Antiwar.com Blog

The American style of colonialism is taking shape, and what seems to be developing is a certain peevish paternalism, colored with vivid shades of condescension. The BBC reports this highlight from Dick Cheney’s Baghdad trip:

“The vice-president also held talks with the US ambassador, Ryan Crocker, and with the commander of US forces in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus. Ambassador Crocker said the vice-president would try to dissuade Iraqi politicians from taking a two-month holiday this summer. ‘For the Iraqi parliament to take a two-month vacation in summer is impossible to understand,’ he said, given the ‘major effort’ being made by US and Iraqi security forces.”

Given the demonstrated inability of the occupation forces to protect even sessions of Parliament, I don’t wonder why the esteemed solons are taking long vacations. If Cheney is so concerned with public officials taking over-long vacations, he might want to talk to his “boss,” who idled in Crawford while Iraq imploded. On the other hand, it is probably a good thing the Iraqi legislators are taking long vacations: out of session, they can’t do as much damage — and that’s a principle I’d like to apply to all legislatures, everywhere, especially here in the U.S. Wherever and whenever politicians are gathered together in groups, you’d be well-advised to hold on to your wallet — and watch your back.

Aside from that, however, this animus toward the Iraqis seems to come out of the latest evasion explanation of why the war is such a resounding failure and defeat looms so large. The War Party has gone from blaming the supposedly imperfect “execution” of their grand strategy on Donald Rumsfeld, and then on the Iranians — and now they’re pointing their fingers at the “liberated” Iraqis themselves.

This is a leaf torn from Hillary Clinton’s playbook: at least, she is the first politician I can recall taking this kind of peevish, hectoring tone with our Iraqi allies. It was she who proposed withholding aid from the Baghdad government, while continuing to fund the occupation (and the surge) at the same or even higher levels:

 “‘I believe we have to tell them that we’re not going to continue to fund their army and security for their leadership and reconstruction for their country unless they take steps necessary to have the political solutions that everyone knows have to be reached,’ Clinton said. Those include disarming militias and dealing with the problems that are causing the Sunni insurgency, she says. Clinton says cutting off funding for U.S. troops is ‘not appropriate at this time, until we get more of our troops out of harm’s way.'”

Ah, but those Iraqis deluded enough to side with the Americans will be put directly in harm’s way if we stop paying for their security. Hillary’s message to them is: do as you’re told, or kiss your a*s goodbye. The Bushies dont’ go quite that far — yet.

Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield gave the esteemed Jefferson lecture for the National Endowment for the Humanities last night in Washington.

According to the NEH website, “The Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities recognizes an individual who has made significant scholarly contributions to the humanities and who has the ability to communicate the knowledge and wisdom of the humanities in a broadly appealing way. Established in 1972, the Jefferson Lecture is the highest honor the federal government bestows for distinguished intellectual and public achievement in the humanities.”

Mansfield would be a more appropriate choice for a Robespierre Lecture than for a Jefferson Lecture.  Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Mansfield proclaimed that the president is above the rule of law  – but reassured readers that “”A free government should show its respect for freedom even when it has to take it away.”

And, since the president is entitled to dictatorial powers, how would we know it is a “free government”?  Presumably because it would be a crime to assert otherwise.

I am struck by how many advocates of dicatorship or foreign aggression have recently received federal laurels.  Bush presented the National Humanities Award to the Hoover Institution last November, whose star columnist Thomas Sowell recently suggested the need for a military coup.  Pro-Iraq war professors Fouad Ajami, Bernard Lewis, and Shelby Steele also garnered the award.  (Mansfield received this award in 2004).  Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Paul Bremer, George Tenet, Tommy Franks, Gen. Richard Myers, and various writers who fervently applauded attacking Iraq.

American intellectual life would be cleaner if politicians were banned from heaping accolades on their bootlickers and tools. (Admittedly, private groups would continue giving such awards – the Bradley Foundation recently feted John Bolton and the Claremont Institute will soon salute Don Rumsfeld).

I’m curious – what other private or government awards or laurels have gone to major-league Bush administration rascals or their apologists?

Add the names of award receipients – or your comments – at my blog here.

Michael Klare discusses his article his TomsDispatch.com piece, “Warships, Warships Everywhere, and Many a Bomb to Drop” counts the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier strike forces building up within striking range of Iran.

MP3 here. (16:22)

Michael T. Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies (a joint appointment at Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College, and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst), and Director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies (PAWSS), a position he has held since 1985. Before assuming his present post, he served as Director of the Program on Militarism and Disarmament at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. (1977-84).

Michael Klare serves on the board of directors of the Arms Control Association, the National Council of the Federation of American Scientists, and the advisory board of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch; he is also a member of the Committee on International Security Studies of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Liam Madden, co-founder of the Appeal for Redress explains how and why he and thousands of other soldiers are protesting the Iraq war through their communication with Congress.

MP3 here. (8:02)

Liam Madden is a Veteran of a four-year tour of service in the U.S. Marine Corps, including seven months in Iraq. After returning to the United States, Sergeant Madden seized the opportunity to mobilize his fellow service members to speak out against the illegal, unjustified, and never-ending occupation of Iraq.

Liam is a co-founder of the Appeal for Redress, a campaign of active service members who are appealing to congress to remove all American military forces and bases from Iraq. From within the ranks of the military Sergeant Madden has been propelled to the forefront of the anti-war movement. In building the Appeal for Redress Liam has dedicated the last few months to being a leading activist and acting as a media spokesperson for the 1,200 service men and women who have signed the Appeal.

Maybe I should’ve held onto my Sunday blog posting about coalition forces killing Afghan civilians for a few days. If I had: I could’ve pointed this out as well.

So, fresh off a series of airstrikes that killed scores of civilians last week, fresh off promises of wholesale changes to policies to reduce civilian casualties in the future and, as the article points out: just one day after the US paid off the families of all those civilians that the Marines slaughtered in March… 21 more.

I hope whoever was responsible for paying them off didn’t put his checkbook away, because the indiscriminate killing of dozens of innocent villagers continues unabated.

Oh, and just in case you were keeping score: US military spokesman Major William Mitchell once again insisted that they didn’t know anything about having killed any civilians. I guess they’re always the last to know.

Scott may be on to something when he points out the “Fort Dix Six” were caught in an FBI entrapment scheme. But I have an easier time believing the government line (yeah, I know, I said it) considering that four of them are ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. I hear at least one is a KLA veteran, though I still need confirmation on that.

It is interesting how the mainstream Imperial media has called them anything but “Kosovars.” They were even called “Yugoslavs” – a category the U.S. Department of State refused to recognize even when FR Yugoslavia (a.k.a. Serbia -Montenegro) was still in existence.

There is a pattern here. A couple years back, when a Bosnian Muslim was caught plotting terrorist attacks in Sarajevo (along with a Turkish partner), he was described as “Swedish citizen of Serbian origin.” When they are supposed to be innocent victims and designated targets of sympathy, these people are “Kosovars” and “Bosnians.” When they commit crimes or are suspected of terrorism, they become “Serbian citizens” or “Yugoslavs” or some such.

I predict a wave of insistence that these four Kosovo Albanians are an aberration, that “Kosovars” really love America, and should be given independence forthwith. Because if not, why, they could turn to terrorism! Once the illusion has been created, no such pesky thing as facts can be allowed to interfere.

Maybe the “Fort Dix Six” are innocent, victims of a FBI frame-up. They should certainly get a fair trial, rather than be arraigned before secret tribunals or dragged off to Gitmo. I can’t help but wonder, though, whether the press will continue to call them “Yugoslav” or “Serbian” nationals as they do get railroaded. Can’t spoil the Myth of the Innocent, America-loving “Kosovars,” after all.