Last week George W. Bush declared that a timetable would be set for American troop withdrawal from Iraq. Assuming that this isn’t another yoyo designed to spin American approval (quite a bit can change between now and 2011), it is time to overview this era in our political history.

One of the most subjective parts of the historian’s task is determining where and when to begin the telling. Any integral telling of this particular story has to begin with the end of World War I. This was when the allied forces arbitrarily drew lines on a map to determine the borders of the Middle East. The political geography of Iraq was drawn without respect for, or cognizance of, regional sects or tribal conflicts.

But let’s not begin there. The fact that “we” didn’t understand then that such ignorance might exacerbate regional conflicts and eventually create a ruling class is important to stretch our canvas. But what is even more important for this story is the fact that, 70 years later, we were just as ignorant.

In the wake of the September 11^th attacks, our collectively blissful ignorance was exposed in several embarrassing ways. The overwhelming sentiment in America was shock. The shock was voiced in a general question, “Why would anybody want to do this to us?” Most Americans had no idea how America was perceived beyond our borders. We gave very little thought to how our media might look from other worldviews. We had no idea how our national consumption impacted the global economy—or we didn’t care. Further still, we had no real interest in the treacherous actions of our arms dealers (or the dominion-building of the CIA) in support of dictatorships.

Worst of all, we had an embarrassing ignorance about the differences between categories such as Arab, Muslim, Sikh and terrorist. For a good long while (bleeding into the now) we had a general association between ethnic head-coverings and jihad. The fact that Americans were so easily persuaded to lump Osama bin Laden and Iraq together along a common “Axis of Evil” demonstrates both our ignorance and our culpability. The Second American-Iraqi war was an extension of 9/11 vengeance. The fact that there was no tangible relationship between this and that hardly mattered to most Americans.

So let’s be completely honest with each other. Whatever condemnation we may lay at the feet of our leaders has dirtied the feet of us all. This should not be underemphasized as I move to specific details and personalities. On the other hand, it would be insincere not to point out the monstrous transgressions committed by specific interests and personalities.

The number of people once but no longer employed by the Bush administration now outnumbers the number of people currently on the payroll. Almost a dozen of these former insiders have confirmed that there was a concerted effort to redirect America’s national feeling of lament, confusion and vengeance away from bin Ladin and toward Saddam Hussein. The category “al Qaeda” became a general umbrella that covered bad guys near and far. So it is true that America’s general ignorance engendered the war, but it is equally true that people like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush intentionally exploited both our ignorance and our national pain.

I once reviled the simplistic notion that Iraq was a “blood for oil” affair. A simple calculation of the cost and reward suggested that a full-scale war wasn’t worth the reward of Iraqi oil. I now realize that my calculation of cost and reward was just as simplistic. The only way to answer the “why” question is to first ask, “who benefits?”

I’ve had many conversations with non-Americans where I have heard the following:

“America went to war with Iraq so that America could set up a government to sell America oil more cheaply.” This seems to be a common sentiment among many Americans as well. It is incorrect. The overgeneralization here misses the central duplicity of the Bush administration: The Oval Office didn’t have national interests in mind when it decided to go to war.

The statement should be modified in this way: “America went to war with Iraq so that Bush’s corporate supporters could set up a government to sell to them oil more cheaply.” When the cost-reward equation is measured like this, the benefits need not be nearly as large to make the costs worthwhile. Simply put, the war wasn’t designed to make Americans rich, it was designed to make a few Americans rich. 

Repeat this logic for Haliburton and the industrial military complex. When all is told, there are only a few pockets that have benefited. These pockets belong to people that have no ethical difficulty with the American economy plummeting so long as they get fat in the process. 

It is then interesting that Exxon-Mobile has become the wealthiest company in history at the exact moment when America’s inflation, unemployment and foreclosure rate are the worst they’ve been in over a decade. Add to this the fact that America’s national deficit is the worst it’s been in history. It turns out that wars cost money and that China was happy to pay for ours and keep track of the interest. While almost every other aspect of the economy suffers, Exxon-Mobile is setting quarterly records. 

So (surprise!), the second Iraq war was fought for the same reason that almost every war is fought: for the promise of power and money. These are the same old chestnuts they’ve always been. The difference this time is that “winning” this war was never about flying a familiar flag over a foreign territory. Our empire isn’t like Rome or Britain in that ours isn’t built upon land ownership, it’s built upon global capitalism. We have a much different relationship to “land” than our predecessors. (1) We don’t measure our wealth primarily in terms of land ownership; property is simply one aspect of our portfolios among many. (2) A growing number of “land owners” have no intention of living on their property or keeping their property.

All this is to say that there were no clear objectives for American victory in Iraq because the war was fought primarily for corporate interests and not for property extension. For Rome and Britain, the extension of their empires required the extension of physical territory. For America’s corporate elite, the extension of empire requires the extension of trade territory. I am well aware that these categories must overlap both then and now. The key difference is that, in the new global capitalism, flags are simply less important.

There are two flags that should be added to this picture, however. The first is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis benefited simply because Iraq was a major competitor in the oil market. While the oil fields in Iraq were frozen during the war, Saudi Arabia continued to conduct business. The second flag belongs to Iran. The feud between Iraq and Iran haw been well documented elsewhere. What has recently come to light is that Iran provided much of the (false) evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. And while we exhausted our military and financial resources on the destruction and “rebuilding” of Iraq, Iran has taken the last seven years to get healthy in both respects.

To fill out this picture, it must be acknowledged that alongside the posturing, backroom deals and bald faced lies, there was a fair amount of mishaps as well. I do not think that anybody advising Bush expected the war to last more than a few months. Many high ranking officials have been quoted saying as much shortly after the invasion. Desert Storm (the first Iraq war) lasted about as long as Eddie Murphy’s singing career. Nobody expected part two to last as long as Cold Play’s.

Perhaps the biggest blunder was the unemployment of the Bath party. When “allied” forces finally secured Bagdad, every member of the Bath party was shown the door. Not only did this increase partisanship in an already unstable nation, it put the entire Iraqi police force (all Bathists) out of work. Every Iraqi trained to use a gun was idle and disgruntled. This blunder alone probably extended the war by years.

It also seems as if the noble rebuilders of Iraq underestimated the relationship between the Sunnis and the Shiites. The Sunni sect of Isalm is persecuted by Shiites all over the Middle East. In that part of the world, Shia Islam is the dominant and overwhelming majority. Iraq was an anomaly in that it was a country where the Sunni minority was the ruling class. After a long and bloody history of subjugation, Saddam Hussein had been able to exploit the Sunnis’ desire to remain in power simply to avoid continued persecution. No one holds on to power as firmly as the one who has suffered life without it. So while Hussein was hated by his own people, they were willing to do whatever it took to stave off a Shiite rise to power.

To complicate matters further, the Kurds are a third division of Iraq based on ethnic difference. I am told by a friend who has lived and worked there that Kurdish people generally have an ethnic loyalty that supersedes their religious loyalty. While the Kurds include both Shia and Sunni, both sects are willing to unite for xenophobic reasons. Note also that much of Iraq’s natural resources are in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

The more I learn about the religious, ethnic and political complexity of the Middle East, the more I marvel at the ridiculous notion that military force can bring stability, prosperity or lasting peace. There is an Arabic proverb that says: “Me and my countrymen against the foreigner; me and my cousin against my countrymen; me and my brother against my cousin.”

I do not presume that this proverb characterizes all Islamic peoples and states. I quote it here only to show how wrongheaded it is to expect that antebellum-capitalism can win the allegiance of all peoples regardless of worldview. The bonds that unite America are simply not the bonds that unite the people of Iraq. The new democratic Iraqi may tolerate the presence of white Christians with big guns, but they will only tolerate them long enough to see them used up against their mortal enemies. Once this usefulness is expended, the new democratic Iraqi will invite us to leave. According to several Iraqi voices this week, America’s departure is long overdue.

If we do finally withdraw in 2011, I expect that the new democratic Iraqi will not miss having the great and benevolent Satan around to keep the peace. I wish that I had the slightest confidence that the centuries old blood-feuds in Iraq will be forgotten. I honestly do wish this; I would rather admit that Bush was right all along than see a deteriorated Iraq. But my sense is that whatever good this war has accomplished (and the ousting of Hussein is no small thing), the harm we caused with our ignorance and blind worship of democratic capitalism was tenfold. 

The most troubling part of all of this is that I do not think that America is any wiser for the wear. The ignorance that turned grief into blind vengeance after September 11^th is much the same as it was before. Although we feel wiser in our post-9/11 world, our understanding of the Middle East has not improved. Gandhi embarrassed England out of India. King embarrassed Jim Crow out of the South. But embarrassment requires awareness. Due to our lack of awareness, I doubt that the American Empire will ever be embarrassed enough to undo any harm we’ve done. And as long as our ignorance outweighs our embarrassment, we will be no less warlike than our brothers in the Middle East. Only, most of the time, they just throw stones.

Obama Overthinks his Delivery and Blows Up in the Fourth Inning

by Kermit Pitsfield

It’s an American presidential race, so why not use a baseball analogy?  I could have said that Obama fumbled in the second quarter or that he tripped on the third hurdle.  You can choose the sport that works best for you but the reality is that Obama made a major misstep with Pastor Rick Warren and McCain took advantage. Boys and girls, I think we have ourselves a ballgame.

Fourth innings are generally ignored by the American media. They are generally when the evangelical right gets involved.  These folks generally get under-estimated and create an undercurrent of “small ball.”  A bunt single here, a stolen base there and nobody notices until the game is tied.  This killed Gore.  It killed Kerry.  Neither knew how it happened. Neither thought it was worth it to appeal to the evangelicals because "fundamentalists" only care about oppressing the gays and speaking for the unborn.  Best to keep both issues on the bench. 

Obama, being a man of faith himself, knew better. He knew that evangelicals would rally around a healthy foreign policy, helping the poor and becoming stewards of God's creation.  In the other dugout, a surly McCain was having clubhouse conflicts with James Dobson (by the way, the reason for this is because McCain’s view on abortion changes with the political wind).  I told my neocon pal that as long as Obama split the evangelical vote, he’ll win handily.  If only we could all return to last week!

Rick Warren *sigh*. I suppose that I should say that I don’t have a strong feeling about the man.  His book is okay.  It isn’t Karl Barth but isn’t Hal Lindsey either.  Not a big fan of the mega-church, but whatever.  Warren hits for average and has a little pop in his bat, not a clean up hitter by any means.  The trouble is this: in addition to hitting ninth, he also throws batting practice.  In the Godforsaken Saddleback Forum, Warren tossed huge softball questions over the middle of the plate and grinned like an idiot.

“Does evil exist, and what should we do about it?” Cue idiotic grinning. “Should we defeat it, negotiate with it or confront it?” Holy shit, is this a ridiculous question! 

This is where our man, Senator Barack Obama, brilliant man of learning that he is, commits the political sin of omission.  He doesn’t strike out.  But he fails to recognize a fat meatball hanging curve teed up in the middle of Broadway.  It’s the best pitch he’s going to see all day and he fouls it off.  Obama makes the mistake of giving an intelligent and nuanced answer: “We need to confront evil. But let’s be humble about it. A lot of evil has been committed in the name of confronting evil.”

How wonderfully true! How pathetically anemic! Mr. Obama, who were you going to offend here?  Is the National Association of Evil going to pull their support if you don’t choose your words wisely?  Is there a large contingent of flag waving evil doers out there that require pandering?  (I mean, besides Raider fans.) Warren’s question was so stupid and Obama is so smart that the Harvard man just didn’t know what to do with it.  It was a knuckling slurve that never knuckled or slurved.  What the hell was that, I’ll wait for the fastball?

McCain jacked this one out of the park.  When asked what to do about evil, he yelled “DEFEAT IT” in dumbass-staccato and echoing gauche.  And the crowd went absolutely ape shit for this answer. 

Example two: Obama never spoke more rightly when he told this group that seven years of a so-called pro-life president hasn’t decreased the number of abortions in America.  But all that this crowd wanted to hear was that “life begins at conception.”  McCain was willing to repeat the correct slogan and brought down the house with applause.

Southern Californian evangelicals are the moronic Dodger fans who booed San Fran rival Barry Bonds(*) at the plate and then cheered him when he hit his juiced bombs.  Cheering for a bastard simply for being the best bastard in the show is proof of zero moral fiber and even less intelligence.  Mr. Obama, you need at least one dumbass-sensitive speech writer on your staff to scout this kind of stuff.  Borrow one from Bush; he’s got an entire farm-system of these guys.

Warren’s questions represented a simple checklist of evangelical concerns.  Several times throughout the “forum” – I am convinced that nobody at Saddleback knows what a forum is – Warren expressed that his chief objective was to get through as many questions as possible.  “Please, don’t give me your stump speech,” said Warren, “let’s just get through these.”  Will somebody please tell me: What is the value of “just getting through” as many questions as possible? What you’re really saying is that short, sound-byte answers are all that your parishioners can swallow.  Unfortunately, pith isn’t Obama’s strong suit.  Unfortunately, pith allows McCain to hide a multitude of flip-flopped issues.

A good interviewer would have asked McCain why his record is at best ambiguous on abortion.  Tim Russert (God rest his soul) would have made McCain explain why he supported the appointments of several pro-choice judges.  A good interviewer would have skipped the “moral failure” question altogether… but if Russert was present to hear McCain bring up his divorce, he would have asked him about his continued unfaithfulness to a frail and ill wife.  A good interviewer would have pointed out that McCain married his millionaire mistress and never looked back.  A good interviewer would have made McCain tell the truth rather than spin it. 

A good interviewer would have asked McCain about how he folded under the pressure of torture, how he denounced America for video propaganda and provided his captors with sensitive military information.  Evangelicals would have forgiven all of the above.  But Warren had no intention fleshing out the truth, nor the true characters of his guests.  Warren just wanted to get through the checklist.  Never send a batboy to the job of a big-leaguer.

The result of the Godforsaken Saddleback Forum is that apolitical evangelicals remain just as ignorant to the characters of the candidates.  Many are now under the impression that McCain is a clean-cut, no-nonsense “maverick” who will fight for the unborn and defeat "evil."  Warren unwittingly perpetuated this lie.

As the fourth inning draws to a close the score is tied.  Recent polling suggests that McCain has pulled even with Obama in the battleground states.  Again, evangelicals have quietly changed the momentum of the big game.  We’ll see how faithful they remain to their new champion after he chooses a Mormon VP.  If McCain underestimates this prejudice, his newly tied ballgame will slip away quickly.

The good news is that there is still a lot of ball to be played before the fat lady sings.  By fat lady, I mean Oprah.  Oprah holds sway over just as many dummies as God.  What’s more is that she’s got the ear of about half of Warren’s crowd as well.  Sista got mad game.

The Ease of Waste

by Erin Dunigan

I’m not sure when exactly it hit me.  It may have been as I was brushing my teeth and all of a sudden realized that I had left the water on while brushing. I know better. My neighbor, Linda, whose pool happened to be the site of my first swim, also taught me, somewhere in the same timeframe, the importance of turning off the faucet while you brush in draught prone California. 

The thing is, it’s so easy not to. It’s so easy to leave the water running while I brush my teeth. If, instead, I were walking 5 miles back from the river carrying water in a jug on my head, I’m guessing I would think twice about leaving the tap running. (If I were carrying water in a jug, there probably wouldn’t be a tap to leave running, but you get my point.) 

Sometimes I don’t realize things, though, until I’m forced into them. One such incident happened only a few weeks back on a trip down to Mexico. As in many places on the planet, water is becoming scarce in this little community not too far south of San Diego. So, in order to deal with the somewhat dry well, the water system is turned off on the weekends. I, of course, did not get the memo that this would be happening. So, rather than preparing or planning ahead, I was caught unaware when all of a sudden the twist of the faucet brought no results.

Luckily, I happened to have had plenty of bottled water that I had planned on using for drinking purposes only. It soon became bathing water as well. When you find yourself in the position of bathing from a 1 gallon jug, it suddenly becomes apparent how little water you actually need in order to get clean, but how much water you actually use when cleaning via a shower.

It’s just so easy to waste. It’s not that I’m trying to use up the planet’s resources. But I’ve become so disconnected from the fact that I am doing so, most of the time I do not even realize it. 

I’m not sure how much energy it uses to leave the lights on when I’m not in a room, but I can tell you I do it on a daily basis. What about running the dishwasher if it’s not full? Or flushing the toilet after every visit? (I realize, I may have lost you on that one due to the gross factor, but think about it. Most of the time what goes into the toilet is actually fairly un-smelly and relatively harmless. What about just flushing every other time? Or the old saying, “If it’s yellow that’s mellow, but if it’s brown flush it down.” At least, if nothing else, put a brick in the tank so that less water is used for the unnecessary flushing.)

I wonder if I’d be more careful if it actually cost me something to use these resources. If I had to travel by foot or by bike that would significantly alter my travel patterns that are now so dominated by car or by airplane. If I had to make my own clothing I’d probably not ‘need’ so many different pieces of it. Growing food would be an entirely different experience than simply calling ahead so that it’s ready when I arrive to pick it up.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of the modern convenience.  Though I have lived a number of times with no dish washer and have managed (I did make the mistake as a child visiting my grandmother of asking her, “Mama, how do you do the dishes if you have no dishwasher?” I found out.) just fine, I have never lived without a washing machine and would really not have a clue about how to actually get my clothes clean by hand.  I don’t think there even is any fresh water within a decent walking distance from my house, if I were to have to carry it in a jug. Though I was quite adept at sewing when I took it as a class in junior high there is a reason I have not continued to wear my own creations.

No, it’s not the modern convenience’s fault, really. But somehow on the way to the timesaving features, the resource gulping ones were conveniently ignored. Sure, my leaving the tap water running while brushing my teeth is hardly on the level of corporations depleting a community’s aquifers for their own purposes. But the thing is, turning off the tap is something that I can actually do, and do fairly easily. As long as, that is, I am paying attention. It’s not a trial for me to wait to run the dishwasher until it’s full. I just have to notice.  I can turn off the light when I leave a room, if I remember.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be one or the other—convenience or conserving. But the ease of waste demands that I not sleepwalk through my consumption while the world crumbles. What is required of me is to wake up.

Why Obama Will Tap Tim Kaine for VP

In college, while attending school in Alberta, I found that the federal lifting of the national speed limit saved me about 2 hours between here and my former home in Wyoming. That made for some significant time in my 1200-mile journey. In those hours of driving, I was thankful for the wisdom that allowed our gracious federal government to restore some autonomy to the States. After all, had Washington politicians actually driven through central Wyoming? Had they ever had the pleasure of travel through towns like Bill, or Lusk or Hells Half Acre? 

After returning from our retro speed limit trip this weekend, I read that the government was considering reinstating the national speed limit in the name of fuel economy. What smart people I thought! A simple way to conserve energy, save on the rising price of fuel, and give America a safer highway system for travel. So I did some research…”Where did the national speed limit come from in the first place?” I asked myself. Turns out it was a response to another energy crisis in the 70’s with a fine peanut farmer at the helm. While I was too young to remember the specifics, there are some vagaries that I recall about thermostats, sweaters and a national effort to do with less.

Living with less is a necessity at times.   When 4 dollars doesn’t buy a gallon of gas, I make some choices to do with less...one less coffee in the morning from Fourbucks, or vacations closer to home. Believe me when I say that there is no shortage of excess in America and we all ought to look more closely at what we can live without. But then I got to thinking, “Hey those smart guys in Washington…maybe I could look to them as an example of what I could do to lessen my excess.” Not surprisingly, I found that they actually were very bad examples of what to do in times like these. I found that while they had done some serious research on how to ask the American People to do with less by driving slower, turning our thermostats down, and reducing our ability to supply domestic oil, they rarely did with less. I could not find any examples where they were willing to reduce their spending, taxation or excess to help in these troubled times.

“Curses” I thought, “I had so much hope that they would be the shining examples!” So onward in my quest to find out how to best conserve in this, the energy crisis of the new millennium. I found out that here in my fine state of Colorado, the local legislation was contemplating adding tolls to highways that previously had no tolls because revenue was down. “This seems odd? Why would revenue be down unless the good people of Colorado were following their instructions from the almighty GOV. and driving less, thus reducing the amount of gas tax in the coffers?” There it was, straight in front of me, a government pressed on all sides by the energy crisis, and low and behold they were trying to find new ways, not to conserve, but to get their monies come hell or high water. 

I then had an epiphany. Why not put some limits on them too. Maybe we could ask them to pass only 55 laws in any given year. Maybe they should turn their entitlement thermostat down to 68 dollars a person. It could be a wise thing to place a toll on their spending that would come directly back to the taxpayer. I thought, what is good for the goose is good for the gander too. Lets all participate in eliminating this energy crisis through conservation! It seemed so practical, so collective, so participatory, and so good for mother earth.

 I have not heard back from my congressman yet.

I have only read a few essays by this fellow Sawyer Retlaw but each experience has been similar. I give the essay a once over until I hit something resembling a thesis near the end of the piece. I then realize that he is actually trying to say something. At first I am fooled into thinking that he's found a pressure point, that he is has exploited some chink the the armor of Federal America. Finally, I conclude that this guy is simply a misanthrope with an authority problem.

What is the issue here? He makes it clear that he doesn't expect politicians to be "shining examples" and then not-so-wrying says that he's disappointed by this fact. I have a real hard time believing that Retlaw is actually looking for mentors and exemplars in those "big government folks." What is more likely is that our man just wants to drive fast. He'd be happier with complete autonomy and isn't getting this in America.

This is just more proof that the bottom line for Libertarians is self-serving isolationism. So go ahead and tear down them speed limit signs. I'm sure your neighbors will thank you for it and compliment your ability to weave through their children and pets like traffic cones. In the end, America's Federal Government is forced to pass laws because selfish people refuse to look out for the best interests of their neighbors. If you really wanted less laws passed, you'd choose to conserve energy. You won't and so they won't. Lastly, since America is by far the biggest culprit of CO2 emissions (eclipsing China and Russia combined), I can only hope that you get your 55 laws in the form of environmentalism instead of furthering the autonomy of your president.

At least I can take solice in the fact that the over simplistic, lump-sum stereotyping isn't limited to us "gun totin'" ignorant right wingers.