The Mound of Sound

Are we on the verge of another “Hundred Years War”? There was a hint of that yesterday from Marine Corps General Peter Pace, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“When Pace was asked why Americans should not be dismayed at the results on the ground in Iraq, he said the enemy has “a 100 year plan according to the map they published about a year and half ago. So anybody looking for a quick win in the war on terrorism probably hasn’t read the enemy’s published intent.”

“He argued that “if we were not in Iraq right now and if we were in Afghanistan … the center of gravity would be in Afghanistan. And that is where the fight would be taking place. And I do believe that if we left both Iraq and Afghanistan that the fight would be taking place here in the United States because that is what they have said is their objective…. I believe the American people get the fact that this is fundamentally a threat to the survival of our nation and that we are going to do what we need to do to protect our children and our grandchildren. That does not mean we should not be learning from what we are doing on the battlefield.”

“The military alone cannot solve the problem of sectarian violence in Iraq, Pace said. “What has been less satisfactory is the difficulty in stopping the sectarian violence. Because fundamentally, you cannot have enough individuals under arms 24/7 on every street corner in Iraq to stop the hatred killings if someone wants to go out and do a hatred killing. And that is where the government’s part comes in and where the political dialogue comes in and where the agreements and the guarantees come in amongst the various factions. So there is a lot you can do on the military side. You cannot lose this militarily, but it is not going to be ‘won’ militarily, either.”

Kind of takes you back to those sunny days of 1441 doesn’t it? You know, before the world was consumed with war. Oh, to have those 1441 days back.

I just went through 1441 again, the Security Council’s “last chance” ultimatum to Saddam. Resolution 1441 set out a variety of terms and conditions Saddam had to meet including inspection regims and voluntary disclosures. Despite what you’ve heard from Washington and London and a handful of lesser capitals, what 1441 didn’t do was create a pretext for war against Iraq.

Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and that troll from down under, Howard, told us that 1441 gave them all the authority they needed to invade Iraq. That was the backstop argument to the claim of a right of pre-emptive war against imminent attack. The WMD fog didn’t take long to evaporate and the fallback of Resolution 1441 was equally empty.

1441 did not authorize war aganst Iraq. Tony Blair knew this. He knew that invading Iraq would be a blatant war crime unless they got a specific resolution from the Security Council authorizing an invasion. That’s why Blair tabled a second resolution at the Security Council. When a head count showed the initiative was doomed to massive defeat, Blair had it pulled off the table and they all went back to the completely disingenuous claims about 1441.

You can read the text of this resolution by doing a Google search. It’s not very long and, if you find the language a bit confusing, go to the last subparagraph, the one that says that the Security Council will remain seized of the issue. Seized means retaining jurisdiction on the question, absolutely not some implicit authorization for war on Iraq.

1441 demonstrated that the Security Council needs to be leery of Britain and the U.S. in drafting its resolutions. These are people who have shown they’ll spin language around to the point of standing it on its head.

Now the Security Council is hammering out another, potentially critical resolution, this time in reaction to the North Korean nuclear test. Meanwhile, as the LA Times reported earlier this week, there are already rumblings about an American attack on North Korea coming out of the Pentagon:

“The U.S. military’s top officer said Thursday that the Pentagon would have sufficient forces to win if called on to fight a war in North Korea, but the conflict would be more difficult without the intelligence and guidance systems devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan.Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that about 200,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving more than 2 million troops available for a war in Asia.

“Pace said a conflict with North Korea, which both he and President Bush have said is highly unlikely, would rely heavily on the Navy and Air Force because of the significant deployment of land forces in Iraq. In addition, such an attack would not be “as clean as we would like,” he said, because guidance systems used to aim bombs were in use in the Middle East.

“‘You wouldn’t have the precision in combat going to a second theater of war that you would if you were only going to the first theater of war,’ Pace told a group of military reporters. ‘You end up dropping more bombs potentially to get the job done, and it would mean more brute force.’

“Although Pace did not name specific guidance and intelligence systems, Air Force officers have said they do not have surveillance aircraft such as Global Hawk and Predator reconnaissance drones available for East Asia because of their heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unmanned aircraft are used to spy on enemy territory.”

Quick question: If the Pentagon has but 200,000 troops in the Middle East and another two-million available, why are they so undermanned in both Iraq and, particularly, Afghanistan? Just what is going on? With two wars they’re not winning, their top dog is musing about going to war with North Korea?

The United Nations Security Council had better take great care in its North Korea resolution. It had better be watertight because there are some very scary players out there and they’re not just in Pyongyang.

U.S. Army seargent Ricky Clousing is heading to jail. In fact, jail was the only place where the 24-year old’s principles and faith could lead him.

A Born-Again from Sumner, Washington, Clousing enlisted in the U.S. army believing he could serve both his God and his country. He was trained in intelligence and sent to Iraq to interrogate prisoners. His work brought him to the conclusion that the occupation was creating a cycle of anti-American sentiment and violence.

Clousing was shocked at what he saw in Iraq, particularly one incident in which his fellow soldiers gunned down an unarmed Iraqi teenager. He lodged a complaint but the army cleared the soldiers, claiming that the teen was close enough that he could have been taken for a threat. Crime: not keeping your distance. Punishment: summary execution.

From the New York Times:

“Sergeant Clousing said he looked into the eyes of the Iraqi teenager as he died and saw the unjustifiable loss of a life that unhinged him. He wrote in his journal, ‘I want to be a boy again, free of this.’”

The path that Clousing took is fascinating. He had so many easy outs laid at his feet. He just couldn’t take them:

“Back in Fort Bragg after five months in Iraq, Sergeant Clousing took his misgivings to his superiors. They sent him to a chaplain, who showed him in the Bible where God sent his people to war, the sergeant said. Then they sent him to a psychologist who said he could get out of the military by claiming he was crazy or gay. Sergeant Clousing said he had not been looking for a way out and found the suggestion offensive.

“He called a hotline for members of the military run by a coalition of antiwar groups. The man who took the call was Chuck Fager, who runs Quaker House, a longtime pacifist stronghold in Fayetteville.

“’This call was unusual,’ Mr. Fager said in an interview. He said hotline receptionists took more than 7,000 calls from or about military members last year.

“’I don’t have these kinds of probing discussions about moral and religious issues very often,’ he said. ‘I said to him, you’re not crazy or a heretic for having difficulty reconciling Jesus’ teachings with what’s going on in Iraq.’”

“Sergeant Clousing said he could not file for conscientious objector status because he could not honestly say he was opposed to all war. After several months of soul-searching, he went AWOL.”

An intruiging point is how Clousing’s friends from the Born-Again community reacted:

“He tried to talk with his church friends in Washington. Some understood him, but others said he had to support the government because of a biblical injunction to ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.’

“’They felt that God established government and we’re supposed to be submitting to authorities, and by me leaving it’s rebelling against the authority that God established,’ Sergeant Clousing said. ‘Their politics has infiltrated their religion so much, they can’t see past their politics.’”

God established government? Opposing your government is rebelling against the authority that God established? Now, I was born right the first time so I can’t pretend to have any inside knowledge of the Born-Agains but, given the integrity he’s shown throughout, I have trouble believing Clousing would be making this up.

God established government. Government isan instrument God’s authority. The President himself believes he is an instrument of God. Disobedience therefore is mortal sin. Does this sound like brainwashing to anyone or is it just me? I thought the Japanese in WWII had taken leave of their senses in believing their emperor to be divine. These people seem to think their entire goverment is divine. Kinda makes the skin crawl.

Sergeant Clousing is off to jail. A plea-bargain kept his time down to three months. After that he’ll undoubtedly receive a dishonourable discharge, an ironic outcome for a young man who struggled so hard to do the honourable thing.

I noticed something peculiar during the last Israel/Lebanon clash. Our newspapers were suddenly flooded with letters backing Israel and condemning Hezbollah. The writers were absolute in their condemnation and fierce in attacking anyone who might suggest the Israeli attacks were excessive. These letters were strident, verging on hysterical. The names indicated they were predominantly Jewish writers.

Stephen Harper jumped on the pro-Israel bandwagon damned smartly, even granting absolution for monstrous aerial bombing of civilian neighbourhoods. Our prime monster acted as though this was really an angry Israel retaliating for the kidnapping of a few of their soldiers. Right.

There were no clean hands in this. Not Hezbollah’s certainly, but not Israel’s either. Israel answered a pinprick with a sledgehammer that made a mockery of the notion of proportionality and slaughtered many innocent Lebanese.

When some Liberal politicians stood up and criticized Israel for its excesses, it prompted a great flourish from the likes of Gerry Swartz and Heather Reisman, dramatically severing ties with the Libs and boldly moving to the Regressive Conservatives.

More recently, when leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff described Israel’s attack on Qana as a ‘war crime’, more of the Jewish community bailed out in protest. Again the weasel couldn’t wait to jump in, accusing the Liberal leadership candidates of an anti-Israel bias.

These incidents reveal a powerful campaign by the pro-Israel lobby to stifle any criticism of Israel and punish anyone who deigns to speak his mind. The fact is there were no clean hands in that war, Israel did commit war crimes. No one in Canada ought to be subject to this kind of intimidation and coercion for expressing fair criticism.

What has the Liberal party really lost from these defections? Precious little. Their loss is a small price to pay for the party’s soul, it’s integrity.

If you’re interested in the unvarnished truth about Arab-Israeli violence, read this book:

This isn’t some anti-semetic rag. Hirst simply tells the truth and that’s something the pro-Israel lobby would rather avoid. If you’re doubtful about the legitimacy of Hirst and his book, a simple Google search will ease any concerns. It’s a thoroughly documented, insightful and well-balanced history of a very troubled part of our world.

Dummy or Puppet? – Your call

Huh? Exactly.

Say hi to Product Red, a marketing campaign aimed at raising money to fight AIDS in Africa. In the U.K., Amex is issuing Red Cards in support of the campaign. One per cent of all purchases is paid over to the AIDS effort. IPODs, cell phones, clothing – you can get them all in Product Red versions.

It’s all part of an encouraging rise in ethical marketing. Given the choice, people seem to be prepared to pay full price, perhaps even a little more, for a product directly linked to a cause they endorse.

Now we have “ethical clothing”, apparel that isn’t from sweat shops. In today’s Christian Science Monitor there’s a terrific story about how focussing on ethical manufacturing breathed new life into a failing textiles industry in proverty-riddled Lesotho, South Africa. Big names like Old Navy and GAP are moving to market lines of ethical clothing.

Lesotho’s textile industry had virtually collapsed. Even a depressed zone such as this couldn’t compete with Chinese manufacturers. Moving to ethical clothing put them back on their feet:

“Gap or Levi’s – or any of the myriad brands that source here – can promise customers that T-shirts and jeans made in Lesotho were not produced by sweatshop labor, and that working conditions met high safety standards.

“And in these days of socially conscious consumers, this sort of promise sells.

“‘The ethical image has value,” says Christian Kemp-Griffin, CEO of Edun Apparel Ltd, a self-described “socially conscious clothing company” with a factory in Lesotho that was started last year by Bono and his wife, Ali Hewson. “A company doesn’t have to sacrifice its margins to sell its product because it’s doing it ethically. It actually adds value for the consumer.”

“The rebirth of Lesotho’s textile business spread a sigh of relief throughout this country of 1.9 million, where there is almost no other industry besides textiles and hundreds of thousands of people depend on factory workers’ incomes.

“Analysts from around the world predicted the demise of textile industries in countries such as Lesotho since brands could make all of their clothes in cheaper, more productive Chinese factories. And true to those predictions, in 2005, a number of brands closed or reduced their operations in Lesotho. Textile employment dipped to around 40,000. That’s when Anna Tsoeu lost her job.

“But at the same time, an alliance of companies, NGOs, government representatives, and others were trying to find ways to protect the country’s industry. Already, some brands had improved working conditions in Lesotho to answer concerns about sweatshop labor. The group realized that if Lesotho could start aggressively marketing itself as an ethical source of clothing, it could retain and even grow business.

“Ethical trading gives you a competitive edge,” says Andy Selm, regional textile and apparel specialist at ComMark Trust. “You can attract a better quality of customer.”

See, things definitely can turn around – if that’s what we want.

There’s trouble brewing on the Arab Street, a lot of it.

Fawaz A. Gerges, Carnegie Scholar and visiting professor at the American University in Cairo, wrote in today’s International Herald Tribune that Muslim anger and distrust over Iraq and Palestine are deepening:

“From high school teachers to taxi drivers, America is seen as a new colonial power. Few Muslims accept the American narrative that touts democracy and freedom. They view America’s military presence in the Arab heartland as a sinister plot to divide the world of Islam and subjugate Muslims.

“‘Look at what America is doing in Iraq,’ said Hazem Salem, an Egyptian human-rights advocate in his twenties. ‘America is using democracy as a mask to colonize Muslim lands and to steal our oil.’ I reminded him that President George W. Bush claims he is promoting democracy in the Arab world. ‘No, he is promoting chaos and civil war,’ he fired back.

“When I visited the American University in Cairo, which is a stronghold of Western liberalism, many students were openly angry at America’s support for Israel. “Bush has given Israel carte blanche to attack Palestinians and Lebanese,” Rania, a teenager with strikingly dark eyes, told me in the campus courtyard. “The war on terror is an open-ended war on Muslims,” she insisted. Many students at the American University in Beirut expressed similar views.

“Recently, I attended an “iftar,” an evening meal after the daylong Ramadan fast, with hundreds of prominent Egyptians and Arabs of all political persuasions. The speaker, a moderate political leader and rising star in Egyptian society, said this year’s Ramadan coincided with a coordinated attack on Islam. “The Pope has given Bush religious justification for his war on Islam and Muslims,” he declared, as guests nodded their heads in agreement.

“I have not met a taxi driver, a fruit vendor or a teacher who does not see a connection between the Danish cartoons portraying Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, President George W. Bush’s use of the term Islamo-fascism, and Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks linking Islam and violence.

“Of course, leading European countries opposed the American venture in Iraq. The pope also said that the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq is unjust, and opposed Israel’s indiscriminate tactics against the Palestinians and the Lebanese. But in terms of quelling Muslim anger, this is all irrelevant because most Muslims see the West as united.

“An Islamic leader, Abed al- Rahim Barakat, said, “President Bush himself used the word ‘crusade’ to describe his war on terror.” “It was a slip of tongue,” I retorted. “No, it was a Freudian slip. He revealed what he feels deep inside,” he said.

“Five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Al Qaeda’s notion of a clash of religions is no longer farfetched. In both camps, there exist tiny minorities who are beating the drums, and rallying the faithful to fight in a war they believe was caused by the other.

“By staying the course in Iraq, Bush plays into the hands of extremists and alienates the floating middle of Muslim public opinion. If America really wants to win the war against Al Qaeda and its affiliates, it needs the hearts and minds of mainstream Muslims.”

The lack of vision that attends the Global War Without End on Terror is palpable. “Stay the course” has become merely an excuse for a glaring lack of insight, the complete absence of any real plan. Has anyone ever seen in George Bush any sign that he genuinely understands the people of Islam? From what I’ve seen, he views them as he wants to see them and, to the president, that should suffice.

Canada has entrusted its security against terrorism to a guy who believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve actually existed and man walked with the dinosaurs.

If he’s right, just where are the people fossils? We have an abundance of fossilized remains – fish fossils, plant fossils, dinosaur fossils, bird fossils, insect fossils, we’ve even got fossilized dinosaur poop – just no people fossils.

So, if we’re from the same age as the dinosaurs, why don’t we have the fossilized remains of great, great grandfather (to the 20th power) Billie? Wouldn’t it be great to have our ancestors up on the mantle?

Man has been interested in fossils for a long, long time. Fossils have been found in Neanderthal burial sites. It wasn’t until Leonardo, however, that man figured out these were the vestiges of life long past. But that’s still several hundred years in which to find one, even one partial, human fossil.

Sorry Stockwell, but you’re just plain goofy.

And here are some more lunatic ramblings. Guess which crazed pinko came up with this stuff:

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

And:

“Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

“Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

“Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

“Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.”