Friday, July 08, 2005
Staying in Iraq?
Expensive Blunder
by Charley Reese
08/07/05
One question Americans should be asking the Bush administration is why it wishes to do such an expensive favor for the Iraqi people.
I cannot think of any instance in which the federal government has been willing to spend $1 billion a week and 1,700 lives just to improve conditions in any one of the 50 states.
Yet that is exactly what it is doing in Iraq, presumably for no other reason than to bring the blessings of liberty to a people we have bombed, starved, impoverished and vilified for 14 years.
Naturally, the democracy bit is a fallback excuse after the original justification for launching a pre-emptive war was proven false. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no nuclear program. There were no ties to al-Qaida. There was no threat to the United States, imminent or otherwise.
These undisputed facts leave the American people with two choices. One, they can give President George Bush the benefit of the doubt and believe that he believed there actually were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In that case, he is guilty of the most expensive blunder in the history of the United States. When such blunders are discovered, the normal course of events is to fire the people responsible. No such firings have occurred in the Bush administration. In fact, the Bush administration refuses to admit it made a mistake, however obvious the truth.
The second choice is to conclude that the president deliberately misled the American people and was intent on attacking Iraq without regard for the facts. There is accumulating evidence that this is the case. As a recently unearthed British memorandum reveals, Bush had decided to go to war, and the facts were to be "fixed" to justify it. This explains the lack of firings. The intelligence bureaucrats didn't err; they did exactly what the Bush cabal instructed them to do: fix the facts to justify a war.
Whichever it is - colossal blunder or deliberate deception - President Bush has gotten away with it. Neither the voters, the Congress nor the press has held him accountable. That leaves the present mess. We are now once again hearing the old rhetoric of the Vietnam War. "We can't cut and run"; "To pull out now would be a catastrophe"; etc. and so forth.
This is a false argument. A planned withdrawal after the completion of the mission is not "cutting and running." No group - most of all the insurgents - believes it has the power to drive us out of Iraq. After the interim government drafts a constitution and elects a permanent government, there will be no justification for us to remain. If we do, we will be seen as propping up a phony government the Iraqi people don't support.
Furthermore, we as outsiders cannot defeat an insurgency, because our very presence fuels its recruiting drives. Only the Iraqis can defeat the insurgency, and only after we have left.
President Bush, in my opinion, doesn't intend to leave Iraq ever. He is looking for a permanent U.S. military presence in that country. The American people and the Congress, however, can force him to withdraw. If the people put enough pressure on Congress, the legislative branch can cut off the funds and thus force a U.S. withdrawal. Unfortunately, I fear that more Americans will die before the pressure builds to that point.
Trying to create democracy at the point of a foreign bayonet was a fool's errand from the beginning. It can't be done. My guess is the Iraqis will eventually choose another strongman to give them what they most want, which is security, functioning utilities and jobs. What we have done with our invasion and error-riddled occupation is create the perfect conditions for a new dictator.
In the meantime, the American people should be concerned that their federal government worries more about the Iraqis than it does the Americans. We could find far better uses for both the money and the lives than to squander them on the hard, bloody soil of the Middle East.
by Charley Reese
08/07/05
One question Americans should be asking the Bush administration is why it wishes to do such an expensive favor for the Iraqi people.
I cannot think of any instance in which the federal government has been willing to spend $1 billion a week and 1,700 lives just to improve conditions in any one of the 50 states.
Yet that is exactly what it is doing in Iraq, presumably for no other reason than to bring the blessings of liberty to a people we have bombed, starved, impoverished and vilified for 14 years.
Naturally, the democracy bit is a fallback excuse after the original justification for launching a pre-emptive war was proven false. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no nuclear program. There were no ties to al-Qaida. There was no threat to the United States, imminent or otherwise.
These undisputed facts leave the American people with two choices. One, they can give President George Bush the benefit of the doubt and believe that he believed there actually were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In that case, he is guilty of the most expensive blunder in the history of the United States. When such blunders are discovered, the normal course of events is to fire the people responsible. No such firings have occurred in the Bush administration. In fact, the Bush administration refuses to admit it made a mistake, however obvious the truth.
The second choice is to conclude that the president deliberately misled the American people and was intent on attacking Iraq without regard for the facts. There is accumulating evidence that this is the case. As a recently unearthed British memorandum reveals, Bush had decided to go to war, and the facts were to be "fixed" to justify it. This explains the lack of firings. The intelligence bureaucrats didn't err; they did exactly what the Bush cabal instructed them to do: fix the facts to justify a war.
Whichever it is - colossal blunder or deliberate deception - President Bush has gotten away with it. Neither the voters, the Congress nor the press has held him accountable. That leaves the present mess. We are now once again hearing the old rhetoric of the Vietnam War. "We can't cut and run"; "To pull out now would be a catastrophe"; etc. and so forth.
This is a false argument. A planned withdrawal after the completion of the mission is not "cutting and running." No group - most of all the insurgents - believes it has the power to drive us out of Iraq. After the interim government drafts a constitution and elects a permanent government, there will be no justification for us to remain. If we do, we will be seen as propping up a phony government the Iraqi people don't support.
Furthermore, we as outsiders cannot defeat an insurgency, because our very presence fuels its recruiting drives. Only the Iraqis can defeat the insurgency, and only after we have left.
President Bush, in my opinion, doesn't intend to leave Iraq ever. He is looking for a permanent U.S. military presence in that country. The American people and the Congress, however, can force him to withdraw. If the people put enough pressure on Congress, the legislative branch can cut off the funds and thus force a U.S. withdrawal. Unfortunately, I fear that more Americans will die before the pressure builds to that point.
Trying to create democracy at the point of a foreign bayonet was a fool's errand from the beginning. It can't be done. My guess is the Iraqis will eventually choose another strongman to give them what they most want, which is security, functioning utilities and jobs. What we have done with our invasion and error-riddled occupation is create the perfect conditions for a new dictator.
In the meantime, the American people should be concerned that their federal government worries more about the Iraqis than it does the Americans. We could find far better uses for both the money and the lives than to squander them on the hard, bloody soil of the Middle East.
The London Bombings
Over There
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t Perspective
08/07/05
A British associate penned a quick response to the bombing attacks that took place in London this morning. "The message from those claiming responsibility says, in part, 'Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters,'" he wrote. "Well it isn't, so fuck them."
Indeed.
My first response was a wrenching horror, a kick to the gut when I checked my email and saw two hundred messages with the words 'London attack' in the subject line. Suddenly, the television was on and I was reading every news report I could get my eyes on. At least thirty-three people were killed and hundreds more wounded in four coordinated bombing attacks aimed at the mass transit system.
All of a sudden I was back in my classroom, back in the middle of a bright September morning, surrounded by wall-eyed students asking me if this was World War III as we watched two buildings burn, and then fall, and then unannounced I had Ani DiFranco in my head and she was singing, "And every borough looked up when it heard the first blast, and then every dumb action movie was summarily surpassed, and the exodus uptown by foot and motorcar looked more like war than anything I've seen so far..."
That was my first response, but I'm a little wiser nowadays. My second thought, bluntly, was that of all the Western cities in the world, London can handle this. From 1973 until roundabout the year 2000, bombings in that city took place with dreary regularity. In November of 1974, two IRA bombs in Birmingham killed 19 and wounded 180. A 1989 bombing at the Royal Marines School of Music killed 10 and wounded more than 30. There were more than a dozen different major incidents like these, and many smaller ones besides.
London handled the Nazi blitz. 'Handled' is perhaps the wrong word. Londoners watched as their city was battered to rubble day after day, and squared their shoulders, and sent out the RAF, and prevailed. A fire chief named Deasy summed up the British response: "The idea of England folding up, that's a joke. That outfit will never fold up. They've got just as much guts as anybody in this man's world has and they'll carry right on. Anybody thinks they're gonna fold up, they're crazy."
In other words, the British associate who wrote that note this morning hit the nail on the head.
Now comes the so-called official response. Predictably, George W. Bush proclaimed that the War on Terror goes on. Conservative frother Rush Limbaugh got on the radio and made a few remarkable rhetorical contortions. To wit: The G8 summit, which was apparently the target of these attacks, is a liberal summit. Yes, you read that right. He called it a "leftist summit" aimed at achieving leftist goals like saving Africa ("Again," he said) and stopping global warming, and so this was an attack on leftists who will now attack Bush.
The idea that the G8 is a leftist organization is a new one to me. I must have missed a memo somewhere. Apparently, the three billion people who went out last weekend to ask the G8 to do the right thing likewise missed the memo. Other conservative commentators rushed to microphones to proclaim that if we had all been standing shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Bush, this London attack would never have happened. Never underestimate the ability of the right-wing to use tragedy as a means of beating on people they don't agree with.
I am a little wiser nowadays, and perhaps a little more callous because of that wisdom. My first response was horror, and my second was a sense that the British people have the strength to endure this. My third response was to marvel at the news coverage. Four bombings, more than thirty dead, hundreds more wounded? In London, it is a terrifying, enraging, appalling act of despicable violence that must be immediately avenged.
In Iraq, they call events like this "Tuesday."
Tens of thousands of people have been killed and wounded in Iraq by way of deadly bombings that have been taking place every single day. These Iraqi people are no different from the Londoners who perished today. Their skin is darker perhaps, and they pray to a different God, but they have families and children and dreams and they die just as horribly as their British counterparts. Yet they earn perhaps a few sentences on the back page of the paper, and virtually no comment from the members of the international community which ginned up the invasion of Iraq in the first place.
The world was warned about this, warned and warned and warned again. An invasion based on lies and disinformation, an occupation that grinds a civilian populace, becomes the perfect machine to manufacture terrorists who will happily die in order to see others die. The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East.
The rhetoric about Iraq has been that we are "fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Today, "over here" became the streets of London. Where will it be tomorrow?
One thing is certain. The perpetrators of this bombing bear the responsibility for this wretched act, and bear the responsibility for the gross miscalculation that many have made in the past: A democratic society is weak and decadent, and can be easily pushed. Ask Hitler if that is true. A democratic society, once enraged, is the strongest force on Earth, and those responsible for this are going to find that out to their woe.
The other certainty: Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair bear the responsibility for this wretched act, as well. They decided in April of 2002 to start a war based on false pretenses, to ix the intelligence and facts around the policy, and now the whirlwind has come to be reaped. The blood that runs in the streets of London, and in the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, Tikrit and Mosul, is on their hands.
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t Perspective
08/07/05
A British associate penned a quick response to the bombing attacks that took place in London this morning. "The message from those claiming responsibility says, in part, 'Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters,'" he wrote. "Well it isn't, so fuck them."
Indeed.
My first response was a wrenching horror, a kick to the gut when I checked my email and saw two hundred messages with the words 'London attack' in the subject line. Suddenly, the television was on and I was reading every news report I could get my eyes on. At least thirty-three people were killed and hundreds more wounded in four coordinated bombing attacks aimed at the mass transit system.
All of a sudden I was back in my classroom, back in the middle of a bright September morning, surrounded by wall-eyed students asking me if this was World War III as we watched two buildings burn, and then fall, and then unannounced I had Ani DiFranco in my head and she was singing, "And every borough looked up when it heard the first blast, and then every dumb action movie was summarily surpassed, and the exodus uptown by foot and motorcar looked more like war than anything I've seen so far..."
That was my first response, but I'm a little wiser nowadays. My second thought, bluntly, was that of all the Western cities in the world, London can handle this. From 1973 until roundabout the year 2000, bombings in that city took place with dreary regularity. In November of 1974, two IRA bombs in Birmingham killed 19 and wounded 180. A 1989 bombing at the Royal Marines School of Music killed 10 and wounded more than 30. There were more than a dozen different major incidents like these, and many smaller ones besides.
London handled the Nazi blitz. 'Handled' is perhaps the wrong word. Londoners watched as their city was battered to rubble day after day, and squared their shoulders, and sent out the RAF, and prevailed. A fire chief named Deasy summed up the British response: "The idea of England folding up, that's a joke. That outfit will never fold up. They've got just as much guts as anybody in this man's world has and they'll carry right on. Anybody thinks they're gonna fold up, they're crazy."
In other words, the British associate who wrote that note this morning hit the nail on the head.
Now comes the so-called official response. Predictably, George W. Bush proclaimed that the War on Terror goes on. Conservative frother Rush Limbaugh got on the radio and made a few remarkable rhetorical contortions. To wit: The G8 summit, which was apparently the target of these attacks, is a liberal summit. Yes, you read that right. He called it a "leftist summit" aimed at achieving leftist goals like saving Africa ("Again," he said) and stopping global warming, and so this was an attack on leftists who will now attack Bush.
The idea that the G8 is a leftist organization is a new one to me. I must have missed a memo somewhere. Apparently, the three billion people who went out last weekend to ask the G8 to do the right thing likewise missed the memo. Other conservative commentators rushed to microphones to proclaim that if we had all been standing shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Bush, this London attack would never have happened. Never underestimate the ability of the right-wing to use tragedy as a means of beating on people they don't agree with.
I am a little wiser nowadays, and perhaps a little more callous because of that wisdom. My first response was horror, and my second was a sense that the British people have the strength to endure this. My third response was to marvel at the news coverage. Four bombings, more than thirty dead, hundreds more wounded? In London, it is a terrifying, enraging, appalling act of despicable violence that must be immediately avenged.
In Iraq, they call events like this "Tuesday."
Tens of thousands of people have been killed and wounded in Iraq by way of deadly bombings that have been taking place every single day. These Iraqi people are no different from the Londoners who perished today. Their skin is darker perhaps, and they pray to a different God, but they have families and children and dreams and they die just as horribly as their British counterparts. Yet they earn perhaps a few sentences on the back page of the paper, and virtually no comment from the members of the international community which ginned up the invasion of Iraq in the first place.
The world was warned about this, warned and warned and warned again. An invasion based on lies and disinformation, an occupation that grinds a civilian populace, becomes the perfect machine to manufacture terrorists who will happily die in order to see others die. The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East.
The rhetoric about Iraq has been that we are "fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Today, "over here" became the streets of London. Where will it be tomorrow?
One thing is certain. The perpetrators of this bombing bear the responsibility for this wretched act, and bear the responsibility for the gross miscalculation that many have made in the past: A democratic society is weak and decadent, and can be easily pushed. Ask Hitler if that is true. A democratic society, once enraged, is the strongest force on Earth, and those responsible for this are going to find that out to their woe.
The other certainty: Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair bear the responsibility for this wretched act, as well. They decided in April of 2002 to start a war based on false pretenses, to ix the intelligence and facts around the policy, and now the whirlwind has come to be reaped. The blood that runs in the streets of London, and in the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, Tikrit and Mosul, is on their hands.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Action on Afica
Getting Real on Africa
By Suzanne Nossel
Salon.com
By Suzanne Nossel
Salon.com
If President Bush is serious about fighting African poverty, here are 10 things he should do.
On the eve of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, President Bush deserves some credit for his proposals to address the lot of Africa's roughly 850 million people. Bush's promises to double U.S. aid to Africa, to cancel the debts of Africa's 18 most heavily indebted nations, and to up funds for AIDS and malaria all tackle issues that matter in ways that will have an impact. But all told, these measures fall well short of amounting to a comprehensive strategy for Africa.
The administration promotes the impression that Bush is leading a drive to eradicate poverty and stem the African continent's many other woes. For now, these claims are overstated. Under heavy pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and at a moment when the U.S. badly needs to improve its global image, Bush has chosen proposals that sidestep some of the biggest questions about Africa's future. Bush's critics have focused mostly on his failure to do enough for Africa. They complain that the U.S.' allotment for overseas development assistance falls far below the .7 percent of GDP target that the most generous European nations are hitting. Reaching .7 percent would require a fivefold increase in U.S. spending on development aid, something the administration has flat-out rejected.
But in addition to asking for more funds and pressing the administration to make good on its newest pledges -- the purported doubling of aid monies actually falls far short of that -- Africa's advocates should demand that important gaps be filled if Bush is to style himself as Africa's protector and benefactor. They should press the administration to go beyond discrete pledges and programs and adopt a more comprehensive approach to addressing the continent's many needs. Regardless of which motive is paramount, moral outrage over the suffering and underdevelopment on the continent or fear that Africa's plagues -- disease, terrorism, failed states and environmental degradation to name a few -- may ultimately hit our own shores, a more systematic approach to an Africa policy is the right one.
Here are 10 things President Bush could do to show he's really serious about Africa.
1. Make good on existing promises. Perhaps the biggest weakness in Bush's newest announcements on Africa is his track record of leaving similarly ambitious proposals underfunded and underfulfilled. Doubts about whether Bush will deliver have not surprisingly undercut positive reactions to these latest ideas. It has taken more than three years for Bush's Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) to begin disbursing funds. As of this spring just one country, Madagascar, had seen a cent and just 2 percent of the appropriated funds had been spent. Amounts pledged to fight AIDS in Africa have also been vulnerable to repeated lowballing in the administration's budget requests. To rebuild trust, Bush should make clear that these new promises will be accompanied by a push to satisfy the old ones.
2. Launch a major push on vaccine availability. One of the less noticed but potentially pathbreaking outcomes of pre-G8 summit finance minister meetings was an agreement to expedite efforts to pre-purchase massive quantities of newly developed vaccines for distribution in African countries. The administration historically has been loath to intervene in the pharmaceutical industry's practices for making treatments and vaccines cheaply available in poor countries. U.S. leadership will be critical to this plan, and Bush should provide it.
3. Stop lumping all of Africa together. A key first step toward understanding and addressing the African continent is to recognize racial, socioeconomic, environmental, cultural, military, religious and political diversity within it. Some nations -- South Africa and Nigeria, for example, are key U.S. military and economic allies; others, like Congo and Sierra Leone, are in disarray and virtually without hope. By refusing to lump all of Africa together either rhetorically or through policies, Bush can pave the way for approaches that better reflect a polyglot region.
4. Address each stage of development. Whereas the MCA is targeted at Africa's most capable governments, and the latest debt initiative aims to help the very weakest, most of Africa's nations fall somewhere in between and aren't getting much out of the new Bush programs. A comprehensive strategy to address poverty in Africa needs to address countries at every stage of development. Missing pieces include debt relief for more nations (Nigeria has already been singled out to get a break), aid to African entrepreneurs and small businesses, and infrastructure/job creation programs.
5. Create a governance aid program. The Bush administration has rightly pointed out that hundreds of millions of dollars in development aid for African countries have historically been plundered and wasted by corrupt and/or inept governments. This is why the MCA gives only to countries that meet strict governance criteria. Rather than simply citing the problem and rewarding those who have overcome it, the U.S. should lead a major push to strengthen governance structures in countries that have the will to improve. Working with multilateral and private organizations, we should be training African lawyers, judges, accountants and auditors and sending in pro bono professionals of our own (as we've done in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Iraq) to address the stranglehold of corruption on Africa's progress.
6. Channel more aid through NGOs. Where corruption and misuse of funds are a concern, rather than closing its purse the administration should channel substantial additional aid not through governments, but via private groups that have good track records of delivery. Particularly for the provision of basic food, medical and other services, non-governmental groups are often well-placed to get the job done. Where possible, local African groups should be empowered as conduits. Governments' incompetence and untrustworthiness should not be an excuse for ignoring the needs of people suffering under these hapless regimes.
7. Take action on Darfur. After the Rwandan mass killings in 1994, lofty pledges were made about how the West would never again fail Africa so completely. But more than a year after calling the situation in Darfur genocide, the Bush administration has done little to stop it. As for what can be done short of military intervention, there's plenty outlined here.
8. Help Zimbabwean opposition groups. The attitude of top leaders like South African President Thabo Mbeki to Zimbabwe's unfolding crisis illustrates just how contorted relationships with the West have become. Many African heads of state reject Western outrage over Mugabe's abuses on grounds that so many other, even more grave, catastrophes on the continent have been ignored -- and in some cases abetted -- by the West. But Mugabe's opponents include local human rights activists closely aligned with those that fought apartheid and brought Mbeki's African National Congress to power. It's hard to see how African leaders could reject support for these sorts of organizations.
9. Explore AFTA. Bush has fought for CAFTA, now how about AFTA -- an African free trade agreement that would do away with the nearly $4 billion a year cotton subsidies that have hobbled yeoman farmers in places like Burkina Faso. There is no powerful political or business constituency for an African trade accord, but it would be consistent with Bush's stance on trade and would benefit Africa to the tune of, according to Oxfam, some $150 billion per year. Crucially, those benefits would come not from handouts, but through the growth of entrepreneurship and private enterprise. Bush says he's waiting for the Europeans to follow suit before initiating such an accord. Rather than resting on that excuse, Bush should press ahead.
10. Develop aid partnerships. One of the concerns American aid officials like USAID chief Andrew Natsios cite in relation to aid for Africa is worry over perceived imperialism. After all, the history of Western involvement on the continent is not pretty. Rather than funneling aid directly, what about partnering with, say, the South African foreign ministry to pilot a program where aid would be administered by African countries with competent ministries and strong records of anti-corruption, but without a heavy Western hand?
On the eve of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, President Bush deserves some credit for his proposals to address the lot of Africa's roughly 850 million people. Bush's promises to double U.S. aid to Africa, to cancel the debts of Africa's 18 most heavily indebted nations, and to up funds for AIDS and malaria all tackle issues that matter in ways that will have an impact. But all told, these measures fall well short of amounting to a comprehensive strategy for Africa.
The administration promotes the impression that Bush is leading a drive to eradicate poverty and stem the African continent's many other woes. For now, these claims are overstated. Under heavy pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and at a moment when the U.S. badly needs to improve its global image, Bush has chosen proposals that sidestep some of the biggest questions about Africa's future. Bush's critics have focused mostly on his failure to do enough for Africa. They complain that the U.S.' allotment for overseas development assistance falls far below the .7 percent of GDP target that the most generous European nations are hitting. Reaching .7 percent would require a fivefold increase in U.S. spending on development aid, something the administration has flat-out rejected.
But in addition to asking for more funds and pressing the administration to make good on its newest pledges -- the purported doubling of aid monies actually falls far short of that -- Africa's advocates should demand that important gaps be filled if Bush is to style himself as Africa's protector and benefactor. They should press the administration to go beyond discrete pledges and programs and adopt a more comprehensive approach to addressing the continent's many needs. Regardless of which motive is paramount, moral outrage over the suffering and underdevelopment on the continent or fear that Africa's plagues -- disease, terrorism, failed states and environmental degradation to name a few -- may ultimately hit our own shores, a more systematic approach to an Africa policy is the right one.
Here are 10 things President Bush could do to show he's really serious about Africa.
1. Make good on existing promises. Perhaps the biggest weakness in Bush's newest announcements on Africa is his track record of leaving similarly ambitious proposals underfunded and underfulfilled. Doubts about whether Bush will deliver have not surprisingly undercut positive reactions to these latest ideas. It has taken more than three years for Bush's Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) to begin disbursing funds. As of this spring just one country, Madagascar, had seen a cent and just 2 percent of the appropriated funds had been spent. Amounts pledged to fight AIDS in Africa have also been vulnerable to repeated lowballing in the administration's budget requests. To rebuild trust, Bush should make clear that these new promises will be accompanied by a push to satisfy the old ones.
2. Launch a major push on vaccine availability. One of the less noticed but potentially pathbreaking outcomes of pre-G8 summit finance minister meetings was an agreement to expedite efforts to pre-purchase massive quantities of newly developed vaccines for distribution in African countries. The administration historically has been loath to intervene in the pharmaceutical industry's practices for making treatments and vaccines cheaply available in poor countries. U.S. leadership will be critical to this plan, and Bush should provide it.
3. Stop lumping all of Africa together. A key first step toward understanding and addressing the African continent is to recognize racial, socioeconomic, environmental, cultural, military, religious and political diversity within it. Some nations -- South Africa and Nigeria, for example, are key U.S. military and economic allies; others, like Congo and Sierra Leone, are in disarray and virtually without hope. By refusing to lump all of Africa together either rhetorically or through policies, Bush can pave the way for approaches that better reflect a polyglot region.
4. Address each stage of development. Whereas the MCA is targeted at Africa's most capable governments, and the latest debt initiative aims to help the very weakest, most of Africa's nations fall somewhere in between and aren't getting much out of the new Bush programs. A comprehensive strategy to address poverty in Africa needs to address countries at every stage of development. Missing pieces include debt relief for more nations (Nigeria has already been singled out to get a break), aid to African entrepreneurs and small businesses, and infrastructure/job creation programs.
5. Create a governance aid program. The Bush administration has rightly pointed out that hundreds of millions of dollars in development aid for African countries have historically been plundered and wasted by corrupt and/or inept governments. This is why the MCA gives only to countries that meet strict governance criteria. Rather than simply citing the problem and rewarding those who have overcome it, the U.S. should lead a major push to strengthen governance structures in countries that have the will to improve. Working with multilateral and private organizations, we should be training African lawyers, judges, accountants and auditors and sending in pro bono professionals of our own (as we've done in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Iraq) to address the stranglehold of corruption on Africa's progress.
6. Channel more aid through NGOs. Where corruption and misuse of funds are a concern, rather than closing its purse the administration should channel substantial additional aid not through governments, but via private groups that have good track records of delivery. Particularly for the provision of basic food, medical and other services, non-governmental groups are often well-placed to get the job done. Where possible, local African groups should be empowered as conduits. Governments' incompetence and untrustworthiness should not be an excuse for ignoring the needs of people suffering under these hapless regimes.
7. Take action on Darfur. After the Rwandan mass killings in 1994, lofty pledges were made about how the West would never again fail Africa so completely. But more than a year after calling the situation in Darfur genocide, the Bush administration has done little to stop it. As for what can be done short of military intervention, there's plenty outlined here.
8. Help Zimbabwean opposition groups. The attitude of top leaders like South African President Thabo Mbeki to Zimbabwe's unfolding crisis illustrates just how contorted relationships with the West have become. Many African heads of state reject Western outrage over Mugabe's abuses on grounds that so many other, even more grave, catastrophes on the continent have been ignored -- and in some cases abetted -- by the West. But Mugabe's opponents include local human rights activists closely aligned with those that fought apartheid and brought Mbeki's African National Congress to power. It's hard to see how African leaders could reject support for these sorts of organizations.
9. Explore AFTA. Bush has fought for CAFTA, now how about AFTA -- an African free trade agreement that would do away with the nearly $4 billion a year cotton subsidies that have hobbled yeoman farmers in places like Burkina Faso. There is no powerful political or business constituency for an African trade accord, but it would be consistent with Bush's stance on trade and would benefit Africa to the tune of, according to Oxfam, some $150 billion per year. Crucially, those benefits would come not from handouts, but through the growth of entrepreneurship and private enterprise. Bush says he's waiting for the Europeans to follow suit before initiating such an accord. Rather than resting on that excuse, Bush should press ahead.
10. Develop aid partnerships. One of the concerns American aid officials like USAID chief Andrew Natsios cite in relation to aid for Africa is worry over perceived imperialism. After all, the history of Western involvement on the continent is not pretty. Rather than funneling aid directly, what about partnering with, say, the South African foreign ministry to pilot a program where aid would be administered by African countries with competent ministries and strong records of anti-corruption, but without a heavy Western hand?
Keep Killing in Iraq
Memo to Iraq War: This Is the First Day of the Rest of Your Death
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t Perspective
4 July 2005
On the propaganda front, it's been another tough week for Washington's war makers. But for them, where there's hope there's death.
Let's address the Iraq war directly:
It's too soon to know whether the Bush administration's new PR offensive will do anything for you in terms of public opinion. But rest assured that the US military effort in Iraq won't be curtailed anytime soon. Despite the downward trend of public backing for the war - and in spite of the mass media's inadequate yet significant widening of debate in recent weeks - a combination of factors is in place to sustain your deadly momentum.
One key dynamic is the US military's institutional adrenaline for fulfilling its mission of mass destruction. To a large extent, war correspondent Michael Herr's description of the Vietnam War is an apt summary of the perpetual motion that the Pentagon keeps implementing in Iraq: "We took space back quickly, expensively, with total panic and close to maximum brutality. Our machine was devastating. And versatile. It could do everything but stop."
On the home front, another pivotal aspect of the Iraq war is that President Bush's solid-core constituencies are still in his corner. Despite some spin from mainstream and progressive media, the prominent Republicans who are making critical noises about the war are rarely doing more than mumbling their misgivings.
Yes, Sen. Chuck Hagel did say: "The White House is completely disconnected from reality." But he's complaining about the efficacy - not the morality - of the war effort. And while the moral basis for this war is hopeless, for many the hope that the US military fortunes in Iraq will improve is apt to spring eternal.
Fortunately for a continuation of the occupation-driven carnage in Iraq, there's a huge disconnect between the massive problem and the mincing remedies being most widely promoted. While outlets like the New York Times have editorialized their discontent with Bush's speech Tuesday night, the biggest underlying beef is that the US forces aren't winning.
So long as enough Americans go along with the phantom goal of "victory," you get to keep killing in Iraq. To that end, a massive PR operation is underway.
"The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helping Bush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight," the Washington Post reported Thursday. "Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won."
What about most Democratic critics of the war on Capitol Hill? They keep saying that they want the US military to succeed in Iraq, too. Here's Sen. Joseph Biden midway through this week, cheering on the war under the guise of critiquing it: "I really do think it's winnable, but you've got to keep the American people following with you. That's why I urged them to give the speech. He told us the why. He didn't tell us the how. Business as usual won't get us there. I think he has to change some policy or alter some policy."
And what about the Chuck Hagels of the political world? Well, listen to what Hagel had to say after Bush's much-drumrolled June 28 speech: "I have had differences with the administration over the planning and execution of our postwar policy in Iraq. However, we all are working toward finding a way to succeed in Iraq."
And what about organizations like MoveOn.org, now featuring Hagel's purported dissent in a new TV ad? Running to catch up with its antiwar base after many months of absenting itself from the antiwar movement, MoveOn did a poll of its email recipients as summer began - offering them an up-or-down vote on a congressional measure so weak that even if it became law, the US military would be unimpeded from continuing its catalytic role in Iraq's carnage for a very long time.
Consider the much-hyped and somewhat repentant "Freedom Fries" congressman from North Carolina, Rep. Walter Jones. He's moving in a good direction, but where's his ballyhooed congressional measure really at? Jones had this to say at a June 16 news conference: "The resolution I am co-sponsoring will do no more than call on the president to set a plan and a date to begin reducing the number of troops we have in Iraq. It does not in any way, shape or form set a date certain for complete withdrawal."
Under the terms of the measure, withdrawal of US troops from Iraq would begin no later than October 1, 2006. That's right. Withdrawal of troops would BEGIN in autumn 2006. On Capitol Hill, that kind of scenario might seem drastic - but for the militarized productivity of the grim reaper, under the circumstances, it's a pretty good deal.
So, here's an executive summary of this memo to the Iraq war: As long as the main issues revolve around how you can be won and how you must not be quickly halted, there's a lot of death left in you.
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t Perspective
4 July 2005
On the propaganda front, it's been another tough week for Washington's war makers. But for them, where there's hope there's death.
Let's address the Iraq war directly:
It's too soon to know whether the Bush administration's new PR offensive will do anything for you in terms of public opinion. But rest assured that the US military effort in Iraq won't be curtailed anytime soon. Despite the downward trend of public backing for the war - and in spite of the mass media's inadequate yet significant widening of debate in recent weeks - a combination of factors is in place to sustain your deadly momentum.
One key dynamic is the US military's institutional adrenaline for fulfilling its mission of mass destruction. To a large extent, war correspondent Michael Herr's description of the Vietnam War is an apt summary of the perpetual motion that the Pentagon keeps implementing in Iraq: "We took space back quickly, expensively, with total panic and close to maximum brutality. Our machine was devastating. And versatile. It could do everything but stop."
On the home front, another pivotal aspect of the Iraq war is that President Bush's solid-core constituencies are still in his corner. Despite some spin from mainstream and progressive media, the prominent Republicans who are making critical noises about the war are rarely doing more than mumbling their misgivings.
Yes, Sen. Chuck Hagel did say: "The White House is completely disconnected from reality." But he's complaining about the efficacy - not the morality - of the war effort. And while the moral basis for this war is hopeless, for many the hope that the US military fortunes in Iraq will improve is apt to spring eternal.
Fortunately for a continuation of the occupation-driven carnage in Iraq, there's a huge disconnect between the massive problem and the mincing remedies being most widely promoted. While outlets like the New York Times have editorialized their discontent with Bush's speech Tuesday night, the biggest underlying beef is that the US forces aren't winning.
So long as enough Americans go along with the phantom goal of "victory," you get to keep killing in Iraq. To that end, a massive PR operation is underway.
"The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helping Bush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight," the Washington Post reported Thursday. "Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won."
What about most Democratic critics of the war on Capitol Hill? They keep saying that they want the US military to succeed in Iraq, too. Here's Sen. Joseph Biden midway through this week, cheering on the war under the guise of critiquing it: "I really do think it's winnable, but you've got to keep the American people following with you. That's why I urged them to give the speech. He told us the why. He didn't tell us the how. Business as usual won't get us there. I think he has to change some policy or alter some policy."
And what about the Chuck Hagels of the political world? Well, listen to what Hagel had to say after Bush's much-drumrolled June 28 speech: "I have had differences with the administration over the planning and execution of our postwar policy in Iraq. However, we all are working toward finding a way to succeed in Iraq."
And what about organizations like MoveOn.org, now featuring Hagel's purported dissent in a new TV ad? Running to catch up with its antiwar base after many months of absenting itself from the antiwar movement, MoveOn did a poll of its email recipients as summer began - offering them an up-or-down vote on a congressional measure so weak that even if it became law, the US military would be unimpeded from continuing its catalytic role in Iraq's carnage for a very long time.
Consider the much-hyped and somewhat repentant "Freedom Fries" congressman from North Carolina, Rep. Walter Jones. He's moving in a good direction, but where's his ballyhooed congressional measure really at? Jones had this to say at a June 16 news conference: "The resolution I am co-sponsoring will do no more than call on the president to set a plan and a date to begin reducing the number of troops we have in Iraq. It does not in any way, shape or form set a date certain for complete withdrawal."
Under the terms of the measure, withdrawal of US troops from Iraq would begin no later than October 1, 2006. That's right. Withdrawal of troops would BEGIN in autumn 2006. On Capitol Hill, that kind of scenario might seem drastic - but for the militarized productivity of the grim reaper, under the circumstances, it's a pretty good deal.
So, here's an executive summary of this memo to the Iraq war: As long as the main issues revolve around how you can be won and how you must not be quickly halted, there's a lot of death left in you.
