Old Lessons Still Unlearned

Despite the Bush administration’s optimism and strident insistence of — “no surrender” / “no defeatism” — by a chorus of prominent Republicans, bloodly day by bloodly day, the United States’ invasion and occupation of Iraq descends further into its abyss of immorality, absurdity, and carnage, revealing very troubling features of the U. S. national profile.

Democrats miserably failed to accomplish simple homework about Iraqi politics and history required to understand and avoid this stupendous blunder by duly and effectively challenging Bush’s bad proposals.

Lustrous allure of pseudo-patriotism, combined with regular incompetence, riddled most of the Democrats’ ranks. Ignorance and hubris, poured from an imperial pitcher of 19th Century, Manifest Destiny, joined to swiftly become a politically contagious cocktail, especially for mainstream types of Democrats.

Crusader-mentality and herd-behavior, two prominent national features, seem generally unreflected upon within U. S. politics. It’s as if this nation is truly, dangerously insane, and lacks even the psychological capabilities to comprehend its circumstances. Abundant anti-intellectualism and political self-deception exists within U. S. culture, constraining evolution of national ethics and conscience.

It’s almost as if no politician who honestly expresses the truth about our national predicaments could ever become elected.

Insulated within a dense, cultural bubble of class-slanted affluence, obsessive mass-marketing and consumerism, media-churned pseudo-spectacles, and a knee-jerk reflex of deference to authorities of elites and experts, mentalities within much of ordinary U. S. citizenry don’t well encompass complex, international facts and realities. National attention is virtually consumed.

Vacuums of rationality and morality, like that within recent U. S. political dynamics and policies, have again caused this — “nation of sheep” — (credit to William Lederer’s book of the Vietnam era) to ship its dear soldiers to a slaughterhouse.

Soldiers are regular folks, generally unprepared for intense cross-cultural and psychological turmoil of a conflict such as this so-called war in Iraq. Soldiers aren’t combat machines filled with training, duties and orders, then sent into battle.

They’re ordinary persons like you and I, who possess various attitudes, values and perspectives, across a very wide spectrum of individual experience.

Soldiers deserve to fight and risk themselves for a worthy cause (if one might occasionally be found) for they stake their efforts, lives and honor to such a quest.

The U. S. paid a very high price for its hugely mistaken adventure in Vietnam, which didn’t turn out to be the Philippines of the Gilded Age, conquered at the upswing of U. S. power. The Vietnamese drove the U. S. out of their country, using guerrilla tactics, just like the (eventual) U. S. defeated the British. The fact that this was obviously what would happen, was common knowledge among salient portions of the U. S. population by 1968. Yet, this nation and Vietnam, plus much of IndoChina faced more long years of bloody war and vast carnage.

The Vietnam War Memorial is not a monument which is cast in the style of victory.

From this pure confession, some might assume that such a nation had learned a very difficult and important lesson. But somehow, U. S. political leadership has again badly failed this nation’s people — for a longer period of time than World War Two — and still cannot even find brakes to halt this current version of runaway, wrong-war machinery.

Let’s take a look at some details of this landscape, from soldiers’ own mouths.

Recently, the U. S. military has released results of its (August / Sept.) 2006, anonymous polling of soldiers in Iraq, which confirm what might be suspected — U. S. soldiers aren’t a particularly good fit within Iraq. For years, polling of Iraqi people has shown a majority wanting the U.S. occupation to end and at least tolerant of attacks on U. S. troops. Now, we can see that reciprocal sentiments exist among U. S. troops.

These attacks, sophisticated bombs and suicide bombers, resemble some of the tactics used by Muslims in defeating the Holy Crusaders in Jerusalem. Suicide missions and bomb-sophistication are very powerful weapons, also reminiscent of the unqualified devotion of Vietnamese to U. S. eviction from their nation.

War is hell, so to speak. Why has the U. S. has repeatedly permitted itself to march into hell — without a heavenly cause — but rather with a transparently avaricious agenda of corporate empire? Why is it the case that some folks seem blind to this political / cultural reality?

The following data reflects results of the official, U. S. Defense Department (anonymous) survey of soldiers, as reported in the U. S. military publication, “Stars & Stripes” :

* The survey found that one-third of troops in combat report feelings of anxiety, depression and stress.

* Just 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of the Marines participating believe that noncombatants should be treated with “dignity and respect,” according to the report.

* One servicemember in 10 admitted to hitting or kicking a civilian, or destroying noncombatant property without justification.

* Fewer than half of soldiers and Marines polled in Iraq would report a buddy for unethical behavior.

* More than one-third also felt that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier.

* The more frequently servicemembers are deployed, and the longer they stay on the battlefield, the more likely they are to report losing not only their moral compass, but their mental well-being.

* As part of their recommendations, the survey’s researchers said soldiers should remain at home base for 18 to 36 months to recover from the stress of the battle. Deployment length was directly linked to morale problems in the Army, according to the report.

* The Army recently announced that all combat tours in the Middle East will be extended from one year to 15 months. The Army’s current goal, with the 15- month deployments in place, is for active- duty troops to have a one-year break between deployments.

Gerald Ford, as “Political Healer?”

Have you noticed a “healed” nation of the U. S., at any time, especially at the height of cultural and political turbulence during the early ‘70s?

I sure haven’t, and I’ve been paying pretty close attention. Then why is recently deceased, former President, Gerald Ford being widely proclaimed as the person who “healed a nation,” profoundly fractured by political incompetence and corruption? By pardoning Nixon and overseeing the wind-down of the Vietnam debacle, Ford healed something? I think not.

What Ford did was to temporarily scab over this nation’s basic political crisis, by disconnecting Nixon’s fate from public accountability, and by disaffirming the U. S.’s commitment to saving its face in Indochina.

Nothing ever healed, it all has simply simmered and percolated, roiled and blistered up to these very days. Can you tell?

Now, Ford was quite a decent fellow and a credible representative, a great family-man and a talented pillar of responsibility. But to portray his impact on U. S. politics as one of some “national healing,” is fundamentally inaccurate.

He was a “Mr. Smith”-type of politician, chosen to plug the deep wound of Spiro Agnew’s resignation (under criminal investigation), not a pure political magician.

If anything finally, sort of, turned the page on those days (but with no truly meaningful healing having been accomplished), it was Ford’s (fairly close) 1976 loss to the fresh and colorful, Gov. Jimmy Carter, who came out of nowhere to attempt to signal or stimulate some post-’60s nature of improved public trust in its political system.

The most fascinating aspect of Ford’s legacy is that he held the two top national posts, being elected to neither. His demeanor and style calmed the political atmosphere for a few years, and laid groundwork for some manner of bi-partisanship. After all, if Republicans were in the majority, Ford would probably have been Speaker of the House. Ford had the political experience and skill to knit together a certain level of collaborative endeavor within the Congress, and he appeared as a common-sense sort of kind Uncle-Gerry figure to (some of) the populace.

But to call Ford a “political healer” is utter nonsense. Perhaps, if this nation had been forced to better face and understand its political demons at that point in time, it wouldn’t now be standing (soon to kneel) knee-deep in blood over in Iraq.

The genuine political and cultural lessons of Vietnam were never learned, because the political / economic apparatus that funds our slushy and slimy system desired to find a way to forget and avoid, to distract and deny.

Ford sure didn’t fix those basic problems. Rather, he may have been a key part of them.

When such a person passes away, it’s good to remember them and hopefully value their presence and authentic contributions. Nationalistic sentiments and convenient myths can become strong cultural currents, however. It is in the best interests of all to keep our political tales and national narratives within critical perspective and interpretation.

A Whacko Solstice to All !

What’s it take to be a real whacko? What the hell is an authentic whacko?

The dictionary says that it’s “a person expressing delight and/or enjoyment.” Although interestingly (and strangely), simply removing the “h” from this word makes quite a difference, since the dictionary also says a wacko is “a crazy person.”

This odd duality of meaning seems to be a key interpretive junction about personal, expressive legitimacy within the potentially quite awkward or dangerous context of contemporary social / political reality.

To be a whacko, one is either delighted and filled with joy, . . . or a rabid lunatic, . . . perhaps both, . . . yet possessing credibility, or not (?) .

Such madness (if we’re lucky) compels us all, within an authentic spirit of joy.

Yet, in the ongoing post-modern contexts of generally pronounced yet unexplicated, underclass stigmatizations, social repressions, marketable conformitization (a newly coined word), intimidation and regimentation, . . . the term “whacko” has usually assumed gigantically pejorative dimensions (slanted toward the “crazy person” sort of status).

As diverse lifestyles become reduced to only ornaments within a zero-sum game of predatory, social Darwinism; and when social elitism, commercial contrivance and media manipulation heats and pulsates the molten-lava landscape of modern culture, the double-edged notion of a whacko / wacko provides a street-smart, ironic, revealing and aromatic sense of some deep and perverse, political imbalance, a semantical gambit which Orwell slyly suggested was so very crucial for achieving ultimate social control, for best maintaining a necessarily intimate, psychological advantage within the design of a truly successful, plutocratic police state.

Now, doesn’t that smell better?

Wouldn’t you like your own “whackos” cooked to order : fried over-hard, finely chopped (diced) and swimming in a steaming tureen of mock, red-neck gravy?

Then, such a delicacy is likely ladled like bright pools of hot, putrid oppossum piss, onto a bed of pale pasta, ringed with red and white radishes, and served on a blue-plate special?

See, smells pretty good, eh?

Re-warm it in your cranked-up, motor-vehicle crock-pot, while you shop ‘til you drop. Guzzle it down with relish, it’ll be a real belly-warmer and non-stop snooze-ticket.

What’s a genuine whacko to do? Can a true whacko really escape such grilling and ladling?

Are whackos happy and joyous, maybe crazy sometimes or all the time, or else just high-spirited folks in some ways, while carrying some serious (unconformist, even ethical) concerns?

Countless concentration camps have been crammed to the brim with whackos, persons somehow abandoning their thrill or caution of cultural obedience, caught in the . . . reality . . . of their identity, and then suddenly slamming into barricades of social brutality or cultural banality. Was such demise a voluntary course, or simply destined by swirling contexts of style of scythe?

Sometimes, happier fates have befallen whackos.

Perhaps, some of your best friends are whackos.

And irony still survives as the prime spice of post-modernism.

Even in Arcata (supposedly a rather whacko community), it’s still possible to be a real whacko; perhaps even to so survive as such. Thanks to the gods for such fortune. And may Odysseus and Penelope be pleased.

Hillhippy Historical Perspectives on Pagans, Christians and the Earth

[ Disclaimer: It is recognized that a lot of good people are Christians and that Christians do important good works. Of course, the same is true of pagans. ]

Out here among the hills and dales of the far fringe of the frontier, nothing is really for certain, unless the earthly gods desire it.

For only about a century has anything remotely similar to what modern folks call “civilization” spawned upon these wild lands. But for millennia before, another practice graced it, with remnants still powerful and emerging, the ways of the aboriginals.

The most formidable and valuable word in any human tongue is most surely, “ferine,” the quality of being an animal in nature. Aboriginals well understand this truth. Most modern folks do not understand it, at all.

When the first immigrants (white-men) showed up around here (1850), they were intent on only one goal: gold. Overflowing from the initial metal mines in the mid-Sierra Nevadas, these miners gradually crept toward the furthest, promising outreaches, durably and finally penetrating the veil of the last and perhaps greatest indigenous wealth of the (contiguous) U. S..

Natives of these regions were blessed by an abundance of life and power. Understanding this blessing, they kept confidence and peace in this land.

Freezing and starving, mongrel miners showed up on their doorstep, back in 1850; and, like other aboriginals before them, their mercy and kindness to these newcomers was their undoing. By saving the lives of these few fortune-hunters, they swiftly illuminated modern mapping by revealing Humboldt Bay (which until then had happily resisted such discovery).

The world of these local aboriginals was turned upside down, and many perished. Amidst the lure of the (soon played-out) metal mines and the gigantic and primal, redwood forests, such a vast and natural, service harbor as Humboldt Bay provided comfortable conveyance, swift use of which by the immigrants quickly conquered these ethical native tribes.

Soon, natives were being being shot for either sport or gain, herded and slaughtered, shoved into the nooks and crannies (which happily they knew quite well), back away from these immigrants’ new aggrandizement.

Of course, this was / is the “American Way.” Aliens (those humans in the way of progress and relevantly different from the immigrants) are soon scheduled for exploitation or elimination.

Half a century later, President McKinley and his political associates would lead the next stage of expansion, based on the moral premise of U. S. “manifest destiny,” that era’s equivalent of the current neo-Conservatives’ “new American century.” The goal was annexing to the U. S. whatever wasn’t tied down in the Pacific Ocean (like Hawaii) or could be sliced away from the scuppered Spanish Empire (from Philippines to Puerto Rico).

Dubbing natives “savages,” for purposes of best savaging them, the local immigrants simply kept up the solidly inculcated, cultural traditions of their forefathers. Many aboriginals, though, survived this mayhem to swim in or around the new cultural currents and forces transforming the land, and manage to infect and infiltrate this new system by re-emerging as a very powerful cultural influence, through following their own ancestral spirits.

Strangely though, to conquering sensibilities and convenience, the gods of these natives have never layed down their earth weapons. Their lands are so difficult to contain and bring to domain, that the long reach of the new, so-called “civilization” still has immense logistical difficulties with managing such a frontier scene.

And only a few generations since the cataclysm of the immigrants’ arrival, these local aboriginals are regaining their legitimate power. General human consciousness and activity (including of these immigrants) must soon adopt approaches and styles of aboriginal awareness, understanding and application, if it is to reverse the increasingly deletrious, environmental effects of its evolution.

The spiritual and intellectual sense of these aboriginals, within related bounds of their associated tribes throughout the Americas (for example, of the Iroquois Nation, upon some of whose governing insights and principles the U. S. Constitution is based), is perhaps the genuine crown of creation. Surrounding such logical earth-worship swirls a vast form of life of which lemmings might be jealous.

So why bother with these local and exotic, cultural distinctions, trans-religious affairs?

Perhaps the most enlightening and horrifying words ever uttered by a human being recently came out of the mouth of Rev. James Dobson, a leading figure of the Christian religion, by far the most prevalent form of religion within the U. S.. These words express the fundamental problem with post-modern culture, governed and expressed as it is, through grotesque and obsessive waves of mass materiality, detached from any proper conception of ethics, sweeping across nearly all social activities and disciplines, and finally permeating into every tiny corner of the world.

Spoken by a person who genuinely does not understand / comprehend the obvious moral ramifications of his view, Dobson’s concise remark provides stark insight into the central, bedrock matter of contemporary affairs, humankind’s relationship with its home.

Dobson claims that the modern “culture war” in the U. S. boils down to one issue, one elemental factor: “[Essentially, the pagans] claim that man was made for the earth, while we Christians know that the earth was made for man.”

Greed and exploitation never possessed such a useful, yet (purportedly) morally cleansed, machine of conquest, prior to the rise of Christianity throughout Western civilization.

Ultimately unethical cultural conduits were created and entrenched within the early eras of Christianity, grappling with its many religious divisions and conflicts over various authorities and practices, not to mention key doctrinal matters with strategic, political edges (such as the concepts of “original sin” and the specific role of a church).

In mid – 7th Century A.D., after about 70 years of preparation on the part of the Roman Christian Church, a Synod was convened at a place named Whitby, in the British Isles. As a tactic to move forward its determination to consolidate all Christians under one religious and liturgical authority (the Pope in Rome), the specific issue of the proper dating of Easter on the calendar was the subject. A side issue was a fascinating, early style spat, recognizable in contemporary life: what’s your hairdo? In dispute was the proper tonsure (haircut) for monks.

Originally, there arose a separate Christian Church in the British Isles, in the initial years of infant Christendom, founded and developed by followers of persons like Saint Patrick and Saint Brighid, who famously converted most pagan tribes of those regions without any form of coercion or violence, simply by moral persuasion. One might believe such attitudes and talents to be valuable.

Presently, this particular and quite interesting aspect (original component) of Christianity is known as the Celtic Christian Church. During the first few centuries of Christianity’s existence, there was a profusion of sources and interpretations about the utter details of its doctrines and practices, one example being the rise and fall of Pelagianism (promoted by the Celtic monk, Pelagius).

Power-mongering of the Christian Church in Rome, during and following the final collapse of the Roman Empire, demanded to incorporate this competing, “Western (Celtic Christian) Church,” which durably challenged its conception of a monolithic model of religious apparatus that could be more easily and profitably made to ride upon the old Roman system of cultural rails. All of this business was soley to save souls, eh?

Europe was eventually carved into various Christian enclaves, fiefdoms of the purported, single authority in Rome; yet primarily feudal in nature, engaging in endless wars for local power of some kind. Some even say the Christian Crusades against Islam were at root intended as a political tactic to help resolve these local conflicts within Europe.

Man became the earth’s steward, the earth was created for his use, that he might most magnificently ravage and plunder it. Just review the religiously inspiried work of the Conquistadors (unleashed on entire continents to subjugate and pillage in the name of the one, true Lord). Related to purposes / argument of this essay, watch Werner Herzog’s cinema masterpiece, “Aguirre, the Wrath of God.”

Folks of the U. S. would do well to consider that this nation’s power stems from its original immigrants arriving from the Old World to a New World, obtaining, occupying a perfectly situated and vastly bountiful continent to use and misuse, committing fraud and genocide against indigenous peoples in the name of the Lord, in order to achieve that unimpeded economic and political access, with a morality cloak for its “manifest destiny.”

Today, most of earth’s human population has slowly become determined to follow U. S. – style, mass-consumer-cultural footsteps, and that inclination likely leads to global, environmental catastrophe. Human beings were made for the earth, and if that’s not now as clear to Christians, as are the annual seasons, they have a lot of explaining to do.

The – purportedly – religous notion that from all of nuture’s vast profusion, man was the creature chosen to perform his mighty, moral duties over and upon creation, is ethically preposterous, judged by the dynamics of general human nature. Man’s supposed stewardship of the earth, perpetuated by this dangerous gospel of such devine intent, exists now as an unconscious bedrock within the mind of ongoing post-modern culture. Spiritual devolutions often develop an intense whallop.

But now, the entire planet is at stake, ultimately burning at the stake of (pseudo) Christian avarice, while (most of) these Christians blame “those Muslims” for not being well-civilized, by not finally subjugating themselves to a relentless, economic / cultural grasp, an updated “manifest destiny.” Many folks realized in an instant, on the morning of 9-11, that this basic problem had finally (and politically) come home to roost. Sure enough.

It’s being said (carefully bragged-about) that there hasn’t been another attack against this country. Well, Bush (the U. S.) invading Iraq was like pulling the primer-pin on an irreversible, global grenade, an opening of the fabled “gates of hell,” that has also blown open the dense drapes of huge domestic drama, and ironically ushered in political waves gaining the first shallow buoyancy for true social progress and democracy in the U. S. in nearly a half-century.

Given such political and moral instincts as Bush and company were likely to display – attempting to establish a “new American century,” with an initial gambit of engaging a coup and occupation of Iraq, . . .over an instant and unfathomable abyss of national hubris and folly – Osama didn’t even need to take a second shot. 9-11’s mortal injury to a certain nature of national spirit was quite inevitable. Moving off of that fulcrum, perhaps we may yet save the earth; this would be a fitting, ironic legacy.

U. S. Out of Iraq, Now

With what principles or purposes should the U. S. now attempt to further influence the outcome of its invasion and occupation of Iraq? Incipient civil war erupting among Iraqis, primarily between sects representing the two major branches of Islam, has gradually assumed dimensions which overwhelm conventional circumstances. Using various frames of reference, a wide spectrum of proposals are being articulated, from immediate withdrawal to extended / expanded intervention, essentially similar to assorted views expressed for years.

Dissolution of Iraq and emergence of more realistic national entities, with cogent repercussions throughout the Mid-East, has always been the only reasonable (historically plausible) outcome, once the U. S. toppled Saddam Hussein. Why did U. S. political leadership utterly fail to comprehend such a key geo-political reality? This is presently the major question swirling and shunned, within the national political atmosphere.

Upon what percept and strategy would the U. S. now presume to shepherd events, the very maelstrom of its own making, toward some form of best scenario for “Iraq?” Is the U. S. even capable of so postulating? Of course not. What happens within what used to be “Iraq” is near totally outside U. S. power to constructively influence. Only withdrawal of U. S. military forces from Iraq and its independence from foreign occupation will create conditions wherein authentic, indigenous balance is achievable, along relatively ancient lines of cultural identity and authority.

Yet more significantly, what is the true cost of misadventures piled upon misadventures? If your fellow countrypersons die or suffer serious injury trying to correct recurrent mistakes of U. S. political and military leaders, is that going to be enough? Enough, to what end? Does the U. S. have glue in blood and treasure to overcome millennia-old religious divisions and invent successful resolutions? Such U. S. power is a desert mirage.

It’s becoming much more than tiresome to suffer through incessant and pervasive political / media spin and drumbeat about some preposterous, continued role for the U. S. in Iraq. Its experts declare that various armed factions are now in vigorous, ultimate conflict over Iraq’s future, but only maybe is there a “civil war” going on. Yet, because of “extreme sectarian strife,” unleashed by U. S. military intervention, U. S. occupation must remain. George Orwell’s insights regarding modern propaganda-states are resplendent within such serviceable framing of this political terrain.

Not only is the U. S. posing as the world’s policeman (a notion thoroughly castigated within sophisticated company) in Iraq, with such a theory, but it seems still elevated hubris is ripening: the U. S. is now proposing to help resolve one of the most ancient feuds in all of human history, between Sunni and Shia branches of Islam, . . . all in order to save Iraq?

Did the U. S. enter Iraq to save Iraq? It has irreversibly destroyed Iraq; and now, like some petulant child the U. S. demands to pretend Christian chaperon to the intense Islamic conflicts provoked by its own self-serving yet ignorant recklessness. Can U. S. policy’s fatal flaws find a finer folly?

Such a course would be analogous to demanding Yugoslavia after Tito be preserved, when cultural and historical forces demanded its dissolution. And supporting arguments are no more than that the fact of this massive U. S. failure is itself the very reason to remain in Iraq, or that the U. S.’s international influence will suffer even greater harm if it “gracefully exits.”

Surrounding nations like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey don’t desire a regional war among themselves, nor to become enveloped in Iraq’s expanding chaos. The U. S. doesn’t need to convince them about that, with phony diplomacy, engineered to maintain its hope that in the end, it will play some very self-serving yet largely superfluous role in affairs.

What will happen is pretty clear. Most of what was once Iraq will become a new Shia dominated entity, the Kurds should have an entity, but avoid conflict with Turkey (which should cooperate because it wants to gain admission to the European Union), and Sunni authority will be diminished to its Al Anbar centered region.

Battle lines between Shia and Sunni, which will apparently arrange such new demographics, should not be patrolled by the U. S.. Once the U. S. leaves, the most likely outcome is that after some contest, these two great branches of Islam will discover an indigenous path to eventual compromise and relative peace. Such a result is likely the view of most people of this region.

But for now, civil chaos is now and has been for some time the rule of the day (and night) in Iraq. U. S. policy has created this situation, but is not capable of controlling or guiding future events in any beneficial manner. Just because the U. S. “cannot afford to lose its war in Iraq,” doesn’t alter the political and cultural certainty that it has already lost. There is no winning with Iraq, or even a palatable or reasonable opportunity for real influence, only a spinning of political consciousness to avoid saying it.

Reclining in the U. S. (bubble), it’s uncannily easy to stoke this war-pyre. Do those persons who declare an imperative of continued, U. S. military occupation of Iraq want to fix up a bayonet and stride into harm’s way? What is the true measure of their concern? Where are the actual spaces within which they speak? What historical understanding do they possess?

Faces of the U. S. fallen in Iraq reveal that media pundits are not among them. Elites are not among them. Upper-class folks, generally not among them. U. S. casualties reflect the composition of U. S. troops, and they are primarily of the underclasses, poor persons desperately trying to discover some form of economic buoyancy, some confident path, some better life. Instead, their gambolling gamble has become a grim, grievous gridlock.

How would you like to die to help the U. S. hopelessly attempt to save its face with its Iraq policy? Life is already pretty short. So, performing these services as ongoing duty, catching the fresh hot flak for old Uncle Sam’s ‘- new and improved -’ debacle, may provide certain folks with just the sort of moral encouragement needed to feel like it’s all really worthwhile, that (often dramatically) shortened or maimed life.

Patriotism has nothing at all to do with these matters in Iraq. Patriotism in genuine wartime resounds when the vast majority of citizens climb over themselves to find a way to constructively fight and die to preserve their national / cultural identity. The surge of military volunteers after 9-11 was motivated to help remove a threat within Afghanistan, not to attack Iraq.

Patriotism which increased ranks within the U. S. military after 9-11 was manipulated through policy designed to transfer attention toward Iraq. And of course, for reason of that obtuse deflection of intent, Afghanistan’s Taliban movement has renewed itself, and now helps control a bumper harvest of opium. U. S. foreign policy has become the biggest and worst joke on the planet.

War, as a term of language, is debased by applying it to what’s transpired in Iraq. As with Vietnam, and other such contrived, U. S. foreign policy adventures, a better description would be, “more or less, unilateral and strategic military interventions.”

With Vietnam, a phony congressional resolution was the gimmick to elevate that conflict into a “war,” and much the same thing occurred with Iraq. The U. S. political regime is not fighting an authentic war in Iraq, but only (grown unconscious of the grim lessons of Vietnam) designing and projecting policies to grossly waste precious resources, to protect many political postures from fatal harm, and for corralling and cajoling its underclasses to become fodder for its fight on the frontiers of that — now dead — neo-conservative notion of forging a “new American century.”

Will Revolution in Civilization’s Cradle Provoke Political Revolution in U. S.?

“The gates of Hell will open, . . . if the U. S. invades Iraq,” expressed by some Iraqis at this invasion’s outset, today remains the most concise description of relevance for these nations, at opposite ends of modern human history.

Consumed in late 2006 by whether or not to use the term “civil war” to describe the evolving situation of Iraq, most all commentaries have failed to ask the more fundamental, political question: “why wasn’t this area’s immense, historical proclivity for civil strife properly recognized within U. S. war analyses?”

Culturally disparate regions of the collapsed Ottoman Empire were quickly cobbled together for purposes of British and U.S. commercial interests, at the end of W.W. I, then renewed after W.W. II, attaching three very distinct former provinces based in Mosel, Baghdad and Basra. This new aggregation of imperial convenience was designated: “Iraq.”

Famed as the “Cradle of Civilization” through modern understanding of its ancient history, this region (around the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers) gave rise to initial efforts at agriculture, alphabet, law and multi-layered political bureaucracies, leisure arts, economic currencies, and other elements quite basic to modern forms of human life.

In recent times, not until Saddam Hussein consolidated utter control of “Iraq,” during various periods of the Cold War, was there any success with the enterprise of actually creating this contrived, pseudo-nation. There was only a succession of failed political scenarios, imperial puppets and stooges, and roiling civil unrest within the context of foreign development of this area’s huge petroleum resources.

Just as the U. S., using the C. I. A., toppled Iran’s democratically elected president during the early 1950s, because he challenged imperial plans regarding this region’s oil development, any potential problems in the newly arranged “Iraq” were similarly quashed, leaving truly indigenous political aspirations to deeply percolate for many decades, . . . until about now.

Unleashed at last, with a twist of irony that boggles historical imagination, three long suppressed schisms of this region will finally shatter U. S. imperial dreams of easy oil. Hubris and greed eventually compelled the U. S. to attempt removal of its old Iraqi strongman, Saddam. This was, of course, a fatal mistake in the circumstance of Iraq. It may have worked with 1953 Iran, but not 2003 Iraq. Only Saddam kept this (former) imperial dreamboat buoyant, and not even the fervent prayers of neo-conservative politics were capable of altering that reality.

So now, for years, day by day, week by week and month by month, precious blood and treasure of the U. S. is hopelessly and uselessly squandered in history’s new, crucible quagmire, which is primed to predictably and dramatically expand into a massive and multifaceted, regional conflict whose intensity and consequences dwarf any realistic threats from Saddam or any durable benefits from his ouster.

So, . . . why is the U. S. in Iraq? Because the Democratic Party in the U. S. Congress utterly lacked the intelligence, courage and political motivation to manage its civic duty, to preserve the interests of this nation in the face of a clear and certain human and political disaster, engineered by avaricious, neo-conservative-ridden Republicans, trying to extend “manifest destiny” into “a new American century.”

Barbara Lee of Oakland was the only Member of the U. S. Congress to refrain from immediately jumping on to the bandwagon of this immoral and ultimately catastrophic war, a conflict which will serve to starkly curtail U. S. influences within the rising internationalism of the new millennium.

Political pundits even claim, with layered irony, that the Democratic Party’s new majority in Congress is due to conservative Democrats winning swing seats because of their (overdue and timidly premised) questioning of U. S. policy in Iraq. The Democratic Party’s new electoral gains truly flow from its prior war cooperation in allowing such a fiasco to proceed, permeating its establishment order, until inevitable catastrophe ensued. Once always incipient “civil war” was apparent, our two-party system simply swung the pendulum to the other pole.

Let’s face reality. Regardless of these recently quibbling Democrats, Iraq will now be in a brutal state of civil war for years into the future, and there is — absolutely nothing — that the U. S. can do about this situation — despite the fact that the U. S. has caused it. None of the surrounding nations: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., possess abilities to meaningfully influence such events in Iraq. These nations only hope to minimize the eventual scope and consequences of this fracture of Iraq.

There are no solutions, either political or military, except emerging dissolution of Iraq, the dynamics of which will for decades involve basic aspects of political and social life throughout this entire region of the world. Plus, the U. S. has now drained its treasury against service to urgent domestic concerns, and the Neo-conservatives’ tidy, ideologically spawned dream world of a “new American century” has evaporated within the steam rising from oceans of spilled blood.

This result was very easy to see coming, for many folks, and the nation was well-warned not to follow Bush’s greedy lead. But our national political apparatus was purely incapable of fathoming or responding to this crisis, because it’s too tough to do the political work needed to break away from the established political herd.

Only someone like Barbara Lee, in a fully safe (and fairly sophisticated) district, would wager the political currency needed to even attempt to discover the actual situation with Iraq and U. S. policies, and to tell her constituents the truth. Now, U. S. voters are suddenly alarmed enough to spin control of Congress to the Democrats, who propose various means of often torpid recourse from their earlier compliance in establishing the abyss which is now “Iraq.”

But the big question is: How far will U. S. political upheaval ultimately go? Issues and problems flowing from this debacle will swirl like typhoons for many years. Will folks in the U. S., upon understanding these dire political circumstances, finally wise-up to their underlying, political predicaments? Or will they fall asleep again, like after the Vietnam War, counting themselves as sheep?

Initial Post-Election Note

Election day of 2006 has arrived, and Arcata has results of its political
process designed to disallow meaningful presentation, dialogue and
examination of key issues, through a meager format dominated by spewing
tiny soundbites against a crazy-quilt of questions.

Opportunities for underclass candidate participation is wholly undermined
by such flawed process, a bleak and superficial mimic of real democracy
wherein candidates are afforded ample public venue, rather than suitably
marginalized according to their class status, as if political value was
just another property of the economically elite.

Working-poor, typically laboring fifty or more hours each week, without
holiday, cannot muster muscle-money and free time needed to conduct a
regularly lavish campaign, although council service would be attainable.
Working seven days a week on a very tight budget eliminates underclass
campaign participation, in ways and manners of gentrified expectations.

Because of insufficient publicly sponsored venues: Stillman, Meserve,
Wheetley and Winkler, etc., all well benefit; while Harris (especially)
suffers. Lives of economic elites are organized and well funded, affording
ample resources and time for their prolific display of class status
against both each other and candidacies of the poor and oppressed.

Many folks believe this undemocratic style of political dynamic is
precisely responsible for political failures within all levels of
government. One way or another, the system is largely fixed and outcomes
controlled by those with money, time and entrenched investment in a status
quo power-grid.

Incumbancy is nurtured by elite factions, with political process
culturally manipulated by confining channels of discourse to preserve
upper-class interests, while repressing and discouraging underclass
participation. Plutocracy is this system’s true name, existing ‘right here
in River City.’

Electoral demands for expanded process, such as single-subject forums
wherein candidates might have five minutes to organize messages, instead
of being cut to ribbons by time limits, were ignored. Entreaties to HSU,
the business community, other candidates and interests found no response,
so local institutional sectors are presumedly content with barely
half-a-loaf of democracy riding a well-greased slide toward political
power.

I’m not content with such undemocratic process, so I’ll attempt to employ
an ancient tactic of voicing a shadow government, creating an essential
counterpoint to establishment perspective, scrutinizing and explicating
its failures, while proposing publicly advantageous alternatives. In this
fashion, campaigning will persist for local exercise of optimum municipal
judgment. Failures of judgment have led to huge problems, massive
mishandling of a variety of matters, and diminished municipal confidence.

Glaringly intrusive upon this electoral season is one fine example of the
poor quality of recent municipal decisionmaking. The initiative (W) issue
of fluoridated water needn’t have soaked-up such a long and steady stream
of press and public attention. Better political judgement would have
easily recognized the contours of this question and established a
reasonable city program to satisfy the concerns of perhaps twenty-plus
percent of citizens who strongly prefer unfluoridated water. Instead, a
prolonged and useless political circus unfolded, eclipsing crucial affairs
and priorities.

Other obvious examples of council failure are its inadequate address to
the housing crisis, while bungling social service efforts, combined with
absences of both creative vision and a political rudder over a variety of
subjects. Deleterious conditions have evolved to a point where local elite
interests are determined to scapegoat Meserve for these problems,
installing Stillman as a remedy. While guilty of much, Meserve isn’t
fairly responsible for all of these problems, and he represents left-wing
political activism to a large sector of citizens. Stillman still hasn’t
been pulled off her intense fascination with political generalities,
couched upon an upper-class perspective.

Unconfident about key municipal policymaking, I pledge two means of
support for initiating improved accountability and political opportunity,
my own efforts combined with a vehicle which I’ve kept secure and ready to
perform such a task when such a need arose, the URL: Arcata.org.

Once this website gains essential technical capabilities to properly serve
purposes of occupying the role of a shadow government for Arcata, this
community will possess a basic venue for organizing its political
dialogue, expressing and elucidating civic innovations, seeking civic
accountability.

######