Insanity At The Gates

So I admit it -- today is a bit of a slow news day. But those of us with a Transhumanist mindset also tend to keep our eyes on the future; while many also take on the label of "progressive", not all of us do. Either way, however, this eye on the prize, as it were, gives us a perspective that not everybody else can perceive. Today I will share the benefit of this perspective with you, my reader. Forgive me if you've already seen this particular item already.

What is it, precisely, that I'm talking about? That would be nothing short of the apparent revivalism of the Soviet/American "Cold War". Now, this has been discussed by this blog before, when I asked: "Could Somebody Please Tell Me What Year It Is?" So some of this is apparently just recision, or iteration, for my 'regulars'. For those of you whom are not -- consider the following:

There's more to this, of course -- a good deal more. Today, I pull -- perhaps hedonistically would be too strong of a word? -- from the AP:

President Vladimir Putin announced in August that Russia was resuming long-range bomber flights over the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans for the first time since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Russian Air Force officials in Moscow could not be reached for comment after hours. They have repeatedly said that the planes were not violating any nation's airspace or any international agreements.

But in mid-September, British and Norwegian jets intercepted Russian military aircraft after they breached NATO airspace close to the U.K. and Finland. And on a handful of occasions this year, NATO nations including Britain and Norway have sent fighters to escort Russian bombers nearing their territory.

Now, on it's surface this is no major fiasco; no huge problem, as it were. If a nation wants to saber-rattle, a little, that's just fine. But take this into context; with the opening up of Atlantic-ocean resources, it would seem that the term cold-war could take on more literal meanings than in days past. Further, take into context the fact that Russian law-makers are voting -- unanimously -- to censure former Soviet Union countries for siding with the US over Russia. Add into that the fact that the US and Russia remain the world's largest suppliers of arms to 'developing countries' such as China, India, Pakistan, and the Middle East. It is worth noting that in the last four years -- that is, since 2002, more than 70% of all US arms deals were with Middle Eastern countries.

(Hey, while we're at it, here's a thought: If we're so miffed about Iran supplying the insurgents weapons, why don't we stop supplying the insurgents with weapons first?)

In the meanwhile, however, if the US and Russia are to renew the cold-war era conflicts between one another, which it would seem Vladimir Putin is seeking to accomplish, we have to ask ourselves: who would be cast as the totalitarian police state this time around? I don't mean to be biased -- truly I don't. But between Russia and the US, it is my country that has domestic spying programs. It is my country that wants to use SPY SATELLITES ON ITS OWN POPULACE. It is my country that has an effective real taxation rate of roughly 40% on its entire populace. It is my country that is engaging in extraordinary rendition, and it is my country that is torturing innocent civilians. (See Section IV, second paragraph.) So Again: Which of us is the totalitarian/authoritarian state? Throw in the blatant corporatism of the medical, agro, and energy companies, and the picture gets even worse. Remember; the Soviet Union was defeated due to economic collapse. And if David Walker -- the Comptroller General of the United States -- is only half right, the US isn't that far away from one of its own.

We can't afford to replay history, folks. We "plain and simple", "straight and narrow", can't afford it. At a time when we should be curtailing government spending however possible -- even if by transferring our social security, welfare, and medicare over to private non-profits (as opposed to not-for-profits) so as to benefit from the massive increase in efficiency per dollar spent (This considering that the US has a higher welfare spending rate than any other OECD-listed country save Luxembourg, on a per Capita basis), and thus avoid the need to increase spending over time -- we are instead arguing with ourselves over whether or not to expand the SCHIP program -- meant to care for the nation's poor and needy children -- to cover families which make almost twice the national median income.

Whether it be the revival of the Cold War, the selling of arms and armaments to our sworn enemies, or the spending of money we don't -- and will never -- have, this insanity has got to stop.

Videos: How Is This Helping?

With the recent news that Robert Gates, the new Secretary of Defense, has requested an additional $190 Billion in funding for the Iraq War, we are left asking: how is this really helping? Note further that this doesn't cover the increase in spending necessary to care for those whom 'We The People' must now care for specifically because they became disabled in the line of duty -- and that's not a duty I would have this great nation shirk. Regardless of whether you think the conditions the men and women you'll see in the first video are justified by the 'need to be in Iraq', I ask you: how is that helping to protect us from what you'll find in the second?

Video the first:

Video the second:

Videos: Differences of Perspective -- Blackwater In Iraq

What a difference two days and an accent make. Notice, as you watch the two videos below, that the AP piece mentions 'differences of opinion' as to who shot first, whereas the Reuters piece mentions that these acts have 'further isolated America'. And yet, it is the AP piece which reveals the more damning information on Blackwater. Watch for yourself and notice the subtle differences.

Proof Positive -- The Bush Administration Is Using Unlawful Combatants

Blackwater is a mercenary force. Yes, we use the more "politically correct" term of 'security consultant', but as they say, "A rose, by any other name..." In light of recent news, however, this takes on a somewhat more... disturbing cast.

As this blog has reported in the past, more than 100,000 'security consultants' are in active service in a combat or combat-supportive role in Iraq. For now, please keep that in mind as I go in what will seem like a 90° angle from that point. The LA Times today reported on the fact that, apparently, the Bush Administration is set on invoking military tribunals on its military prisoners -- you know, the 'unlawful enemy combatants' that we hear so much about? Consider:

The central issue in Khadr's case seemed to some to be ridiculously technical. In 2004, Khadr was ruled an "enemy combatant." The Military Commissions Act of 2006 set up the tribunals to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants."


In Monday's decision, Navy Capt. John W. Rolph, the deputy chief judge of the court, wrote that the trial judge was correct in determining that only unlawful combatants could come before the court. The appeals court also noted that the original Combatant Status Review Tribunal that ruled Khadr was an enemy combatant used a "less exacting standard" than was laid out in the Military Commissions Act.

So whether someone is an enemy combatant or an unlawful enemy combatant is a 'ridiculous technicality' is it? Well, what is the difference between the two, then? According to Wikipedia, To Qualify for prisoner of war status [by being a lawful combatant,] persons waging war must have the following characteristics [...]:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict


2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
   
   
   
   • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   
   
   • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   
   
   • that of carrying arms openly;
   
   
   • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   
   
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.


4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The same Wikipedia entry notes that mercenaries are unlawful civilian combatants. And then you have the US requirements to be an Unlawful Combatant:

In the United States, the Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment.

Note that this only allows Mr. Bush to add to the 'rolls' of unlawful enemy combatants.

The conclusion is clear: The United States of America Is Actively Using Unlawful Combatants.

Not that this ought to surprise anybody, really: this country I love has been lead by hypocrites for far too long. And in case you still need evidence of this, consider this, brought to us by the NY Daily News:

President Bush announced news sanctions today against the military regime in Myanmar and called on UN members to support struggles against dictatorships around the world.

"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them," Bush told the UN General Assembly.

"Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship," he said. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of the United Nations.

[...]
[UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon] called peace in the Middle East is [sic] vital to the stability of the region and the world.

"We know what is required: an end to violence, an end to occupation, the creation of a Palestinian state at peace with itself and Israel, and a comprehensive regional peace between Israel and the Arab world," he said.

Notice the subtle digs by the UN Secretary-General against the two most significant US foreign policies; the ending of the Iraqi occupation (which is, operationally, exactly what we're doing in Iraq), and the creation of an independent Palestinian state -- which would, of course, fly directly in the face of traditional US support of Israel.

Now, as a libertarian I have nothing against private armies. That's not where this argument is being directed. What I have a problem with is the use of private armies in an unregulated, 'above-the-law' manner by my government. If we're going to raise a furor over the use of unlawful combatants by our enemy, what the devil are we doing, using them ourselves?

Video: Insurgents Hit Oil Refinery In Iraq

This video, from September 19th, purports to discuss the fact that Iraqi 'insurgents' struck at and severely damaged an oil pipeline for the largest oil refinery in Iraq. It'll be interesting to see what happens to energy prices as this impact sinks in -- although it is worth noting that energy futures in America were largely unaffected; whereas when the Gulf of Mexico had a hurricane 'scare', energy prices reached record highs. Enjoy the visual-learning goodness.

Video: The Hidden Cost -- Soldier Brain Injury "Epidemic"

It should come as no surprise to anyone involved that I have made this blog another anti-war soapbox. So while I am biased in that light, when news like this comes along, one cannot help but wonder; just how much is Mr. Bush's "oil expedition" going to cost us in real terms -- and just how much more is it costing us in terms of security and moral righteousness?

Mercenaries, Hidden Crimes, and Moral Debts

Readers of this blog would hardly take it as a surprise that I am anything but a fan of "Blackwater" in specific and similar "private contractor" companies being employed by the US. And if recent news is any indicator, I am perfectly justified in this sentiment.

Recent news has hit my radar with the information that Iraq has pulled the contractor's license of Blackwater; and intentds to press charges against both Blackwater's employees whom were involved in a recent debacle, and the company itself. Even Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has gotten involved. Via Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq announced on Monday it had withdrawn the license of a U.S. security firm and would prosecute employees it said were involved in a shooting in Baghdad in which 11 people were killed.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said security personnel working for contractors Blackwater had opened fire after mortar rounds landed near their cars in Nusour Square in the western Baghdad district of Mansour.

"By chance the company was passing by. They opened fire randomly at citizens," Brigadier-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf said. Eleven people were killed, including one policeman, and 13 people were wounded, he said.

A U.S. embassy spokesman said the shooting took place after a car bomb exploded when U.S. diplomats were nearby.

[...]

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki condemned the shooting and vowed to punish the perpetrators and their employers.

"We will work to punish and halt the work of the security company which conducted this criminal act," state television quoted him as saying.

The U.S. embassy said it was seeking clarification on whether Blackwater employees could be prosecuted in Iraq.

Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani said security contractors "must respect Iraqi laws and the right of Iraqis to independence on their land."

"These cases have happened more than once and we can't keep silent in the face of them," he told Arabiya television.

There's a pricelessly dangerous gem embedded in here: "The U.S. embassy said it was seeking clarification on whether blackwater employees could be prosecuted in Iraq." -- Are these bastards even trying to pretend that Iraq is to be treated as a sovereign nation anymore? If someone went around killing American citizens -- violent or not -- on American soil, you can damn well bet that the U.S. government would stop at nothing to get those 'perps' tried in an American court. (Well, okay; in a tinfoil-hat moment, maybe they wouldn't. But only because they opted for something worse still, and still in control of the "FedGov".)

But this piece of information draws to light a very disturbing trend that has somehow slipped underneath the radar of the public at large: the US forces are increasingly reliant upon the use of 'private' government contractors in lieu of military force. Back in December the 5th, 2006, the Washington Post had an article which stated that there were roughly 100,000 government contractors -- not counting subcontractors -- operating in Iraq. In contrast, the US Government admitted to there being roughly 25,000 private contractor personnel -- and even then, the casualties of contractors is not included in the "official" statistics.

The report from Baghdad about the suspension of Blackwater's licence, then, must come in light of this fact; who is providing oversight for these organizations? Disturbingly, many of the Abu Ghraib interrogators were private contractors -- working for a company that wasn't included in the list of 60 companies it acknowledged were operating in Iraq.

And, of course, with the spike in US Casualties deriving from the "surge", once again that same pattern -- of failing to acknowledge the casualties within the civilian contractor personnel, is carried on. As spoken at the liberal-biased website, "Greenleft.org":

In April, 104 US soldiers were killed in Iraq, an average rate of 3.47 killed per day. In the first 23 days of May, 80 US soldiers have died — an average rate of 3.48.

But even these figures do not indicate the true US casualty rate. The May 19 New York Times reported that data it had obtained from the US Labor Department revealed that “casualties among [US] private contractors in Iraq have soared to record levels this year”.

While 244 US military personnel were killed in Iraq during the first three months of this year, figures obtained by the NYT revealed 146 US employees of private military contractors were killed — “by far the highest number for any quarter since the war began in March 2003, according to the Labor Department, which processes death and injury claims for those working as United States government contractors in Iraq”.

At least 917 US contractors have been killed in Iraq, the paper reported, “along with more than 12,000 wounded in battle or injured on the job, according to government figures and dozens of interviews”.

[...]

But in the first three months of this year, private military contractor fatalities have accounted for one-third of total US war deaths — though these are not included in Pentagon statistics.

For the record, the official US Casualties -- that's wounded & dead put together -- associated with Iraq are in the ballpark of 27,000 soldiers. Adding in the 'civilian' contractors would put that number at roughly 40,000 casualties. And that with less than 300,000 personnel in Iraq, and going on 5 years of operations. In Vietnam, by contrast, there were 8.7 million acknowledged personnel, and a casualty tally of 213,460 -- for the entire period of some twenty years. Our current death rate may be much, much lower -- but when we factor in the actual casualty rate of all US-employed personnel, the reality is much grimmer. If our numbers and duration were to equal Vietnam's, the comparitive casualties would be astronomically greater in Iraq.

There is a claim that I, as an individual, have heard made from those who "support the military" (How I don't qualify as a supporter of the troops by wanting to keep them alive and able to defend us with all their strength at 100% is quite literally beyond me) that the death toll is comparable to the motor-vehicle death toll for America. By way of comparison, the death rate for motor-vehicle incidents in America, for all ages, is 16.5 per 100,000. By comparison, the death-rate for US Soldiers in Iraq is greater than 1,000 per 100,000. And, as this blog has argued in the past -- of those few in Iraq whom actually target US personnel, their goal is clearly not to induce death. If it were, there would be a higher death-to-casualty ratio than the 5-10% of all casualties resulting in death as they do now.

Up until now, I'm sure, this entire post has read as though it were a bit rambling. And with this final point, I will drive home that it in likely, in fact, is not. Consider, then, the following: what is the actual mission of our boys and girls over in the Big Sandbox, how many troops would it take to get the job done; and why aren't they there? Could it possibly be because there is no job to be done? Certainly, we can continue to bear the current death-rate of US soldiers in terms of our population -- but how much longer can we bear the moral stain on the 'fabric' of our nation's 'soul'? Hidden in the 'conservative' argument comparing soldier deaths to motor-vehicle deaths is this: the one is an 'accident'. The other, we are all responsible for as a people.

Bush's "New Vietnam" Admission: A Missing Piece

President Bush's admission recently that Iraq is indeed the new Vietnam is a welcome step in the correct direction for the dialogue on the issue in the US. But just as LBJ and Nixon were wrong in their conclusions -- as history has documented -- so too is Mr. Bush incorrect. Unfortunately, as it turns out, so too are the majority of Americans on both sides of this debate. What people need to understand is:Iraq is not the new Vietnam: it is the new "Soviet" Afghanistan. And we are the new Russians.

It's a somewhat convoluted point, yes. But it is also something that desperately needs saying. By way of reference, according to the online Wall Street Journal, the "Bush Argument" goes something like this:

President George W. Bush boldly abandoned that template with his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Wednesday. In a skillful bit of political jujitsu, he cited Vietnam not as evidence that the Iraq War is unwinnable, but to argue that the costs of giving up the fight would be catastrophic -- just as they were in Southeast Asia.

And, no -- this isn't really news. Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are plastered all over the news, and have been for quite some time.

Why do I make the comparison between Iraq and Soviet Afghanistan rather than Vietnam? It's rather simple; we're fighting the same enemy in Iraq that the Russians fought in Afghanistan: Al-Qaeda. A bit of reference on the Soviet war in Afghanistan:

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year conflict involving Soviet forces supporting Afghanistan's Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government against the largely Islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen insurgents that were fighting to overthrow Soviet rule. The Soviet Union supported the government while the rebels found support from a variety of sources including the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations in the context of the Cold War. This conflict was concurrent to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War.

[...]

Some observers believe the economic and military cost of the war contributed significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991^[5].

This is, specifically, what we face. An enemy who wishes our destruction, plain and simple -- and is using the same tactics that they did on the Soviet "Empire". It worked once before -- why not again? Why else, do you think, there are so relatively few "IED"'s that are strong enough to kill immediately? There have been roughly 7.3 times as many non-fatal casualties as there have been fatalities. That takes fore-planning to achieve, even with modern medicine. By now it has been made clear that no attacks on US soil can bring us down; the relatively quick rebound from the massive damage done on the infamous "9/11" proves that. This is why Al-Qaeda's efforts not on "Arab soil" all take place in non-American soil: Greece, Africa, the (non-US) Philippines -- primarily places, ironically, where the Muslim presence is strong.

This needs saying, and nobody else is saying it: The longer we stay in Iraq the more we will be bled dry by "insurgents" who want nothing more than to kill us on their own soil -- and lack the infrastructure, support, and ability to inflict serious damage to us on our soil. If we wish to survive as a nation of wealth, prosperity, and freedom -- there is only one choice:

Bring our soldiers home.