The early Byrd - got it right

** I referred to Senator Robert Byrd's remarks in an earlier blog. It seems especially pertinent today, as it looks like everything he said back in February 2003 has, sadly, come to pass.


February 12, 2003
Senate Remarks: We Stand Passively Mute
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
###

A note about the DRAFT

** The only way to get the troop strength needed to continue the fantasy that we are needed in the Middle East is to re-institute the draft. The following details the scheme:

Mandatory draft bill for men and women (ages 18-26) There is pending legislation in the house and senate (companion bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin as early as spring, 2005. If this bill passes, it will include all men and all women from ages 18 - 26 in a draft for military action. In addition, college will no longer be an option for avoiding the draft, and an agreement will be made with Canada to no longer permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft by staying within Canadian borders.

This bill also includes the extension of military service for all those who are currently active. This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in detail at this website: http://thomas.loc.gov/ Just enter in"HR 163" and click search, and the bill will come up for you to read. It is less than two pages long. If you go to the Selective Service website (www.sss.gov) and read their FY 2004 Goals you will see that the reason for this is to increase the size of the military in case of terrorism. There is this notice on the SSS home page:

• Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.
  Despite this notice, it is entirely possible the bill could be enacted at any time.
  

Interestingly, HR 163 was introduced by Democrats in January 2003. Charlie Rangel's purpose, as noted in this blog, was to compel the children of members of Congress to be eligible for the draft in hopes of restraining the reflex to go to war - not the strongest of reasons.

How to be "objective" about this election

** I work in a setting that tends to discourage the publishing of personal opinion. We always strive to be "objective" and allow for differing views, especially on world issues. But sometimes, a person can feel that the government is doing something so wrong that resistance in the form of protest is a moral imperative. One can only imagine the course of history if in Germany in the 30s and 40s citizens had organized and spoken up against the persecution of Jews.

Sometimes differing views include the totally ridiculous. I attended a talk by Paul Krugman last night, who proposed that if announcement were made that the earth is round, the present "objective" media might report it as: "Shape of earth: views differ."

The purpose of the media is not just to present "differing views," but to help readers get at the truth. It is still amazing that today's media do not challenge vigorously the outright lies propounded by the current adminstration. It's scary to think that the strategy of "The Big Lie" is effective today when there is so much information available. And yet people seem to be content to believe that even though there were no WMDs in Iraq, no evidence of collusion between Saddaam and Osama, no immanent threat to the US -- that it's still OK to be there. Not just OK, but somehow gravely important that we be there.

This is not just a "differing view," it's fantasy. It's delusion. And it's dangerous.

Experts in the adminstration's own ranks (like Colin Powell) say that we can't accomplish any useful goal in Iraq. The only way to fulfill the adminstration's goal of establishing a base for democracy in the region is to vastly increase the US military presence. And it will have to be US military primarily becasue no other nation would be so stupid as to enter this quagmire - there's no self interest to motivate them.

And, by contrast, there's a LOT of self interest on the part of Americans who don't want their comfortable world challenged. I spent some time in Ohio in the past month and I could just feel the comfort zones of America as I drove the back roads. These people don't want to think about change, don't want to be proactive to adjust America's role in the world. WE need to become less selfish and more considerate of our world community.

Isn't it time to proclaim the Emperor naked and start changing the world?