Obama a Peace Candidate? No way

In response to today’s column, a reader writes:

Wow… I was just saying that I liked the fact that Obama is anti-war. Guess I was wrong. I believe of all the people who have been mentioned in the news as possible ’08 candidates… that he is the least pro war next to Kucinich of Ohio. Unfortunately… only Kucinich has called for an immediate removal of US troops.

The point is not that Obama fails to call for an immediate withdrawal: his position is that he wants to set no deadline, nor even an approximation of one, for Iraqi forces to entirely supplant the U.S. presence.

And we don’t know what other candidates — on the Republican side — might leap into the breach. There’s Chuck Hagel, who was calling for starting the withdrawal process in six months this past August — and don’t forget third party candidates. The idea, after all, is to push the idea of a noninterventionist foreign policy, and not any particular candidate or party.

Israel: Western! Progressive! Or Not.

At first glance, I figured I’d be amused, but I was quickly sickened by what I read in Ha’aretz today. A female American tourist was riding a bus to pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, and when a gang of Haredi men ordered her to the back of the bus, she refused. She was subsequently spat upon, smacked, punched, had her headcovering pulled off, and was even kicked in the face when she was down. The bus driver didn’t help, and most of the passengers cursed at her and called her a “stupid American.”

These men felt it was fine to beat the crap out of a woman, but not to sit in the same section of the bus with her. And the whole rest of the bus thought they were justified. Is Israel all it’s cracked up to be by its American adulators?

To their credit, Israelis and Jews around the world chimed in with plain disgust in Ha’aretz’s comments section, many calling for an end to the welfare bummitude of Israel’s sidecurled class, who don’t work, don’t serve in the Army, and have gigantic litters of children for which they get gobs of money mugged from Israeli taxpayers (not to mention American taxpayers). It’s worth a read.

Meanwhile, American Jews should think twice before spending money in a place where people have such low opinions of them, especially considering how much Israel owes its existence to American Jews and their massive, steady flow of investment and charity dollars.

Yeah, We’re the Ones Who Got It Wrong

We like to publicize the sunny prewar forecasts of big-shot warbots, and rightly so. Most of these fools have yet to shut up, and despite their staggering record of entrails illiteracy, many are now assuring us of further “victories” to be had. Of course, the perpetually bellicose, when confronted with their cakewalks-and-candy Iraq predictions, sputter something like, Oh yeah, well you peace freaks were wrong about a lot of stuff, too!

Let’s slay this canard once and for all.

Yes, millions of people opposed the Iraq invasion, and I’m sure that at least a few of them offered highly specific predictions that were way off. But let’s skip the outliers and focus on the broad sweep of antiwar thought. The gist of pragmatic arguments against the Iraq invasion (we’ll set aside the whole mass-murder-is-wrong moral case for now) was that so many things could go horribly wrong that almost certainly some things would go horribly wrong.

At this point, I’d like the pro-war people reading this to eliminate all distractions in their surroundings, take a few deep breaths, and concentrate really, really hard, because I’m about to throw a brain-buster out there. Ready? OK: We didn’t say that all of the bad things that could have happened were going to happen. In fact, some of the nightmare scenarios we offered were mutually exclusive. The Iraqi army could either stand up and fight the invaders to the death conventionally, inflicting horrific casualties for a few months before ultimately losing, or they could slink away and regroup as guerillas, bleeding the occupiers slowly. Obviously, they couldn’t do both, but they probably would do one or the other. Either way, many lives would be lost, the ensuing occupation would be brutal for soldiers and civilians alike, and the U.S. triumph would likely turn increasingly Pyrrhic over the long term.

Still too hard? Fine. Let’s say you and I are walking down a crowded street. You point out some random guy and announce, “I’m going to go kick his ass.” I grab your arm and say, “Wait! I’m not sure what good you think will come of this, but I assume you foresee some twisted ego boost in it. Whatever. What will most likely happen in the world outside your cranium, however, is one of the following: One, your would-be victim turns out to be more of a badass than he looks, and, win or lose, he knocks your teeth out. Or two, you successfully pummel him – then somebody calls the cops, you go to jail, and he launches a civil suit against you for all you’re worth.”

You proceed to purée the guy with ease. Later, when you call me from jail, your life ruined, your property liquidated, you chuckle, “You moron – you said he would knock my teeth out.”

Sound familiar?

Iraqi Justice coming to USA?

The New York Times has a great piece today on sham justice in Iraq.  The US military now holds almost twice as many Iraqi detainees as it did when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.  The U.S. set up a Central Criminal Court in Baghdad that usually has a Soviet-like disregard for due process.  The system reduces paperwork burdens by routinely excluding defense lawyers. The Times noted, “ One American lawyer said that in 100 cases he handled, not one defense lawyer had introduced evidence or witnesses.”  The U.S. military is heavily involved in prosecutions – but even when an Iraqi judge finds a defendant not guilty, the U.S. sometimes refuses to release him.

What is the standard used for holding Iraqis (for as long as two years)?

The Times noted:
The military conducts reviews in the camps to screen detainees for release. Many have been swept up at the scene of bombings or other violence, and the detention camp boards have recommended releasing as many as 60 percent of the detainees whose cases they reviewed.
Officials have sought to tighten the evidentiary standards used in deciding whether to detain suspects. Last year, for example, Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, then the task force commander, became concerned about a swipe test that soldiers used on suspects to detect gunpowder. The test was so unreliable that cigarette lighter residue and even a common hand lotion would register as gunpowder.

The Iraqi courts are sentencing people to hanging based on often flimsy evidence. Iraqi courts have relied on tortured confessions in some cases.

Remember how Bush brags about having brought the “Rule of Law” to Iraq? Remember that Bush also brags about the “Rule of Law” in America. 

Rather than bringing American-style justice to Iraq, Bush is more likely to bring Iraqi-style justice to America.   The Military Commissions Act is a harbinger of things to come.

Comments on this entry are welcome at my blog here.

Â