Dirty Wars Chapter Seven, the Build Up to the Iraq War

Chapter 7 goes into some parts of the GBWA’s prep for the Iraq war, specifically the use and manipulating intelligence, and R and C’s (Rumsfeld and Cheney) efforts to promote the Pentagon over the CIA. Unlike the R and C, the CIA did not have a particular goal to invade or destroy anybody. As most people who were paying attention at the time will know, the “proof” of ties between OBL and Iraq was essentially fabricated. R and C and their understudies such as Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, just picked out and strung together random details from CIA raw data.  The amount of executive pressure put on the CIA, generally by senior officials and personally by Cheney was completely unprecedented, as were the intelligence reports Feith gave to the president behind Tenet’s back. After intense, unrelenting, pressure, the CIA eventually produced reports the administration could use.

I read this chapter a few months after the 10-year anniversary of the Iraq war, in the midst of an Iraq that seems as unstable and violent as ever. During the anniversary period a lot of the left a lot of energy seemed to be spent on who was right and who was wrong-and aggressively reminding those who were wrong, that they WERE WRONG. At some point, it just seemed really mean and counter-productive. I understand some of the journalists, such as Scahill himself, have been intimately involved with people’s lives that have been irrevocably harmed by the war and its aftermath. I understand that as journalists, you take the role seriously of what the media does, and that had media gone the other way maybe things would have been different. I guess if your happy beating up Ezra Klein for statements he wrote in college, Jeremy, I guess you’ve earned it. But to me, excessive energy spent on calling out journalists who were wrong on Iraq gives the appearance that everybody who was for the war deserves to be blamed equally.

What seemed to me to be lacking—and I am sure I missed things—was more analysis of, if the war couldn’t have been stopped, at least to make people pay for what they had done. To make every effort that it not happen again. Because let’s be real here, Ezra Klein, Dan Savage, even Christopher Hichens do not bear ultimate responsibility for the Iraq War. The people whose fault it is that we went to war against Iraq were the people who wanted it, who always wanted it. Who had a fundamental view that US resources and lives should be expended in the name of word domination-because really that was the goal of Rumsfeld and Cheney.  The people who helped them, some whose names we know well, Condolezza Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, and some who names we do not know. The Congressional members who voted for the war, Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton among them. These are the people who should be shunned and shamed. We should never forget there was no justifiable reason for the Iraq war; it caused countless deaths, Iraqi and American. We will all be paying for it, literally and figuratively, for the rest of our lives.

Ideally, in a world where people have to bear the consequences of their decisions Rumsfeld and Cheney should not be able to get any kind of job, and every Congress member who voted for the war should have been voted out of office. This of course not only did not happen, but most of the principles have either sailed through the typical trajectory of post-government official life and/or simply carried on in their positions. Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton of course have done especially well. This is really the question to ask, why, when their records and erroneous, dangerous behaviors are so well known, how can Rumsfeld write a book, be interviewed, and treated like a human. Why can Condolezza Rice get a position at an esteemed university-be considered a presidential candidate- after her obvious support and complicity for the destruction of a country and so many lives.  To my knowledge, no regret has been expressed with the decisions by any the Bush administration who actively pushed for war. Ironically, it would seem on the Republican side only the former president has suffered in the PR department, although that is probably as much to do with the financial meltdown as the war.

On the Democratic side it was not much better. On one hand I absolutely believe Hilary Clinton’s support for the war lost her the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. It alienated her from a key part of the activist base, and pushed many of them, especially women who otherwise wouldn’t have dreamed of voting for anybody else, to look elsewhere. I believe Clinton’s choice was a cold, political one. She could have stood against the war, it would have transformed her to a leader of the anti-war movement, put her on track to challenge Bush in 2004—all would have been forgiven, at least for a while. THAT, not a Matt Yglesias post, could have stopped the war. If this sounds like hyperbole remember back to the excitement of the Howard Dean campaign-almost entirely based on his Iraq anti-war position which was an after thought. (He got into the race to talk about health care.)  I have to think had one of the most well-known politicians in the country come out against it-if the former president had joined her?-something really could have happened.  

Of course it didn’t happen, and was probably not ever in the realm of possibility. It’s possible Clinton really thought invading Iraq was legitimate, but more likely she thought it was a way to be “serious”, that is get greater access to power.  The idea that there could be power in rallying masses against the war as opposed to being able to sit at the cool kids table, (to be respectable in important circles) I’m guessing never even entered her mind. More importantly, probably not even something she was interested in, as in terms of action she has never deviated from a neoliberal agenda. Either way, whether it was true belief or political calculation, she was dead to me after that and I think it left enough of a sour taste in some Democratic voters mouths to look at Obama more seriously.

Looking back on the post-Iraq war period I believe the lack of political consequences played a large role in where we are today, although I certainly didn’t think about it this way at the time. Part of the problem was that the anti-war apparatus was I think somewhat spilt between those who were not politically inclined/active (that is more focused on resistance and protest) and the part that was politically active was basically an arm of the Democratic Party. The same Democratic Party whose leaders, (not everybody) had supported the war.  The few anti-war signs of political life, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, rose and fell with their candidate’s political campaign. Dean returned to the conventional politician that he was, and Kucinich did not appear to have skills or the interest in trying to lead a movement.

I wonder what would have been different if there had been a mass-based anti-war party, one politically orientated but expressly focused on anti-war positions of candidates. Such a group could have threatened the Democratic base in key elections, it might have caused some movement. If nothing else maybe a genuine anti-war candidate could have emerged in 2004. Building such an organization is difficult, requiring time, money, and organization. Even if people had been thinking this way, I admit it’s a long shot to seeing to happen.  It’s true that 3^rd parties in general have a poor record of “success”, that is if you define success in terms of getting elected. But you can have an effect by not getting elected, see the Tea Party who have managed to have strong effects on Republican positions by just the threat of a primary. What if similar pressure could be put on Democrats? It’s important to note that while Occupy tends to get compared to the Tea Party they are very different. While parts of the Tea Party could be considered “grassroots” it had solid financial backing, from right-wing sources. Occupy on the other hand was a true organic movement with no such financial resources, and was broken-up in large part through state police intervention.  If enough people stayed home, if even one or two established figures went down or were seriously challenged, could that have changed anything?

Of course part of the reason why the war happened was due to the after effects of 9-11, the manipulation of fear by those who did want to go to war. What is it about our culture that killing people is considered “brave” and choosing to not to kill people is considered “weak”? The few public figures, even just celebrities, who dared to speak out, were ridiculed/shunned. Here is probably where the media can be legitimately blamed; contributing to a culture that seems to think the US is simply a force for good in the world, that if the government says its true, well most of it must be true. Part of the anti-war crowd’s problem was that the majority of the population, speaking generally, does not want to believe the government would flat-out lie to its population, actually put it’s people in risk, for imperial power. In spite of people’s overall skepticism toward government, I feel when push comes to shove, especially national security, most people want to believe what they are told.

Getting back to blame for the war there is another group of people; those who were not for it, but arguably did not do enough to stop it. You could put some Congressional members in this category, if you were feeling generous but I am thinking primarily of members of the GBWA who were against the war, as well as professionals at the CIA. Colin Powell and most of the State department appeared to be against the war, but ultimately supported it. What if Powell had refused to “sign-off” on the war?  What if he had just make his case public, say supported Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Certainly, he was one of the most popular members of the administration and it would have been difficult for R and C to isolate him politically in a public way as they had done privately. But I recognize that such a scenario would be just as likely as the Hilary Clinton scenario I sketched out, but for slightly different reasons. Somebody like Colin Powell has spent his entire life following orders and to not follow orders, even when in a theoretically a position of power, would be out of character. Again, it would have meant not sitting at the cool kids table, i.e. invitations to the Council on Foreign Relations and the like, probably no corporate speaking gigs. It would have put one with the dirty, hippy anti-war people, even though that included a lot former Bush senior officials. It seems crazy that culture should be such a powerful pull over what is morally right, but there it is.

Finally, what about the professionals at the CIA who ultimately supported, against their will you might say, the Iraq war? What should we expect of such people? Do we put the same level of responsibility on them as those higher up the food chain? There is line of reasoning that says any involvement in a crime makes you as guilty as the perpetrator. While CIA analyst sounds like an exotic job, ultimately it is a job. I imagine that many of those people have families, mortgages, and I would guess that many of them had been there long enough that they didn’t think leaving/or getting “fired” for protesting the war was a good career move. We all like to think we’d do the right thing when circumstances present us with a serious, moral, choice. I’d like to think I’d do the right thing if I was a worker bee in the CIA, I’d like to think I’d leave and/or protest the war, as forcefully as I did in real life, but I don’t know for sure.

Dirty Wars chapters 4, 5, 6, introducing Yemen, Awlkaki continued, the first assassination

Chapter four introduces the reader to Yemen, and its leader since 1990, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Saleh has managed to stay in power for so long in part because he’s a badass, and because he ok with Yemenese engaging in terrorist activity. In fact the US actively encouraged everybody in the region to fight the mujahedeen so they weren’t really terrorists right, because they were working for us. (#sarcasm)

This was ok until the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 which both inspired a large AQ signup and forced the US to take a closer look at Yemen.  When the FBI went to try to investigate they faced a very hostile environment, but there was a lack of interest in the case in the Clinton White House, and this did not change under Bush.

Again, one has to wonder if either administration had taken the investigation seriously-Yemen was on the radar but not in a big way-could have 9-11 been prevented? If the “war on terror had been declared in 2000 in instead of 2001, would things be different?

Saleh knew he was in a dangerous position after 9-11 and he did exactly what a smart tough guy does in that situation-go kiss the Don’s ring.  He went to the Bush White House, said the things they wanted to hear, left with a ton of money, plus funding from the IMF and the World Bank. He was expected to do something for this of course, first he was to try to get some AQ suspects-an initial attempt in Marib Province does not go well.  Most importantly he allows the US to set up a “counterterrorism camp”—i.e. allow the US to operate independently in Yemen, including the use of drones.

Chapter five continues Awlaki’s story, now in the UK.  His father convinces him to try to finish his Ph.D in the US. So Awlaki goes back, is pulled out by INS,  there had been active work while he was gone to get him if he came back, but then let go. The focus of the chapter then switches to idea that Awlaki was actually a FBI double agent. Scahill presents some compelling evidence for this, it is really fascinating and if it’s been reported on previously I completely missed it.

Chapter six describes in detail the first American to be killed by a drone attack, in Yemen, Ahmed Hijazi. The focus of the attack was Abu Ali al Harithi. Hijazi would later be connected to the “Lackawanna Six”, a supposed sleeper cell in Buffalo.  This targeted assassination of a US citizen, not on the battlefield upset human rights and civil liberties’ organization. It also upset Saleh as well as members of the CIA, concerned that this was the new policy. The Bush administration response was this was a new kind of war. Deal with it. 

Dirty Wars: chapter 3, special ops

Chapter three focuses on JSOC, Joint Special Operations Command. This group was the “covert ops” initially developed out of the failed rescue attempt of Iranian hostages. JSOC was involved with various Latin American operations; under Clinton it was authorized to do work on US soil, which circumvented the Posse Comitatus Act (prohibits the military from domestic law enforcement). This included the Branch Davidian raid and the 1996 Summer Olympics. They were group in charge of the infamous “Black Hawk Down” incident in Somalia. After that, the Clinton administration seemed to have lost all appetite for covert missions. On paper JSOC was involved in many projects but in reality nothing ever moved.

Post 9-11 Cheney and Rumsfeld needed their own paramilitary force to conduct operations-they did not want to work with the CIA, where they felt they would not have sufficient control. Basically Cheney and Rumsfeld did not want anybody to tell them anything. Really, for a bunch of guys with no actually military experience, the hubris that these guys demonstrate is really mind blowing it just as bad as you thought. Ironically, the main people in the State department who wanted a much more restricted response overall, did.

While I firmly believe the best way to stop terrorism is better foreign policy, there is a question to be asked here. If there are terrorists out there that want to kill us, and if we are going to limit formal military involvement-i.e. not invade every country, is there a role for something likes the JSOC (and drones for that matter but I haven’t got to that in the book yet)? If there is what would it look like? From Scahill’s description it would seem our use of special ops went from 1 to 10 in about a minute. Not only did usage or at least plans for usage (haven’t got to what they actually do yet post 9-11) ramp up exponentially, but so did scope, and it would appear that oversight went in the opposite direction, from 10 to 1.

In lieu of grand reversals of foreign policy that may never happen, what is the role in a democracy for something like special ops? I would like say not at all, but honestly I think that is either unrealistic or possibly unsafe (or maybe both.) How many people need to know-does it really compromise security to have (some) members of Congress know everything? Is it possible to allow isolated, “surgical” procedures, which have oversight and are functional-that don’t harm innocent people?  Or is this just not possible and every effort needs to be made to shut the whole thing down? This “surgical” role is what was envisioned by Clinton’s people prior to the Black Hawk Down incident.  Although it would seem that it was endless supervision that limited JSOC in the Clinton administration, really it seems more they were choosing to do that, so concerned of the aftermath of the Black Hawk Down incident. I have to think if they had the will they would have found a way. Cheney and Rumsfeld go 180 degrees in the opposite direction, no consideration for possible consequences or “blowback” (it’s not even clear they understood 9-11 as blowback, which many people would call it ). They just wanted to fight everybody.

It’s obviously an exercise in what if, but you have to wonder how things might have played out if the State department had been allowed to lead. I’m no Powell fan but compared to Cheney and Rumsfeld he practically comes off as a peacenik. If say there had been a genuine fight between the two what could have happened? As it was it would seem Rumsfeld completely outmaneuvered Powell, but you could argue that it wasn’t a fair fight as Rumsfeld had Cheney in his corner and Cheney had power that couldn’t really be touched. Is it even conceivable that GW Bush could have intervened and told Cheney and Rumsfeld to cut it out? I feel it’s worth noting that many, if not everybody from his father’s administration who was not in his, was against the Iraq war. He could have taken control I think if (and it’s a big if) if wanted to. Whether he really thought like Cheney and Rumsfeld, or whether he just did not fully grasp their plans and the potential consequences, I’m not sure we will ever know.

In his book “Descent into Chaos: The U.S. and the Disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, Ahmed Rashid, almost gives the impression had Bush been left to his own devices things might had been different.  But the rhetoric was divorced from reality, maybe on purpose maybe not. He really blames Rumsfeld (with Cheney’s support) for making all of the worst decisions in Afghanistan and squandering the precious good will that the US had early on. Ahmed Rashid was at least initially supportive of US involvement in Afghanistan because he though getting the Taliban out was so important. Like a lot of people he would become disillusioned when it was clear that the US’s interests in Afghanistan were not really about helping the country, but just doing the bare minimum. 

Blogging Dirty Wars, chapter two. Anwar Awlaki, 9-11, and "religious violence"

Chapter two introduces Anwar Awlaki-the first US citizen known to be targeted for assassination by the US government. Awalki was born in the US but his parents were from Yemen. His father came to the US for education and then returned to Yemen. It was his hope that Awlaki would follow in his (academic) footsteps. He did initially but became an imam, and was very popular. Taken what is publically known of his time in the US (the chapter ends with him leaving the US for Britain in 2002) there were certainly some coincidences, but nothing that definitively links him to terrorist activities.

The parts of this chapter which resonated most with me was the description of time immediately post 9-11, and how that period played out if you were Muslim. Also, what you might call the “middle class” immigrant experience. That is, people who have the means and resources to come to a more developed country for education and even to stay. For these people, who have a real choice ,there is pull between opportunities that the more developed country presents, versus the unique aspects of home. Awlaki’s father had come to the US to study, and then returned to Yemen to teach, it was his hope and expectation that his son would do the same. One the people I follow on twitter is Haykal Bafana, Yemeni national who grew up in Singapore.  It was his father’s hope that he would live in Singapore, but he ultimately (at least as of this writing) came back to Yemen. He described this in some tweets, noting that as frustrating as Yemen was, he felt called to be there. Although my own circumstances are quite different, I understand the sentiment completely. I have issues with my city and state and even country regarding any number of issues, however I’m not worried about being killed by bombs or drones. As a fortune-teller tells the character Tex (in the book and the movie) “Some will stay, some will go. You will stay.” I always thought I would go, at least out of state, but it turns out I am one who stays.

As to the time post 9-11 I remember that time personally as a time when I felt very disconnected from my culture. I felt sadness at the attacks, but not fear, I think in part because I knew quite well that they did not attack us for our “freedoms”.

I take concepts of liberty and freedom for all very seriously, so if these principles are not distributed in an equitable fashion, I do not consider that fair. I think it is this what has led me to have a somewhat adversarial relationship with my country (and my religion as well). It is also why I felt a modicum of sympathy towards people who felt they had just had enough of American foreign policy. No, of course none of the people who died in the 9-11 attacks “deserved it” but neither did the many people, in Central America among other places, that had been killed either by US forces or with full US support in the name of “freedom”. How many people have been killed by my government, in my name essentially, and if I was killed in a terrorist attack would that only be fair? No, I am not in the military but neither are the many civilians killed by drone attacks. I didn’t support these killings but since my government did am I not fair game?

The US government claimed they hated us for our “freedom”, and it was clear at least some of the country believed that, which I found so depressing. Did people really not know any history, or was it ok that the US killed people, because the US is always right, by definition. To this day, I am not sure. I recognize it is probably a little of both, although I have always clung to ignorance. However as I watch “liberals” who were so quick to criticism GWB for the same things that Obama is doing, I have to admit to myself that may not be the case.

Reading Awlaki’s and other imam’s reactions to the attacks is heart wrenching. Needless to say, none of them were prepared for such an attack and how it would impact them and their followers’ lives. As described in the book Muslim women, easily identified by their headscarfs, required escorts for safety. I have since heard of all kinds of experiences of Muslim women being harassed, attacked, in front of their children.  It makes me really sad-what kind of person harasses women and children-is that really what “America” is about? How can you claim to be about “freedom”? All major religions have had periods of time in history where they were the “other”-if it wasn’t right then why is it ok now?

I remember, locally, that immediately after the attacks that it was Japanese organization that officially came out to support Muslims. This makes perfect sense, since this was only group that could really relate to the situation. Only Japanese Americans have been accused and punished-as a group-for something they had nothing to do with, because they were easily identifiable.

I had at that point not thought very much about Muslims in this country, or Islam, and have only learned in the intervening years just how difficult that time was. My tendency is to assume that most people think like I do-most large, mainstream, organized religions are more alike then similar. They generally preach the same thing, which generally runs in line with humanist principles. Obviously, there are differences, especially in social issues and there are large cultural influences. But I could never buy the idea that Islam is a “violent religion”. Yes there are some violent Muslims, there are violent Christians too (KKK anybody?) Just as there are many Christian groups I do not want to be associated with, I can easily imagine that most Muslim are not terrorists or are supportive of them.

People who claim Islam is “violent”-particularly odd coming from the new “atheists” crowd are either ignorant of history or have some odd ideas of what constitutes “violence”.  Just to name a few, the killings inherent in the crusades, the years of religious strife in Europe in the medieval period and post-reformation, WWI and WWII by Christians. Current and recent repression by Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka of Muslims and the Tamils. Recent violence against Muslims by Hindu extremists. There is also, rarely mentioned, the broader issue of institutional violence that occurs from corporate hegemony pushed by the West (i.e. Christian majority nations) that is only resisted by relatively small groups of Christians.

By the same token, I do not think any religion makes people more violent. Whenever you get groups of people with disagreements-usually to some degree over resource allocation-you get conflict. It may manifest itself as an ethnic or religious conflict but 99% of the time the fight is really over something else quite tangible. I remember a discussion with my mother regarding the institution of the (Catholic) Church. At some point, somewhat frustrated over my frustration with the institution she said to me “God is God. But God works though people, and people are fallible”.

And that I think sums up the conflicts that we are involved with-they start and end with the inherent fallibility of humans themselves.

Yes It’s about Jobs and What’s Wrong with That-Thoughts on the CPS Closings

 There is so much to be said about the decision-made by the mayor-to close 50 Chicago schools that it is impossible to put it together in one coherent post. So let’s just focus on one particular criticism, the idea that the CTU (Chicago Teachers Union) is against this because it means their jobs. Greg Hinz states in a post while CPS has not been truthful, claiming the closings are that “good for the kids” when everybody knows it’s not, in his eyes CTU has been “if, anything, worse”. Why? The CTU is fighting for its members’ jobs. This makes the CTU worse then CPS?

CPS has

 1) lied about “savings”—any savings will be long-term and depend on may factors difficult to properly predict.  They will not be realized now, the sheer chaos that will ensue to complete the process will more likely cost more in the short-term, which completely undercuts the claim that so many schools must be closed now.

2) lied about “utilization”—there are many issues with this line but just to give a few examples when groups such as Raise Your hand insisted that there were no empty rooms in these underutilized schools there was no response, special education kids simply weren’t counted, CPS spokesperson Becky Carroll is on record claiming 40 kids in a classroom is ok.

3) claimed that kids are going better schools, in most cases they are not.

3) not engaged in any meaningful dialogue with parents or the CTU.

4) had the nerve to state at the hearing that people who couldn’t understand that closing schools would save money “did not understand economics”—this coming from a body that hadn’t release a budget yet for the next year, and in fact has released very few financial details about anything.  

So in one corner we have the CPS knowingly plunging thousands of families into what appears to a poorly thought-out, haphazard plan. (It is worth noting for all the national “education reformers” around, none appeared to have weighed in on the CPS closings. Is that perhaps because they know a train wreck when they see one and have made sure to stay away?) CPS has put young kids in real danger, both in terms of gang lines that will be crossed and the fact that many will have to walk a least a mile to school. Most significantly, and probably the least covered by the mainstream media, is the destabilization of vulnerable communities that will occur. Schools provide an important community anchor, if anything a reporter and a mayor who claim to want to reduce violence would want increase investment in these communities. That’s a tall order, and nobody really expects it. But to deliberately make things worse?

In the other corner we have the CTU, as well as various SEIU locals, who are working with parents and community members to keep schools open. Yes, they are fighting for their jobs, for the right to take care of other people’s children and get paid for it. While everybody insists that the focus should be on the children-it’s interesting how people are always insisting that adults’ interests must diverge from the kids they work or live with-the adults matter too. The adults that use the school as part of the community, the adults that have these good union jobs to support their families and communities, especially at the lower end of the income scale, these adults are important. They are more important then the small groups of executives who the mayor pays to work downtown in the name of economic development, the money that these people earn will be sent back into the community, as opposed to overseas bank accounts or tax shelters.

This, this, is worse then CPS? Oh, you might say, that’s all well and good but . . . we don’t have the money for it.

The idea that we “don’t have the money for it” is simply not true. Everybody knows that the mayor (any mayor really) of this city always has money for business interests, and even while part of the city government was claiming there was no money, another was ready with a check. In another post Greg Hinz defends the Mayor’s plan to fund a stadium for DePaul and related development around McCormick place because of . . . jobs.

These are the jobs Hinz and the mayor like, low-end retail jobs. The kind that you have to work two of to make ends meet. The kind of jobs that still require food stamps to feed your kids. The kind of jobs that even people with  college degrees are working; some sources have estimated there are three applicants for every job opening, even in such touted areas as STEM jobs.

As explained in this post by an "underachieving visionary” the kind of job where you don’t have choice in the hours (you must take what you can get, when you can get it), the kind of job you are expected to give your heart and sole into, and a random happenstance can cause you to lose it. Looking at the advertisements for jobs at the Tenement Museum, where this person lost her job, I was struck by the long list of qualifications for a job that was clearly part-time and probably didn’t pay much more then minimum wage.

But it doesn’t matter, they are jobs. These, Hinz is telling us, are the kind of jobs worthy of public money-not “salaries for members of the teachers and police unions”.  So there you go, paying public workers is not a good use of public dollars, throwing money at private entities for an economic development plan that will clearly benefit a few much more then the majority, whose planning seems as well thought-out as CPS’s plan to close schools, that is appropriate.

What is the purpose of city government? Most people would say to serve its residents, to support economic security as much as possible. “Economic security" being described here as having as many residents as possible employed at “good jobs”. “Good jobs” being those that pay at least $15 dollars an hour, some essential benefits such as sick time, health care. How to best stimulate employment is a controversial subject, if it was easy we’d had done it by now. But, up until recently it was expected that public sector jobs, mostly teachers, firefighters, police officers, were a significant “leg” of the stool.  It appears clear that federal stimulus is not happening any time soon, so states are very much on their own to create/suppport economic security any way they can. One could make the argument that in such a time a government should  try to employ as many people as they reasonably can.

The union part here is important, unionization is what can make a “bad” job a “good” one. It is accepted across the political spectrum that the way to improve wages and benefits is through a union. In a recent opinion piece economist Timothy Noah noted that:

The decline of labor unions is what connects the skills-based gap to the 1 percent-based gap. Although conservatives often insist that the 1 percent’s richesse doesn’t come out of the pockets of the 99 percent, that assertion ignores the fact that labor’s share of gross domestic product is shrinking while capital’s share is growing. Since 1979, except for a brief period during the tech boom of the late 1990s, labor’s share of corporate income has fallen According to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, the G.D.P. shift from labor to capital explains fully one-third of the 1 percent’s run-up in its share of national income. It couldn’t have happened if private-sector unionism had remained strong. . . But if economic growth depends on rewarding effort, we should all worry that the middle classes aren’t getting pay increases commensurate with the wealth they create for their bosses. Bosses aren’t going to fix this problem.

And apparently the mayor of Chicago isn’t either.  

blogging Dirty Wars chapter one

I'm going to try to blog through the entire book because I think it is really important to try to grasp what is happening, how, why, and what if anything, can be done about it. Note it's a long book and there will be plenty of unrelated posts in between.

Chapter one is kind of brief overview of where we where, in term of covert activity and combatting terrorism right at 9-11. For me, it confirmed a lot of what my impressions were at the time, for the most part what things I didn't know do not come as much of a surprise. That is, the team of Cheney and Rumsfeld had some very specific, radical ideas for policies that they were starting to put into place prior to 9-11, post 9-11 there was nothing to hold them back. They had hoped to do this when working for Bush the elder, but were squashed, so they spent the intervening years planning for it.  Basically they wanted the US to dominate on a global, forceful, scale, accountable to no one. Also, they were from the beginning obsessed with Iraq.

They managed to find a kindred spirit in Cofer Black of the CIA. One of the interesting notes is how the CIA, generally and George Tenet specifically, were not actually that into the idea of extra-judicial killings. There had been some under Clinton, but had substantial oversight. Tenet would later (publicly anyway) support the Iraq war and write a really self-serving book. During the promotional tour he made an appearance on Fresh Air that came awfully close to mansplaining. So it's kind of interesting to see him, at the beginning anyway, presented as somebody with some morals.

For all of Cheney's and Rumfeld's dismissal of the Clinton administration it's quite clear in the book, as it seemed at the time, that the Clinton administration was much more on top of AQ. George W. Bush's administration (GWBA)  was just getting around to it (!) when 9-11 happened. In my mind, this issue of the GWBA simply dropping the ball never got enough play.  Forget conspiracy theories-who needs conspiracies when you have incompetence? Because logically it would seem that, if, say, the policies of Clinton had been continued, it's quite possible 9-11 could have been avoided. What if Al Gore would have been elected? This is such an important point because all of the draconian policies that went into play after 9-11 (although Scahill makes clear Cheney and Rumsfeld were headed this direction already) were sold to the public as necessary, and it's quite probable they weren't.

The main question I have starting the book is of course, how can this be changed? Is the increased power of the executive branch inevitable? It was practically stopped in the 70s with the Church committee and Cheney and Rumsfeld worked very hard to undue all the preventative measures put in place by the committee. After the wars and over 10 years post 9-11 people are asking questions--many people supportive of Obama are supportive because they think he really he going to change these policies, at some point.

What is Between Drones and Nothing

So the president gave a national security speech. He said a lot of good things, some things had been said before, some were new.  But it is impossible at this point to take much of it seriously, it just seems too little too late.  From my twitter feed it would seem that base of the liberal support behind drone strikes is 1) that it is better then an invasion/war, and 2) we have to do something.

It should be said that it is true that drone strikes, as imperfect as they may be, are less damaging then war.  A few months ago during the 10 year anniversary of the Iraq war there was a certain amount of hang-ringing over the failure, through protests, to stop the war.  It is unlikely any protest has ever stopped any war. This does not mean to protest has no use-it serves as an important reminder to the elites of the limit of support. Noam Chomsky has often cited studies that emphasize the importance of wars which are short and which the US is certain to dominate, because support in the population is recognized to be "thin and weak". There is no question that between Iraq and Afghanistan the general population's patience with perpetual war is very weak. It could be argued that drone strikes are a response to this lack of war support, and compared to war, yes, better.

But, still really bad, this killing of people without trial or jury.  If we are not going to do drone strikes-which by some reports have killed over 1000 civillians to 400 some "combatants" -what is the alternative to "nothing"?This is especially important as many of the same people, such as myself, who do not want to see drone strikes do not want to see military interventions either, no matter how dressed up as humanitarian missions they may be. And it needs to be said that the idea that we could do "nation-building" through NGOs is a bit far-fetched as well, historical record suggests that such experiences tend to be fronts for the US government/corporate interests in some form or another.

How about we stop killing people? How about we just end drone strikes, is it possible at least some military aid could go to humanitarian aid on the ground--this could be towards education in Pakistan, refugee camps in Turkey (for people fleeing Syria), established community groups in Yemen. How about we state publicly we will not bomb Iran, and ease off on sanctions just a little. Iran, just like us, has hardliners who are simply strengthened by US and Israeli threats. If it was clear the military option was off the table that could be key to moving things forward. It would not really be giving up anything, as no rational military commander thinks bombing Iran, especially to hit nuclear targets, is really feasible.

We don't have much sway in Syria or Egypt, but we do have allies, in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Both these countries have repressive governments that are fully backed by the US. Bahrain, an early "Arab spring" country has been without mercy in cracking down on its dissenters- not a word from the US. To push for at least a little mercy for those who protested, to push for more equality for women and the Shia populations in these particular countries, would not take much "political capital" and could go farther toward winning hearts and minds then any drone strike. 

Of course the ultimate peace-making move would be settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which could easy be pushed forward by the US by simply holding on to some aid money, until say, settlements are permanently halted. The current administration has shown no will in this conflict so it's hard to see anything like this happening. There is no question that the US continues to face terrorist threats but they do not "hate" us for our "freedoms" they hate us because of our policies. There are many activities between drones and "nothing" if we have the will to try.