Israel in Gaza: An Alternate Scenario

[cross posted at E Pluribus Unum]

I was born in the Middle East and I still have family there -- on both sides of the expanded conflict.

I've written about this in a couple of diaries over the years. Here's one. Here's another.

Long story short, you'll find no greater defender of Israel than I. Which is why it pains me to say that the latest incursion into Gaza is making Israel weaker, not stronger, by repeating the mistakes of the Lebanon incursion of 2006.

Bottom line: it's time for Israel to try something new because the application of military force will not solve Israel's problems in the long run.

I'd like to sketch out an alternate scenario. But first, a recap...

Where We Stand Today

The Israelis have three explicit and implicit objectives which they hope to achieve going in to Gaza:

1. To stop the rocket attacks into Israeli territory.


2. To stop the supply of terrorist materiel into Gaza.


3. To cripple Hamas' leadership to the point that they will think twice about firing rockets again -- or to stop them from thinking altogether.

These were the same objectives that the Israelis had in striking back at Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war. And while Gaza is a smaller military objective and the application of Israeli force is greater (and with smarter more talented people running it), they're still faced with the historical fact that in 4th generation warfare, the smaller force wins by not losing and the larger force loses by not winning.

Yes, Olmert can stop the rocket attacks for a time (although that hasn't happened quite yet). Yes, the Israeli Defense Forces can destroy the tunnels and other supply lines into northern Gaza (until they are established again elsewhere).

But as for toppling Hamas (not an explicit objective but a real one just the same), for every Hamas leader killed, there will be 10 Gazans who will revere his memory and vow to seek revenge against the Israelis. It's not rational; it just is what it is.

Hatred is fungible; destroying its supply-lines by force is impossible.

Is There An Alternative?

Yes, but it requires both sides to admit that their counterparts are in the region to stay -- for good. The people of Israel and the people of Gaza (and the West Bank for that matter) must come to terms with the idea that they will be living next to each other for a long, long time to come. Neither side is going to go away. Israel will not be pushed into the sea and the Palestinians will not be going away either.

In other words, if you think this is a fight to the death -- of either Israel or of Hamas (or whoever is the next terrorist organization to spring up in their place) -- then it would be a good idea to start looking around for more alternatives.

Middle Eastern Treaty Organization

For starters, I think the US should promote a Middle East Treaty Organization (METO , like NATO) made up of Israel, the US, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. If the Saudis want to join, fine. All of these parties would be at least receptive to the idea that they could balance the power of an ascendant Iran (and its pawns, Hezbollah and Hamas).

For example, I strongly believe that Iran has no interest in nuking Israel. If they're going to nuke anyone, it's the Saudis. The Saudis have all the rest of the oil not already controlled by Iran; and they have Mecca as well; and lastly, they are Sunnis. Israel and the Saudis have a common foe. Why not ally themselves against it?

Middle East Free Trade Association

Not only that: I think the same parties should also get going with a Middle East Free Trade Association (MEFTA, like NAFTA) made up of the same parties -- Israel, the US, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. Why not? Those parties must know that if the Arabs and the Jews got together they'd take over the world -- they'd have all the brains AND all the oil.

Seriously, both sides are going to have to put aside past grievances to get to a place where they can entertain these alternatives. There's nothing to be gained by the Israelis in pointing out, yet again, the inherent antisemitism in the European reaction to the latest war. And there's nothing to be gained by the Palestinians in accusing Israel, yet again, of being a colonialist subjugator of their Arab neighbors. Enough. None of this is news and none of it helps them achieve their common objective which is to live side-by-side in some semblance mutual cooperation.

The solutions have to be big and bold. And the US has to be engaged in seeing to it that both sides give a little to get a lot in return. The sooner that happens, the better off we'll all be.

But...But...I Thought We Won The War?

VIA The Big Australian Marsupial:

"Yes, Bush's policies failed utterly," said Allawi, describing the U.S. administration that once backed him. "Utter failure. Failure of U.S. domestic and foreign policy, including fighting terrorism and economic policy." ~Reuters

• Saturday: 4 Iraqis Killed, 11 Wounded
• Friday: 35 Iraqis Killed, 123 Wounded
• Thursday: 13 Iraqis Killed, 10 Wounded
• Wednesday: 2 US Soldiers, 14 Iraqis Killed; 70 Iraqis Wounded

That's just since New Years Eve.

Frickin' Lasers!

We got ray guns folks. Real nasty, precision-guided airborn lasers that can take out vehicles or people without anyone knowing where it came from.

The attack described would seem to have quite a distinct signature, and no other nation has similar lasers ready to deploy (as far as we know).The laser is silent and invisible, and can strike at long range in darkness, so witnesses need to be aware there was a US aircraft in the area. Without any previous cases to go on, no pathologist could definitely say that a laser was involved. The injury might resemble a lightning strike more than anything else.

First indication of the attack is when it lights the target's clothes on fire as his body is vaporized, just like something out of Star Trek. The six ton machine is carried on board a C-130 gunship and aimed with pinpoint accuracy has been requested for deployment against insurgents in Iraq.

And the enemy will only be sure it was us who disintegrated their comrades when and if we brag about the kill. I'm assuming there is no "stun" setting and you won't be able to get a concealed carry permit for the hand-held version for quite some time.

Your tax dollars at work. Designing new and better ways of killing each other.

And yes, they're looking at this as part of a missile defense system as well.

Framing Flaw: War/Occupation Vs. Colonialization

What else would you call a perpetual occupation of Iraq, the "hundred years" presence John McCain envisions? Right now, contrary to the desires of the vast majority of Iraqi citizens, and quite different from the way both Senators McCain and Obama frame their positions on the "war," we are negotiating an agreement with our clients obstensibly governing Iraq that would require the US military to stay indefinitely in those permanent bases we've been building.

As observant folks have been warning from the get-go, that Billion Dollar "Fortress America" Embassy in the Green Zone as well as the 14 permanent bases are being built to last. [Oh, excuse me. The politically correct term is "temporary bases" which our aptly name Iraq Ambassador, Crocker says we intend to occupy "indefinitely."]

I think this is a framing issue. McCain and Obama will argue for the next five months about judgment and experience, rehashing who was right when about the start of the war and the "surge" and what to do, (if anything) about Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan, until we're just sick to death of it. However, disturbing as it may sound, their respective ideas for every Middle Eastern nation other than Iraq aren't all that different, never were.

But when Obama states, eloquently I might add, that "We must be as careful getting out as Bush was careless getting into Iraq," and speaks of the best case scenario for doing so, the idea that he represents the anti-imperial sentiment both here and abroad is somehow not emphasized enough. John McSame offers the failed dystopian dream of Pax Americana, a world where we enforce our dominance, just for the sake of continuing our world-wide domination, through aggression and war and cluster bombs and tanks and laser guided munitions, and a lot of our blood and treasure as we take and destroy a lot more of other people's blood and treasure.

On this issue more than any other, a nonchalant attitude about the length of our stay in Iraq, peacefully or otherwise, is the continuation of the Bush/Cheney brand of imperialism.

The choice between the two can be summed up in one question. Do you believe America should make Iraq a permanent colony?

There are honest arguments on both sides of that question, but in the end (as usual) the Republicans know that they can never win that debate if honestly presented -- which is of course why we were lied into this catastro-phuque in the first place.

Iran: NO EVIDENCE OF BOMB PROGRAM

Sunday: 83 Iraqis Killed, 53 Wounded

Four years of inspections -- nothing.

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE ANY NUCLEAR WEAPON RELATED PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.
And even if they do have some suspicious blueprints, it ain't worth going to war over -- period.

. . . experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

***

''Iran is seeking a nuclear capability . . . that some people fear might lead to a nuclear-weapons capability,'' [Undersecretary of State Nicholas] Burns said in an interview Oct. 25 on PBS.

"I don't think that anyone right today thinks they're working on a bomb,'' said another U.S. official, who requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

Got that kids? You can almost hear the "but...but...but" from the rightwing warmongers. Ignore them.

When they say, "but Iran want's the bomb," ignore them. Tell them you want the bomb too. In fact, tell them that you want the bomb and want to be Attorney General too, because like Mukasey, you aren't Alberto Gonzales either.

Two simple words must return to the debate about any war that Dick Cheney or George W. Bush suggest -- "Prove It."

Pakistan always was a bigger problem than Iran when it came to WMD's -- and is an even bigger worry today. You'd never know that from the Administration's tepid response to Musharraf imposing Martial Law. In fact, one could reasonably conclude Bush gave Musharraf the green light. But of course, until someone breaks into Cheney's man-sized safe, we'll never be able to prove that.

Stay tuned, because unlike the rest of the Versailles Press, "McClatchy Newspapers will examine key questions surrounding the Bush administration's confrontation with Iran."


End Of Post

What Is News?

**Sunday: 63 Iraqis Killed, 58 Wounded

** What's This?
THIS is the news, ignored by all of us. Even when we argue about the horrific toll the Iraq war takes every day, more often as not, those of us in the United States are only talking about American Casualties, mainly because out government conveniently only has provided hard, verifiable numbers on the cost in blood and treasure to us, and not what hell we've unleashed in Iraq.

I've put the running ticker at the top left of this page, and will be adding a link to the daily count at the beginning of each day's entries from now on.

Even the estimable Dean's World should have no problems with these estimates since a year ago they accepted a 600,000 estimate which the vast majority of right wing bloggers, pundits and politicians rejected out of hand.

Click the link for an explanation and to get your own Iraqi War Dead Estimator.

Turks Bomb Kurds -- It's On.

Another triumph of Bush's diplomacy efforts and Middle East Strategy. The only peaceful area in Iraq, both sides are our allies, and it blows up.

Heckuvajob George.

More Gangster Mercs On A Shooting Spree

One Iraqi policeman likened the guards to "gangsters riding away".

Compliments of IraqSlogger and ePluribus Media who recounts the story from the BBC:

Women and children

According to eyewitnesses, the masked security guards threw a smoke bomb and opened fire on a car which was driving close to the four-vehicle convoy they were protecting.

Two women in the car were killed and a third was injured.

One eyewitness, shopkeeper Ammar Fallah, said the guards had signalled for the car's woman driver to pull over as they passed.

"When she failed to do so they opened fire, killing her and the woman next to her," he told AFP news agency.

"There were two children in the back seat but they were not harmed. The women were both shot in the head."

As if it would make any difference to the depraved child stalkers and indifferent torture apologists on the right, but the ladies were members of Iraq's Christian minority, truly innocent bystanders to the hell we unleashed there.

No, Shi'ite happens I guess. They were in the way.

Carol White:

U.S. contractors, this time from Dubai gunned down two women who were in a car with their two children. Apparently the contractors were attempting to speed traffic up in order to move a troop convoy whom they were escorting. When the car did not move quickly enough to suit them they shot into it killing the women. This is not a situation in which U.S. troops or the contractors were under attack. It appears to have been a cold-blooded killing. "Do what we tell you or you history," seems to be the lesson.

MSNBC has video...

Speaking of Shi'ite happening...

Shi'a Forces Reported to Clash South of Baghdad

"Violent clashes" broke out south of Baghdad between two powerful Shi'a militias, according to an unconfirmed report by an influential Sunni Iraqi religious organization."

More...

After 4 1/2 years of unending success, the Air Force is still dropping 500- and 2000-lb. bombs in populated areas of Iraqi cities, including Baghdad.

For more on this little bit of security excess sucess, 25 Killed, 40 Wounded In US Double Air Strike In Iraq.

How about this development Turkey Ready to Launch Attack on Kurdishish Border Region Inside of Iraq.

Sounds good to me. Let's see if any more of our NATO allies want to join the party like we handled things in the former Yugoslavia. (And yes, that was snark. It look's like the Turks are really going for it.) And frankly, I don't know if Iran closing their border with Iraq is a good thing or not. The fact that Iran is shelling Kurdish bases in Iraq will delight Turkey, but doesn't bode well for any peace, anytime soon.

In fact, I fear it's going to get uglier than we ever imagined. But if you aren't freaked out enough, reports from our paranoid Isreali militant conspiratists at DEBKAfile prompts this Freeper to conclude:

U.S. Airbase In Syria? First Permanent U.S. Presence Since Beirut ‘83

Never underestimate the power of a MilBlogger to mess with your head. First of all, the area we're talking about is in Lebanon. But to hear them talk about it, you'd think it was a suburb of Damascus.

The air base, according to DEBKAfile’s military sources, will be
located at Kleiat in northern Lebanon roughly 75 air miles from
Damascus, which these days doubles as a shared Syrian-Iranian military
hub and Tehran’s eastern Mediterranean forward base. The American air
installation will also lie 22 air miles from Tartous, Syria’s main
naval base and the Russian Mediterranean fleet’s command center. And
the aircraft posted there will be minutes away from the joint
Syrian-Iranian arms and missiles industries at Homs and Hamma.

Everything in Lebanon, and half of Northern Israel is 75 miles from Damascus. Geez, guys, buy a map.

I think it's all a some forward based Patriot missile batteries some American technicians are installing, but that won't stop these guys from figuring two guys with a tape measure are really scouting locations for the next Ramstein airforce base. They're still convinced Saddam's WMD's are buried in the Bekka Valley.

More

My dad cracked me up a few months after I got married. Noting that we were trying to make a baby, he told me that if we were having trouble do what they always did at work when falling behind schedule -- put more men on the job.

Yeah, I get a lot of my sense of humor from Dad.

Anyway, that seems to be the theme of Andrew Bacevich's critique of General Patraeus in American Conservative, 'Sycophant Savior', which is excerpted by Digby. Here's what stood out for me:

What then should he have recommended to the Congress and the president? That is, if the commitment of a modest increment of additional forces —the 30,000 troops comprising the surge, now employed in accordance with sound counterinsurgency doctrine —has begun to turn things around, then what should the senior field commander be asking for next?

A single word suffices to answer that question: more. More time. More money. And above all, more troops.

The idea of course being that if Petraeus was not being a disingenuous tool of the Administration, he would press the advantage instead of recommending the politically convenient policy already determined by the White House at the beginning of the year, an agonizingly slow reduction of troops in theater necessitated by man power dictates to the levels we saw at the beginning of the surge -- a number always considered inadequate for pacification of the country, but large enough that their presence is a constant irritant and cause for discord and resentment among the population.

This of course presupposes that the General wasn't blowing smoke in the first place.

What's strange, almost counterintuitive is Digby highlighting this failed Rumsfeldian strategy of fighting war on the cheap as supporting the anti-war movement. We want less, not more. In a choice between more troops, cash and death, I'm pretty sure Digby and the rest of the Reality Based Community are opting for "none of the above," but we'll settle for less blood on our hands for now.

Digby's playing a dangerous game, a slippery slope indeed when you adopt the argument of an administration critic who advocates for an even larger escalation to make your case for getting out of the country altogether. It's not enough that Bush and Petraeus are wrong, but we have to be right too. It's long past time when it was politically possible, at least for this President, to put together a coalition of half a million "peacekeepers," and double if not triple our own commitment to Iraq. His father had that ability, not so much the Son of a Bush. The political fallout of increasing the military to the size required, no doubt contemplating a draft, is inconceivable. Even without a draft it's a budget buster.

That doesn't mean our next President won't try that policy -- and based on her hawkish record, I think that's exactly what Hillary might try and do. No Republican candidate would get to first base with this, nor would any of them try. No other Democrat would dream of doing it.

But Hillary? Oh yeah. She'd give it a shot. She's the only one who could get away with it.

Edwards Catagorically Supports Murtha Plan

Citizen 53 has posted the full transcript of an almost hour long interview with John Edwards from WNYC Radio. (Audio link here).

This is an in depth interview with detailed examination of every position that matters in this election:

• citizen53's diary :: ::

This interview is an excellent example of Edwards in full. shows his policies and much of who he is as a person, a human being, running for President.

If you have the time, I hope you will read it and offer your comments.

Clearly, what follows is better than any sound bite. is Edwards's views in depth, where he has an opportunity to expound. gives interested DKos'ers a chance to become better educated about Edwards, straight from Edwards, not from the flame wars in a thread that contains oft-repeated information and misinformation that, alas, is so prevalent in the blogosphere.

Get some coffee, settle back, and enjoy!

It's the following exchange that catches the eye. No other major candidate takes this position. None. As the Democratic Congressional Leadership quietly distance themselves from John Murtha's position that the time to get out of Iraq starts now, Edwards has Murtha's back:

BL: And what if you were in the house? This Murtha plan...

JE: I'm for it.

BL: ... to starve the war by requiring shorter stays for American troops, longer intervals between tours, some other things...you're for it?

JE: I'm for it.

BL: You'd vote for it.

JE: I'm for it.

BL: Alright then, do one other thing on this before we leave Iraq to distinguish yourself from the other presidential c...

JE: Can I interrupt you for just a minute?

BL: Sure

JE: You did that very quickly. The Murtha plan that I know about is one that requires American troops not to be sent back for another deployment in Iraq, some of them 3rd and 4th deployments without adequate training, without adequate equipment - is that what you're talking about?

BL: Yes.

JE: OK. Yes, I'm for that.

BL: Which is just an indirect way to stop the troop surge, true?

JE: Yeah, yeah - it certainly affects the number of troops in Iraq.

This is very clear. Surely THE most unambiguous statement a politician could ever make regarding the Murtha plan, and John Edwards is the ONLY presidential candidate saying this.

This is big folks, possibly the best talking point Edwards Supporters have.

powered by performancing firefox

Oh. Well, If You Strenuously Object...

... then I should take some time to reconsider. -- A Few Good Men

Majority "Strongly Objects" To Bush Troop Buildup (via HuffPost)

Washington Post: Opposition to Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq remained strong. Two in three Americans registered their disapproval, with 56 percent saying they strongly object. The House recently passed a nonbinding resolution opposing the new deployments, but Republicans have blocked consideration of such a measure in the Senate.

These kind of numbers cannot be ignored. The breakdown among Democrats is in the 90%'s opposing the war and the Administration's handling of it.

The response from the Office of Vice President was refreshingly honest and blunt...

(more)

Here's Dicky...


I'M GONNA RIP OFF YOUR HEAD AND SHIT DOWN YOUR NECK!!

(Breaking -- Afghan rebels in dire need of more target practice.)

Oh Mark , they're gonna be pissed at you now.

Untwist Yer Knickers

Al ain't out and Hillary ain't pissed, despite what otherwise sober voices think.

My advice, consistent with the five basic principles of the Progressive Netroots, is not to play Hillary's game. Don't be defensive and apologetic, insisting that no offense was intended, but ask rather what size shoe the former First Lady wears, because her lack of an affirmative, absolute rejection of the escalation of the war seems like a perfect fit to John Edwards' call to stop the madness.

Any apologetic response, a "hey, I didn't mean you personally," defense, will come off weak and mitigate the importance of Edward's message.


The play the Royal Family watches is called, The Mouse Trap...

HAMLET
Madam, how like you this play?

QUEEN GERTRUDE
The lady protests too much, methinks.

HAMLET
O, but she'll keep her word. (Act III, Scene 2)

Will she now? Shakespeare's Sister agrees.

Actually, instead of the Danish Monarchy, "Me" thinks that Hillary is actually channeling another woman of wealth and power penned by the Bard. Much like the Lady MacBeth, her demons haunt her subconscious, that damned blemish on her record -- her vote on the war -- that filthy spot...

LADY MACBETH
Out, damned spot! out, I say!

That's of course the one liner -- the quote we all know by heart from Act V, Scene I. But the lady dost go on with her unconscious lament...

LADY MACBETH
Here's the smell of the blood still: all the
perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little
hand. Oh, oh, oh!

Sorry your Ladyship (or as I like to refer to the Junior Senator from New York, Ms. Moneybags), no amount of perfume, especially when mixed with the stench of oil and blood eminating from the Middle Eastern Catastrophuck, will clean your dirty hands.

Her continued indefensible defense of her Lieberesque stance up until, oh . . . about ten minutes after she focus-group tested the reaction to John Edwards' unambiguous anti-war position, spotlighted her lack of courage or convictions -- let alone the ability to speak them.

Much like the Player-King in Hamlet's play-within-a-play, she's set an attractive Mouse Trap. She takes faux-umbridge with an imagined personal affront by Edwards, through surrogates (in the continued attempt to keep those hands clean), and attempts to re-frame the very character and reputation of the non-offender.

HuffPost: To celebrate Reverend Martin Luther King this week, John Edwards delivered a stern anti-war speech a Harlem's Riverside Church, where King famously spoke out against the Vietnam war. Edwards cited Rev King's anti-war legacy, clasped hands with his son, Martin Luther King III, and called on Congress to sto funding the war

"If you're in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel. Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now," said Edwards.

Was that a shot at Hillary Clinton?

Her advisers sure thought so. Howard Wolfson replied with this complaint: "In 2004, John Edwards used to constantly brag about running a positive campaign. Today, he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration's Iraq policy."

Is Hillary really so egotistical to believe that out of 535 legislators, in front of 1,200 spectators, sitting next to MLK, III, standing at the same pulpit and invoking the memory of the Reverand King when he called upon us to rise up and protests another meaningless war 40 years ago -- that she thought John Edwards was speaking to her personally?

Certainly her self-perception qualifies her to be president. Her ego rivals "W's."

Two questions unravel the absurdity of Wolfson's comment. Didn't a boat-load of Republicans vote for the war, and have failed to recant? And... Just how, pray-tell, has Hillary been "fighting the Bush Adminstration's Iraq policy?" She still won't just come out and say it.

I messed up. I trusted them.

Is that really so hard?

No Madame Senator, you not only own your vote, you own the fact that you never, ever, not even once considered admitting that you were wrong. Silence IS Betrayal, and Hillary's silence is deafening.

JRE Echos MLK, Tomorrow Is Today

The General directs us to remember the wisdom of MLK. I believe that there is no coincidence that the theme, the three-word slogan that launched John Edwards' candidacy for president last month can be found in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech at Manhattan's Riverside Church.

TOMORROW BEGINS TODAY

MLK, 1967:

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world -- a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the callling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

John Edwards, recalling MLK's message of resistence to war:
2007:

As he put it then, there comes a time when silence is a betrayal -- not only of one's personal convictions, or even of one's country alone, but also of our deeper obligations to one another and to the brotherhood of man.

That's the thing I find the most important about the sermon Dr. King delivered here that day. He did not direct his demands to the government of the United States, which was escalating the war. He issued a direct appeal to the people of the United States, calling on us to break our own silence, and to take responsibility for bringing about what he called a revolution of values.

A revolution whose starting point is personal responsibility, of course, but whose animating force is the belief that we cannot stand idly by and wait for others to right the wrongs of the world.

And this, in my view, is at the heart of what we should remember and celebrate on this day. This is the dream we must commit ourselves to realizing.

Dr. King's powerful theme that day forty years ago, exactly one year before he was assasinated, was that Silence is Betrayal. He taught us not only how to protest, effectively, peacefully, and inspired us not to hesitate, but to act now -- that now matters. He also taught us why we must take a stand:

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

Too Young To Know Better

So lemme get this straight. The loss of 50,000 US soldiers, the specter of the looming draft threatening to force us to join fighting we didn't understand nor believe in, a bigger threat of nuclear war ever-present whether we went to war or not. That is the emotional background of us aging hippies whose formative years were scarred by Watergate and Vietnam -- disillusioning us about what our government is as opposed to what we were told it stood for.

Our smug opposition, movement conservatives now in their 30s or early 40s, don't look back at the Cold War struggles and wars in South East Asia as our definitive foreign policy challenges. They don't recall anything about how Johnson and Nixon deceived us and divided us.

No. They came of age remembering Carter and the Iranian hostages. They don't mind the war or understand our visceral opposition to Bush because they know nothing of wasting lives in senseless wars -- as long as America doesn't get embarrassed again. As long as nobody can get the idea that we're weak, they care less who dies for what -- as long as it's not them.

Maha has more along this line of thought:

Because they’re too young to remember When Things Were Different, they don’t recognize that the way mass media has handled politics for the past thirty or so years is abnormal. What passes for our national political discourse — as presented on radio, television, and much print media — is scripted in right-wing think tanks and media paid for by the likes of Joseph Coors, Richard Mellon Scaife, and more recently by Sun Myung Moon. What looks like “debate” is just puppet theater, presented to manipulate public opinion in favor of the Right.