I wondered about Anderson’s commitment to anti-interventionism and his view on “humanitarian” interventions, something that should be crystal clear from someone running for president and appealing to progressives. The following email exchange resulted:

From JW to RA:  Hello Rocky,

I wish that you would spell all this out a bit more clearly.

Are you for “humanitarian” interventions as in the Balkans?  Have you read Jean Bricmont’s great (and short) book “Humanitarian Imperialism”?

Are you for getting rid of all our overseas bases and devoting a limited military to purely defensive purposes?

Many pwogs, for example, Amy Goodman and CIA “consultant” Juan Cole, were cheerleaders for the Libyan intervention, despite Libya having had the highest Human Development Index in all of Africa before NATO destroyed its infrastructure and reduced it to rubble in the name of human rights.

We have two versions of imperialism – the “tough guy” Dick Cheney brand and the “humanitarian” Susan Rice version.  Both are the same in reality whatever the words attached to them.  We must break with them both and cease viewing the world solely through the very arbitrary lens of “human rights,” a good sell among the pwogwessives.

But what good are human rights to a starving illiterate woman in India, a category that Mao consigned to the dust heap of history in China?

From RA to JW:  Yes, so long as we are in compliance with the War Power Clause of the Constitution and the U.N. Charter, I favor the U.S. working with the international community in putting to an end massive atrocities.  I strongly believe in living up to the promise of “Never Again.”  Given all my work in this area, I don’t know how you would have any doubt about my position.  I don’t think political boundaries should control our moral obligations to our brothers and sisters elsewhere.

I recommend to you A Problem From Hell, by Samantha Power.

Your reference to Susan Rice was a curious one.  She sat on her hands (as you apparently would have had her do) when she was with the NSC and failed to take any action to stop the genocide that led to the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans in 100 days.  According to an article in The Atlantic by Samantha Power, Susan Rice was apparently more concerned with the political implications in the mid-term elections in 1994 than she was about the horrendous fate of the Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda. Those who stood by when their action could have ended the atrocities are, in my view, complicit.

From JW to RA: I think the Samantha Powers of the world are a big part of the problem.

I recommend that you read Humanitarian Imperialism by Jean Bricmont.

From RA to JW: I think isolationist nationalists who don’t care about the suffering of other people who happen to be in other parts of the world are “the problem”.  Sorry, John, we’re on completely different moral planets here.

I’ll try to read the book you referenced.  Have you read A Problem From Hell?  It’s heart-breaking — and a real indictment of the failure of the US to do what is required to stop the atrocities.

From JW to RA: I cannot agree, Rocky.  The “international community” is a euphemism for NATO and the US.  The UN foolishly went along with the destruction of Libya – and we can now see that Russia and China are finally drawing a line in the sand at Syria.

You fail to see that the US is the most ruthless Empire in the history of humankind, and it will cover up its atrocities with appeals to “human rights.”  It is the biggest lie of all.   Would you favor military intervention to end apartheid in Israel?  Will you take that position on the campaign trail?

For those of us living in the heart of Empire there is no alternative to being principled anti-interventionists.  The Empire is incapable of waging a “good war,” whatever that may be.  An anti-interventionist is not an “isolationist nationalist.”  That is simply a smear.

Samantha Power has not written a heart rending account of what has been done to Iraq, I notice.

Finally, the Empire has always cloaked its wars in virtue, from the White Man’s burden to “human rights,” and it always will.  The path to hell is paved with naiveté.

From RA to JW: Samantha Power has not written that account of Iraq because we did not intervene on humanitarian grounds.  It was an illegal war of aggression, at odds with the War Power Clause and with the UN Charter.  You paint with a very misleading, broad brush.  You can advocate abandoning people during genocides and other mass atrocities.  I will always be on the other side.  I share your anti-imperialistic views; I do not share your willingness to turn a blind eye to humanitarian disasters.

You will never convince me of what I perceive to be an extremely selfish, heartless isolationist position.  I would always advocate doing what I would want the U.S. and international community to do if I were in the position of a victim of genocide.  To advocate doing what is right is hardly naïve.  And it is hardly countenancing wars of aggression.  No one has a stronger record of opposition to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq than I.

From JW to RA: You are well meaning as far as I can tell, but you hold very dangerous views IMHO.

If people want to help those in far off lands, let them form their Abraham Lincoln brigades, something the US Empire also opposed.  Of course, that means putting one’s body on the line, not someone else’s body.

First do no harm.

From RA to JW: So you would advocate repeal of the Genocide Convention?  We couldn’t be further apart in our views on this.

But, then, I recognize the concerns with US empire that drive your views on this.  We need to strive to be better on all counts.  That’s why I have worked so hard in all of these areas over the years — and a large part of why I’m doing what I am now.

From JW to RA:  I never said that I wanted to repeal the Genocide Convention.  Why do you conclude that?

But what is being done to the Palestinians is a slow genocide.  Do you advocate military action against Israel to get rid of the Apartheid regime there?  You should be explicit about that.

Noam Chomsky points out that the slaughter in the Balkans, greatly exaggerated, took place AFTER NATO’s bombs started falling.  And that was not really a genocide either.

Nor is Darfur a genocide either – a brutal war on both sides apparently but not a genocide. In fact, only the US and that outrageous liar Susan Rice label it as such.

And then there is the slaughter in Libya a country that once had the highest Human Development Index in all of Africa.  The concrete reality is that the US is always up to no good and will kill and kill to get its way. We should not be in the business of providing cover for that.

I do not think that you really appreciate that the formerly colonized peoples of the world do not want Western interventions.  They have had quite enough of the benefits of such neocolonial acts.

From RA to JW: You are so incredibly wrong.  The people (at least the Tutsis) of Rwanda, and of Kosovo, view the U.S. as heroically coming to their aid and stopping the massacres.  You would have been content with sitting back after the massacre at Srebrenica.  To me, that is the greatest moral cowardice.

And how can you maintain that you would not seek the repeal of the Genocide Convention?  It creates a legal obligation to take action to stop genocides wherever they occur.

I cannot countenance the U.S. continuing to build its empire; neither can I countenance people — or our nation — turning a blind eye to mass atrocities when they can be stopped.

This will be my last email on this topic.  I’m dismayed that any person can be so insensitive toward victims of genocide or other mass atrocities.  (I’m curious.  What have you done, if anything, to help stop wars of aggression or mass atrocities?)

Good luck - 

At this point someone on the list of those cc’d to this exchange jumped in, J.A., an Israeli expat who as a young man was swept into the Yom Kippur war and saw many of his friends needlessly killed. He left Israel in part to save his son from future slaughters of this sort and has vowed never to return. He wrote:

From J.A. to RA and JW:  Rocky, h humanitarian intervention is a slippery slope argument, and is being used for imperialistic ambitions (The latest example is Libya, and still Afghanistan – freeing the Afghan women. If remember well, Samantha Power supported this view) and, in general, being used to justify our military power. (Humanitarian aid via aircraft carriers, being the good policeman of the world, etc).

BTW, you wrote “illegal invasion”; is there a legal invasion?

Here is a question: Since you support “humanitarian” intervention, do you support attacking Israel and freeing the Palestinians from the  Israeli harsh occupation? You must know about the suffering of the Palestinians under the Israeli Apartheid and the stealth genocide by Israel, so should we invade Israel?

(It is a rhetorical question to demonstrate how absurd is the “humanitarian” intervention view).

Joshua

From JW to RA:  You did not answer whether you would advocate in your campaign a military expeditionary force led by the US to end Israeli apartheid and the slow genocide of the Palestinians?  Why can you not answer that?

And will you launch another expedition to restore the Tibetan theocracy?  It will probably take a few million persons under arms and a return to the draft.  Or how about an occupation of India where the most dire poverty continues and the farmers driven from their agriculture by agribusiness commit suicide in huge numbers?  Or is that OK because “democracy” reigns?

And a second point.  The greatest stimulus to nuclear proliferation is the huge conventional military force which the US has.  That is the force that you need to preserve in order to save the world.  The only protection for a small nation is nukes.

Long ago when the US was trying to take down the Chinese revolution and waging a war on Vietnam, Mao Zedong opined that US imperialism is the number one enemy of the peoples of the world.  I am afraid that remains true.

I recommend again that you read Chomsky on the Balkans.

And you are proof positive that the progressive movement, so called, is no longer anti-interventionist or anti-Empire.

As they say, “You’ve come a long way, baby.”

At least you admit it outright – and that amount of honesty deserves credit.  I suggest that you openly proclaim the new humanitarian interventionism as part of your platform.  Now if only other progressives would also do that, we could separate wheat from chaff more readily.

JW

P.S. As a medical student I learned that there are some things that are beyond one’s control and that when one tries to control them the only thing that results is harm — sometimes fatal harm. Using the US imperial military to save the world is like operating with an infected scalpel.

I pledge in the year 2012 to link the fight against war to the fight for justice and to do so without exception.  With equal vigor I pledge to fight for justice with total disregard for the fight against war whenever it suits me.  I pledge to follow the MoveOn segment of the Occupy Wall Street movement in so doing.  I pledge that this will be the cornerstone of my approach, to be known henceforth as Van Jones Logic.

I pledge to exclude potential allies who do not share my notions of justice from the antiwar movement.  After all the antiwar movement belongs to progressives.  I pledge to keep at bay libertarians, paleoconservatives and, above all, the average American Jane and Joe, with an unscalable Chinese Wall of political correctness.  Let’s keep out the riff-raff.  For this I pledge to look for leadership to “Progressive” Democrats of America, UFPJ, Peace Action and Juan Cole.

I pledge neither to sponsor nor to join any large antiwar marches or demonstrations this election year. For if there are antiwar marches, it is a sure sign that there are wars.   I pledge, if forced into such marches of folly in order to preserve my credibility or my donor base, to censor any mention of Obama.   I pledge to treat impeachment as a taboo subject.

I pledge until November 7, 2012 to keep far from my consciousness the unspeakable suffering being visited on the darker peoples of the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia by my president with his sanctions and bombs.  These sufferings are as nothing compared to the purity of my movement and the hollow promises of Obama for better social programs.

I pledge to avoid like the plague any consideration of Ron Paul.  I pledge to  tear him down with bogus charges of racism based on guilt by association.  I fully recognize that Ron Paul is especially dangerous, because every day he converts more to the antiwar cause and thereby threatens a breach in the wall that keeps antiwar barbarians out of the movement we own.  I thought libertarians respected property rights.  If pressed, I may whisper a word or two of praise for Ron Paul but never a full throated endorsement – and never, ever anything good without walling it off with airtight condemnation.   I pledge most of all never to aid Ron Paul by money or action.  After all, what would my friends say?

I pledge never to think tactically when it comes to Ron Paul, as many progressives do with their favorite candidates, forgiving piddling shortcomings – like voting for DoD funding.

I pledge to work with others to keep a serious challenge to Obama from emerging in the Democratic primaries.  I recognize that this work is largely done with the passing of the New Hampshire primary and Iowa Caucuses; and I find myself on occasion smiling with satisfaction at this feat.  I pledge to remain vigilant nonetheless.  If our man, Obama, becomes even more embarrassing to the antiwar movement, I pledge to support a candidate from the moribund Green Party or some other entity cobbled together quickly, with no extensive organization and no hope of winning.   If we cannot bring ourselves to vote for Obama, let’s get out there and waste our votes.

I pledge in the year 2012 to hold fast to wishful thinking – Obama is our man. I pledge to remind one and all that Obama is keeping secret his loyalty to the progressive cause to avoid criticism by Republicans.   And he is proving damned good at it.  I pledge to believe that combat troops left Iraq because Obama wanted it, not because Bush signed an agreement to do so (and to ignore the fact that Obama wanted to stay but Maliki refused).  I pledge to believe that those troops returned to the US (and ignore the fact that most of them were transferred to other countries). I pledge to believe that the NDAA is the Republican McCain’s idea (and ignore the fact that is was Obama’s baby according to Carl Levin). In general, I pledge to ignore reality, and to believe in the virtual world presented to me by the progressive authorities and gatekeepers.  It will be as easy as doing my yoga or meditation.  And besides Obama is sure to change course in his second term.

In sum, I pledge to ignore Obama’s Patriot act, his numerous wars, his bloated military budget, his deficit, his service to Wall Street and to the insurance industry.  This is his dazzling plan to protect us from Republicans by tricking them into thinking that he is their man, so they will vote for him – our man!  It is nothing less than brilliant.

Lenin once remarked that each generation comes to socialism in its own way. It might also be said that each generation comes to oppose war and Empire in its own way. For the present generation of 20 and 30 somethings, libertarian philosophy is the vehicle to oppose war, as was evident in the New Hampshire primary. In part they chose Libertarianism, but in part Libertarianism chose them since the progressives have largely abandoned anti-interventionism, preferring instead Obama’s “humanitarian” imperialism. Many in fact are pro-war when you scratch the surface.

How different this was from 1968 when the young went “clean for Gene,” tromping around for Senator Eugene McCarthy in the snows of New Hampshire. Disgusted with inhumanity of the imperialist war on Vietnam and threatened with the draft, they took up the cause of McCarthy, the only one willing to challenge Johnson. (Not widely known is that George McGovern, somewhat to the left of McCarthy, refused, as did Bobby Kennedy, another saint for the Progressives, brother of and adviser to the president who ratcheted up that war in the early 60s.) With a close second in New Hampshire, McCarthy and his volunteers brought Johnson low and ended his war presidency. It was a reprise of the 1952 NH primary in which Estes Kefauver with his trademark coonskin cap bested Harry Truman, now lionized by the Democrats but widely reviled at the time for the war in Korea which claimed at least a million Asian and about 50,000 American souls. By 2012 the hold of the Democratic Party on the so-called Peace and Justice movement is so complete that no one dared challenge Obama.

Whose vote were the young libertarians able to deliver to their candidate, Ron Paul? That is another largely unreported story. The votes for Ron Paul came strongly not only from the under 40 set but among those earning under $50,000. In contrast Romney, a carbon copy of Obama on all major questions took the over $100,000 crowd and the older voters. “Proletariat Votes Libertarian” or “Proletariat Votes for Paul” are headlines which the progressives might find enlightening. At the least the Progressives might have joined Ron Paul’s antiwar, civil Libertarian effort, but they did not because, you see, Ron Paul unlike Obama is not a “progressive,” and the “struggle for peace and justice cannot be separated.” (I have noticed, however, that progressives these days from Occupy Wall Street to the Recall Walker effort find it quite easy to leave out questions of peace in the “struggle for justice.” MLK Jr. would be ashamed of them for that; but it is most convenient for Obama’s re-election campaign.)

As one who was on the ground in New Hampshire in the days leading up to the primary, I was intrigued by the characteristics of the volunteers themselves. It was not an elite crew; not a single Ivy Leaguer amongst them did I find – usually from state universities or colleges. Holding signs at one poll I visited was a 40 year old painter who had three or four employees, a young woman who ran a graphic designing business and another young woman, a divorced 37 year old lawyer with a 10 year old child. I would characterize this group as either working class or small businessmen and women. This is precisely the group that Progressives should be trying to organize and represent. In that regard the Progressive movement has been a dismal failure over the last three decades; and in fact has generally proved quite hostile to small businesspeople and their culture.

On a personal note going to NH this time was a dream deferred. In 1968 when others went “Clean for Gene,” I had a schedule that demanded I work every day, every other night and every other weekend. Never did I imagine that all these decades later the antiwar action would be on the Republican side. It appears that the “progressive” Left, not a genuine left or radical formation anyway, has lost a generation of activists with its subservience to Obama and its lack of spine. One begins to wonder about the entire Progressive movement. Perhaps when a genuine Left wing movement reemerges, it should give up on the very name “progressive”– or again to borrow a phrase from Lenin, “take off the soiled shirt.”

I have a bone to pick about your coverage of Ron Paul and the five racist comments that appeared in his newsletter a generation ago.

First, contrary to what you say, the rest of the MSM does publish the exact words of the statements – in fact they appear ad nauseam in semi-official publications like the NYT.

Second, as you surely know, Paul has said he did not write those statements, did not read them or know of them at the time and DISAVOWS them. You did not mention that.

Third Ron Paul is against the death penalty and mandatory minimum sentences in part because they are racist – and he has said so. You did not mention that.

Fourth, the head of the NAACP in Austin who has known Ron Paul for 20 years says that the man can in no way be considered a racist. You did not mention that.

Fifth, in an interview with Bill Moyers Ron Paul specifically says that Libertarianism is incompatible with racism. You do not mention that.

I think you have a duty to tell the whole truth on the matter because a half truth is a full lie – as the saying goes.

Finally, I might ask which is more racist: bombing people of color all around the world as Obama has done, for example in the war on Libya for which your constant guest CIA “consultant” Juan Cole was a cheerleader – or five statements written by someone else a generation ago which have now been repudiated by Paul?

Have you forgotten that your program is subtitled the War and Peace Report? My friends in NYC have taken to calling it HypocrisyNow! I hope that soon it can reclaim its older tradition of principled and consistent anti-interventionism and report the full truth on antiwar candidates like Ron Paul, the only anti-imperialist and peace candidate in the race.

Best,
John Walsh

Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!
– General “Buck” Turgidson¹

China is a vast country—‘When it is dark in the east, it is light in the west; when things are dark in the south, there is still light in the north.’ Hence one need not worry about lack of room for maneuver.
– Chairman Mao Zedong²

Hot on the heels of Obama’s near declaration of war on China in Darwin Australia, the Washington Post snapped to attention and marched off smartly to do journalistic battle.

There atop the “National Security” section of the Post a headline blared “Georgetown students shed light on China’s tunnel system for nuclear weapons.” This alarum was produced within days of Obama’s scary announcement of a U.S. military buildup to threaten Chinese commercial navigation, including vital oil shipments from the Middle East. That puts the U.S. on a war footing with respect to China, disturbing stuff indeed.

The students’ commander is one Phillip A. Karber, U.S. Marine Corp (ret.), now an adjunct Georgetown Prof. and former high level Cold Warrior who served under such worthies as Caspar Weinberger and Paul Nitze and at times reported directly to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to the Washington Post, Karber is a “hard-charging professor” who led a team of “obsessively dedicated students at Georgetown.” For reasons that are obscure, some say his students refer to him as “Buck.”

What was disclosed by years of effort on the part of Buck Karber’s students, who were force-marched over endless satellite images and gigabytes? In the end they found thousands of miles of tunnels in China, serving as a protection for its missile deterrent. A Congressional cry to build a Homeland Tunnel System may well follow – a much more acceptable jobs project than schools or mass transit.

There was only one glitch in the great Georgetown discovery. The Chinese had already announced the tunnel system years ago in 2009, pointing to as many as 3000 miles of tunnels and calling it a Great Wall to protect their nuclear deterrent, numbering in the hundreds at most and small by comparison to the Empire’s arsenal.

“Buck” Karber tried to save face by claiming that the extra tunnels meant that the Chinese had more nukes than the few hundred, which is the estimate most widely accepted. There was not only a tunnel gap; but a good old-fashioned nuke gap! That will get some attention, he might have mused; and it did. 3000 miles must mean 3000 nukes, flawless logic to be sure. But this proved a bit over the top, and even the Post had to admit as much in the waning paragraphs of the article:

George Kulacki, a China nuclear analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, publicly condemned Karber’s report at a recent lecture in Washington. In an interview afterward, he called the 3,000 figure ‘ridiculous’ and said the study’s methodology — especially its inclusion of posts from Chinese bloggers — was ‘incompetent and lazy.’

“The fact that they’re building tunnels could actually reinforce the exact opposite point,” he argued. “With more tunnels and a better chance of survivability, they may think they don’t need as many warheads to strike back.”

As Noam Chomsky often exhorts, read the last paragraphs of reports in the MSM first.

What should we conclude? First we are likely to hear all kinds of alarming reports about China as Emperor Obama and Field Marshall Clinton gear up to confront the Dragon. One of the hallmarks of “good” propaganda is that it must be concrete with memorable imagery – and if possible some small element of truth. Second, we have a responsibility to learn more about the Empire’s number one adversary if we are to construct a serious antiwar effort. And there are plenty of sources from China itself which is publishing a lot to reach us, including Global Times and China Daily, both on line and both in English. You may demur, worrying about “the other side of the story.” No problem, you get loads of it on a daily basis in the Post and its partners the NYT and.

1. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
2. Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War (December 1936), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180.

At its heart the book conveys a simple fact.  The rate of population growth has been decelerating for decades – well before the publication in the 1970s of Paul Ehrlich’s alarmist, implicitly racist, and dead wrong neo-Malthusian tract, The Population Bomb.    It is amazing that many environmentalists are unaware of the crucial fact of slowing population growth, and that some react with hostility to it.  Further, somewhere between 2050 and 2100, growth will stop and then come crashing down.  It is not the sky that will be falling but the population.  From Eastern Europe to Southern Italy to Singapore, that day has already arrived and sooner or later it will come to all parts of the planet.  In fact, it may well be that in the next century the problem will be a population that is not large enough to be optimal; but that will be for the 22nd century humans to decide and act on.

And why has this happened?  The key is the successful assault on patriarchy by women determined to control their fertility and their lives.   Yes, prosperity helps; and population control programs, most notably in China, have had some effect, but they are not the essential factors.  In rich countries and poor, religious and secular, Islamic and Christian, the trend is under way and irreversible.  Of that there can be no doubt.

The reason is simple.  In the latter half of the 20th Century the survival rate of infants increased dramatically so that women did not have to continue to have children for a reproductive lifetime to replenish the population.  At the same time, the sexual revolution and easy contraception came along.  Now bearing children takes only 10-15 percent of the adult lifetime of a woman.

As Pearce puts it, “Women have grabbed the chance created by that change.  While having children remains important to most women’s lives, it is no longer the only thing or even the main thing they do.  They cease to wield power only within the home. Now they are out of the front door.  Across the rich world and in much of the poorer world too, women outnumber men on university campuses and dominate entry to professions like medicine, media and the law.  They run the farms and even the governments, sometimes.  The reproductive revolution has created a feminist revolution that has a long way to go.  But it has already changed the world. For thousands of years men ruled the world.  Patriarchy was regarded as necessary to produce the next generation.  It was deeply engrained and tenaciously defended by men,” their social institutions, both church and state, and mores that condemned lesbianism and homosexuality.

The reproductive revolution kicked away this system of patriarchy, because it was no longer necessary to sustain populations.  Women have always wanted equal rights.  Feminism is not a new idea And some women have always broken free.  But for most women the reproductive revolution has taken feminism from the ‘realm of utopia to practical possibility’.

So while we hear a great deal of alarmist talk about “peak oil” from certain quarters we scarcely ever hear of “peak population.”  Fertility in the world peaked at between five and six children per woman in the 1950s.  It is now down to 2.6 and still dropping.  Replacement is about 2.1, and we are almost there.

What about the aging of this population?  The other side of contemporary Malthusianism is the claim that an older population means more mouths to feed and fewer younger working hands to feed them.  But that is also false.  We have gone from a revolution in agriculture, where it takes an ever smaller fraction of the population, and an ever smaller amount of land per capita, to feed us, to an advanced technological revolution where, for example, productivity in manufacturing in the U.S. is growing exponentially with a rate constant of .035 per year and in all areas at an exponential rate of 0.02 per year.  (Productivity here is output per person hour.)  So when you hear a voice telling you that we cannot afford Social Security or Medicare benefits for all that is the voice of Malthus, always wrong, calling from his grave.

In fact, Pearce sees a great benefit in an older population.  Not only will it be healthier than in the past and capable of making contributions well into the eighth decade of life, but it will be less testosterone driven, with more historical sense and more wisdom and less given to the calls of demagogues.  Let us hope so.

In the end the greatest philosophical debate of the modern era may be the one between Marx (and Godwin) versus Malthus.  Marx famously labeled Malthus’s views as a “slander on humanity” and its capabilities.  Malthus’s views have been used, explicitly or implicitly, to justify some of the worst atrocities in human history, way beyond that of the great Irish famine.  But in addition to being cruel, Malthus has always been wrong.  He remains so to this day.  If we ignore his false prophecies and those of his heirs, we have a very bright future indeed.

Thus on March 19, 2003, as the imperial invasion commenced, Cole enthused on his blog:

I remain (emphasis mine) convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides.

Now, with over 1 million Iraqis dead, 4 million displaced and the country’s infrastructure destroyed, might Cole still echo Madeline Albright that the price was “worth it”?  Cole has called the Afghan War “the right war at the right time” and has emerged as a cheerleader for Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya and for Obama himself.

Cole claims to be a man of the “Left” and he appears with painful frequency on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now as the reigning “expert” on the war on Libya.  This is deeply troubling – on at least two counts. First, can one be a member of the “Left” and also an advocate for the brutal intervention by the Great Western Powers in the affairs of a small, relatively poor country?  Apparently so, at least in Democracy Now’s version of the “Left.”  Second, it appears that Cole’s essential function these days is to convince wavering progressives that the war on Libya is fine and dandy.  But how can such damaged goods as Cole credibly perform this marketing mission so vital to Obama’s war?

Miraculously, Cole got just the rehabilitation he needed to continue with this vital propaganda function when it was disclosed by the New York Times on June 15 that he was the object of a White House inquiry way back in 2005 in Bush time.   The source and reason for this leak and the publication of it by the NYT at this time, so many years later, should be of great interest, but they are unknown.  Within a week of the Times piece Cole was accorded a hero’s welcome on Democracy Now, as he appeared with retired CIA agent Glenn Carle who had served 23 years in the clandestine services of the CIA in part as an “interrogator.”  Carl had just retired from the CIA at the time of the White House request and was at the time employed at the National Intelligence Council, which authors the National Intelligence Estimate.

It hit this listener like a ton of bricks when it was disclosed in Goodman’s interview that Cole was a long time “consultant” for the CIA, the National Intelligence Council and other agencies.  Here is what nearly caused me to keel over when I heard it (From the Democracy Now transcript.):

Amy Goodman: So, did you know Professor Cole or know of him at the time you were asked? And can you go on from there? What happened when you said you wouldn’t do this? And who was it who demanded this information from you, said that you should get information?

Glen Carle: Well, I did know Professor Cole. He was one of a large number of experts of diverse views that the National Intelligence Council and my office and the CIA respectively consult with to challenge our assumptions and understand the trends and issues on our various portfolios. So I knew him that way. And it was sensible, in that sense, that the White House turned to my office to inquire about him, because we were the ones, at least one of the ones—I don’t know all of Mr. Cole’s work—who had consulted with him (emphases mine).

That seems like strange toil for a man of the “Left.”  But were the consultations long drawn out and the association with the CIA a deep one?  It would appear so.  Again from the transcript:

AG: Well, the way James Risen (the NYT reporter) writes it, he says, “Mr. Carle said [that] sometime that year, he was approached by his supervisor, David Low, about Professor Cole. [Mr.] Low and [Mr.] Carle have starkly different recollections of what happened. According to Mr. Carle, [Mr.] Low returned from a White House meeting one day and inquired who Juan Cole was, making clear [that] he wanted [Mr.] Carle to gather information on him. Mr. Carle recalled [his] boss saying, ‘The White House wants to get him.’”

GC: Well, that’s substantially correct. The one nuance, perhaps, I would point out is there’s a difference between collecting information actively, going out and running an operation, say, to find out things about Mr. Cole, or providing information known through interactions (emphasis mine).  I would characterize it more as the latter.

And later in the interview Carle continues:

On the whole, Professor Cole and I are in agreement. The distinction I make is it wasn’t publicly known information that was requested; it was information that officers knew of a personal nature about Professor Cole, which is much more disturbing. There was no direct request that I’m aware, in the two instances of which I have knowledge, for the officers actively to seek and obtain, to conduct—for me to go out and follow Professor Cole. But if I knew lifestyle questions or so on, to pass those along (emphasis mine). That’s how I—which is totally unacceptable.

It would seem then that the interaction between the CIA operatives and Cole was long standing and sufficiently intimate that the CIA spooks could be expected to know things about Cole’s lifestyle and personal life.  It is not that anyone should give two figs about Cole’s personal life which is more than likely every bit as boring as he claims.  But his relationship with the CIA is of interest since he is an unreconstructed hawk.  What was remarkable to me at the time is that Goodman did not pick up on any of this. Did she know before of Cole’s connections?  Was not this the wrong man to have as a “frequent guest,” in Goodman’s words, on the situation in the Middle East?

This is not to claim that Cole is on a mission for the CIA to convince the Left to support the imperial wars most notably at the moment the war on Libya.  Nor is this a claim that the revelation about the White House seeking information on Cole was a contrived psyops effort to rehabilitate Cole so that he could continue such a mission.  That cannot be claimed because there is as yet no evidence for it.  But information flows two ways in any consultation, and it is even possible that Cole was being loaded with war-friendly information in hopes he would transmit it.

Cole is anxious to promote himself as a man of the Left as he spins out his rationale for the war on Libya.  At one point he says to Goodman (3/29), “We are people of the left. We care about the ordinary people. We care about workers.”  It is strange that a man who claims such views dismisses as irrelevant the progress that has come to the people of Libya under Gaddafi, dictator or not.  (Indeed what brought Gaddafi down was not that he was a dictator but that he was not our dictator.)  In fact, Libya has the highest score of all African countries on the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI) and with Tunisia and Morroco the second highest level of literacy.  The HDI is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide.  A glance at the map here  says it all.

Whither The Left on the Question of Intervention?

None of this is all too surprising given Cole’s status as a “humanitarian” hawk.  But it is surprising and troubling that he is so often called on by Democracy Now for his opinion.  In one of his appearances there was a debate on the unconstitutional war in Libya, with the estimable Vijay Prashad taking the anti-war side and Cole pro-war.  It would seem strange for the Left to have to debate the worth of an imperial intervention.  Certainly if one goes back to the days of the Vietnam War, there were teach-ins to inform the public of the lies of the U.S. government and the truth about what was going on in Vietnam.  But let us give Democracy Now the benefit of the doubt and say that the debate was some sort of consciousness raising effort.  Why later on invite as a frequent guest a man who was the pro-war voice in the debate?  That is a strange choice indeed.

This writer does not get to listen to Democracy Now every day.  But I have not in recent weeks heard a full-throated denunciation of the war on Libya from host or guests.  Certainly according to a search on the DN web site, Cynthia McKinney did not appear as a guest nor Ramsey Clark after their courageous fact finding tour to Libya.  There was only one all out denunciation of the war – on the day when the guests were Rev. Jesse Jackson and Vincent Harding who was King’s speechwriter on the famous speech “Beyond Vietnam” in 1967 in which King condemned the U.S. war on Vietnam.  Jackson and the wise and keenly intelligent Harding were there not to discuss Libya but to discuss the MLK Jr. monument.  Nonetheless, Jackson and Harding made clear that they did not like the U.S. war in Libya one bit, nor the militarism it entails.

If one reads CounterPunch.com, Antiwar.com or The American Conservative, one knows that one is reading those who are anti-interventionist on the basis of principle.  With Democracy Now and kindred progressive outlets, one is not so sure where some segments of the “Left” stand, especially since the advent of Obama.  In his superb little book Humanitarian Imperialism, Jean Bricmont criticizes much of the Left for falling prey to advocacy of wars, supposedly based on good intentions.  And Alexander Cockburn has often wondered aloud whether many progressives are actually quite fond of “humanitarian” interventionism.   Both here and in Europe this fondness seems to be especially true of Obama’s latest war, the war on Libya.  It is little wonder that the “progressives” are losing their anti-war following to Ron Paul and the Libertarians who are consistent and principled on the issue of anti-interventionism(4).

Democracy Now, quo vadis?  Wherever you are heading, you would do well to travel without Juan Cole and his friends.

There is, however, one exception, Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) the only contender who is a consistent, principled anti-interventionist, opposed to overseas Empire, and a staunch defender of our civil liberties so imperiled since 9/11. These are not newfound positions for Paul, come upon along the campaign trail or via a focus group, but long standing convictions, rooted in libertarian principles and verified by countless votes in the House and speeches on the Floor. You can take them to the proverbial bank. Nothing approaching this phenomenon has been seen in a major party since George McGovern. And even McGovern did not identify, let alone oppose, the U.S. as an Empire.

Paul must be taken seriously; he is not a candidate without real prospects. In New Hampshire, he is running third in the Republican race behind the chameleonic Romney and the looney Bachmann. And in the latest national Rasmussen poll, Dr. Paul runs 37% to 41% against Obama, clearly within striking distance of victory. Interestingly when Paul is put up against Obama, as opposed to others, the percentage choosing Obama drops. Paul has money from his grass roots “money bomb” fundraising and he has an enthusiastic base, especially among the under 30 set.

The question must be asked, what is to be done by the antiwar Left? This question may be put in a variety of ways. The Left often acknowledges its obligation to those in developing countries, people of color over the planet whose standard of living and life itself is held back by the depredations of the U.S. Empire. If the Left acknowledges such a primary obligation, does it not need to support an antiwar candidate like Paul when there is no other around? Look at Libya with thousands killed by NATO bombing and the infrastructure of the African country with the highest Human Development Index being systematically destroyed. It is a war that is undeclared by Congress, therefore in violation of the Constitution and thus an impeachable action. Or Iraq where a million have been killed and four million displaced. Paul takes an unequivocal stance to stop this killing. How can the Left justify withholding its support?

Is not the very first obligation of the Left above and beyond all else to stop the killing, done in our name and with our tax dollars? Is any other stance moral? And does not the Paul candidacy need to be seen in this light?

The Left has complained for decades that it is unable to reach much of the American public with a message of peace. In large part that is due to a cultural gap – the “progressive” Left does not speak in the same language as much of the country. Nor does the Left share the same worldview as many Americans. Ron Paul does, and he can reach, in fact, has reached these people with a solid anti-intervention message. Paul does not ask that his base change its worldview but simply to understand that anti-interventionism is a consistent part of that view. Paul speaks in straightforward terms. Let us stop poking our nose into other nations’ business and stop wasting our money doing so. He reaches people never before touched by an anti-war message. How can the Left pass up the chance to help such a candidate?

But what of other issues – like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which the libertarian Paul wants to phase out, albeit gradually. Paul, the country doc, knows full well how people of little means rely on these programs and he proposes no sudden termination of them. But this author and others on the Left want to extend those programs. How do we square that circle? I contend it is no problem, because Paul is committed to preservation of civil liberties and the prerogatives of Congress. I am confident that under those conditions, where the discussion is open and free, my views on these social democratic programs will prevail. I am sure that my Libertarian friends feel the same way. And what more can we ask for in a democracy? Under Paul I do not have to worry about being locked up for my views. I am confident of that under Paul; I am not with any other candidate. Certainly not with Barack Obama.

On the other hand the only way that popular entitlement programs can be scrapped is by taking the decisions out of the hands of our elected officials and putting them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That is precisely what Obama is trying to do in the case of Medicare with his so-called “Independent Payment Advisory Board.” Congress will effectively be out of the loop, and so we will be unable to affect the decision with our votes. And Obama has already signaled that he is willing to cut these fixed benefit (aka “entitlement”) programs, incurring the wrath even of the usually placid AARP. As Alexander Cockburn has remarked, the only way to end Medicare is by pretending to save it – that is, by stealth. That is the way of Obama – but not of Paul.

The slogan “No Justice, No Peace,” has often been used by the Left; and for the developing world it is quite appropriate. But in the heart of the Empire it is the other way around: “No Peace, No Justice” – in that order. Until we get the monkey of Empire off our back, neither the desire for lower taxes nor the desire for better social benefits are likely to be realized. The Left cannot afford to ignore this fact or the Ron Paul candidacy. At the least it must be discussed. To simply avoid the question and look the other way as the wars and slaughter continue simply does not qualify as a moral stance.

There has been a great deal of confusion about this second (H.R.2278; Roll Call 494)) of two bills on Libya. All agree that repudiation of bill number one (H.J. 68; Roll Call 493) was an antiwar vote. But far and wide, high and low, from NPR to Democracy Now, this second bill has been labeled anti-war and hence its failure a victory for Obama and the War Party. It was nothing of the sort.

Let’s cut to the chase here and quote the clearest statement of what the second bill represented. It comes from Ron Paul:

Mr. Speaker I rise to oppose this legislation, which masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war. According to HR 2278, the US military cannot be involved in NATO’s actions in Libya, with four important exceptions. If this passes, for the first time the president would be authorized to use US Armed Forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya. Currently, absent an authorization or declaration of war, these activities are illegal. So instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.

That the war in Libya can be ended by expanding it and providing the president a legal excuse to continue makes no sense. If this bill fails, the entirety of what the president is doing in Libya would remain illegal.

Additionally, it should not really be necessary to prohibit the use of funds for US military attacks on Libya because those funds are already prohibited by the Constitution. Absent Congressional action to allow US force against Libya any such force is illegal, meaning the expenditure of funds for such activities is prohibited. I will, however, support any straight and clean prohibition of funds such as the anticipated amendments to the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill.

I urge my colleagues to reject this stealth attempt to authorize the Libya war and sincerely hope that the House will soon get serious about our Constitutional obligations and authority. [Italics added.]

The vote was 238 to reject, 149 Democrats and 89 Republicans, versus 180 ayes. Some antiwar Democrats voted against the bill, for example Jim McGovern (MA) and Jim McDermott (WA), but all too many voted in favor, including Dennis Kucinich (MA) and Lynn Woolsey (CA). Why such confusion? Kucinich volunteered that he hoped to get some additional restrictions on the Libyan War, and for this he was apparently willing to provide implicit approval of the war! Perhaps the liberal Left has become so accustomed to groveling for whatever crumbs are thrown its way that they have forgotten the very idea of acting on principle. Certainly those who voted “aye” had little regard for the rights of Congress and its Constitutional responsibility to reign in an imperious, imperial president.

Let’s turn to the first bill, H.R. 68 which was also defeated. Basically it was the same as the second bill, perhaps the result of some knavery or simply of confusion! Here are the full titles of the two bills according to the Clerk of the House:

HJ. 68: Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya.

HR. 2278: To limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law.

The operative word in both titles is “use.” Each bill seeks “limits,” but in so doing each permits the “use” of forces or funds to wage the war on Libya. In so doing each would have provided legal cover for unconstitutional and undeclared war. These bills would have also lifted the sword of impeachment that now hangs over Obama’s head and may yet do its work if it can be shaken loose.

The greater lesson of these votes is that considerable confusion reigns inside and outside the Congress among both advocates and opponents of war. Confusion is often a sign that sharper conflict and possibly change are waiting in the wings. The side with clarity has a big advantage at such a moment. And Ron Paul’s statement offers us some badly needed clarity on Congressional turmoil over the war on Libya.

Obama promised change, but he gave us more of the same.  He intimated an era of peace but gave us war.  He promised to respect the right of Congress to declare War, but he dropped bombs on Libya in a brazen assault on the Constitution, not even tarrying to lie to Congress as did Bush.  Obama promised “transparency,” but Senator Ron Wyden tells us he has put in place a secret interpretation that expands the reach of the Patriot Act.   He promised single payer in his early days in Chicago to gain the support of health care activists and trade unionists; but he switched to the side of the insurance extortionists to gain the presidency.   His “Independent” Presidential Advisory Board, a provision in ObamaCare, sets the stage for an assault on Medicare under the guise of saving it; but he attacks his opponents for threatening Medicare.

Let us not forget that Obama was and is the candidate of the “left” wing of the Democratic establishment and the candidate of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA).  But this “antiwar” candidate of the establishment turned out to be just another jive-ass agent of Empire.  Glenn Ford of Black Agenda Report has said that Obama has out-Bushed Bush, not a “lesser evil” but a “more effective evil” since Obama has pursued the same policies while disarming opposition to them.

It is no wonder that all but the most diehard devotees of Obama, itself a vastly shrunken contingent, have at long last found the Messiah wanting.  But should they have expected anything else?   Andrew Bacevich in the superb book, “Washington Rules”, makes his most important point in a single word — continuity.   It is a theme that Noam Chomsky and many historians have long stressed about U.S. foreign policy, but it seems to perpetually elude the antiwar movement.  Here is how Bacevich puts it:

“The standard story line, promulgated by journalists and indulged by scholars, depicts [U.S.] history as a succession of presidential administrations.  The occupant of the White House defines the age.  The inauguration of a new chief executive wipes the slate clean.  Each new president starts anew and puts his personal stamp on all that follows.”…

“The fact of the matter is that no president starts with a clean slate.  …Constraints, some foreign, others domestic, limit his freedom of action.  Pretending to the role of the Decider, a president all too often becomes little more than the medium through which power is exercised.”  (And one might add that the constraints are imposed well before the election for President.  The establishment media will make mince meat of anyone who does not toe the line.  The backing of the wealthy and powerful will be absent, and the campaign contributions will be miniscule.)

Bacevich cites Dwight Eisenhower’s famous Farewell Address on the military industrial Congressional complex as a “rare exception”: “Eisenhower honestly and courageously (if belatedly) let his fellow citizens in on the secret that in Washington, appearances were profoundly deceptive.  … What Americans mistook for politics – the putative rivalry that pitted Democrats against Republicans, the wrangling between Congress and the White House – actually amounted to little more than theater, he implied.”

Now a very long one-and-a-half years out, we are assaulted daily with the kabuki politics of the 2012 election and all the attendant hoopla – Palin on a Harley, Romney reinventing himself daily and the Dems ever vigilant to choke off antiwar challenges to Obama.  NPR relentlessly bores us, locked in our cars, with the most trivial aspects of the rotten spectacle.

So what is a serious antiwarrior to do?  The only antidote to the Empire in which we are trapped is a movement independent of the imperial elite of Wall St. and Washington.  As Eisenhower said, “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” could keep those who would wage war in check.

The answer, then, is simple.  It is easy to spot worthy campaigns.   The anointed pundits are sure to ridicule them, dismissing them as “marginal,” a “wasted vote.”  There should be two criteria for an antiwarrior’s support once such a campaign is thus identified.  First, the candidate must put principle above party and run on a strictly anti-interventionist platform.  No humanitarian imperialism, if you please.  The other criterion is that the candidate must seek to build a base with its own structure and personnel, designed to live on after election day.  This makes the campaign part of a movement.  And without such an independent base, as George McGovern discovered decades ago, a major Party candidacy is doomed.  The elite “leaders” of the War Parties abandon genuine antiwar candidates.

Ralph Nader in his campaign of 2000 met these standards, running as he did as the candidate of the Association of State Green Parties, later to turn into the Green Party of the U.S., only to self destruct with a bit of help from Dem operatives. Likewise Ron Paul’s campaign of 2008 met the same standards, giving birth to the antiwar wing of the Tea Party and such organizations as the state Liberty Preservation Associations.  These were worthwhile electoral efforts; anything less is a waste of time.

His instrument is the “Independent” Payment Advisory or IPAB, part of the already enacted ObamaCare. Recently Obama proposed that this board, appointed by the President, take on a new role, that of “deficit reduction.” Despite the importance of this development, the Times carried only one brief article on it, describing the IPAB with its new duties as “a powerful independent board that could make sweeping cuts in the growth of Medicare spending.”¹

Let us put this in context right away. First, the U.S. is by far the richest country in the world with one quarter of the world’s GDP and a per capita GDP 17% higher than Canada’s and 40% higher than France’s, both of which provide universal health care of high quality, with France rated as the best health care system in the world by the WHO. There is no reason for cruel cuts in Medicare, other than the extraordinary power of that rapacious wing of parasitic finance capital called the insurance industry. Instead we should be expanding Medicare to cover everyone.

Second the cognoscenti on health care may be saying to themselves at this point, “Wait, that is just what countries like Canada do; they establish a global budget to put a lid on costs.” And that is a good point at first blush. For an answer we turn to the indispensible daily brief by Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for A National Health Program.² Here is what Dr. McCanne says. IPAB raises “an important point that we have made before and must make again: Applying a cap on Medicare payments alone at GDP plus one-half or one percent (as IPAB will do, jw), without placing the same caps on the rest of health care spending, risks devolving Medicare into an underfunded, lower tier welfare program, with impaired access for Medicare beneficiaries because of a lack of willing providers.”

The same point is made by the Kaiser Family Foundation, thus: “If IPAB recommends policies that squeeze Medicare payment rates without equal pressure being placed on private payment rates, there is some concern that Medicare beneficiaries would be at greater risk of having access problems, as providers become more inclined to serve other patients.”³

These dangers are made more acute by the political realities. First, if Republicans set out to kill Medicare, as for example in the voucher scheme of Rep. Paul Ryan, then the Democrats are sure to raise objections to scare up some votes. But if Obama does the same in a less forthright way, there will be silence from the Dems and from the majority of the grass roots health activists who are securely anchored to the illusion of “the lesser evil.” Second, the IPAB puts Medicare cuts beyond the control of elected representatives, the very thing that has prevented the demolition of Medicare over the years. Get a reputation for opposing Medicare and get ousted in the next election. That has been the simple rule. Here Obama is being very clever by putting Medicare cuts beyond the reach of Congress. It is true that Congress could overrule the IPAB, but it needs to do so with a veto-proof supermajority, which is difficult indeed. So as with war, Congress can simply give up more authority and thereby dodge blame but place Medicare in mortal peril.

For this very reason, however, the Republicans may prove the best friends of Medicare, along with a few hardy Democrats. From the Tea Party to some progressive Dems there is resistance to further erosion of Congressional power. Rep. Pete Stark, senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, commented tersely on the IPAB, one of only four Democrats to raise objections to it so far: “Why have legislators?” He went on to say that the IPAB may be worse than Ryan’s vouchers: “In theory at least, you could set the vouchers at an adequate level. But in its effort to limit the growth of Medicare spending, the board is likely to set inadequate payment rates for health care providers, which could endanger patient care.” This of course is the same point raised above by Dr. McCanne and the Kaiser Family Foundation study.

But the Republicans are even more determined to put the IPAB in a bad light – not out of altruism but to get votes. Although the right thing for the wrong reason, it is still the right thing. Thus Republican Senator John Cornyn, complained that the IPAB “punts difficult decisions on health spending to an unelected, unaccountable board of bureaucrats.” And Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, he of Medicare voucher fame, calls the IPAB “a rationing board” and agrees with Cornyn and Stark that Congress should not “delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people appointed by the president.” Ryan then said that IPAB would allow Obama to “impose more price controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting services to seniors.” He is right.

So the Democrats claim that the Republicans want to destroy Medicare and the Republicans say the same of Democrats. The bitter truth is that they are both right. Progressives, Libertarians and genuine Conservatives all have good reason to oppose Obama’s nefarious IPAB.

1. Obama Panel to Curb Medicare Finds Foes in Both Parties.
2. Scroll down to “Comments” at the end.
3. The Independent Payment Advisory Board.

Hence, we have begun a Right/Left Coalition to impeach President Barack Obama for violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which gives Congress, not the Executive, the sole right to declare war.

Two major obstacles stand in our way. The first is the loyalty of the liberal elite to one of their own and to the Democratic Party, no matter the cost in life to the peoples of other lands and to the often impoverished soldiers in the army of Empire who rarely come from the ranks of the elite.

The second obstacle is deeper and more destructive to the antiwar, impeachment and democracy movement. That obstacle is defeatism which hangs like a noxious cloud over every movement for change. Don’t fight the Empire, they tell us; it is too strong. You will lose.

Is that so? Behold the state of affairs around the world just in the last few weeks and you will see that the U.S. Empire is a colossus with feet of clay, a Pagod that may collapse at a moment’s notice if pushed properly and with vigor. Consider the imperial colossus in the Middle East and Central Asia. The Empire has worked nearly a quarter century to pacify Iraq, beginning with sanctions, proceeding to war and now occupation. And yet Iraq, although reduced to rubble by the Empire, is not pacified. Its people remain defiant; otherwise the armies of Empire would have departed long ago. Afghanistan, the object of a decade long effort of conquest, continues to rebel. The people of Egypt, Bahrain, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan are defying the cruel satraps installed by Empire. Iran hurls insults at the Empire and its puppeteer Israel on a daily basis. Turkey is no longer much enthused about the imperial colossus.

Now tiny Libya, whatever one may think of its ruler, has poked a finger in the eye of Empire. In this latest misadventure the U.S. was isolated from all the other great powers in the world at the UN, relying for approval on small, weak and backward countries easily bullied or bribed. The only exceptions were the sad little NATO allies, the UK, ever Empire’s poodle, and France which under the racist Sarkozy has lost all dignity and independence even as its foreign policy comes increasingly under the sway of the U.S. and Israel. Sarkozy’s party was defeated soundly in elections in the last two weeks, elections where he was to be aided by his appearance as the conqueror of Libya, the “second Napoleon,” in the words of the windbag court “intellectual,” Bernard-Henri Levy.

And look at the rest of the world. Russia has long ago learned not to trust the U.S. Certainly Qaddafi’s fate has enforced that view, showing that North Korea’s leaders were wise in terms of survival for keeping their nukes in the face of the threats of Empire. Iran and Libya have now learned the same. Consider the meaning of this. By its actions the Empire promotes nuclear proliferation, a logic rarely mentioned by the liberal elite’s “disarmament” groups stationed in the imperial city. Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua are not to be pushed about by the colossus and tiny Cuba is unyielding after 50 years of imperial siege. They too will consider the need for nukes.

In the United States itself, the grim recession grinds on. Government workers are laid off, shut out and deprived of union rights. The unemployment in all sectors continues at much higher levels than the massaged stats would indicate. And the situation is likely to grow worse. China, whose economy has been the chief brake on the deepening of the worldwide depression, is turning inward for its new five- year plan. Production and consumption will be oriented toward the domestic market, a boon to the poorer Chinese in the western part of the country. But as China turns inward an important economic prop for the Empire will be removed. In response we may expect dissatisfaction and rebellion in the U.S. to increase.

If one turns one’s attention from recent events and gazes back over the imperial wars of the last half century, things do not look so good for the Empire. The U.S. “lost” China as the embers of World War II cooled. And if one looks at the ensuing wars, the Empire has been vanquished repeatedly – in Korea, in Vietnam and now in the Middle East and Central Asia where it cannot eke out decisive victories over tiny adversaries.

Most important is that no informed observer outside the West believes that the U.S. is on the side of democracy and human rights. Obama more than any other president has shown that these are but slogans, empty words, flatus vocis to justify the depredations of Empire.

The Empire is not so mighty after all. Its elite is arrogant, not especially wise or intelligent, and increasingly focused on its own petty squabbles to determine which faction can squeeze the most cash out of the American people or which can lodge themselves in the seats of political power. Their narcissism long ago displaced their minuscule patriotism. They are to be held in contempt but not to be feared or overestimated. In fact their petty divisions should be fully exploited – and that is one important element in the drive for impeachment.

The world is in disorder and the Empire has lost control as events swirl about it like so many sandstorms. It can still lash out and cause immense suffering, but it cannot prevail, because despite outward appearances, it is weak. Its every move will bring more turmoil and resistance. This state of affairs is superb.

The United States has initiated a war against Libya, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has conceded.  When one country bombs another, which has not attacked it nor posed any immediate threat to it, that is an act of war.  No “humanitarian” rationale justifies such an act.  Only an act of Congress suffices according to the United States Constitution.  Barack Obama has violated that provision of the United States Constitution, which he swore, falsely it is now apparent, to defend and protect.  Barack Obama has committed this greatest of impeachable offenses. Other offenses related to torture and violation of the civil liberties of U. S. citizens may emerge as articles of impeachment are drawn up.

Many Tea Party candidates and paleo-conservative and libertarian Republicans, such as Rep. Ron Paul, won office by declaring their high regard for the Constitution.  Rep. Paul stated in advance of the attack on Libya that a Congressional declaration of war was necessary according to the provisions of the Constitution before an assault could proceed.  If these Republicans do not act now to begin impeachment following the lead of the very principled Dr. Paul, their words meant nothing, and they should be turned out of office.

Similarly antiwar liberals such as Dennis Kucinich backed candidate Barack Obama because of his promises of peace.  But President Obama has given us ever more war.  His pledge to end the war in Iraq by 2009 turns out to be an empty promise, and he has widened the war in Afghanistan.  He has also ordered the bombing of Pakistan, another act of war not authorized by Congress.  If such liberals are genuine agents of peace, they too have an obligation to follow the lead of Kucinich who has used the term impeachment with respect to Barack Obama’s behavior to initiate impeachment proceedings.  Otherwise they are poseurs, and they should be turned out of office.

Barack Obama can himself be called as the first witness to the hearings on his impeachment, so obvious is his crime.  In 2008 as a candidate for the presidency he replied as follows to a question from the  Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage.

Savage: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

High members of his administration agree and might provide ancillary testimony. Vice President Joseph Biden has declared:

The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was of the same opinion.

If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization.

Barack Obama has further isolated the U.S. in the world by going to war against Libya, contrary to his claims of being a part of a broad international effort.  This can only do more damage to our country, bleeding now with so many problems.  Consider the vote in UN Security Council. Michael Lind informs us of the demographics and power relationships lying behind the UN vote as follows:

In the vote to authorize war against Libya, the U.S., Britain and France joined by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa. Abstaining from the vote were five countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany.

What do the five countries that registered their opposition to the Libyan war have in common? They make up most of the great powers of the early twenty-first century. A few years back, Goldman Sachs identified the so-called “BRIC’s” — Brazil, Russia, India and China — as the most important emerging countries in the world. The opponents of the Libyan war on the Security Council are the BRIC’s plus Germany, the most populous and richest country in Europe.

Including the United States, the Security Council nations that voted for the no-fly zone resolution have a combined population of a little more than 700 million people and a combined GDP, in terms of purchasing power parity, of roughly $20 trillion. The Security Council countries that showed their disapproval of the Libyan war by abstaining from the vote have a combined population of about 3 billion people and a GDP of around $21 trillion.

If the U.S. is factored out, the disproportion between the pro-war and anti-war camps on the Security Council is even more striking. The countries that abstained from the vote account for more than 40 percent of the human race. The countries that joined the U.S. in voting to authorize attacks on Libya, including Britain and France, have a combined population that adds up to a little more than 5 percent of the human race.

The situation appears worse the more one regards it. Lebanon’s government controls only part of its territory. Gabon is a statelet with a mere 1.6 million people, smaller than many American cities.  And the UN ambassadors of two of the countries who sided with the U.S., Nigeria and South Africa, were not present when the vote was scheduled to be taken.  Ambassador Rice had to leave the Security Council chamber, find them and usher them in herself.

Partisan considerations should not impede the move to impeach Barack Obama.  When George W. Bush was president, many on the Democratic Party Left called for his impeachment.  They must do the same for President Obama who has more clearly violated the Constitution than President Bush since he did not even seek the dubious Congressional “authorization” which George W. Bush asked for and received.  If the Left cannot do this, its credibility will be in shambles, and quite deservedly so.

On the other side clearly there is reason to indict Bush, and some on the Left are calling for that as are certain authorities in European countries where the former President dare not go.  But at the moment Barack Obama is in charge and capable of greater damage if he is not stopped by impeachment.  Impeachment of Barack Obama can no longer be avoided.

Both Right and Left have good reasons to impeach Obama.  With this coalition it may be possible to get the ball rolling and at long last impeach an imperial president.  If it can be done once, the warning will be there and it will be the first step in curbing our imperial presidency.

President Barack Obama has violated the U.S. Constitution and employed the armed forces of the U.S. as a king’s army.  The U.S. made its revolution to escape such a predicament, and if this usurper of Congressional authority is not stopped and punished, these crimes will continue under each succeeding executive.  This must end and it must end now.  Impeachment proceedings must begin at once.

Consider it.  The Western powers have now launched a full-scale military assault on Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya, never a reliable “partner” of the West.  First there were denunciations and demonization of Qaddafi following the Libyan uprising in the East, then sanctions, then the attack.   Ostensibly, the attack is to “protect” the Libyan people from the hand of Qaddafi.  But is such a rationale even remotely credible?

Look at other events happening on the very same weekend the attacks began.  In Bahrain Shia protesters by the score are being gunned down by the Sunni police of the Al Khalifa “royal family,” sometimes killing the protesters like animals with hunting rifles.  They are joined by the tanks of the Saudi “royals,” the same Saudi Arabia whence came the majority of the perpetrators of 9/11. There are no American cruise missiles aimed at the Saudi tanks and no threats from the Western powers to stop the carnage of the thugs ruling Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.  What comes from the U.S.?  No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

In Saudi Arabia, itself, Al-Jazeera tells us:

The ban on public demonstrations (throughout the country) comes amid media reports of a huge mobilization of Saudi troops in Shia-dominated provinces in order to quell any possible uprising…. 10,000 security personnel are being sent to the region by road, clogging highways into Dammam and other cities.

And in Riyadh: “Several protesters were arrested in Saudi Arabia on Sunday at a demonstration demanding the release of thousands of prisoners, held captive for years without trial.  They were among dozens of men and women who tried to push their way into Riyadh’s interior ministry building, which was fortified with up to 2,000 special forces and 200 police vehicles, according to the Associated Press news agency. ‘We have seen at least three or four police vehicles taking people away,” said an activist there who declined to be named.

‘Security forces have arrested around 15 people. They tried to go into the ministry to go and ask for the freedom of their loved ones.’”  But the US sponsors no UN resolutions about the “Right to Protect” in Saudi Arabia. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

Then there is Yemen, another U.S. ally, where today Ali Abdullah Saleh, the country’s “president” for 32 years, is massacring his people by the score.  In response there is nothing more than a muffled call for “maximal restraint” by Obama and company. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

Or regard the spectacle of Gaza where Apartheid Israel is again launching a bombing campaign on a besieged and helpless population.  Not a peep of protest from the U.S. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

All that is just this weekend.  But behold the events of recent weeks   Let us not forget Egypt where hundreds or thousands of unarmed protesters were slaughtered while the U.S. in the person of Joe Biden and others cautioned that “president” for 41 years and U.S. ally, Hosni Mubarak, was not a dictator.  Hillary Clinton defended him as a personal friend of hers and her family.  This is the same Mubarak, whose police tormented the entire Egyptian population to the point that virtually everyone knew someone beaten or tortured.  This is the same Mubarak, whose prisons always had room to torture CIA victims transported there from around the world, an endless cargo of “extraordinary renditions.  Mubarak killed and killed with guns, goons and helicopters before he fell.  And from the U.S.?  No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

The failure of the Egyptian army to join in the slaughter, apparently for fear of being on the losing side, was the sole reason the slaughter ended.  And now the same army, consulting interminably with the US, is working a counter-revolution in that hapless country.  Whether it will prevail against the people is anyone’s guess, but there is no doubt that the US is working overtime to turn back the clock and shackle Egypt to a new model of the old imperial harness.

This is a small sample.  Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia and other U.S. allies could be added to the list of those perpetrating endless atrocities against their people for many decades.  And from the U.S.?  No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

I conclude with the caveat that I am not holding up Qaddafi as a model. What goes on in Libya I cannot tell at a distance.  But as Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, drawing on the testimony of Dartmouth professor, Diedreick Vandewalle, an expert on Libya, has noted, the rebellion in Libya seems to be one of the east versus west of the country, a return to old tribal boundaries.  That is quite different from Egypt where the demand is for development and democracy.  Is there anything unique about Libya other than its disloyalty to the West?   I can think of only one other thing which distinguishes it from Egypt or various other African dictatorships.  As Fidel Castro pointed out when he first predicted an invasion of Libya many days back, Libya has a Human Development Index which is the highest in all of Africa.  In fact, it puts Libya in the same league as the developed nations of Europe.

Certainly man does not live by bread alone although a bit helps.  But it would seem that Libyans need less protection than the many U.S.-Arab allies, which not only brutally oppress their people but also impoverish them.

But is it a single payer plan? As we shall see, it would be kind to call that a “mischaracterization.” Here is the analysis of Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, founders of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a beacon of principled struggle for single payer through the thick and thin of Bush and Clinton, right up to the Obama presidential campaign.

“The proposed Vermont health reform legislation includes two distinct elements: clear plans to rapidly implement the deeply flawed federal health reform (PPACA) in Vermont; and a vague outline of a single-payer plan that might be implemented six years hence if the feds were to allow it.” Emphasis mine.) So far it does not sound too good – a version of ObamaCare right off the bat and a “vague outline” of a single payer plan that “might be implemented in six years” if the denizens of the Imperial City so dispose.

Himmelstein and Woolhandler continue:

In contrast to the bill’s detailed prescription for implementing PPACA, the sections on the single-payer plan leave much to the imagination, punting decisions on critical issues to a board appointed by the governor. It seems that the board is to determine whether critical services like long-term care are included in the benefits package; whether co-payments will be affordable or daunting; how hospitals, home care agencies, nursing homes and doctors will be paid; and whether capital funds are to be allocated separately from operating funds (the sine qua non of effective health planning). And the bill includes no plan for funding the single-payer program.

Himmelstein and Woolhandler go on:

Happily, the legislation would enroll all Vermont residents (regardless of immigration status) in the single-payer plan. In one critical area the bill seems to come down on both sides of the fence. While it would proscribe the sale of private coverage that duplicates the public plan if the single-payer program is implemented, it would also allow employers to opt out of the plan.

One ray of light but the clouds soon gather again.

Finally, its uncritical embrace of the latest health policy fad – Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) – would bolster the role of private insurers, at least in the short run. The bill calls for pilot projects in which an ACO would receive capitation payments which would cover all care for a defined population, including long-term care, prescription drugs, etc. Insurers are the only organizations in Vermont with the financial muscle to take on such “full risk” contracts.

In sum, the Vermont bill evidences good intentions and bold promises, but leaves the make-or-break decisions about restructuring health care financing for a later date. This “kick the can down the road” approach is worrisome in a state where the governor and Legislature change every two years, and where multi-stage health reforms have been enacted in the past, only to see the planned reforms abandoned without being implemented.

Then Himmelstein and Woolhandler bravely conclude:

In this context, ongoing mobilization of a broad-based single-payer movement will be critical. Such a mobilization can bolster the governor’s evident enthusiasm for the single-payer project and maintain the courage of the Legislature as they face the inevitable onslaught of corporate opposition to real health care reform.

So one must ask, does one build a movement for single payer by working for a bill that guarantees something else, with only vague promises of a better tomorrow? One can have different opinions on this matter, but when this writer hears that Governor Shumlin has enthusiasm for the single payer project, he thinks back to a state Senator from Chicago who was downright passionate about single-payer until he got sufficiently close to the presidency. Then Obama bade a quick good-bye to single-payer. It has been my experience that the single-payer movement in general and the VT movement in particular has been susceptible repeatedly to the blandishments of Democratic Party pols to the point where naivete would be a kind way to describe it, and the same was true when Obama reigned in Chicago.

The very fact that Governor Shumlin has to tack on a single-payer promise to his awful bill is testimony to the strength of single-payer sentiment in VT. Thanks to the solid research and frank appraisals of PNHP activists like Woolhandler and Himmelstein, the battle for public opinion has been won by single-payer not only in VT but in most of the nation. What is lacking is the willingness to move from polite argument and reliance on Democratic pols to militancy and an independent path.

Shumlin said from the first that there would be no single-payer if he were elected and that it might materialize if he were elected more than once. Was it really hard to figure out what that meant from a pol? What is lacking is the recognition that this is no longer a discussion; it is a fight. And unfortunately the effort in VT looks stuck in that same quagmire. Those demonstrating in Montpelier would be wise to call a spade a spade and label the governor’s plan as the betrayal it is. The demand in VT should not be single payer later, maybe in six years. The cry should be “No to Shumlin’s Phony Bill. Single-payer Now.”

That meeting was remarkably friendly, given that the editors of The Nation and The American Conservative were contained within the same four walls.  The keynote was given by Ralph Nader  – at the insistence of the Right.

About 65%, of Americans oppose the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.  And yet this majority is unable to prevail.  One reason is that those who oppose war do not work together.  In fact, we often are at one another’s throats even where we are in agreement.  Some of that is principled difference – all to the good.  But some is simply based on stereotypes of “the other,” a recipe for failure.

As Eugene McCarthy often said, the war in Vietnam ground on because antiwar Democrats put Party above principle.  And today we see many who passionately opposed the war under Bush have vanished into the woodwork with the rise of Obama.  Certainly there is no call to “Impeach Obama” although he is carrying out the same policies as Bush.  The same happened on the other side under Bush, albeit to a lesser degree if we are to be honest.  Those who would put partisan interests above a principled antiwar stance will not find a Right/Left alliance very congenial.  But such Democrats and Republicans, whether unthinking loyalists or crass careerists, hold the antiwar movement back. Their absence is to be welcomed.  It is another powerful feature of a movement like ComeHomeAmerica.

As the two War Parties are fond of proclaiming, politics should stop at the water’s edge. We should take up the same cry; our differences over domestic policy should stop at the water’s edge and there we should unite to oppose Empire and war.

What do the Right and Left bring to the antiwar movement?  At this time, the Left brings greater numbers because the Cold War has led the Right away from its traditional “isolationist,” aka anti-interventionist, stance to which it is only beginning to return.  But the Right brings something far more powerful to the antiwar movement, and that is its vocabulary.  The Paleocons and Libertarians put their opposition to war in words that are widely understood and accepted in conventional mainstream discourse.  When the Paleos declare America should be first, that cry resonates far and wide to a populace facing economic hardships.  And when Libertarians declare that government is a threat to liberty, with military being a large part of government, that is something Americans have been taught to understand and respect since their grade school years.  The antiwar movement benefits enormously from this conventional and traditional American vocabulary.   It is not readily assailed.

America’s wars are a scourge unto millions of humans.  From a moral point of view, we in the metropolis of Empire have a duty to stop the bloodshed and suffering perpetrated by our elite.  In this quest dare any of us turn away allies?  Can we be so sure of our own views that we will consort only with the like minded even at the price of other humans?  How can we square that with our deepest instincts to preserve life.  Those who would refuse such alliances must look deep into themselves to discover what justifies that.

The ComeHomeAmerica movement has begun.  Later this year a mass conference will be called that will hopefully attract hundreds of participants.  Meanwhile read the book and sign up at the web site.

Names, names, names.  What constitutes an accurate description of Israel?  There are many appellations, none of them appealing.  The partisans of Israel like to call it “the Jewish state.”  But that name carries a disconcerting note.   We do not like “Islamic states,” and “Christian state” calls forth images of fascism, bigotry and Crusades.  Does “Jewish state” sound any more tolerant?

Then there is the very old fashioned label, “a people without a land and a land without a people.”  Not even the European colonialists of the Americas had the chutzpah to deny the very existence of the indigenous peoples as they were exterminated or put into reservations, the Gazas of the New World.  Though that racist little phrase continued to Golda Meir who denied the very existence of the Palestinians, at least by the time of the terrorist Yitzhak Shamir, the Palestinians had transmogrified into “insects” or “cockroaches.”   At least Shamir allowed for their pesky, subhuman existence.

Then there is “colonial, settler state,” an accurate name well understood by the developing world as it continues its struggle to throw off the hidden shackles of European domination – but not well understood as yet in the more or less post-colonial West.  Of course, there is the “Zionist entity,” again well understood by the oppressed of the Middle East, but a mystery to many in the West who have been trained to perceive it as anti-Semitic.

Carter has popularized the term “Apartheid,” both accurate and easily understood, a term that has a “stench in the nostrils of the world.  And it is precisely what is going on in Israel and the territories it occupies.  Do you want to call Israel a democracy?  Fine if we understand that it is a democracy in the same sense that South African was under Apartheid.  The Apartheid  in the West Bank is so blatant that it can be seen from a satellite where the Jewish colonists have their own roads in the West Bank. And if the West Bank is a haven for terrorists, why oh why would Israelis keep colonizing on the far side of the great “security” wall; in fact, an Apartheid wall.

And the allegory of South African Apartheid plays itself out in amazing detail here.  Gaza, an outdoor prison, is like a Bantustan, a virtual prison where only Arabs reside.   Israel proper has Arab “citizens” with diminished rights based on their Arab status, much like the “coloreds” of the old South Africa.  And then there are the Arabs of the West Bank, living in poverty adjacent to, and separated from, great wealth of Jews, much like the townships of the old South Africa.   Anti-Arab racism cuts across the society in many different ways.  It is a core feature of Israeli society and not just superficial.

But the great advantage of the term “Apartheid” is not simply its accuracy but the fact that everyone in the West and on the planet knows it was wrong in South Africa – and wrong in the US where it bore the synonym of Segregation.  And so it is also wrong in Israel.  By putting this single word into the mainstream of political discourse, Carter has given us a weapon in the struggle against the slow genocide of the Palestinian people.  It should always be used – the Apartheid Israeli State or the Apartheid State of Israel or even simpler Apartheid Israel.  It is a gift inserted into the mainstream; use it routinely before it fades away.

And now there are “human rights lawyers” from Apartheid Israel attempting to sue Carter and his publisher in New York, claiming that the book’s classification as “non-fiction” violates NY’s consumer protection laws.  It is a landmark case of sorts since it is the first time a president and his publisher have been sued for violating consumer protection laws.  This sinks even deeper into absurdity than the suit of the Texas cattlemen of Cactus Feeders Inc.against Oprah for libeling beef.

One of the lead lawyers from the Apartheid state is Nitsana Darshan-Leitner who rose to prominence just out of law school in the 1990s when she helped litigate a case on behalf of victims of the Achille Lauro hijacking of 1985 in which, tragically, one Jewish American was killed by terrorists who took over the ship.  But she is silent these days on the killing of one Turkish American and six Turks aboard the Mavi Marmara, which attempted to break the blockade of Gaza.  There is a crucial difference between the two incidents: the first was the act of individual terorists; the second was the act of a state, which must therefore be labeled a terrorist state, the Apartheid state of Israel.  Recently the Turkish government released its report on the incident on the Mavi Marmara which points to nothing less than cold-blooded murder by the agents of the Apartheid state .  Precisely what kind of human rights lawyer is Darshan-Leitner and her like?  Judge for yourself .

Carter is certainly being harassed for his contribution to the discussion of Israel in the US, but it amounts really to a desperate and flimsy attack on him.  Nevertheless it shows just how much the champions of the Apartheid state of Israel fear this stark statement of the truth.  There is much in a name.  Carter has given us the gift of “Apartheid.”  Let us use the term ceaselessly so that the truth about the Apartheid nature of Israel becomes crystal clear.

We the undersigned share with nearly two-thirds of our fellow Americans the conviction that our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should be ended and that overall military spending should be dramatically reduced. This has been our position for years and will continue to be, and we take it seriously.

So far, so good, even admirable – although some of the signers backed Obama even as he promised more war in 2008. But perhaps disillusionment had finally taken hold. So what is to be done, according to the petitioners? That comes in the next sentence.

We vow not to support President Barack Obama for renomination (emphasis, j.w.) for another term in office, and to actively seek to impede his war policies unless and until he reverses them.

“Renomination”? Many of these very people were calling for George W. Bush’s impeachment for doing what Obama is doing now, although Obama is doing more of it, as the rest of the petition makes clear.

“Renomination”? Does anyone think that the Democratic Party machine will deny Obama the nomination in 2012? And is there even the faintest suggestion here that the petitioners will try to field another candidate, a genuine peace candidate?

“Renomination”? Does that mean that the signatories will vote for Obama once he has been nominated out of fear of the Republican “fascists,” as the Republican opposition, not much different from Obama himself, is so often and so glibly labeled.

As we all know, politicians in general and Obama in particular care not one whit about petitions such as these. They care only about a threat to being elected or re-elected. The time for begging or petitioning Obama to change is long since past. It is time to organize an alternative. If a serious challenge to Obama and indeed to both War Parties is to be mounted, it must begin soon. Unfortunately no such challenge has appeared on the horizon as yet. It certainly does not appear in this petition. Time is running out, and petitions like these can even forestall necessary action by giving people the false sense that they “have done something.”

The manifesto makes it clear that two thirds of Americans are now antiwar. And many of that two-thirds care little for the Democratic Party or for Obama. But the word “renomination” was chosen to keep the locus of antiwar activity within the Democratic Party. That is a losing strategy as we have learned over and over again. Such statements as this petition are not casually penned and their words not lightly chosen.

Would it not be better to reach out to the Right, both Libertarians like Ron and Rand Paul and Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com and Paleos like Dan McCarthy at The American Conservative or Lew Rockwell or the Future of Freedom Foundation? Some functionary in the White House sub-basement assigned to keep watch on antiwar intellectuals must have breathed a sigh of relief that no mention was made of that. But how can one refuse to develop such alliances with the antiwar Right and others? To fail at that will only lead to a smaller antiwar movement and the probability that Obama’s armies of Empire will continue to grind millions into the dust? Can that be justified morally?

Most of the signatories are principled women and men disgusted with war. But the action against Obama they call for does not match the crimes they cite – it does not even come close. Electoral action, among other forms of activism, is needed, and the considerable prestige attached to some on this list of signatories can help to initiate such action. On the other hand, some among the signers have always come down on the side of the Dems in the end, no matter what they do. Let us hope that the latter are not in the driver’s seat and that this manifesto is but one brief step on a determined and forceful march to field a badly needed alternative in 2012. The hour is late and lives by the score are lost every day at Obama’s hand.

Let us begin with some stubborn, cold hard facts about the U.S. and China.  In very round numbers the world’s annual GDP is about $60 trillion.  That of the U.S. is $15 trillion, that of the EU is $15 trillion, that of China and Japan about $5 trillion each, with China about to pull a bit ahead of Japan this year.  The per capita GDP of the U.S. is about $46,000 and that of China is about $4,000.  In sum, China is still a developing country although one with a very large aggregate GDP.  It is number two to the U.S. but not a close number two, and it trails the developed world considerably in its standard of living.

What about trade?  Is China not the world’s largest exporter?  Yes, it is; but until last year, it was number two; Germany was number one – and Germany has slipped now to number two.  So Germany with its high wages and generous social benefits was able to outdo both the U.S. and China in exports until recently.  How did Germany do this?  By exporting high quality, high tech and well-branded goods.  (Germany has not outsourced production to other countries as has the US.)  In fact, as China came into the number one exporter spot, its leaders proclaimed that they were not really number one but number one only in quantity.  They said China’s goal was to follow in Germany’s path to become an exporter of “high tech, high quality, well-branded goods.”  Why cannot the U.S. do this instead of blaming China for its unemployment?

What about China as a military “threat” to the U.S.?   The US now spends about $1 trillion a year on “national security,” a staggering 1 dollar in 15 of our total GDP and 1 dollar in 60 of the world’s GDP, a colossal waste.  And that does not include the military spending forced upon our “allies,” the NATO countries, South Korea, Japan and now India.  Simply to equal US military spending alone China would have to spend 20% of its GDP on the military, an impossibility unless development is forsaken.  Its navy is not powerful but soon it will at least be able to patrol and defend the nearby seas.  Most assuredly the US will not for long be able to sail aircraft carriers within sight of China’s shores – and that is to the good.  It will make for less tension.  Consider how the US would react if a Chinese fleet were conducting maneuvers within sight of Los Angeles or Seattle.

Next let us consider U.S. military doctrine in the ways it might affect relations with China.  U.S. doctrine is clear and unchanging from one administration to the next since the end of the Cold War.  No country is to be allowed to come close to the U.S. in military might.  The most explicit statement of this came in the Defense Planning Guide for 1994-1999, a secret document prepared in 1992 and leaked to the NYT and Washington Post. “Our first objective,” the highly classified document stated, “is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.”

From the outset Obama has left no doubt that the policy of permanent military superiority continues under him, proclaiming just after his election, on the occasion of appointing his “foreign policy team” of Clinton, Gates, and others: “…we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet.” Just last week Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, declared in a speech in Tokyo that the 47,000 troops in Japan were there to “keep China’s rising power in check” and so will remain for the indefinite future.  One must also conclude that the wars in Central Asia and the implantation of US bases there, right on China’s back doorstep, and the courting of India over the past ten years are also part of the “containment” policy, whatever other purposes those wars and bases may have. This dimension of the U.S. wars is rarely discussed in the mainstream or liberal press.

The implications of this doctrine are pernicious in the extreme.  First, the very threat encourages those who might want to be friends to arm themselves to preserve their independence and sovereignty.  Second and much more important, military might grows out of economic power, as we have known at least since Thucydides.  Thus the US is declaring that China cannot have a total GDP which comes close to that of the US. Let us consider the consequences of that.  What would it mean for China if it achieved an aggregate GDP not larger that of the US but simply the same size? Quite simply, since China has four or five times our population, it would mean that China would have a per capita GDP one fourth of ours – or about $10,000 a year. That means unending poverty for the Chinese people. Thus China is forced to choose between poverty or provoking the ire of the U.S.   Such is the iron logic of US military policy.

The U.S. must either content itself to be eclipsed by China in the economic and therefore military sphere if indeed China continues to be successful in developing – or prevent China from rising to the standard of living in Europe and the U.S.  That is the meaning of the policy of “containing China.”  Sadly this policy also forecloses a win-win outcome whereby China and the US and the entire globe prosper.  US policy dictates a win-lose outcome. Such is the bellicose strategy and dismal future dictated by US military policy. And in the sweet talk from Obama and Clinton leading up to the visit of President Hu Jintao of China, there has been no suggestion of a change in U.S. military policy, not even a hint of such a change.  It is long overdue.

There, 30 minutes into the video, I found myself staring into real crosshairs — not the cartoon version on Palin’s Facebook page. These were from the videos of the helicopter gunship, mowing down civilians in cold blood, including reporters from Reuters in the Wikileaks release “Collateral Murder.” Those who have seen this, far too few since it did not get saturation coverage of the type reserved for the murders in Tucson, remember the cold-blooded killings of innocents who received no warning and no request to surrender. They were gunned down in cold blood along with the good Samaritan Iraqis who tried to rescue one of the wounded lying in a giant pool of his own blood and take him to a hospital. These would be rescuers were also gunned down – along with their children who happened to be with them in their van.

So let us compare the real-life cross hairs trained on these innocents to the cartoon crosshairs of the dimwit Sarah Palin, puppet of the neocons. One set of crosshairs is figurative hyperbole equivalent to the cry of Obama in his campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” But the other in the Wikileaks video is cold blooded, calculated murder. And although that murder occurred on Bush’s “watch,” the same murders continue today under Obama’s direction — not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan and Pakistan — and not just with helicopter gunships but with drones and bombers killing hundreds, if not thousands by now two years into the peace presidency of the Messiah. These are the forces of mass murder which Obama dispatches to the Central Asian killing fields each day. Is this man no less a war criminal than Bush/Cheney?

I wonder what goes through the minds of the Democrat Party activists as they avert their gaze from the real crosshairs about which they say so little to the cartoon ones. The Dems seem to be a latter day version of The Fantastiks’s Luisa. Not to defend the dimwit Sarah Palin who has parlayed her beauty and personal charm into a useful tool for the neocons. But who is worse – the phony peace president Obama or the silly, powerless Palin? Or is the death of defenseless civilians at Obama’s hands to be overlooked because they are poor Asians and helpless Muslims, instead of a Congresswoman who is a stalwart for AIPAC?

Obama fits neatly into the central theme of Andrew Bacevich’s book Washington Rules. The book’s most important message is that the foreign policy of the U.S. Empire is marked by continuity. A new beginning is not heralded by each presidency as the “progressives,” who can see no farther than the next election, would argue. Rather as Bacevich shows and Chomsky and others, among them Libertarians and consistent Paleocons, have argued for decades, the policy and imperatives of U.S. foreign policy endure from one President to the next. Those who seek refuge in the next savior to win the peace, at least as long as he is readily anointed without strife by one of the major parties, are bound to be sorely disappointed.

Sarah Palin and her dismal cartoons are the outpourings of an idiot useful to the champions of Empire. But the real gold dirt for them is Obama, a pol who can co-opt the forces for peace and lead us ever deeper into killing fields where the dead, maimed and displaced can scarcely be counted. Which is worse?