JOHN TIRMAN
Published by Oxford University Press. Got a very nice review in The Progressive, in their July issue. The legendary Christopher Lydon interviewed me on his radio show. Listen. A long piece in AlterNet on the media's reaction to civilian casualties. An article in the Boston Globe (August 5). World Streams Radio did a long interview on August 17. More from MIT, including a video interview. A videotaped interview on "The Autograph" on Sky Cable is here. Dan Rodricks, who interviewed me on NPR, writes a column for the Baltimore Sun and had an interesting piece on 9/11. Read.
New York Times op-ed getting a lot of positive response (January 4).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: In my latest Huffington Post piece, the points I made--that Republicans use false charges about immigrants, including job stealing, crime, and terrorism--did not apparently register with a sizable number of readers. The major findings of research is that illegal immigrants do not displace native workers, do not depress wages, pay a sizable amount of taxes, are below-average in criminal activity, and so on. The responses in the comments section convince me more than ever that this issue has little to do with economics and everything to do with ethnic prejudice and identity. This is not to say there is no problem with illegal entry. There is. But to make up accusations about immigrants gets us no closer to a solution. In all likelihood, that solution has to do with a guest worker program and some form of relatively simple routes to citizenship, particularly for those who have been here a long time, have families born here, and so on. The Dream Act would be a good start, a straitforward way of saying we sympathize with the immigrants' plight and want to reward those who are striving for better things, and thereby contribute mightily to America. But that's too sensible for those who are always looking for a scapegoat. (Jan. 30)
STEVE JOBS AND THE CREATION OF FALSE IDOLS. The insightful article in the New York Times this week on the dreadful working conditions that Apple maintains in China, where its products are principally made, brings to mind a private gripe I've had about Jobs all along. That is his apparently complete lack of interest in philanthropy, particularly the social change philanthropy that many in his generation and those in the communications industry have adopted. There isn't a word about it in the popular biography that came out at the time of his death, and no public mention of any generosity on his part. This seems to square with the Times story about China and the Dickensian work-house conditions he fostered. OK, so he made clever gadgets, but I'd suggest gadgets that someone else would have made sooner or later. Apple products in my experience are not all that superior. But I'll concede that point if the news media would stop swooning at his name. (Jan. 27)
HADITHA: "If he gets off, it will send yet another signal that there is no justice for civilians where American power is exerted," I wrote on January 3. Scroll down. Well, he got off in effect--3 months confinement for 24 murders. Military "justice." The system of military justice needs to be abolished if this is all it can produce. (Jan. 24) Update: Not even three months. Demotion to private. No one pays--Semper Fi.
MY NEW HUFF POST PIECE DISSECTS ROMNEY'S FATUOUS FOREIGN POLICY THINKING, an easy target, I confess, but one that needs attention, kind of like those annual medical exams you'd rather not do but must. Read.
AVNER COHEN ON ISRAELI ASSASSINATIONS of Iranian nuclear scientists. Few in the U.S. dare call it terrorism, except perhaps Glenn Greenwald. But Cohen, writing in Ha'aretz, makes some important additional points. (Jan. 17)
MORE BAD NEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE, from MIT: it seems that a warming atmosphere and oceans will generate more hurricanes. Don't expect this to alter the views of the climate change deniers, a.k.a. the Republican Party. Mitt "We Don't Know What's Causing Climate Change" Romney and his head-in-the-sand advisers would regard more evidence as more ignorance. (Jan. 17)
MY WASHINGTON POST "OUTLOOK" PIECE has generated a remarkable amount of mail to me, nearly all of it thankful. This is heartening, of course, and I'm also struck by how many members of the military wrote to laud thepiece as well. Struck a nerve, clearly. Here it is.
The questions that keep rising are (1) why only post-1945 wars are analyzed; (2) are other countries any better; (3) are Americans really indifferent or merely misinformed. My answers (everything is discussed at length in The Deaths of Others) are: (1) I couldn't analyze all wars and so took the ones we are familiar with, but I do go into the war in the Philippines (1898-1906) in a little detail, and discuss the strategic bombing in the Second World War in the book. (2) Yes, I think other major powers exhibit similar behavior, but as I did not research it I can't say much definitive about it, but I'm an American, the U.S. engages in more wars than any other country, and so focusing America makes sense. (3) this requires a long response (again, in the book), but it's not necessarily the case the more and more accurate information will lead to more caring. (Jan. 12)
ESTIMATING WAR DEATHS: A VERY BRIEF PRIMER. So many people do not understand the methods used to estimate war mortality that I here give a little primer. The household surveys, or "population studies," used in Iraq by the Johns Hopkins University researchers (the "Lancet studies") and by the World Health Organization and the Iraq Ministry of Health are generally considered the state of the art method for estimating war-related deaths. The alternative--actual counting through news media, morgue, or U.S. military reports--have serious drawbacks.
The latter has come to be associated with the London-based NGO, Iraq Body Count, which mainly used English-language newspapers to count civilian deaths by violence. The principal problem with this is that one never knows what's being missed. Dexter Filkins,
of the New York Times , one of the longest serving American reporters
during the war, said during the height of the violence that “98%
of Iraq, and even most of Baghdad, has now become ‘off -limits’ for
Western journalists.” This indicates that most of what is captured by journalists (and reporting deaths is not their main business) was in Baghdad. Yet we know from other sources, including the Multinational Force, that as much or more violence was occurring outside Baghdad. So a great amount of killing was missed. Other problems include what constitutes a violent death, who is a civilian, and other nagging issues that have never been adequately addressed, or addressed at all.
The population studies, by contrast, are randomized, nationwide surveys. They may get the sample wrong, but it's now been repeated enough to suggest a fairly decent accuracy. These surveys ask whether anyone in the household has died during the war, establish a prewar mortality rate, and calculate the difference. The Ministry of Health survey found 400,000 excess deaths--attributable to war--in June 2006; the Hopkins scientists found 650,000 at the same time. There was still a lot of killing to come.
There are other data--numbers of refugees and internally displaced (5 million), war widows (reported by the government to be 750,000), that tend to verify the household surveys.
The most authoritative review of all these estimates is found in the peer-reviewed journal, Conflict & Health.
So when I use a figure like 700,000 deaths in the Iraq War, I am being conservative. It could easily be 1 million or more, which is still well below the death rates for many armed conflicts. (January 6).
THE GOP'S BELLIGERENCY TOWARD IRAN is a demonstration of what I've been saying for months--if we don't learn the lesson of how destructive the war in Iraq has been, we will plunge toward another. By minimizing the casualties and other evidence of chaos wrought in Iraq, the political and opinion leaders in America are inviting the unwarranted sabre-rattling toward Iran. Read more in my first column for the Huffington Post. (Jan. 3).
THE HADITHA MASSACRE TRIAL OPENS THIS WEEK, the last trial of the eighth marine charged with murdering 24 unarmed civilians in the Iraq town of Haditha in November 2005. That is Frank Wuterich, a sergeant who headed the squad. There is no doubt that 24 Iraqis, about half of them women, children, and the elderly, were killed in cold blood on that day by the U.S. marines. What's at issue is whether the marines had the "right," under the rules of engagement created by the U.S. military, to kill them. (Iraq did not have jurisdiction because of the U.S. imposed and complete immunity for crimes committed by all U.S. personnel during the occupation.) The marines allege they believed they were threatened by the Iraqis; an IED had gone off earlier in the day nearby. The seven marines brought up on charges earlier were let off, mainly due to technicalities or the rules-of-engagement defense.
There was an extensive investigation of the incident by a two-star general, Eldon Bargewell, after TIME magazine's Tim McKirk, using a tip from an Iraqi human rights group, exposed the massacre. The marines' HQ initially lied about the incident, part of a pattern I explore in The Deaths of Others. In this case, like My Lai in Vietnam and No Gun Ri in Korea, the military was essentially forced to do a credible investigation, even though the news media was slow and timid in covering the story. The Bargewell report concluded that "All levels of command tended to view civilian casualties, even in significant numbers, as routine," and that "Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes." There was also a Navy investigation, a 3500-page report, which concluded that murder had been committed.
Some right-wing bloggers have made Haditha a rallying point to support the troops, exactly what happened after My Lai, where 400 civilians were murdered by a U.S. army unit. For that, nly one soldier--Lt. William Calley--did time, all of three years of house arrest for 400 murders. Among the rallying points for Haditha is that seven of the eight originally charged have been acquitted, which is not the case. Five were given immunity for "continuing cooperation in the investigation"; the most senior officer, not at the scene, was let off on a technicality; one lieutenant, not at the scene, was acquitted of charges stemming from the Marine Corps coverup.
It is likely that more information about Haditha will emerge from documents found in a dump in Iraq, classified interviews with those involved. They demonstrate vast carelessness toward civilians.
The Wuterich defense is based entirely on the rules-of-engagement argument, but forensic evidence demonstrates that no one was armed, none of those killed were shooting at the marines, and the two houses where most of the women and children were murdered were "cleared" with grenades and gun fire. Wuterich is not actually being charged with murder, but with voluntary manslaughter, among other, lesser charges. He is being tried in a military court by other marines. If he gets off, it will send yet another signal that there is no justice for civilians where American power is exerted. (Jan. 3)
THE END OF THE AFFAIR. The complete withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq has occasioned very little insightful comment in the major news media. Obama's speech at Fort Bragg was saccharine and unconvincing. Naturally, he did not mention the "sacrifice" -- involuntary sacrifice -- of the Iraqi people. The news media has also ignored the Iraqis. As usual, only Americans count. Now that we're out, which is to say, U.S. soldiers and marines are out, the long and bloody affair will be largely forgotten. One million dead and not a mention of that grisly toll. That's the American way.
Give Obama some credit for having the chutzpah to depart; he'll take some heat from overheated Republicans, but this was the right thing to do and politically he won't suffer for it. But that's a sideshow. The lack of concern or even acknowledgement about the destruction of Iraq is really breathtaking. It's shameful that Obama can't muster the courage to say a word about this. (Dec. 22)
A NOTE ABOUT HITCHENS. I find it odd that all the lovely words about Christopher Hitchens are held in reserve until after he died last week, but it's a convention that will likely never change.
I knew him a little in the early- to mid-1990s, and of course found him to be brilliant and entertaining, but always a little odd in his choice of windmills to tilt at: Mother Teresa, Princess Diana, abortion, etc., always with that tinge of bad boy posturing that is so loathesome in journalists. When he went off on Bill Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, however, he was becoming destructive. It was a ludicrous and nasty performance, and one couldn't help but see a lot of careerism in it. At that point, I steered clear. Then his meltdown after 9/11, especially the "Islamofascism" paranoia, which took over his political life. It belied his "brilliance" to join up with this streak of dementia, and to persist with it for so long. He was not only mistaken, and foolishly so, about the Iraq war, but belittled its critics and sang praises to the war makers. He never recanted, or gave a small measure of contrition, for making common cause with some of the worst murderers in our history, because acknowledging error was not in his nature. He was articulate, clever, well-read and very well connected. But moral judgment--and good, common sense--was utterly absent. (Dec. 19)
NO TIME FOR CLIMATE CHANGE? The climate conference in Durbin seems to be earning more derision than these things normally do. This stems from frustration with governments' inaction on the part of most normal people, and dismissal of climate change science altogether by the goon squads right wing. (Now it's reported that John Huntsman, formerly known as the only sane candidate in the GOP race, has flipped on climate change.) But from the panel of scientists that study climate change came this last week regarding extreme events as a result of climate change. Co-chair Thomas Stocker was speaking:
I now would like to summarize the most important findings:
• It is very likely that the number of extreme warm days and nights has increased worldwide since 1950, and
this is likely due to the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations.
• In the future, for the higher emissions scenarios, what is today a 1-in-20 year hottest day will become a 1-in-2
year event. This means the frequency of these extreme events will increase by a factor of about 4 in the next 30
to 40 years and by a factor of 10 by the end of the 21st century.
• In consequence, heat waves are projected to very likely last longer, to occur more frequently and to increase in
intensity.
• Heavy precipitation has intensified on a global scale and with medium confidence this is already attributed to
anthropogenic climate change. It is likely that a 1-in-20 year event of heavy precipitation will become a 1-in-5 to
1-in-15 year event by the end of the 21st century.
• Tropical cyclone activity is in the focus of many countries because their impact can be devastating. While
there is low confidence of observed long-term trends over the past four decades, is likely that maximum wind
speed will increase in the 21 century in response to the warming.
• More intense and longer droughts have been observed in some regions, and there is medium confidence that
they will intensify in the 21st century, particularly in S Europe, in the Mediterranean, Central North America and
Mexico, NE Brazil and Southern Africa.
This is just the tip of the melting iceberg. Dip into the IPCC site and have a look around. There cannot be a more important issue on the docket, and one can only hope that Obama during his second term will get serious about this. (Dec. 5)
A NEW PIECE IN THE WASHINGTON SPECTATOR ASKS HOW WE WILL REMEMBER THE IRAQ WAR. By me. Reprinted in Firebrand. Read.
AN ADMIRABLE PRIMER ON THE "ARAB SPRING," with a lead article by friend and colleague Richard Norton. Read. Not eveyone is happy about these developments of course, and I've signalled some troubling moments in Egypt and elsewhere. Certainly the fate of these uprisings depends greatly on who wins the post-liberation contests. In Egypt, the elections last week, remarkable in their turnout and calm, are encouraging. The moderate Muslim Brotherhood and an independent, largely secular bloc took about two-thirds of the parliament's seats. The big task is to provide some economic security for Egypt's vast poor, a formidable undertaking. It's very difficult to see how it can succeed in the short term, but it would be a particular tragedy if the revolution failed (and the salafis or the military won) because of this poverty. The U.S. in some ways stoked the rebellion, but may not have the wherewithal to help it succeed with economic policies and assistance that go beyond the usual pablum of the "Market" and similar bromides. Egypt is a linchpin state and we need to pay close attention, work with the MB, and make sure there is equitable distribution and growth. (Dec. 5)
MY MITT ROMNEY STORY. (The second of two.) In March 2007, a New Bedford leather-goods factory making stuff for the US Army was raided by federal agents. Some 360 illegal immigrants were arrested, many deported after an ugly and harsh few days in which many of the immigrants' children were separated from parents, among other travesties. Mitt Romney was no longer governor just then, but he had just left office and his administration had been informed months earlier that the feds were targeting this factory. It was an open secret anyway, that many undocumented workers were there at the Michel Bianco plant.
Well, it turns out that Michel Bianco was the recipient of a fat grant from the Romney administration, a $111,000 training assistance grant, money that was very likely never used as intended, given the sweat-shop working conditions the owner enforced on workers who had no rights. But even if it was used properly, that means Michel Bianco was using Romney-granted taxpayer dollars to train illegal workers. If they didn't learn new skills, they might have had to mow Mitt's lawn. (Nov. 29)
WIDOWS IN IRAQ. The New York Times had a decent story the other day about widows' hardship in Iraq. It is a rare instance of any media presenting stories of how the war has affected ordinary people in Iraq. Only problem is, the reporter states that the 86,000 widows getting assistance from the Iraqi government "corresponds with conservative estimates of 103,000 to 113,000 Iraqi deaths in the war."
More homework, please. Half of the men in Iraq are not married. A very large number of men who are killed in the violence are young, far less than the average age of first marriage, which is 25 years old in Iraq. Many children are killed or die unnecessarily due to poor health care conditions. Women also die in war. And not all war widows are getting benefits. As this earlier and more complete report from Reuters details, "Iraqi women say registering for government pensions is a bureaucratic nightmare due to corrupt workers who demand money to complete the paperwork. One divorcee said she spent almost a year registering and when she was about to finish the process the pension office told her that her file had been lost. She gave up." The 2009 law to compensate widows was only put into effect last summer, so the numbers of women who have not even been registered is unknown and possibly very large.
So just using this one metric--numbers of war widows, estimated to be 2 million for all wars--we can say that there are probably a minimum of 250,000 deaths associated with this phenomenon, not 100,000. And the actual figure is likely two to three times that. (Nov. 28)
MY MITT ROMNEY STORY. (The first of two.) "I think it's an outrage that in this season of memory of those that lost their lives, that we would be inviting someone who is a terrorist to this country," Governor Romney said of a visit by former Iranian president Mohammed Khatemi. "And that in particular, this person would be invited to Harvard to come speak on the topic of tolerance. It's outrageous, and for that reason, I have instructed our state agencies, and particularly our executive office of public safety not to provide any support whatsoever for his visit. And that means not to provide the escort and security personnel which would normally be associated with a person of interest of this nature. And it may well lead to them reassessing whether they want to come to Harvard. I certainly hope so."
This interview excerpt from right-wing blogger Hugh Hewlett refers to Khatemi's 2005 visit to Harvard and MIT, the latter an event I was involved with. We thought it amusing at the time that Romney grandstanded this issue, because if you had seen the security provided by the State Department--including SWAT teams and tight precautions on every aspect of his movement, coordinated with MIT Police and Cambridge police--you would instantly see Romney's boast about refusing security as the empty threat it was. (And security against whom? The only "threats" were a few Jewish protestors at Harvard.) Special-ops guys with AK-47s drawn and sharpshooters at the ready were blanketing the MIT campus, where basically no one but a few stray, nerdy students could be seen on the sidewalks. That the state police would somehow be missed was laughable, unless we were hoping to get tickets for a meter violation.
Romney, later in the interview, equated Khatemi with Ahmadinejad on the latter's noxious comments about Israel is, as far as I know, totally false--Khatemi rejected Ahmadinejad's intemperate words, most of which were made, incidentally, after Khatemi's visit to Cambridge.
The incident, or small flap, is nonetheless typical of Romney: a flourish of gingoism, pandering to Jewish voters, ill-informed, and tone deaf on foreign policy. (Khatemi, of course, being the only Iranian leader to openly reach out to the U.S. since the revolution.) This among many other reasons--piracy at Bain, principally--is why Romney is irredeemable and unelectable. (Nov. 22)
IN BRITAIN LAST WEEK, I NOTICED HOW "GREEN" IS THE COLOR OF POLITICS, and it is worn by political leaders of all stripes. The Guardian had a story detailing how the UK is retrofitting 250,000 houses in the coming months, producing many new jobs and saving energy. This from the Conservative government. A proportional plan here would retrofit 1.25 million homes. Of course that would require the Republican Party to cooperate, which is not green, but shades of impossible. (Nov. 21)
IRAN’S NUKES ARE STILL A FIGMENT OF RIGHT-WING FANTASY, as evidenced by the IAEA report and the reactions of GOP hopefuls, Likudniks, a few alarmist academics, and much of the news media. The report of the nuclear watchdog is long on pre-2003 history and short on much that is relevant to today’s program. Iran is maintaining an interest in making weapons without doing much to get there. This has been the case for more years than I can remember. The US intelligence agencies have been predicting Iran is 2-3 years away from a nuclear weapon for the last 30 years. Crying wolf seems to be the conventional wisdom. Needless to say, this is what the Republican specialize in; since Obama’s foreign policy has largely been successful, they need to bash him on the phantom threat. They might want to ask the Joint Chiefs what they think of a war with Iran, but these chicken hawks, for all their bluster about respecting the uniform, not only did not wear one but now avoid talking to those that do. Obama’s handling of the Iran situation has generally been deft—let the noxious regime stew in its own toxic juices. (Nov. 13)
DENNIS ROSS EXITS, having a perfect record as a key U.S. negotiator and presidential adviser---a perfect record if you are a devotee of the Likud ideology of never really wanting a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. He has, more than any single individual, been central to the "peace process," and the "peace process" has deteriorated from stasis to farce, always with Israel coming out with a bit more land and no opprobrium from the U.S. Ross has been the consummate inside guy who worked for the Israeli think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, when not holding high government office. His attitude toward Iran was always belligerent as well, in keeping with the Likud line. It would be unfair to label him a fifth columnist, but that's what sensible people whisper behind his back. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see a successor in the White House with strong ties to the Palestinians? Maybe even a Muslim? The Lobby would not allow that, however, so dream on. Obama will continue to hew the line, if less enthusiastically, for at least another 12 months. (Nov. 10)
IS NETANYAHU BLUFFING? More nonsense about Israel bombing Iran. Trita Parsi parses the news flap here. Early indicators say the UN report on Iran's nuclear program will point toward weaponization, which will once again put pressure on Obama to act, but there are few options remaining after the U.S. has squandered so much in the region. More sanctions? Iran seems willing to keep on going nonetheless. The missed opportunities of diplomacy during the Clinton years, with the 2003 letter from Iran offering a grand bargain, and at the outset of the Obama years are really coming home to roost now. No crumbs in the hand, no arrows in the quiver. (Nov. 7)
MY REVIEW OF "THE SHADOW WORLD" -- about the global arms trade -- in the Washington Post is here (Nov. 6)
MY NEW PIECE ON THE BBC WEBSITE asks "why do soldiers kill?" It is pegged to the opening of the trial of Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, the ringleader of the "Kill Team" in Afghanistan that sought out and killed innocent civilians. Ugly stuff. But more common than we realize, I reckon, if not as deranged as Gibbs' escapades. Read. (Nov. 1)
MISSING IN ACTION : WOMEN AND THE ARAB SPRING. A year ago, I published with my colleague Sanam Anderlini, senior fellow at MIT and a UN consultant, a report on UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which mandated equal participation by women in peace processes, protection from the ravages of war, and a host of other very far-reaching measures. It is apparent now that this major obligation is getting nothing more than lip service from some major powers, like America.
Some soul searching about the war in Afghanistan was occasioned by the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion three weeks ago, and among the worthy topics for reflection is what has happened to the status of women. The trumpeting of women’s rights as an animating rationale for Operation Enduring Freedom was one of the war’s novel features.
We now face another historic challenge in the Arab Spring—the revolts against authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. These astonishing rebellions – many ignited by women – have had a freedom and justice agenda and staked their moral claim in such liberal values. Like Afghanistan, this is an opportunity to raise the status of women almost overnight. But the United States and the other Western powers that have backed the uprisings are turning a deaf ear to women activists in these countries.
In Egypt, the ruling council includes one woman of 30 members, and a designated number of seats for women in the parliament to be elected later this fall have been retracted. The draft constitution states that the president’s wife must be Egyptian. The harrowing possibility that family law will adopt severe religious restrictions may set back the status of women further.
Women enjoyed more rights in Tunisia than virtually any other Arab country. But even with a new election law guaranteeing gender parity, women were essentially absent from the leadership slates for this week's election, which is expected to be won by Ennahda, a moderate Islamic party.
But the most striking disconnect between rebellion’s promise and women’s status may be in Libya, which, like the others, was rocked by political change that women significantly spurred and fueled. The Libyan situation differs from the others, given NATO’s central involvement in regime change by force, and the new Libyan leaders are more beholden to the West. But in the aftermath of Qaddafi’s fall, the Libyan leadership largely excluded women from governance. There is one woman on the 43-member National Transition Council, and she is the Minister for Women. And the leader of the rebel government stated this week that Libya would be ruled by sharia law, never a good sign for women.
A commonly heard response to this uniform marginalizing of women is that these are conservative societies that require many years to change. Possibly true, but cultural norms are breached and changed constantly. If there were ever a moment to seize on behalf of gender quality, it is now. The constitutions and governance of these three countries (with more to come) are in flux. Little is set in stone, and the oft-cited cultural barriers—mainly those posed by conservative Islam—were superseded by the female role in the rebellions.
Women’s organizations in all these countries are demanding a bigger voice, and they draw not only on their authenticity as revolutionaries, but on global norms like the series of U.N. Security Council resolutions passed in the last decade guaranteeing women’s participation. They also have sizable followings in their countries.
The United States has been too quiet about this opportunity, worried about Islamic militants coming to power and thereby enabling the exclusion of women by backing traditional male elites that Washington finds acceptable. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has talked often about elevating the status of women, but she has had other, higher priorities for the region. And declaratory diplomacy is weaker than it once was.
The United States has other tools, however. Egypt’s leaders and reformers want a good relationship with the United States, and of course welcome the annual $1.5 billion in aid. Libya is facing huge challenges in avoiding civil war and rebuilding, and needs continued Western support.
Afghanistan may be the most telling example of all, because the United States had exceptional leverage over the constitution and governance. And there have been advances for women, some guaranteed in the constitution, but they’re jeopardized as anti-government forces make headway. Many activists worry that women’s status will be sacrificed in any negotiated settlement. "Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities,” one senior administration official said in March. “There's no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down."
So half the population of each of these transition countries is playing with “pet rocks,” while the real work needs to be done by men, it seems. Perhaps the next democratic transformation in values should happen in Washington. (Oct. 24)
THE REPUBLICANS' "FOREIGN POLICY" DEBATE HAS YET TO BEGIN, and yet, somehow, I think I know what it's going to sound like. They have set the bar low enough on immigration, what with Cain's electrified and deadly fence and Michelle Bachman yelling out that she'll build two fences! (I think three, lethal, 80-foot high fences really would do the trick.) Foreign policy is roughly the same. Romney and the rest like to constantly refer to Obama's handling of foreign policy as weak and "leading from behind"--no place for the mighty U.S. of A.--which of course they abhor. This arose again this past weekend following Friday's announcement that in fact we would be leaving Iraq (uniformed Americans anyway) by Dec. 31. Somehow this is regarded as a sign of weakness rather than a sign of success, which is how this band of Bushniks should seek to portray Operation Iraqi Freedom. But in the spirit of Anything-Obama-Does-Is-Bad, the announcement of one of the principal issues he ran on in 2008 (until the Bush economy went into free fall) is an occasion for saying he is a spineless anti-American.
Indeed, it's difficult to discern any new ideas coming from the right on U.S. globalism. They are split on the utility of Arab Spring, with most lamenting the twilight of the oligarchs. They demand more spending on the military, as if U.S. expenditures--equal to the rest of the world combined--were somehow placing us all in mortal peril. They don't like China, India, Russia, France, Mexico, Brazil, the EU, the UN, Muslims, and the remaining socialists. And they miss their old friends Pinochet, the Argentine junta, P.W. Botha, the Shah of Iran, and moral clarity. But like their ranting on the economy and immigration, nothing resembling a plausible policy change is in the offing. Afghanistan? Not a peep. Climate change? Hoax. Financial crisis conflagrating the world? I doubt that any of them understand it, apart from Romney, who was one of the guys lighting the matches. And, clueless to the core, they will continue chanting empty phrases about Obama's "weakness." A return to the Cold War never looked so enticing. (Oct. 24)
QADDAFI'S UNDOING. It looked a lot like Saddam's capture, until the bullet through the head, and it will occur to many that it's not over yet---the Qaddafi loyalists might mount a resistance that could turn into a civil war, something worth considering in light of Alexander Downes' essay in Boston Review. But there is one major difference between Libya today and Iraq in 2003-4: there's no occupying army. And if there is no civil war in such a fraught place, with many tribes and ethnicities and a regime that relied on violence, then it shows how such occupying armies constitute the key variable in the high incidences of civil war after regime change.
HERE IS A GLIMMER OF HOPE: LOW TECH SOLUTIONS FOR REAL PROBLEMS, sent by a friend who assures me the inventors were MIT students. Watch.
SCOTT BROWN VOTES AGAINST PAYROLL TAX CUT, INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS, AND FUNDS TO RE-HIRE TEACHERS, COPS, and others bludgeoned by the Bush recession. More reasons to want Elizabeth Warren for Senate. Brown's usual slippery excuse is that a bill should be bipartisan.....really? Bipartisan meaning being "bi" with the Party of No? The guy is a total creep. Very reminiscent of Romney -- flash without substance and hypocrisy enough to fill his empty suit. Update: He had the audacity today to tell a small business conference that "obstructionism" was to blame for DC gridlock: "Brown said the nation is in the throes of a financial emergency, yet hobbled by political obstructionism that he called 'disgusting.'" He also said he's a maverick, in effect (where did we hear this before?), not a "go along" type -- except when Kentucky senator McConnell instructs him to vote with the party, it seems. (Oct. 17) Update again: Brown votes against the pared down bill which would support re-hiring of teachers, police, and firefighters with a 0.5% surcharge on taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1 million. Amazing. He won't ask multimillionaires to help states pay for first responders and schools. And that's because he won't break with the extremists who run the Republican Party. (Oct. 20).
ALLEGED IRANIAN PLOT TO KILL SAUDI AND ISRAELI AMBASSADORS IN D.C.? Well, show me the beef. A lot of jumping to conclusions here, which will go on for a couple of days until we move on to the next distraction. Could be that it's the Revolutionary Guard, but how this benefits them is wholly unclear. I read the criminal complaint and there isn;t much there, if any, linking the Iranian state. One to watch. (Oct. 11) Update: The thinking among many Iran watchers is that this is too looney to be a Rev Guard plot. Even Dick Clarke, the former anti-terrorism czar, called it very strange. Juan Cole has a plausible take.
ANOTHER EXCELLENT 'FORUM' IN BOSTON REVIEW, THIS ON REGIME CHANGE, and I say that knowing full well that I'm one of the contributors. Alexander Downes wrote the lead piece to which several others responded--Joe Nye, Mary Kaldor, Jim Fearon, and my old friend Joanne Landy, among others. The teaser: "Our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan came after more than a hundred attempts at regime change all over the world, producing civil war and failing to promote democracy. Even with the removal of Muammar Qaddafi, our Libya expedition shows we haven’t learned our lesson." The startling fact offered by Downes: since Napoleon's defeat in 1815, the major efforts at regime change have all originated with the United States! Read.
WHILE NOT RELIGIOUS, I appreciate this pungent and humorous commentary aimed at the self-righteous. From Juan Cole's report from the widely ignored protests ongoing in "Liberty Sq.," Wall Street. (Sept. 29)
THE AMERICAN HIKERS WHO TOOK A BAD STEP INTO IRAN and which cost them two years in an Iranian prison made the useful observation that perhaps it's because of U.S.-Iranian enmity that caused them such grief. Yes, that would be safe to say. They also relayed the comments of their jailers that conditions at Guantanamo are every bit as bad as the Iranian jails. Also an acute judgment. What's not been said is that every day, Iranians are detained in the U.S. because their visas are "out of status." They are sent to detention camps, which are no picnic. It's a disgrace on both sides, well hidden, except when Americans are victims. (Sept. 27)
A VERY NICE PIECE ABOUT HEMINGWAY, appropo of nothing except the deep desire to lead a life more meaningful, exciting, and fun. In the New York Review of Books.
OBAMA'S SPEECH BEFORE THE U.N., BOILERPLATE OR MERELY FLUFF? The headlines are about the Palestinian bid for recognition at the U.N., so let's cut to those paragraphs:
I
am
convinced
that
there
is
no
short
cut
to
the
end
of
a
conflict
that
has
endured
for
decades.
Peace
will
not
come
through
statements
and
resolutions
at
the
UN –
if
it
were
that
easy,
it
would
have
been
accomplished
by
now.
Ultimately,
it
is
Israelis
and
Palestinians
who
must
live
side
by
side.
Ultimately,
it
is
Israelis
and
Palestinians –
not
us –
who
must
reach
agreement
on
the
issues
that
divide
them:
on
borders
and
security;
on
refugees
and
Jerusalem.
Peace
depends
upon
compromise
among
peoples
who
must
live
together
long
after
our
speeches
are
over,
and
our
votes
have
been
counted.
That
is
the
lesson
of
Northern
Ireland,
where
ancient
antagonists
bridged their
differences.
That
is
the
lesson
of
Sudan,
where
a
negotiated
settlement
led
to
an
independent
state.
And
that
is
the
path
to
a
Palestinian
state.
Note the use of certain phrases that are right out of the Likudnik playbook. "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN" -- which is to say, you UN diplomats are fools to think that such things matter. Violations of UN resolutions are stock-in-trade of the Israeli occupation. Thus, these resolutions are meaningless. In fact, they wouldn't be so worried about Palestine's bid for recognition as a state if they thought the UN endorsement did not matter -- it was, after all, the UN's endorsement that created and legitimates the state of Israel. "Peace depends on compromise," which is the sine qua non of all Israeli statements about the "peace process." Both sides should give up equally. But this comes from the side that occupies the other, has violated the human rights of the other systematically for 41 years, and who insists on grabbing large parts of land and all of Jeruslaem, which all independent observers believe should be Palestinian. Compromise has already come from the Arabs. Even to say that phrase shows where the president is coming from on this. But there was never any doubt of that. (Sept. 21)
//////////////////////////////////
Recent articles:
REMEMBERING HOWARD ZINN. I first met Howard Zinn in September 1972 when I entered Boston University as a PhD student, drawn there, mainly, because of him. Howard immediately impressed me in two ways: his warmth and informality, and his ferocious intellect. He was my teacher, but like hundreds of students before and after me, he also became my friend, and we remained so for the ensuing 38 years. I got to know his wonderful wife, Roz, and we would see or write each other somewhat frequently - though not often enough - over the years. His influence on me was enormous. He was further to the left than I was, but his way of thinking and writing critically was formative of my own.
Among his remarkable qualities was his self-deprecating sense of humor and his capacity - somewhat rare in the period of Vietnam protest - to balance his tireless activism with fun. He taught me that you can be fully human and be a committed social change activist. He also demonstrated, time and again, that no matter how famous and popular he became, he always had time for every one of his thousands of friends. I wrote an essay regarding one aspect of him and his legacy that I think has been overlooked. A special man in every way. From The Nation website: Read (May 6)
The Real Threat Isn't from Muslims (March 2011) in the Boston Globe takes on the xenophobic Peter King (R-NY) who has the cheek to hold hearings on the "radicalization" of Muslims in America, when indeed nearly all terrorism springs from the right wing.
What Wikileaks' Iraq documents don't tell us (Oct 2010) - The revelations about Iraq and the civilian losses were buried, with the news media accepting the lowest estimated numbers of casualties. It's not enough to have open and free technology: one needs to know enough to interpret what's being transmitted. The casualty issue is the most important thing found in Wikileaks' Afghan and Iraq documents, and the news media blew it. This article appeared in AlterNet.
"What the Women Say": a major study of the UN's attempt to give women a place at the peace table (Oct-Nov 2010) - with my colleague Sanam Anderlini, I managed a six-nation case study on the ways in which women are becoming involved in--or impeded from--peace processes. Read the study Watch the video
The Twenty Years War: How and Why Iraq (August 2010) - We have fought a war lasting two decades in Iraq, including a sanctions regime that killed 500,000 children, and there is now a regime that is largely anti-American, pro-Iranian, unstable, and corrupt. For this, more than 1 million are dead, 5 million have fled, and the U.S. has burned up $3 trillion. What happened? This article appeared in the Boston Sunday Globe.
Now, more than ever: Obama needs a theme. He can rescue the frontier myth from the likes of Sarah Palin and use it to rejuvenate America's promise. The how-to is in this December 2008 piece in the American Scholar.
The Iran Crisis, and Opportunity: a 2009 "white paper" about how to deal with a regime that is increasingly isolated and authoritarian.
* * * * * *
For news, reports, analysis, videos and blogs about the cost of the war to Iraqis
News: 100 Ways America is Screwing Up the World is on Kindle
Spoils of War: The Human Cost of America's Arms Trade has been re-issued and will be available in early 2011
The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America's Wars (Oxford) is being released now (late June-early July). You can order here
ON IRAQ WAR MORTALITY:
Iraq mortality study given thumbs up in JHU review:
READ
Analysis of the media controversy stirred by the National Journal Annotated analysis.
A solid assessment here from Center for Media and Democracy
Boston Globe op-ed: Iraq's Murky Toll
Mother Jones (Nov. 2008): Iraq war math
Media Lens analysis
Tribute to Randy Forsberg, Boston Globe, Oct 30, 2007
See the revived Cyprus Conflict site
This is JohnTirman.com
