Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Note: This post has been updated with Nuclear Japan.

I wanted to wait and think a bit on the North Korea situation before I weighed in.  Here it goes.

There is a history of tension between Japan and North Korea.  North Korea is known to have kidnapped Japanese citizens before, and of course there is the fact that the recent flury of missiles is an expanded repeat of what happened prior to this (Kim Jong Il lobbed missiles over Japan in 1998).

I honestly believe that there is only one solution to Kim Jong Il: it is for Japan and/or Taiwan to go nuclear.  It would be very difficult for Taiwan to go nuclear.  China has too many eyes in Taiwan.  It would be quite easy for Japan to do it.

Japan has not gone nuclear before now because of a number of things (including but not limited to):

1. Being the first and only country ever to to be attacked with nuclear weapons, there is a psychological barrier with the citizens.
2. Japan believes (with good reason) that there is at least to some extent a blanket of protection from the U.S. just as there is with Taiwan.
3. The theory goes that if Japan went nuclear, it would start an arms race in the region.

I do not believe that any of these reasons are determinative.  Go do a Google search on “Japan go nuclear” and read for a while.  There is much discussion available on this subject, but most of it was written after 1998 and well before now (when Kim Jong Il fires more missiles over Japan and supposedly in the direction of the U.S.).  Some of the literature concludes that Japan will not go nuclear (for at least some of the reasons mentioned above).  But with the expanded missile program and several more years to work on nuclear weapons in North Korea, Japan might just be getting a little bit edgy.

It should be noted that there is some degree of enigma surrounding the Kim household and a line of succession.  There is also some speculation on potential mental illness that Kim Jong Il might be afflicted with.  So it is difficult to know exactly what is going on: Is this bluster to show the world that Kim Jong Il is still “the man,” and in charge of his country and that he will be around for some time?  Or is he trying to prepare the country for someone else in succession?

Either way, he cannot be trusted and he has shown that every time he has had opportunity.  Now back to Japan.  Japan knows this and must be thinking hard about the world reaction to the most recent blitz of missile launches.  Sure, the ICBM was a flop.  But all missile programs in history created flops before they created the real deal.

My position on Russia is that the reason for their reticence is that if they were to weigh in and begin to pressure North Korea, they know that they would be mostly ignored.  They are not the player on the world stage that they once were.  They weigh in on the same scales that Germany or France do, not on the scales that the U.S. and China do.  They know this, but it would be quite the public and international humiliation to weigh in and then be ignored.  It would announce to the world what they know but what they do not want the rest of the world to acknowledge; they have become mostly irrelevant.

No one else matters except China and the U.S.  China will not pull the reigns in because they are enjoying seeing the U.S., Japan and South Korea and Taiwan hand-wring over the shinanigans of Kim.  But this might just backfire on them.

The Google search you did above (“Japan go nuclear”) yielded many hits that opined in the negative due to such things as “they would have to reprocess their nuclear fuel to get the weapons-grade Uranium or the Plutonium.”  This objection is nonsense.  It amounts to no more than the objection for anyone going nuclear: you have to create the fissile material through reprocessing.  Okay.  So where is the problem?  This is just a technical issue.  Japan has good nuclear engineers.  Their commercial nuclear program demonstrates that.

Possibly the most interesting of the literature showing up from this Google search comes from a doctoral candidate at MIT, who authored a paper entitled “Why Japan Won’t go Nuclear (yet).”  “Yet” is the operative word here.  Once again, this paper was written prior to the recent spate of missile launches by Kim.

The weakness in this paper, I believe, is that it gives too much credit for public reaction, legislative gerrymandering, and world reaction to being able to stop Japan from going nuclear.  In fact, it seems to me that such a publicly stated intent would be profoundly unwise.  China probably would not allow it to happen.  If it is going to happen, it must do so discretely.  Then Japan would announce it to the world after it had happened — not before.

If Japan does go nuclear, it would signficantly change both the politics and the power balance in the region.  And this, to our favor and the benefit of democracies in the world.

Will they do it?  It is the perfect solution to Kim.  Will the U.S. discretely recommend to Japan that they be going in this direction?  How much backbone does the U.S. have on this matter?  As for an arms race in the region, this won’t matter much if Japan feels that their future existence is at stake.  What person would not run if his life was in danger?  The fact that running is hard work becomes irrelevant when your existence is at stake.

I have just left the mind of a mad man — or a man on dope (“we all live in a yellow submarine … a yellow submarine … a yellow submarine … we all live …” ahem, excuse me; I sort of zoned out).  It is titled “New York Times Report from Ramadi: Evidence of U.S. War Crimes in Iraq.”  It is written by Barry Grey, of WSWS.  Who is WSWS, you say?  Well, none other than the World Socialist Web Site.  Real socialists?  ThaaaaAAT’s RIGHT!  You thought that they only existed on the campuses of American universities and in the democratic party leadership, didn’t you?  There are actually a few left out there, although not in Russia or China (or any other country who has actually tried socialism for any extended period of time).

Well, the title of the article is telling to say the least.  Mr. Grey doesn’t do any investigative work.  He ascribes a position to the NYT, a position in fact which is neither taken by the NYT nor supported by anything in the NYT article.  Either Mr. Grey is a liar and knowingly propagated slander against the Marines, or he was high on dope when he wrote this article.  We will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was high.  Whatcha been smokin’ Barry?  Pretty strong stuff, huh?

Let’s tackle this bizzare article piece by piece.  It begins as follows:

A front page article in the July 5 New York Times provides a chilling and damning picture of the daily, murderous violence being perpetrated by US forces in occupied Iraq.

Just so that you know the context, the picture is shown below.

Now then.  This picture could show a deserted part of town, or a slum where homeless people live (here in the states we could certainly show photos like this of inner city ruins), or perhaps it could show how certain city blocks can become a victim of the relocations that occur as a course of war.  What, exactly, it shows, Mr. Grey does not say, except to assert that “it is a damning picture of the daily, murderous violence being perpetrated by U.S. forces in occupied Iraq.”

Maybe its just me, but does anyone see a Marine perpetrating “daily, murderous violence” in the picture above?  Maybe, just maybe, it’s that dope that Barry is smoking.  Good stuff, huh Barry?

Barry continues by citing the NYT article (C’mon Barry, do your own investigative work):

“In three years there the Marine Corps and the Army have tried nearly everything to bring this provincial capital of 400,000 under control. Nothing has worked.

Hmmmm … strange.  Seems like only a few days ago we learned that Ramadi was seeing U.S. and Iraqi patrols for the very first time (or at least, Ramadi was seeing things that they ‘rarely’ saw) in large parts of the city.  But according to the NYT, the Marine Corps has tried “nearly everything.”  Quite a statement of superlative, that phrase.  “Nearly everything.”  Oh well, don’t worry about the facts.  We all live in a yellow submarine.

It just gets better and better.

Barry continues by citing the NYT article on the ethos of the Marines in Ramadi:

“One of the ‘habits of mind’ drilled into the Marines from posters hung up inside: ‘Be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.’”

This is a bizzare as I can imagine.  Barry seems like a child at an easter egg hunt who is angry that he found an easter egg.  What does he expect?  Marines who have a plan to kill people.  Imagine it!  Actually, the wording is quite clever, precise and intentional.  It says “have a plan.” It doesn’t say to do it in all cases.  And if Barry thinks that there is an ethos in the Marines to kill people who attempt to perpetrate violence against them, he has that absolutely right.  I can vouch for this ethos.  Its there.  I’ve seen it.  But since I have never attempted to kill a Marine, a Marine has never attempted to kill me.  So I have not had any problems with them.  Is Barry shocked that a Marine would have a plan to kill people?  What did Barry’s mommy tell him that Soldiers and Marines do?  Apparently this is a traumatic experience for Barry.

Barry continues:

The Times’ article is far from a denunciation of the US military in Ramadi. It has more the character of an apologia, repeating uncritically the official US line that the people of Ramadi are “caught in the middle” of a struggle between American troops and insurgents—an absurd contention on its face given the tenacity of the resistance and the well-known tenet of counter-insurgency warfare that partisan guerrillas fighting foreign occupation rely on popular support and sympathy against the overwhelming military superiority of the occupier.

So it is all about the sympathy that the Iraqis feel for the insurgents?  It has nothing to do with fear of reprisal attacks?  On the face of it, there is nothing to this claim that the people of Ramadi are “caught in the middle?”  And Barry has not even been to Iraq and interviewed these people?  Barry, put down the joint, dude.  It is clouding your judgment.

Barry continues (apparently, he has not put down the joint yet):

Nevertheless, the very facts reported by the Times make clear that the US is committing war crimes, and that it is doing so in a systematic way and on a massive scale. The vast majority of these crimes go unreported, leaving the American people largely in the dark, unaware of the full extent of the horror being carried out in their name.

Ooooh.  See the twist of the wrist, the sleight of hand?

The “vast majority of these crimes go unreported.”  This means that we take his word for it.  Yep.  War crimes are happening, and on a massive scale.  Want the evidence for his assertion?  Well, it doesn’t work that way.  Why?  Because most of these crimes go unreported.  That’s why.  There isn’t any evidence for them.  We take Barry’s word for it.  Barry takes another toke and then continues:

“The inquiry into the possible executions of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha by Marines has also brought the same lukewarm response. More than three years into the war, many Iraqis say they are no longer surprised by abuses on the part of American troops [Emphasis added].”

Collective punishment, exemplary punishment, the destruction of entire civilian centers—tactics associated in the last century with Nazi barbarism in occupied Europe—are part and parcel of the modus operandi of the US occupation of Iraq. 

We can only respond with a collective ‘what‘?  I thought we were discussing Ramadi and looking at a picture of an empty block in the downtown area?  In fact, we were discussing Ramadi.  But Barry has allowed himself to lose track of the discussion and bring in elements of an incident that has no bearing on Ramadi.  Besides, the investigation being only recently completed, the results of the investigation have not yet been made public, and so Barry really doesn’t know what happened in Haditha.  But Barry has gotten worked up and only now reaches the pinnacle of his rant by screaming:

America’s so-called volunteer army is being brutalized and dehumanized by its involvement in a filthy colonialist war. More than three-and-half years into the slaughter, those young men and women in the military, having initially been bombarded with lies and propaganda, who have been able to retain some moral compass, find it increasingly difficult to continue to do so.

I am wondering when the draft was reinstituted since our Army is only a “so-called volunteer” Army?  A filthy, colonialist war.  Sounds like Marxist propaganda to you?  Well, it is.  Remember that this comes from WSWS — the World Socialist Web Site.

Oh well, Barry continues his ramble for a while; you can read it at your leisure.  Who would actually believe this stuff?  Barry’s dope dream was picked up and reposted by none other than the “Bay Area Independent Media.”  Imagine that.

We all live in a yellow submarine … a yellow submarine … Oh wait, was that all about LSD rather than weed?  Sheesh … my head is spinning.

Which is it Barry?  What kind of stuff are you on?  Care to come on over to the Captain’s Journal and tell us?  Over here, we do not have protest songs, long hair or dope.  You have to bring your own.  E-mails:

sfbay-web@lists.indymedia.org

https://www.wsws.org/phpform/use/comments/form1.html

Iran is taking a hard line position on the U.S.  According to a commentary in the Washington Post (hat tip to Blogs of War):

Two weeks ago, the secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council, dismissing the United States as a paper tiger, said: “Something very important is happening. . . . The Americans are no longer saying that Iran must be deprived of its nuclear rights forever. Iran has accomplished a great thing.”

But we should remember that this commentary is by Richard Perle, and like everything else he writes or says, it is moralizing, preening, self-serving and condescending.  When Richard Perle speaks, it is the “gospel according to Richard.”  This, in my opinion, leads Perle to believe that the Bush administration has “blinked.”  This might just be a fatal error for Perle’s analysis (and for Iran, if they agree).

In fact, there is much behind this decision to go political with Iran.  According to a Washington Post article:

The troubled Iraq war also hangs over Iran diplomacy. Administration officials have little confidence in the intelligence on Iran’s programs, while allies overseas view U.S. actions through the prism of Iraq. That concern has forced the administration to emphasize diplomacy to avoid the breach with its allies that characterizes the Iraq war. 

In hard negotiations, the Bush administration constructed, together with the international community, a package of rewards for dropping the enrichment and reprocessing programs.  Cheney raised an objection to where this might take the U.S.:

Officials said there was essentially no dissent among Bush’s top advisers on joining the talks. The Pentagon raised no objections, and the only cautionary tone came from Cheney, who said that the shift should not lead the administration down a “slippery slope,” in which they end up retreating from their core red line: an end to enrichment and reprocessing — the two paths toward fissile material. The group agreed to hold their red line.

It would appear to me that the Iranian thinking on this is wrongheaded.  There is apparently no desire to rush to war with Iran, especially when these issues are seen through the prism of Iraq.  However, the needed steps have been taken.  The international community has been briefed.  They have been courted.  They have even participated in the development of the package of incentives to lure Iran away from a nuclear program.

When the difficult time comes, that is, when Iran refuses to end the program, and the decision must be made either to end the program ourselves or let Iran go nuclear, the U.S. will say, “we did our best.”  Besides, you were involved just like we were.

Additionally, it gives the U.S. intelligence community the time to QA (quality assure) the information it is giving the administration.

Iran sees this as a win for them.  The U.S. sees this as a win-win.

And so Richard Perle is still on the outside looking in.  Just the way it should be.

This is an exchange of notes between me and Ward Churchill, the lunatic professor at the University of Colorado, on or about March 22, 2006:

I guess that this about covers it.

Announced during the last hour, Norman Mineta is leaving his post as Transportation Secretary.  Mineta is the only Democrat in the Cabinet, and is a Clinton appointment that Bush inexplicably left in office upon taking the reins at the White House.

Tony Snow will have nice things to say about him, but the fact is that 9/11 occurred on his watch.  And another fact is that while the hourly workers were ready to begin targeted searches (i.e., looking for those of Arab descent), Mineta continued the completely hapless policy of searching little old white ladies who use canes to walk.  Mineta is an inept stooge, and the U.S. is better off without him.

What is that I heard?  A tick upwards on the U.S. securometer?

Like little ADHD children … unable to discriminate between a teacher talking and a fly on the wall … unable to distinguish one thing from another … unable to make distinctions in category … the raving moonbat liberals cannot keep from being exactly who they are at the very core.  “Mommy, MOMMY, !!!!MOMMY!!!! Go spank daddy.  He said I should share my toys!  I want some CANDY!!”

Welcome to Mike Lukovich’s twisted world at the Atlanta Constitution-Journal.  In the profoundly humorless, deadpan, and mockable cartoon below, the stooge and buffoon Lukovich has someone with an American flag reading a book of torture etiquette to someone in Al Qaida.  Uh huh.

I posted a telephone conversation with Camp Pendleton media relations below.  Stupid discussion, it was.  But I did get to lodge the complaint that the seven Marines and one Navy Corpsman were in the brig without charges having been filed.

The Marine Corps Times is reporting that they have removed the shackles from the men in custody.  Well … and … what else?  When are you going to release them?  My complaint was — and still is — that they are in custody without having been charged.  Oh.  And it wasn’t just me either.  There are thousands of other people lodging the same complaint.  I just took credit for it.

This hangs on Staff Sgt. Wuterich’s door.  The final words to the pledge (on the banner) are “and justice for all.”  If Wuterich followed protocol and gets hung out to dry to appease the likes of the unhinged and loony John Murtha, then perhaps it should be “justice for some.”

Oh, by the way, before we get to the picture of the banner:  “Lord, may John Murtha’s picture be placed with the definition of buffoon in Wikipedia for a millennium.”

This hangs on Staff Sgt. Wuterich’s door.  The final words to the pledge (on the banner) are “and justice for all.”  If Wuterich followed protocol and gets hung out to dry to appease the likes of the unhinged and loony John Murtha, then perhaps it should be “justice for some.”

Oh, by the way, before we get to the picture of the banner:  “Lord, may John Murtha’s picture be placed with the definition of buffoon in Wikipedia for a millennium.”

Thursday, June 15th, 2006, approximately 1900 hours (EST):

Ring tone: Dial 760.725.5044 (Media Relations at Camp Pendleton, California).

Camp Pendleton (CP): Hello, this is Camp Pendleton media relations.

Captain’s Journal (CJ): To whom am I speaking?

CP: This is Staff Sgt. Jesse Lora.

CJ: I am a Marine father and a concerned U.S. citizen.  Are the eight Marines involved with the alleged Hamdaniya incident in the brig at Camp Pendleton?

CP: Are you media, sir?

CJ: I am a Marine father and a concerned U.S. citizen.  Are the eight Marines involved with the alleged Hamdaniya incident in the brig?

CP: There are seven Marines and one Navy Corpsman.

CJ: In the brig?

CP: Yes sir.

CJ: Have they been charged?

CP: No sir.

CJ: Why are they in the brig if they have not been charged?

CP: Sir, the decision has been made that there is reason to believe that there has been court martial offense and so they are in the brig.

CJ: But there is an investigation underway.  How would you know if a court martial offense has occurred if the investigation has not yet been completed?  Isn’t it the very information you need to rely upon to make such a decision?

CP: Sir, the senior staff has made the decision …

CJ: [interrupting] … who?  Who has made this decision?

CP: Sir, the commanding officer has made the decision.

CJ: How did he make it?

CP: Sir, he has reason to believe …

CJ: [interrupting] … but if the investigation has not been completed yet, how could he have made the decision — he needs the investigative results in order to make the decision.

CP: Sir, the commanding officer has reason to believe that a court martial offense has occurred.

CJ: Uh huh.  Okay then (Editorial Remark: At this point it was obvious that the company line was well-rehearsed and we were getting nowhere with this line of questioning).

CJ: Well, I still don’t see why they are in the brig if they have not been charged?  Are they in shackles?

CP: Sir, they are able to get out, to have family visits on the weekends, and they are only in leg irons, not shackles, when they are out.

CJ: I understand that this is one hour per day that they are out.

CP: Sir, they are out during meals and other times.

CJ: (Editorial Remark: Meals?  Are they shackled during meals?  What kind of idiots do we have running the brigs?): I still don’t see why they are locked up if they have not been charged?

CP: Sir, I assure you that they are being treated with the utmost of respect.  The hand cuffs and leg irons are for our’s and their protection.

CJ: (Editorial Remark: If there is reason to believe that they have committed a court martial offense, why would you treat them with the utmost of respect?  Leg irons for their protection?  What kind of idiots do we have running the brigs?  What kind of idiot does Staff Sgt. Lora take me for?): Okay.  Tell me this.  Is this a show for the media?  Is this all a big show?

CP: Sir I could not comment on that.

CJ: Okay, thanks for the time.  But I still don’t understand why they are in the brig without charges being filed.