But DM Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is still within acceptable boundaries of discourse, as he technically said the fighting in Afghanistan was “war-like.” This keeps him in line with his predecessor Franz Josef Jung, fond of saying “this is not a war,” and that his soldiers are on a “mission for stability and the peaceful development of the nation.”

Aside from the general “revulsion for war” among Germans, there are practical concerns. Insurance carriers will not pay out for men killed in “war,” so in (I guess) an effort to save a few marks, the government classifies “war” as something that can only be carried out between sovereign states, and Afghan wedding parties apparently aren’t technically a country.

Guttenberg further clarified that the “war” label is used by his soldiers, those ignorants of the finer points of international law; to them “the Taliban is waging a war against the soldiers of the international community.”

Shame on the “Taliban” — code for anyone who dares to take up arms against foreign invaders in Afghanistan — for somehow teleporting their country under the feet of so many American and European troops and then having the gall to fight back when drone-bombed, and further, refusing to adopt a societal model that would give rise to a centralized European-style social democratic state! A backward civilization, indeed.

It is astounding to see the western media treat Karzai like a legitimate winner and someone who has any credibility to fight corruption.

This is akin to how the Soviet media treated the election “victories” of Stalin’s puppets in East Europe.

At least we now have a better understanding of how Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the establishment media define political legitimacy.

My stance has always been one of ambivalence. Obviously I’m against the government discriminating against people for any reason, but I always thought the gay ban was great for those young people, gay or straight, who needed the out (hah) from a possible future draft. On the other hand, there is the admittedly shocking dismissal of many gay Arabic interpreters in a time when the military would admit to desperately needing their skillset. But now that the subject has been brought up again, I realize I finally have a solid viewpoint: I am completely against the ban being lifted.

Gay people do not have the equal right to join an organization, government-run or not, that seizes vast amounts of American wealth, weaponizes it, and then detonates it in foreign countries full of innocent people who have caused the United States no harm — and in the process destroying them and their wealth, turning their kinsmen against us in rage. There’s nothing progressive about claiming they do. I support the military’s ban on gays in the military, and I do not at all sympathize with those heartbroken homosexuals who have been ousted. Their pain is nothing compared to that wrought the world over by the organization they hope to join or re-up with.

On the issue of gay marriage, I don’t feel the same way — equal legal rights should be extended to all parties no matter what I think about the institution of marriage. But not so when it comes to literal life-and-death issues of war and occupation.

Want to serve your country? We’re in a recession — start a business, soldier.

The first interview was broadcast on CNN (US). In the middle of the interview, as Joya made clear she opposed US occupation, interviewer Heidi Collins said “occupation would certainly be your word, a lot of people would take great issue with you calling the US presence in your country an ‘occupation’.” Joya went on to defend her position as Collins’ interrupted snidely. As Joya tried to respond to Collins, she was cut off.

The second interview took place on CNN International. Joya’s anti-occupation position was highlighted up front and the interviewer was polite and respectful.

The film, which is getting great reviews, tells how Ellsberg risked spending a life in prison to bring the truth about the Vietnam War to Americans. He had hoped truth would set Americans free from the spell of official lies. (I discussed Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers in an article earlier this year.)

Thanks in part to reporting by TAC and Antiwar.com, Reps. Ron Paul, R-TX, and Walter Jones, R-N.C, joined Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., as the only Republicans to co-sponsor the Democratic House bill, sponsored by Rep. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y, which made it through the conference committee and is headed to the President’s desk this week as part of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.

It includes provisions that will:

• Prohibit the use of burn pits for hazardous and medical waste except if the Secretary of Defense sees no alternative;
• Require the Department of Defense (DOD) to report to the congressional oversight committees whenever burn pits are used and justify their use, and every six months to report on their status;
• Require DOD to develop a plan for alternatives, in order to eliminate the use of burn pits; further, DOD must report to Congress how and why they use burn pits and what they burn in them;
• Require DOD to assess existing medical surveillance programs of burn pits exposure and make recommendations to improve them;
• Require DOD to do a study of the effects of burning plastics in open pits and evaluate the feasibility of prohibiting the burning of plastics.

This is definitely a first step – the Bishop bill would create a registry that would track all of the exposed troops, and that measure did not make it into the final legislation. Meanwhile, there is a massive class action lawsuit against KBR, for which soldiers are blaming for their illnesses, and other pending legislation, like the one proposed by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., most recently. He wants automatic priority health care and benefits for veterans suffering from toxic exposures on the battlefield. We’ll see how that goes over at the DoD.

(cross posted @TAC)