Rantle

by Bob Anschuetz, August 15, 2007

For all the press attention to frontrunners Clinton, Obama and Edwards in the Democratic Presidential race, there’s a terrific demonstration on the Internet now of why one might be persuaded, against all practical reservations, to vote for Dennis Kucinich. I refer to a talk on foreign policy Kucinich recently gave at Johns Hopkins (the subject was nominally “Iraq”) as part of a “debate” to which all the Dem candidates were invited, but which only Kucinich, Biden and the irrepressible Mike Gravel deigned to attend. You can see Kucinich’s half-hour presentation on video at www.sais-jhu.edu/. (Scroll down the page to JHU SAIS Democratic Presidential Forum June 6. Under “Video,” you can click to see a video replay of any of the three presentations, all about 30 minutes long.) I thought Kucinich’s talk was exquisite in its philosophical grounding, humaneness, insight, spiritual fervor, clarity and logic. It also resonated with every instinct of my own intuitive sense of right relations between individuals and nations.

As I watched Kucinich talk, I had the impression that here, to my own mind, at least, was the man (person) who is far and away the best qualified to be President, and whom the country and the world most need as President. Yet, regrettably, he has no chance to be elected President. Why is this?

It appears that Kucinich himself truly thinks he can be elected. From his point of view, the values he embodies are so self-evidently right that it’s only a matter of getting his message across. As soon as most Americans get to know him and what he stands for, he believes, they’ll naturally follow their own self-interest and elect him.

But, of course, the rest of us know that’s not true. Most Americans are themselves so tied to the notion of “us against them” that Kucinich’s position of “Strength through Peace,” not “Peace through Strength,” will leave them cold. Moreover, even if the people were miraculously to see the light, the reality of the current political structure would foil both their own and Kucinich’s will to see his vision realized.

As I see it, three things are needed before a man (or woman) of Kucinich’s ilk can be elected President and have a chance to get his platform enacted. The first two of these prerequisites could be established through Congressional legislation. Even allowing for the existing political mindset, they could be put in place in the near future, given sufficient public pressure. I have in mind the following:

1) To help defang the military/industrial/executive/congressional complex, we need to legislate public funding of all national elections. Not a penny of campaign money should be permitted from private sources, which of course includes the major defense contractors.

2) To further reduce the influence of special interests in public policy, we need to restrict lobbying by all interest groups to oral arguments made before senate subcommittees.

Helpful as these legislative measures might be in encouraging runs for national office by men of goodwill, they would still fall short of providing the groundwork needed for the election and success of a man like Kucinich. To put in place a government with a majority of leaders who will seek and actually achieve strength through peace, we need a mass transformation in political consciousness. Americans themselves, like Kucinich, would have to see the world as one – as it now truly is — not a cacophony of selfish interests competing in a zero sum game. To get to that consciousness will take not a miracle, but years of hard campaigning by such groups as Rabbi Lerner’s Network of Spiritual Progressives. People need to be convinced that we can best find our rightful place in the world (and, as a side benefit, marginalize terrorism) by a policy of generosity to those in need on every continent. Our current policy of seeking “peace” by dominating others is manifestly not working, and, logically, cannot work. We also need the “new bottom line” espoused by Lerner and his group for our domestic policy. Workers’ rights, decent pay, and good neighborliness with respect to the environment and the community should all be required goals of corporate actions, along with a fair return on investment to shareholders.

When these conditions have been met, the dreams of a Dennis Kucinich to lead a moral transformation of his country can be realized. In the meantime, Kucinich is a prophet whose bold trumpet blasts should encourage us to pursue a new kind of national greatness, defined not by power but by a devotion to justice that can raise up all the world.

Ypsilanti, Mich.

by Eric Anschutz, August 8, 2007

Let’s look at the two main arguments made by those who advocate a continued American military involvement in Iraq.

Argument 1. Explosive Civil War: We are told that our departure will trigger an even more explosive civil war than the already violent ongoing bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites. That may happen, but if there is to be an all-out civil war, it could happen whenever we leave, whether now or in the distant future. Even if our forces do remain in Iraq for a very long time into the future, and even if they do thereby succeed in quieting the violence and establishing stability, our forces will at some point leave. Soon after our departure, the centuries-long history of Sunni/Shiite conflict suggests strongly that violence will be quickly resumed. Saddam Hussein (a Sunni) put a lid on conflict between Sunnis and Shiites by enforcing stability and domestic peace with an iron hand. But, the years of domestic peace during Saddam’s reign did not change hearts and minds; the two sides were ready and eager to resume their war against one another at first chance. The current fight raging between the two sides is based not only on centuries-old religious differences, but also by the determination of Shiites to get even for the years of oppression they suffered under Saddam and his Sunni followers, and the rejection by the Sunni minority of political dominance by the newly empowered Shiite majority.

Religious tensions between Sunnis and Shiites have been going on for many centuries; it seems clear to me that only they can decide to put an end to their interminable conflict, and only they find a way to live together. The political tensions and domestic insecurities in Iraq result from Shiite dominance of the Sunni minority, the refusal so far of the Shiites to respect minority rights and to share oil revenues, and the relentless insurgency against Shiite rule being pressed by the Sunnis. It is further complicated by in-fighting between the several Shiite militia groups. Our presence there, standing between the opposing forces and attempting by the force of our arms to imprison or kill insurgents and militia is demonstrably not contributing to a resolution of either the political or military difficulties, and it may be delaying one.

Argument 2. If we leave Iraq, they will follow us here. Those who hold this view seem to believe that the streets of New York and Chicago and San Francisco will be swarming with terrorists as soon as we bring our soldiers back from Iraq. Their slogan, taken from President Bush, is “if we don’t fight them there we will need to fight them here.” Iraq, they say, will become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, a haven from which to launch attacks on American cities.

To gain perspective on the danger posed by Al Qaeda, we would do well to bear in mind that during World War II, America and its alliance defeated two large nations, both highly aggressive and armed to the teeth. Remember the Stuka dive-bombers and the U-Boats and the Panzer Divisions and the armies that Nazi Germany brought to bear against our forces? Remember the Japanese “Zero” fighter- bombers and their mighty armada of battleships and the millions of soldiers ready to die for their Emperor? Now, THAT was a WAR. And we won it! Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is not a nation, it has no army, nor does it have an industry. As a threat to America, bin Laden is a pipsqueek compared to Hitler and Hirohito, both of who were beaten into unconditional surrender.

We can expect Al Qaeda to try terror attacks in our homeland, and possibly to succeed. But such attacks could happen whether or not we withdraw troops from Iraq. Indeed, after withdrawal, we will have billions each month of saved resources, and returned National Guard soldiers will be available to massively strengthen our Homeland Security. If we were able to defeat Germany and Japan, and then “contain” for some 40 years a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, this great nation has little to fear from a relative small band of Islamic extremists, led by a zealot hiding in mountainside caves.

Taking a new approach. There will be no way for Al Qaeda to follow us here in numbers large enough to challenge our national viability. We will deal with them as we deal with criminals. The now-ongoing “war on terror” will become much like the kind of police action we now use to deal with the Mafia or with neighborhood criminal gangs such as the Crips and the Bloods.

George Brown, Britain’s new Prime Minister, faced terror attempts in London and Glasgow shortly after taking office just a few weeks ago, but Brown has responded in a new way. What had just been narrowly averted, he said, was not an act of war, but an act of criminality that was detected and then dealt with by local police action. Brown has instructed British authorities to cease use of the phrase “war on terror;” he told them also to no longer use the word “Muslim” in connection with the terrorist crisis. Brown has concluded that the war rhetoric employed by his predecessor, Tony Blair, was counterproductive, making it more difficult for British police to enlist that country’s Moslem community in the nation’s fight against extremism. Community policing requires the trust and sympathetic involvement of all citizens, including the Moslem community, for effective prevention of crime. Most Moslems in England, as in the United States, abhor violence just as do other citizens.

We need to be done with fear tactics. As FDR put it when wrestling with the nation’s economic depression: “All we have to fear, is fear itself.”

by Eric Anschutz, June, 2007

NASA keeps working toward a manned landing on Mars. Probably, some day it will be accomplished. But for what purpose? We have seen evidence of possible water on Mars, so the (exceedingly remote) possibility of some kind of life there does exist. But the Martian climate and atmosphere differ so greatly from those on Earth that Martian life, if there is any, is certain to be very different from life as we know it. It may in fact be so different that we won’t recognize it as life! And then there is the matter of cost of putting humans into space; we have just learned that a new toilet has been designed for the space station, at a cost of $19 million.
As to our “colonizing” Mars, Why? Conditions there are hostile. No oxygen to breathe, no flowing or otherwise retrievable water that we know of, extreme temperatures, and not much to look at. On a trip that would take months, astronauts would need to carry great quantities of equipment and spare parts, as well as food and water and oxygen to stay alive, and sheltering materials to protect themselves from temperature extremes.

Our search for life on other planets has focused on finding water, because it has been assumed that only when water is present might it be possible for life to be formed. And our search for extraterrestrial life has assumed that life elsewhere would be recognizable. Not necessarily, says a recent study by the National Research Council, which states that life on other planets might be “weird,” that it might not need water to develop or be sustained, and that it may be in forms that we would not recognize. While all life forms here on earth, from trees to salamanders to people share common characteristics, they all need liquid water, all rely on DNA to carry genetic information, and all are comprised of carbon compounds. The Research Council study postulates that life might be based on silicon instead of carbon. Thus, in our search for life elsewhere in the universe, we are not really sure what to look for, and might not know it as life if we do find it.

The unmanned orbiting Hubble telescope, a NASA project that I completely and enthusiastically endorse, tells us that there are 80 billion galaxies (roughly nine galaxies for every person alive). Each galaxy harbors some 100 billion suns. The sheer magnitude of these numbers suggests that the trillions of repeated rolls of cosmic dice might well have produced some kind of life, somewhere out there, albeit probably very different from any of the wondrous variety of life forms we have come to know here on Earth.
Based on the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, NASA maintains massive antenna arrays designed to catch radioed messages that might arrive from deep space. From time to time, we ourselves send messages into the void, hoping that they might be heard and understood and then answered. But, again, for what? The nearest solar systems within our galaxy are millions of light years away, and solar systems in other galaxies are billions of light years away. So any message we might hear would have been sent millions or billions of years ago, and our cosmic correspondent would no longer exist. Nor, it seems to me, is there one chance in trillions that we would understand a message from deep space. Indeed, more likely than not, we would fail to recognize a “message,” even if electronic “noise” of some kind had been received. Communication, to have meaning, must be in the context of shared experience. Given the vast spans of distance and time that separate us from even the closest of possible cosmic neighbors, together with the equally vast differences in life forms, it is unlikely there would be any basis for communication.
I strongly support space technology that contributes to our well-being here on earth. We have, for example, become reliant on satellites for weather forecasting, for communications and for global mapping and positioning, none of which existed a mere 50 years ago. I also fully support investments in unmanned space probes, particularly those (like the Mars Lander and the Hubble Space Telescope) that deepen our knowledge of the structure and makeup of the universe. After all, our planet is only the tiniest pebble in the vast whole of creation, and it is of interest to mankind to widen our knowledge about conditions at the farther reaches of our solar system, and especially of our galaxy. But, manned space probes to Mars or deeper space strike me as a waste of resources and scientific energy, as does the manned space station and further exploration or colonization of the moon. These ongoing NASA activities cost untold billions of dollars that could be spent to far greater advantage on much needed programs to improve life here on earth.
One other category of space exploitation that is not only wasteful, but could become dangerous, is the military application of space technology. Open literature informs us that studies are ongoing for such things as space-based anti-missile systems, laser designation of ground targets, night illumination, and jamming of enemy communications. I suspect that there is other space-related military research going on of which we citizens remain blissfully unaware. It is bad enough that we contaminate our Earth with weaponry; I would hate to see it extended to space, but my guess is that it will happen. The longer-term danger here is that if we pursue military space technology, a costly race to deploy and then counter such systems will take place, with countries like China and Russia almost certainly getting into the competition.

by Eric Anschutz, July 18, 2007

Is there anyone in this country that really believes that we can still “win” in Iraq? If “winning” means an Iraq that is democratic, internally peaceful, politically stable, economically viable and living in harmony with its neighbors, it is clear to anyone willing to face facts that winning is simply not possible. If, on the other hand, “losing” means that America’s invasion of that country has brought about an Iraq that has descended into chaos and civil war and endless insurgency, that Iraq’s infrastructure has been decimated, that its industry has all but ceased to function, that its social fabric has been torn to shreds, that there are no respected leaders, and that its “democracy” is a sham, it is clear that we have lost in Iraq. Saddam has been deposed, and that fact is our gift to the Iraqi people. Only they can build a post-Saddam Iraq; only they can end their Civil War. Our continued presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, our economic and political “advice” to the Iraqi government is shrugged off, if not actively resented. Recent reports tell us that our field commanders are teaming with Sunnis (Saddam’s old crowd) in an effort to quell the Shiite-led militia crazies. None of this is helpful to the Iraqi people; it is long past time for our troops to come home.

Our effort to “train” Iraqis troops seems to me to be somewhat of a lost cause, if not a joke. Training soldiers is not like training physicians for neurosurgery. We put American boys through 16 weeks of basic training, and to a man they are more or less ready to do whatever military task is assigned. (I speak here from personal experience as a GI in my youth.) The problem with Iraq’s army and police is not lack of training; it is lack of leadership and lack of will. American soldiers go from house to house, kicking in doors and hunting for insurgents. We find people huddled in darkness, shivering with fear, and in most cases our soldiers have difficulty distinguishing insurgents from taxi cab drivers and school teachers and barbers. Why? Because insurgents ARE taxi cab drivers and school teachers and barbers. We Americans are intruders in an alien culture. We cannot understand or speak the language. We cannot fathom the depths of hopelessness and religious fervor that drives these people to their acts of violence. We do not understand their tribal or family arrangements.

Before the American invasion, Baghdad’s Islamic sects lived together in relative peace, despite their 1,000 year history of religious odium. Neighborhoods were often mixed helter-skelter between Shiite and Sunni, and intermarriage was not uncommon. Now, in the absence of authoritative central leadership, the sects are at war with one another, and neighborhoods and entire communities have become de facto enclaves, each with militias of their own for “security” purposes. Before the war, there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq; today, Iraq has become a magnet for and a training ground for Bin Laden’s minions, and a recruitment center for anti-US terrorists or every persuasion. We have stirred up a hornet’s nest, and are trying to control the hornets with bullets. It doesn’t work.

When Iraqi’s dipped their fingers into blue ink some years ago to vote, they did so with pride and with relief that the long years of Saddam’s cruelties had come to an end. Though Saddam and his two demented sons are now long gone, most Iraqi’s are more fearful than ever. The streets are unsafe, marketplaces are hazardous, electricity supply and water supply and health care and schools are all less than at pre-war levels.

And now, the Decider is giving speeches comparing that abysmal war to the American Revolution. In a July 4 speech, just weeks ago, President Bush equated the war in Iraq with the U.S. war for independence. Like those revolutionaries who “dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty,” Bush said, American soldiers were also fighting “a new and unprecedented war” to protect U.S. freedom. It seems that he has forgotten the outcome of the Revolutionary War, where the rag-tag untrained insurgents, led by George Washington, won, against the occupying English Red Coats, who were, at the time, the mightiest military force in the world. On that same just-passed July 4 holiday, TV cameras and celebrants at the Washington Mall Concert celebration turned to a number of wheel-chair-bound soldiers, all grievously wounded, applauding them for their service. Though the applause was meant in a generous and loving spirit, the cheerless and quietly desperate looks on the faces of those young boys conveyed the reality of this war, and the discontent and anxiety of the American people, far better and far more honestly than did the applause, the waving flags and the patriotic music.

Despite our national anguish, the war goes on. We continue to sacrifice our beautiful young soldiers, dying at the relentless rate of several every day or so, with so many others coming home without arms and legs, brain damaged, sightless, and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, wounds which in many cases will haunt them for the rest of their lives. If all of this served some purpose, the sacrifice might be worth it. But, there is no achievable purpose, it is all for naught, all a waste, all a tragedy of cosmic proportion.