Articles by L. Reichard White

Marc Garlasco helped target laser-guided bombs during the Iraq invasion, and he claims in an NPR interview entitled "Assessing the Human Cost of Air Strikes in Iraq," that the military does a careful calculation of how many innocent civilians will be killed for each bomb dropped. According to Garlasco, they’re VERY careful. If more than 29 innocent civilians are calculated to become "collateral damage," they have to get White House approval.

What would that be like . . . .

FC [Field Commander]: Mr. President - we’ve got the 3rd highest ranking al’Qaeda commander in Iraq lined up in our sights, but if we bomb, we might kill more than 29 civilians. What should we do?

W [Dubya]: 3rd highest? Didn’t we already get him?

FC: Sir - this is the new, new 3rd highest in command.

W: Oh, well that sounds serious. I hate to butcher so many innocent Iraqis everyday. On the other hand, maybe that madman will someday muster the capacity to kill more than 29 people, so … let’s bring Dick in on this … Dick?

DC [Dick Cheney]: Look George, I thought we agreed that we were used to collaterally damaging Iraqi civilians by now, and that it’s worth it in our epic battle of good vs evil. After all, your predecessor set the precedent.

W: Huh?

DC: Remember the Leslie Stahl 60 Minutes interview with Madeline Albright?

[DEAD SILENCE]

DC: Where she said the death of 500,000 Iraqi children in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy was O.K.?

W: Ah, . . .

DC: Here, look at this video again - - -

.

.

W: Oh. Right. I guess if Clinton’s UN Ambassadors think 500,000 dead kids in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy is O.K. - - - - But don’t some of those Iraqis have families friends and loved ones who might turn into terrorists against us?

DC: No, they don’t. And anyway, remember, we agreed that all Iraqis are potential terrorists.

W: Oh yeah. Well go ahead FC. You have my authorization.

[Minutes pass]

FC: Sir - we obliterated the terrorist-nest village, but the madman seems to have escaped. Don’t worry, we’ll get him tomorrow. That’s one village that will never again harbor terrorists.

W: Weeee! Heck-of-a-job, FC! How many potential al’Qaeda recruits did we bring to justice?

DC: I’ve asked you before to stop asking that. Remember we aren’t supposed to keep count.

FC: Oops! They’re saying we targeted the wrong new 3rd highest in command. Apparently the real new 3rd isn’t in this part of the country. He was having a secret meeting with Condy.

W: Rat feathers! How many times have we missed like that?

DC: We don’t keep track of that either.

–And thanks to Fileman

Does the world face what some style as Armageddon because American pro-Israel groups still believe out-dated Israeli “public relations“?

According to Ha’aretz chief political columnist AKIVA ELDAR in an October 8, 2007 Democracy Now! interview, while the Israel lobby is “a very important instrument in order to pursue Israel’s policy… they’re a little bit behind the Israeli government and the Israeli people.” He clarifies: “We have seventy out of 120 members of the Knesset who support a two-state solution based on the ‘67 lines.”

Then what’s the problem?

Says Eldar, “…if for forty years, you tell the [American] Jewish community that Israel cannot afford to give up the territories, they are important for Israel’s security, just overnight to tell [them], ‘Sorry, we were wrong. Now, we don’t need those territories,’ …It’s very difficult. I think that we are paying the price of having our PR doing a very good job for many years.”

The continuing “Palestinian problem” then, the core problem in the middle east which underpins the others according to The Iraq Study Group, Jimmy Carter and others, may be laid on the doorstep of too-effective Israeli “public relations.”

So the neocons, AIPAC, their amen corner, and other assorted groups, riding Israel’s coatails on to what some style Armageddon, are clutching a coat the bulk of Israeli society is no longer wearing.

And there’s an underlying anchoring sub-problem: As many Israelis have noted, it’s much easier for Israelis to criticize Israel and the Israeli government than it is for Americans and American Jews — who are likely labeled “anti-semitic” or “self-hating jews” — even have their livelihoods destroyed.

This roadblock to free and open discussion here in the United States endangers not only those men, women, and children living in the middle east, but people throughout the world.

So, the key to mid-east peace is already in the lock. But who in America has the cahones to turn it?

The aide (a senior advisor to President Bush) said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernable reality” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” — as reported by Ron Suskind, in the New York Times Magazine, 10-17-2004 –Geov Parrish, History ignored, President’s men rebrand ‘War on Terror’ as World War III, WorkingForChange.com, 09.12.06

[White House Press Sec.] Tony [Snow]: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself. –In which Tony Snow laughs at me (but the last laugh is on Tony), BTC News, 9/22/2006

They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.” –’A Coup Has Occurred,’ Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the secret Vietnam War “Pentagon Papers”), Sep. 20, 2007

[Film maker George] Lucas’ own geopolitics can sound pretty bleak: “All democracies turn into dictatorshipship, but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea “ Dark Victory -April 23, 2002, 12:40:03

So, you’re with the program? O.K. Here are the immediate details to get “Our Children’s Children’s War” off to a rousing start - - - -

.

.
Hoo Rah!

“It is not civilizations that promote clashes. They occur when old-fashioned leaders look for old-fashioned ways to solve problems by rousing their people to armed confrontation.” –Kenichi Ohmae, The End Of The Nation State, (New York: The Free Press 1995), p. 11.

Why of course the people don’t want war. … That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. –Hermann Goering, Adolph Hitler’s heir-apparent

There is more propaganda in a democracy than in a dictatorship. … The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control -’indoctrination,’ we might say - exercised through the mass media. –Seminal linguist Noam Chomsky
.

.

Iran is up next.

This is the program the War Party has planned for you, your children and your grandchildren.

Are you with the program?

Republicans: “If you Democrats are serious, vote to de-fund the ‘war’.”

Democrats: “You just want us to vote to de-fund the war. Well, we’ll
fix your butts - - - we’re not GOING to de-fund the war. In fact, we’re
not even going to propose a RESOLUTION to de-fund the war. Take that!”

.

.

.

So, how often do the folks at the top — for whatever reason — get it wrong?

.

So, when WILL they ever learn?

Based on a series of secret 1999 government war simulations called The Desert Crossing games, 70 experts suggested that an occupation of Iraq would require at least 400,000 troops and even that might not be enough. And “Desert Crossing” assumptions didn’t include insurgency or civil war.

For calibration purposes, at the height of the Vietnam “War” (Congress didn’t declare war, so “War” has to go in quotes because, according to the U.S. Constitution, it isn’t a war unless congress declares it — ditto the Korean “War” — “Desert Storm” (Iraq “War” I) and the so-called present Iraq “War”), the U.S. had nearly 550,000 troops “in country.”

So, Bush needs at least 400,000.

Right now, the U.S. has approximately 130,000 troops in Iraq.

Let’s do the math: 130,000 plus 22,000 = 152,000. 400,000 minus 152,000 = 248,000.

So, according to the most optimistic figures, Bush will be “only” 248,000 troops short. That means he’ll have way fewer than half as many as needed. And that’s the rosy scenario.

There simply aren’t enough troops available any time soon — even with a draft.

Thank goodness.

And 22,000 more troops are, to be kind, irrelevant.

Why is he doing it then?

We know someone in his Administration can add and subtract at least as well as we can. Heck Dubya himself is a graduate of both Yale and Harvard. Maybe they gave him a “pass” because he was a cheerleader?

Naaaww.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain Bush’s reasoning. Should you be caught or captured, the Secretary will disavow all knowledge - - -

P.S. How about this - - -
.

According to yesterday’s The Sunday Times, Israel plans a nuclear strike on Iran. The article suggests that “the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.”

Will “America” be cajoled?

It seems “we” already have been — quite awhile ago:

Former UNSCOM Chief Weapons Inspector SCOTT RITTER: Look, we’re already overflying Iran with unmanned aerial vehicles, pilotless drones. On the ground, the CIA is recruiting Mojahedin-e-Khalq, recruiting Kurds, recruiting Azeris, who are operating inside Iran on behalf of the United States of America. And there is reason to believe that we’ve actually put uniformed members of the United States Armed Forces and American citizens operating as CIA paramilitaries inside Iranian territory to gather intelligence.

Now, when you violate the borders and the airspace of a sovereign nation with paramilitary and military forces, that’s an act of war. …So, when Americans say, “Ah, there’s not going to be a war in Iran,” there’s already a war in Iran. We’re at war with Iran. We’re just not in the declared conventional stage of the war. –Democracy Now! interview, Oct. 16, 2006

SCOTT RITTER: The bottom line is, within two days of our decision to initiate an attack on Iran, every single one of you is going to be feeling the consequences of that in your pocketbook. And it’s only going to get worse. This is not something that only I recognize. Ask [Senator] Dick Lugar what information he’s getting from big business, who are saying, “We can’t afford to go to war with Iran.”

SEYMOUR HERSH: Final question: given all this, are we going to do it?

SCOTT RITTER: Yes, we’re going to do it. –“Ethical Culture Society,” Oct. 2006

So, will “WE” use nukes?

If you don’t know yet, the German Court system, claiming world-wide jurisdiction over torture, is re-hearing a complaint against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA Director George Tenet and others, alleging that many of the “interrogation” techniques they authorized at Guantanimo and Abu Ghraib amount to torture and violate the Geneva Conventions.

Previously the German prosecutor declined to investigate on grounds that the U.S. Government would look into these allegations itself.

Since that ruling however, just the opposite has happened: Passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows a continuation of such secret “interrogations,” — and amending the “War Crimes Act” retroactively immunized those authorizing them.

Will the German system have cojones enough to take on the Bush Administration?

And that’s where you can “help put ‘em away!”

It will help the German system pluck up it’s courage if enough people show support for the investigation. Former U.S. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski has done just that — and you can join her.

Go to THIS PAGE from the website of the Center for Constitutional Rights and send a letter to the German prosecutor encouraging him to look into the matter. (The english translation is at the bottom of the “Read & Edit the Message” window.)

This is your chance to make a difference.

Do it now!! (BIG TOOTHY SMILE — think Gary Busey)

P.S. The case could not be brought with the International Criminal Court, because the United States is not a member, and could not be pursued through the U.N. because the U.S. has veto power.

Senator John Kerry blew a joke. The context makes it clear he was referring to Mr. Bush when he said, “If you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Mr. Kerry meant to say, “If you don’t, you get US stuck in Iraq, Mr. President.”

By spinning Kerry’s flub into an attack on the intelligence of U.S. soldiers rather than on Mr. Bush — and holding down the “REPEAT” key — it’s the Republicans, not Kerry, who keep sending the message to the troops, “If you’re not smart, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Are these Republicans smart enough to know that message will destroy morale? Do they care? Or is it more important to them to take a cheap-shot in hopes of winning in the up-coming elections?

But will the Democrats, as characterized by Mr. Kerry — who wanted more troops and a longer stay when he was Mr. Bush’s opponent in the 2004 presidential race — get us out of Iraq any faster than their Republican cohorts?

Will either major branch of the war party slap this bumper sticker on their government limos?

“Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home Now!“

The parable of David and Goliath has re-emerged on the world stage. Ironically, the most recent battle cast the Israeli State as the heavy. The “David” of the piece was decentralized “4GW” (4th Generation Warfare) as deployed by an estimated 3,000 Hezbollah fighters.

The outcome of that battle is a serious blow to central governments everywhere. If one of the most effective government militaries in the world can’t protect its people from 3,000 militiamen, what good is it? The inevitable outcome of the ill conceived U.S. Government action in Iraq will almost certainly deliver a second and much more lethal blow to Goliath.

.
“The central secret to Hezbollah’s success is that it trained its (global) guerrillas to make decisions autonomously (classic 4GW), at the small group level. In every area — from firing rockets to defending prepared positions to media routing around jamming/disruption — we have examples of Hezbollah teams deciding, adapting, innovating, and collaborating without reference to any central authority. The result of this decentralization is that Hezbollah’s aggregate decision cycles are faster and qualitatively better than those of their Israeli counterparts.” Global Guerrillas, Sunday, July 30, 2006 THE SECRETS OF HEZBOLLAH’S SUCCESS, Organizational Improvements

.

In fact, this effect — Goliaths being in trouble at the hand of more decentralized structures — isn’t limited to military operations. Lacking mercantalist links to governments in the current age, all economic structures (corporations, etc.) larger than justified by “economies of scale” are vulnerable.

Micro-power (termites of power) is spreading to all areas of human endeavour. Rather than the bi-polar world of the 20th century, we are entering a hyper-polar world — a world with hundreds, thousands of smaller centers of power. Central Banks used to call all the shots, but now there are hundreds of independent hedge-funds that limit central banks, for one example. I don’t know what the ultimate outcome will be and I don’t think anyone does. -Moises Naim, Venezuelan Minister of Industry, Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria, July 25, 2006, 12:21:36