The Globe and Mail prints a letter from Margaret Atwood to America. I've been fan of Atwood's since reading/seeing her "Handmaid's Tale" in college. Can't say I disagree with her sentiments here. In fact, the letter is like a litany of areas the U.S. left needs to focus on for the next election.

Digby thinks GW may be certifiable. Too bad this isn't like Star Trek where Bones can kick Kirk out of the command seat.

In another volley aimed at securing a Democratic White House, Kevin Drum at CalPundit serves up this excellent point:
"Rich countries rarely go to war against each other, and rich people rarely become terrorists — Osama may be a rich man, but his followers aren't. Therefore, if we truly want to be safe from terrorism in the long term, we need a foreign policy aimed at making poor countries rich. Tolerance and democracy will follow. This is an enormously sensitive and difficult problem, and I don't pretend to know how to attack it, but it's imperative that it be our goal. Nothing else will work."

He's talking about how the next Democratic presidential candidate can formulate a viable foreign policy in the wake of Bush's major mess. Something to think about.

Craig at BookNotes has a good roundup of war news that has flown under the wire of the major media.

Terminus has a post talking about political correctness coming from the right this time. Worth a read.

Oddly soothing. (requires flash)

There’s a serious argument to be made that terrorism throws the whole notion of just law on its ear. How is it possible to defend oneself against unseen forces except by aggressive policy? It’s an interesting hypothesis. But in order for it to carry any water as a just strategy, it cannot be pre-emptive and unilateral, both of which the US reserves as its right. If a new dispensation is going to be added to just war theory—that just cause includes pre-emptive strikes—it must also include further conditions. In the case of pre-emption, it must include a condition of international support.

-- Notes on the Atrocities.

Go read more of the above from Emma Goldman (another anonymous blogger). However, Emma leaves out the real justification for Bush's war with Iraq... spreading democracy throughout the region. I'd like to see her opinion on that.

Winds of Change starts to provide an answer to the question: "Where do they get young men like this?

Jeanne D'arc's Body and Soul posts a very important letter concerning the long debate over extremism vs. centrism. Needless to say this debate has been going on since the first conceptualism of liberalism, I don't think it will end anytime soon.

Counterspin echos my earlier post on what future foes might want to start investigating as far as defense.

Arundhati Roy, author and commentator for the Guardian/UK, pens a long piece on her view of the US and UK invasion of Iraq. It's definately worth reading, bringing up many of the arab street's usual complaints and a few new ones. My big problem with this piece is that it offers no alternate path to the one suggested by Bush and his Neocons.

In fact, if the goal is to bring democracy and human rights to these countries, I haven't heard a workable alternate suggestion from anyone. The only alternate offered has been stronger sanctions. The reason being they worked in South Africa and should work again. But sanctions in Iraq only resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The difference was that there was a resistance movement in South Africa that asked for sanctions where the Iraqi people did not. So that would not work in Iraq. Nor is it likely to work in Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Iran, etc. The only country it is likely to work on is Israel, as the resistance is crying out everyday for sanctions against Israel from the west. But we're on other side of the fence there, just like we were for many years in South Africa.

So, while I continue to be a strong believer in the importance of spreading human rights, including the right to representation (ie, democracy), across the globe, I cannot currently invision a path that will get us there without use of force. Any suggestions?

Gary Hart, the once-again presidential candidate, has a blog. What amazes me about this is his willingness to open himself up to criticisms and debate (read the comments). Exactly what I want from my next president. (btw, Howard Dean has a good website, but so far no personal journalesque writings from him, but there is a Dean Blog tracking the campaign.)

"Where Do They Get Young Men Like This? Embedded CNN reporter emits what is sure to be one of the lingering memories of this war. (via "Lt. Smash)

Eject! Eject! Eject! writes a long essay about the reasons for war and some historical perspective on what we're fighting for. Here's a quote:
Now it seems fair to say that you can boil down the opinions of many of those opposed to the War in Iraq to a question uttered by leading anti-war activist Susan Sarandon, who asked, “I want to know what Iraq has done to us.”

There are two reasons to fight this war. One is so that History will never be able to answer that question. I don’t ever want to read about the VX attacks that left 16,000 dead at Atlanta Hartsfield airport. I don’t want to see the video of makeshift morgues inside the LA Coliseum as more anthrax victims are emptied from the hospitals. And I don’t want to look at helicopter shots of a blackened, radioactive crater where Times Square used to be, or of millions of dead bodies burning in funeral pyres, like columns of failure, dead from starvation and disease in the worldwide depression that such an attack on New York would produce.

I personally have a hard time justifying "peace from the end of a gun barrel" as a reason to go to war. 'Pax Democracia' is a noble goal but if lives are lost unnecessarily and unjustly in obtaining it, then the goal will feel hollow (and probably unreachable). Fear of imperialism (a reasonable fear based on past experience) makes warfare an almost impossible option and therefore it should be the final resort. This seems to be the key point that the Bush regime has missed in the eyes of anti-war camp. The pro regime change camp believes they have tried everything and that waiting is no longer an option.

So is the barrel necessary? Even knowing Saddam's history, if I could truly believe that Iraq had a part in 9.11.01, had WMD and planned to use them (again), or was an imminent threat to his neighbors (the most provable of the three) then I would feel better about regime change. As it is, I think this war is being fought for different reasons. The fact that Iraq is our target is just due to the incompetence of Saddam (he could have defused this whole thing 12 years ago and instead be in the same position N. Korea is right now). We would be at war with someone right now because the people in power want a war to prove their theories of 'pre-emptive strikes' and that even a 'semi-democracy' is better than being ruled by a ruthless dictator (as William Kristol said on 'Fresh Air' tonight). And, since they have a President who is partial to their ideas already, now is the time to implement then.

Now, I'm not opposed to those ideas in every instance. I can see cases where a 'pre-emptive strike' is required (JFK's embargo of Cuba, which was an act of war for one) or would have been preferable to our isolationist politics (WWII, when we waited for Pearl Harbor). But when the goal from the outset is to 'install democracy' instead of 'to root out evil' then I'm on the fence. So, until I have proof from a trusted third party (I just can't trust the Bush regime) that a 'pre-emptive strike' was as necessary in this case as it was in those other cases, then I remain unconvinced this war is a good thing. And if you can't convince me (an Eagle scout), then how can you convince the Arab Street or the rest of the world.

Btw, the time for convincing the rest of the world is before you launch your attack, or shortly there after. The window is swiftly closing for the Bush regime. America will have to act decisively in 2004 to save face if the case for attack can't be made to the rest of the world.

So here we go... hoping for the best, afraid of the worst, not knowing what either side has up its sleeve, nor how long this will take. I hope the loss of life on both sides is minimal from here on out. I am afraid that the slaughter through the sights of our advanced weaponry will continue. I hope the regime change comes swiftly. I'm afraid that WMD will be used. I hope that when the war is over, peace and rebuilding come swiftly. I'm afraid that the war will only spread to Syria, Iran, and N. Korea. Only one thing we can be sure of, the future will be interesting.

First go read Talk Left. Then for more on 'American Global Leadership' (a euphemism for Global Domination) listen to the April 1st 'Fresh Air' on NPR. The first guest will scare you with his analysis of current events. The second guest (William Kristol) will send chills down your spine with his earnest beliefs that have led the world down this dangerous road.

Phil Carter is a must read today.

Untelevised reminds us of this age old arab proverb:
Myself against my brother. Myself and my brother against my cousin. Myself, my brother and my cousin against the foreigner.
I think we haven't even seen the beginning of our troubles in the middle-east. The sooner this is over the better.

Unruled has a great piece on the Economics of bombs. Read all the way to the bottom to find some great stuff on cement bombs. (via Jim Henley)

I just posted the following on The Agonist's bulliten boards. Thought I'd share it here too.

Collaborative websites are examples of what I call 'Tribal Journalism'. In Internet speak, tribes are virtual communities of users who share common cultural viewpoints (usually because they share the same information sources). The core body of participants in each web site make up the tribe and together they filter the truth from a variety of sources.

Tribes are porous bodies and there is often a lot of overlap with neighboring tribes. What becomes shared knowledge in one tribe evnetually spreads to other tribes where it goes through the same filtering process before it becomes accepted knowledge. All knowledge is questionable always. Hard facts are rare and are usually 'proven' scientifically somehow.

The Agonist is unique in that all knowledge is filtered through one person at some point. But there is still a wide tribe of users who supply sources and debate its accuracy. I think this allows for a slightly wider spectrum of viewpoints being held within the tribe. But that remains to be proven (as does all knowledge).

French 'Spiderman' Makes Anti-War Climb. FYI, the building he climbed is the HQ of the oil giant TotalFina Elf. The Bush family is heavily invested in ELF and Bush I servered on its board before he was president.

The Patriot Act is now the law. You want some freedom with those fries?
So far, that's my favorite quote from this whole affair.

Ampersand, over at Alas, a blog, poses an interesting question. What would happen if the Democrats in the US Senate fillabuster all future Bush judicial nominees, including Supreme Court ones.

Charlie writes on the Electrolite comments:
... the common belief in the US media that the incident in Mogadishu involved a grand total of eighteen deaths.

Don't the five hundred dead and roughly a thousand injured natives, most of them civilian by-standers, count? ...

...

Or the tendency to count Gulf War One as an overwhelmingly bloodless war, with under 200 casualties (and somewhere in the 50-250,000 range on the other side, but they're wogs so they don't matter).

Modern warfare is not bloodless, but these right-wing pundits would like us to think that it was because it serves their murderous agenda. There's a revolting racist undertone to the deliberate discounting of foreign death tolls, and it's been adopted uncritically across all the US media, as far as I can see, including such relatively mainsteam outlets like the New York Times and CNN.

Important points to keep in mind as we hear about "The War Plan."

Digby gives more insight into the workings of the White House. Also read TPM for more background.

Another quote from the Newsweek article quoted before, [the adminstration] "developed a language and diplomatic style that seemed calculated to offend the world. (President Bush has placed a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt in the White House. TR’s most famous words of advice are worth recalling: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”) Key figures in the administration rarely traveled, foreign visitors were treated to perfunctory office visits, and state dinners were unheard of. On an annual basis, George W. Bush has visited fewer foreign countries than any president in 40 years."

Just becareful where you poke that stick or you might find a hornet's nest. N'est ce pas?

Interesting column in the Dallas Fort Worth areaStar Telegram. The author quotes a Newsweek article "I've been all over the world in the last year, and almost every country I've visited has felt humiliated by this administration." Upon reading this a little light went off in the dark recesses of what passes for my brain. The lack of support for this war are the chickens coming home to roost for the U.S. gov't, and specifically for this administration.

Bush is running this company like a private corporation, he's the CEO, and the cabinet is the board of trustees. In the world of business if someone is not a team player there are a dozen people lined up to take their corner office. In the world of business if a vendor cuts a better deal with a competitor, you renegotiate or you find a new vendor. On the other hand, if you are a large enough company, then you can treat a vendor horribly, but they'll keep coming back because they can't afford to lose your business. Bush's oft quoted saying, "If you're not with us, you're against us" comes from the belief that if you're not affecting the bottom line in a positive way, then you're dead meat to be cut away before you rot out the rest of the profits.

In the world of foreign affairs the rules of the business world do not apply (It's more like a playground, as I'll get to later). You can only treat a trading parter like a vendor for so long before it begins to chafe. And if you treat them horribly, refusing to play by the rules (Kyoto, World Court, Steel tariffs, etc), eventually they're going to cut you out of the deal.

Bush's administration isn't the only U.S. regime to play this way. I think we're reaping what we've sown since the Nixon administration. All our attempts at "nation building" through supporting despots, anti-communist thugs, death squads, muslim extremists, etc... are coming back to haunt us. The world has finally decided they don't like the rules of our game and they refuse to play anymore. Blair is like the bully's sidekick who holds the playground victim while the bully pulverizes them and steals their lunch. He sticks by the bully because he knows that in the past, that has always been the safest place to be. But in the new playground, where the rules have changed and the rest of the kids have banded together against the bully, even the sidekick can't last for long before changing sides.

The ol' U.S. of A. will soon be alone on the playground, ignored by the other kids (even worse than a fight, where we at least have a chance to pass out some black eyes), and isolated from the only system that might assist us (in this case the UN and the World Trade Organization, both of which the Bush administration has chosen to piss off).

ABCNEWS Nightline reports on how lucky the U.S. is regarding homeland terror.

Robert Parry states essentially the same thing I have below, only better.

It's a slow news day today. But it gives me a chance to reflect on how lucky I think the U.S. and its military has been. First of all, it has been 12 days since Bush's ultimatum to Hussein and so far we've escaped any terrorism on our shores or against our holdings overseas. I'm sure some of this can be attributed to the skill of our anti-terrorism forces (FBI, CIA, etc), but the complete lack of any attack makes me think we’ve been over estimating Hussein’s ability to strike out either through their supposed friends Al-Queda or other agents. If so, then we’ve lost some of the justification for this war. I hope I’m not proven wrong on this point.

Second, I think the U.S. and U.K. forces have been tremendously lucky so far. Iraq has had 12 years to prepare for this invasion and we’ve provided him juicy targets by stringing out our supply lines over 300 plus miles. Although the news may be suppressed, I haven’t heard of a single gas tanker being blown up (they’re not armored at all). So far, only one car bomb. But this tactic will be much more effective once foot patrols enter cities that have supposedly been pacified. Hussein should have been building tunnels and bomb shelters throughout the region where his troops could pop out and ambush allied forces supply lines. Instead, they are sending ‘technical’ vehicles in suicide missions against tanks.

Quotes from the brave men of the U.S. and U.K. forces indicate that it is a totally one sided battle out there. In interviews on CNN and MSNBC commanders recount dozens of men rushing them with small arms and grenades (both useless against our armor) only to be cut down instantly. To me these are very sad instances. I’m reminded of the movie Zulu where tens of thousands of Zulu warriors throw themselves at a small group of British soldiers time and again only to be slaughtered on each approach. In that movie, the Zulus eventually retreated leaving thousands dead on the battle field, but most lived to fight again another day. I hope the Iraqi forces will soon do the same thing.

But I doubt they ever will retreat. Most of those behind the fighting belong to the Baath party or other leadership groups. They are the ones who will be tried for war crimes and who will suffer the most in the rebuilt Iraq. They have little to lose by fighting. I ask you to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine a Red Dawn scenario. Would you not want to pick up arms and revolt somehow. You wouldn’t just capitulate and start to study Russian or Chinese (as the case might be), no you’d find someway to fight. The reports of people returning to Iraq from across the region to pick up arms are truly frightening. If for some reason Bush decides we need to go into Syria or Iran then this becomes a whole different story (see my earlier post).

Lately, the word from the Pentagon is that they are expecting Baghdad, meaning the leadership, to crumble from the inside. They must have some sort of intel that leads them to believe that. But I hope it is stronger intel then that which made them believe the regime would crumble after a little operation called ‘Shock and Awe’. The worst thing, casualty wise, for the U.S. and U.K. forces would be a door to door street fight in Baghdad and Tikrit, but it might take that for real regime change to occur. But if the regime fails to crumble we have little choice than to lay siege to the Hussein strongholds or to surround them, interdict all food and water, and wait them out. Either way we suffer greatly in world opinion. Sieges are bloody things on both sides, and starvation campaigns will hurt the very people we are trying to help the most first. Militarily we might be winning this war, but politically, we might already be in a quagmire many times larger than Vietnam ever was.

My greatest wish is for this war to be resolved quickly and the slaughter be over. As I read around the net (the sites to read are: TPM, The Agonist, DailyKos, Counterspin, Tacitus, and Body and Soul) I see very little hope that the end is near. If the Pentagon has a plan to end this war, I hope they implement it soon, and prove us all wrong.