I clicked o­n an entry in the Linksletter I got from Wade Frazier today, “John Pilger, o­n the Vietnam-like disaster of America's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,” wondering why I hadn't seen it. I always check in o­n Pilger, whom I've posted more than any other journalist. Well, this piece has today's date o­n it — none of my usual sources has sent it out yet. Honestly, Wade must be from some other planet, where everyone is telepathic, or there's some other explanation that accounts for his encyclopedic immediate awareness of who's saying what that matters. And, o­nce again, although I skim a lot of rundowns, I couldn't stop reading Pilger. What he writes is so raw and so real that you feel like you are there — not that it's a place you want to be, but a place you must be. Attention must be paid, and Pilger is so good that I gratefully receive all of what he delivers.

BUSH'S VIETNAM
by John Pilger

America's two “great victories” since 11 September 2001 are unraveling. In Afghanistan, the regime of Hamid Karzai has virtually no authority and no money, and would collapse without American guns. Al-Qaeda has not been defeated, and the Taliban are re-emerging. Regardless of showcase improvements, the situation of women and children remains desperate. The token woman in Karzai's cabinet, the courageous physician Sima Samar, has been forced out of government and is now in constant fear of her life, with an armed guard outside her office door and another at her gate. Murder, rape and child abuse are committed with impunity by the private armies of America's “friends”, the warlords whom Washington has bribed with millions of dollars, cash in hand, to give the pretence of stability.

“We are in a combat zone the moment we leave this base,” an American colonel told me at Bagram airbase, near Kabul. “We are shot at every day, several times a day.” When I said that surely he had come to liberate and protect the people, he belly-laughed.

American troops are rarely seen in Afghanistan's towns. They escort US officials at high speed in armoured vans with blackened windows and military vehicles, mounted with machine-guns, in front and behind. Even the vast Bagram base was considered too insecure for the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, during his recent, fleeting visit. So nervous are the Americans that a few weeks ago they “accidentally” shot dead four government soldiers in the centre of Kabul, igniting the second major street protest against their presence in a week.

On the day I left Kabul, a car bomb exploded o­n the road to the airport, killing four German soldiers, members of the international security force Isaf. The Germans' bus was lifted into the air; human flesh lay o­n the roadside. When British soldiers arrived to “seal off” the area, they were watched by a silent crowd, squinting into the heat and dust, across a divide as wide as that which separated British troops from Afghans in the 19th century, and the French from Algerians and Americans from Vietnamese.

In Iraq, scene of the second “great victory”, there are two open secrets. The first is that the “terrorists” now besieging the American occupation force represent an armed resistance that is almost certainly supported by the majority of Iraqis who, contrary to pre-war propaganda, opposed their enforced “liberation” (see Jonathan Steele's investigation, 19 March 2003, www.guardian.co.uk). The second secret is that there is emerging evidence of the true scale of the Anglo-American killing, pointing to the bloodbath Bush and Blair have always denied.

Comparisons with Vietnam have been made so often over the years that I hesitate to draw another. However, the similarities are striking: for example, the return of expressions such as “sucked into a quagmire”. This suggests, o­nce again, that the Americans are victims, not invaders: the approved Hollywood version when a rapacious adventure goes wrong. Since Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled almost three months ago, more Americans have been killed than during the war. Ten have been killed and 25 wounded in classic guerrilla attacks o­n roadblocks and checkpoints which may number as many as a dozen a day.

The Americans call the guerrillas “Saddam loyalists” and “Ba'athist fighters”, in the same way they used to dismiss the Vietnamese as “communists”. Recently, in Falluja, in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, it was clearly not the presence of Ba'athists or Saddamists, but the brutal behaviour of the occupiers, who fired point-blank at a crowd, that inspired the resistance. The American tanks gunning down a family of shepherds is reminiscent of the gunning down of a shepherd, his family and sheep by “coalition” aircraft in a “no-fly zone” four years ago, whose aftermath I filmed and which evoked, for me, the murderous games American aircraft used to play in Vietnam, gunning down farmers in their fields, children o­n their buffaloes.

On 12 June, a large American force attacked a “terrorist base” north of Baghdad and left more than 100 dead, according to a US spokesman. The term “terrorist” is important, because it implies that the likes of al-Qaeda are attacking the liberators, and so the connection between Iraq and 11 September is made, which in pre-war propaganda was never made.

More than 400 prisoners were taken in this operation. The majority have reportedly joined thousands of Iraqis in a “holding facility” at Baghdad airport: a concentration camp along the lines of Bagram, from where people are shipped to Guantanamo Bay. In Afghanistan, the Americans pick up taxi drivers and send them into oblivion, via Bagram. Like Pinochet's boys in Chile, they are making their perceived enemies “disappear”.

“Search and destroy”, the scorched-earth tactic from Vietnam, is back. In the arid south-eastern plains of Afghanistan, the village of Niazi Qala no longer stands. American airborne troops swept down before dawn o­n 30 December 2001 and slaughtered, among others, a wedding party. Villagers said that women and children ran towards a dried pond, seeking protection from the gunfire, and were shot as they ran. After two hours, the aircraft and the attackers left. According to a United Nations investigation, 52 people were killed, including 25 children. “We identified it as a military target,” says the Pentagon, echoing its initial response to the My Lai massacre 35 years ago.

The targeting of civilians has long been a journalistic taboo in the west. Accredited monsters did that, never “us”. The civilian death toll of the 1991 Gulf war was wildly underestimated. Almost a year later, a comprehensive study by the Medical Education Trust in London estimated that more than 200,000 Iraqis had died during and immediately after the war, as a direct or indirect consequence of attacks o­n civilian infrastructure. The report was all but ignored. This month, Iraq Body Count, a group of American and British academics and researchers, estimated that up to 10,000 civilians may have been killed in Iraq, including 2,356 civilians in the attack o­n Baghdad alone. And this is likely to be an extremely conservative figure.

In Afghanistan, there has been similar carnage. In May last year, Jonathan Steele extrapolated all the available field evidence of the human cost of the US bombing and concluded that as many as 20,000 Afghans may have lost their lives as an indirect consequence of the bombing, many of them drought victims denied relief.

This “hidden” effect is hardly new. A recent study at Columbia University in New York has found that the spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides o­n Vietnam was up to four times as great as previously estimated. Agent Orange contained dioxin, o­ne of the deadliest poisons known. In what they first called Operation Hades, then changed to the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand, the Americans in Vietnam destroyed, in some 10,000 “missions” to spray Agent Orange, almost half the forests of southern Vietnam, and countless human lives. It was the most insidious and perhaps the most devastating use of a chemical weapon of mass destruction ever. Today, Vietnamese children continue to be born with a range of deformities, or they are stillborn, or the foetuses are aborted.

The use of uranium-tipped munitions evokes the catastrophe of Agent Orange. In the first Gulf war in 1991, the Americans and British used 350 tonnes of depleted uranium. According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, quoting an international study, 50 tonnes of DU, if inhaled or ingested, would cause 500,000 deaths. Most of the victims are civilians in southern Iraq. It is estimated that 2,000 tonnes were used during the latest attack.

In a remarkable series of reports for the Christian Science Monitor, the investigative reporter Scott Peterson has described radiated bullets in the streets of Baghdad and radiation-contaminated tanks, where children play without warning. Belatedly, a few signs in Arabic have appeared: “Danger – Get away from this area”. At the same time, in Afghanistan, the Uranium Medical Research Centre, based in Canada, has made two field studies, with the results described as “shocking”. “Without exception,” it reported, “at every bomb site investigated, people are ill. A significant portion of the civilian population presents symptoms consistent with internal contamination by uranium.”

An official map distributed to non-government agencies in Iraq shows that the American and British military have plastered urban areas with cluster bombs, many of which will have failed to detonate o­n impact. These usually lie unnoticed until children pick them up, then they explode.

In the centre of Kabul, I found two ragged notices warning people that the rubble of their homes, and streets, contained unexploded cluster bombs “made in USA”. Who reads them? Small children? The day I watched children skipping through what might have been an urban minefield, I saw Tony Blair o­n CNN in the lobby of my hotel. He was in Iraq, in Basra, lifting a child into his arms, in a school that had been painted for his visit, and where lunch had been prepared in his honour, in a city where basic services such as education, food and water remain a shambles under the British occupation.

It was in Basra three years ago that I filmed hundreds of children ill and dying because they had been denied cancer treatment equipment and drugs under an embargo enforced with enthusiasm by Tony Blair. Now here he was – shirt open, with that fixed grin, a man of the troops if not of the people – lifting a toddler into his arms for the cameras.

When I returned to London, I read “After Lunch”, by Harold Pinter, from a new collection of his called War (Faber & Faber):

And after noon the well-dressed creatures come
To sniff among the dead
And have their lunch

And all the many well-dressed creatures pluck
The swollen avocados from the dust
And stir the minestrone with stray bones

And after lunch
They loll and lounge about
Decanting claret in convenient skulls

I am so struck by how unique a politician Dennis Kucinich is, where everything he says resonates with a consciousness not usually found in government.  The piece I'm posting here, Your Vegan Holistic President, sent by Susan Steffes, charmingly captures a lot of what's special about him.

But first, in regard to Kucinich and then some, it was painful to see A Modest Proposal, by Doug Ireland, posted o­n TomPaine.com.  That's o­ne of our most visible and powerful organizations that promote the progressive message — significantly, in ads in the New York Times. I recently met John Moyers (Bill's son), Editor-in-Chief of TomPaine.org, at a fundraiser for his organization (a fundraiser I'd gone to before that, at the same place, was for Kucinich), and he couldn't have been nicer. Here was my email to Moyers, asking him if he would apologize for posting what Ireland wrote:

Suzanne Taylor wrote:

 A Modest Proposal, posted o­n your site, includes this nastiness:

The Take Back America Conference, organized by the Campaign for America's Future last week, was a PR exercise and a feel-good rally for its participants that allowed liberals to vent their spleen at the DLC without proposing or working toward concrete organizational initiatives and alternatives of the kind I've described. o­ne liberal Democratic strategist who attended called it a “nothingburger” that will leave no trace o­n the electoral picture a few months hence.

Your posting this article — which includes characterizing “dour Dennis” Kucinich as “cleaving to the dangerous, anti-rational, New Age voodoo fantasies of his guru, Marianne Williamson” — was ironic in light of a piece in The Nation, that's in wide circulation o­n the Net, about the Take Back America Conference.  Bill Moyers' “Presidential” Address extols daddy Bill's performance at the conference, and Dennis Kucinich's, too.

…it was a non-candidate who won the hearts and minds of the crowd with a “Cross of Gold” speech for the 21st century…There was little doubt that the crowd of activists from across the country would have nominated Moyers by acclamation when he finished a remarkable address in which he challenged not just the policies of the Bush Administration but the failures of Democratic leaders in Congress to effectively challenge the president and his minions…Kucinich, who earned nine standing ovations for his antiwar and anti-corporate free trade rhetoric, probably did more to advance his candidacy than any of the other contenders. But he never got to the place that Moyers reached with a speech that legal scholar Jamie Raskin described as “one of the most amazing and spellbinding” addresses he had ever heard. Author and activist Frances Moore Lappe said she was close to tears as she thanked Moyers for providing precisely the mixture of perspective and hope that progressives need as they prepare to challenge the right in 2004.

What Ireland wrote doesn't belong o­n your site, and could alienate people who support you.

Here is John Moyers' answer to me:

We don’t make our regular contributors, like Doug Ireland, toe any party line or agree with our own personal opinions. We’re here to create debate and we’re glad when a piece does that.

How about that?  Would they run anything that blithely mentioned “dirty Jews” or  “lazy Mexicans?” It is deeply offensive to print a comparably awful characterization of Marianne Williamson, who has had three best seller books, and is beloved by millions of people who are of a deeply spiritual persuasion.  Here's what Allen Branson, our webmaster, submitted for posting in Letters o­n the TomPaine.com site:

I agree that the left-wing of the Democratic party must build a solid base from which to work. Do you think that is going to happen by spouting divisive, close-minded and bigoted remarks about that part of the left that follows a spiritual path that's in other than the all-but-state-sponsored Judeo-Christian tradition?

The dangerous ideas of Marianne Williamson? Anti-rational, New Age voodoo? I've heard more tolerance from the mouth of Wolfowitz, speaking about Saddam Hussein!! I can think of no better way to NOT achieve the organization of the left than to let bigotry and bias drive a wedge between its various factions, as this sort of rhetoric is bound to do.

This situation is a reminder of the adage, “We've met the enemy and it is us.” Perhaps more of you might contact TomPaine.com, offering them some enlightening perspectives, as they are so sincerely working towards unifying us.

So, here's the treat about Dennis Kucinich, from Mark Morford, who sets this up with, “It sure is nice to dream”:

Your Vegan Holistic President

And then the new 2004 president had the gall, the unutterable nerve, to actually set up an official Department of Peace to promote, you know, nonviolence and human rights. That big jerk.

And then he repealed the snide and vicious USA Patriot Act, and promoted legit environmental causes and sustainability and actually tightened EPA restrictions and strengthened the Clean Air Act, gasp oh my God what the hell is he thinking.

And then it was revealed that, oh dear God what anti-American blasphemy, he eats no meat or dairy, and prefers organic and kosher foods and actually cares about issues of personal holistic health and therefore isn't a smirking well-funded crony of the toxic beef industry or big agribiz, and hence the bloated lobbyists from those groups are no longer swimming in favoritism and payola and what the hell is the world coming to.

And furthermore, he isn't particularly vehemently religious, not in the normal sense anyway, not Christian or strictly Catholic or Baptist or whatever Bush claims to be, Born-Again Failed-CEO Warmonger, I believe.

And in fact he's actually a rather unique amalgam, a loosely observant Roman Catholic who observes kashruth due to the influence of his longtime Jewish girlfriend, and yet who also supports alternative beliefs, has practicing Muslims o­n his staff, supports spiritual exploration, knows Shirley Maclaine personally, gives his own personal money to alternative spirituality research. What the hell? This cannot be.

And that damn hippie liberal, he actually wants to legalize medical marijuana, and he supports the rights of the poor and the working class, and more protections for the oceans, and universal health care and a reduction in military spending, and actually wants to change the world's opinion of the U.S. as this despised unipolar rogue into a more cooperative powerhouse role-model peacemaker. Oh dear. That does it. We're gonna be invaded by China any day now, for certain.

Let us imagine, just for a moment, just because it's entirely implausible and because it feels so utterly odd, that such a leadership, such an open and distinctive viewpoint, actually ran this nation.

Let us imagine the horror. Imagine the savage blow to the all-American mega-machismo, to the hardcore GOP hawks and the freerepublic.com psychopatriots and the Christian Bible gropers and the stunned CEOs, the insult to the giant angry fist of self-righteousness America now represents were someone like, say, Dennis Kucinich, the humble long-shot progressive Democratic congressman candidate from Ohio — the o­ne who represents all those viewpoints listed above — to actually became president.

Is it really all that radical? Is it really all that extreme to try and imagine a truly connected national leadership that promotes international cooperation and spiritual openness and the sacredness of the environment and a genuinely holistic worldview, o­ne who actually attempts to connect with and listen to its populace?

Why does this seem so far off, so utterly impossible? Have we gone so far down the road of BushCo-style isolationism and dread and knives-out bile that we can't even entertain a serious alternative, the notion that we actually could, as a country, stand for something as radical as peace?

Are we so deeply and repressively beaten down with war and terror and fake Orange Alerts and the idea that we absolutely positively must, no matter what, have a cold and corporatized iron-fisted leadership hell-bent o­n expanding American empire at all costs, that we can't even conceive of a sincere and pacifistic alternative?

Apparently, we are. That far gone. That far removed from what this nation actually stands for, stood for. At least for the moment. The tyranny of fear is in control. We are so absolutely goddamn certain we are facing a brutal and heartless world that wishes us perpetual violent ill that we simply must have an equally heartless and guns-drawn pseudo-fascist leadership to match it.

This is, quite simply, utter bull. We have chosen our own path. We have actively elected to become the strong-arm rogue superpower. We have created our own warmongering circumstance far, far more than it has been imposed o­n us.

Get this. According to his Web site, Dennis Kucinich's proposed Cabinet-level peace appointee would seek to not merely make nonviolence an organizing principle of society but actually strive to make war archaic, to “endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights … and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution.” Man. What a heretic.

Is Kucinich the ideal candidate? I have no idea. He is merely o­ne of the most interesting, indeed a longshot and probably flawed and it's true that he just recently flip-flopped o­n abortion rights, and is maybe just a bit overly pro-labor, and who knows what else, and he could be trouble for the Demos in terms of shaking up the unified message the party so desperately needs right now.

But let's just use him as our example. Let's use his unique candidacy as a mirror to reflect how far we have careened down the path of indignation and megalomania and the idea that we, as a nation, are somehow locked into this warmongering, hateful mode, this hostile role as schoolyard bully of the world.

How shockingly naive it seems, how utterly childish to think we could have a president who actually promotes peace and empowers the U.N. and works toward interconnectedness, and in this day and age. Don't you know the world is at our throat? Don't you know it's all eye-for-an-eye and dog-eat-dog and o­nly the strong survive and kill 'em all before they come and eat our innocent babies?

Yeah right. How very sad. No o­ne seems to remember. No o­ne truly recalls the overwhelming sentiment just after 9/11, a stunned and saddened nation rethinking its core values, a deeply historic opportunity for a radical reshaping of America's world position and policy, our intentions, our national agenda.

We could've chosen a Kucinich-style path. We could've easily chosen peace and cooperation and humanity and communication. BushCo chose the exact opposite.

And now, here we are. Globally disrespected, almost universally feared and loathed and resented, our economy hammered, the vicious GOP war machine cranking o­n all cylinders, openly lying about the justifications for war, huge numbers of misguided citizens truly believing 9/11 is a valid excuse to annihilate Iraq and slaughter thousands, maybe Syria and North Korea and Libya and Lebanon and who knows who else, next.

As we are getting perturbed about not finding WMD, the American media is treating this as news. And, this conclusion of Under-Fire President Waters Down Claims o­n Iraqi Weapons, from The Times UK, seems reasonable:

The President was warned of the scale of the trouble he would face if it emerged that the intelligence behind the war had been twisted. “This is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison,” John W. Dean, President Nixon’s White House lawyer, said. “To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based o­n bogus information, he is cooked.” The White House actions could be “a high crime” under the Constitution’s impeachment clause.

But, is this the fact, or is it more like Maureen Farrell points out in The Duping of America? She say, first of all, that the foreign press had our “news” months ago, and, for yet another layer of American mass hallucination, we don't care:

With the latest Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll showing that 79 percent of Americans believe that “the war would be justified even 'if the U.S. does not find conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction'”, it seems, for the moment at least, that we don't mind being lied to — as long as we continue to feel good about ourselves and our role in the world. Truth isn't nearly as important as is the oft-staged and contrived mythology of America saving the day. Why wouldn't we give the president the benefit of the doubt — particularly when pundits tell us it's the all-American thing to do? The mantra is readily memorized: the foreign press habitually out-scoops the US media because they are “anti-American” and Americans aren't easily and readily duped, but merely enthusiastic and optimistic. Until o­ne looks deeper, that is.

Maureen Farrell is good. She reminds me of MediaLens, the British site I keep touting for so eloquently showing the nakedness of our empire. She, too, makes everything come alive, like a Greek tragedy, where you get in your guts the nightmarish scenario that's being presented.

Her piece, that I encourage you to read in its entirety, and the cover story in the May issue of my favorite left publication, The American Prospect, The Most Dangerous President Ever: How and why George W. Bush undermines American security (ditto about reading all of this o­ne), haunt me. It's my this-can't-really-be-happening level of incredulity at the march we are o­n to hell. Blessings o­n publisher, Harold Meyerson,  author of this piece, who's another person who sounds a consistently clear voice of tell-it-like-it-is outrage:

George W. Bush has been pursuing a reckless, even ridiculous, but always right-wing agenda — shredding a global-security structure at a time requiring unprecedented international integration, shredding a domestic safety net at a time when the private sector provides radically less security than it did a generation ago. No American president has ever played quite so fast and loose with the well-being of the American people.

This is one more good overview to round out this post. Here's a laundry list that Robert Reich wrote up in a facetious end piece to that same May issue of The American Prospect.  In The Big Lesson, he has composed a fictional memorandum from Karl Rove to The President, that he sets us with this paragraph:

As the Iraq War winds down, I want to bring to your attention several important lessons. Election day is just 19 months away. While I have the highest respect for your dad, I think it fair to say he squandered his victory in the Gulf War. You do not want to make the same mistake. Take careful note of the following:

I've omitted the explanation he has o­n each point to just bring you the points themselves:

1. We didn't need the United Nations.

2. We didn't need to show a connection to al-Qaeda.

3. The war distracted the public's attention from our failures o­n terrorism.

4. The war distracted the public's attention from our failures o­n the economy.

5. The war revealed the Democrats to be comatose.

6. We split the Jews.

7. The media gave us a free ride.

This is his conclusion:

What do these lessons add up to? You need to continue this war — at least through November 2004.

There's no reason to declare victory just yet. Remember: Iran lies just over Iraq's eastern border; Syria is immediately to the west. These borders are arbitrary anyway, imposed o­n the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Both Iran and Syria are headed by tyrants and both are dangerous. Iran is close to having a nuclear bomb; Syria sponsors terrorists.

Here's the argument you can make. Our preemptive war with Iraq is really just the first phase of our larger preemptive strategy in the Middle East. In order to stabilize the Middle East, rid it of cruel despots and ensure that terrorists don't get access to WMD, we must move eastward into Tehran and westward into Damascus.

Mr. President, now is your chance. Your dad failed to push into Baghdad, and where did that leave him? Without a job.

By the way, Cheney and Rummy are in full agreement with me. Colin has some reservations but, being the good soldier he is, he's willing to cave (again). Needless to say, the RNC is wildly enthusiastic.

You have o­nly to give the nod and the speech is ready.