The freedom myth and those who pay the price

"Little Patriots" by Nina Berman from Homeland series

There is an axiom in the modern American psyche that states "freedom isn't free."

The cost of being free, as most Americans define it, is paid most dearly, by innocent civilians in far off places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan whose lives are taken as we claim to promote "freedom and democracy" while defending "American interests" abroad.

Secondly, that cost is paid by American soldiers on behalf of all of us. Their sacrifice - physical, mental, spiritual - is what ensures us the freedom we enjoy day in, day out, no matter what those soldiers are doing. At least that is the belief as it is commonly held.

The idea that American freedom stems directly from U.S. troops at home and abroad is generally not open for debate. It is, in fact, more like a rudimentary principle that one dare not even question. Just as one plus one equals two, most people in this country would probably agree with the equation American military might = American freedom. This notion is the air we breathe and the water we drink; to suggest otherwise is to doubt the very laws of physics.

And so even when Americans criticize U.S. foreign policy or our latest military adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan, the overwhelming majority are very quick to add, "...but of course, I support the troops. I am against the war(s), but I support the troops." To suggest anything less would be to open oneself up to vicious charges of sedition, perhaps even treason.

Injured American soldier photo by Peter van Agtmael

But at the risk of questioning the unquestionable, let me ask if America's liberal use of its military, particularly in foreign countries, and its ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, is really protecting our freedom or is it imperiling it?

If America had not invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 and then Iraq on March 20, 2003, and if we didn't continue these wars and foreign occupations today, would we be any less free or any less safe than we are now?

During the Bush presidency, Americans were told time and again that our military was "taking the fight to the enemy, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." But are we to believe that insurgents (who were not insurgents prior to our invasion) or the followers of radical Shiite clerics or Afghan war lords, or the Taliban would rush into the United States and take away our freedom unless we invaded their countries?

Our enormous military might around the world prior to September 11, 2001 didn't prevent the terrible events of that day. Those hijackers booked their airline tickets and walked right onto the planes. Our military wasn't able to stop Sgt. John Russell from going on a shooting rampage against his fellow American soldiers outside Camp Liberty last May in Baghdad (he killed five fellow soldiers). Nor were our soldiers able to prevent the killing of 13 at Ft. Hood by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Could it be that America's unprecedented human and financial investment in its own military actually helped set in place the circumstances that led to 9/11 or the violent outbursts by Russell and Hasan?

Instead of making us "freer" or "safer" or improving the lives of Americans in general, could it be that our own soldiers are being misused in a way that is actually chipping away at our freedom and making us less safe? And are America's unfathomable expenditures on the military and war-making actually doing great harm to our nation?

Despite what may be good intentions, are our own forces unwittingly contributing to the long-term detriment of the United States? Uncomfortable questions for most people, yes, I know.

Think of the last time you went through security at the airport or sent a package at the post office. Now think about that same experience ten or 15 years ago. Do you feel freer now than you did then? If not, where is that freedom and security that is supposed to come from our use of military might?

Think about your personal communications today - the emails you send, the blogs you post, your FaceBook, your Twitter, the Internet or telephone communications you conduct today compared with communications ten years ago. Freer? Safer?

Think of your rights under the law not to be arrested or imprisoned without charge. Think of the practice of extraordinary rendition, of black sites and widespread and openly acknowledged use of torture, even on American (and Canadian) citizens who were later proven innocent, but had no recourse to American law. Freer? Safer?

Think about civil and social services in the U.S. today -- from public schools and universities, hospitals and health care. Think about this nation's infrastructure from its bridges and highways, to its levees, dams and large buildings. Freer? Safer?

What about television news, print media and radio broadcasting in 2009 compared with 1999? In 2002, America's Freedom Press Index ranking was #17. In 2006 it fell to #53. In 2009 it is at #20.

How about taking part in a political demonstration, trying to attend a political rally or wearing a political slogan on an article of clothing? Have things changed for the better under nearly a decade of war and occupation? Freer and safer?

Everywhere we look, we can easily find evidence of our country falling deeper and deeper into a state of neglect, disrepair or dysfunction. Everything is being underfunded or cut out of the budget except for the military.

Talk to America's new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and ask them if they feel they have helped successfully made America freer and safer. What do they tell you?

Step back for a moment and unpeel your eyes from Reality TV. Look at the state of our soldiers. Returning after two, three or four tours of duty, many against their will, they come back to America with broken bodies, broken minds and broken spirits. Their marriages and relationships are in shambles, their children are strangers, their job prospects are bleak and the country, it seems, couldn't care less. Military suicide rates, even when grossly under-reported, are spiking, as soldiers come back from hell to a country drunk on ignorance, apathy and distraction.

Even our so-called "liberal" president who was, and in some circles still is, painted as a radical-left wing peacenik, seems to be doing his best to dislodge much needed American troops from Iraq ("been there, done that") only so that they can be sent over to Afghanistan.

In the coming days or weeks, it appears President Obama will tell us he has a plan for Afghanistan. The man is smart, but he will offer us the same stupid argument that "our resolve is unshakable" and that "losing this war is not an option." To placate the critics, he will invoke the courage and honor and valor of "our brave young men and women." Case closed. For once he brings the question of more war and more death down to "our brave young men and women," that will be it. Americans will shut up and take it. After all, freedom isn't free, right?

Obama, like both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan and others before, knows that as long as he liberally uses the F-word (freedom) and the S-word (security), no one will argue with him.

But judging by what we got from eight years of Ronald Reagan and four years of George H. W. Bush (unpredictable Afghan forces well-trained to fight against occupying armies and widespread Muslim resentment of U.S. foreign policy [esp. in Saudi Arabia]), it seems reasonable to expect that we have some extreme unpleasantness to look forward to in the next few decades as we reap what we have sown under Bush-Cheney and now Obama. Future blowback conceived in the 2000s will perhaps make September 11 look like a Sunday picnic.

And as we watch our already grossly bloated military budget swell as it binge-feeds on ungodly amounts of money, the wars we are waging continue to create literally tens of thousands of ticking human time bombs (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere) and, of course, here in the United States as our own soldiers come back unable to recover from the horrors we have sent them to carry out.

We continue to set policies that create enemies where there were none, or at least fewer, before. Meanwhile we all like to bleat that we "support the troops" with hollow slogans, cliches and easy-to-remove bumper magnets. We aren't supporting them - we are misusing them and bankrupting our own nation, even as we destroy others. The massive foreign deployments we maintain around the world in over 700 foreign U.S. bases are not making us freer, safer, or better off in any way.

Instead, we are using our own citizens (volunteer soldiers) as a kind of invisible, disposable fantasy of what we'd like to think makes America strong, free and safe.

But if we really wanted these things for our country, and if we really "supported the troops," we wouldn't be sending them to Iraq or Afghanistan at all.

-------

Perhaps if we all saw images like this more often,
there would be a lot more vocal opposition to America's war making.

Photo by Peter van Agtmael

Most Americans would probably rather not think about Iraq or Afghanistan, except as a kind of vague, cliche example of American bravery, determination and grit. Saying "I support the troops" is an easy way to show off one's "patriotism."

The new video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, estimated to have grossed $550 million worldwide in the first five days after its release, is another example of American's perverse disconnect with war. For a much more realistic and unpleasant look at what our troops are experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan, I strongly urge you to view the photography of freelance photojournalist Peter van Agtmael http://www.petervanagtmael.com/ . Go to this site and spend some time looking at all the photos listed under the heading American Wars. Note that many of these photos have extensive, detailed captions by clicking on the word "info" in the upper right-hand corner of the thumbnails. The bathroom stall graffitti written by American troops and photographed by van Agtmael is in itself very revealing.

Get 'em young, get 'em fresh

How old is old enough for military recruiters to approach students?

High school? Jr. High? Fourth grade?

How about ten weeks into kindergarten?

Tonight at the dinner table, my son Kailash, who turned five-years-old earlier this month, announced rather blithely, "soldiers came to school today."

What?

"Soldiers came to school," he repeated. "They only kill bad people. They don't kill good people," he said, with the same five-year-old levity he uses in recalling the plot line of Frog and Toad or a Nemo video.

My wife and I looked at each other incredulously.

"Soldiers came to school? What do you mean?" I asked.

He repeated himself and then I remembered -- today was "Career Day" at school. Kailash had mentioned a bus driver also came, but it was the soldier who stuck out in his mind, it seemed because, when my wife asked if the soldier was cool, he nodded in the affirmative, "yes."

Besides, the soldier had given my five-year-old a gift. From his yellow backpack, my son produced a six-inch white plastic ruler with big bold red letters reading ARMY NATIONAL GUARD next to a waving American flag and below that www.1-800-GO-GUARD.com.

So, now we know the answer to the above question.

Kindergarteners - children with Dora the Explorer and Spiderman backpacks and bedrooms full of stuffed animals who are still working to master their A-B-C's are now prime targets for early conditioning by the U.S. military.

Be all you can be

I could feel my blood pressure rising as I realized that recruitment now begins as soon as a child enters a public school. Nevermind that Hawaii public schools are in financial dire straits and have just approved an almost 10% cut in instructional days (17 fewer classroom days for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years), bringing Hawaii's classroom time to the bottom position among all 50 states. Even with the cuts, the school still seemed to have time to welcome the Army National Guard to come in and hand out gifts to the wide-eyed five-year-olds.

After all, Obama has already said it's full-steam ahead in Afghanistan and now it appears it is not if but how many more troops he will commit to that war.

Everyone agrees that Afghanistan is going to get harder, much harder, before it gets easier and despite what looks like the plan to "wind down" the war in Iraq so that those soldiers can be redeployed (some for their 5th tour of duty) further east in Afghanistan, the army is still strapped for bodies.

Fortunately (for the military), the economic collapse has been a boon for military recruiters as education and job-hungry young people flock to a place they know will offer what many other employers cannot - a job with benefits.

And with Department of Defense projections indicating that baseline military budget increases over the next decade could surpass $1,333,000,000 (billion), it seems likely that a dozen years from now, in 2022, when my son turns 18, there will still be plenty need for more soldiers.

So what that means, is appears, is that it is never too soon to plant the military seed in the rich, fertile minds of those little kindergarteners who will, before you know it, be old enough to drive a Humvee, carry a gun, and kill people.

But only the bad ones.

To be continued...

Just between you, me and...Visible Technologies

Surely you didn't think social media was just for reconnecting with your high school crush or updating people about what kind of syrup you put on your waffle this morning, did you?

There must be another use for Facebook other than playing Mafia Wars and telling the world which Michael Jackson song you are and doesn't blogspot have a greater function than as a space to celebrate your cat's new holiday outfit?

Of course it does!

Check out this segment from yesterday's Democracy Now! (again, yes, I know...) in which WIRED reporter Noah Shachtman describes how the CIA's investment arm In-Q-Tel is investing in technologies that can crawl across half a million websites a day, tracking blogs, online forums, and postings on Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon.

Shachtman lays it out very clearly in this column for WIRED magazine's national security section Danger Room and what he says is pretty compelling and, I suppose, a bit terrifying.

Again, for all you busy executives who need to get back to the serious business of hiding your bailout bonuses-- the Executive Summary: In short, the CIA's In-Q-Tel uses a company called Visible Technologies to read, rank and record what you post online.

"The way Visible works is it kind of grabs all the blogs and all the tweets out there, then it sorts for certain key words, it sorts for a sentiment about whether things are positive or negative."

"Well, duhh!" you say-- tell me something I didn't know. Maybe you are one of those conspiracy theory nuts who thinks that the Agency has a mic in your Fruit Loops and cameras in your sock drawer. But why would they? Who gives a rat's nut about your drunken frat boy days or if you're ticked off because your neighbor's boyfriend is sleeping with your sister's teacher?

Bo-ring!

But (there's always a but) what if you are up to something subversive or salacious or downright nefarious? Suppose you just took a really bitchin' class on how to convert fertilizer into, err... something else, and you uploaded it to YouTube? Or what if you just posted a book review for the newly published 2nd edition of "How To Dwell in a Cave in Southern Waziristan and Not Be Found" (only two stars-- lacked forward thrust, photos blurry)?

Would that be enough to catch the unblinking eye of the ever-helpful people at Visible Technologies?

If so, that might make you think twice about posting a tweet that read "just saw that new Osama bin laden vid on CNN- it was da bomb!" or uploading a picture of you and your friends getting jiggy during your Spring Break in Peshawar.

In fact, there are a whole host of buzz words you might feel a slight inclination to avoid using, especially if it means you are going to attract unwanted attention.

In his WIRED article, Shachtman writes that currently Facebook remains untouched by Visible Technology monitoring. At the end of the article, however, he quotes a former senior technology officer from the Defense Intelligence Agency as saying that if the intelligence community ignored the "tsunami of real-time information" coming from FB or non-English Twitter clone sites, it would be called incompetent.

So next time you tweet someone's blog, remember, there is no such thing as invisibility.

Our Costly Priorities

Earlier this month, on October 7, the eighth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, as President Obama ruled out a significant reduction of troops in Afghanistan, and the White House was denying a BBC report that the U.S. could be sending up to 45,000 more, the Senate passed an additional $626,000,000,000 (billion) for military and war funding by a vote of 93-to-7.

And even though the head of U.S. Central Command Gen. David Petraeus said in May that al-Qaeda is effecitively out of Afghanistan, Obama said, "We will target al-Qaeda wherever they take root, we will not yield in our pursuit..."

The president's ever-obedient lap dog, the U.S. Senate, naturally rolled over and said (through the house-broken Sen. Harry Reid), "One thing I think was interesting is that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said, 'Whatever decision you make, we'll support it."

Now all this is well and good and I am delighted to see that Obama has memorized his script, but one cannot help but notice that these wars in Afganistan and... oh, where was that other place? - are costing us a lot of money.

And as we watch more and more home foreclosures, layoffs, furlough days, public school closures and cut backs across this great-but-kind-of-struggling-and-sort-of-crumbling nation of ours, one has to wonder just what are our national priorities?

We need someone who can examine the taxing questions of which it is that Americans value more - a solid education system, top notch affordable health care, better, cleaner, more environmentally-friendly energy production (and consumption), a well-maintained infrastucture, and an informed, civic-minded, refined culture and society OR war, war and more war.

It's not an easy choice, of course, and so fortunately there's The National Priorities Project.

If you have never heard of this group, well, you should. And rather than read my explanation of who they are and what they do, you could just cut to the chase and click on the above link. Or, if you are too busy scrambling to keep your head above water to sift through the site, you could just sit down and watch/listen/read yesterday's appearance of National Priorities Project's executive director Jo Comerford on Democracy Now! The segment is only about 13 minutes long (that's only 10% the time it takes to watch an empty balloon float across Colorado) and in the segment, Ms. Comerford offers some pretty interesting food for thought, some of which I have further consolidated for those of you who need to get back to watching the Larry King analysis of the arrest of balloon boy's family.

But before you sink back into RealityTV, please consider this (courtesy of the National Priorities Project research):

Fact: 2010 Pentagon budget: $704,000,000,000 (billion)

Fact: Combined total budget of 48 U.S. states projected to be in deficit for 2010 is $689,000,000,000 (billion)

Fact: Nearly 20% of the 2010 U.S. federal budget is for the Pentagon.

Fact: Less than 3 cents of every federal tax dollar goes to energy, environment and science. Over 37 cents goes to the military.

Fact: Number of active military bases the U.S. maintained in foreign countries in 2008: 761

Fact: Number of foreign (non-U.S.) active military bases maintained in the United States: 0

Fact: New York City residents have spent $30,600,000,000 (billion) in taxpayer dollars to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

Fact: As of 9-30-09 the U.S. has spent $915,000,000,000 (billion) on war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and counting)

Fact: Baseline U.S. military budget projected to increase 2.5% each year for next 10 years (a growth of at least $133,000,000,000 [billion]) *does not include funding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If all that sounds just a little unbalanced, well maybe it should. How is it that our country makes up for 45% of the total global military expenditures, outspending the next 14 largest spending countries combined? And how is it that the so-called "Rogue Nations" -- Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, comprise just 1% of the world military budget?

Well, aside from the fact that the U.S. military is paying $400 a gallon for gasoline in Afghanistan (kind of a rip-off, dont'cha think?), and the Marines alone suck down 800,000 gallons a day, the U.S. War Machine also has to pay for the upkeep of over 700 U.S. military bases in foreign countries every day. That means shipping a lot of Mountain Dew, Marlboros and Burger King to weird places like Okinawa, Kuwait and Diego Garcia.


Oh, and don't forget about the Predator Drone War being waged by joystick from the suburbs of north Vegas -- that costs a few bucks too.

No wonder we are planning to increase our military spending by at least $133,100,000,000 (billion) in the next decade.

Besides, nobody said it was cheap fighting evil and defending freedom, so come on America- buck up! Quit whining about health care, school, libraries, roads, jobs, houses, cities, old people, kids, and the working class - shut up and prioritize.

America is a war to fight, yes, we are a war. Today, tomorrow and until we have nothing left.

These, my dear, are our priorities.


P.S. And if you wish to learn how others are paying for our war making, read this article in the Times of London.

Cocos nucifera: the Giving Tree

By Jon Letman

Let’s face it, some trees just give a little more.

Surely, if there is one tree that embodies the best in a plant—strength, resilience, beauty, nutrition, flavor and utility—it is Cocos nucifera, the coconut palm.

“To Polynesians, coconuts are life,” says naturalist Angela K. Kepler. “For people who want to maintain spiritual ties with the ancient ones, using the varied products of coconut palms goes a long way toward tapping into old-time survival skills.”

From frond, husk and fiber to meat, water and shell, this aptly named “tree of life” provides a veritable shopping list of important staples far exceeding the usual food, shelter, tools and medicine.

Coconuts are used to appease the gods, launch ships, reduce stress, aid in digestion, make music and even halt hiccups.

As huge, buoyant seeds, coconuts spread on their own (though never as far as Hawai`i) and colonized much of the tropics in prehistory, obscuring their true origins, though most agree coconuts first grew somewhere between the Indian Ocean and Melanesia.

Polynesian legends speak of a male eel-god named Tuna who longs to be with a beautiful woman named Sina. The story varies, but always ends the same: Tuna is killed and as he lies dying he asks Sina to plant his head in the ground, promising that from it will grow a tree that provides for all. Thus, the first coconut palm sprouted.


On south India’s Malabar Coast, the state of Kerala reveals its most prolific tree in its name—Kera (meaning coconut palm) and alam (land). Coconuts are considered auspicious across India and regularly used in Ayurvedic medicine, at temples, wedding ceremonies, the launching of a ship or the first take in a film shoot.

What Hawaiians call niu would have been easy to transport by canoe, but relatively small numbers (and only two varieties) suggest that the coconut palm may not have been introduced until later migrations.

Although coconuts did not play as central a role in Hawaiian culture as on other Pacific islands, it is nonetheless easy to imagine that, upon arrival, one of the first terrestrial acts of settlers may have been to place coconuts on the ground, where they would germinate and produce a sprout that would develop into fronds and eventually a tree.

Coconut palms mature within their first decade and some varieties, at their peak, can bear thousands of nuts. Coconut palms can grow for 100 years or longer, like those towering palms at the historical Kapu-āiwa royal grove west of Kaunakakai on Moloka`i.

One of the best places in Hawai`i to enjoy a landscape of coconut palms is Kaua`i’s east side—the Coconut Coast from the Wailua River and neglected ruins of the Coco Palms Resort to Waipouli, site of the Coconut Market Place, up through Kapa`a Beach Park where the 13th Annual Kaua`i Coconut Festival will be held Oct. 3 and 4.

Another is Maui’s Kahanu Garden just before Hāna. On the sprawling grounds of Kahanu, in the shadow of the behemoth Pi`ilanihale heiau, is the Mary Wishard Memorial Coconut Grove.

Writing in 1978, Leslie Wishard explained that the collection he started in 1930 on the Kohala Coast of the Big Island had over 300 imported coconuts palms from around the tropics. From the Wishard collection, 27 varieties grouped into dwarf, medium and tall were planted at Kahanu. These included the Fijian Niumagimagi, the flat-bottomed Calabash, the diminutive Pugai, the Papua, the Trinidad and a variety called Cow’s Udder for its resemblance to
a bovine teat.

Kahanu Garden Director Kamaui Aiona points to the diversity in nut size, shape and color as one of the interesting aspects of the collection.

“The Fiji Love Nut is very small, about the size of a fist, and used in love sorcery or as a container for love concoctions,” Aiona says.

Kahanu Garden, Maui

Kahanu’s Wishard collection took on greater significance after the import of whole coconuts to Hawai`i was banned in a failed attempt to keep out disease and damaging plant pests.

Perhaps no one in Hawai`i knows more about the threat coconut palms face than Maui resident Philippe Visintainer, founder of Hawai`i Coconut Protectors. For more than a decade Visintainer has been battling Phytophthora katsurae, better known as coconut heart rot disease, which was first documented on Kaua`i in 1971.

Coconut heart rot is a fungal disease that causes new fronds to dry and wilt until eventually all leaves die and only the trunk remains. Visintainer says the disease runs in cycles and is currently in an actively destructive period with the north shores of Kaua`i and Maui and Puna on the Big Island especially hard hit.

Since 1998, Visintainer has been treating palms with a system that injects a phosphorus solution into the trunk. This fertilizes the palm and, as a systemic treatment, works its way into the palm heart, creating an inhospitable environment for the fungus. He says his success rate is close to 100 percent, but adds that funding is a major challenge.

Visintainer collaborates with the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community headquartered in Jakarta and remains optimistic that his program may eventually reduce the disease to a manageable level and that he may one day start a coconut palm plantation using remaining sugar cane irrigation infrastructure.

Pointing to a three-decade gap when very few coconut palms were planted following what he describes as a misleading campaign against coconut oil by other edible oil–producing industries, Visintainer believes people are rediscovering the environmental and health benefits of virgin coconut oil.

On Kaua`i, others also see the untapped potential of coconuts for food and fuel.

Paramcharya Palaniswami of Kaua`i’s Hindu monastery in Wailua says the monks have planted some 800 coconut palms on monastery grounds with plans to add several hundred more next year. They use the coconuts as a daily food and are exploring how best to use the oil for lighting.

Palaniswami says the meat itself can be burned as fuel for indoor sacred fire ceremonies and that it burns clean, producing virtually no soot or ash.

Adam Asquith, managing partner of Kaua`i Farm Fuel, a biodiesel company in Hanapēpē, also recognizes coconut oil as an underused local resource with great energy-producing potential. Asquith’s company already makes biodiesel fuel from used cooking oil and he says coconut oil holds real potential as renewable fuel source when global petroleum prices make it economically feasible or a practical necessity.

Asquith envisions growing coconuts for oil on small plots and unused tracts of land, noting that there are already plenty of unused coconuts in Hawai`i which, rather than going to green waste, could be cold pressed (as opposed to steam extracted) for oil. Coconut oil will ignite under pressure just as petroleum diesel fuel. New coconut-based fuels are already being tested or used in places like Pohnpei, the Marshall Islands, Vanuatu and Samoa, either as virgin coconut oil (VCO) or mixed with diesel fuel as a substitute for cooking and lighting fuel.

“When I think of a transition from petroleum to renewable natural oil sources in Hawai`i, I think of coconut and kukui,” Asquith says. “It already exists as feral oil, just waiting to be harvested when the economic climate is right.”

“As a biologist, I see almost no distinction between food and fuel—it’s basically the same thing. Whether it’s burned in the body, a fireplace or a diesel engine, you are creating combustion by burning hydrocarbons.”

“You could throw a cabbage in an oven and generate heat, but it’s not efficient,” Asquith says. “A coconut is much better.”

from Edible Hawaiian Islands magazine, Fall 2009 issue

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Dick Cheney and Barack Obama - polar opposites, right?

Who could be more different than the steely, surly torture-authorizing former V.P. and that cool, sophisticated shining embodiment of hope and change Barack Obama? If you were among the 74% or so who loathed Dick Cheney, than you may have been quite pleased to see Barack Obama become president.

Perhaps a more challenging recent political figure to pigeon hole is someone like George W. Bush's first Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Yet if we read the words of these three men with regards to nuclear weapons, especially the acquisition of these by some countries (but not others), the question changes to not "who could be more different," but "why are they so similar?"

Read the following three quotes - one from each of the above men - and see if you can match the words with the speaker.

"If the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards, if they put the pursuits of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people, if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East, then they must be held accountable."

"The pursuit of weapons of mass destruction only invites isolation and carries with it great costs. Leaders who abandon the pursuit of those weapons will find an open path to far better relations with governments around the world."

"We want to engage our friends with respect to North Korea: these criminal activities that [it] participates in, as well as the large army it maintains at the expense of taking care of its people, and its proliferation of missiles and other technologies that can be used to develop weapons of mass destruction."

How did you do? (*answer at the bottom of this post) Was it obvious? Perhaps not.

All three speak out against certain countries (Iran, North Korea) pursuing nuclear weapons or maintaining a large military or weapons arsenal, painting such endeavors as tantamount to being "oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms," coming at the "expense of taking care of its people" and bringing with it "isolation" and diminished relations with governments around the world.

But who is the U.S. to lecture Iran, North Korea or any other country about the perils of nuclear weapons or maintaining a large military?

How can any one of these men or any other American politician stand before any world body or any television audience and wag their finger at other nations as the United States continues to maintain and protect its own massive nuclear and "conventional" weapons stockpiles?

In a country where we can't even offer our own citizens public health insurance or ensure that public libraries and schools will remain open for our own children, yet we can dump Trillions of dollars into maintaining over 700 military bases in foreign countries around the world, pay tens of millions per day to occupy and fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and still keep our nuclear weapons ready to fire in an instant, who would take what any of these men say for anything other than glaring hypocrisy?

And now we have the nuclear armed Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown talking about sanctions and "lines in the sand" with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Well, unfortunately, these men have no legs on which to stand.

So while we ponder the words of Obama, Cheney and Powell, really, with regards to America's own hypocrisy and its own WMD stockpiles, nothing has changed.


*First quote was Obama addressing the U.N. General Assembly on September 23, 2009. The second quote was former Vice President Dick Cheney in a speech before the Italian parliament and the third was then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in an appearance on Meet the Press.

Wrong again, stupid!

Okay, so admittedly we Americans may not be the most, uh...worldly people in the world. We trail behind other industrialized nations in our knowledge of foreign cultures and languages, civics, basic geography, math, and science. In a February 2009 Gallup poll, only 4 in 10 adults surveyed said they believed in the theory of evolution. In the 2006 National Geographic-Roper Survey of Geographic Literacy, only 37% of young Americans could find Iraq on a map. In a Zogby poll, only 42% of Americans surveyed could name the three branches of the federal government.

But Americans scored high in a 2008 poll that ranked "Bible literacy" and we continue to be the hands-down leader in global arms sales ($37.8 billion in 2008 versus #2 ranks Italy at a mere $3.7 billion). So never mind the popularity of the FOX television program Are you smarter than a 5th grader? -- of course we are! We just put our intellectual efforts into reading the Bible and building weapons systems instead of learning trigonometry and French.

Despite this, Bill Maher, appearing on CNN this summer, accused America of being a "stupid country." Regardless of what you think of that assessment, I can't help but wonder if the White House and the Pentagon don't agree with Bill -- that we are stupid -- really stupid. After all, look at the how they talk to us.

Here we are eight years to the week that the U.S. Congress voted to authorize launching a war in Afghanistan -- the so-called "Operation Enduring Freedom" -- and to date, the only thing enduring is misery in Afghanistan, and though we don't hear about it much any more, Iraq.

Just days ago Gen. Stanley McChrystal said, "I do not see indications of a large al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan now." Our man in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, is struggling to hang on to his narrow lead in election results amidst widespread fraud allegations, and the civilian population of that country is increasingly churning in violence as more foreign (especially American) troops flood the country and with them bring more civilian deaths and instability. Going back several years, a number of diplomats and high-ranking military personnel from both the U.S. and the U.K. have suggested NATO and the U.S. are fighting a losing battle and that includes Gen. McChrystal in recent weeks.

If you have even the slightest notion that, while waging a war in Afghanistan may be difficult and unpleasant, it could still be "winnable," or if you think, as Obama says, fighting a war in Pakistan and Afghanistan "could not be more just," then take five minutes and read this article in the Guardian newspaper. It is an account of villagers in Afghanistan's Kunduz province who had to collect the bodies (or body parts) of their family members (or anyone's family members) after a NATO airstrike killed scores, perhaps as many as 90, two weeks ago. If you still think a US-NATO war in Afghanistan is necessary or to the benefit of Afghans (or even us), read the above story and ask yourself what is the true cost of war and if you have any human compassion whatsoever.

Yet here we are, nine months into Obama's season of "HOPE" and "CHANGE" and what do we get? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen coming before Congress with his hand out asking for more. More money, more soldiers, more weapons...more, more, more.


As if 68,000 American soldiers weren't enough, Americans are going to be asked to stomach a request for up to 45,000 more troops and god knows how many dollars.

This means, of course, we will be asked for more time, more commitment, more (human) sacrifice and more war.

Congress, deliberately playing its role as the limp-wristed enabler, is ready to bend over and suck Mullen's toes, dropping a spare $10 billion in change on the floor for the military to scoop up. Blood-spattered Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC], living up to his state's proud reputation for honorable politicians, and always ready to throw his money behind the losing dog, warned with faux severity, "this is your last chance."

Sure it is. Until Christmas.

Democrats are making a few mild grumblings -- Pelosi, Murtha, Levin and Feingold are thinking about November 2010 and what they will tell their voters when just plain folks and the seasonal "anti-war movement" gurgles a few irritated burps about too many troop deaths.

But fret not Freedom-Loving Americans! Congress will certainly fork over the money and troops even if it means accelerating the "withdrawal" from Iraq, luring more foreigners to sign up with the promise of citizenship, dropping enlistment standards further, carrying out more stop-loss orders, lengthening ordinary deployments, or hiring more private contracting firms like Blackwater (renamed Xe) or the security contractors who are being investigated for taking time out from guarding the U.S. Embassy in Kabul for some late night shenanigans.

So tell me, how stupid are we -- flat on our backs, eyes closed, iPod buds firmly stuffed in our ears, thumbs rapidly punching out tweets about what a dick Kanye West is or pondering who really killed Michael Jackson as our government waves a blank check for war without end in our faces and we barely blink.

Under-educated, under-informed, disinterested and just too damn busy, lazy or indifferent; we can barely muster a voice to oppose what is surely a bad, wrong and doomed effort to exert more military control over another far-flung land.

We've done this before in Vietnam, in Iraq, and for eight years already, in Afghanistan. Yet the military brass is telling us (again), "now we've got the right plan and the right man for the job, this time things will be different."

What could be more wrong, or more stupid?