"Oh, and about gays in the miltary..."

Today there's talk that Barack Obama will make ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the services a distinct priority at the beginning of his first term. While there is much to be said about the high-mindedness of such a move, I believe it's a mistake. Bill Clinton made the same miscalculation at the beginning of his presidency, and he was pilloried for it. The former Arkansan governor could have chosen few more effective ways to mobilize his opposition on the Christian Right. He also didn't curry much favor among the brass of the armed forces. I think it would be in the President-Elect's best interest to consider moving away from this initiative before he stirs up a hornet's nest and accelerates the "Culture War".

Listen... I want to make it quite clear that I support gay rights. I can't think of a single reason why men or women that are attracted to members of the same sex should be discriminated against by the government. People need to spend more time attending to the conditions of their own houses before they start trying to impose their prejudices on others. There's nothing more bothersome than another highly flawed human being getting uppity. What people do with (or to) their partners is their business, as long as it is consensual and the terms are defined upfront among the principals. I'm not concerned about what folks choose to do in their own beds. I have plenty of things to mull over without getting into that.

But I also believe that drugs should be completely decriminalized, and for many of the same reasons. What you do unto yourself is your own problem or escape, and not for me to judge. However I wouldn't recommend that Barack Obama make that an important priority on his domestic agenda either. Not only are there plenty of more pressing issues of importance to the future of the nation, but drug policy is another issue that would generate a surplus of resistance that would be distracting. This is a pivotal moment in American history, and Obama is going to need to make significant compromises to enact the type of platform capable of addressing the difficulties we face. He's going to have to pick his battles carefully.

Since Clinton capitulated and allowed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to take effect, over 12,000 gay individuals have been ushered out of the military. In the meantime Britain and Israel have seen fit to allow soldiers who are openly gay to serve. I haven't taken the time to read any exhaustive studies of how these men and women have integrated into their organizations, and I can't say whether or not they have had a significant impact on the operations of their respective forces. I have a hard time believing that they are living in a culture wherein they'd feel comfortable coming on strongly to their heterosexual colleagues. I wouldn't expect to find that lustful urges have overwhelmed their collective ability to concentrate on the mission.

It's certainly true that the American military is in dire need of an injection of new blood. Perhaps allowing gays to join would swell the numbers. I'm not sure why anyone would be anxious to enlist in these trying times, but I guess the motivations of homosexuals are the same as anyone else in this regard. For some, this path is among the very few opportunities they have in a troubling economic climate. Ultimately it appears that Obama is committed on the issue. He's actually considering appointing an openly-gay man to the position of Secretary of the Navy (which, if you think about it, is reinforcing a long-held stereotypical perception of that branch). Whatever happens, I wish the new President well.

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 3.

Note: Please read Parts 1 and 2 of this series before proceeding.

What would happen if, as John McCain and Sarah Palin have both advocated, Iran's nuclear facilities were bombed? Ex-CIA agent Robert Baer offers an unequivocal answer to that question- the Iranians would light the Persian Gulf and Saudi oil facilities on fire. Baer knows many of the old school Revolutionary Guard Iranian generals by name. He has learned about their collective temperament and understands their willingness to employ devastating tactics in order to protect their nation's territorial integrity. As Baer points out, these sober-minded men believe that the Persian Gulf has that name for a reason. Its rim consists of a population that is over 90% Sh'ite, and it will be defended at all costs.

If Israel launches air attacks (with or without American support) the Iranian government will almost certainly respond by shooting Silkworm missiles at every tanker in the Gulf, thus disrupting the international oil markets, causing an international Great Depression that will make the Wall Street crisis look like "a walk in the park", and setting off the first round of World War III. What sane politician would offer unconditional support for such a move? We do not have the financial resources, nor the will necessary to carry out such a massive operation for 30+ years. It shouldn't even be considered a realistic option. Yet we still hear the McCain/Palin ticket continually insist that they aren't willing to sit down with Iranian leaders, and that we can't "second-guess" the policies of our ally Israel.

The fact is that our current situation reflects the waning of the American Superpower. For better or for worse, the world recognizes that there is a fundamental shift occurring. The US dollar is flagging, and legislative efforts to avoid a complete economic collapse have not gone unnoticed by the rest of the globe. Yet our national politicians seem committed to a purported "War on Terror" that is steadily draining our resolve and treasure. Our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming increasingly unpopular and untenable. Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden hasn't been heard from or seen in years. Robert Baer believes that he is dead, and suggests that the majority of his CIA colleagues agree with him.

Baer points out that fighting a war against an opponent whose leadership has been neutralized does not make any sense. Furthermore (like a growing proportion of the American citizenry) he is frustrated that there is no specific ultimate objective that would define victory in this amorphous conflict. The only final conclusion that seems consistent with reality is that we need a significant change in our longterm strategy. There is a growing awareness that the United States must dedicate itself to energy independence. We will not be able to afford this imperative if we continue to trick ourselves into believing that we can "democratize" the Middle East. Our goal must be to demilitarize that region.

I agree with Robert Baer's final conclusion. In order to preserve some relevance on the international stage, we must initiate a nationwide "Manhattan Project" to accelerate the development of sustainable alternative energy. In the meantime we may need to ensure that a steady supply of oil flows from the Middle East. No matter what McCain and Palin believe, this cannot be accomplished with a diplomacy relying on bombs and threat. We must sit down with the true power players, regardless of how we feel about them. That is the only way to avert the catastrophic path that the Bush Administration has placed us on. There is much more at stake here than Wall Street, federal taxation, corporate subsidies, and partial-birth abortions.

Condoleezza Rice Tries To Re-ignite The Cold War.

I can't tell you how many times in the last few weeks I have had people suggest that I am a "communist" because I disagree with them about the proper direction of our county. This would be completely understandable if I was advocating the common ownership of all property in the United States, or if I wanted a single, self-perpetuating political party to control all aspects of the nation's social and economic spheres. If I was stating my support for such a situation, then it would be fair to accuse me of communist tendencies. That's clear because those are the definitive conditions necessary for that type of government. But I've never been in favor of those things. No, instead my opponents are reacting to my support of Barack Obama- who coincidentally has also never called for the aforementioned measures.

How long is it going to be before the McCarthy-ites in the extreme Right Wing abandon the tired and ignorant tactic of branding all those who disagree with them as "communists", "socialists", or "Marxists"? Never mind that these terms are used interchangeably as if they were truly communicating the same thing (a "socialist" is in favor of the government assuming control over the country's "means of production", and a "Marxist" is someone who follows the philosophies of Karl Marx*). Never mind that I've never actually met an American who seriously aligns himself with these views. These are simply outdated labels that have lost any connection to the reality of the world. Someone needs to remind "conservatives" that employ these labels that the Soviet Union collapsed nearly two decades ago.

Still the spectre of our former "superpower" rival seems to loom large on the periphery of GOP perception. I was frankly dismayed to hear about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's comments to an audience at the German Marshall Fund on September 18th. If you aren't familiar with what she said, here are some highlights:

“Our strategic goal now is to make it clear to Russia's leaders that their choices are putting Russia on a one-way path to self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance. (...) Russia's international standing is worse now than at any time since 1991. And the cost of this self-inflicted isolation has been steep.”

In typical Red-baiting fashion, the Bush Administration's reigning "Sovietologist" called out the world's largest nation (and the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter and the third largest energy consumer) in one of the most provocative manners possible.

Besides the fact that Rice's position betrays the essential hypocrisy of the Bush administration, it exposes the decreasing relevance the United States has on the international stage. Bush can send out his surrogates to deliver veiled warnings to rising powers all he wants- but the sad truth is that the policies put in place by this presidential administration (with the fawning assistance of Republican legislators) have consistently eroded our ability to be respected (or even feared) by would-be competitors. Given our inability to stabilize a third world country such as Iraq, I don't think Rice is fooling anyone. She is merely inflaming any two-bit opponent that dreams of giving the United States a hard time.

I believe it's time for us to take a good hard look at our new standing in the world. No matter what you might hear from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly or John McCain- our self-image as the dominant force in the international realm is becoming nothing but a delusion. Our economy is on the brink of collapse. The free market system that we've been trying to forcibly impose on the rest of the world is in dire need of re-evaluation. More and more we are being seen as a "paper tiger". And as far as "socialism" is concerned, the Bush administration is embracing that approach with its proposal to nationalize the home mortgage industry. It's time to abandon previous assumptions.

*Characterized by a "system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society."

- Dictionary.com

Hopes and Fears in the Presidential Race.

One of the things that I've found particularly fascinating during this presidential race has been hearing about the reasons different people support their respective favorites. While a few individuals have been motivated by the defense of a particular ideology, many find themselves choosing between the lesser of two evils (and these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive motivations). Many of the arguments that I have heard formulated over the last couple of weeks are framed in terms of fears. As is typical in cases of divisive elections (like the vast majority of national races nowadays), there are a lot of poorly reasoned accusations being bandied about. Only occasionally do they seem to have some grounding in reality.

I'd like to think that I could make my decision primarily on hopes, rather than fears. In my case I can truly say that I am ultimately voting FOR someone, rather than AGAINST his opponent. But that line has certainly been blurred for me recently. There was a time not long ago when (though I supported Obama) I believed that a McCain presidency would not be disastrous for the nation. He seemed to genuinely want to reach across the aisle and consider ideas on their merits. Perhaps his gradual shift back to the most conservative wing of his party over the last few years should have been a tip-off. Still I can admit that I was honestly shocked when he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I have mentioned a lot of negatives regarding the Governor of Alaska in this blog. However I think it's important to keep a sound foundation in the real-world when it comes to my doubts about a McCain/Palin ticket. As much as Palin represents an extreme version of social conservatism, as long as McCain is able to fulfill the duties of the office (should he win, of course) I don't think this will be much of an issue. I don't believe that Palin wil be able to get the nation to agree to outlaw abortion in cases where a woman has been impregnated as the result of rape or incest. I don't think the citizenry will look favorably on her urges to ban books. And I don't think she'll be able to fully integrate creationism into our science curriculum at a national level.

On the other hand, I think it's unlikely that the Obama/Biden ticket will likely enact comprehensive health care reform that substantially increases our national debt. I don't believe he will boost corporate taxes by any meaningful degree. And I'm certain he won't seek to outlaw personal property rights (as some wingnuts suggest). My expectations regarding his (or McCain's) presidency are naturally contained by the limits of the office. The Chief Executive serves as Commander-in-Chief, and sets the tone for the country's foreign and domestic policy. I want a president who approaches relations with other nations with an intellectual and overtly diplomatic approach. I want him to consider war only as a LAST Resort. I want nuanced and considered strategies that enhance our international standing.

The biggest national issue facing the United States is energy independence. It has extraordinary ramifications for national security, the future of our economic success, and our relations with the rest of the world. We MUST somehow develop alternative sources of energy. Aside from the issue of global climate change, it is in our best interest. We cannot bear another presidential administration that is beholden to the military-industrial complex and the oil industry. Compare the records and stated positions of the two tickets. McCain has not supported tax credits for companies developing solar/wind power, and Obama has. Look up their voting records. The GOP platform is "Drill, Baby, Drill" and Palin practices "Alaskanomics". That's enough reason right there to support Obama/Biden.

What it Means to Be a World Leader.

Do you know what a cluster bomb is? It's a type of munition (typically dropped from an airplane) that ejects a bunch of smaller submunitions (or 'bomblets') before hitting the ground. The very first cluster bombs were created and used by Germany during World War II. At the same time the United States, Russia and Italy also developed their own versions. They are currently produced in 34 countries, and used by at least 23. When they are dropped, the resulting explosions within the 'target area' are small and scattered. Observers liken them to the effect caused by lighting an entire packet of firecrackers at once. Of course the damage wrought by each individual bomblet is magnitudes stronger than a firework.

Cluster bombs are commonly used against tanks, runways, electric power grids, and people. Their charges can be incendiary if the intention is to start wild and out-of-control fires. These were used in the WW II bombings of Dresden and Tokyo. The anti-personnel version employs fragmentation to do as much damage as possible to 'soft targets'. Millions of them were dropped on Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam during the 60's and 70's. Then there is the US Area Denial Artillery Munition- a weapon capable of dispersing numerous land mines that deploy their own trip-wire mechanisms. In fact the US has invented other particularly insidious cluster bombs, including a type that delivers chemical weapons.

The problem with this kind of bomb is twofold. For one thing- it is very non-specific in its aim, and is often responsible for horrible 'collateral damage'. A single cluster munition can affect an area as large as two or three American football fields. One anti-cluster organization (Handicap International) conducted a study that showed that 98% of over 13 thousand recorded casualties of this type of bomb were civilians. And unexploded ordnance has the potential of killing many, many more. Unfortunately cluster munitions have a relatively high 'dud' rate, ranging from 5-23% of the total charges. Despite efforts to color the bomblets in bright tones, they remain dangerous. Children often mistake them for toys. In Afghanistan the US compounded the problem by dropping airborne aid packets in identical colors.

So why am I choosing today to write about this subject? This past Thursday 110 nations meeting in Dublin, Ireland unanimously voted to ban these bombs. The United Kingdom trumped a promise they made last March to prohibit their own use of 'dumb' cluster munitions, and committed to abandoning their entire stockpile of all versions of these weapons. The international coalition dedicated to eliminating cluster munitions worldwide includes key NATO allies such as Germany, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Spain, and Belgium. This treaty went further than most observers expected- all existing supplies of these bombs must be destroyed within the next eight years. It is a truly historical agreement.

Unfortunately citizens of the United States need not celebrate this achievement. Along with similar malcontents like Russia and China, the US refused to even attend the meetings. Our government remains dedicated instead to the continued use of cluster bombs. The current administration feels that they play a crucial role in the nations' military arsenal, and contends that it would be endangering the security of the country if it were to go along with any such ban. They also claim that it would hinder military cooperation between the US and foreign states, as such joint operations with nations employing cluster munitions are discouraged under the new treaty. The current State Department has even threatened the curtailment of future humanitarian aid efforts. Truly we are a shining beacon to the rest of the world.

What is a "Progressive" ?

I suspect that many people who characterize themselves as 'liberals' tend to have a more positive sense of humanity than others. Perhaps they believe that there is an innate sense of good in most people that will surely come out if it can only be nurtured. That's why they are always proposing legislation based in a deep compassion for the disadvantaged. Hungry people should be fed. Ignorant folks should be educated. The sick should be healed. If nothing else, it's a tremendously noble perspective. Life is not only about personal prosperity, but also about the well-being of the least among us. To suggest that one should only act to advance his/her own self-interest is anathema to liberals.

I'll confess to having the tiniest bit of vulnerability to this way of thinking. It's like the merest hint of conscience gnawing away at me from the back of my brain. I don't feel it in my heart or in my stomach. But I am aware of its existence. Truth be told I actively submerge it in day-to-day life, and it's not that difficult to do. When a stranger asks me for something, it's not hard for me to blow them off and justify the snub in one manner or another. When I was in college I was a bit of a 'bleeding heart' for a month or two, and I felt taken advantage of pretty regularly by the manipulative and duplicitous. So I don't lose very much sleep over denying beggars in the street. I don't actively contemplate the diseased and the weary.

It's true. No matter what some may think, I am assuredly not a 'liberal'. I'm pro death-penalty and against a welfare system that encourages its recipients to procreate. I'm ok with gun ownership and private property. However, don't insult me by calling me a 'Conservative'. In this day and age, there's not a lot worse you can say to me. As far as I'm concerned, that whole lot is exceedingly selfish, reactionary, and close-minded. They want to legislate morality, yet they refuse to assume personal responsibility for the problems of society. They fight abortion and birth control, yet have no plan to counter overpopulation. They stumble about, puking out phrases like "laissez faire capitalism" and "free markets", as if they were vital components of a new American religion. Quite simply I am sickened by all of that nonsense.

Where does this leave me? If I'm not 'red' or 'blue', then what exactly am I? Despite the inherent problems with the phraseology, I guess I'd have to classify myself as a "progressive". And I hate that word almost as much as the other labels. I reject the fundamental notion of 'progress'. Many of the things classified under this banner have been manifestly bad for life on Earth. Suburban developments, agribusiness, SUV's, expansion, sprawl, aggressive militarism, rampant consumerism, working overtime, corporate welfare, etc.- I question the classification of these 'advancements'. It's a tricky notion to precisely describe my politics. When I call myself a "progressive", I'm speaking in the old sense of the word.

Progressives reject ideology and dogma. They recognize these forces as antithetical to civil discourse. They solve problems by studying the environment in which they occur, identifying root causes, and attempting to develop plans to correct their root causes. This isn't a theoretical approach to society. It's essentially pragmatic. Progressive priorities include minimizing government corruption, regulating corporations, protecting the environment, and improving health care and education. This means that, while I don't want to see the government spending inefficiently, I do not bitch about having to pay my taxes. I recognize myself as an individual, as a member of the human race, and as a partner in the stewardship of the planet. Finding the balance between these affiliations is often difficult, but it's ultimately necessary.

Jeremy Scahill, "Blackwater" (2007)

Advocates of widespread privatization seem to have triumphed in the US military. Prior to March 31, 2004, this was the Bush Administration's dirty little secret. It was on that date that the burnt remains of several private contractors were suspended on a bridge outside of Fallujah- an Iraqi city of 300,000 up the road from Baghdad. Technically these men had been civilians, but not in the eyes of the Sunnis that were unhappy with the American occupation of their city. The deceased had been escorting a convoy of flatbeds, on their way to pick up kitchen equipment. They wore wraparound Oakley sunglasses and drove in jeeps without armor. They could have been CIA agents, but they were actually employees of a company called Blackwater.

Blackwater was responsible for the protection of Paul Bremer (CPA head) and John Negroponte (US ambassador to Iraq). This certainly validated Blackwater executives' claims that they were a 'secret partner' of the US Government on the War on Terror. Regardless of the actual level of clandestine participation, there is no doubt that most Iraqis perceived these contractors as official representatives of the occupying forces. And thus whatever behaviors they displayed reflected not just on themselves, but on the entirety of the American people. Unfortunately for the US citizenry, Blackwater's soldiers-for-hire are cocky and often act as if they are above the law.

The fact is that (according to Jeremy Scahill's Blackwater: The Rise of the Worlds Most Powerful Army, (2007)) these mercenaries are indeed beyond the reach of criminal prosecution. This was by decree of Paul Bremer himself. As Scahill notes in his extraordinarily informative work, "One of Bremer's last official acts was to issue a decree immunizing Blackwater and other contractors from prosecution for any potential crimes committed on Iraq (June 27, 2004)." That basically gave these mercenaries complete impunity... a license to kill and maim at will for any (or no) reason. The real consequences of their missteps were paid by the US Military, who were drawn into a rash campaign of revenge after the "Fallujah-Bridge" incident.

It doesn't necessarily matter that those doomed Blackwater agents were simply lost when they were ambushed and desecrated. They became a symbol of Bush's resolve in the war. At the same time, their company became super-wealthy with expanded government contracts after the grisly incident. Blackwater became the vanguard of the radical change in the role that private companies would have in the theater of war, and even flirted with actual combat. The story begins with the wealthy heir of a Christian Right fortune, and continues through the remarkable series of events that transformed a small arms shooting range facility into one of the most notorious private military contractors the nation has ever seen.

Scahill has obviously put a tremendous amount of research into this book. If it has any flaw, it is its almost overwhelming scope. Obviously this is an inordinately complex story. There are too many problematic aspects of the Blackwater phenomenon to present a comprehensive list here. Among the many things the American public should be concerned about most are: Erik Prince's ties to the radical Christian Right, private contractors overcharging on no-bid government contracts, private security companies siphoning off the best manpower from the armed forces, the lack of transparency in the activities of private military contractors, and the message that using mercenaries to fight the administration's battles sends to the rest of the world. This is a mind-bending and troubling work.

An Old Spin on an Old Idea.

It's been almost two decades since the end of the Cold War, and George W. Bush is once again provoking ire with his proposal to erect a missile defense 'shield' in Europe. Some have accused this administration of initiating the renewal of the costly arms race that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the impending bankruptcy of the United States. The thing is that our president insists that it is not the case. He is on record as saying, ""We are inviting Russia to join us in this cooperative effort to defend Russia, Europe, and the United States against an emerging threat that could affect us all". What exactly is that threat? Why, of course it's the looming nuclear capability of Iran. The mere suggestion that Iran could some day acquire the ability to attach a warhead to a missile (no matter how unrealistic) is supposed to drive this new, costly initiative

But I wonder how Bush and his neo-conservative cronies plan to put Vladimir Putin's mind at rest. How can he convince Russian leaders that he is being honest and upfront about his agenda? All they have to do is look at his record. Surely his goals are immediately apparent. Perhaps his rhetoric needs just a bit of decoding. This whole business about "spreading democracy" and/or "fighting terrorists" should indeed sound a bit disingenuous. Still, I think it would be a mistake for Russia to get spooked by our little man. He's obviously incapable of putting together any strategy that could subdue a collection of Third World tribes armed with box-cutters, let alone a once (and future?) global superpower. Despite Bush's obvious predilection for lying, I believe him when he suggests that the missile defense system isn't for the Russians.

The short- and mid-range missile defense system that is being discussed has "the theoretical possibility of being successful". This was expressed by Ambassador Daniel Fried (Assistant Secretary of State, European Affairs) during a recent speech defending the decision to go ahead with the project. It consists of placing tracking radar in the Czech Republic and placing missile interceptors in Poland. Its record of abysmal failure throughout the 90's has recently been eclipsed by a sense of optimism arising from limited success over the last eight years. The hope is that these new weapons systems will render ballistic missiles ineffective. Then smaller countries that believe that they can ensure their own security with nuclear arms will be disabused of that notion. They will have to figure out something else (like suicide bombs or flying planes into buildings).

If there are any two nations that truly understand nuclear proliferation, it is the United States and Russia. Obviously they both shared a relative monopoly on this technology for many years. They waged their surrogate wars against each other with the full knowledge that if things got out of hand, they could destroy the Earth several times over. There was once a time (not long ago) that citizens of these two superpowers understood the full extent of the threat. Political activists lined up to express their disgust over the ongoing embrace of the possibility of apocalypse (see Mutual Assured Destruction). Eventually it seems that cooler heads prevailed. The two sides made an agreement called the "Treaty of Moscow", which was characterized as a "massive arms reduction", that (by 2012) would bring down our total number of nuclear warheads to a number ranging from 1700-2200 (!).

It occurs to me that we may not be taking the nuclear threat as seriously as we once were. I remember well growing up in the 1980's, trying to fall asleep to visions of Armageddon. At any moment some glitch of misunderstanding could lead to the mass launch of thousands of missiles. And the idea that a limited nuclear war could result in a strategic victory was pretty much discounted as ridiculous. Now we seem to be entering an era when tactical nuclear warfare is once again considered a viable option. This sort of attitude strikes me as increasingly dangerous. The further we get away from the realities of the horror that these kinds of weapons can cause, the more we risk a devastating conclusion to human civilization.

Where's our "Prince Harry"?

Normally I have little to no interest in the activities of royal family members in Europe. In fact my disinterest was highlighted the other night at a party, when a friend and I started exchanging trivia questions. It was my turn to come up with a query, and I asked him what category he would like. When he said that I should come up with something having to do with "kings and queens", I drew a complete blank. Although I do have a moderate desire to fill out my knowledge of European history, something deep inside me resists studying the lives of royalty. Perhaps it is the result of the decades of democratic propaganda I have been force-fed while growing up in the United States.

So I have to admit my surprise in being moved to write about a current Prince of England. Diane's kid Harry was recently withdrawn from the Afghanistan theater, after his presence in the English military there made headline news throughout the world. Since December he has been serving on the front lines as a forward air observer, directing missiles to key Taliban targets in the Helmand region. Keep in mind that this 23-year-old kid is third in line for the British throne. Apparently he initially trained to do battle in Iraq, but English authorities put the kibosh on that plan because they figured he would become a high profile target. Harry actually considered leaving the Army after that decision. Apparently he wanted to be treated just like anyone else in the armed forces.

The only way his commanders would deploy the Prince to Afganistan was if the British media agreed to keep his placement out of the public eye. The UK press has been extremely diligent in keeping their promise. Not a word was leaked about his involvement for three entire months. Wondering how the word got out to the rest of us? Apparently American conservative pundit Matt Drudge got his greasy hands on the story, and published it on his exploitation site on the worldwide web. He even went as far as to crow about the exclusive nature of "his reporting". Of course in the meantime he endangered the lives of the Prince, and every single soldier serving alongside of him. It's only common sense that Harry's head would make a notable trophy on the wall of some Taliban extremist. If Drudge had done the same thing to an American politician's son, there would certainly be accusations of treason coming from the Right (unless the malefactor was one of their own).

What's particularly notable about the entire situation is that there is no risk of such a thing happening in the good old United States. If an influential man's child actually ever serves time in uniform, it is in a highly protected position in the rear echelon. No one would rationally expect one among the Bush brood to actually put his/her life on the line for the policy that Dubya has carried out. The same can be said about everyone in his administration and the partisan hacks that still support him. I come into contact all the time with middle and upper-middle class youth that give good lip service to the idea of prosecuting a global war, yet I rarely find any among them that don't blanch at the idea of getting drafted. It is a sad fact that the vast majority of the pro-war faction consists of "chicken hawks".

I would absolutely resist any suggestion that my son go on to fight in a foreign war. But the difference is that I have been consistently against this type of war for the last twenty years. If we were invaded by the regular military of another nation, I would likely consider joining up myself. I see no reason to put my life on the line for a global strategy that only benefits the wealthiest of Americans. I say- let them fight their own damned battles. Instead they exploit the naive patriotism of the lower classes to provide fodder on the front lines. Unfortunately few of these youngsters ever have the opportunity to get the education necessary to understand what they are actually fighting for. I guess (unlike the young Dick Cheney) they just don't have "better things to do", so they might as well be infantry.

Performance Enhancement.

Today I had a delay before work, and had an opportunity to stop on my way and pick up some performance enhancing drugs at the local coffee chain. It's no secret that I am not a morning person. Every person who deals with me during the first half of the day is no doubt effected. I'd love to make caffeine a part of my everyday morning ritual, but unfortunately my digestive system can't bear up under the acid in standardly-brewed coffee. For some reason, espresso doesn't have the same ill effects on my stomach lining. Would that I could process that dark and bitter sludge the convenience stores serve up- that would make a lot of folks very happy. So anyway, there's a little extra treat for those in my presence today.

The whole idea of this legal stimulant makes me think a lot about the current hubbub affecting major league baseball. I wonder what would happen if employers throughout our nation suspended and/or fined their employees for chemically "enhancing" their job performance. I imagine there would probably be a revolution the likes of which our good old forefather Jefferson called for when he talked of the blood that nourishes the tree of liberty. It seems to me rather hypocritical to pick on these multimillionaire heroes basking in the public spotlight. Our society demands extremes- run faster, get stronger, and work harder. Is it really any surprise that professional sports figures look for that extra edge? There is so much (not the least of it huge sums of money) riding on the outcomes of these games.

I think it's important to remember that these contests are games. Yet at the same time, they serve a very crucial role in our particular society. They condition us for war. It may seem flippant to make a comparison between an amusement played with a ball, and the blood-drenched activities of war. Obviously warfare has a greater power to change lives permanently. But our sports obsession grounds young people in the concepts of militarism, and without sports I think it would be more difficult to conduct our special form of international diplomacy. How do we get our populace to understand the idea of "us versus them"? In what ways can we illuminate the importance of victory for its own sake and at any cost... or for no discernible purpose at all? For such answers- simply attend a high school football game on Friday night, or go over to your friend's house on any Sunday during Autumn or Winter.

Clearly then, if winning is the important thing... we must do everything we can to meet that goal. There used to be something called "good sportsmanship", which included elaborate structures and the threat of peer disapproval as a response to violations of this informal code. There also (not coincidentally) used to be "rules of engagement" in war. The time when "will to power" was tempered by such attitudes is long gone. The tragedies of the Twentieth Century made them obsolete. We have finally and completely accepted "total war", and this means the only acceptable outcome is victory at any cost. Try suggesting that our soldiers should limit their means for winning on the battlefield- you will risk being called a defeatist, or even worse- a traitor.

Given the current state of things- when I heard President Bush's comments on the George Mitchell report concerning doping among baseball players, I was appalled by the (admittedly customary) hypocrisy. Dubya's actions in the War on Terror have not been mitigated by international law nor the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. He will go to any lengths to achieve his objectives (whatever they may actually be). If you think the US military would stop short of administering performance-enhancing drugs to our armed forces, then you are hopelessly naive. I know that the latest revelations about athletes "cheating" with steroids sets a bad example for our children, but there is nothing novel about this in the world of sports today... nor in the sphere of actual militarism. Of course (as usual) the mainstream media has missed the "real story". Our sports are a reflection of our nation's values, and unfortunately this entire controversy is woefully consistent with our times.

A More Personal Armageddon.

It had been months since I'd visited the coffeehouse that I used to frequent regularly, so I figured I'd stop in when I had a few hours free this past Saturday afternoon. It didn't take long before I found myself engaged in a lengthy discussion about technology and its speculative effects on society. I ran into an old acquaintance who designs robots, and we jawed about processing chips and other items I know so very little about. He ended up doing most of the talking while I occasionally interjected (probably extraordinarily inane) questions. Somehow the natural progression of the conversation led toward a call for future space exploration. In fact, I found myself listening to two reasonably sane individuals talk about the necessity of colonizing the Moon (and Mars).

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit finding the idea of space colonization utterly ridiculous. I can't think of many national priorities that I would rank below extending the terror of the human parasite beyond our planet. I am perfectly comfortable believing that we are alone in the universe, and in accepting that condition as ideal. When George W. Bush started giving speeches about returning to the Moon (immediately after initiating a nebulous "War on Terror" of indeterminate cost and length) as part of a long-term project that would culminate in a walk on Mars, I was one of his most vocal critics. As David Cross so aptly says (I paraphrase), "You want to put a man on the Moon? How about putting a man in an apartment?!" In short, there are no shortages of problems that we need to resolve on our very own planet- and few of them will realistically be addressed by exporting ourselves.

But of course there are many who think that we are doomed here on Earth, and so we better get a back-up plan as soon as possible. Hell, if we have somewhere for the rich to escape to- then why not pollute the place with increased abandon? Peak oil... No problem. Global warming... Big deal. No more clean water... What's your point? Let's adopt a worldwide 'slash-and-burn" policy. Capitalism requires infinite growth, and where else do we look for a limitless expanse? My conversation partners were absolutely convinced that it is irresponsible not to expand our space program today. They've already written off the future of the planet we have. They pointed out that one way another, whether through man-made causes or natural cycles, we will all eventually be destroyed. Apparently they believe that it's crucial that the human race survives. But I didn't get that memo.

In order for me to buy into their perspective, I would have to first view the preservation of humanity as an ultimate good. Sadly, I don't meet that basic test. Extinction of our species would only be a big loss for ourselves. We're really not that important. So our little discussion should have ended abruptly on that note. Instead they asked me what will happen when mankind launches an all-out nuclear war. What will we do then? The survivors will need somewhere to go. My answer involves an "ounce of prevention"... some old fogey's notion about taking the long view. There's no reason to believe that a nuclear holocaust is looming. I know that it "only takes one madman". Still, how many such madmen have we already seen come into power? How is it that this worst-case scenario hasn't yet happened?

I remember being continually frightened during the 80's that the Cold War would turn hot, and the missiles would fly en masse. Those were the Reagan years, and such a prospect seemed likely. Even after the Soviet Union fell I remember being jolted out of my sleep whenever a train roared passed, with the fear that "The Day After" was imminent. So it's strange that the threat has dissipated despite Dubya's seven year reign of total incompetence. It's odd to realize that a whole generation of children who have never lived in fear of a nuclear apocalypse is now entering adulthood. But is the absence of anxiety justified by external events? Our president certainly tries to recover the specter of such devastation whenever he wants to invade another sovereign nation. Do the odds suggest that we could one day experience total war on the scale of World War II?

I'm not much of a gambler, but if I had to make a bet- I would put my money on the increasing focus and precision of future conflicts. Superpowers seem to have learned the lesson that causing the utter ruin of an enemy diminishes the material benefits of winning such a fight in the first place. The development of technology seems to be geared toward the ability to eliminate specific targets, while maintaining the integrity of the spoils. We live in a time when even a band of moderately-sophisticated religious fundamentalists can seemingly wage pinpoint attacks on the sacred symbols of their opponents. There is no longer a need to cause indiscriminate collateral damage, and not much to be gained by doing it anway. As techniques become progressively more advanced, the "War of all against all" may very well be the most personal in history.

Srdjan Dragojevic, "Pretty Village, Pretty Flame" (1996)

I am finding myself to be less and less a fan of war movies. When I was in my teens, I really couldn't get enough of them. Mostly my enjoyment of such films was a reflection of my militaristic attitude, and corresponding plans to eventually serve time in the armed forces. I guess I formed these interests as a reaction to my family's values. Nobody in my immediate family was much interested in war, and so I tried to carve out a niche that would establish my individualiity within the household. Looking back I suppose I often went overboard. While ordinary teens were experiencing the wonders of the opposite sex, I was tramping around a wooded section south of town, playing wargames with my buddies.

My preoccupation with war lasted until I was halfway through my undergraduate years. When Operation Desert Storm began, I lived with a guy I would have described as a neo-hippie. He noted my strong support for the invasion of Iraq, and began to ask me questions about my beliefs. I credit his approach because he avoided preaching to me- his style was very non-confrontational. He only wanted to know why I thought the way I did. Soon I was questioning myself. This led to a series of changes in my life, but for the purposes of this post I'll merely point out that I would never be cavalier about war again. Although I still enjoy reading about military issues (especially in the post-Vietnam era), I tend to see true horror in almost everything that has to do with war. I guess in some ways I have become the type of peacenik I may have despised in my youth.

In the last fifteen years, I have come to appreciate a number of "anti-war" films. Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (1987), Malick's The Thin Red Line (1998), Elem Klimov's Come and See (1985) and Danis Tanovic's No Man's Land (2001) are among my favorites. That last one concerns the folly and tragedy of the conlict in the Balkans during the 1990's. I know so very litttle about the complex web that constitutes the history of the Balkan situation, but I had little difficulty appreciating the dark humor and pathos of Tanovic's feature. In fact, I was impressed enough to seek out other films regarding the bloody troubles and the multiple wars fought within this relatively small geographic area. That's how I came across Dragojevic's Pretty Village, Pretty Flame.

PV, PF is a gritty commentary on the fighting between Serbians and Muslims in the Bosnian War. Just like in the American Civil War, formerly-close friends and neighbors engage in bloody battles and brutality against each other. Dragojevic structures his narrative on the relationship between two childhood buddies who find themselves on opposing sides of the rapidly shifting lines. The director is a Serb, and although he is clearly trying to expose another side of his villified people, he is not beyond showing the absurdity in the incendiary pursuit of nationalism- regardless of the perpetrators. His little band of anti-heros find themselves trapped in an abandoned tunnel that was ironically intended to bring peace and commerce to the divided country of Yugoslavia during the Tito years. We get to know these characters through a series of jumbled flashbacks- revealing back stories as their thirst and madness gradually become more acute.

Along with the poignant emotional and physical difficulties Dragojevic depicts, there is much cynical humor traded between the Serbs themselves, and with their Muslim opponents. The sheer senselessness of the battle is reinforced again and again. The director pulls absolutely no punches in his efforts to convey the terrible destruction visited upon a torn land by war. Relationships are shattered and resentments formed by the gruesome events. There is no simple solution to the problems of the former socialist state, nor for the plights of the principals involved in the fighting. They are caught up in a cycle of ethnic hatred and violence, and even when people avoid the polarization of "us vs. them" mentality- they are not excused from the suffering it causes. Watching this film reminds us that there is a road not often traveled but vitally necessary for our future as a 'civilized' species, and it involves open communication and diplomacy rather than force.

Jon Ronson, "The Men Who Stare at Goats" (2006).

These are surreal times. We've now entered a nebulous world-wide conflict aimed (so our leaders claim) at the ultimate defeat of "terror". Obviously our nation seems drawn toward such ill-defined struggles. Anyone with any sense that lived through the Cold War era knows what I am talking about. It's easy to believe that the ordinary man on the street has no idea what our government and military (which seem increasingly interchangeable) are up to. As the years pass, and military documents are released under the Freedom of Information Act, we glean hints of the shady operations of the past. If you want to enter a maze of convoluted suspicion, simply do some cursory research of the MK-ULTRA project. The idea that the CIA would experiment on unknowing subjects by dosing them with LSD once seemed ludicrous. But there has been ample published documentation that provides evidence that this is exactly what happened, starting in the 1950's.

Perhaps it's ironic that secret governmental subgroups introduced a drug into the American population that made many question the patriarchal authority of our leaders. Yet if the student of military history has the patience to look into it, he/she quickly discovers that much cutting edge technology and ideas originated within the armed forces. It naturally follows that there were incidents of misdirection as well. Why should we be surprised by the outlandish experimentation that the the military engages in? Often innovation requires outside-the-box thinking. It was J.C.R Licklider ( a researcher from MIT) who first envisioned a global mind made up of a network of the world's computers, but it wasn't until he became an employee in the Defense Department that his plan was acted upon. Back in 1960, I'm certain that many folks who heard him out thought he was delusional. Nowadays, I can't imagine how we ever did without the Internet.

For ever fanciful concept that eventually reaches fruition, we can assume that there are a host of others that never quite make it. In The Men Who Stare at Goats, British author and documentary filmmaker Jon Ronson digs for some examples of the "ones that got away". The title itself refers to a rumored program at Fort Bragg (NC) in which a group of Green Berets shacked up surreptitiously and tried to stop the heartbeats of goats with psychic concentration. Apparently this clandestine program was inspired by the theoretical work of Jim Channon, a Lieutenant Colonel (now retired) in the US Army. Ronson reports that in the wake of the Vietnam War, Channon was tasked with making connections with the burgeoning New Age movement, in an effort to root out unique perspectives that might help suggest a change in approach for the military. Along the way, Channon met and picked the brains of figures involved with subliminal messages, psychic healing, Reichian rebirthing, and other strange arts. He collated his findings into an operations manual for a theoretical unit he called the First Earth Battalion.

One can only imagine what the hard-line old heads in the upper ranks of the armed forces thought of Channon's document. In many ways, the manual seems to propose an eco-friendly, neo-hippie force capable of "killing the enemy with kindness". Surely the proposition that modern soldiers could learn to use clairvoyance, ginseng tab regulators, primal low frequency lights, and macrobiotics (among other things) to become "warrior monks" capable of winning battles in a uniquely "non-destructive" way was met with ample skepticism. However, Ronson pursued communications with both retired and active officers in the military, and discovered that the influence of Channon's research never completely faded away. On a more sinister note, some of his sources told him that at least a few of the concepts in Channon's work have been used recently for much darker purposes. The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo detainee scandals seem to hint at the adoption of unconventional interrogation tactics that may have been adapted from the pages of the First Earth Battalion manual.

If all of this has the reader questioning the sanity of the subjects of "The Men Who Stare at Goats", then perhaps Ronson has done his job well. It must be pointed out that the author strives continuously to avoid passing judgment on the validity of the claims espoused by his interviewees. He does not present his findings in the sacrosanct tones of the garden-variety "conspiracy theorist. Rather he writes with a loose experiential style that's engaging, and not without a healthy dose of humor. The larger issue he conveys is that we, in our position as ordinary citizens, really have no way of discerning the degree of truth in the words of the military and intelligence hierarchies. It truly seems like anything is possible, especially in light of the disclosures we have been privy to over the last 30 (or so) years. Maybe we can trust in the inherent rationality of our generals and policy makers, but would you want to stake your money on that dubious proposition? In fact that is what we are all doing with our tax dollars. All we can do is read/listen with an open mind, and try to ferret out some likely conclusions.

Note: Incidentally, Ronson made an accompanying film for The Men Who Stare at Goats. Youn can watch a clip here.

Thoughts on Veterans Day.

Today is Veterans Day. It's intended as a public observation of the contributions soldiers have provided to the nation throughout history. The date of the 'holiday' is not arbitrary- it falls on the anniversary of Armistice Day, which ended World War I ("The War To End All Wars). In America it is typically employed as an occasion to show one's patriotism. On "Main Streets" all throughout the nation, people put out their flags to display their deep feelings for their country. We are reminded of the great sacrifices ordinary men and women have offered to sustain our 'freedoms'. This is the official story. Families with a tradition of military involvement will seize their opportunity to express their well-springs of pride.

My family does not have many examples of martial heroism in its recent heritage. My maternal grandfather served as a gunner's mate in the US Navy during World War II. I have some relics of his service, including several certificates he received for crossing different landmark lines on the high seas. He never talked very much to me about his experiences during the war. I know he was wounded by shrapnel in his leg, but it wasn't a debilitating or otherwise very serious injury. If he gave his time served much thought, he never displayed much indication of doing so. He never encouraged his grandsons to join the military. Neither did my father's family. My uncle served in Korea, but never mentioned that portion of his life to me. Overall, Veterans Day meant very little to me growing up. It was merely a day off from school.

Today I heard a caller on an AM talk radio program complaining about how little respect younger people have for veterans. He identified himself as 70 years old, which I guess places him as a fighter during the Vietnam War. It's not the first time I've heard someone bemoan the lack of reverence for soldiers. It's a common tactic used to implicate others' 'lack' of patriotism. If we don't love our military, then how can we love our freedoms? This guy explained that without the service of the people in the armed forces- we could be speaking German, Japanese or Vietnamese (!) right now. Interestingly I never heard him say that without the French we could be speaking with a thick British accent (even though that is arguably more realistic than his theoretical scenarios). The problem is that praising the French doesn't fit his political agenda.

Perhaps I am overly cynical. Maybe all of these sentiments are pure and selfless. But I can't help thinking about the thousands of times I've heard "Support the Troops!" over the last six years. I think it's fair to question what people mean when they say that. In reality, we all "support the troops" with massive amounts of our hard-earned tax dollars. Do they mean that they darn socks and bake pies for them too? It seems that when some self-righteous citizen says "I support the Troops!", they actually mean "I like the foreign policies of the current executive branch, and if you don't agree, then you are treasonous and hate our freedoms!" It's a code... it's shorthand, and it is meant to stifle dissent. If you don't answer with "Golly gee... I love the troops too"- then you are obviously anti-American, a Communist, or a terrorist. Go ahead and give in... you aren't actually making any sacrifice by saying you "support the troops".

So it's for that reason that I didn't wear red-white-and-blue today. I'm not waving any flags. I think nationalism is atavistic and selfish. And I honestly don't think that the troops have been put to good use in decades. We invaded and occupied a country that had not attacked us, and (furthermore) posed no threat to us. Is that something to celebrate? Should we honor the participants just for following orders? How is that supporting them? We'd do better by them if we convinced the Congress to make the President bring them home. That feat would make me feel better about this country. I'm simply not giving in to the goose-stepping spirit of knee jerk (and purely symbolic) 'support' for militarism for its own sake. Would it be appropriate for the German people to honor the loyal ranks of the Third Reich? They were putting their lives on the line too. Does it depend on what they were fighting for? Or do we just commemorate the "winners"? I'm not so sure.

Instead of bumper sticker sloganeering and unmitigated jingoism, let's observe Veterans Day by putting pressure on the administration- so that troops who are putting their lives on the line for an aggressive foreign policy will receive the adequate medical benefits they will need when they get back home. Let's make sure that there is money left over for psychological treatment and education benefits. And let's find a presidential candidate for 2008 that is willing to end the madness. That would be doing something decent for the holiday.

More Politics for Petraeus.

Given that the the Iraq War seems to have replaced fighting terrorism as our national obsession this 9-11, I figured I'd share another snippet of political "discussion" with you. Here's another quote that I felt compelled to respond to:

"For everyone who calls George W Bush a liar because no WMDs were found in Iraq - you must also call every senator and representative who voted to authorize the war a liar as well. That includes Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, both of whom said that Saddam had WMDs.

Now, to say that the invasion was a MISTAKE - due to incorrect intelligence - I can understand. But a LIE is a DELIBERATE statement you KNOW IS WRONG. Bush did not LIE. If you believe he did, then you should believe that our allies who joined the US in Iraq lied as well. Plus our esteemed leaders from both parties in the house and senate.

My 2 cents worth."

And here's my answer:

I realize that this is what you are being told to believe right now. That's the big dissimulation campaign that the GOP and pundits rolled out this week in anticipation of the criticism they knew would come in the wake of the Petraeus report. The "think tanks" like the American Enterprise Institute write this stuff, and the Bush administration disseminates it through their propaganda arm. Of course much of the supposedly "liberal" media is complicit, and parrot it unchallenged. I heard it on my local AM radio station on my way home from work. The echo chamber is eerie. I see from the post above [see this link] that they've actually resorted to using internet chain letters. That's pretty funny.

The thing is that it is at least significantly misleading, if not an outright lie. It tries to make Democrats share the responsibility for governmental actions that occurred while the Dems had NO political power.

Many of the quotes are actually from the 90's when the situation was radically different. Notice that there was suspicion back then of WMDs, but no outright statements that Hussein had them. There was a bunch of tough talk during Clinton's administration because Hussein had thrown the UN monitors out of the country, and it was thought that the expression of suspicion would compel the world (and thus Iraq) to allow the monitors back in. In fact the tactic worked, and there was no need for a military force. We found out in 2002-03 that the UN inspections were indeed working.

The quotes from post 9-11 Dems merely prove that the information Bush was passing on to Congress was effective enough to scare them out of opposing the war. They saw reports that were vetted by the White House first. That is the Commander-in-chief's privilege as head of the military and executive branch. It has been well documented that Cheney was actively pressuring the defense department and CIA to only present information consistent with a course of invasion. Michael Ledeen (neo-con and former Bush lackey) has been implicated in the Yellow Cake forgery. You can believe whatever you want, but the truth is out there.

Regardless, this is Bush's war as POTUS. He must shoulder the sole responsibility of leading us into this debacle. Even if the Democrats were too trusting of the Bush administration's doctored intelligence, I never thought there were WMDs... and there were plenty of others that doubted it too.


As you can tell, I get seriously worked up when the GOP actively attempts to shift the blame away. I find it completely remarkable that in the wake of the chaos and ruin- the Republican Noise Machine can still compel ordinary citizens (who presumably have not been paid off) to bleat out their talking points. Cue the Twilight Zone music here.

Petraeus and the Phantom Report.

Today is the day that General David Petraeus will release his report on Iraq to Congress (and by extension, the American media). I'm sure that somewhere, somehow there is someone waiting in intense anticipation. Meanwhile much of the United States is experiencing Iraqi War fatigue. They simply don't want to hear anymore abut it. Others are so jaded and cynical at this point that they will view anything Petraeus says with skepticism. Count me as part of the latter group. There is already so much indication that this event is merely another flaccid step in a drawn out campaign of perception management.

Initially, after the media first heard that Petraeus would be reporting on the success of the "troop surge" policy, some political observers thought that an accurate depiction of the condtions in Iraq was possible. For some reason many would have been willing to invest their trust and confidence in the military leader in charge of the operations over there. Surely he wouldn't lie to the people. What would his motivation be for deceit? Then we found out that the White House itself was going to ghost-write the report and presentation. Now it appears that Petraeus isn't even expected to deliver a written report to the president. Any interest I had in following this particular thread in the story quickly evaporated. In retrospect I believe it was naive for anyone to think that we could get an accurate representation of what's happening on the ground from anyone involved in this misadventure.

When Bush first proposed an increase in troop levels, both the political opposition and the American people expressed their extreme wariness over the idea. But in a misguided effort to "go along to get along", the funding was passed for the "new strategy". We already know the administration's perspective on the efficacy of the move. They keep shoving Anbar Province in our faces, as if it were demonstrative of actual progress happening all over Iraq. Of course that is untrue- if a wave of stability were sweeping over the besieged nation, then surely we would have an entire list of places... instead of just one. No, the Iraqi government has not met the benchmarks that Dubya said he would hold them accountable for, and now there is talk of disbanding the entire Iraqi police contingent. There's even been low level whisperings of getting rid of Iraq's "democratically-elected" president. By now there were supposed to be 150,000 native security forces up and running in the country. Independent reports suggest that there are approximately 3000 well-trained men ready to do the job.

Not even Petraeus can make the claim that overall sectarian violence has been diminished by the surge. You won't hear him bragging about the condition of Baghdad. And there is no way he's going to say that we can start pulling American troops out. The most we could possibly expect would be 4000 troops out by December. That's a little more than 10% of the extra number we sent in a bit more than six months ago. But the intention of the Bush administration is especially problematic. The unspoken reality is that we can't maintain current troop levels after next spring. We just don't have the numbers. Are we going to institute a draft in a presidential election year?

There are in fact a lot of questions that will go unanswered this afternoon. Furthermore, there are too many questions not even being addressed by the media. We can start off with a simple one- "What the fuck is the point of any of this?" What is our objective ? A perpetual military presence? If not, then why are we even now constructing new permanent bases over there? Why are we doing that? Is it to protect the private corporations and military contractors that want to do business in Iraq? The American citizenry has every right to know the answer. But instead we are getting answers to questions that we never asked. I want to know what our longterm strategy is in the Middle East. I want to see a nationwide dialogue about the alternative directions we could take. Because the American people aren't getting anything out of the current policy. Because there are more terrorists for each day we stay in the region. Because we are handicapped by our reliance on fossil fuels from the Middle East. Because the Bush Administration is burdening us with an exorbitantly growing national debt. Just say it once without all the bullshit.

Toy Soldiers.

I was out last night having a drink, and I noticed that someone had bought and scattered around a few packages of those little molded plastic soldiers, cowboys and indians. You've seen the toys I'm talking about- they are about two inches high, and come in clear plastic bags of 25-50. There are always several different positions in each bag. The Army men in a particular set are always the same color... either some variation of green, tan or brown. Usually the cowboy and indians came in multiple (often bright) colors.t.

When I was young, these were some of my favorite toys. I had literally hundreds and hundreds of them. I had a civil war set, with the opposing sides designated by their gray and blue colors. I had American soldiers with WWI, WWII and Vietnam gear. There were medieval sets, with knights on horseback and archers. Along with the more common cowboy and indian sets, I had another from the "Wild West" in which each individual piece was unique. The details and realistic character of those figures made them perhaps my absolute favorites. I even had a strange alien set, with robots and monsters and astronauts. Along with the 50's-style kitschy sci-fi figures, there was also a sexy woman alien type- those were the only females in my entire collection. For truly this was a tiny world of men.

I would have to assume that the vast majority of children that played with these toys were boys. Among my friends they were ubiquitous. In the larger scheme though, they were just one step in the evolution of war playthings- from the hand-painted tin soldiers that our parents and grandparents played with to the fancy, articulated-limb action figures that dominate the market today. I loved them because they were cheap in quantity. For the same amount of money that a Star Wars figure cost, I could get 25-50 of these little men. Obviously you can still buy them today. But you have to get them at the dollar store, or wherever else cheap toys are sold. Somehow they don't seem to be as well-made as they were in the seventies. The details are muted, and they aren't as durable. Some packs are updated for our contemporary times. The most fascinating ones at the bar last night were 9-11 heroes that I had never seen before.

As far as I remember there were two main approaches to playing with these toys. My neighbor across the street used to set them up in a sand pit and launch fireworks at them. His was a very destructive play. He liked to melt them with fire and mutilate them in whatever manner he could devise. I was much more careful with my things. I would set them up in dioramas, and marvel at their legions and formations. I also recall taking a comforter and lumping it into a mass on my bed to construct a temporary mountain battle stage. I would split up the figures and wage elaborate trench and hill warfare. I would demarcate a "hero" by tearing up a little piece of masking tape and sticking it around a leg like a bandage. Occasionally I would create a surreal rift in time, and pit a band of sword-bearing knights against the bazooka-wielding modern men-of-war. That usually ended up in a bloody rout. At other times I would simply set up all the sets in random patterns on the dining room table. The challenge was to see if I could get all of them to stand up at once in the confined space.

Even though I recall these toys with nostalgia, I don't know if I would let my own kids play with them. For one thing, M. is fiercely anti-war and doesn't believe in letting children play "soldier". While it's true that I got into a lot of depth with my pretend scenarios (I spent a lot of time making the individual pieces interact with each other, and the outbursts of bloodletting were parcelled out gradually), I can understand her concerns. Although I wasn't as mercilessly violent with those toys as other kids, I do see how they fit into a progression in my imaginative development. By the time I was a young teen I was dressing up in surplus military clothing and waging BB-gun wars with my friends in the woods. We didn't develop a perspective that saw war as costly, ruinous, and/or emotionally devastating. But I suppose they are appropriate in a bar- a natural home for grizzled veterans.