Dan Lyons
~ Monday, March 31, 2003
 
Letter to USATODAY / EMPIRE 'ON THE TAB'
L.Haas (31Mar) says we must cut down all non-military spending so we can afford our 'leadership' role internationally (i.e, dreams of empire). He's right that our huge and growing deficits mean big trouble for us in the future. But he's left out one factor: the average American doesn't give a damn for the empire; this is a dream of a few sick people in Washington./
The ordinary citizen goes along with this dream (just as he went along with the Vietnam fiasco) as long as the costs all go 'on the tab', into the deficit. He is so childish he doesn't think of future problems. /
If Americans ever realized that our 'leadership role' means cuts in medicare and social security, and hikes in mortgage interest rates (and therefore a puncturing of the housing-price bubble, their main source of 'wealth')--support for our international meddling would evaporate.
~ Sunday, March 30, 2003
 
Letter to USATODAY/ DEATH OF GOOD-SENSE/
War Fever is interesting. Two months ago, most Americans opposed a 'go-it alone' war without really helpful allies, without UN approval, and Pres.Bush's approval-ratings were down. Now 70% of Americans approve of this 'go-it-alone' invasion and Pres. Bush's performance,even though the war is going far worse than expected./
It's said that the people really favor 'supporting our troops', not our war-strategy. But Pentagon supply-bungles have provided some GIs with only one meal a day!To support our troops effectively, as peaceniks say, would be to bring them home. And yet people answer 'yes' when asked if they support the war./
Unfortunately, war fever is also infecting the Iraqis. If sensible, they would surrender and turn Saddam over. But being attacked makes your glands take over from your reason. /

It's said that Truth is the first victim of war; this is not so. Good-sense perishes first; then there
is no demand for truth.
~ Saturday, March 29, 2003
 
REFLECTIVE OFFICER: A British tank-commander,watching coffins being carried from a plane, said:
"It's a sobering thought that these are the latest in a very, very long line of young men killed in and around Baghdad for thousands and thousands of years. We must surely find some better way to sort out our arguments!" (Reuters/29Mar)
 
PRECISION-LESS WEAPONS: TIME-type magazines are quoted Rumsfeld as envisioning a 'digital' war, in which the fighting is done mainly by various kinds of computer-brained robots./
THE RECRUITING PROBLEM: In an earlier blog, I pointed out that, while our computers were undoubtedly very accurate, this may not be so of the human U.S. servicemen needed to operate them. Technically proficient Americans (even in car repair!) are SCARCE and highly-paid. Enlisted technicians (miserably paid and subject to awful living-conditions) are likely those who couldn't make it in civilian careers; in fact, more and more of our troops are not even U.S. citizens! OUR ELITE YOUTH DO NOT FEEL OBLIGED TO ENLIST.(Drafting them for 2 years wouldn't help much; they wouldn't reenlist.)
These service-technicians may be untrainable in any high degree, because unable to comprehend technical manuals. (NYT says (30Mar) that servicemen have 'one-grade-better' reading skills than civilians their age. But suppose the civilian scores are absolutely dismal, which is plausible [we place 9th internationally in 4th-grade reading skills]; the question is how the reading-skills of enlistees compare to the requirements of technically advanced weapons. THe NYT story said the typical serviceman was like a student in a trade school in a Southern city. Any teacher can infer what the skills are of such people.) And Reuters(8Apr) quotes the Pentagon as saying that the 'top 25%' of Americans are underrepresented in the services. But, assuming this means the top 25% educationally (as well as socio-economically), it is clear that not many enlistees are trained or even, perhaps trainable, to operate complex weapons computer-sytems.
THE RESULT: Whatever the reasons, the result is a severe lack of precision in our use of weapons. 3 of our missiles have hit Iran [as of 9 Apr]; several of our missiles have hit Saudi Arabia ! Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have quit permitting our missiles to cross their air-space. On 5 April, a U.S. bomber killed 19 Kurdish allies, wounded 45 more.[REUTERS]
The British are quite upset at the frequency with which their people are hit by our explosives: 1 just killed and 5 wounded. Of 23 British killed so far, only 4 have died in actual combat. Our generals don't keep a separate total count of GIs killed by 'friendly fire'; but we do know that one Marine unit just shelled another Marine unit. There are 'friendly-fire' deaths in every war ( 1 in 4 U.S. deaths in Gulf War I were caused by friendly fire)--but the percentage here is far higher than usual (16% in WWII, 11-14% in Vietnam. In Kosovo, we killed more allies than we did Serbian enemy soldiers. [USATODY9APR] American authorities admit that some cases are caused by 'negligence' (which might involve operator-semi-competence).
And of course we're blowing civilians to bits by the hundreds--(the whole process watched by one billion enraged Muslims).
U.S. NOT GREAT AT LAND WAR: In Afghanistan, we did the bombing and the 'Northern Alliance' (bribed by us) did the land-war. In Kosovo, we did the bombing and Albanian irregulars did whatever ground-war was done. Here we're finding out all over again, as we learned in Vietnam, that land-war is not among our national talents. (We did all right in Gulf War I because Saddam immediately gave up--as long as we let him escape. Even so, it turns out 10 years later, 1 in 4 of the Gulf War I vets display mysterious symptoms such that they have been certified 'disabled for life' !) /
Our main military talent is hurling tons of explosives at a foe, more or less accurately, from a safe distance. Unfortunately, you can't build an empire (as Cheney/Rumsfeld dream of doing) on that one talent./
[9 APR: WE WON THIS LAND WAR, EVEN THOUGH S. DIDN'T GIVE UP RIGHT AWAY..WHETHER WE WON BECAUSE OF OUR LAND-WAR TALENTS OR HIS STRATEGIC GOOFINESS..? (IN GULF WAR I, HE TRIED TO FIGHT A TRENCH WAR, AS IN WW I !) WE'LL SEE IN OUR NEXT GROUND WAR, WHICH WILL COME UP SOON.
 
A WAR RUN BY CHICKEN-HAWKS:/ It's clear to everyone that the planning for this invasion was grossly defective. There aren't enough troops to protect adequately the long supply-lines (the troops call the 200-mile stretch 'Ambush Alley'.) Some GIs were for a while getting only ONE MEAL A DAY! A commander said, "We have almost outrun our logistic lines."The troops have rushed to near-Baghdad; but then they've had to stop and hunker down because Southern Iraq (which they thought would be a pushover, because it's occupied by Shiites, not Sunnis) turns out not to be secured./
Britain's Blair is another 'chicken-hawk'--he never went to war when young(not even in Ulster); now he's hot for war. Timothy Garden, a former general, said that the British officers were reluctant to endorse the invasion, considering it risky and UNNECESSARY. "Among my former military colleagues," said Garden, "NOT A SINGLE ONE THOUGHT THIS A GOOD IDEA." [WASHINGTONPOSTFOR.SVC.29MAR]
'U.S. military sources' told Reuters correspondents that they were pausing for 4-6 days. But back in peaceful Quatar, the U.S. spokesman said,"There is no pause..just because you saw a particular formation pause..it does not mean there's a pause." ! British spokesmen turn out also to be not very trustworthy: the (Chinese-made) missile that just hit Kuwait City is thought to have come from a region which the British claimed to have captured earlier./
Reinforcements won't arrive for a week or two. (The Bush-team said earlier that they couldn't postpone the invasion for a week or two more for more inspections, because the desert-heat--rising one degree a day--would make our 'space-suits' almost intolerable. But now they have to wait anyway--and the space-suits are getting less tolerable..also, they are degrading once unpacked and exposed to air ! (On 6 Apr, Reuters said the temperature is 100 already, and rising. Our troops are not donning their magic space-suits, just keeping them nearby. If Saddam does have VX gas and anthrax ready, there could be a disaster./
On the other hand, the British are now saying that maybe he doesn't have these WMDs at all.
That will make the invasion seem even more absurdly unjustified than it does already.
Also, the sand-storm season, crippling our nifty tanks and helicopters, is just beginning./
As long as the troops were on the move swiftly, they made a difficult target for shells containing VX gas or anthrax germs. But now they're sitting still near Baghdad, sitting ducks./
Rumsfeld, Cheney and their crew felt SURE that Saddam's regime would collapse within days after our invasion. So, DESPITE THE WARNINGS of professional soldiers in the Pentagon, they didn't provide for the possibility of a more prolonged combat. (Bush of course is a complete pawn of Rumsfeld and Cheney.)/
Now they deny that they were surprised at the resistance of Iraqis. They were going by the experience of Gulf War I, with mass Iraqi desertions. But they didn't allow for a couple of changed facts: 1) We have been bombing Iraq for the past 10 years; (2) Our sanctions have meant the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, especially children, from hunger and disease..we blamed Saddam, he blamed us--there was always the possibility that the average Iraqi would believe Saddam. The result was the very real possibility that the people hate Americans more than they dislike Saddam!/
The Cheney/Rumsfeld 'Chicken-hawks', never having faced real war themselves, were as ignorant of combat conditions as they were of the psychology of Middle-Eastern Muslims. They now maintain that they KNEW ALL ALONG that the war would be 'hard and long'. But commanders in the field say that's not so. For instance, Marine Gen.Kelly said, "Their determination was..a surprise..what we were really hoping was to just go through and EVERYONE WOULD WAVE FLAGS and stuff." (NYTIMES,quoted in RMNEWS, 29Mar)./ And an old veteran of Vietnam, Gen.Wallace, says that we didn't expect the kind of resistance we in fact met.
Last week some hacks on Sen.McCain's staff turned out a defense of this invasion in NYTIMES which also predicted that this invasion would make the world's Muslims look on us more favorably, after the Iraqis were celebrating their liberation. Instead, every report says that Muslims all over the world are boiling with rage at the pictures of Iraqi women and children blown to bits by our 'precision' bombing of cities. All observers agree that 'Osama'-types will now find it much easier to recruit 'martyr-murderers' to attack the American Homeland. Indeed, a martyr in Iraq just killed 4 GIs and himself with a car-bomb.(Reuters,29 Mar)./
Our leaders are now really reluctant to invade the cities, facing murderous door-to-door combat like that the Nazis faced at Stalingrad. Now they talk of 'besieging' the cities instead..pressuring the people to surrender, by hunger and especially by thirst. [BAD PREDICTION! 14APR] Instead of 21st-century 'surgical' strikes, we might have to resort to the brutal tactics used in the Middle Ages!/
This should bolster, in the minds of world Muslims, the emotional identification of our invasion with that of the medieval Crusaders--whose hated memory is still very alive among Muslims. (Observers have pointed out that the very name of our Commander, Gen. Franks, recalls the Franks who brutally attacked Muslims centuries ago.)/
Instead of an effective 'shock-&-awe' attack, we're producing a 'shock-&-chuckle' attack..the chuckles coming from Osama bin Laden./
Of course the Saddamites are swine to subject their own people to this horror, just to postpone by a little their own destruction. That's a given. But those civilians are caught between 2 sets of swine.
~ Friday, March 28, 2003
 
DANGER IN KOREA:/
THE BACKGROUND: for 50 years, we have kept 37,000 GIs near Seoul, within artillery range of North Korea. We don't expect them to fight over one million North Korean troops; they serve a 'trip-wire' function; they are there just to DIE if N.K. invades the South again. (South K. might have wondered if we would come to their aid--but if thousands of our troops are slaughtered right away, OF COURSE we'll come charging in!)/
When this ruthless policy was formulated, we never dreamed that WE might want to attack N.K.! But now N.K. worries that we may plan this. They can hope to deter us from this attack by reminding us that they can fire 400,000 shells per hour at our 'hostage' troops, shells perhaps filled with nerve-gas and anthrax spores./
Why should they worry about a U.S. Attack?
--Bush named N.K. As part of the 'Axis of Evil'. And he has hurled personal insults at their Head of State (unusual conduct for a Head of State like Bush!)
--We announced in Sept.02 that we'd feel free to launch a 1st-strike at any nation that tried to catch up with us in weapons--which is exactly what N.K. has been attempting, with their restored nuclear program.
--By invading Iraq, we showed that we're serious about launching first-strikes at nations that have never directly threatened us.
--Rumsfeld announced that we might (finally) withdraw our 37,000 troops from the reach of N.K's artillery. If we even start this evacuation, N.K. might well fear that means we plan to attack them immediately, after we move our 'hostages' to safety. Our B-52s on Guam, with tactical nuclear bombs, could pretty well wipe out their massive artillery in a few days./

THEIR REACTION? --N.K. could wipe out our troops first, and the magnificent modern city of Seoul, and perhaps some cities in Japan, in a day or two. This first-strike, which could happen any day now, would be suicidal of them, since we'd then feel free to nuke their whole country. (50 years ago we leveled almost every building in N.K., and destroyed their dams, flooding their rice-fields and starving 2 million people--so they know we are ruthless. But they also know they could rebuild.) /
--But suppose they think we do intend to attack them anyway (perhaps within a month, after we have finished off Iraq)--then they are faced with a 'use 'em or lose 'em' dilemma..if they wait till we attack, they'll lose their artillery force before they can attack our 'hostage troops'. (They would still have their one or two nukes, but with only untested missiles to deliver them to Los Angeles.) /
They could donate their nukes to terrorists to deliver to the U.S., e.g., in freight-containers arriving at our ports. They would also have their germs to donate to the terrorists. But they now see that our government was too dumb to be deterred by such a threat from Iraq. They also have over one million troops to swarm into South Korea--but perhaps we don't care that much about South Korea any more. /
--Rumsfeld and crew feel sure that N.K. wouldn't be crazy enough to launch a first-strike at us, no matter what. This was the crew that felt sure that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators.
This crew may not realize that China might feel compelled to take over a ruined Korea completely./
--N.K. Has threatened war, but our leaders are convinced this is a bluff. /
When it comes to understanding the feelings of foreigners, our rulers are in the dark without night-goggles. /
LATEST DEVELOPMENT: A Canadian representing the U.N. (AP, 2April) just returned from N.K., saying "War is unthinkable..yet entirely possible. N.K. Is prepared to go to war if they feel their..nation is threatened AND THEY DO...They see that U.S. Is actually carrying out their right of preemption against Iraq, and they believe they are next on the list." /
WOULD WE WANT THEIR FIRST-STRIKE? Our government has kept the Media pretty silent about our 37,000 GI hostages..if slaughtered, they will not be individual Americans, pictured in the papers with their mothers--they'll be just be a number./
Since Mexican War, we've arranged to be attacked first; that rouses our dull, inert populace to a war-frenzy. Also our 'justified' nuclear response would help to remove the taboo we find annoying about using nukes routinely in war./
This conflict might not even postpone our attacks on Iran and Syria..after all, we pride ourselves that we can fight several wars at once!
 
CHEAP GAS? NO! [Mr. Ostrof wants us to boycott Exxon/Mobil, to keep down price of gas.]
Mr. Ostrof: I read your pvgreens piece, and I sharply disagree with your goal.
The whole point of our 'war on drugs' is not to stop drug-use altogether (impossible!) but to raise the price of street drugs; similarly, raising the price of cigarettes does work to discourage teen-agers from smoking./
So also, raising the price of gasolIne SHARPLY should work to discourage purchase of big, gas-guzzling, air-polluting cars, which cause asthma-deaths among children and adults. It might also discourage overuse of cars--e.g., encouraging one mate to use the bus or bike sometimes--or even, God help us, to walk--and thus to extend our active lives. (People don't think about the allergies caused by the tons of latex thrown off by tire-wear; nor do they think much about the 2 or 3 million people injured each year by cars.) /
I lived 3 years in Britain, where gas is priced by the litre, not by the gallon--it comes to about $5 per gallon, because of high taxes. Even middle-class males there rode the train from suburbs to work. In Italy,
people gorge on pasta, ice-cream and wine--yet they stay pretty thin, because they walk. 47% of journeys of LESS THAN HALF A MILE are made here in cars.(RMNEWS2APR).
Here, cars are a religion. My daughter baby-sat for a neighbor; the little girl said, "My Mommy says your Daddy is a Communist!" /Why?/ "He walks to work even though he has a car!"/
I admit that our addiction to cars will mean that, with increased gas-prices, many men will give up food for their children rather than cut back on their driving. It's also said that high gas taxes hurt the poor most; so does gambling, but we even let the State offer lotteries! If we cared about the poor--we don't--we could lower the social-security tax or the sales tax for other goods, substituting the gas-tax./
Even if shoulder-missiles start shooting down a few airliners, flying will still be less dangerous, per person-mile, than driving. Americans are cutting out flying to Europe; as one Englishman said, "If they get to the airport alive, the rest of the trip is safe indeed!" Train-travel, of course, is much, much safer!/
Since our government is too corrupt to tax gas, I'm glad that gas-producers impose this tax on us. The price is going to go up and stay up, despite any pressure you put on Mobil / Exxon. The Venezualan
strike (engineered, some say, from Washington with its usual stupidity), the Nigerian interruption, the interruption of Iraq supplies, the possible sabotage by al Quaeda of Saudi Arabian facilities..all these,
happily, will keep gas-prices up.[14 April: commentators talks about gas-prices 'plummetting'; here they've dropped from $1.69 to $1.59..not much of a plummet!]
My little Nissan, with its low mileage, will keep smiling through the crisis. I have a yearly bus-pass. And I walk for short distances, despite my spine-trouble--actually, I hobble vigorously. Every time I
get stuck in a parking lot between a couple of two-story behemoths, I tremble with delight at their gas-costs./
-----------------
Unfortunately high oil-prices are delightful to the Russians (once again our enemies); their oil is expensive to produce, but they make big money when prices are high. Saudi Arabia (whose oil is very cheap to produce) makes even more money; S.A. is the country where textbooks encourage the killing of Jews, where bin Laden's crazy brand of Islam originated, where most of the 9/11 terrrorists came from, where women are not allowed to drive, where TV-antennas are forbidden if they are shaped like crosses, and so on./
But bin Laden might be able to sabotage S.A. refineries. (On the other hand, why hasn't alQuaeda done this before? Some say that S.A. rulers pay off the terrorists if they leave S.A. alone.)
~ Thursday, March 27, 2003
 
CORRUPT U.S. MEDIA: Why are our media corrupted by the 'embedding' of their correspondents in U.S. military units? Think of it..these media are corporations selling pictures and dramatic stories (to get people to heed their ads). The government offers them great pictures and poignant, supposedly first-hand stories. In return, they are expected to censor their stories in a way favorable to the government.
And they will, insofar as they can get away with it./
It's not just on the subject of war that U.S. media can't be trusted. In USATODAY2apr, a front-page graph showed responses to question about best way to bolster growth. The answers were clearly slanted toward the interests of the rich. When you looked at the TINY print under the graph--which most U.S. readers never do--you saw that this was a poll of 1000 CEOs! /
Luckily, intelligent Americans can rely on outside sources for more objective information. For instance, I could instantly contact the NEW ZEALAND HERALD to check the story below.
An especially good and easy-to-contact source is REUTERS.COM. Problem is: how many Americans are knowlegeable and energetic enough to take advantage of these foreign sources?
 
AUSTRALIAN REFUSES TO BOMB CIVILIANS: An Australian pilot was ordered by Americans to bomb an Iraq site where he had no reason to think there was a military target. He refused. [Acc.to NewZealandHerald, passed on by WWW.INFORMATIONCLEARINGHOUSE.INFO] The Australian government affirmed the report. [I checked this; the NZHerald did run this story.]
-----------------
To read earlier blogs, go under ARCHIVES at the left. For a piece dated 3/17, for instance, click on the week of 3/16 to 3/22.
~ Wednesday, March 26, 2003
 
ATTACKING OTHERS, WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DEFEND OURSELVES:/
Bush is asking for $75 billion to finance the invasion just for the first 6 months! That's added to the $1 billion per day the Pentagon already gets in peacetime. The total (including the 'black budget', the extra billions Congress gives the military covertly,) comes to ONE MILLION DOLLARS PER MINUTE, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours a day./
Those men enjoying the war on TV should reflect that this has to be the most expensive show in history./
At the same time, Gov. Pataki is the first Republican governor to break ranks and complain that the Bush-team is shorting our Homeland Security program. /
Our program is 'all sword, no shield'. Why is this? The sword-makers own the politicians. It wouldn't be so bad if they just took their graft and made nothing; but they insist on doing positive harm to the world.
 
PREVAILING--IN THE SHORT RUN:/ A Colorado fellow in a snowmobile thought it would be fun to chase around a baby moose. He didn't notice the one-ton mother nearby; she trampled him and his snowmobile, breaking almost every bone./
Similarly, Pres.Bush assures us that 'we will prevail' in our invasion of Iraq. Of course we will: a giant pounding a crippled pygmy. Whatever the costs to us, in blood and money, and however minimal the benefits to us, we will win this short-run battle./
However, one billion Muslims all over the world are watching the TV show also. burning with humiliated rage. (In Indonesia and Pakistan, men educated in the U.S. have turned against us--Reuters,26Mar.)Their imams tell them that God will reward them in the next life if they kill some Americans here. Even respectable Muslim clergy are calling for a Jihad, a Holy War, against America. FAR MORE MUSLIMS ARE HEEDING these imams, since the invasion. (Thousands of youths walked over the mountains from Pakistan into Afghanistan to fight the Americans; the bedraggled survivors are just now returning to Pakistan. Syrian authorities are surprised that more people are now moving from Syria to Iraq (many to fight Americans there) than are fleeing from Iraq to Syria.(Reuters,28Mar). (Americans are being advised to stay away from Indonesia, on the other side of the world.)/
Would-be martyr-murderers will have no trouble getting into U.S., along with one million illegals every year. They may not look like Arabs. There are literally dozens of ways they can harm us; our society was not planned to be terrorist-proof; we are incredibly vulnerable./
The feds are grossly underfunding our Homeland Security projects; we are short of 'first-responders'; some strapped cities and states are having to lay-off POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN, for God's sake! And of course we already have a desperate shortage of nurses, even before the first bioterror attack./
Lyndon Johnson and his team, who plunged us into the Viet war, which (they admitted later) they knew all along we could never win--these should now be remembered as enemies of the American people. The Bush-team may deserve a similar infamy.
~ Tuesday, March 25, 2003
 
MORE ABOUT OUR POWER TO DESTROY, NOT TO BUILD:/ see GUARDIAN.CO.UK/24 Mar/James Meek: MARINES NOT WINNING OVER HEARTS AND MINDS/ to see how our crude (and ruthless)servicemen are guaranteeing Iraqi hatred, not welcome./
And then there's a headline with Bush saying we will rebuild Iraq, if need be, without UN help.
He also promises BILLIONS to our coalition partners--the coalition of the greedy, not of the willing.
What the hell? We can afford all these billions; we'll just skimp a little more on Homeland Defense./
Amid all the tears, you can always count on 'W' to provide a few laughs.
 
RUSS AREN'T PLAYING FAIR! / Bush has complained to Putin that Russian war-materials have somehow reached Iraqi forces; for instance, night-goggles. It's OK for the invaders to be able to see at night, but not for the defenders. War produces a great shortage of embarrassment.
~ Monday, March 24, 2003
 
MAD OPTIMISM FROM SADDAM: Hussein talks this way: "We have got the Enemy in our trap." But however awful the costs might be to the invaders--and however minimal will be the benefits to the invaders!--the Giant will prevail against the pygmies. Saddam's bluff reminds one of a line from Mark Twain: "I thrust my nose firmly between his teeth, and threw him to the ground on top of me!"/
Of course we're told both by the Muslim clergy and also by the Pope that God opposes this invasion.
But presumably He also opposed the invasion of Europe by the Nazis, the invasion of China by the Japanese and the invasion of Eastern Europe by the Soviets. In the short run, that didn't make a difference./
In the long run, all these crude empires failed..but in the long run, practically all crude empires fail--as, undoubtedly, will the American Empire. Perhaps Tolstoy was right: "God writes straight with crooked lines"--but the lines are sure crooked!
 
FAKE ATTACKS COMING: When ruthless governments are cornered, they often
stage bloody attacks on their own people, ascribing them to 'the enemy'. For instance, the
bombings of Moscow apartments were ascribed, without much evidence, to the Chechens,
rousing rage in Muscovites that legitimated more violence against Chechnya. (After the first explosions, Russian security people were caught planting explosives in another apartment house--they said they were doing this as a 'training exercise'.[Harper's Weekly] /
The Bush-team face a problem, though; opposition to their war is in a sense 'headless'..there
are no formal organizations whose discrediting by such staged violence would decapitate the
opposition. (Three organizations that might be targetted would be TRUTHOUT.ORG,
MOVEON.ORG, and WIN WITHOUT WAR.) Until now, there have been enormous
spontaneous but peaceful protests, with a little civil disobedience, but little violence even
against property. One hopes that antiwar marchers will recognize and repudiate fake peaceniks among them, advocating violence./
Republican hawks would gladly believe that war-opponents have resorted to violence against
American citizens. But they are already fully committed to the war--and, you can bet,
to repression of dissenters. The issue is the 'middle people', who were previously opposed to
the war, but just lately have been counted in polls as supporting it (or 'supporting the
troops')--will they fall for such classic, even tired, deceptions? If they do, then the violence
against our Bill of Rights will be much strengthened./
What complicates matters is that real attacks by terrorist-martyrs CAN be expected. The issue
is whether ordinary Americans can distinguish these terrorists from patriotic dissenters.
~ Sunday, March 23, 2003
 
NIX ON U.S. MEDIA: We have to face it. Like Lucky Strike Green [in-joke for oldies], the main U.S. Media have gone to war. Their portrayal of the war is pure propaganda. Front-page picture of youthful GI carrying wounded Iraq child ! /
I myself have quit watching TV news (who needs to SEE carnage?) and am getting my up-to-date headlines from www.REUTERS.com and from GUARDIAN.co.uk --and, especially from TRUTHOUT.ORG (An especially interesting article from them is by Joseph Galloway--a veteran & respected combat reporter, for Knight-Ridder, 24 March, on the defects of 'chicken-hawk' Rumsfeld's absurdly-optimistic strategy, counting on the Iraqis to welcome us as liberators. (One remembers 50 years ago that we invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, sure that the Cubans would turn against Castro once we invaded. Castro has survived 7 U.S. Presidents so far.) /
Let's face it: as far as accurate knowledge of other peoples is concerned, Americans are in the dark without night-goggles./
Another interesting source is INFORMATIONCLEARINGHOUSE . [TEmporarily you can reach them only by http://162.42.211.226--or at www.informationclearinghouse.info ] Some of their reports (e.g., from Russian Intelligence ! ) may have their own bias, but at least they can balance the bias of U.S. media./.
Also, news.ft.com the London Financial Times. This is paper for the British money-elite. They are so bright and self-confident, they don't want propaganda..they want true facts on which to base their economic decisions./
There is also the TORONTO GLOBE AND MAIL ( www. globeandmail.com )/ and the IRISH TIMES www.ireland.com
~ Saturday, March 22, 2003
 
GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT: There was a report that several rockets, perhaps from our 'coalition', hit IRAN instead of Iraq. But one analyst said, "They'd have to be WAY off-course, which is not likely." Oh?
[U.S. admitted that at least one errant rocket was ours. On the other hand, Iran said the missile was Iraqi.
On the 3d hand, a US missile just downed a UK jet.]
When we bombed the wedding in Afghanistan, it was admitted that one 'precision' bomb out of 7, from a B-52, went way off-course. And during the Viet war we bombed THAILAND several times by mistake./
The computer-guidance of these bombs is probably fantastically accurate; but they must be set at the last minute by human beings, indeed by American service-people. Think about it:
1) Elite American youth rarely feel obliged to enlist out of principle; if Americans do enlist, it's usually for dumb 'testosterone' reasons or for career reasons;/
(2) if it's for career-reasons, the people must be pretty desperate for careers, given the lousy pay and work-conditions./
(3) if they're desperate, they're likely not excessively competent, especially in technical matters. We're told that a large percentage have high-school diplomas; but we all know how little a high-school diploma guarantees in America.
In America good technicians, of any kind, EVEN CAR REPAIR, are scarce and highly paid--I just read that there are 75,000 unfilled positions in computer-security. (Technical companies are desperate to hire skilled foreigners, or to outsource our projects to India.)/
Indeed, a good number of these service-technicians probably have difficulty reading technical manuals, and so are not trainable in any high degree. In fact, a few years ago, there were stories that these manuals were being expressed in comic-book form./
ON 27 Mar, 30 Marines were wounded after being shelled by ANOTHER U.S. MARINE UNIT!
------------------------------------------
The conclusion is that many of these 'precision' bombs and missiles will go astray. We hear about the super-accurate hits on cars,etc. We don't hear of the wild shots. /
Oh, well, we have hundreds of missiles to waste..and if they hit the wrong place in Baghdad, so what?
(Two of our 'precision' missiles just hit a residential area in Baghdad (26 March). Reporters saw body parts strewn all over, but saw no military targets anywhere near. /
On 28Mar, 50 more civilians were killed in Baghdad by U.S. missiles. When you have such a barrage of 'precision' missiles, the precision disappears; what results is saturation bombing./
You can bet the pictures of body-parts will circulate all over the Muslim world, helping Ossama-types to recruit more terrorists.)
~ Friday, March 21, 2003
 
TV WAR AUDIENCES: Males get a surge of testostrone when they see 'their' team win. Many American males may be watching TV in bars today, enjoying our giants trampling their pygmies in Iraq. They should reflect that up to 1 billion Muslims throughout the world are ALSO WATCHING the action on CNN, burning with humiliated rage. Pictures of blown-up children are circulating all over the world./
In their death-throes, Saddam's crew will donate supergerms to these intrepid martyrs, possibly to infect themselves, then Americans. A congressman said we should assume that Saddam has germs that can't be countered by present vaccines or antibiotics./
Our government shows little sign of caring much about this danger. After all, infected people can be quarantined and left to die..we can't treat them, because we already have a desperate shortage of nurses. Rumsfeld brags, "This will be a new scope, a new scale of war unlike anything ever seen before." He may be right.
~ Thursday, March 20, 2003
 
KNOCK,KNOCK...They launched several missiles (costing millions each) at one of Saddam's residences, hoping to kill him right away..but the gentleman was not, apparently, at home./
DILEMMA OF A DEMOCRACY AT WAR: To get a huge population hot for war (a peaceful people, because passive and uninterested in the outside world), the propagandists must portray the ENEMY as personified in one super-evil person (e.g.,the child-murdering Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo)..then the people won't think of innocent Germans and Japanese being slaughtered--they'll think we are striking at the Kaiser, at Hitler and Tojo/.
Before Gulf War I, Daddy Bush and his crew portrayed Saddam as the Devil incarnate..then, embarrassingly, they ended the war without destroying the Devil ! After 9/11, Osama bin Laden was the Devil..then, embarrassingly, they couldn't nab him./
Now, again, it's Saddam (bin Laden has sort of disappeared from the TV screen). We say we're determined to kill him; indeed, the first day of battle we tried a 'decapitation' strike (based, we're told, on our infallible Intelligence services)..we thought we knew the very house he was in; we blasted the house--then 'he' showed up again to denounce Bush as that 'little' man.(Saddam just offered to debate Bush--does he now propose to Rassle him?)/
Is this guy really Saddam? Or is it a body double,with dubbed-in-voice? Or was the tape made before we killed him? WHY SHOULD THAT MATTER? Surely 5 aircraft carriers plus 300,000 troops are not deployed to get ONE MAN ! (CIA and UK intelligence services now (23Mar) think Saddam survived that first assault. What a villain--but also, by ordinary male standards of admiration, WHAT A MAN!)
I suspect that, whatever the life-expectancies of the actual Osama and Saddam,they will be as immortal as is Elvis. Even if we produce corpses with DNA evidence of their identity...the Muslim world will choose to believe they're immortal. Americans also will refuse to believe they're gone--after all they may be commuting by UFOs ! /
But by now they've already served their purpose--to get temporary popular backing for goofy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
SITUATION CRITICAL BUT NOT SERIOUS: On TV years ago, they did a skit on a gigantic,
mutated Chicken. It was dangerous, even deadly, but also ridiculous; when out of its range, you
snickered./
THE ROYAL FAMILY:/
Pres. Bush is like that; he is, God help us, legally our President, thanks to 5 corrupt judges. His
grandfather was pro-Nazi during WWII; his father invaded Iraq, then let Saddam get away. His
brother Neil should have gone to prison; perhaps 'W' should have also. His brother Jeb, the governor, referred to the Kingdom of Spain as a Republic.--in Spain! /
'W' can't nab Osama; even if he levels Baghdad, he might not nab Saddam. /
In Japan, 'W' announced that he and the premier had discussed 'devaluing' the yen; the currency
plunged for a day or two, until a spokesman explained that 'W' had meant to use the word
'stabilize' instead of the word 'devalue'./
One of his college teachers said he was the dumbest kid in class, should have got an 'F'--only the GTA didn't dare./
His diplomatic blunders have startled even his enemies: he couldn't bully Turkey, for God's sake!
He couldn't pressure countries like Angola and Guinea to get a Security Council majority! /
When 'W' was recently shown walking on a red carpet, like an emperor, he made himself even
more ridiculous. He makes all these phone-calls to world leaders; the minute he lets loose in
what one Britisher referred to as 'fluent Texan'../
He is loathed and ridiculed all over the world, worse than any American President ever. He has made America plummet with him in world esteem./
He has been denounced by the Pope, in a blunt way that Popes have not spoken for centuries./
"W' is a pawn of two madmen (Cheney and Rumsfeld); he reads his speeches as Reagan did.
He is legally my President; so was the now-despised Lyndon Johnson. He is NOT my
Commander-in-Chief. Anyone who wants him as CinC should enlist.
~ Wednesday, March 19, 2003
 
NOT JUST FRANCE! To punish the countries that say our war is crazy and vicious, we'll have to do more than give up French wine, and change 'French-fries' to 'freedom fries'./
The Pew Foundation just released a new world poll taken between 10-17 March.
It shows that favorable views of the U.S. have PLUMMETED (since June '02) in Germany, Poland, Russia Turkey,Britain, and Spain (The GOVERNMENTS of the last 2 nations are our 'staunchest' allies!)/ Global opposition to U.S. foreign policy is greater than ever before in history.
And this is just a sampling. Suppose all the countries that have turned against us start to boycott OUR exports..that might make our mighty corporations see they have backed the wrong horse.
~ Tuesday, March 18, 2003
 
POPE John Paul II on the invasion: "Anyone who gives up on peace has to face his conscience, his God, and History."
 
POST-WAR BURDENS: A panel of military experts hired by the Council of Foreign Relations announced that we'd need 200,000 troops to stay in Iraq after 'victory', at a cost of $20 billion per year. That latter sum is slightly less than what we've budgeted for all our Homeland Security efforts.[Harper's Weekly]
 
SUPERMAN HASN'T NOTICED THE KRYPTONITE/ (Germ-warfare: the Great Equalizer)./
USATODAY18mar: 2 pounds of anthrax spores, distributed right over a city of 10 million, can kill 123,000 people, even if every citizen gets antibiotics within 48 hours./
We now face a strange world where some unknown proportion of one billion Muslims worldwide are roused against their 'infidel Western oppressors' (especially vs. U.S.A.) Except for Pakistan, they have no nukes. But they do--or soon will--have access to war supergerms perhaps modified genetically to be resistant to our vaccines/antibiotics. And some of these people (far more after we invade Iraq) are eager to die while attacking us.
HOW DOES THIS CHANGE THE WORLD BALANCE OF POWER?
We also have such supergerms. In fact we invented them (as we have invented most of the horrible weapons existing today). But we let the secret out. (One U.S. scientist just published an article telling how to turn a harmless relative of smallpox into a virulent one.)/
Till now, we have been the MASTER RACE. We have thousands of H-bombs, super-planes, submarine missiles, robots replacing foot-soldiers, etc. And our superiority will not lapse: the Bush team has announced officially that we will launch a first strike vs. any nation who even tries to catch up with us in weapons. We can wipe out any opposing nation quickly and easily./
Trouble is, the big threat facing us now is NOT from NATIONS! We can't use any of this nifty hardware vs. thousands of individual terrorists who are (a) eager to die, (b) easily able to sneak into the U.S., like the millions of 'illegals' already here, and (c) easily able to smuggle in lethal material (the volume they need is far less than the tons of cocaine and heroin coming in now.)/
However, we think we can counter any war-germs with our ingenious vaccines/antibiotics--whereas the homelands of our primitive foes will be completely vulnerable to the germs we throw at them./ BUT we have also come up with ingenious programs like the 'genome project', which teaches scientists EVERYWHERE how to modify genetic makeup easily,so as to make NEW GERMS resistant to our vaccines/antibiotics./ Already, U.S. scientists have published articles telling how to create live POLIO viruses from non-living chemicals./
There will be a RACE between scientists working on new vaccines & antibiotics, vs. other scientists developing resistant germs. The germ-makers need only to make germs unlike any germs before--these, it seems, COULDN'T have effective vaccines/antibiotics aimed at them. It seems--for the near future--that the new-germ-inventors will win the race./
So suddenly the whole human race--rich or poor, scientific or primitive--are equally vulnerable. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes long ago said that humans count as equal, because they are all EQUALLY KILLABLE. Suddenly this seems to be true./
You'd think people (and their leaders) would see clearly now that we all have an equal stake in peace, and equal reason for horror at the mere thought of war. But c'mon--humanity was not cowed by the very real threat of worldwide nuclear disaster--why be intimidated now?/
Take America--we're already entangled in our Afghan war, yet our government loonies are rushing into a second war with Iraq! There's a good chance that right now the terrorists don't have access to SUPERgerms; it's generally thought that Saddam DOES have this access. The CIA says that if we didn't invade, Saddam would probably be too sensible to give his supergerms to terrorists-- HE FEARS OUR AWESOME NUKES. However, when we do invade, and Saddam sees that he is DOOMED, he has nothing to lose--then he'll gladly give his supergerms to the terrorists who are eager to die while attacking THE GREAT SATAN.
[ The mysterious new 'influenza-type' germ that has hit several countries, which can be countered by no known medicines, is an example of what the world may face. Influenza-epidemics are the most awful plagues the world has yet faced. This one doesn't seem to have been spread deliberately by terrorists--but it might be a new 'designer-germ' escaped from a Chinese laboratory.]
~ Monday, March 17, 2003
 
LUCKY RECKLESSNESS: After all, anything can happen. Suppose, by sheer luck, the Bush-team's wild gamble works, and the Saddam regime surrenders quickly, with few allied casualties. In that case, our muscle-flexing will have 'worked' in the short run./ (However, the rest of the world will be more hostile than ever at our flagrant imperialism, and other nations will rush to develop '2d-strike deterrents'--probably biological-- to counter our threats. And we'll face increased terrorist-attacks, though it can never be proved that they came from the INCREASE in risk caused by the invasion.) Bush and Blair will be heroes in their home countries./
However, consider this analogy: suppose a man drives 80 MPH (in no emergency) drunk, on bald tires on ice, with his family in the car--and by sheer luck he arrives safely. He is still guilty of the crime of reckless driving, because he took needless, unjustified risks with the safety of other people./
Analogously, even if many people praise Bush now to the skies, objective historians later (and thoughtful observers today) will still condemn him as criminally reckless, risking, without justification, tens of thousands of lives
~ Sunday, March 16, 2003
 
ANONYMOUS VICTIMS:/
The U.S. Media every day gives us the poignant personal story of some serviceperson who is
going to the Iraq war. But we never hear of some other GIs who are very much In Harm's Way:
the 37,000 U.S. personnel stationed near Seoul in South Korea, within easy artillery range of
North Korea. [I sent this piece to all the major U.S. newspapers; by coincidence, a few days later, NYT (18Mar) ran an upfront and personalized story by James Brooke about the GIs in this strange situation.]
North Korea could, and perhaps will, fire at our troops 400,000 shells an hour, perhaps loaded with nerve-gas or anthrax. (N.Kristov in NYT)./
Why are our troops there? Not to fight, against over one million North Korean troops.
American troops have been stationed there for FIFTY years just to die. South Korea might not
trust us to come in if N.K. attacked them again; these troops guaranteed our reentry: after all, if
Americans got slaughtered in a new invasion, of course the U.S. would come roaring into the
battle. As the South Korean leader just said, these troops serve as a 'trip-wire' to trigger U.S. involvement./
(We had 'trip-wire' troops in Europe also, to reassure our allies that we would get
involved if the Soviets invaded. One French general said, "I don't care if they send high-school
girls--just so there are some Americans to get killed here.")/
That was the 'trip-wire' rationale. We never dreamed then that we might want to launch a
first-strike at North Korea, as our new policies envision. Now the situation is reversed: the
N.K's see our troops as hostages, to guarantee that WE won't attack THEM./
Why should they think we might? In Sept.02 Bush announced that we would feel free to launch a first strike, perhaps nuclear, at any nation that tried to catch up with us in weapons! (Clearly North Korea is trying that.) Since then, other danger-signs have been given:
1) We included them in the 'Axis of Evil'; after we finish with Iraq, we might very well preempt with N.K. And/or Iran. (2) They agreed to stop developing nuclear weapons; we agreed to sign a treaty that we wouldn't attack first; then we reneged and refused to sign; they reneged too, and went back to nuclear production. (3) Then we announced that the 'military option' was open, meaning presumably that we might bomb them. (4) Pres. Bush began hurling personal insults at their Head of State! (5) Recently we sent a flock of B-52s to Guam, and B2s to South Korea, so they are very much 'in our sights'. /
(6) 50 years ago, we flattened almost every building in North Korea, and bombed their dikes to flood their rice-fields, to starve over 2 million people--a story ignored by our media. Understandably, they see us as ruthless. (7) They are an extremely unstable society, on the edge of economic chaos. (8) Their rulers might fear that they would be overthrown by a desperate people, so these rulers might see themselves as having little to lose.(9) Fearing a devastating first-strike by us, fearing they must 'use 'em or lose 'em', they might decide to strike first (suicidally) at our 'hostage' troops. (10) Foreseeing this possiblity, we might decide to launch a first-strike first, as it were. (11) Foreseeing THAT possibility, they might decide to strike at our troops right away. I would be horrified, but not surprised if they did. (12) Mr.Rumsfeld recently, though belatedly, announced that he might remove these GIs from that location; if this evacuation even STARTED, the N.K. Rulers might well conclude that we are planning a first-strike soon, so they should strike these troops before they escape./
The point I'm making is about the personal stories of those hostage GIs and their worried
families at home. I understand why our government doesn't want them portrayed as individual
Americans, since the Pentagon stupidly put them in, and left them in, this awful position.
But I find it disgusting that the U.S. Media is helping to keep these poor guys anonymous, so if
the worst happens, it will just be 'thousands' of troops no one really knew about anyway.
-------------------------------
A friend observing from Seoul thinks I am too pessimistic about the fragility of the North Korean state,
and therefore about the chance that they will launch a suicidal first-strike at our troops. But he also feels pretty sure that we would never launch a first-strike at them, because this would so clearly harm all our interests in that region. I wish I were as sure about the rationality of our leaders, and theirs.
~ Saturday, March 15, 2003
 
INVASION HEIGHTENS HOMELAND DANGER: It turns out that most Americans foolishly think that terrrorist danger to our Homeland would be higher if we didn't invade Iraq than if we do. But the feds know better. They're getting ready to raise the 'alert' level to 'orange-plus' when the invasion happens. Never mind how this warning-system has been discredited by so many false alarms.
Polls show that huge majorities in Muslim countries say that the invasion will sharply increase terrorism-dangers for our Homeland. Fairly respectable Muslim clergy are calling for 'jihad' (Holy War) against U.S./
NYT has front-page story (16 Mar) on al Quaeda recruiting ginning up all over the world to attack America, once we invade Iraq./
This is not to say we won't invade--of course we will, probably this week, and then terrorism will increase. The relevance of the news is long-run: we must organize our Home Security to mitigate expected attacks on our Homeland./ Second, we must cut the Pentagon budget so we can afford these expensive counters to terrorism. (For instance, shoulder-launched missiles could bring down our airliners, basically ending air-travel here.[LATIMES,13 March] There are expensive counters for this threat--we've known about this danger for years, yet we have done nothing to ward off these missiles.)/
We must 'go isolationist' and try to defend Fortress America./
The 7 out of 10 Republicans who back this war, who are perfectly willing to have thousands of our GIs killed, had better start to worry about themselves and their families. If they like invasion, they may love smallpox.
After the fiasco this invasion is likely to become, we can hope that even these Republicans will get better sense. (This could go the other way--they could relapse completely into fascism, and suppress the 50% of sensible Americans..but at least there's a chance they'll learn from this disaster.)
For a detailed analysis on how outrages vs. the helpless increase terrorism against 'winner' societies, see my blog dated 2/28 [under ARCHIVE at left, click on week 2/23 to 3/1.]
 
AN IRISH TOAST: There was a toasting contest at a Dublin pub. Sean proposed this: "To my Darling Wife: May I spend all my days between her legs, to the very day I die!" He won.
When he told his wife of his victory, she said, "What was the toast?" Thinking fast, he said,
"To My Darling Wife: may I join her at Church for the rest of my days, to the very day I die."
/She said 'Humph!' and went back to sleep.
The next morning, someone said to her, "Did you hear of Sean's great toast to you?"
"Yes, and I don't understand it. It's only happened twice; and the second time, I had to tug on
his ear to make him come!"
 
INDEX(PART IV) TO EARLIER BLOGS: [to read blog from, say 2/10, under ARCHIVES at left, click on week 2/9 to 2/15.]
2/10: INDEX (PART II)
2/12: IMPERIAL EDICT BACKFIRES
2/13: READ FOREIGN PRESS!
2/14: IS MODERN WAR MANLY?
Osama: FANATIC? HERO? BOTH?
SEN.BYRD'S PROPEHETIC SPEECH
2/15: ASTONISHING WORLD-REJECTION OF 'W'
2/17: 'PROTECTING' OUR CLIENTS
'WE'RE ALREADY AT WAR!'--with whom?
2/18: Do Bushies WANT n.Korea to strike first?
Vs. Pollack on whether Saddam could be deterred..
2/19: 'W' CAN'T BACK OFF NOW.
2/21: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
2/23: NYT HAS ENLISTED?
AMERICAN FOLLY--BACK TO ISOLATIONISM.
WILL OUR FOES PREEMPT?
2/24: ANGRY CHINESE MUSLIMS
2/25: STUBBORN IGNORANCE (KOREAN WAR II?)
WHITE-HOUSE PR.
DO BUSHIES WANT OUR TROOPS ATTACKED IN KUWAIT?
2/27: TECHNICAL INNOVATORS: 'DILBERT' DUPES?
90 TONS OF GOLD EACH DAY
2/28: HOW OUTRAGES VS. POWERLESS BOOST TERRORISM VS. 'WINNERS'.
LOGIC OF INCREASING RISK
3/1: IRISH SABOTEURS VS. AMERICA!
3/2: DANGER IN KOREA
WE STRUCK FIRST VS. IRAQ
3/3: OUR ONLY TALENT
3/5: 'SHOCK & AWE' STRATEGY FINALLY CONFIRMED
3/6: U.S./CANADIAN CLASH
3/7: PREEMPTIVE FOLLIES IN KOREA
POPE'S PROPHETIC DENUNCIATION
DUCT-TAPE FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE
3/10: LESS POPULATION? SO WHAT?
SNEAKY OSAMA
OF COURSE IRAQ HAS BIO/CHEM WEAPONS!
3/11 WILL SATURN'S MOON JOIN OUR COALITION?
TERROR & TOURISM
3/12: POLL-NEWS: BAD & GOOD
3/13: ALTERNATE INTERNATIONAL BODIES
NINCOMPOOPS
MCCAIN'S CALL FOR WAR
~ Friday, March 14, 2003
 
DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ? NO! Pres.Bush & his team have been promoting their invasion plans by saying, again and again, that (after damaging Iraq and removing Saddam) we can push the country toward democracy-- and that this new, prosperous, friendly democracy will serve as a reform-model for other backward Muslim countries in the Mideast. That happy outcome is supposed to justify our bloody attack.
But now a secret State Dept.Bureau document (LATIMES 14Mar) completely denies this possibility. The report (leaked to the Press) says that if post-Saddam Iraq WERE ruled by a democratic majority, it would be a society of fundamentalists who hate Western culture and ESPECIALLY (understandably) America ! /
From our point of view, after all the Iraqi bloodshed, and the fortune we'll spend, and the hundreds or thousands of U.S. lives that will be lost--Iraq after Saddam will not be much better than it was under Saddam. SO, WHAT'S THE POINT OF THE INVASION?
 
TRADE AND TERROR AND THE MUSLIM WORLD: If we ask why France & Russia are so opposed to invasion, and other Security Council nations so lukewarm (even under terrific pressure from U.S.), we might think of terrorism: France & Russia may hope that Islamists around the world will remember that they opposed attack on a Muslim nation, and focus their terror-attacks instead on Britain and U.S--as well as the 'traitors' Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and probably Turkey.
But besides that, there are 1 billion Muslims in the world to trade with. Every First-World country has an export problem, now that computer-robots around the world are churning out mountains of goods. Even though most Muslims are poor, 1 billion of them add up to a consuming force--after all, they total the same as China or India. If a world-boycott among Muslims of U.S. & British goods proved feasible, France and Russia would be beneficiaries.
 
U.S CASUALTIES: Some optimistic estimates are only 1000 to 5000.(U.S. hopes regime will implode immediately on invasion--after 'Shock & Awe' barrage.But one expert deplores leaning on such wishful thinking--after all, the Bay of Pigs fiasco proceeded on the assumption that the Cubans would turn against Castro, once we invaded.)/ Some experts predict up to 100,000 U.S.casualties! The National Security Agency estimates up to 10,000 killed./
The problem is from (a) the chance that Saddam will use chem/bio weapons..(with imperfect protection from our space-suits, in already terrific heat). And no one takes into account the fact that he might bring off a chem/bio attack while our troops are still unprepared, in Kuwait!/
(b) There might be door-to-door fighting in Baghdad. The Baghdad Sunnis are loyal to Saddam, armed with guns and rifle grenades. When 30,000 Russ troops attacked Grozny (vs. 1200 poorly-equipped Chechen troops), thousands of Russ troops died. Grozny had only a few hundred thousand people; Baghdad has 5 million.
[All this from an article in British MANCHESTER TIMES, quoted by TRUTHOUT.ORG]
~ Thursday, March 13, 2003
 
MCCAIN'S CALL FOR WAR: In NYT,12Mar, Sen.John McCain presents his defense of the morality of this invasion. Presumably this was written by his senatorial staff, consulting with hawk theorists, so it represents the best case that can be made for this invasion./
He says we have used all alternative nonviolent means to disarm Iraq. That of course is not true, but even if it were so, it doesn't follow that disarming Iraq justifies such an invasion, with the horrors it will inflict on Iraqi civilians, and the dangers it imposes on our GIs and our Homeland.
He admits that our bombing will be more or less indiscriminate, but then asks if the indiscriminate bombing of Berlin or Tokyo made WWII unjust? One could note that the Axis was actually on the march, invading other countries (and having attacked us directly) ,while Iraq for the last decade-well contained and deterred--has attacked nobody. /
He says the civilians killed by us will be fewer than those killed every year by the present Iraqi regime. This is an outrageous claim, since he offers no estimate of how many Saddam kills each year, or how many we will be killing. He also says the civilian casualties will be lower than otherwise because our combatants will accept greater risks to their own lives to prevent civilian deaths. This is laughable. One recalls the B-52s flying back and forth comfortably from Kansas to bomb hell out of the Aghanis, or our pilots flying so high in Kosovo (from prudent concern for their own safety) that they bombed the very people we were supposed to protect. And one remembers that the expected barrage of 3000 missiles in 2 days will be hurled from a very safe distance indeed./
McCain says the damage we will do is outweighed by the injury WE can expect to face if Saddam continues to build his arsenal. But if we don't invade, we face no realistic threat from Iraq at all! Saddam has no way to harm us directly, no long-range missiles. As for his bio/chem weapons, he already has these at the ready. He has not yet donated them to terrorists eager to die killing Americans. But he certainly will donate them in his death-throes. Our invasion (as has been noted by our CIA, and recently by a senior intelligence officer in Australia) will bring on the very damage to our homeland that it pretends to prevent./
"No one can plausibly deny", says McCain, "that ridding the world of Saddam will not ..improve the stability of the region". [the double-negative is his.] The Arab leaders have denied that again and again--and they should know better than a U.S. Senator. The Vatican, very worldly-wise with its intelligence agents all over the world, has said this invasion would be disastrous /.
But then the Senator cites the key consideration for the hawks--perhaps the invasion won't make our homeland safer, or that region more stable, but it will promote 'the SECURITY OF AMERICAN INTERESTS and values." In other words, it will pave the way for our economic world-dominance. He approves of trading our GIs' blood for guaranteed access to oil./
The funniest part of his case is when he imagines that the invasion will diminish worldwide Islamic antipathy to the U.S., 'amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of Saddam's regime'..this celebration will take place, we imagine, after they have buried all their children blown to bits by our 3000 missiles in 2 days, and further barrages. He refers to the human rights of Muslims 'valiantly secured by Americans'. wow.
 
NINCOMPOOPS: If there's one thing that's clear, it's that most people outside America regard Pres.Bush with worried amusement. Yet 45% of Americans (NYT poll) say he is respected throughout the world./
There are millions of bright, informed people in America--for instance, the Democrats, who oppose the invasion 2 to 1--or the City Councils of New York and Chicago, who oppose it also./
But there are also millions of nincompoops here--for instance, the typical Republicans who, being unrich themselves, still vote for the Party of the Billionaires. Unsurprisingly, they support the war by 7 to 3./
Now we hear that the Congressional Dining Room, annoyed by France daring to contradict the Bush-team, has changed food names to 'Freedom-fries' and 'Freedom Toast'. We might rename this Republican chamber as the House of All-Too-Representatives.
 
INTERNATIONAL BODIES: "The White House says an international body alternative to the UN can validate our invasion. What international body are they thinking of? Arnold Scwarzenegger?" (Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News) /
The foreign relations officer of another real international body (the European Union) has condemned any invasion not authorized by UN. If U.S. goes it alone, he says, Europe might refuse to help 'reconstruct' Iraq afterward. (Of course, Europe has not helped 'reconstruct' Afghanistan--so U.S. has just dropped the project of reconstructing Afghanistan.)/

~ Wednesday, March 12, 2003
 
BAD POLL-NEWS, GOOD NEWS: The latest poll (NYT12Mar) unhappily but predictably, shows more Americans caught up in war-fever than before. 50% (70% of Republicans, of course!) say that removing Saddam is worth the costs in U.S. Lives (not THEIR lives, they fondly think) and the other costs (which will be in form of deficits, for their children to pay). The good news is that 43% say NO, and 7% are undecided./
The sanest group are registered Democrats (only 1 in 3 want war!) and women (only 47%).
And 52% overall want delay (which the Bush-team will never accept)./
The polls don't matter, any more than UN disapproval matters. The invasion will go ahead--perhaps even without Britain!--and we will prevail, at perhaps a huge cost in GI lives, and later homeland deaths from revenge-terrorism. (At the same time, of course, a war may be brewing with North Korea, with thousands of U.S. lives lost.) /
It's a pretty good bet that future Americans will despise Bush (as we now despise Lyndon Johnson), as much as the rest of the world does now.
~ Tuesday, March 11, 2003
 
TERROR & TOURISM: Letter to DENVERPOST
So Colorado got $ 9.4 million from Washington to help us ward off terror.
(11Mar) "This demonstrates the federal government's commitment to homeland
security," said Governor Bill Owens. It sure does demonstrate how extremely moderate is that federal commitment: the allocation is half a million less than the state itself will devote to
promoting tourism. /
Meanwhile the feds give almost $400 billion annually to the Pentagon--that's the equivalent of more than 90 TONS of gold each day (at $350 per ounce) to pay for attacking other countries, not for defending our own. And that doesn't count the fortune we'll spend on the pointless invasion of Iraq.
Why this policy of 'all sword and no shield'? Because the sword-makers own the
politicians.
 
NO COMMENT NEEDED: Faced with being outvoted in the Security Council, the White House said that Iraq would be disarmed by 'another international body' (the 'Coalition of the Unwilling', as it has been called: U.S. And Britain--in almost open revolt--and Bulgaria and Spain--80% of the population opposed to war--with the last 2 acting only as cheerleaders.) Ari Fleischer said that the UN was only one way to form international coalitions. "They are not the only group that can speak well about..international efforts."
Someone has suggested that the Coalition might be augmented by one of the moons of Saturn, but the price had not yet been settled.
~ Monday, March 10, 2003
 
I HAVE GREAT FAITH in our President's knowledge, intelligence, and good sense.
Faith is believing something you know damn well ain't so.
 
ONCE AGAIN--OF COURSE IRAQ HAS CHEM/BIO WEAPONS! With 6 aircraft carrriers offshore, and 300,000 troops ready to invade, wouldn't they be fools NOT to have the only kind of weapon that can be safely hidden until used? And why should they wait until the invaders have donned their space-suits?
Why not strike the troops in Kuwait, before the invasion starts?/ Either the Bush-team has stupidly not thought about these dangers, or they ruthlessly don't care about risk to American lives.
 
A DIABOLIC SCENARIO, from an insomniac who's read too many thrillers:
Much gloating has been done in Washington about capturing that important al Quaeda figure (I can't remember his name, so we'll call him X.) Now remember that bin Laden himself plans to die a martyr in an attack on The Enemy--guaranteeing that he will be worshipped in the Muslim world for centuries. /
Al Quaeda has already discredited the 'yellow/orange' warning system by triggering all those false alarms. The next attack will come of course when the warning-level is low. /
They know that we have very effective ways of getting captive X to tell the truth. So they make sure that X sincerely thinks Osama is in the hills of Pakistan; then they they tip off the authorities on how to catch him by surprise, before he can take a cyanide pill. (After all, X would approve of such a scheme sacrificing him.) Under torture and drugs, he finally tells them Osama's whereabouts in the caves--but of course Osama is now heading for Saudi Arabia or America, for the Great Attack and immortality for himself. ( On 11 March ABC NEWS said the trail on Osama had "gone cold; he is not where we thought he'd be."
HOW WOULD BIN LADEN THE MARTYR STRIKE AT US?
There are so many dozens of ways we are vulnerable, one can't guess which method would be chosen. If al Quaeda could damage the Saudi refineries, perhaps rendering them radioactive with a 'dirty bomb', while Saddam sabotages his oilfields, they'd guarantee an oil shortage and high gas prices for several years..aggravating a severe and longlasting shortage already prevailing because of the Venezuelan strike..they could plunge America (and other 'developed' countries like Japan) easily into a 2d recession, making sure our country is in great economic trouble just as Bush is coming up for re-election./
The people who put out the Kuwaiti oilfield fires a decade ago have said that repairing the Iraq fields would be much more difficult. (Saddam assures us he won't sabotage his oilfields, but I hear he sometimes tells big fibs.)/

My point here is to warn again of the danger from terror-attacks, which we're basically ignoring in our fascinating preparations for the Great Barrage against Iraq.
~ Sunday, March 09, 2003
 
LESS POPULATION--SO WHAT? /
Ben Wattenberg worries again (NYT8Mar) about the dangers of the startling drop in fertility rates, world-wide. He discusses alleged economic problems faced by 'First-World' countries (i.e., mainly Caucasian countries)./
Then he gets to his real point: among the 'First-World' countries, only the U.S. is not facing depopulation. Our Caucasian allies [lately, one could ask WHAT ALLIES?!] will be getting weaker (their people fewer and older); we will have to take leadership, he says, in defending 'Western civilization' against the hordes of people like the Indians and Chinese(actually mentioned!). /. In other words, we'll HAVE TO set up a World Empire. (Of course to do this we might have to scrap parts of our Bill of Rights which is supposed to be the Acme of 'W.C'.)/
Luckily we have the Nukes to back up our Manifest Destiny, and our new 'preemption' doctrine to terrify rivals--but (as I have noted earlier) other nations, Caucasian and non-Caucasian, are rushing to develop 2d-strike deterrents against our bullying. For instance, France can say, "If U.S. threatens us, we have a few nuclear-armed submarines aimed at them. We can't destroy America, but we could destroy a few great cities. That, IF their government is at all sane, should deter them from attacking France, with almost no real benefit, except to their ego." Soon many other nations will be in that position (most with biological weapons, not nuclear weapons.)/
One more point: the main reason U.S. is not shrinking in population is the huge number of immigrants we're admitting--but most of these are non-Caucasian. Suppose they don't hold for 'Western values' (Hispanic immigrants don't seem to value education much after 8th grade. Our schools and families seem unable to pass on ANY values except laziness and greed.) Rot right inside the empire!
~ Friday, March 07, 2003
 
DUCT-TAPE FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE:
The feds finally released $566 million to the States for all aspects of Homeland Defense.
That's half-a-billion for the year, compared to $1 billion PER DAY to the Pentagon.
That's $10 million for each state, on average.
The States and Cities are the first front for Homeland Defense.
The Bush White House and the Republican Congress simply don't care much about Homeland Defense.
 
POPE'S PROPHETIC DENUNCIATION: The Associated Press finally confirmed that Cardinal Laghi gave Bush the Vatican's view that this invasion is UNJUST and ILLEGAL. (This is the first time in recent centuries that the hyper-cautious Papacy has so forthrightly condemned a war by a world power, especially one allied to Vatican. Pius XI and XII never condemned Hitler's aggressions publicly and unequivocally!) /
Laghi also told Bush that the invasion would have 'disastrous' results. Bush should heed Vatican advice about expected results: they have 'intelligence' agents all over the world (Catholic clergy) , and are much more worldly-wise than American officials./
As a Pole, John Paul II might recall vividlythat Hitler justified his invasion of Poland as preemption, lest puny Poland should attack the mighty Wehrmacht. That was just about as likely as crippled Iraq attacking America today./
Were the Bush-team happy about Cardinal Laghi's message? THEY REFUSED TO LET HIM GIVE A PRESS CONFERENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AFTERWARD! This is very unusual, an insult to an important visitor. (Of course Laghi told the press later what he had told Bush--and of course, most U.S. media have underplayed this bombshell story--e.g. DenverPost printed it on page 18..lest it offend its hawkish readers..these slobs are as likely to read p. 18 as to read the story in LeMondeDiplomatique, in French. Various reports of the visit can be found on news.google.com.)/
War Defenders speak of MORAL CLARITY as favoring the war. You can't beat 'UNJUST AND ILLEGAL' for moral clarity. Almost all religious leaders in the world (except Southern Baptists and some rabbis) have condemned this invasion. (And on 9 March the most notable Baptist moralist, Jimmy Carter, also said the war will be unjust.)
Never mind; apparently, God has told Pres.Bush directly to go ahead. That's good enough for U.S. hawks, including so-called Catholics.
 
PREEMPTIVE FOLLIES: Letter to USATODAY
Look at the situation from North Korean eyes:
--The Bush team have announced that they'll feel free to launch first-strikes at their foes.
--By the 'axis of evil' speech, they seem to have signalled that they'll attack North Korea as
they're attacking Iraq. (Pres. Bush has hurled personal insults at N.K's Head of State.)
--The Pentagon has flown monster-bombers to Guam, within easy range of North Korea; U.S.
says the 'military option' is open.
--N.K has one card to play: they can launch 400,000 artillery shells per hour at the area
around Seoul, where 37,000 GIs have strangely been stationed for the last 50 years.
(These shells might be loaded with nerve gas or anthrax germs.)
--Now the Bush-team announces they're (finally) going to REMOVE these GIs . (7 Mar)
--Tactical U.S. Nukes could destroy most of the 13,000 N.K. Artillery-pieces in a day. So their
rulers have a 'use 'em or lose 'em' dilemma.
--If the U.S. is going to attack anyway--as we levelled almost every building there 50 years
ago--then N.K. might be tempted to launch a (suicidal) first-strike BEFORE the 'hostage' GIs can be
moved to safety.
--Knowing this, U.S. might launch nuclear attack first--knowing THAT, N.K. might launch its
first-strike right away.
That's the exciting world the Bush-team has created by its newly announced doctrine of
preemptive strikes.
~ Thursday, March 06, 2003
 
U.S./CANADIAN CLASH:/
>Subject: true story (?)/
This is the actual radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian
authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. Radio
conversation released by the chief of naval operations, 10-10-95./
CANADIANS: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the south to avoid a
collision./
AMERICANS: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the north to
avoid a collision./
CANADIANS: Negative. You will have to divert your course 15 degrees to the
south to avoid a collision./
AMERICANS: This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR
course./
CANADIANS: No, I say again, you divert YOUR course./
AMERICANS: This is the Aircraft Carrier US LINCOLN, the second largest ship
in the United States Atlantic Fleet. We are accompanied with three Destroyers, three Cruisers and numerous support vessels. I DEMAND that you change your course 15 degrees north. I say again, that's one-five degrees north, or counter-measures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship./
>
CANADIANS: This is a lighthouse. Your call.
~ Wednesday, March 05, 2003
 
SHAMELESS ROGUE STATE: [The 'Sheriff turns into a Bandit'--says a Russian official.)
The US, it seems likely will invade without UN authorization--in fact, the Pentagon has already admiited launching preemptive airstrikes at Iraq without any such authority (no longer pretending that they were just protecting their planes monitoring the 'no-fly' zones). /Americans, now irritated by foreign criticism now say (11 Mar) that it's ok for us to invade without UN approval.
(Russia says that if we do, the UN will basically be rendered irrelevant in regulating international disputes, and Russia will have to make 'private arrangements'.)
What will happen in Britain, with its 40,000 troops already in the war-zone? Parliament approved Blair's war-plan on the understanding that the 'allies' would go ahead with UN authority. But they may not want to pull those troops out at the last minute. HOWEVER (11Mar,ABC NEWS) for the first time, Mr.Rumsfeld discussed the possibility that Britain MIGHT PULL OUT! (We have of course, an alternative clever plan.)
SHOCK: Finally the 'shock & awe' plans have been confirmed officially. The Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, on 4 March, (NYTIMES) said that a 'shock' attack was planned, and underlings confirmed that 3000 bombs & missiles would be fired in the first 2 days. Gen.Myers admitted that civilians would be killed, despite our best efforts to prevent this. "Best Efforts"? With a saturation bombing like that? I guess he means "..our best efforts, GIVEN that we plan to horrify Iraq into surrender by an indiscriminate barrage."/
The barrage is supposed to shock Iraq leaders into quick surrender. Will it work? Announcing it ahead of time seems odd. You'd think that the Iraq leaders would either (a) surrender beforehand--surely their imagination can supply advance 'shock & awe'--or (b) brace themselves to resist to the death--of themselves and thousands of civilians--determined to inflict, in their death-throes, maximum American casualties (in the field and in the U.S. homeland). The (b) option now looks more likely./
Perhaps our hope is to trigger a revolt of the surviving civilians. But similar U.S. 'Horror-attacks' in previous wars (e.g., using napalm & white phosporus--which keeps burning inside children for days) have not worked in that way. [We levelled almost every building in North Korea 50 years ago--we now still face their well-armed rage, with thousands of GIs still within their artillery range.]* So why would we choose a strategy which will confirm the loathing the rest of the world is beginning to feel for our government? A strategy not at all certain to work?/
First, we lose nothing in any obvious way. In fact, we dispose of thousands of missiles that must be expensively replaced later, providing lucrative contracts for corporate friends of the Pentagon, which has over $1 billion a day to play with. Second, we can't back out now--and our leaders may have finally realized that their dream-conflict with few U.S. casualties will not likely happen, if we have to invade in the conventional way. After all, the horror-barrage MIGHT work to produce instant surrender. If it doesn't, then when Iraq uses VX gas on our troops, we can nuke the country with a good conscience. And the Bushies don't much care what the world thinks.
----------------------------
*see AMERICAN AIRPOWER STRATEGY IN KOREA, 1950-1953 (by C.Crane)
And BOMBING TO WIN (by R.A. Pape)
~ Monday, March 03, 2003
 
OUR ONLY TALENT:/
DIPLOMACY? We're surprised that, even with billions in bribes, we have trouble managing puny Turkey! (Even the new Premier, supposedly in U.S. pocket, says he'll wait to see how the Security Council vote come out. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of GIs sit on ships, waiting...)/
As of 11 March, we haven't been able to corral 9 votes for war on the S.C., even among bankrupt nations desperate for bribes. In fact the '6 undecided nations' have just insisted on 45 more days delay before the attack--which the Bush-team will never allow! /
INTELLIGENCE? During an Afghan episode, a reporter noted that--with all our sky-spy gadgets--our air-crews didn't know what was happening on the ground.*/ It turns out that we were sky-watching the wrong place in Iran; another place has a well-developed n-facility./ And of course, in spite of capturing (and torturing the truth out of) a key bin Laden ally, we've admitted on 11 March that Osama is not where we thought he was.
Thomas Friedman in NYT 2 March says he applauds Bush's desire to remake Middle East--but Friedman doubts that the Bush-team is qualified to do this. He cites numerous awful Bush-decisions that bar any international cooperation./
Let's face it: our government is crude in diplomacy, incompetent in intelligence. The only talent it has ever demonstrated is the ability to hurl huge amounts of explosives at fairly precise targets from a comfortably safe distance./
An empire can't be built on this one talent alone, though it can plunge the world into chaos.
-------------------------
*'THE LESSONS OF ANACONDA",nyt 2mARCH, p. wk13
~ Sunday, March 02, 2003
 
WE STRUCK FIRST ! /NYTIMES (2 Mar) noted on front page that U.S. ADMITS bombing ground-to-ground missiles that might threaten Kuwait. We're no longer pretending that we bomb only ground-to-air sites threatening our planes monitoring the no-fly zones./ Our spokesmen cite early UN resolutions forbidding Iraq to threaten its neighbors aggressively,e.g. by such missiles. But this stance is preposterous! Indeed, it's quite comical. Kuwait is actively helping us to invade Iraq! The missiles we're bombing are clearly defensive. Indeed, the TIMES story says that U.S. is thwarting any Iraqi defensive measures./
But TIMES doesn't note that our bombing is actually a preemptive act of war.

 
DANGER IN KOREA! N.Kristof (NYT 28 Feb) warns that hawkish associates of Cheney and Rumsfeld are considering a first bombing strike against North Korea. Variant options include a first nuclear strike on 13,000 N.K. artillery pieces near Seoul./
I have been worrying (in pieces on Feb. 17,18,23,25, and 27) that North Korean rulers may figure that a U.S. attack is inevitable. They might themselves launch a (suicidal) first-strike at the 37,000 GIs stationed within artillery range [not mentioned by Kristof], and at Seoul with its 21 million inhabitants./
N.K. could get off 400,000 shells in the first hour, perhaps loaded with Sarin and anthrax. One million N.K. Troops could surge across the 38th parallel; a new Korean war could wreak one million casualties, including thousands of U.S. civilians living near Seoul. (If these start to flee the area, or U.S. starts to withdraw the 'hostage' GIs, then N.K. may decide the U.S. first-strike IS inevitable, so they should strike immediately.)/
All observers agree that we should, as N.K. Demands, open up one-on-one negotiations with that government. But the Bush-team refuses this option. An ex-State-Dept. Official says they're being childish./
Considering the extraordinary personal insults hurled by Bush against N.K.'s Head of State, I have discussed the awful possibility that the Bushies WANT N.K. to strike first--even at the terrible price in American lives--to give them an excuse to level the country with our nukes. Either that, or they're displaying remarkable stupidity.
~ Saturday, March 01, 2003
 
HOW DOES THE WORLD VIEW OUR WAR? NYTIMES, in a tiny, almost invisible paragraph on p. A10, 1 March., told a startling story. American planes, ferrying our troops to war, have had to quit using Shannon airport in Eire because protesters have managed to damage some planes. IRELAND, for God's sake! a nation that, until recently, admired America with almost embarrassing intensity. This story deserves more spread.

Powered By Blogger TM Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com