Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

As I’m sure everyone knows already. It seems it was done during a raid on a house in Pakistan with the aid of the Pakistan government. And no US personnel were hurt during the raid, which is something of a bonus.

CNN has the story.

All told, it’s an interesting bit of news to wake up to.

The government of Syria has started to slaughter civilians who are protesting against the autocratic regime there. Dozens, maybe hundreds, are dead.

When will the United States military start bombing there to protect civilians, as it has done in Libya?

The primary justification for Barack Obama’s rush into war with less than 24 hours of notice to the American people and no opportunity for debate, much less a declaration of war, from the U.S. Congress, was that imposing a no fly zone would protect Libyan civilians from the government run by Moammar Qaddafi.

Yet, after almost a week of bombing by American-led military forces, we now have reports of massive civilian deaths, including the use of government snipers against civilians in the Libyan city of Misrata.

It appears that the escalation of the civil war in Libya by the United States has not been an adequate tool of protection of civilians. Given that, what is the rationale for the United States remain at war?

Will Barack Obama now suggest an escalation of the war, given the failure so far, or will the war simply be a failure?

U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey, who represents the 6th district of California, the area just to the north of San Francisco, spoke in serious tones this week about the dangers of the prolonged failure of the war in Afghanistan to bring security, stability and an end to corruption there. Woolsey said,

“the American people are tired of being talked down to about this war, tired of being told everything is fine and under control, tired of being urged to stay the course, tired of talk about progress that seems to be little more than an illusion.

The President reiterated last night that we will begin to bring our troops home in July, but there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’re ramping up this war instead of winding it down.

Earlier this month, for example, 1,400 additional marine combat forces were deployed, with the possibility of additional mini-surges during the spring, that would push our troop levels in Afghanistan to the 100,000 mark.

We’re also using heavily armored tanks for the first time, and there are reports that we’re considering expanding the war across the border in an unprecedented way, with risky and dangerous special operations ground raids into Pakistan.

Does this sound like a war that’s drawing to a close?”

With regards to all the tax cut coverage, right now I’m more interested in DADT.

Right now I’m watching CNN and it seems the Senate is now voting on a stand-alone bill regarding DADT. No news on what the result is yet.

The motion passed, 65-31, DADT is repealed. Now Obama has to sign it (due next week) and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has to certify it.

One of the best qualities of U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey is that her congressional activism doesn’t follow the ebb and flow of the news cycle. When she identifies an issue that matters, she keeps paying attention to it long after the collective attention of journalists has turned to something new.

Thus, although it was weeks ago when revelations of American military contractor corruption in Afghanistan took place, Lynn Woolsey is still speaking about the matter. Why? Congress still hasn’t taken care of the problem: The American military is paying big money to private contractor corporations, who in turn are paying protection money to Afghan warlords, who then give the money to the Taliban, who the American military is supposed to be fighting in the first place.

This week, Representative Woolsey linked the corruption to a fundamentally irrational structure of our nation’s military misadventure in Afghanistan, and renewed her call for a pullout of American soldiers from central Asia:

“At a time when communities here at home are crying out for investment in schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure, it’s galling to think that American taxpayer dollars are supporting the kind of thuggery in Afghanistan that is quite possibly endangering our troops. It’s bad enough, Madam Speaker, that the American people are being asked to pay for our failed war. Now it appears that they’re being asked to pay for the wrong side.

Madam Speaker, we simply cannot sustain a counterterrorism strategy that has us doing business, however indirectly, with the terrorists themselves. It’s illogical and it’s unconscionable. This is just one more piece of evidence that this war is failing the American people, undermining instead of advancing our national security objectives. It’s time for a radical change in our policy. It’s time to bring our troops home.”

The following voice, urging a pullout from Afghanistan next year, came from the U.S. Congress this week: “We’re wearing out our military. Madam Speaker, I hope the President will keep his word and have a timetable to get our troops out of Afghanistan.”

The voice was that of Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican.

I am endorsing Marcy Winograd in her race to represent California’s 36th District in Congress.  She is a true progressive who will stand up to the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, and other corporate interests in Washington.  Marcy is genuine in her concern for the people.

No one could possibly have a better grip on peace than this octopus, with its strong yet flexible tentacles stretching forward, presenting eight peace symbols. Look to the fluid motion of an octopus, with its ability to change its skin to suit its environment wherever it goes. If our own foreign policy had that versatility, we wouldn’t resort to violence.

The peace octopus spreads word about the alternative vision of a world without war, while at the same time keeping its fundamental groove on. A great shirt looking for a new way to represent a nonviolent identity.