War

I'm truly surprised, and yet not surprised one bit, that the American mainstream media have largely ignored the Downing Street Secret Memo.

What Downing Street Secret Memo? you ask? The one written after British/US meetings long before the War on Iraq, that says this:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

This is the internal British government memo that blew up in the face of Tony Blair. It outlines how Bush had already decided to invade Iraq and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Let's look at that again.

"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In other words, Bush and his cohorts "fixed" the facts to back up their policy intentions. In plain talk, they lied to us. But wait, there's more:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

Ramp up before the elections, to make all the politicos look tough, but start the mess afterwards.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors.

What? "WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran"? So obviously WMD was not the real justification. Maybe regime change and the humanitarian cause was the real reason to invade. Oh, wait....

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: selfdefence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.

And yet we had people in this country voting for Bush because they thought Saddam was going to bomb West Virginia. How did they get that idea?

Now we have over 1600 American soldiers killed in Iraq. Over 12,000 have been wounded, some very seriously. Why? Not terrorism -- Iraq was a military dictatorship, not an al-Qaeda host. Not self defense -- with his old tanks and archaic short-range missiles, Saddam couldn't attack us if he wanted to. Not regime change -- there was "no legal base" for that.

We always knew that Bush and especially Cheney were hell-bent on getting revenge on Saddam as soon as they got into the White House. Their own staffers have admitted that. But here's a high-level government document that clearly states that Bush had already decided to go to war long before the weapons inspections were anywhere near completed.

Mark Danner has a fascinating analysis in the New York Review of Books:

Sticks and Stones and the "Secular Left"

In the article linked above, David Benjamin discusses the takeover of the Republican Party by the "Religious Right" and their tendency to label everyone on the left as "secular". He makes some excellent points, but offers no solutions. I'm going to see if I can't develop a little strategic opposition to the advancing theocratic movement.

George Lakoff is the go-to guy for this, obviously, but I'm still not seeing "our side" using talking points and framing as effectively as the Right. We've got to get on with it, before a Christian Autocracy silences its opposition for good.

The first phrase we need to learn comes from Benjamin's article: Christianism should be used to distinguish between Christianity, or the teachings of Christ, and the conservative political machine that promotes it's fascist, elitist, pro-corporation agenda under the guise of religiosity. It's painfully obvious that their agenda has nothing to do with the values or teachings of Jesus. The Prince of Peace would hardly be on the side of war for profit and the "divine right of capital".

Next, we have to call them what they really are: the Conservative Elite. The Left is comprised of many, varied groups. Certainly there are professors and scientists among us, but there are also laborers, Ministers, Jews, Pagans, Buddhists, Islamists, Christians, women, gays, straights, Blacks, Hispanics, Natives and immigrants, with a sprinkling of Hollywood-types who naturally get most of the press but are hardly the majority in our number. Most of the money in this country is controlled by the Right. They are far more likely to have an Ivy League education and a lot of their money is older than the Republic itself. Don't buy into the bullshit that G.W. Bush is a "regular guy". The Bush family is as elite as it gets, and their money old enough to have come mostly from Hitler's own coffers.

The best available estimates are that 100,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed since the U.S. invasion. Let's add to that the tens of thousands who died in Afghanistan, and the millions slaughtered in Darfur without our intervention because we're occupied elsewhere. Then there are the 1600 or so of our bravest young men and women who have died for Halliburton's bottom line. Let's look at the fact that Bush executed more prisoners than any governor in history, and without proper review of the cases. Why the hell are we letting them get away with calling it a "culture of life"? Bush's Slaughter of the Innocents is more like it, when you consider many on Texas' death row were just that, as were the women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're killing people every day who never harmed an American. We've become a Culture of Death

The Conservatives are not "pro-life" - they would allow a sick woman to die in labor to protect a fetus; they have executed the wrong people; they stand in the way of science that could save the lives and alleviate suffering for millions of people. There's no expression of concern or empathy for suffering in them. Their primary motivation seems to be the punishment of women who have sex outside of marriage, though not all who might seek to terminate a pregnancy are single. While they claim to defend the life of the fetus, their real agenda is to control women's sexuality. The salient point that rarely gets a headline is that Women are People, Not Property.

Before we even consider the concept of a Slave Birth, why don't we try taking care of the kids we already have? There are three million homeless kids in this country right now. An unwanted child is more likely to suffer abuse, neglect and poverty, and Freaknomics: A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Side of Everything, by Steve D. Levitt and Stephen J Dubner, showed that the drop in the crime rate corresponds to the legalization of abortion. Society benefits when its children are loved and wanted.

How about we make our own label? Pro-Constitutionists has a nice ring to it, as do Liberal Patriots and Jeffersonians. The Pro-American, Pro-Democracy Left needs to stand up and point out that the Subversives on the Radical Right are undermining America's foundations, endangering her people and ruining our reputation in the world.

We used to be the good guys. We were the champions of human rights and civil liberties. We were all about fairness and innovation and creativity. Now our image around the world will forever be associated with the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. "Cowboy Diplomacy" is the derrogatory term others use to describe our foreign policy. American elections, which used to be a beacon of hope in the world, are now a laughing stock. Do we really want greed, incompetence and callous disregard for life to be the American Legacy in the 21st Century?

Every generation has its Prophets of Doom. Instead of standing on a street corner with a sign that says "the end is near", they are sitting in the White House and the Pentagon, trying to make sure all the players are in place for Armaggedon. Personally, I'd prefer to have people in charge who are motivated to prevent the end of the world rather than hasten it.

I feel like a broken record. I write the same things on different days in different ways, but its all the same. The news is all bad and we need a majority to make a difference, but we'll never get one when elections are stolen from us. How do we reach people who don't read at all, let alone read blogs? How do you educate a person who scoffs at the educated? How do you condense American History to a soundbite so people will remember it? I'm watching my country become a fascist state, and I feel powerless to stop it.

The irony of it all is that the Left is pro-religion. We're loving, tolerant people. We love freedom, humanity and truth. There are a few among us who don't practice a religion, and that's OK with us, too. We're easy to get along with, and that's part of the problem. We want to be reasonable, but we're dealing with people who abhor rational thought. We've been trying to get along while they've been taking over. If we're ever going to fight back, now is the time. Learn these terms and use them. Come up with more and leave them in comments. Spread them around.

• Christian Autocracy
• Christianism
• Bush's Slaughter of the Innocents
• Women are People, Not Property
• Conservative Elite
• Culture of Death
• Prophets of Doom
• Slave Birth

First let's get the gender role deconstruction out of the way. One of the things that was interesting about Star Wars IV (the original movie) was that the ostensible leader of the rebellion was Princess Leia, who ruled not by imperial decree but by no-nonsense take-charge authority. She was small, but she stood taller than any of the boys.

Or so it seemed. In Empire she fell down a notch, to the love-sick matriarch with little more to do than notice bad things happening and hearing Luke's telepathic plea for help. By the time we got to the teddy bear movie, she was a bondage sex slave in a skimpy outfit, and peacemaker with the teddybears themselves.

Flash back a generation and we get the two female figures of Queen Amidala as a powerless figurehead, and Anakin's insightful mother. Amidala befriends a child and otherwise plays tag-along. Anakin's mother is around just enough for us to care just enough when she dies in Episode II: The Boredom Wars. In that overlong yawn, Amidala becomes like a star in a really bad soap opera. How did Lucas manage to get Natalie Portman to turn in such a wooden performance?

In the Sith installment, suddenly all the actors seem to perform better -- especially Portman, whose reaction to Anakin's turn to the dark side really gives the sequence impact. But the big disappointment, in terms of any hint at female heroes, is that once she gets pregnant, she's relegated to helpless waif status. The only other apparent females in the show are the Chancellor's silent bald aide, and a lithe Jedi who manages to wear a skimpy midriff top for her shot-in-the-back betrayal. (Where were the women who kick ass? Why didn't someone like Queen Latifah get cast as a Jedi? Samuel Jackson's a great actor, but let's face it, he's done better, and someone else might have thrived in the role of head of the Jedi Council.)

Now that that's out of the way, I can say that I really enjoyed the movie. To be honest, I didn't expect much, especially after that mess of a movie with 45 minutes of action that ran about 35 minutes too long. Sith opens with action, but it seems Lucas has been a quiet fan of Battlestar Galactica, for the action sequences are much more intense for their lack of overt intensity. Explosions don't need close-ups and ear-splitting effects. In fact, the space battles look more like distant fireworks spectaculars. Somehow they're all the more horrifying for it. At one point, the film seems more like Master and Commander than a space epic.

The relationship between Palpatine and Anakin is quite interesting. Hayden Christensen learned some acting chops since the previous movie, so his presence carries much more weight now -- which is important, because with this film in place, we truly realize that Star Wars is really the tale of Anakin's rise, descent and redemption, and Luke and Leia and even Obi-Wan are really just side players.

Yoda and the Emperor get to do star turns in a battle that tops any Jedi-Sith duel to that point. We also get to see Wookies, including Chewbacca, and enough battle droids of various designs and weaponry to fill up an entire fictional issue of Jane's The Galaxy's Fighting Droids.

But the real star of this picture is Obi-Wan. Ewan McGregor carries the film with his charm, smile and intensity. I've never found a man with a thick beard to be so attractive. And the easy way he faces situations is quite engaging. Think of an amiable James Bond.

The heart of the story, however, lies with Anakin's turn to the dark side. It's not an easy path for him -- nor for the Republic itself, which transforms from democracy to fascism, all to the sound of applause. Many of those he kills have it coming. His decisiveness is undeniable. One can see why the conservatives in America might get a little hot and bothered about things in the film: many of the characteristics of the Dark Side of the Force are traits the conservatives like to praise these days -- black-and-white thinking, impatience, reacting emotionally, letting rage and hate determine one's actions, all with a genuine frustration with the quaint niceties that are an integral part of democracy.

But in watching the movie, one isn't thinking about George W. Bush. If the conservatives are serious about making a Sith-like move on Washington, Darth Cheney would have to develop some more in-Sidious powers than a smirk and a fat bank balance. The movie is an adventure, scored by John Williams -- and blissfully free of Frists and DeLays and other dark figures with little cinematic appeal.

It will be interesting to see what Lucas does next. He's making noises about more experimental films. At least he finished this series showing that he can, when pressed, make a halfway decent blockbuster. Since he (along with Spielberg) practically invented the summer phenomenon, it's nice to see that the dark side hasn't destroyed his storytelling talents. It's been a wild ride, but now I'm even more interested in what he'll do next.

I find it rather amusing that conservatives have gotten all hot and bothered about parallels they see between the Dark Side of The Force and their own leaders and philosophies. Some of these right-wing "thinkers" are even saying that the parallels are deliberate. Perhaps they blinked during the 28 years of publicity where Lucas explained that the story was already written. But don't be expecting them to let facts get in the way of their paranoia.

As the old saying goes: "Throw a rock into a pack of wolves. The one that yelps is the one you hit."

In one of the strangest interpretations of story -- which is right up there with the fictional Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" reading the Bible and identifying with the Romans -- conservative columnust J.J. Jackson offers this analysis:

When the true evil behind all previous events is finally revealed it is too late. The Jedi finally grow some balls to act but the Galactic Republic has gathered too much power and Chancellor Palpatine installs himself as Emperor of the galaxy. This leads to a war between the Jedi, people that don’t want to be subject to the Empire’s rule and the newly formed Empire under Palpatine. In the war the Jedi and the rebellion are overwhelmed because they have lost too much support and have tried for too many years to rationalize and think and debate rather than act. In essence they have failed to recognize that sometimes there are issues that are not shades of gray but simply black and white.

This is exhibited in a now oft quoted exchange between Anakin Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi where Anakin proclaims that “If you're not with me, you're my enemy.� and Obi Wan retorts “Only a Sith thinks in absolutes!� Their failure to recognize evil and act leads to the fall of the Republic the Jedi have been charged to protect and leads to years of tyranny for the people of the galaxy.Yes, you read that right, folks! The Emperor is the good guy, ridding the galaxy of evil. Of course, he also has to rewrite Vietnam history, too:

After pulling out of Vietnam and condemning millions to death and enslavement the United States fails to take decisive action again evil around the world (until President Reagan at least). There is a lot of hand wringing and ineptness at dealing with global communism and fascism. The United Nations continues to appease dictators around the world and allows people to suffer while setting itself up as the arbiter of what is right and accruing power to itself by getting member states to sign treaties that usurp even the basic principles of their own Consitututions. The UN sends “peace keepers� (it’s army) to trouble spots around the world, usually with orders to not really do anything that helps those that they are there to protect from evil. In essence, they side with evil by proxy.

After failing to stand up to the Communists in Vietnam and around the world, millions are left to suffer because the good people of the world acted too late, succumbed to political pressures and failed to recognize that there is evil in the world and that it must be defeated.So despite the utter failure and implosion of Communism under its own failings, Jackson asserts that Vietnam was indeed a domino. What President Reagan is to have done about all this, I really have no idea, unless you want to count bombing Libya. Oh yeah, we saved Granada, too. Of course, if Ronald Reagan ran for president today, he wouldn't even get the nomination -- too damn liberal. Do you know he actually negotiated arms reductions with the Soviets? What a softy!

Yes, that's right, folks! Might makes right. And lest you think I'm misinterpreting Jackson's polemic, he lays it out in clear words:

Wow. Not the type of parallel the liberals are trying to paint huh? Pain and suffering at the hands of those that don’t have the courage to act but rather lock themselves into endless political debate? Sounds like modern day liberals to me more than President Bush!That's right, the liberals are the Republic, and the Emperor is Bush. The liberals, in conservative minds, are like the hapless Jedi -- just too damn focused on that nuance thing. Ah, but there's a difference, Jackson notes:

The Empire likewise failed because it was operated under the concept of absolute tyranny and the Emperor’s rule as law with no debate and no discussion. Because of this he could not ultimately maintain control and inspired an armed revolution that eventually caused his death and the death of the Empire.While Jackson sees the failing of the Empire in the movie, he gives a pass for his gang. He seems to believe that President Bush and his henchmen are not out to quash debate and discussion. Perhaps he's not been paying attention to the things that, had Clinton done them, the conservatives would be howling. Maybe he would like a tour of Guantanamo.

Personally I find the fact that conservative complaining has turned its "talking points" onto Star Wars is quite amusing. Obviously the parallels are readily apparent in many ways, such as how conservatives strive to react emotionally, give into their hate, seek to utterly destroy all who oppose them, covet power and jealously guard it -- it's as plain as day. Theirs is a dark philosophy. The Dark Side? Of course!

Perhaps, like Anakin, they started with the best intentions. But there was hope for Darth Vader. Upon witnessing the torture and attempted killing of his son, he lets go of his hate and destroys the Emperor. Now we are in the grips of a conservative agenda that, with policies that destroy the Earth, wreck our economy, vaporize our international standing, and kill men, women and children by the tens of thousands (however you justify it, 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in this war), will any modern day Darths wake up and see the horror they are wreaking upon us all?

I leave you with this topical cartoon.

First the tragedy: Former Defense Secretary John McNamara on the hair-trigger we have on total nuclear annihilation ... for no real good reason:

Today, the United States has deployed approximately 4,500 strategic, offensive nuclear warheads. Russia has roughly 3,800. The strategic forces of Britain, France, and China are considerably smaller, with 200–400 nuclear weapons in each state’s arsenal. The new nuclear states of Pakistan and India have fewer than 100 weapons each. North Korea now claims to have developed nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Pyongyang has enough fissile material for 2–8 bombs.

How destructive are these weapons? The average U.S. warhead has a destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Of the 8,000 active or operational U.S. warheads, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes’ warning.

...

The whole situation seems so bizarre as to be beyond belief. On any given day, as we go about our business, the president is prepared to make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch one of the most devastating weapons in the world. To declare war requires an act of congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust requires 20 minutes’ deliberation by the president and his advisors. But that is what we have lived with for 40 years. With very few changes, this system remains largely intact, including the “football,� the president’s constant companion.

...

But human beings are fallible. In conventional war, mistakes cost lives, sometimes thousands of lives. However, if mistakes were to affect decisions relating to the use of nuclear forces, there would be no learning curve. They would result in the destruction of nations. The indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons carries a very high risk of nuclear catastrophe. There is no way to reduce the risk to acceptable levels, other than to first eliminate the hair-trigger alert policy and later to eliminate or nearly eliminate nuclear weapons. The United States should move immediately to institute these actions, in cooperation with Russia.

...

In addition to projecting the deployment of large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons far into the future, the Bush administration is planning an extensive and expensive series of programs to sustain and modernize the existing nuclear force and to begin studies for new launch vehicles, as well as new warheads for all of the launch platforms. Some members of the administration have called for new nuclear weapons that could be used as bunker busters against underground shelters (such as the shelters Saddam Hussein used in Baghdad). New production facilities for fissile materials would need to be built to support the expanded force. The plans provide for integrating a national ballistic missile defense into the new triad of offensive weapons to enhance the nation’s ability to use its “power projection forces� by improving our ability to counterattack an enemy. The Bush administration also announced that it has no intention to ask congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and, though no decision to test has been made, the administration has ordered the national laboratories to begin research on new nuclear weapons designs and to prepare the underground test sites in Nevada for nuclear tests if necessary in the future. Clearly, the Bush administration assumes that nuclear weapons will be part of U.S. military forces for at least the next several decades.

...

Were al Qaeda to acquire fissile materials, especially enriched uranium, its ability to produce nuclear weapons would be great. The knowledge of how to construct a simple gun-type nuclear device, like the one we dropped on Hiroshima, is now widespread. Experts have little doubt that terrorists could construct such a primitive device if they acquired the requisite enriched uranium material. Indeed, just last summer, at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry said, “I have never been more fearful of a nuclear detonation than now.… There is a greater than 50 percent probability of a nuclear strike on U.S. targets within a decade.� I share his fears.

Pretty depressing, isn't it? Now the remedy -- not for the world, we seem to have no say in the fate of the world -- just for us: Some (sometimes) funny bits from Gothamimage:

6. The SLAM of a cellblock door, when the PATRIOT Act is abused and the constitution is set aside and set upon.

7. Nervous 'yes-men' CHUCKLES when Bush pleases his 'excitable' base by sounding like a simpleton, rather than a statesman. -Especially his not being able to properly pronouce "Abu Ghraib." (his legacy)

8. The sounds of SILENCE when the casualties came home from Iraq.

9. The SCREAMS at night, coming from Abu Ghraib, and from the archipeligo (Sp?) of foreign torture outsourcing partner's dungeons.

Okay, maybe there's not much to laugh at here. Sorry about that.