I heard on Democracy Now that the new Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has pledged to withdraw Australian combat troops from Iraq and immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

Bear in mind that Australia has the third largest combat contingent in Iraq, after the UK and South Korea.

He has also vowed to issue a formal apology to Aborigines for the abuses they suffered in the past.

It is worthwhile noting that the US government so far has still not even made the symbolic gesture of issuing an apology, let alone provided any substantive reparation for several centuries of slaughter, theft, and broken treaties.

So, great news for Australia. Unfortunately, as i was reading the Sydney Morning Herald, i also read that the state governments of New South Wales and Victoria have given the green light to using genetically modified crops for the first time. The decision is not final: the legislation establishes an expert committee to assess whether the agriculture industry is capable of segregating genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops. If the committee indicates that the industry is unable to do so, then the minister can intervene to block the start of GM farming.

The Australian Conservative Party (whose leader, John Howard, is a staunch ally of George Bush's)has decisevely lost the recent parliamentary elections.

I hope this means good things for the Australians: my question is whether the new Australian government, led by the Labor Party, will withdraw its troops from Iraq. After the UK, Australia has the second largest military contingent in Iraq,

The early analysis I've seen doesn't give me much hope. but we'll see.

By Howard Zinn (originally published on November 13th, 2002):

Veterans Day used to be called Armistice Day, because it was November 11, 1918, at 11 AM - the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, that the first World War came to an end.

It would be good to remember a few things about that war as this country is about to embark on still another war. First, that you don’t "win" wars. We "won" World War I, but sowed the seeds of another world war. War is a quick fix, like crack. An exultant high - we won! - and soon you’re down again, and you need another fix, another war.

In World War I. the German Kaiser was presented as the epitome of evil - a threat to the world,, who must be eliminated for our safety. In truth, he was bad, but his danger to us was enormously exaggerated, as with Saddam Hussein. So the Allies defeated Germany, got rid of the Kaiser, and ten million men died on the battlefields.

We can get rid of Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a fifth-rate military power, with no Air Force to speak of, its army a remnant of what it was ten years ago, the country still in ruins, its infrastructure devastated by two wars, its people weakened by ten years of sanctions depriving people of food and hospitals of medicine, and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. And the U.S. with its invincible Air Force, will win.

In the course of that, tens of thousands of Iraqis will die, many of them innocent civilians, others poor, miserable conscripts in the Iraqi army. We will be killing the victims of Saddam Hussein. . Because of its high tech weaponry and overwhelming military superiority, America will lose few soldiers. But it will lose its soul.

World War I, presented to the public as a war for democracy, for freedom, was in fact a war fought by imperial powers (France, England, Russia) against an imperial rival, Germany. It led, not to the freedom of colonial peoples, but to a change in who dominated the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe.

Now, the war in Iraq is presented as a moral crusade to end the menace of "weapons of mass destruction", the evidence for which is far from clear. The assumption that Saddam would use them and invite annihilation (since most weapons of mass destruction in the world are held by the United States) makes no sense.

As in the first World War, there are imperial motives at work, and the defeat of Saddam will lead to a change in who controls the precious oil reserves of Iraq. Deals will be cut with Russia, France and England to divide the booty. The talks are going on right now.

The first World war was sold to the American public as "the war to end ll wars". But twenty-one years later came World War II, in which fifty million people were killed. The United Nations was formed, as its Charter says, "to end the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".

But no, it’s been war after war for the United States: Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia. All accompanied by claims that we were at war for some good cause, all resulting in the loss of human life, all demanding acceptance of the government’s reasons for war, most of which turned out to be lies. We should have learned from Vietnam that true patriotism does not mean marching off to war just because the government tells you to. Those 58,000 names on the Washington memorial should make that clear.

As a veteran of World War II, as a student of the history of our wars, and contemplating still another war, I suggest we keep certain things in mind. First, that we must be extremely skeptical of whatever government officials tell us about the reasons for going to war. Second, that what is certain about war is that large numbers of innocent people will die, including many children, and what is uncertain about war is that any good will come of it.

Finally, that when you go to war, you assume that the lives of people in another country are not as valuable as the lives of your own countrymen. If we really believe, as our most fundamental moral principles demand we believe, that the children in other countries have as much right to live as our children, then we must refuse the call to war. It is time, by public demand, by general outcry, to end "the scourge of war" .

The best thing we can do for Veterans Day is to pledge: "No more war veterans".

My comment was posted on the NYTimes website (it's #64) - along with a slew of racist posts which seek to reinforce prejudice and in some cases outright bigotry. The fact that the article produced such responses reinforces my doubts about the effect that any such account will produce.

I didn't comment on the problems with the article that i mentioned in my previous post - but with the overall sense of impotence that the author was transmitting.

It’s true that AS TEACHERS the impact that we can have on the lives of the children in our care is limited.
But we are also CITIZENS of this country, and we have a role to play in CHANGING THE POLICIES that create daily tragedies that young people face.

It is not a law of nature that capital/industry is allowed to be free, and thus forces communities to compete against each other to see who can work for less, with fewer guarantees. Our great cities once were centers of industry, and thanks to the many who struggled in the labor movement those jobs could allow a family to survive.

It is not a law of nature that essentially the only form of ‘assistance’ that the federal government is willing to provide to our youth is to enroll them in the armed forces, so that they can be sent to kill other black and brown children in other countries, for the benefit of corporate pirates and the imperial designs of the white house.

It is not a law of nature that schools and teachers lack the training, suppliues, and support they need to implement quality extended-day programsto reach all children, while tens of billions are spent on corporate welfare disguised as ‘defense contracts.’

As citizens, we have a role to play in changing these things - and the need to change them is urgent. There are lives in the balance.

From the Times:

The Pentagon has paid more than $100 million in bonuses to veteran Green Berets and Navy SEALs, reversing the flow of top commandos to the corporate world where security companies such as Blackwater USA are offering big salaries.

The retention effort, started nearly three years ago and overseen by U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., has helped preserve a small but elite group of enlisted troops with vast experience fighting the unconventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Defense Department statistics.

Should i mention that there is NO such program in place for teachersor doctors in high-need urban and rural areas?

From the NY Times:

The Bush administration plans to increase its 2008 financing request for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere by almost $50 billion, with about a quarter of the additional money going toward armored trucks built to withstand roadside bombs, Pentagon officials said Saturday.

The increase would bring the amount the administration is seeking to finance the war effort through 2008 to almost $200 billion. Much of that money will go to refurbishment of military equipment and to the purchase of new protective equipment for troops, officials said, an indication of the toll that years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken on military vehicles, aircraft, weapons and other items.

Defense officials said earlier this year that the Pentagon would need a war budget of $141 billion in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. [...] About a quarter of the new money would go to build additional mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs, Pentagon officials said.

Members of Congress have criticized the Defense Department, saying it has been too slow to buy enough of the vehicles for troops in Iraq.

The vehicles, which cost around $1 million each, [...]

The Bush administration originally sought $2.6 billion for fiscal 2007 to buy additional MRAPs, but Congress increased the total by $1.2 billion. Acquiring MRAPs has become one of the Pentagon’s biggest budget priorities.

Senator Joesph R. Biden Jr. [Democrat, Presidential Candidate], of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reintroduced legislation last week to increase financing for the mine-resistant vehicles by $23.6 billion.

“We have no higher obligation than to protect those we send to the front lines,” Mr. Biden said in a statement on Wednesday. “So when our commanders in the field tell us that MRAPs will reduce casualties by 67 to 80 percent, it is our responsibility to provide them.”

Hey, Joe. I have a strategy that will reduce casualties by 100%: it's called

Where: Newark, Lincoln Park

When: Saturday, August 25th, 12 noon

What: The People's March for Peace, Equality, Jobs and Justice!
Stop the war in Iraq, stop the war in our streets!

this promises to be the largest demonstration in the recent history of Newark, with people pouring in from all parts of the state. Traditional Peace Groups, organized labor, and Newark's grassroots organizations have joined forces for this extraordinary event.

The keynote speaker will be Rep. John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, who will be preceded by a videotaped message sent especially by Michael Moore.

Key demands:

- Troops Home Now!
- Health care for All! support HR 676!
- Justice for survivors of Hurrican Katrina!

for more info, call 801 457 9557
or visit www.peaceandjusticecoalition.org

an aerial view of hiroshima, after the dropping of the nuclear bomb, 62 years ago

i would suggest commemrating the event by watching this brief video

On August 28th I wento to see rage against the machine, reunited, at Randall's Island. the venue sucked. there were too many people, I couldn't see the stage even though I was close up.

Throughout the day, the festival had an all-hip hop line-up, but the crowd was almost entirely composed of white boys, not unlike myself of course. And, which is almost worse, there was an almost total absence of any kind of politica consciousness. We saw people wearing ared forces t-shirts, people in designer clothes...

I was disappointed, and i felt completely uncomfortable, especially when Cypress Hill made sexist remarks, and it just got downright bizzarre when the wu-tang clan used the n-word to address the crowd.

i kept thinking: "i hope zack cansomehow redeem all of this." And he did.

From the NY Times: On April 29th, during rage against the machine’s reunion concert at the Coachella festival, Zack De La Rocha gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of war crimes and said, “They should be tried and hung and shot.” A clip found its way to the Fox News program “Hannity & Colmes.”  The on-screen headline read, “Rock grp ‘Rage Against the Machine’ says Bush admin should be shot.”

On Saturday night Mr. De La Rocha responded. [During an extended musical break in the middle of Wake Up] he attacked the “fascist” Fox News pundits for “claiming that we said that the president should be assassinated.” As the crowd shouted its approval, he continued, “No: he should be brought to trial as a war criminal and hung and shot. That’s what we said.”

Zack continued, by saying that they stand in solidarity with young people: both the soldiers, who are in Iraq fighting a war for oil, and the young iraqis who are resisting the war every day. He ended by suggesting that it was about time that we started resisting the war here at home with the same intensity that Iraqi youth were resisting it in Iraq.

The thought of several tens of thousands of apolitical young white men paying $80 to hear someone say that warmed through the rest of the night.

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that these two news items ran on the same day?

Congress Passes War Funds Bill

Congress voted Thursday to meet President Bush’s demand for almost $100 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September

Even before the House and the Senate acted, Mr. Bush welcomed the legislation, which does not set the timetable sought by Democrats for withdrawing troops but requires the Iraqi government to meet a series of benchmarks as a condition of receiving further American reconstruction aid.

Poll Shows View of Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found.

These senators voted AGAINST the bill (so, presumably, they are positioning themselves as being AGAINST the continuing occupation of Iraq...):

Boxer (D - CA), Burr (D - NC), Hillary Clinton (D - NY), Coburn (R - OK) (???), Chris Dodd (D - CT), Enzi (R - WY) (???), Feingold (D - WI), Kennedy (D - MA), Kerry (D - MA), Leahy (D - VT), Barack Obama (D - IL), Sanders (I - VT), Whitehouse (D - RI) (???), Wyden (D - OR)

It's interesting that three of the Nays came from democratic presidential candidates. Of course, Dennis Kucinich voted against in the House.

If this is what we can expect from Senator Obama, it sounds like more of the same. Positions like these are why i will support Dennis Kucinich.

Senator Barack Obama on Monday outlined his approach to foreign policy, vowing to [...] expand and modernize the military [as if the US military needed expanding... for what purpose?]

His foreign policy, he said, would more closely resemble the “burden sharing” the first President Bush employed during the Persian Gulf war than the current administration’s approach. [Bush senior's "burden sharing" meant: we invade other countries, and get Europe to foot the bill. Sounds great!]

“No president should ever hesitate to use force — unilaterally if necessary [A sentiment Bush would certainly agree with] — to protect ourselves and our vital interests [what are "our vital interests"? is control over middle east oil one of our vital interests? is the right to smash any country which decides to defy orders from the United States a "vital interest"?] when we are attacked or imminently threatened,” Mr. Obama said. “But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others.” [What about "obeying the US Constitution and International Law by getting permission from the UN Security Council?]

The United States also must build a 21st-century military, Mr. Obama said, in addition to “showing wisdom in how we deploy it.” He called for expanding ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines.  [again, for what purpose? The US armed forces serve no conceivable defensive purpose (if by "defense" we actually mean defense of the territorial United States from foreign aggression), so an expanded military could only be used for foreign wars. And regardless, would it be the best possible use of federal dollars, as opposed to, say, recruiting TEACHERS?]

Sorry, Senator Obama. Try again.

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, April 23 — Congressional Democrats agreed Monday to ignore President Bush’s veto threat and send him a $124 billion war spending bill that orders the administration to begin pulling troops out of Iraq by Oct. 1.

Mr. Bush made it clear again on Monday that he would use the second veto of his tenure to kill the legislation, which would set a goal of having most American combat forces out of Iraq within six months of Oct. 1. [which would mean APRIL 2008]

Under the legislation, if Mr. Bush determined that progress was being made, he would be directed to begin withdrawing troops by Oct. 1, [...], except for those protecting American facilities [Like the military bases they're desperately building?], those engaged in counterterrorism and those training and equipping Iraqi forces.

Better than nothing? You bet. Acceptable? not by a long shot. If I understand it correctly, the bill includes all kinds of waivers (if Bush decides they can stay, they can stay...) not to mention all the troops that will be "protecting American facilities", and all of the mercenaries (like the good folks from Blackwater) that are there with no congressional oversight.

Furthermore, what exactly are the soldiers supposed to accomplish between now and next April? Why start the withdrawal in October and not in June? And WHY THE HELL ARE WE SPENDING ANOTHER $124 BILLION ON THIS WAR?

When you travel with the school, the hotels they put you up in usually give you a daily newspaper - which allows you to see a slightly different perspective within the bounds of orthodoxy.

Sometimes, you get really interesting stuff, like this article in USA Today:

Army pays $1B to recruit, retain soldiers

Bear in mind, this is ONLY the Army. it doesn't include the Navy, Air Force, Marines, or the Reserves. Try to guess how much is spent annually to recruit and retain teachers, to get a sense for our national priorities.

Al Jazeera reports that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis gathered peacefully in Najaf to demand an end to the US occupation.

This is consistent with every survey of Iraqi public opinion, which overwhelmingly wants US troops to leave as soon as possible.

Yesterday I helped out and attended the "People's Rally for Peace and Justice" sponsored by the Peace and Justice coalition, with much of the work done by the People's Organization for Progress.

A lot of speeches were made. Too many, I felt at the time. But I wonder.

Many of the points that were made were right on target. The waste of resources represented by the current war in Iraq was appropriately attacked, and the point was made repeatedly that those resources are - desperately - needed here, in Newark. Some of the speakers gave examples of just what could be accomplished with the billions of dollars spent in Iraq, in terms of housing, education, and health care.

The war was appropriately assailed as immoral, and illegal, on all parts.

We heard from veterans, and from one man whose son was killed in action. As Larry Hamm - the MC - pointed out, those were the domestic groups most affected by the barbarity in Iraq. Perhaps an Iraqi perspective would have been appropriate. There were speeches from Labor, from elected officials, from the first African-American woman president of the New Jersey Chapter of the National Organization for Women, from Ministers of both large African American churches and the Nation of Islam. More women spoke at the Rally than did at the Conference - a welcome development.

I quickly grew impatient with all the speeches. "Yes, I know all of these things," I thought. Now let's be constructive and talk about ACTIONS. The Occupation Project (a courageous, creative idea) was briefly mentioned towards the end of the event. People agreed to march. But I felt impatient, restless. When I read Stokeley Carmichael's autobiography (Ready For Revolution) or Howard Zinn's accounts (in SNCC: the New Abolitionists) of what people in the Civil Rights movement were doing to end US Apartheid, they were getting trained for non-violent resistance, they were having heated debates, and they were putting their bodies on the line - they didn't sit around and listen to people talk for hours on end. I wanted to say something about tax resistance, and my own efforts, limited though they may be, at civil disobedience with the federal excise tax in my phone bill.

But - and this is still slowly sinking in - I began to realize was that what was happening was something different. There was a delicate dance being conducted by the member organizations. And the point of the dance was to see whether they could all be together in the same room and agree on something - namely, in Martin Luther King's words, that

we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

And I realize that perhaps the focal point of this rally was less to mobilize the masses, and more to continue on the tentative path that the coalition set out on after the Peace Conference in January. And that my impatience with the proceedings is misplaced: what I was witnessing was the complicated and lengthy birth of a strange new creature. A still tentative alliance of African-American religious organizations, Labor, college students, and traditional "peace activists" which could - potentially - target the nexus of domestic corporate power and imperialism, with the aim of creating a more just society. This is the stuff that must give Dick Cheney nightmares.

So the role of anyone who was there was not to immediately become a foot-soldier in a wave of mass action, but rather to indicate to those who were on the podium, and to everyone else in the room that this is important. That we support their and our efforts to figure it out, and work as a coalition. That whatever differences may divide us (or divide our "leaders"),  we AS A PEOPLE think that this is important enough to set those differences aside.

Will it work? It's hard to say. But it seems clear that at SOME point these changes will have to occur, if the coalition is going to be sustainable, sustained, and ultimately effective:

• shift the focus away from this or that particular war and pinpoint the military budget and the whole military-industrial complex. Individual wars end (and the war in Iraq may end soon, hopefully). The Pentagon goes on.
• Think more broadly about our permanent war economy, as represented by the empire of US military installations around the world - which are being resisted from Ecuador, to Italy, to Japan.
• Move to engage the masses of people. The organizations in the coalition who do not mobilize in the street will have to start doing so. The "white, middle class" peace movement will have to challenge itself to incorporate more fully the domestic repercussions of a war economy, so as to become meaningful to the poor, the homeless, and the chronically undermeployed. All will have to be more visible, foster organization at all levels of society, and promote a culture of resistance.
• Somehow engage the youth of the cities in the struggle, and make them a focus of the "revolution of values."  Gangs, for example, represent a tremendous potential source of organization and energy. Schools at all levels are teeming with children who are just yearning for a framework to make sense of their world, and the natural rebelliousness of youth, properly channelled, could be a fantastic source of energy.

...Writing about this helps me reflect about what happened on Saturday, and it sharpens my focus on what I need to do. What should my role be in all this? If you got this far, anonymous reader, hopefully you are doing the same.

THE PEOPLE'S RALLY FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE

Saturday, March 24

12 noon

Essex County College Gymnasium

Stop the war! Bring the Troops home now! Fund Education, Health Care, Jobs, and Housing not War and Occupation! Stand up for Peace and Justice! Stop the War in Iraq, Stop the War in out Streets!

 And for what?

Is that "w" for "woman" or "warmonger"?

From the New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military. [...]

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

All doubts are gone. Hillary is just as much an imperialist as anybody else. And how ironic that she at least has the decency to acknowledge the role of oil, and Israel, in forumulating US policy.

So, who should someone opposed to the war and the extension of the US empire of bases around the world support in the Democratic primaries? Obama? oops,

Senator Barack Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton, has said that if elected president, he might keep a small number of troops in Iraq.

While we wait for something definitive from Edwards, let's just roll up our sleeves and start talking about Kucinich.