The Slippery Slope Into the War in Iraq, and the Failures of Democratic Nation-Building

From Common Sense for a Time of Crisis:

Addressed to the Citizens of the United States: A People that sacrifices its liberties to achieve security is deserving of neither, and will end up losing both-- "Without Vision, the People Perish!"

Because of the fundamental confusion of private and public interests in framing the rationale, policy, and the means for going to war in Iraq, the United States was doomed to get bogged down in a tragic quagmire because it took upon itself an ideologically-motivated mission of democratic nation-building, without having first rediscovered for itself what democratic institutions for its own self-government were required of both the leaders and agents of democracy in any country.

Democratic institutions within the United States were already failing, for lack of understanding and nurturing, and in such a context of self-inflicted blindness the new executive of the United States took up a mission of democratic nation-building in Iraq. From the beginning, unfortunately and tragically for all, this was a mission of the blind leading the blind.

The failure of this imperial mission, for anyone with eyes to see, was inevitable. Without Vision, the people and democracy both perish. And it has become all too obvious that beyond the lies that helped move the United States into war, the fundamental lack of democratic vision made the people and institutions of the nation not only susceptible to being manipulated by those lies, but set it up to fail utterly in the fundamental tasks of democratic nation-building once Saddam Hussein had been overthrown.

If the new leadership that took over the White House in 2001 had, for example, paused for just a moment to consider the first and most basic principle of democratic nation-building, which is that you cannot impose democracy on a people by military means, our government would not have made the first great mistake in the conduct of the Iraq War, which was to assume that the only important planning was the military planning that went into overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Anyone truly interested in, and committed to, democratic nation-building at home or abroad understands that the second key principle of democracy building is the need to support, nurture, and provide a secure and safe environment for the development of the civil institutions of democratic society. Such understanding would have put a premium [as the United States did after World War II in its occupations of Germany and Japan,] on the importance of providing the kinds of military police and security forces that would have established secure order and peace, immediately after the formal end of the war.

That neither of these two fundamental principles seems to have been clearly comprehended, either by the executive administration, the Congress, or the Press (which was largely uncritical of the conduct of the war), only underlines the degree to which the basic understanding of the fundamental institutional prerequisites of democracy had disintegrated among the political and cultural leadership of the United States.

But because our country’s leadership is by no means simply stupid, we must enquire more deeply into the reasons this most basic understanding of the two primary principles of democratic nation-building was so easily and completely ignored in the conduct of the Iraq War--in ways that have had fatal consequences for not only every family of the 2400+ US soldiers killed, and the tens of thousands maimed in Iraq since May 2003, but also for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed since Bush gave his “Mission Accomplished” victory speech on the deck of the USS Lincoln.

Why were these fundamental democratic principles of nation-building not part of the planning or conduct of the war in Iraq? If they had been, the insurgency might have been suppressed from the beginning, and tens of thousands of American casualties, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, might have been spared.

This is where the confusion between private and public interests becomes pivotal for understanding the failures of not only the war in Iraq, and the so-called war on terrorism, but also the ongoing failures of our government’s response to Katrina, and its failure to serve the real needs of national security and civil liberty within the United States. In the absence of clear distinctions between public and private interest, and the democratic vision that can develop only on the basis of such distinctions, these failures, and many others yet to come, are inevitable.

In the absence of any clear distinction between private corporate interest and the common good of the peoples of the United States and Iraq, the military intervention became a corrupt game of war profiteering, and the profits of the few came at the price of the blood of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Demand Leadership to End Global Warming Now!

Remember when people argued that global warming doesn't exist? (Exxon/Mobil, of course, still does, but we know why they want to obfuscate the truth.)

As we move into another summer of chronic wildfires and drought in western states, and melting icecaps and glaciers, it's hard to ignore evidence of global warming's devastating consequences. And all the while, energy prices continue to rise, along with the oil industry's profits.

But for all the dire predictions, there are also sensible solutions. America has the technological know-how to reduce our reliance on oil and other fossil fuels, reduce wasteful emissions which are causing global warming, and make our economy more energy efficient. We as citizens must demand that elected officials act now to develop policies to stop global warming before our environment is irreparably harmed.

Today I participated in the League of Conservation Voters' new summer campaign - The Heat is On! Demand Global Warming Leadership Now! - to raise awareness about global warming. Please join me in calling on Congress, the President, and both political parties to make global warming a central issue in the upcoming elections in November. Just click here.

*****

Demand Global Warming Leadership Now!

Sign the Global Warming Leadership Petition. Send a message to political leaders, and those running for re-election in November, that Americans want energy leadership from their government. We have the technological know-how to turn the tide on global warming and the energy crisis. We as citizens must demand that elected officials act now to develop policies to stop global warming before our environment is irreparably harmed.

Sensible solutions to global warming and our energy problems already exist - we can own our energy future and reinvigorate our economy. Sign the petition and demand that politicians and candidates for office make global warming and clean energy a priority in the 2006 elections. Just fill out the form.
Send this petition to:

* President George W. Bush
* Democratic National Committee
* Republican National Committee
* Your Congressperson
* Your Senators

I am concerned about the disastrous effects of global warming and our continued reliance on oil, therefore I strongly urge you to make these issues a priority in the coming 2006 elections.

Make global warming and energy security issues during the election -- in speeches, at town hall meetings, on your web site, at campaign events, in advertisements and flyers. Let voters know which global warming solutions you support. And encourage your colleagues in Washington to do the same.

Future leaders hold the key to solving our epic energy problems, and the 2006 elections is the starting point.

Join the Campaign against global warming now, before it is too late!

Some Real Questions for Journalists to Ask the President, if they want to avoid being like Larry King

From Policybusters:

As many commentators have noted, this country is facing a perfect storm of mounting crises of national and global significance. Yet members of the Press, like Larry King, who have rare opportunities to seriously interview or question the President, continue to fiddle with the President and members of Congress, and to offer us lovefests rather than serious interviews, while the country burns (perhaps this was a condition of permitting Larry to do the interview: Did you have to sign a prior restraint agreement, Larry, promising to ask only lovefest questions? If not, all the more reason you should be ashamed of yourself for not fulfilling your obligations as a journalist to your fellow citizens--)

There is a growing constitutional crisis over the Executive Administration's deliberate defiance of Congressionally-mandated laws like FISA, as well as multiple international crises (the worsening wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the missile crisis in N. Korea), and growing domestic crises related to the previously mentioned problems....

Meanwhile, the President and Congress are fiddling while the country is burning (in some places literally: witness the many fires burning in the West, which a recent scientific study has attributed to global warming)--

So for all journalists who might have an opportunity to ask the President or others in the Administration a real question or two about what is really happening in this country, here are a few sample questions you might ask, to begin to put some real pressure on politicians for real answers:

(For background reading on basis for some of these questions, check out two great articles by New Yorker investigative reporter Jane Mayer:

THE HIDDEN POWER: The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror

THE MEMO: How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted

*****

Real Questions for the President:

Mr. President, in a recent profile of the Vice-President's Chief of Staff David Addington for the New Yorker (by Jane Mayer), Addington is said to have asserted that he and Dick Cheney were interested in "merging the VP's office with the President's office into a single Exec. Office." Any comment?

*****
In accepting the Office of President of the United States, you swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution reads:

"The Congress shall have power to …provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; [The explicit stated powers of Congress include]:
"To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
"To declare war, …and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"--

Do you believe that during time of war the President has the authority to ignore any of these congressional powers in the name of national security?

*****
Your administration obviously believes in a strong and robust executive authority in relation to Congress. Do you believe that your authority as commander in chief during time of war extends to ignoring or circumventing Congressional authority to oversee and limit the power of the president in accord with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, or to set aside congressional statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance, as in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?

Example: The US War Crimes Act passed into law by Congress, forbids the violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against human dignity. By not accepting the relevance of Common Article 3 in your conduct of the war on terror, and the establishment of detention centers at Guantanamo and elsewhere, are you not ignoring or contravening laws established by Congress?

*****
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has stated that a state of war does not give any President a blank check to ignore constitutional limitations on presidential power. Do you disagree with Justice O'Connor?

*****

Do you believe that in the name of national security you have the authority to ignore or defy congressional oversight laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or to set aside congressional statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance?

*****

If the American people, through a majority of their elected representatives in Congress, pass a law that says the President cannot do such and such a thing, as happened after Watergate in response to Nixon's abuse of executive powers when Congress enacted the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] law to protect civil liberties and keep future Presidents from abusing their authority-- do you believe the President has the right to ignore or defy that Congressional legislation?

*****

The famous presidential historian Arthur Schlesinger has stated that this administration has turned historical aberrations of executive overreach, such as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus rights during the Civil War, into a regular policy of government. Any response?

*****

Your administration's interpretation of law has been challenged on several major issues, including your conduct of surveillance in seeming defiance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and your appointment of military commissions, along with your very liberal use of signing statements (over 750 so far)—

This has suggested to some that the policy strategies being employed by your administration amount not only to defying Constitutional law, which gives Congress significant responsibilities of oversight, but to setting your office in defiance of basic constitutional doctrine of checks and balances. Any comment?

*****
On Signing Statements:

The American Bar Association has recently started an investigation into your use of signing statements as a potentially unconstitutional method for simply ignoring the laws passed by Congress. Instead of being accountable to the public by openly vetoing the law or committing yourself to following it, you seem to be reserving the right to ignore Congressional legislation as you wish.

Bruce Fein, a lawyer and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan admin, and someone who voted for you in both elections, argues that Addington’s signing statements are “unconstitutional as a strategy,” because the Founding Fathers wanted Presidents to veto congressional legislation openly, as part of the balancing process, if they thought the bills were unconstitutional, and that this was a way of keeping both the President and Congress accountable to the American people for their actions. Fein has also stated the Founding Fathers would be shocked by what you have done…. Why are you using signing statements in a way that seems to make you unaccountable to both Congress and the American people?

On Military Commissions:

David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, has been directly involved in the creation of the military commissions that the Supreme Court recently declared unconstitutional, even as other senior cabinet officials, including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, were left out of the process of decision-making related to the creation of those commissions--

Since there has been so little positive progress on this issue, and now that the Supreme Court decision has declared these commissions to be unconstitutional (as you were warned they would), do you have any regrets about the form of decision-making within your administration, which seems to have handed over to one person in the VP's office unprecedented latitude to define the policy of your administration on such important issues as this? Have you learned any lessons about the positive value of involving a much wider number of senior cabinet officials, such as the secretary of state, in key decisions such as this?

Any thoughts of taking responsibility for these mistakes of overreach by asking David Addington (who is also involved in the signing statements and in articulating the administration's position on surveillance issues) to resign?

On FISA:

Fourteen prominent constitutional scholars have written an open letter to Congress arguing that the N.S.A. surveillance program violates constitutional law, because your administration has not amended the FISA law, but has chosen simply to ignore it--

After the abuses of executive power by President Nixon that led to Watergate, Congress passed laws designed to protect civil liberties and curb abuses of executive power in order to protect civil liberties and try to insure that no President would repeat Nixon's abuses. Yet it is a matter of record that within your administration head legal advisors, such as David Addington, Cheney's Chief of Staff, and Cheney himself, believe these laws are not legitimate because they put too much restraint on the president's power. Do you agree with Cheney and Addington in thinking that the legal restrictions placed on presidential power after Watergate ought to be abandoned?

*****

All of these questions address real and serious crises that need immediate attention and strategic action NOW, not 2 or 4 years from now. Yet none of these crises are being meaningfully addressed by the President or Congress or the Press in a sustained way, even as much energy is focused on debating symbolic issues like flag burning, and on depriving gay people of the right to marriage and a family, all in the name of so-called "family values."

Perhaps some day all the so-called "family values" folks will wake up to realize that preserving a democratic constitution and fighting the sources of global warming and poverty are more important than fighting for legislation that discriminates against gay families. Let us hope they wake up before it is too late to do anything about global warming, which will harm all families--including those who choose to ignore it....

"Troops Home Fast" Begins Across the Country

Over this holiday, thousands of people across the country joined a fast, coordinated by CodePink, to begin to mobilize a new nonviolent movement of spiritual/political action in this country directed toward bringing about significant change in our country's policies of violence.

While CodePink initiated this action on July 4, people across the country will continue to build this movement over the summer through this hunger strike action, modeled on the satyagraha movement of Gandhi in India. You may join this effort by signing on with the national organiner, CodePink, and by finding or creating your own local manifestation of this movement, as the people of Bangor, Maine, are doing--

Invitation to Join a Rolling Fast to Bring the Troops Home
in Solidarity with Code Pink
From July 11th to August 6th (Hiroshima Day)

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history. --Mahatma Gandhi

US soldiers have been forced to put their bodies on the line; the lives of the Iraqi people are at risk every day. It's time for us to do something to show the depth of our commitment to bring our troops home and allow the Iraqis to rebuild their own nation.

That's why CODEPINK and Gold Star Families for Peace, together with activists across the country, will be starting an open-ended hunger strike. With your help, this fast will awaken the public, pressure elected officials and move us closer to peace. Please join us for a day or more as a show of support for the Iraqi people and our soldiers, and your commitment to bring our troops back home-FAST!