As expected last week, General David Petraeus testified before Congress about "progress" in Iraq. The mainstream media continues to portray the surge as a positive development with success possible if we only persevered. Well if all this is true, then it is time we started up the draft. The current war has placed an undue burden on the current military, and if the war in Iraq is as important as John McLain claims, then it is our duty as Americans to broadly support this effort.

The reality is that we have truly begun to take sides in an Iraqi Civil War that will become even messier now that the Shia factions have escalated their intra-sectarian fighting. One aspect of the Iraq War discussed in Ali Allawi's book, "Winning the War, Losing the Peace" that was not as well covered in other books about the war, was the intra-Shia factions that have competed for power. The current President, Al-Maliki, is aligned with SCIRI, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Their militia, the Badr Brigade, along with four others, were supported by the US military after the Transitional Government was elected in 2005. The outcasts then, as they are now, were the Mahdi Army, led by Muqtada Al-Sadr. The events we saw in Basra a few weeks ago, and those that have continued in Baghdad since, have largely pitted SCIRI against the Mahdi Army. The US military has clearly sided with SCIRI in this battle, which recently included the assassination of a key aide of Al-Sadr.

Those who support the war, will continue to find small steps in the recent past to support their active claims that we are making progress in Iraq. The reality is that their infrastructure remains undeveloped after five years, most of the money we spend is siphoned off to corruption, and the intra-sectarian battles remain a problem. The fight that occurred in Basra led to no resolution of the division of power in the city amongst several factions, which included but were not limited to SCIRI and the Mahdi Army. Since this is a major point of control and wealth for the country, this will have to be resolved for progress to be made, and it cannot be resolved without a major military confrontation, much greater and more sustained than the one we saw in late March.

I do not believe that our presence now or in the future will help resolve the conflict in Iraq. It is true that Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) exists, but they have few allies at this point. If we left the country to continue with their intra-sectarian fighting without us, AQI would have no reason to persist, as we are their foes. Without the U.S. as a target and with diminishing allies, they would continue to dwindle. In addition, those opposed to them (e.g. Shia factions), could provide us with intelligence so that we could strike at them from outside the country with drones, as we do in the border regions of Pakistan and in Yemen. So if those who want to continue this war continue to claim its strategic importance, then let them step forward and begin a draft. They could even hire Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones to do a promo using their typical concert lead song, 'Start Me Up!'.

Return to Essay List

____________________

The notion of ballistic missile defense began during the Reagan administration. His proposal became popularly referred to as "Star Wars". Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, we spent billions annually to develop such a missile defense system. The problem was, we were never very good at hitting ballistic missiles during our tests. At best, we could hit 50% of the ballistic missiles we targeted. During these tests, there was no attempt by the targeted missiles to use counter measures, nor was there any attempt to hide the location and time of when the targeted ballistic missile would be fired.

So George W Bush comes into office, and immediately says he is going to deploy a missile defense system in Alaska. He decided to spend billions on a system that is never likely to function well in the real world, as it can't even do well in a controlled test environment. At the time, the only rationale I could think of was to create a fixed military program that would be hard to remove in the future. This would in part be due to the fact that a military contractor would make billions annually by deploying such systems (see GAO report, page 93), and as a result, have a persistent lobbying presence in Washington to protect this program. The expansion of the program to Europe not only increases the revenue generated by the contractor, but further inculcates into the public mind that such a missile defense is possible (after all, why would we be spending so much for this system if it didn't work).

Thanks to Putin, Bush is finding it not so easy to establish a missile defense system in Europe. Despite assurances from Bush that Russia won't be targeted by such a system, Putin rightly claims that their national defense can not be predicated on promises, but by realities on the ground. Especially when you look at Bush's track record of broken promises (after all, Bush swore to the Europeans that military action against Iraq would be a last resort, but as soon as he got authorization from the US Congress to proceed in Oct 2002, that is exactly what he did. He showed no restraint what so ever in his use of force against Iraq, and to presume restraint of a missile defense system, would be foolish on Putin's part).

Putin can not afford to rely on the poor performance of the current system, as obviously any country pouring billions of dollars into such a system should be able to improve it over time. In addition, it will force Russia to spend billions in a counter measure program, which I'm sure could be put to better use in building a more prosperous Russia. I had always assumed that science and circumspection would win out over the nebulous dream of a functioning missile defense system. Bush has once again shown, that he is not bound by either.

Return to Essay List

____________________

Today, President Bush is again stating we need to permit the CIA to use harsh interrogation methods. He claims the use of these techniques have saved lives. If this is true, then there must be some massive operations which have been thwarted by such measures.

In the movie "Taxi to the Dark Side", they recount the use of water boarding to get information from the "20th Hijacker", Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The following is an excerpt from their website.

January 2002: In Bagram, CIA agents wrap Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi in duct tape and put him in a plywood box "for his own protection", according to FBI agent Jack Cloonan. Al-Libi is sent to Cairo. After being waterboarded, al-Libi confesses "that Iraq had given al-Qaeda training in bomb-making and poison gas". This supposed link between al-Qaeda and Iraq will become part of Colin Powell's speech to the UN that laid the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq. Al-Libi will later claim that this link was part of a "false confession" obtained through torture. The CIA will confirm that al-Libi's testimony about the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda was false.

This was the most convincing evidence we had about a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and was used as part of the pretext for our current War in Iraq (other information available, such as the Sept 2002 Iraq Dossier, contained only dated information). Since we have had nearly 4000 US Troops killed since the Iraq War began, we must have saved thousands of lives elsewhere via torture. The President claims, "This program has produced critical intelligence that has helped us prevent a number of attacks. The program helped us stop a plot to strike a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, a plot to hijack a passenger plane and fly it into Library Tower in Los Angeles, and a plot to crash passenger planes into Heathrow Airport or buildings in downtown London.".

In addition, waterboarding is minor compared to the effects of sensory deprivation. If you look at the history of this research, some of which is touched upon in "Taxi to the Dark Side", you see that sensory deprivation is so much more destructive than physical torture. Yet we act like sleep deprivation is not a big deal. I trained in Medicine in the mid-1980s, and I can assure you even one night of sleep deprivation leaves the mind clouded, slow moving and indecisive. I'm not a fan of the hawk John McBush, I mean John McCain, but at least he recognizes that torture is abominable.

I am reminded of a Get Smart episode (episode 37, "The Decoy") when Maxwell Smart is captured by Kaos. One of the three Kaos operatives is continually dismayed that they are only going to interrogate him. In his thick German accent, he repeats with disbelief, "What, no torture?".

Return to Essay List

____________________

The important point is that this surge in troop levels will not be sustainable without a draft. As a result, by the Spring of 2008, we will have begun to significantly reduce our forces in Iraq, which will surely lead to a commensurate increase in violence at that time. This will in part be due to the lack of progress on the political side, which includes a powder keg in Basra over control of oil, but also a return of the insurgency, which has laid low during the past six months.

If Congress insists on cutting funding for the war at this time, Bush will have a PR victory in the Spring, when he can blame the increase in violence on this lack of funding. It would be more prudent for the Congress at this time to give the President sufficient funds to continue with his ultimately failed strategy (ie the war), and develop a more comprehensive plan to end the war once it is clear the surge was nothing more than a transient diminution of insurgent activity.

Return to Essay List

____________________

When we attacked Kuwait in 1991, we had 500,000 troops in the operation (Desert Shield and Desert Storm). The initial planning for an attack on Iraq, before Rumsfeld devised a new way of determining how many troops would be needed, required 300,000 troops (Fiasco, page 96). So my question is, how will the 160,000 troops we will have in Iraq after the "surge" acheive the strategic objective of a stable functioning democracy? The reality is we still have not controlled Iraq's borders. As a result, our opponents have been able to improve not only their armaments, but also their military training and tactics. The only way to realistically increase our troop levels to acheive a stable Iraq would be through a draft. Since anyone who you mention the idea of a draft to just looks down, and says it won't fly underscores the impossible military situation we are currently in. Even worse, those who are part of the active military are planning for their fourth and fifth deployments to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. The active military and their families have had to shoulder an unfair burden as part of this war, and we are still doing absolutely NOTHING to deal with it.

So what can we acheive in Iraq? Since we have followed a steady downward trajectory of "success" in Iraq, it is time we plan our departure, trying to maximize stability within Iraq and the Middle East at large, and minimize attacks on our troops as we move our massive military infrastructure out of Iraq (Thomas Ricks discusses this challenge in this audio link). Why is it imperative that we leave now?

1) We have steadily lost the support of the Iraqi people. If you look at any measure of Iraqi satisfaction with US involvement in their country, they have all declined over time, and there is no reason to think this trend will change with the continued worsening violence in the country. Rule 1 in a counter insurgency (ala Petraeus) is to win the hearts and minds of the people (Fiasco, page 266). We have failed.

2) The insurgents have shown an significant military capability including an ability to improve their weapons and tactics over time. In addition, they have shown marked ability to develop effective counter tactics.

3) We continue to be an irritant which would best be removed to promote healing. There is a maxim in Medicine that a wound won't heal if there is a foreign body present. Despite our remarkable abilities to heal, even a single stitch left behind will tend to fester, and prevent a complete recovery. Needless to say, we are the foreign body in Iraq. We are as much a provocateur as we are a stablizing force.

4) There are long standing cultural divides in Iraq, which affect not only stability within Iraq, but also stability in the Middle East at large. This has actually been an expanding ring of repercussions, and may ultimately be one of the more serious, long term consequences of this foolish war.

a) Iran: Their contribution to our quagmire in Iraq has contributed to our weakening influence in the world, and has augmented their status in the region. Because we have never controlled their border with Iraq, they have had a major influence within the Shia population. In addition, it would be very hard for us to limit this influence at this time without directly confronting Iran militarily. This of course, is not particularly threatening to Iran, because they know that any ground invasion by the US would be met with an even larger, hostile insurgency than the one we have encountered in Iraq. We could of course bomb them, but George W Bush has stated many times in the past, that he doesn't attack by "swatting at flies".

b) Turkey: The Kurds were such an obvious problem before the war that we tried to buy Turkey off with 35 billion dollars. Turkey refused to take any dollar amount to assist in any way the development of a Kurdish state. Now you have the PPK (the Turkish Kurds, terrorists according to the Bush definition) are taking safe harbor in Kurdish Iraq while launching a series of new attacks within Turkey. Turkey has been shelling the border of Kurdish Iraq over the past few weeks, and it is only a matter of time before they invade Kurdish Iraq.

c) Lebanon: They will likely be back in a full fledged civil war before the year is out (the BBC interviewed several people on the streets of Beirut last week and their worries over a further escalation were frightening). There continue to be monthly major political assassinations, largely parties with sectarian ties (Shia and Sunni). Syria appears to be supporting Sunni parties in the north. Iran tends to be supporting Shia in the south (including Hezb'allah). There has been a large Shia protest encampment in central Beirut since last fall led by Nasrallah. Not only has there been major Shia/Sunni tension in the north, Hezb'allah and Israel had a major conflict last June, that was never fully resolved.

d) Palestine: Life in Gaza has gone from living in Hell to worse. It reminds me of the final line from Stevie Wonder's "Village Ghetto Land", "tell me would you be happy, in Village Ghetto Land". If I were 20 and lived in Gaza, with its nearly 100% unemployment, I would likely be part of a militarized group! So there are plenty of potential combatants. What has changed, has to do with Iran's increasing influence, and their ability to arm and train Hamas. It was widely stated (in the international media) by Fatah during the recent fighting, that Hamas showed sophisticated military training, tactics and firepower. They sure didn't learn this from Egypt (the only connection Gaza has outside of Israel). Once again, Bush and Blair took a stubborn, do it "our way or the highway" approach with Hamas, after they were democratically elected to run the Palestinian Parliament last year. This inability to talk to our foes while maintaining an unbending policy forces a stand off, as opposed to our resolution. I just saw Christopher Hill, US envoy to North Korea, on Cspan last night talking about how successful his talks were with North Korea. After six years, we finally dealt directly with them, and it was successful. However, during the stubborn, intransigent phase, North Korea actually attempted to detonate (unsuccessfully) a nuclear weapon. Needless to say, we are continuing to push Hamas away while acting like Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) really can do something constructive (after all, if Israel releases 300 million in taxes legitimately owed to the Palestinian's to the PA, half of it will likely be skimmed off by a very corrupt PA).

So let's get real, and start planning how to get out of this quagmire in Iraq as best we can. We won't come out smelling like roses, but maybe we won't come out smelling as poorly as we did when we left Viet Nam in 1975, with people hanging on to departing helicopters.

Return to Essay List

____________________

I found it very saddening today when I updated our listing of Military Suicides in Iraq. The vast majority of the military suicides in 2006 were less than 25 years old, though several were over 40. It was hard to imagine the despair they must have felt, before they became another, "non-combat related fatality". They couldn't fathom going on one more patrol, one more mission. Many were on leave outside the theater of operations. The thought of going back was a thought they couldn't contemplate even one more time.

The sadness of war is in part due to the incredibly difficult circumstances soldiers find themselves in. When our leaders send our soldiers into battle, they become exposed to circumstances they could never have contemplated. The natural human tendency to view the enemy with hate becomes reinforced every day. This contributes to abuse (eg Abu Ghraib), unnecessary killing of civilians (eg Haditha), and in some, the inability to live with themselves. It suggests our inability to care for our soldiers isn't limited to Walter Reed, but even in the context of active service, 3-4% become sufficiently despondent to kill themselves.

In addition, the families of these victims have to not only live with the loss of a loved one, but they can't even rationalize their loss as part of a noble cause. Though I have focused on the military suicides, I received an email earlier this month from the wife of a suicide victim who had worked for KBR. He spent 18 months in Iraq, but after four months of service, she noted a dramatic change in him. Within four months of his return, he had committed suicide, leaving her and their daughter with "an emptiness that will never be filled". One of the chores he had been responsible for was cleaning up the mess left behind when young soldiers had killed themselves.

Suicide is always a painful topic. However, the horrors that lead to it and result from it should not be ignored. A war that has led to this level of hopelessness in those involved in prosecuting it is telling us something. Are we listening?

Return to Essay List

____________________

I believe there was an even more sinister Media role in this whole affair. This view has been in part derived from information Joan Mellen presented in her book, "A Farwell to Justice". During the investigation of the JFK assassination by Jim Garrison, he confronted a hostile media in every city that was actively involved in his investigation (e.g. New Orleans, Miami, Washington). Nearly 40 years after the fact, we now know that these media stories were purveyed by "media assets" of the CIA. The media assets of the CIA were numerous enough, that they had a specific way of naming them. For example, AMCARBON-3 referred to a Cuban (AM) Media (CARBON) asset (see page 253 along with her Notes at the back of the book).

So how does this relate to the Scooter Libby case. Well first and foremost is Judith Miller. Clearly she was a mouth piece for the administration point of view prior to and during the early Iraq War. In fact, in Fiasco, Thomas Rick's book about the Iraq War, he reveals that she had information about the search for "weapons of mass destruction" that was not even available to the military personnel who were leading the investigation (pg 382). How was Judith Miller getting information that was unavailable to the actual officers in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction? I can assure you it wasn't information she was getting from her editors (nor likely from Ahmed Chalabi, either).

Also, the nauseating post-Libby conviction spin by the right, has all the hallmarks of a campaign by media assets. Who is leading this campaign? Well, maybe in 40 years we'll know. But for now, I think it is important to realize that our assumption that the media is unbiased is flawed at its core. In addition, we are constantly subjected to misinformation, which is placed before us to deliberately mislead us, just as was done during the Garrison investigation 40 years ago.

Return to Essay List

____________________

The revolution will not be televised. Gil Scott-Heron popularized this line in an earlier era. Well, it turns out today, without TV, you can't get your message across. No air time, no revolution. What was it about yesterday's anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. that finally got the mainstream media's attention? Surely it was not the size. Well over 100,000 attended the 24 September 2005 anti-war rally in DC, and an even larger number took to the streets in NYC on 29 April 2006. When both of these rallies occurred, there was widespread knowledge that the pretense for this war was a lie, and that the implementation of the Bush "strategy" was a debacle. Yet there was nary a whisper by the mainstream media after these events. There was a brief mention of Cindy Sheehan by some mainstream media outlets after the Sept 05 DC rally. After the NYC rally, the only media report that appeared was an inaccurate account by the AP's Desmond Butler, and even this had limited dissemination.

Yesterday's anti-war rally has had widespread front page, and lead news story coverage. If size wasn't the factor that led to this improved coverage of the anti-war movement, what was it? Was it the surge? The troop surge by Bush has led to a media surge of the peace movement? Maybe the media's new interest is due to a shift in the political winds, with a divided government more likely to push a peace agenda? In my mind, what really stands out is the All-Star cast that was assembled for this rally. The top speakers at the Sept 05 rally were Cindy Sheehan, Ramsey Clark and George Gallagher. Despite the DC location for this rally, there were no Congresspeople present. At the NYC rally, there were some of yesterday's notables (eg Jesse Jackson and Susan Sarandon), but there was no effective rally due to the limited space in Foley Square, with an inability of the throngs of marchers to gather as a unit and display their contempt for the current Iraq War. Neither of these events was filmed.

In the weeks preceding yesterday's event, I attended a couple meetings of Boston area peace activists . It was clear that fewer people would be going to DC than had attended the prior rallies. I was one of those who opted not to attend, in part because at one meeting, we learned that United for Peace was still working on a speakers list, with uncertainty over who they would be able to add to the list. In addition, I learned that the organizers were more focused on having an effective lobbying effort set for tomorrow, Monday, January 29th, than having a large peace rally. Clearly the All-Stars stepped forward for this rally. Not only did three Congresspeople attend, but four major Hollywood stars, a prominent rapper, and many disenfranchised members of the US Government. In particular, Jane Fonda's presence was specifically noted by both the BBC in their lead story on the rally, and as a side comment on Fox News' Beltway Boys. To top it off, the rally was carried live on C-span. I couldn't believe my eyes. I had flipped through several TV channels at 1pm to see if the headline news channels had anything on the rally. Lo and behold, Jesse Jackson appears on my screen, rousing the crowd at the rally (I will post a link to the C-span video when it is available).

So what should be the strategy of the peace movement going forward? Continued efforts to support protest from the active duty military is clearly important. The appeal for redress continues to prosper as a protest tool against the war. There are also plenty of baby boomer peace activists, ready to rally when needed. But what the movement really needs is better coverage by the mainstream media, so the anti-war perspective is not just an afterthought, or maligned by "cut and run" comments. If the All-Stars are willing to stay on the hotseat, and fight the fight with us, then our chances for reaching a broader audience with the peace movement is possible. If not, we may return to the status quo, where only independent media is covering the anti-war effort.

Return to Essay List

____________________

Prime Minister Maliki has now joined the chorus opposing the deployment of more US troops to Iraq. He said if we just supplied more armaments to Iraq, they could do a better job and we could even reduce our troop levels.

This is the folly with Bush's (and John McCain's plan) to send more troops to Iraq. There are so many reasons not to do it, that we find a new reason to oppose it nearly every day. This new attempt, by the seductive Maliki, is only to further strengthen the Shiite hold on power. The Sunni's remain isolated from the political process, and surely won't have access to these new arms. The Kurds have been functioning autonomously for over a decade, and feel it is just a matter of time before they become independent. They also will see no such US arms (unless we delivered them to the Kurds directly, as we did before the war).

At least the Congress acts like they see the writing on the wall. Whether they will have the temerity to follow through and get us out of this mess remains to be seen. However, adding more armaments before the Iraqi's have truly built an inclusive security force, is as foolish as adding more US troops before a serious attempt is made by the Iraqi government to govern. A recently leaked NSA memo conceded that all the empiric evidence supported a deliberate attempt by the Shiites to use the current government to consolidate power.

So we have a divided state, with no path for reconciliation clear, where Bush plans to add fuel to the fire. Never mind the fact that every time we have escalated our involvement, the level of violence has increased. Never mind the fact that our forces lost the confidence of the Iraqi on the street a long time ago. Let's just act like the Iraqi government really does have its interests aligned with ours. For when we finally recognize that our interests are aligned with no one in the battle for Iraq, we will have no choice but to leave, even if George W Bush is still our President.

Return to Essay List

____________________

This is not a new tactic, though it has been gaining popularity of late. I first heard it expressed last week as a comment on the BBC World Service's Newshour program. It wasn't hard to find a more prominent example in the mainstream media. All I had to was go to Fox.com, and check out one of the commentators. I chose Oliver North, since he proved himself such a reliable witness during the Iran Contra hearings in the mid 1980s.

Writing in the column, "Colonel's Corner", North argued two major points in his essay, "Vietnam and Iraq: Myth vs. Reality". The first was that the Viet Cong and the Iraqi resistance are structurally different from a military point of view, and thus, not comparable. The important aspect that Mr. North overlooks, is that both culturally have fought foreign occupiers throughout their history, and will fight an occupier incessantly until they leave.

The other comparison of the two wars that Mr. North takes issue with is casualties. He actually focuses on just war dead. He notes the daily mortality rate in Viet Nam was 15/day versus 2/day in Iraq. This of course overlooks the difference in medical technology between wars that are 30 years apart. There were not CAT scans nor MRIs during Viet Nam. There wasn't even molecular biology. Thus, when you include the fact that another 20 soldiers a day are wounded, some of them which would have been fatal during the Viet Nam era, even this comparison to Viet Nam rings hollow.

Oliver North concludes, "The war in Vietnam wasn't lost during "Tet '68" no matter what Walter Cronkite said. Rather, it was lost in the pages of America's newspapers, on our televisions, our college campuses - and eventually in the corridors of power in Washington. We need to pray that this war isn't lost the same way."

Does opposition to the Iraq War undermine our chance of victory? If we look at Viet Nam through an objective lens like "Fog of War" or "Sir, No Sir", we see Viet Nam was lost through a multitude of reasons, none of which were due to the public's belief that the war in Indochina was wrong. At a similar stage during the Viet Nam conflict, when Richard Nixon was a former Vice President, and was still working on becoming President, he gave a speech to the VFW (Veteran's of Foreign War) convention in NYC (1966). He said, "opposition to the war in this country is the single greatest weapon working against the US".

President Bush is back to his drum beat, "if we don't fight them over there, we will have to fight them here". While he is back to obfuscating the War in Iraq with 9/11 and an appropriate American response to it, those of us opposed to the war need not bow to their recycled rhetoric. After all, Nixon was wrong in 1966, as he was with most of his decisions in Viet Nam. It appears that it is incomprehensible for the President, as Commander in Chief of such an incredibly, talented army, that we could fall, at some level, to a foe. This folly, and not that of a concerned public over a foolish foreign policy, is the true enemy of peace.

Peace is Patriotic!

Return to Essay List

____________________

Though some argue that our lack of will was the reason we lost, Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defense during the Viet Nam War, found out that was not the case when he met his Vietnamese counterpart, General Vo Nguyen Giap, in 1995. McNamara revealed in the documentary, "Fog of War", that Gen. Giap was stunned by his lack of knowledge about Vietnamese history. He asked McNamara while gesticulating wildly, 'Didn't McNamara know that the Vietnamese fought foreign domination by the Chinese for 1000 years?'

McNamara concluded that in War, you must know your enemey. Do we know the Iraqis? When we assumed the Iraqi National Congress was representivative of the average Iraqi, we were wrong. When Prime Minister Maliki released a deputy of Muqtada Al-Sadr yesterday that had been captured by the US Army for killing its troops, the US Army leadership was appalled.

Do we know our enemy in Iraq? The evidence suggests we do not. Will more US troops in Iraq or a longer occupation lead to stability? Our Vietnamese experience suggests not. This is the lesson of Viet Nam President Bush needs to learn, not that the Tet Offensive was a propaganda success by the Viet Cong.

jerry sobieraj
boston, MA

Return to Essay List

____________________

The goal of all this, of course, would be to achieve a 110th Congress next year that would implement a peace agenda. However, after completing the process (http://peaceispatriotic.org/peaceCandidates.html), I realized that the numbers didn't add up to peace. The most glaring problem was that Republicans had only a single Peace Candidate, Alan Fine of Minnesota. Yet, even his presence wouldn't affect the fact that any Republican elected would in essence be a vote against peace. Alan Fine was running in Minnesota's 5th District, which had three Peace Candidates, with the race expected to be won by Keith Ellison, the Democratic Peace Candidate.

Since every Republican elected would be a vote against peace in the next Congress, if Republicans didn't retain their majority in the House, surely that would result in a peace agenda, wouldn't it? This would assume that all the non-Republicans elected were Peace Candidates. Since non-Republicans elected to Congress would likely be Democrats, it turned out that this wouldn't be much better. A tally of Peace Candidates showed only 49% of Democrats running for national office met our definition. In fact, many Democratic incumbents didn't even list the War in Iraq as an issue on their official web sites.

The omission of the war as an issue did not appear accidental either. When a search of an incumbent Congress person's web site didn't turn up a press release or statement regarding Iraq, we still needed a way to evaluate their stance on the war. Fortunately, HR 861, a House bill proposed to support the "Global War on Terrorism", was a unique resource for fathoming Congressional views on the War in Iraq. Some Congress people had press releases with their statements on HR 861 posted on their web sites, though a dozen Peace Candidates did not post their comments about HR 861 on their web sites (I found their statements on Thomas, the web site of the National Library of Congress). The more secure a Democrat appeared to be in retaining their seat, the less likely they were to have Iraq on their web site. As the safety of an incumbents seat increased (e.g. running unopposed), the likelihood that they even had a statement about Iraq in the Congressional Record decreased. In addition, long term incumbents were much more likely to have out of date web sites (e.g. one didn't have anything regarding the 109th Congress, with press releases from the 108th Congress listed as "current"), and very sparse representation in Thomas (e.g. several had a tenth of the entries in the Congressional Record compared to someone early in their careers).

Does this make voter pledges for peace meaningless? In some cases, yes. For example, Indiana has 10 Congressional races and no Peace Candidates. If you live in Indiana, there is no way you can vote for a Peace Candidate. People in Districts that have no Peace Candidates (only 59% of races have a Peace Candidate), first have to create Peace Candidates. Since many Democrats recognize the War in Iraq as misguided, some of them could be convinced to support a more precise timeline for removing our troops. The peace movement clearly has work to do. If getting pledges for peace in Districts without Peace Candidates can result in a lobbying effort after the election to support our removal from Iraq, then it will remain a worthwhile effort.

Return to Essay List

____________________

Pan American Health Organization: Cuba Health Profile



Return to Essay List

____________________

The juxtaposition of the articles by Jeffrey Sachs and Ray Kurzweil in the July issue of SciAm raise the question of whether a stable economic system with affordable energy and meterials can be sustained long enough to yield the full benefits of a reprogramable biology. We are already at 380 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, with no prospect for a decrease in the coming decades. If the resulting altered climate exacerbates our current political and economic conflicts, our ability to divert resources to technology will become more problematic. As a result, our ability to block the insulin receptor will be moot when our life of caloric excess disappears with our coastlines.

jerry sobieraj boston, MA

Return to Essay List

____________________

Return to Essay List

____________________

Return to Essay List

____________________

Return to Essay List

____________________

Return to Essay List

____________________

Finally, let us not forget that President Bush still owes us a year of military service. He found it unnecessary to report for his service in the Air National Guard in Georgia in 1971, which likely was safer than a tour in Vietnam would have been. Why he was never declared AWOL remains a mystery.
Peace, Jerry.

Return to Essay List

____________________

Return to Essay List

____________________

If Bush thinks we are going away he is wrong. I think having all those troops over there is a good idea, as Saddam is finally coughing up some material. I just hope GW is smart enough to not actually use them. Since so many are praying for him to have the wisdom to do the correct thing, this should be a no brainer for him. Since he has no brain, I guess he can't go wrong. You should head up to SF the next time they have a big one up there. If interested:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org

Just say NO to war!
jer

Return to Essay List

____________________