and who certainly knows better -- gloss over Warner's outspoken support for a war of aggression that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, but so it goes.

More amusing, however, is what Warner believes is wrong with the Republican Party today (hint: it's not the Party's support for "preemptive" war and crony capitalism):

Warner thinks the Republican Party in Virginia, which he helped build, is substituting rigidity for independent thinking.

"I would have to say that I'm deeply concerned, indeed sad, about the Republican Party of Virginia," he said.

A year ago, when he knew he was not going to seek re-election, Warner said he donated $2,000 to the Republican Party of Virginia to help defray the costs of a luncheon and straw poll at the party's annual Advance in Arlington.

"Guess who they elected? Ron Paul. That was the worst investment of several thousand dollars I ever made."

If the problem with the Republican Party, as Warner posits, is that it is "substituting rigidity for independent thinking," why, prey tell, is he bemoaning the fact that the only Republican presidential candidate who dared to challenge his party on its support for endless war and corporatism -- and the only one to challenge the consensus during the primaries that the economy was fine and dandy -- won a local straw poll? Say what you will about Ron Paul (who I interviewed here and here), but he was clearly the only Republican candidate who had any semblance of "independent thinking", for which he was pilloried by the Party establishment. 

Methinks John Warner's opposition to "rigidity" and support for "independent thinking" just may be nothing more than meaningless claptrap self-styled mavericks like he and John McCain are expected to utter for the media's consumption. Admitting the Republican Party lost the '06 and '08 elections because of the policies he himself pushed -- imperialism abroad and corporatism at home -- would probably be too much for the senior senator from Virginia. 

It sure must be comforting for Warner to blame the Party's woes on poor old Ron Paul. Too bad it isn't true.

Doubling down

In addition to Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates' suggestion that the president-elect would be fine with maintaining  40,000-plus troops in Iraq "for decades" (to say nothing of the private contractors), military commanders are now declaring that the erstwhile peace candidate will double the U.S. presence in that other quagmire, Afghanistan:

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. seeks to send an additional 20,000 to 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in the first half of next year.

“Some 20,000 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now. I don’t have an exact number,” Mullen said at a press conference in Kabul today. “We’re looking to get them here in the spring, but certainly by the beginning of summer at the latest.”

With prominent gay marriage opponent -- and assassination proponent -- Rick Warren conducting the "invocation" at the president-elect's inauguration, one could be forgiven for thinking John McCain won last month's election. 

(The modern practice, beginning with FDR, of having religious leaders conduct an inaugural invocation is disturbing in of itself, at least to those who question the desirability of selling statism -- and the view of head-of-state as quasi-deity -- as the secular religion.)

"I bring from President-elect Obama a message of continuity"

Unlike hope or change, "continuity" is a term that doesn't lend itself to campaign stump speeches or glossy merchandise, so it's understandable that Barack Obama did not overly emphasize the concept in his race against John McCain, whose own dedication to continuity in foreign policy earned him the derogatory nickname "McSame."

But in laying out a national security team heavy on hawkish Iraq war supporters -- like "humanitarian interventionists" Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, and Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates -- the notion that Obama would usher in a new era of peaceful U.S. relations with the world markedly different from the last eight years is becoming less tenable to maintain each day (not that a candidate who backed unilaterally invading Pakistan and "surging" in Afghanistan ever should have been viewed as an anti-war/peace candidate by his supporters or detractors).

And now that the heated denunciations of Obama as a neo-McGovernite bent on destroying Israel are subsiding, even The New York Times is noting how Obama's administration is likely to provide little more than an attractive veneer to the policies of George W. Bush, as suggested by Obama's future defense secretary during a recent trip overseas:

Mr. Gates's four-day trip was an indication that Mr. Obama would be continuing much of the Bush administration's latest policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least for now: reducing American troops slowly in Iraq but adding some 20,000 next year in Afghanistan.

Mr. Gates, who said he had had discussions with Mr. Obama about both wars, also signaled that Mr. Obama would take a forceful line against Iran.

"The president-elect and his team are under no illusions about Iran's behavior and what Iran has been doing in the region and apparently is doing with some weapons programs," Mr. Gates said Saturday at a regional security conference in Manama, Bahrain, where he stopped between visits to Afghanistan and Iraq.

-----

Mr. Gates is also a proponent of continuity in national security, a view he underscored to the leaders of the Persian Gulf nations assembled in Manama. "I bring from President-elect Obama a message of continuity and commitment to our friends in the region," he told them.

Though loyal Democratic enthusiasts such as Spencer Ackerman have portrayed Obama's decision to keep on Gates as evidence that the latter has "signed on to Obama's agenda" -- which, according to Ackerman, includes such allegedly "progressive goals for the Middle East like 'responsibly ending the war in Iraq,' 'preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran… [and] seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.'" -- it appears more likely that Obama's agenda is not, in fact, all that different from the second term of the Bush administration.

(I would also question whether "responsibly ending the war in Iraq" -- i.e., keeping tens of thousands of troops there indefinitely -- should qualify as a "progressive" goal. I'd also question whether mere rhetoric should qualify as an "agenda" . . .)

Meanwhile, Gates' comments concerning Iran's worrisome "weapons programs" signals Obama is likely to continue the Bush administration's policy of ignoring factual evidence in favor of politically convenient fear mongering about Tehran. Of course, it's worth noting that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency's November 19 report (pdf), IAEA inspectors have "been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."

The November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, also declares that "Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." Both reports do suggest questions remain about Iran's nuclear ambitions, though none suggest Tehran is "apparently" working on nuclear weapons as Gates implies.

But as for the larger question of continuity in foreign policy under Obama, conservative columnist George Will dispelled the hope of change in that realm in a piece he recently wrote based on an interview with Gates:

Regarding Iraq, Gates is parsimonious with his confidence, noting that "the multisectarian democracy has not sunk very deep roots yet." He stresses, however, that there is bipartisan congressional support for "a long-term residual presence" of perhaps 40,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and that the president-elect's recent statements have not precluded that. Such a presence "for decades" has, he says, followed major U.S. military operations since 1945, other than in Vietnam. And he says, "Look at how long Britain has had troops in Cyprus."

Regarding Afghanistan, Gates recalls with a flicker of a smile that two decades ago, when "we were the quartermaster for the mujaheddin" fighting the Soviet army, "I was pumping arms across the border to some of the same guys" America is dealing with today. He is encouraged by the "dramatic expansion" of Afghanistan's national army and police. But when asked if Afghanistan has ever had a national government whose writ ran nationwide, he says "no."

Obama's promise to withdraw "combat troops" within 16 months -- based on conditions on the ground, of course -- was always a rather sneaky way of not actually committing to end the war in Iraq. After all, keeping troops there to train Iraqi troops and fight terrorism is the ostensible reason the Bush administration has cited for continuing the occupation, so Obama's pledge never really signaled a substantive change in policy.

Meanwhile, the last part in Will's column concerning Afghanistan is particularly noteworthy for, as Gates readily admits, the American public is being asked to trust U.S. national security to very same people who thought funding Osama & Friends in their war against the Soviets was a good idea. Disturbingly, handing control of foreign policy back to these same old establishment types appears to be exactly what liberal reporters/commenters like Ackerman seem to desire, as liberal (and pro-Iraq war when it was still cool) blogger Matthew Yglesias wrote earlier this year:

My ideas really are basically the ideas that were at the core of the bipartisan, establishment consensus throughout the Cold War years. And they're ideas that could and should have been the key ideas of center-left think tanks in the post-9/11 world. But that's not what actually happened. Instead, a set of ideas that originally existed as a fringe right-wing position wound up being espoused not only by nearly the entire Republican Party but by a huge swathe of the broader establishment. The kind of institutions that you would expect to try to put the country back on an even keel -- The New York Times's foreign affairs columnist, The Washington Post's editorial page, the top foreign policy officials from the second Clinton administration, the Brookings Institution, etc. -- instead hopped aboard George W. Bush's madcap adventure.

While Yglesias may be perplexed as to why all his fellow respected, serious foreign policy thinkers were so quick to hop on the Iraq war bandwagon, the reason so many liberal establishment types supported it is actually rather simple: because they, contrary to the wishes of the Code Pink types, believe in war as an instrument of policy. "Regime change" in Iraq became official U.S. foreign policy under the aforementioned second Clinton administration, after all, and certainly none of the serious types at the Washington Post or Brookings Institution ever objected to the genocidal sanctions regime their fellow humanitarian interventionists imposed on that country.

Is it just me, or is naiveté -- either real or affected -- the only qualification one needs to become a sought-after Beltway commentator?

Negative interest rates or bust

The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates "to their lowest level on record," according to the Associated Press, with overnight loans to banks now as low as zero percent. That means the money is essentially being printed and then given away to major financial insititutions, as the money the Fed receives in return for the loans will not have kept pace with inflation (which can be expected to greatly increase). Though the move has been hailed by Wall Street, naturally, something about the Fed's latest gives me a strong case of deja vu:

"Not only does [the lowering of interest rates] help in reducing the actual borrowing costs — home equity loans, credit cards or your auto loan — but it improves the affordability, so more people are eligible for credit because their interest payments are lower," said Brian Bethune, chief financial economist for Global Insight, a Lexington, Mass.-based forecasting service.

He said that will help improve chances that borrowers with borderline eligibility will qualify for loans.

Now I know I'm not a highly respected economist regularly quoted in the Washington Post or anything, but isn't a policy of encouraging banks to give loans to people of questionable qualifications exactly what led the U.S. into its current economic malaise?

But it would appear Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has decided to more or less repeate the Greenspan policy of providing easy money to banks (also tried during the 1920s before another calamitous economic period) that will then try to make a quick buck by lending it to people they probably shouldn't, all in an attempt to inflate the economy back to its previous unrealistic heights. In the short-term, this may indeed spur another artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity -- maybe. But when the inevitable bust comes, it won't be pretty, especially for those on fixed incomes who will have to deal with the likely prospect of significant inflation.

Yet this is the serious monetary policy backed by everyone from George W. Bush to Paul Krugman, which means whenever the blowback of the Fed's actions finally hits nobody will be to blame, except those Americans not patriotic enough to go out and buy a new high-definition television they can't afford.

President Bush greeted as liberator

President George W. Bush, on a final victory tour of the world before he leaves office, participated in a press conference in Baghdad that no interview with a member of the American press could have prepared him for:

While it may appear harsh and a tad unnerving, in Iraq throwing one's shoes at someone is actually seen as a gesture of the utmost humility. "Here. Take the shoes off my very feet, for I am not worthy to walk in your presence."

Or it's a gesture of extreme disrespect and loathing, indicative of the widespread hatred of Bush present throughout the Middle East and much of the world. One of the two.

Will Barack Obama nuke Iran?

Despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no evidence that Iran has diverted any uranium to a covert nuclear weapons program, and that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies have declared that Iran does not have an active weapons program, American politicians haven't come to grips with that reality -- Barack Obama included. How else can one explain his offer, as reported by Israeli newspaper Haaretz, to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against Iran should it ever use nuclear weapons (which the aforementioned intelligence agencies say they don't have) against Israel (which the whole world knows has nukes)?

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

Assuming this story is true (which is not confirmed), Obama would seem to be doing this either because he actually believes Iran may soon get a nuclear weapon -- and, presumably, that Iran's leadership would be suicidal enough to use them against the very well-armed Israel -- or he is trying to alleviate fears that he is actually some sort of closeted Marxist-who-wants-to-surrender-to-the-terrorists, and not the conventional liberal interventionist that he actually is.

Alternatively, the story could also be read as signaling that Obama may see a nuclear-armed Iran as something which the world can live with, and that Iran's leadership could be deterred from using nukes based on the same doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" that was maintained with respect to the Soviet Union.

But would Barack Obama actually nuke Iran? Well, no. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, according the IAEA, and it would have to kick out the inspectors monitoring its nuclear facilities in order to enrich uranium to the level necessary to make a nuke. In other words, Iran can't make a nuclear weapon without the whole world knowing, and even if Iran should develop one, there's no evidence that its leadership would be so irrational as to actually launch a nuclear first-strike against Israel knowing they would be annihilated in return (fears in some segments of the right that Iran's government wants to start the apocalypse to the contrary). Iran's government had no qualms buying weapons from Israel and the "Great Satan" during its war with Iraq in the 1980s, after all, so one shouldn't confuse nasty rhetoric with a desire to end life as we know it.

Now for those who still inexplicably believe Obama will significantly change the course of U.S. foreign policy, cherish the fact that his (alleged) proposal to extend the U.S. "nuclear umbrella" to Israel makes the Bush administration sound reasonable:

A senior Bush administration source said that the proposal for an American nuclear umbrella for Israel was ridiculous and lacked credibility. "Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel's cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?"

The National Review's Jim Geraghty points out that when Hillary Clinton proposed this very idea during the Democratic primaries, it was criticized as laughably hawkish posturing by Obama's liberal supporters. Now that it's their guy, of course, the story receives a "so what?" response from the committed partisans commenting at Daily Kos.

More disturbing than the reflexive, preemptive support for whatever Obama decides from the Kossacks, however, is that the idea of promising a retaliatory nuclear attack on Iran was first proposed by one of the Washington Post's many resident neoconservatives, columnist Charles Krauthammer. The fact that it was too out there for the Bush administration, but seemingly not Obama, should certainly give his anti-war supporters pause -- one would think.

Indeed, as Geraghty writes:

Hear that, netroots? From Krauthammer's column to Obama administration policy. Glad you put all that effort into beating McCain, huh?

That Obama's foreign policy views are not actually all that different than the hawkish foreign policy establishment many of his supporters criticize has been readily apparent for quite awhile -- but you wouldn't know it from reading most liberal blogs, which no doubt are already gearing up for the next Most. Important. Election. Ever.

Chris Hedges on terror

Chris Hedges, a former Pulitzer prize-winning correspondent for the New York Times and author of the highly recommend War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, recently wrote an excellent piece for Truthdig.com on the differences between terrorism (as defined by the 9/11 attacks and the recent events in Mumbai), and state-sponsored terrorism (i.e. the U.S. wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, or Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon), that is worth reading in its entirety. In short, the biggest difference is whether one uses an F-22 or a box cutter:

The Hindu-Muslim communal violence that led to the attacks in Mumbai, as well as the warnings that the New York City transit system may have been targeted by al-Qaida, are one form of terrorism. There are other forms.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when viewed from the receiving end, are state-sponsored acts of terrorism. These wars defy every ethical and legal code that seek to determine when a nation can wage war, from Just War Theory to the statutes of international law largely put into place by the United States after World War II. These wars are criminal wars of aggression. They have left hundreds of thousands of people, who never took up arms against us, dead and seen millions driven from their homes. We have no right as a nation to debate the terms of these occupations. And an Afghan villager, burying members of his family’s wedding party after an American airstrike, understands in a way we often do not that terrorist attacks can also be unleashed from the arsenals of an imperial power.

Barack Obama’s decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and leave behind tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines in Iraq—he promises only to withdraw combat brigades—is a failure to rescue us from the status of a rogue nation. It codifies Bush’s “war on terror.” And the continuation of these wars will corrupt and degrade our nation just as the long and brutal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank has corrupted and degraded Israel. George W. Bush has handed Barack Obama a poisoned apple. Obama has bitten it.

Antiwar Radio's Scott Horton conducted a engrossing interview with Hedges the other day regarding this article, which you can listen to here. Also, for what it's worth, one of the first pieces I ever had published was on an address at a Hedges dared to deliver at a college graduation in 2003 on the morally corrupting nature of war, which resulted in a predictably fascistic response from the campus and talk radio brownshirts. 

As I wrote at the time:

[Hedges] dared -- dared! -- to warn of the soul-destroying effects that can be wrought by war and empire. “For the instrument of empire is war and war is a poison,” said Hedges, “a poison which at times we must ingest just as a cancer patient must ingest a poison to survive. But if we do not understand the poison of war -- if we do not understand how deadly that poison is – it can kill us just as surely as the disease.” In these United States, it has become that pointing out the horrors of war and the pain and suffering which accompany it is now tantamount to “hating America” in the popular eye.

Echoes of post-9/11 America

Via blogger almostinfamous, one finds anecdotal evidence that something akin to the mass pro-war hysteria that erupted in the United States in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks seems to be appearing in India following the Mumbai attacks, with some Indian bloggers professing to be "very disappointed" that India seems unlikely to attack Pakistan in retaliation, and expressing anger that India has "been too soft, too long."

It goes without saying that one shouldn't be "very disappointed" that two powerful states armed with nuclear weapons aren't going to war against each other. But alas, irrational militaristic sentiments are the strongest following attacks like the ones experienced on 9/11 or last week in Mumbai.

The recurrent myth that seems to accompany these attacks is of particular note, as in both India and the U.S. many people -- stoked by nationalistic politicians eager to increase their own power -- came to believe following the respective terrorist attacks that the events had been brought on not by ill-considered state interventionist policies, or that they were merely unexplainable fluke acts of evil, but specifically brought on by the country appearing to be "weak" or "soft."

In the states, this manifests itself in claims that the U.S. government had pursued an "isolationist" foreign policy prior to 9/11 -- as supposedly evidenced by the sudden withdrawals from Lebanon in the 1980s and Somalia in the 1990s -- that convinced the likes of Osama bin Laden that the United States could dish it out, but it sure couldn't take it. While it's true that Americans as a whole certainly have much less stomach for dead Americans than dead foreigners, to claim the U.S. was "isolationist" during the 1990s would of course be overlooking such minor things as the sanctions against (and continual bombing of) Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Just because it didn't lead the evening news doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Writing on the pro-war hysteria seizing some in India, almostinfamous writes:

this is almost exactly the sort of thing i used to read on various right-wing sites(lgf, freeperville etc) almost exactly 7 years ago, except replace ‘pakistan’ with afghanistan. it disgusted me then with regard to the usa, and it disgusts me even more today with regard to india precisely because of the utter futility of the wars waged by the most powerful army in the world.:

But, being a mass hysteria, rationality and commonsense rarely enters into the equation -- the mindless pursuit of vengeance, combined with an ardent refusal to, as somehow-popular NY Times columnist Tom Friedman puts it, "justify or 'explain'" the events in question, being the mark of a good citizen. As a senior in high school during the 9/11 attacks, I particularly remember an otherwise intelligent friend who went on to an elite college demanding that the U.S. essentially kill every man, woman and child in the Middle East because "they" hadn't shown any mercy toward "us". Beyond exposing the evils of collectivism run amuck (Who is "us"? And more importantly, who are "they"?) the remark crystallized to me the danger inherent in the vulgar, violent nationalism that tends to spring up after a calamity -- an ugly "patriotism" that the state is all too willing to exploit, and which often ends in political power being further strengthened and centralized while innocent people in poor, far off lands die for the crimes of others.

With many Indians looking for some way to lash out for last week's crimes, the country's political leadership would do well not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration, as even former Nixon speechwriter and onetime belligerent Cold Warrior Pat Buchanan argues in his most recent column:

War would pit two nuclear powers against each other for the first time since the Sino-Soviet border clash of 1969. It would spawn bloodshed between Muslim and Hindu in India. It would see the collapse of Pakistan, its possible dissolution and a military dictator in a nation already divided against itself over whether to continue resisting al-Qaida and the Taliban, or cut ties to the unpopular Americans.

Wounded and enraged by the atrocities of 9-11, America lashed out, first at Afghanistan and the al-Qaida source of the conspiracy, then at Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks. Thus did the Bush administration disunite its nation and forfeit its mandate.

For India to lash out at a Pakistan that was not complicit in the Mumbai crimes against humanity, but harbors elements within that are guilty and are celebrating, would be as great a mistake.

India and Pakistan both have a vital interest in no new war.

But a new war is exactly what the terrorists killed for and died for.

Should it come, they win — and enter history as revolutionary terrorists alongside Princip and the perpetrators of 9-11.

India's 9/11?

Eating dinner the other day at a local Indian-Pakistani restaurant, I caught a few minutes of coverage from an Indian news network of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. This particular network -- and as I later found it, every other network and publication in the world -- repeatedly referred to the events as "India's 9/11", complete with a logo and everything.

Perhaps it was just the curry, but I found the phrase almost laughably vulgar and more than a little sad. With well over 150 people dead and guns continuing to fire, the media still couldn't stop itself from finding another terrorist attack to compare the tragedy to -- and as far as horrific acts of terrorism go, 9/11 is the gold standard from the perspective of a 24-hour news channel producer.

The comparison to September 11th, however, seems not only crass but unwittingly sad -- and I expect I would be more saddened by it if I were an Indian citizen. Why must a tragic event be branded, and the suffering it entails compared to an incident that occurred thousands of miles away? Can't the attacks be discussed in their own right without the comparisons to 9/11 looming over one's shoulder?

Also disturbed by the comparison is Vijay Prashad, a history professor at Trinity College, as he discussed on Democracy Now:

Anytime there is any attack they start to say this is our 9/11. You know whether it is the attack in London or the attack and Indonesia, everybody claims a terrorist attack now as their 9/11. There is something ominous about this. It means the state has to then follow the playbook laid out by the Bush Administration right after it experienced of course its 9/11. Which is to say you then go and start a war against an adversary that you claim did the attack and simultaneously, you begin to create a security apparatus inside your state to restrict the civil liberties of all people who live within that country.

So 9/11 or branding something as 9/11 has come to have these two aspects. One, go to war against somebody without any kind of full police investigation that is decisively shown us who has done the act. So one, a foreign war, secondly, what you might even consider to be a war against your own population. Where you start to restrict civil liberties far in excess of anything necessary. And of course, always fighting the last terrorist attack. So you build up this enormous apparatus of restrictions which is dealing with the previous attack against population and not trying to forecast the safety of the population into the near future. That is why the media started to talk about Mumbai’s 9/11.

The third reason is, the media had not really called any of the other attacks in Mumbai, and there have been many since 1992, 9/11, precisely because most of those attacks the have taken place in areas which afflicted the working poor, working-class, and middle-class people. This attack, for the first time, targeted places of the top elite. Very expensive hotels, leading restaurants, and this therefore, brought this kind of assault into the bedrooms, into the restaurant of the elite. And they found then that this is their 9/11. The other attacks were not called 9/11. There were the kind normal conditions of suffering borne by ordinary people in places like Bombay.

Others, however, like Indian opposition party member Arun Jaitley, inexplicably see the U.S. government's response to the 9/11 attacks (the response that has the U.S. army mired in two quagmires and, 7+ years later, Osama bin Laden still on the run) and think, let's emulate that:

We must follow the example of what United States did after 9/11. We are more vulnerable them and we must be a tough state and not a soft state. Out intelligence network, our security response, our legal framework all need an overhaul and all need a strengthening. When all of them see the political establishment is weak on terrorism, each one of them collapses. That’s where the basic change is required.

The constant, obsessive fear of being seen as "soft", "weak", or -- my personal favorite -- "impotent" in the face of terrorism or some adversary is commonly associated with U.S. neoconservatives (and males who feel the need to overcompensate for certain . . . deficiencies). Yet as we see with Mr. Jaitley, the need to assert one's masculinity by advocating militaristic policies is not one that the U.S. has any monopoly over, as evidenced by the bloody entirety of human history.

Contrary to his advice, though, if "India's 9/11" should teach one anything, it is that massive centralized security bureaucracies are incapable of defending against acts of terrorism, but are quite good at terrorizing civilian populations with their intrusive ineptitude and inevitable blowback. Each dollar that goes toward male enhancement -- er, toward the military and police -- is also one less dollar that can go to a more productive purpose. Too bad "increasing productivity" doesn't scream "manliness" as loud as cracking a few skulls or carpet bombing a country.