Tar Heel Tavern: Peace Futures

Tar Heel Tavern: Peace Futures



The latest Tar Heel Tavern is up at Anonymoses. Many thanks for the special dedication. The photos by Colonel Corn and the artwork by James Woodard Williams are a feast for the eyes.

Iraq Ain't Our Fathers' Revolution

"The soldiers who would have to defend......."

"While the Declaration of Independence was enacted in Philadelphia, the soldiers who would have to defend the brave statement were in New York. George Washington received word on July 9 that the document had been signed. He gathered his men on the Common (City Hall Park) and had the document read to them. Afterward, Washington exhorted his men to be worthy of the newly independent nation whose uniform they now wore. The troops and townspeople then went to Bowling Green at the south end of Broadway to pull down the statue of George III."

-Fraunces Tavern Museum website

------------

As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, U.S. Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army PSYOP team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

- Seattle Times

Iraq Ain't Our Fathers' Revolution

The president wishes for us to think of Iraq as we would think of the newly united and independent 18th century American colonies after a long battle and discussion of the values we wished to set down as our rule of law. In Philadelphia today, he invoked the memory of the colonists, the founding fathers and their Revolution. I don't know about you, but I'm amazed at Bush's gall, with his Iraqo-morphing of the American Revolution, trying to squeeze as much propaganda as he can possibly squeeze into a frame of the Spirit of 1776. I just don't see it.

- Though many of the founding fathers' ideas were sprung from European philosophers, Europe did not come in to occupy the colonies in order to make us "free." Au contraire - we fought against England's occupation with a verve and passion that caused us to be driven to bloody revolution. Our forefathers did not run in fear from British soldiers. They were determined - and brave - brave as hell. Bush can't even tell us that the 200,000 Iraqi troops we've trained are battle-ready. When asked for an exact count of the number of Iraqis who stand at the ready today, Bush gave a mealy-mouthed answer of "more and more." More and more? BAH! We're stuck in the middle of what is now a civil war (not a "revolution") - and the Iraqi troops are afraid to fight it on their own. U.S. trained Iraqi security troops have been known to take cover and leave the dying to U.S. soldiers when a dangerous situation arises!

- Our Constitution was not mediated by outside forces - we forged and blended our best common ideas - hard-won, independent, distinctly American hard-gut and fiercely-held ideas - and set them down - on our own terms and no other outside parties' interests.

- We knew what we wanted - there was no murderous civil war between us once we decided to fight as a united front to oust England - and we worked tirelessly, together, to achieve our goals. We didn't blow each other up in our churches or on the common.

Don't We Have Any Friends Around the World?

Don't We Have Any Friends Around the World?

For every grandiose idea laid out by the president today in his speech, eight words kept going through my mind:

Don't We Have Any Friends Around the World?

If the president's ideas were as great and true as he lays them out to be, why has the world isolated us? Why has Bush failed to directly call upon or appeal to the kind of human spirit and economic cooperation that would entice world leaders to join this nation in our efforts in Iraq? Is it because he doesn't want to share the unique spoils of this war?

Do you know what the extent of the president's multinational attitude was in his speech today? He hopes that the international community will "buck up" on their 13 billion dollar commitments. Period.

That is soulless and it drives the nails into a coffin of a new brand of isolationist thinking, which works in reverse of the old ideas about isolationism. As we poke our swords over the borders of our nation, crossing oceans and overthrowing regimes; carelessly creating anarchy in the name of "freedom" and hoped-for "democracy," the world isolates us. Our allies fall away.

Bush has isolated his people because he has alienated the world. He may have the greatest ideas, but if he cannot lead or inspire the world, we will all suffer for his failure of leadership.

Bush: 9/11 'accentuated' Saddam Hussein's Threat to U.S.

Bush: 9/11 'Accentuated' Saddam Hussein's Threat to U.S.

In Philadelphia today, when asked to clarify the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein's government, the president weakly said that 9/11 changed his "look of foreign policy" and that oceans no longer protect us. (We depended solely upon Oceans to protect us? Since when?) He said that 9/11 "accentuated" Saddam's threat to America.

Accentuate: To bring out distinctly; to make prominent; to emphasize.
[1913 Webster]

To emphasize is not to link. To bring out is not a reason to bring war.

Le Gouvernement français arrêts le Régime de Gore

Le Gouvernement Français Arrêts le Régime de Gore

La mariée mystérieuse d'Archeron fait une plaisanterie

Upon My Returning to The Blog

Upon My Returning to The Blog

The truths we have come to understand need to find their visible expression in our lives. Our every thought, word, or action holds the possibility of being a living expression of clarity and love...Wisdom is alive only as long as it is lived, understanding is liberating only as long as it is applied. A bulging portfolio of spiritual experiences matters little if it does not have the power to sustain us through the inevitable moments of grief, loss, and change. Knowledge and achievements matter little if we do not yet know how to touch the heart of another and be touched.

--Christina Feldman and Jack Kornfield, Stories of the Spirit, Stories of the Heart

The capacity for compassion is our greatest human gift. We're all brothers and sisters under the skin - and we're only here for a short time. In the end, only our conscious acts of kindness matter. It could be something as simple as a note of support you've sent to a friend - or as far-reaching as an action you've taken toward social justice when you've seen that a brother has clearly been forgotten in an all-too unforgiving world.

Thanks again to every one of you for each expression of condolence you offered to me upon the loss of my mother. I wanted to share one particular message that brought me great comfort in quiet moments of sadness:

It is said in the Islamic tradition that the love of a Mother is the closest love you can imagine to God's love. The Prophet Muhammad said that God loves us 70 times more than our mother. So imagine the grace of God! Remembering the love of the mother has great merit - and God loves it.

Thank you, Sadiq, for the words and the rose - and many thanks to all who cared enough to send a note or comment.

Thank You

Thank You

Many thanks to my dearest friend, and to all who have sent their good wishes and prayers in these difficult days. I lost my mother today to a valiant three-year-long struggle with cancer.

Why John Walsh is Wrong About John Edwards

Why John Walsh is Wrong About John Edwards

Imagine Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee moving to VETO authorization for the President of the United States to do what he needed to do to keep the nation safe in 2002.

Consider the fact that all through the airwaves, we heard Bush, Blair (UK) and Howard (AU) claiming to know for certain that Saddam Hussein had amassed a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that were ready for use; that the production of such weapons was increasing in tempo; and that it was almost certain that within a short few years Saddam Hussein would be in possession of nuclear weapons as well. Well after the 2002 IWR, a report came out from the Institute for Policy Studies, which was critical of Bush's decision to rush to war, but was still showing an uncertainty on WMD.

Question: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

Answer: We don't know for sure - that's why the UN inspectors are in Iraq. As of the end of 2002, the inspectors have not indicated they have found evidence of any viable weapons programs.

A Senate Intelligence Committee veto in October, 2002?

I DON'T THINK SO.

The nation was one year removed from the 911 attacks. The nation was still reeling - and misled by the President and his administration. The scenario of a veto is preposterous, and yet John Walsh is forwarding it in a Counterpunch article.

He makes an accusation against certain Democratic Senators, a case for which has not proven out in any realistic or hypothetical sense in his opinion piece,

"Democrats had enough knowledge to know that we were being lied into war in October, 2002. And except for a courageous 21 Senators, along with 2 Republicans, they went along for the ride - with their careers in mind."

Enough knowledge? I'm not so crystal clear on that. It was easy for us bloggers to bounce around our thoughts, but we weren't sitting in a Senator's seat. One uncovering of a cache of chemical weapons or nuclear material in Iraq would have sent those 21 "courageous" Senators' careers straight down the crapper.

In a nutshell, Graham tells us that everyone on that committee knew that Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction.

In a nutshell, I'll bet that most of those Senators felt that way in their gut, even though their final votes to give the President authorization to proceed may have been different.

Mr. Walsh expresses deep concern that there is no "opposition party" today.

Right now it is crystal clear that there is no true opposition party, although there are minor elements (very minor ones) among the Left in the Democratic party and the Libertarians in the Republican party. These could constitute a genuine antiwar opposition. Until that happens, the war will go one, the neocons may drive us into further wars and our democracy will be further imperiled.

I find that to be a shaky conclusion from my own experience - the Bush agenda is not in line with that of the majority of our Democratic representatives, and I don't believe it is "opposition" that we need. What we need is cooperation from all of our Representatives, Republican and Democrat for a sane and moral agenda in both foreign and domestic policies. We are all faced with instability in the Middle East, and a good part of it is because of the way in which our Commander in Chief approached and executed this war. I believe that giving the President of the United States the authorization to proceed was done in good faith by the Democrats. If there was a shadow of doubt about the WMD question (and there were many shadows - I had blogged about the small chance that chemical weapons might be used against the troops we were sending headlong into Iraq), then those Representatives held a great responsibility for that smallest doubt in their hands in October 2002. It's too easy to sit back now, with all we have uncovered since 2002, and point our fingers at cherry-picked Senators who did what they felt they had to do. In 2002, I was fairly sure that Bush was lying about the level of truth in the confidence we should have had in the available intelligence information he was presenting to our representatives. Many of our representatives probably felt that same uneasiness.

William Rivers Pitt wrote this in March, 2003 - speaking to all American citizens about the mistake he believed had been made:

"I understand why you support this engagement. At bottom, you do so because you are loyal. The President has said it must be so, and so it must be so. The loyalty of this nation's citizenry is now and has always been our greatest strength. Many of you who support the war are veterans of other conflicts, and so your support is based upon a desire to stand with the troops now in harm's way. This is more than honorable. Many of you believe this must happen because you have been told, time and again, that Saddam Hussein possesses an awesome arsenal of mass destruction weapons that he will gladly give to terrorists for use against us. Your belief that this is so stems from your loyalty - - the President has told you it is true, and so it must be true...........At the end of the day, though, I think I know the true reason why you support this war. You still see September 11th when you close your eyes.

I'm sensing that people like Mr. Walsh are angry with the whole of our society, and I understand perfectly well why he would feel that way. No one stopped a radical leader with no plan to complete the task he set out to accomplish - and that task - a war - was based on false information. We are angry. We're all looking for someone or something to blame.

The targets of our anger are many. I would think, if we really wanted to make a difference with promoting alternatrives to unjust pre-emptive wars, we might learn to trust some of our experienced Democratic leaders rather than throwing them over for candidates who don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election. When you see a leader like Senator John Edwards reaching a hand out and telling you why he believes he's made a mistake and offering ways to turn this mess around, instead of slapping him in the face, why not listen and think about the realities of our world and what we face, as one nation today? It's useless to try to adjudicate this long-standing distrust for our Democratic Senators by asking who was the most wrong at the time of the IWR. If any anti-war movement will ever have a valid voice, it will have to be a voice that gives up the animosity toward some of the leaders who have learned important lessons - and try forgiveness, and to appeal to them to implement their hard-learned experience to put our nation on a moral path. If you're like me, you might pray for their strength to lead us on.

I don't believe any movement that calls itself "anti-war" with leaders who profess to be "anti-war" without presenting solid alternatives to war will ever have a chance for practical success here in this nation. I am "anti-war" - and I know that we face a dangerous world with more tensions today, thanks to the worst President in history, than we have ever faced.

In the words of Wendell Berry:

"We can no longer afford to confuse peaceability with passivity. Authentic peace is no more passive than war. Like war, it calls for discipline and intelligence and strength of character, though it calls also for higher principles and aims. If we are serious about peace, then we must work for it as ardently, seriously, continuously, carefully, and bravely as we now prepare for war."

Now is not the time to parse the words of Bob Graham to accuse any other Senator of being a "liar" - which is an unfair and unacceptable accusation. I'm quite sick of reading this kind of journalism, but I understand why it's out there. Democrats have missed the boat on creating a better vision. The ones who admit they've learned the hardest lessons and that they care to change the status quo are the ones we might hold out the best hope for leading us to a better day -with war as a last resort rather than the first.

Scott Ritter on Politicization of Intelligence

Scott Ritter on Politicization of Intelligence

Scott Ritter makes a very important statement, and I agree with his opinion because I know a person who had direct experience with intelligence in the 90s in the Middle East and Africa - and in past conversations, he has told me much the same:

The crux of the problem of this Iraqi WMD intelligence "failure" lies in the fact that the U.S. intelligence community and the products it produces are increasingly influenced by the corrupting influences of politics. The politicization of the intelligence community allows the process of fixing intelligence around policy to become pervasive, and the increasingly polarized political climate in America prevents any real checks and balances through effective oversight, leaving Americans at the mercy of politicians who have placed partisan politics above the common good. The recent overhaul of the U.S. intelligence community, which resulted in the creation of the national intelligence chief, only reinforces this politicization, because the new director reports directly to the president and is beyond the reach of congressional oversight.

Not only is intelligence, once pinned down, used for partisan politics, but I have been told that the process by which intelligence gathering itself takes place has unmistakable political influence. The way we do business to justify war has to change or, God forbid, we'll have more Iraqs.

Ritter suggests this solution:

The only true fix to the problems of intelligence that manifested themselves in the Iraqi WMD debacle is to depoliticize the process. The position of national intelligence chief should be a 10-year appointment, like that of the director of the FBI, and subject to the consent of Congress. Likewise, all intelligence made available to the president to make national security policy should be shared with select members of Congress, from both parties, so that America will never again find itself at war based upon politically driven intelligence. Finally, and perhaps most important, the American people should start exercising effective accountability regarding their elected officials, so that those who voted yes for a war based on false and misleading information never again have the honor and privilege of serving in high office.

In the real world, voters are probably not going to overturn their incumbent representatives for their vote on the Iraq War Resolution. It may seem distasteful to think it's true, but the final vote - for or against giving a President authorization to make war, if necessary, will always be political, even if the intelligence is not fixed around the policy. It's my opinion that no matter how hard we try to provide oversight and balance, our intelligence agents and officials will be perpetually led by the political nose. Let's not be naive. Maybe the best suggestion is not to rush to war resolutions in the first place - to find alternatives to war. This is where I disagree with Scott Ritter. Rather than lashing out from anger and frustration at the way things are - and probably will not drastically change, let's act positively, as a large activist voting bloc, toward the change we want to see. The American people should start worrying and concentrating a lot more about exercising effective pressure on their representatives to make war obsolete - to impress upon their government the belief that war should the very last choice in an array of viable alternatives. The work of peacemaking and following the rule of law is not a walk in the park, and it takes great minds to carve out the new paths we will need to take if we're going to survive as a civil nation among a league of civil nations in the 21st century. We should accept no less. We have to ask ourselves who is up to the task. Our representatives should exercise accountability for their IWR votes in an open and frank manner - and we should be allowed to decide for ourselves whether or not their reasoning makes sense to us.

Overall, I have a healthy respect for Scott Ritter's suggestion for better checks and balances on intelligence operations that will forever be subject to political abuse.

What Would JFK Have Done?

What Would JFK Have Done?

Jimmy Carter Interviewed by Busted Halo

"I think religious people are strengthened in their beneficent influence by being separated from government and not dominated from government."
- Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter Interviewed by Busted Halo

Don't miss this interview with former President Jimmy Carter at Busted Halo. The webmag discusses "America's Moral Crisis" with the former President.

"I believe that the recent public opinion polls that I’ve read, just like you, show an increasing disillusionment with this administration, a very rapid decrease in trust that the administration is telling the truth and exemplifies the moral values that I describe in the book, those things are showing up in the present disapproving polls. And I think that may very well be a predictor of what will happen in future."

_ __ _ ____ ____ ____ _ __ _

*While you're visiting Busted Halo, Jason Rowe, a Catholic Worker at Casa Juan Diego in Houston, Texas, has written a piece about the life and legacy of Dorothy Day, one of my personal heroines for having been selflessly devoted to ministering to the ever-present needs of the poor and the homeless.

"Day should serve as a model for believers seeking to radically live out their baptismal calling within the concrete context of the world they inhabit."
- Jason Rowe

It is only by embracing
our own state of brokenness
that we are able reach out with compassion
in faith and hope to others
and as we have offered
our love and understanding
we find by some miracle
that we are loved and understood

- Jude

*Visit Oxfam to see how you can help others today.

Monday Random 12

Monday Random 12

1. Wooden nickels - eels, 'daisies of the galaxy'
2. I will follow you into the dark - death cab for cutie, 'plans'
3. To live's to fly - townes van zandt, 'be here to love me'
4. Echo park - joseph arthur,'our shadows will remain'
5. Harriet's got a song - ben kweller, 'sha sha'
6. Greenville - lucinda williams, 'car wheels on a gravel road'
7. You'll never leave Harlan alive - darrell scott, 'aloha from nashville'
8. Halo 'round the moon, steve earle, 'transcendental blues'
9. John Wilkes Booth, tony rice, 'native american'
10. Pull, richard buckner, 'devotion and doubt'
11. You can't take love for granted - graham parker - 'the real macaw'
12. Willy, joni mitchell, 'ladies of the canyon'

*inspired by Horatio's Sunday 12.

America's Spiritual and Moral Lag

America's Spiritual and Moral Lag

William Rivers Pitt pulls no punches - he wears no mask of fantasy. He is obviously saddened - and I think most of us are saddened by the American experience since the turn of the Century.

"Since January 2001, we have lost faith in the idea that our votes matter, we have lost two towers in New York, we have lost an entire city in Louisiana, we have lost two thousand one hundred and twenty nine soldiers to Iraq, somewhere along the way we lost a whole pile of weapons of mass destruction those soldiers died trying to find, we have lost a substantial portion of our children's future by spending hundreds of billions of dollars so those soldiers could die far from home, we have lost our standing with the international community, and a good portion of the planet looks long and hard at us, wondering if we have also lost our minds."

Losing faith is just about as sad as it gets. We lose hope when we feel powerless. There can be no upward movement unless there is first a downward one. We've been on the moral and spiritual downward path for quite some time now. We are the shining beacon of the crushed and uninspired. How do we "redeem the spiritual and moral lag?" (using Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words). How will we reestablish a spirit-broken democracy?

In his Nobel Lecture in 1964, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said this about poverty:

"..it is obvious that if man is to redeem his spiritual and moral "lag", he must go all out to bridge the social and economic gulf between the "haves" and the "have nots" of the world. Poverty is one of the most urgent items on the agenda of modern life. There is nothing new about poverty. What is new, however, is that we have the resources to get rid of it.

He said this about war:

I venture to suggest to all of you and all who hear and may eventually read these words, that the philosophy and strategy of nonviolence become immediately a subject for study and for serious experimentation in every field of human conflict, by no means excluding the relations between nations. It is, after all, nation-states which make war, which have produced the weapons which threaten the survival of mankind, and which are both genocidal and suicidal in character....We will not build a peaceful world by following a negative path. It is not enough to say "We must not wage war." It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but on the positive affirmation of peace.

He looked at our place in the world, and the hope he held for the world, in this way:

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response which is little more than emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality.

As you read Dr. King's words, think of ways that we can, as we stand today, redeem our 21st Century spiritual and moral "lag."

Senator Lieberman's Blind Spot

Senator Lieberman's Blind Spot

I think Senator Joe Lieberman's a good and decent fellow. I honestly can't figure out why he has such a blind spot when it comes to our disastrous strategy in Iraq. I have a lot of respect for Sen. Lieberman, and I can only trust that he is being sincere in his support for what most of us believe is clearly the wrong path for our nation. To be honest, I'm unhappy with all the ideas I've heard on Iraq so far - from Right or Left. However, Senator Lieberman's ideas on Iraq are ones I would support the least.

We began the war badly - and judging from the current status, blindly. We've willingly put ourselves smack dab in the middle of tribe-based civil war and power struggle - and to think those struggles and the violence that comes with the territory will end - or to think that the Iraqi police and military will be capable of dealing with Iraq alone when WE have shown that we can't do ourselves - it is such a preposterous notion that I would laugh if I did not want to cry instead.

This was never - I repeat - NEVER meant to be America's unilateral mission. Superpower or not, we can never accomplish this alone - not if we want to succeed in a moral and meaningful way. As I said, the war was ill-begun, with a blind eye to the reality of the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein.

To see Sen Lieberman calling this a "good strategy" causes me to wonder why. He said in his recent Wall Street Journal editorial that terrorists are intent on stopping Iraq's progress toward a new government "by instigating a civil war that will produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making in the Islamic world."

I think to myself: The chaos was produced in a power-vacuum - when Saddam went down and the U.S. occupied the nation with no decent plan for peace or adequate security. Sen Lieberman now speaks as if chaos will be a future by-product if the terrorists are allowed to succeed. Hello?! Chaos reigns in Iraq today - it has reigned ever since the President gave his speech underneath that "Mission Accomplished" banner. The insurgents are fighting the U.S. occupation and any Iraqi who has been seen as cooperative with the U.S. What makes anyone think, once we leave with whatever we call a "victory", that the civil war and terrorism recruiting will end? I don't care if there's no timetable or twenty - - Iraq is not going to be able to maintain control of the country with sufficient force on their own - and we cannot stay there indefinitely. We're twiddling our thumbs and wasting precious time, treasure, and lives.

Unless we commit ourselves to steady demilitarization (with redeployment based on our nation leading a new international peacekeeping effort) and unless the President immediately facilitates the international peacekeeping effort and a committed international humanitarian force for removing the complicated root causes of terrorism, Iraq will not be the success or stabilizing force we'd hoped for.

The Rumor: Sen. Lieberman as Secretary of Defense? I doubt it seriously. The right-wingers would have a Droopy-effigy burning in no time and the progressives might even supply the matches.

___________

UPDATE:

"...if the public doesn't believe [the Bush administration] and the allies don't believe them, how are we going to have an international coalition to be able to have a significant influence on what goes on inside Iraq? So I'd fire somebody. I'd fire two or three people. I'd fire a number of people who are involved in this thing. And then I would go forward with the international community, trying to get support from them in a diplomatic efforts, as our troops move out of there."

- Rep John Murtha in a press conference about Iraq. (*read the whole thing HERE)

OK - so what does Rep Murtha think about about Sen. Lieberman's attitude toward the Bush strategy? Apparently, not much....

Q: Mr. Murtha, what do you say to Senator Lieberman whom yesterday said Democrats need to acknowledge that this president is commander in chief for three more years, that undermining his credibility...

MURTHA: Undermining his credibility? What has he said that would give him credibility?

White House 2008 - The Fix

White House 2008 - The Fix

I commented at The Fix - Chris Cillizza's blog at the WaPo. Chris is handicapping the White House hopefuls for 2008. I came to the party a bit late - I'm comment # 208. ;)

Excerpt from my comment:

After Hurricane Katrina, Sen. Edwards' "Two Americas" message was literally floated home to our collective conscientious doorstep. His words from the 2004 campaign rang true. Sen. Edwards said, after Katrina, that he hoped the tragedy would raise awareness about the working poor and their struggles, and that other people who struggle with poverty don't need a hurricane to disrupt their lives. All it takes is a sick child or broken-down car. We know it's true - so many of us are just one or two paychecks away from an economic breakdown - so why don't we care? Why don't our policies reflect our values? Why do we Americans accept the Grover Norquist school-of-thought - which is to drown social democracy in the bathtub? It's a disgusting concept, when you see the reality behind the intent.

After Hurricane Katrina, some may have called Sen Edwards a 'political opportunist' for reminding America about "Two Americas," but I heartily disagree. It was a reminder of the truth behind his message and it served to show that much of our domestic policy is "all talk and no action" when it comes to finding the solutions and creating real and lasting bridges out of poverty.

Republicans and Democrats have both been remiss in finding effective ways to alleviate poverty through public legislation, but I believe that the Republicans are far more guilty, having been overt in their indifference to the working poor in America for too many years. Current federal policy is emptied of the common values most Americans hold as important and dear.

Listen to John Edwards. He really has something to say in a group of others who all too often rely on the way the political wind happens to be blowing. That happened with the Iraq war, and I believe, after reading Sen. Edwards' recent frank thoughts on his mistaken IWR vote and seeing his work on Poverty, that he is the candidate most likely to win the hearts and minds of Democrats with a clear, morally consistent, and convincing message

If Senator John Kerry has the figurative keys to the Democratic party, as one commenter posted, then I'm afraid the car's going to go into a ditch. "Ouch, Jude -
that's harsh," I can just hear some of you saying.

I supported Sen. Kerry in 2004, and I still think the world of him. He was a VietNam vet who was courageous and supportive of his brother-in-arms by telling the truth in D.C. upon his return from that unjust and failed war. I just don't think his message has ever been clear enough, especially on Iraq. He's had some bad political timing, he's wavered too much in the political winds and it has eroded my belief that he should be a front-runner in 2008, even though I have deep respect, appreciation, and admiration for him.

McCain and International Involvement in Iraq

McCain and International Involvement in Iraq

Senator John McCain said this in his speech at the Republican Convention in 2004, and he wasn't really telling the whole story:

We must, whatever our disagreements, stick together in this great challenge of our time.

My friends in the Democratic Party -- and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends -- assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government's most important obligation. I don't doubt their sincerity. They emphasize that military action alone won't protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy. They stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all, that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies.

We agree. And, as we've been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle. That is what the president believes. And thanks to his efforts, we have received valuable assistance from many good friends around the globe, even if we have, at times, been disappointed with the reactions of some. I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.

Our president will work with all nations willing to help us defeat this scourge that afflicts us all.

Let's face it, Senator McCain was being generous, to say the very least, to President Bush when he said that Bush's efforts produced an effective and commited international cooperation. Looking back, it's closer to humor than reality.

On Meet the Press this morning, Senator McCain was interviewed about the Iraq war - and never mentioned the international community and their place in the future of the Iraq war or the fight against terrorism.

This war will go nowhere while we continue to fight it alone. Senator McCain's ideas have a decided impractical element, as judged by Middle East experts. Where would a President McCain take our nation?

"Well, I guess this is true confessions. I was wrong about Kosovo. I was right about Bosnia. We did the right thing in Kosovo by going in there and stopping ethnic cleansing." - Sen. McCain, Meet the Press, Dec 3, 2005

The NATO involvement in Kosovo was due to a battle that Albanians characterized as a national liberation struggle and Serbs saw as terrorism. This is too close to the voices of Iraqi Kurds in today's Iraq for comfort. The Iraqi Kurds want nothing less than complete independence from Iraq. As our occupation fails to secure an Iraq with a strong central government, the battlefield will surely evolve. A central government in Iraq would have little sway in Iraqi Kurdistan, and will have an unlikely ability to impose its will through force. The Iraqi Kurds are seeking demarcated boundaries, control over revenues, and a self-contained defense force. There are many Iraqi Kurds who are pushing hard for their eventual independence (with the bombshell of the fiercely disputed Kirkuk attached)- and we never hear our political leaders admitting that.

I hope you'd agree that "ethnic cleansing," while sounding sterile, would be quite a bloody, violent, and unacceptable moral consequence of our meddling in Iraq's affairs -whether or not you call yourself a "sentimental person." In northern Iraq, Iraq's political blocs and constitution writers have already agreed, in principle, to some kind of separate federal state for the Iraqi Kurds -and we know they want more - as in KIRKUK. The Shi'a want their own state in the south of Iraq, which would be contrary to what U.S. leaders hoped for when they invaded. Sunni Arabs have opposed a separate Iranian-influenced Shiite state. This has already triggered a civil war with ethnic cleansing. (What else would you call Shi'a militias gunning down Sunni Arabs/Sunnis Arabs blowing up Shi'a mosques? Put them all in your neat little categories if you wish - "Rejectionists," "Regime Loyalists," and "Terrorists" - and together they are still winning the battle of ideas as long as the U.S., unilaterally and with coalition partners dropping out by the day, occupies Iraq.)

Is McCain's statement an unspoken suggestion for changing the course in Iraq to a NATO involvement? NATO administration and reinforcement of the Iraqi Kurdish territory as an (already) autonomous province within Iraq, with a wink and a nod from the U.S. to the support their future fight for independence? Is he talking about multilateral commitment and support for nation-building? Air war/bombing missions vs. ground war? Tens of thousands of NATO troops to maintain order in the autonomous region(s) of Iraq?

At one time, the proclaimed goal of the NATO operation in Kosovo was summed up by its spokesman as "Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back". That is, Serbian troops would have to leave Kosovo and be replaced by international peacekeepers in order to ensure that many displaced Albanian refugees could return to their homes. Today, would the goal-slogan for an newly-expanded autonomous Kurdish territory be "American occupation forces and Shi'a/Sunni out, peacekeepers in?" (on behalf of displaced Kurdish villagers?) Is that where we're headed in this mess? Has our failure to do this thing right going to forever change the face of Iraq? Would enforcing a de facto Kurdish state help to stabilize the Middle East or inflame the already-existing troubles? The Turkish military is increasingly agitated about the Iraqi Kurdish intentions toward the disputed (oil-rich) city of Kirkuk. The Turkish government fears any outcome which benefits the Iraqi Kurds.

What becomes of the rest of Iraq when the Kurds secede?

Do we trust President Bush - or would we trust a President McCain who have already forwarded unrealistic notions about the future of the cause in which our nation is engaged?

Perhaps President Bush should fire Rumsfeld and beg for Wesley Clark to come and take his place.

Around the Net Today - Blogs and More

Around the Net Today - Blogs and More

Rediff.com has posted an interview with former Senator John Edwards: 'India must realise danger of nuclear Iran'

Speaking of Senator John Edwards, the Hotline, National Journal's Daily Briefing on Politics has given the One America blog the "thumbs up." This makes me very happy, since I have played a part in writing blog entries and facilitating the current Book Club at the website.

Aspiring presidential candidates are dipping their pinkies into the blogosphere. Real blogging is hard. It requires the candidate's staff to accept some measure of unpredictability and to relinquish message control. Many '08 hopefuls have therefore opted for the option of calling a list of press releases a "blog," which will not endear them to purists...The most active potential candidate is Sen. John Edwards, whose post 11/04 outreach to bloggers included a private home-cooked meal at his Georgetown manse. That means Edwards knows the biggest secret to obtaining cred in the blog world: treat like them the media they aspire to be and give them access. Edwards is wont to post pronouncements to his site before they appear elsewhere; his "I was wrong" op-ed in the Washington Post was previewed on the blog. Edwards' site contains original editorial content almost every day, although there are quite a few "open threads." Elizabeth Edwards lurks through the comments section and has been known to correspond with posters.

*A tip of the hat to Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly

Natalie Davis has a comprehensive blogpost about the Courage of Pacifists.

Tom Englehardt tells us about How (Not) to Withdraw from Iraq

The AP is talking about a Democratic event coming up in Florida next weekend:

Next weekend will be an important rally for Democrats. Speakers will include Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, last year's vice presidential candidate John Edwards, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a rising Democratic star from Illinois. "Those are some pretty big names," said Corrigan. "National leaders sense political opportunity. Maybe the idea is if they can turn Florida, they can turn the whole nation, or a significant part of it."

Comments seen at this diary on TPM Cafe:

"In 2008, we must work to get an antiwar Democrat elected like Wes Clark, who understands that war is a last resort or John Edwards who understands that Iraq has gone terribly wrong, and it is time to end it. These antiwar candidates postion reflect the opinion of America, and we will be successful if they were to be nominated..."

"...John Edwards, Wes Clark, and Russ Feingold are stong candidates that want the war won fast, and quick. They do not support a full withdraw, but their solutions resolve the issues more diplomatically by using economic and international help from other countries."

"..I would love to see an Edwards/Clark ticket in 2008. It would be very powerful, and the combination would be able to save this country. Edwards domestic policy strengths, and Clark's foreign policy strengths."

"..I want the White House in 2008, and I think the best candidates to take it back are: Mark Warner, John Edwards, Wes Clark, and Evan Bayh. Any of those candidates would make good Presidents and could win..."

______________

At Daily Kos, DavidNYC has written about Senator Joe Biden, and how he was transparent when he spoke about former Senator John Edwards, who recently said that he thought his vote to authorize the Iraq war was a mistake. Biden's reaction:

"I think he did make a mistake. He voted for the war and against funding it, I think that was a mistake.

That kind of talk isn't going over too big with many Democrats.

Drew says it about as clear as it can be said:

What Edwards voted against was a bill that would fund the war but not require any plan from the administration. And he voted against it for that reason. At the time, Biden must have thought it was acceptable to give an "incompetent" admininstration $87 billion with which to further prove their incompetence.

Matt Bellamy comments:

"...the campaign hasn't even started and he's already going negative against [Sen. John] Edwards. And he's borrowing right-wing talking points from the last campaign in order to do it. Sickening."

Sterno is burning over it:

The thing that pisses me off here is that Biden didn't have to turn on Edwards to make his statement. Rather than making a statement against the administration policy, he goes after Edwards. I'm assuming he's setting up a distinction for the 2008 primary. Let me assure you Biden, I'll do everything I can to make sure you aren't getting that nomination.

Rooktoven makes a prediction:

I'd bet any amount of money I had that Edwards is one of the last 3 Dems standing (IMO he'll be the nominee,) and that Biden will be Joementum--The Sequel.

Cathy believes Joe Biden has become a student of Rovian-style campaign-speak:

He just knifed Edwards for his own gain. Hoping to set himself apart as the grown up in contention for the nomination. I think Democrats can pretty much criticize each other's votes, but this is just a thinly veiled questioning of the motivation of Edwards, using right wing words.

The Austin Cynic is looking for something that I'll wager he'll never see:

I'm not going to bash Edwards for admitting he made a mistake, but neither am I going to pat him on the back. You have it exactly right. At the time of the IWR, Bush had never proven himself to be trustworthy in any way. The first Democrat that can admit that the voted for the IWR and supported the war for purely political reasons will get real kudos from me.

Ouch! TampaCPA really lays it on:

Biden has done a good job showing the difference between himself and John Edwards. Edwards has a soul!

Plan For Victory?

Plan for Victory?

At Annapolis this week, President Bush spoke with the banner "Plan for Victory" behind him. I listened - and guess what? I didn't hear the plan.

Did you?



Maybe it's in the booklet. I guess we'll have to comb through the fine details in the booklet in order to get some clarity.

From the booklet:

VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

In the short term:

An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.

In the medium term:

- An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.

In the longer term:

- An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.

- An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.

- An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

So, from what we can gather, they say that there will be no surrender - no white flags waving - no bells or whistles, no bullhorns screaming "WE WON!" In the short term (whatever that is - it's not defined), there will be a "neutralized" insurgency; destruction of terrorist networks. That hasn't happened yet - we're not even close - and we won WWII decisively in four years, mind you...and three years into this mess, we are still in "the short term". Only one Iraqi army battalion can fight independently after three years! So what, pray tell, is LONG term in this war?! This sucker's going to last forever.

In the "medium term," an Iraq that "inspires" will have to be an Iraq who can defend its people from massacre in brutal civil wars to come. Roaming Shiite militias (in place of any bona fide law-respecting police force or judicial system) are not an inspiration. Secret Iraqi torture-prisons are not an inspiration. Any loss of women's rights (leaving them worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein) is not an inspiration. I'm not inspired. Why am I so "underwhelmed?" (*my favorite non-word)Are you "underwhelmed?"

In the "long term," (how long is long?), a scenario where Iraq has 'done it' all by themselves (not likely to happen any time this century) and is now a champion defender of "freedom" (by 'freedom,' do they mean what freedom means to them - or to us?) and is now a beacon for a completely different culture to be inspired to "go West" is such a stretch that it hardly rates an honest critique.

In the long term, if we stay on this course, as it stands without a new international organization to handle the new global concerns, tensions and wars of the twenty-first Century, Iraq will be dissolved...lost to the Islamists. The entire Middle East may be destabilized. America's best interests will be eventually isolated because of our ignorant empire-unilateralism. The common American citizens' interests will not be served - neither for their economic or their security interests. Americans will be war-poor, having sunk all their precious treasure into a venture that backfired on them.

If we're doing such an exemplary job in making Iraq safe for freedom, then why did a brand new poll called "Arab Attitudes Toward Political and Social Issues, Foreign Policy and the Media," (by the University of Maryland and Zogby International) show that Iraq has become "the new prism of pain" through which Arabs view the United States and much of the rest of the world? From a Kuwait News Agency report: "Asked about the U.S. advocating the spread of democracy in the Middle East, especially since the Iraq war, 69 percent of the total poll respondents said they "do not believe democracy is a real objective," while 16 percent said democracy is an important objective, but the United States is "going about it the wrong way." Only 6 percent said democracy is an important objective that "will make a difference".

The new Bush Iraq-strategy booklet states that the war on terrorism is the defining challenge of our generation, just as the struggle against communism and fascism were challenges of the generations before. If that's true, where is the international community? Why aren't they out there expounding on the danger of the Islamic Jihad's universal appeal? Zbigniew Brzezinski has this to say:

By asserting that Islamic extremism, "like the ideology of communism . . . is the great challenge of our new century," Bush is implicitly elevating Osama bin Laden's stature and historic significance to the level of figures such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao. And that suggests, in turn, that the fugitive Saudi dissident hiding in some cave (or perhaps even deceased) has been articulating a doctrine of universal significance. Underlying the president's analogy is the proposition that bin Laden's "jihad" has the potential for dominating the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions of people across national and even religious boundaries. That is quite a compliment to bin Laden, but it isn't justified.

So - what is the international community doing about terrorism without the U.S. in a lead role?

On the Diplomacy side, they are initiating a peace process, without the U.S. government. On November 18th and 19th, attempting to clean up the mess that the U.S.-led invasion has created in Iraq, an open-ended peace conference on Iraq took place in Cairo under the auspices of the Arab League. The UN, the EU and most of Iraq’s neighbors signed on to try to make it work. The various Iraqi factions attending the Cairo conference showed considerable willingness to compromise to attain consensus on key issues, such as the withdrawal of occupation forces. A key Sunni leader, Saleh Mutyla, hinted the resistance would approve a ceasefire in exchange for U.S. withdrawal. It was the first serious world diplomatic effort to deal with the crisis in Iraq wrought by the Bush administration’s unjust war.

A Gulf Dialogue is taking place this weekend, sponsored by IISS. Joining them for the first time this year are China, India and Germany, according to sources.

On the Military side, we are being left behind by the nations we paid to join our "unilateral coalition." Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin withdrawing their combined 1,250 troops by mid-December. If Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and South Korea reduce or recall their personnel, more than half of the non-American forces in Iraq could be gone by next summer. - source link

In his Naval Academy speech, the President would give absolutely no sense of a departure date from Iraq. That, he said, would be decided by "commanders on the ground." The Generals are saying more than the President would have any of us believe, however. Here's how the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh explained the Murtha proposal in a recent interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman:

"He's known for his closeness to the four-stars. They come and they bleed on him... So Murtha's message is a message... from a lot of generals on active duty today. This is what they think, at least a significant percentage of them, I assure you. This is, I'm not over-dramatizing this. It's a shot across the bow. They don't think [the Iraq war is] doable. You can't tell that to this President. He doesn't want to hear it. But you can say it to Murtha."- Tom Englehardt

What I did hear in Bush's Annapolis (that interested me) was that the he is "learning from our experiences in Iraq and adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground." Was that an admission of error? And how much is he learning? A lot of biased pundits point fingers at Senators who gave Bush the authorization to handle this war and all the diplomatic trappings, stating that it's now "politically convenient" to say that their authorization was "a mistake." In all reality, though, it was a horrific mistake to think that President Bush and his administration were prepared to send our troops to Iraq with an appropriate strategy. It was a matter of trust and respect. The Senate and Congress trusted Bush to do the right thing for America and respected the office of the President, as any good-faith American would do. Our good faith was taken advantage of by this administration. This was an ill-planned mission which was initiated with the support and trust of millions of fearful and misled Americans. (The FBI is now taking another look at forged prewar intelligence.) In retrospect, it's very clear that the President chose, quite firmly and obviously, to make this a unilateral war - and that it was the biggest mistake our President ever could have made.

He said in his speech, "This is an enemy without conscience -- and they cannot be appeased. If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle." But they're not idle now, in the heat of the guerilla warfare in Iraq today - and their recruiting has swelled. Obviously, we are not winning this battle. It's like battling a cancer with a toxic chemotherapy while the cancer grows more aggressive.

From SignOnSanDiego.com: "Two senior Army analysts who in 2003 accurately foretold the turmoil that would be unleashed by the US invasion of Iraq" and now claim it is "no longer clear that the United States will be able to create (Iraqi) military and police forces that can secure the entire country no matter how long US forces remain."

"...U.S. vital interests have never demanded a democratic state in Iraq before 2003," say the two analysts, W. Andrew Terrill and Conrad C. Crane. The two analysts see one circumstance in which a timetable is useful, if "the Iraqi government may have only a small chance to survive, but the U.S. leadership does not wish to announce publicly that we have basically given up on Iraq."

When all else fails, there's always that delicious red herring used against those sissies who would be accused of a girlie-man technique called "appeasement." No one - and I mean nobody - has suggested appeasement of terrorism as a sole alternative to Middle East stability. That is utterly simplistic - and a false choice as far as alternatives go. Americans, especially those who serve our nation, want truth and honesty about this strategy, not politicizing spin and false choices. It's no wonder the President's poll numbers have slipped so low. Americans understand when something doesn't sound appropriate.

To President Bush:

"Victory in Iraq will demand the continued determination and resolve of the American people." - President George W. Bush

Then give us something we can wrap our hearts around, President Bush. Find a way to get the world on board, or expect complete failure and a further erosion of the public's resolve. If it looks like a winning strategy, we'll know it. In the run up to the war in Iraq, many neoconservative wonks disregarded NATO and poo-pooed other U.S. allies as being unnecessary for transforming or stabilizing the Middle East. Mr. President, you literally threw the good will of our allies away each time you went to the U.N. How cheap our allies' support must have seemed to you back then - and how rare a commodity now. Get the world's attention back, President Bush. How could the leaders of Germany, France, Spain and other European nations convince their publics to support your unilateral course of action? Convince them by demilitarizing and win their support for a joint international approach to the Middle East region that will benefit all of us. It's the only way to go if you want people to take you seriously. No more talk of American Empire.

Multilateralism, Nation-Building, and Pew Research on Our Place in the World

Iraq, Multilateralism, Nation-Building, and Pew Research on Our Place in the World

Out in the press, the realities of nation-building and multilateralism are being discussed, and there are many ideas and opinions being floated.

First, from the Washington Times:

"...the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies are brainstorming about proposals to create a permanent rapid-response corps of federal civilians who would deploy on call to rebuild a nation. "There is no way the current government structure is going to solve the problem," [spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld Lawrence] Di Rita said. Getting U.S. government civilians to go to Iraq ran into trouble right from the start of the Coalition Provisional Authority."

The Wall Street Journal (Thinking Global):

"..the Bush administration has realized at great pain via Iraq that it can't achieve much in the world without more effective multilateralism. The challenges increasingly defy unilateral solutions: terrorism, international crime, pandemic threats, global warming, nuclear proliferation."

From a list of "thanks" at Thanksgiving [CSM, ]the author is glad for:

..A shift by the US away from unilateralism toward multilateralism. The relative loneliness of the US in Iraq has underlined the need for cooperation with other nations on specific issues and initiatives. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, clearly with the approval of President Bush, is cultivating alliances with European powers, and nations like Russia and China, as these coalitions seek collectively to curb the nuclear weapons ambitions of North Korea and Iran. There is even recognition of the helpful role that international organizations like NATO and the UN can sometimes play.

Max Boot/LA Times:

A hundred years ago, this type of involvement in other countries' internal affairs would have been called, frankly, liberal imperialism. Today, we prefer euphemisms such as nation building, peacekeeping and stabilization. But whatever you call such operations, they are essential to stop the spread of problems such as infectious diseases, terrorism, genocide, narco-trafficking and refugee flows....The issue is no longer whether we will do nation building but how well will we do it? .....To some extent, the problems in Iraq were a consequence of George W. Bush's oft-expressed disdain for nation building — an attitude we can be thankful he has rethought.

From: Were We Lied Into War? -- Some Detective Work by Andrew Bard Schmookler, who is an author and proprietor of NoneSoBlind.org (a site which forwards the notion that both sides of our polarized society have their moral blindspots), Bush's attitude toward the world in the lead-up to the Iraq war bordered on contempt and chastisement:

..Does not their reckless mangling of our major alliances lead us to infer that “the war on terror” was not really uppermost in their minds, but was rather used as a justification –a cover—for other ambitions? And as for the spirit behind those ambitions, one can look at how this president and vice president behaved in the period of nearly a year leading up to the invasion of Iraq. In their public statements, they gave us clear clues in the readily accessible language of basic human behavior...Their conduct was arrogant, not fearful...For months, they assumed an aggressive posture not only toward Iraq but toward the world generally. And for the international order they showed a feeling bordering on contempt.

...When the president–under pressure from the public statements from his father’s former chief national security aides-- finally decided to acknowledge that order, and go to speak to the United Nations, his demeanor was entirely presumptuous and boastful. Far from soliciting their help in a spirit likely to elicit it, he lectured and chastised the other nations of the world.

General William Odom says:

By themselves the Balkan countries were not all that important. Yet several great powers, especially Russia and Austria, were jockeying for strategic advantages there as they anticipated the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and competition for control of the straits leading from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. Britain and France wanted neither Russia nor Austria to dominate; and Germany, although uninterested in the Balkans, was allied to Austria. From a strategic viewpoint, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 was unimportant, but it set in motion actions that soon brought all of the major powers in Europe to war. Four empires collapsed, and the doors were opened to the Communists in Russia and the Nazis in Germany as a result. Brzezinski's point today is that the Middle East and Southwest Asia have precisely that kind of potential for catalyzing wars among the major powers of the world today, although nothing in the region objectively merits such wars...Thus Brzezinski calls for the United States to lead the states of Europe plus Russia, Japan, and China in a cooperative approach to stabilizing this region so that it cannot spark conflicts among them. As he rightly argues, the task of stabilization is beyond the power of the United States alone. With allies, however, it can manage the challenge.

The Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has a far less hopeful or creative outlook. He's sticking to his unilateralisms:

Regardless of their views about whether the war was justified or what policy Washington should pursue going forward, all factions in the debate need to realize that there is no global cavalry ready to ride to the rescue in Iraq. For better or worse, the Iraq mission is an American problem, and it is up to the American people and their elected representatives to craft a solution.

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA:

Decentralization in both Bosnia and Iraq is the only hope for peace and prosperity. The ethnic or religious groups in neither country really want to live together. In both countries, the United States should stop its risky attempts to create a strong national government and allow genuine self-determination. In Iraq, this might take the form of a loose confederation or partition, with a sharing of petroleum revenues or oil fields to entice Sunni participation.

From the Pew Research Center:

The [Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations study, “American’s Place in the World, 2005"].. finds just 32 percent agreeing with the sentiment “Since the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying too much about whether other countries agree with us or not”. This is 7 points higher than the level of agreement in 2002 but identical with sentiment right before September 11, 2001 and a bit lower than 1993-95 levels..

..When it comes to the UN, Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats (56% vs. 24%) to say the U.S. does not need to cooperate fully with the international body..

"Nothing" Good to Say about Bush Foreign Policy -
"Well, he hasn't bombed Antarctica yet."

..A sizeable minority of opinion leaders could think of nothing to say when asked what has been best about Bush's handling of foreign policy. Fully 37% of scientists and engineers volunteered that they had "nothing" good to say or offerred a sarcastic response such as "Well, he hasn't bombed Antarctica yet." 17% of Military had "nothing" good to say about Bush's handling of foreign policy...

Terrorism and War in Iraq: The Biggest International Problem

.. Opinion leaders and the public largely agree that terrorism and the situation in Iraq are the biggest international problems confronting the nation...

Lost U.S. Credibility and Respect: Greatest Problem Facing the Nation

..Many influentials also identified America’s image in the world and the overall impression that America has lost credibility and respect as the greatest problems facing the nation. As one foreign affairs specialist put it, America has suffered “a loss of international confidence and respect due to the administration ramming a series of ill-considered political, economic and security policies.” A media executive described the problem in similar terms, saying America has “a lack of credibility as a fair and just world leader.”...

Loss of Respect for U.S.: A Major Problem

...Most who say the nation has lost respect believe that this is an important concern. Roughly four-in-ten Americans (43%) – two-thirds of those who say America is less respected – say this is a major problem for the country..

Iraq War as Reason for Global Discontent: A Bipartisan Belief

..Opinion leaders and the public overwhelmingly point to the war in Iraq as a major reason for discontent with the U.S. around the world. This belief is nearly unanimous among foreign affairs experts (95%), security specialists (93%), and scientists and engineers (90%). Even military leaders, who express relatively positive opinions of the military operation in Iraq, generally believe the war is a major factor in global unhappiness with the U.S. The general public concurs in
this view. Eight-in-ten Democrats point to the war as a major reason for international discontent with the U.S., and large majorities of independents (70%) and Republicans (64%) agree.

Poem by Song Xiaoxian

Borrowed Light
by Song Xiaoxian

I wake up well before six a.m.
I rub my eyes
and raise the blind
quite suddenly to find
those coloured clouds behind the water tower
are beautiful
I think about a photo
but see how the colours
fade by degrees
now I almost
forget myself
absorbed, at once, I find to my surprise
I’m like a new-born babe
swathed in red light
but this is no rite—serious and solemn
I waver at the window
and just because I have borrowed Its light
inwardly I murmur
my gratitude to Heaven

Copyright 2005 Song Xiaoxian
Translation by Simon Paton
China Poetry International.org