...actual distinct voices speaking in my mind? Or is it just the weblog of James Lindenschmidt? Here you can see me wrestle with this and other questions, while spewing forth my writings, opinions, and hallucinations.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 

No-longer-embedded reporting

Here is yet another example of the incredibly tight control over the media being exerted by ... someone. Anytime someone reports something that suggests the US invasion of Iraq is problematic, Bad Things Happen.

According to this story, Peter Arnett was fired from NBC and National Geographic after suggesting that the US "war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan. Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces."

Even stranger is the fact that at first, NBC supported Arnett's comments, but then reversed course and fired him, saying what he did was inappropriate. I wonder who convinced NBC to let him go?

Here's the lesson: anyone saying anything other than "the war is going well" on the corporate media outlets will not have a job for long. Television programming, indeed...

^ posted at 11:27 AM

 

Who will run post-war Iraq?

I originally thought it would be Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton. But This story (run in many places online) says Halliburton won't get the contract, though they could take part as a subcontractor.

Now, this story says that Jay Garner, a retired US general and president of the arms company that builds the famed Patriot missiles, will oversee it. Of course, there is a huge conflict of interest here. Some excerpts from the story:

Garner's business background is causing serious concerns at the United Nations and among aid agencies, who are already opposed to US administration of Iraq if it comes outside UN authority, and who say appointment of an American linked to the arms trade is the 'worst case scenario' for running the country after the war.

Defence analyst David Armstrong of the Washington-based National Security News Service says: 'It seems inappropriate for somebody to step into a humanitarian and administrative role from a company with a role in providing equipment which, albeit defensive, is vital to the success of the US operation.'

I think the point is that even if Halliburton doesn't get the contract, someone with ties to the oil and/or arms industry will.

^ posted at 4:09 PM

 

The Spirit of Freedom?

Well, maybe. But I'd settle for getting the George W. Bush cabal out of the White House. Indeed, this is the very goal of Dennis Kucinich, an anti-Iraq-invasion Democrat who is running for president in 2004. I first heard about him in an article in The Progressive magazine this month. Right now, he's (according to Those In The Know) a longshot to do anything in the election. Perhaps.

But the next year and a half is going to be very, very interesting. One must remember that support for the war is now about as high as it's ever going to be. Once more bodybags filled with broken soldiers and shattered dreams come flooding back to the US, it's going to grow more and more unpopular.

The unpopularity of this war is nearly unanimous worldwide, though in the US it is said that 7 in 10 support the invasion of Iraq. Remember, it took years for the Vietnam protests to get any teeth. It's happening much faster this time. The peace rallies began before the war did. The Internet has changed everything; the general populace is much more informed, and informed much more quickly.

So maybe this guy has a chance after all. The first person to come out decidedly against the war is going to get quite a bit of support. Maybe this guy is the one. If so, look for standard Republican smear tactics; we'll hear all about his drug intake, his sex scandals, and his latest rectal exams in absurd detail. I wish the guy well. Someone has to do it.

^ posted at 11:44 PM

 

Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector says the US won't win the Iraq War

Common Dreams has a story saying that " Scott Ritter, former United Nations (U.N.) chief weapons inspector, spoke about the current war with Iraq to a packed audience in the Statler Auditorium" at Cornell University. He outlines an "effects-based strategy" resting on four main assumptions--all of which are faulty--justifying the US invasion of Iraq. Here are some excerpts from the article:

Ritter described the Bush Administration's current war plan as the "effects-based strategy" that operates under four main assumptions: the support of the Iraqi people for the U.S. liberation of their country, the lack of defense from the Iraqi military, the fragility and the lack of resistance capabilities of the Iraqi government and the support of the international community.

However, according to Ritter, "none of it worked. ... The CIA was suckered."

As U.S. troops are now finding out, the Iraqi people do not want to be liberated, he said. Ritter stressed that, in addition to the backfiring of previous assumptions, the strategy of a "shock and awe" approach that attempted to create the illusion of a great U.S. military force has not proved effective.

"The Iraqi soldiers are not surrendering and are fighting back. Our supply lines have suddenly been cut off. And now, we're not so invincible as we seemed before. The effects-based strategy no longer works, and now the war won't be short and fast like it was promised to be when the President signed in approval of it," he said.

Ritter believes that implications of this potentially drawn-out war include a shift toward a more negative attitude in how other countries will view the U.S. and its people in the years after the war. He says that already, the Iraqi people will never rally behind U.S. intentions because "they view us as invaders."

Ritter ardently stressed that diplomatic, economic, political and military triumphs will not result due to the U.S.'s violation of international law. He also said that the United States has carried out its objectives void of legitimacy and support from the U.N. Security Council. It has not only violated the U.N. Charter but also the U.S. Constitution, he continued. "We are therefore asking our men and women to fight for something not supported by the very Constitution that they have sworn to uphold," he said.

^ posted at 2:58 PM

 

Maine Public Radio doesn't get it

In a disappointing but unsurprising move, Maine Public Radio will not be running Democracy Now. I was sorry to hear it, but it doesn't really affect me on a personal level. I can get Democracy Now at will online. This decision just gives me one less reason to listen to MPR (or more specifically, it does not give me another reason to listen).

I read the reasoning given by MPR. Frankly, I think it is a joke. There is no such thing as objectivity in news reporting, and for MPR to not only pretend that there is, but moreover to presume to define what objectivity is for its listeners, is insulting.

I'm sure there are good reasons not to run Democracy Now on MPR. But don't hide behind the myth of objectivity in the reasoning.

How disappointing. I think MPR could have made a very strong statement--and attracted many new listeners. Oh well. They're more conservative than we thought, and I mean conservative in the sense of preserving the status quo, rather than meaning right-wing.

^ posted at 10:39 AM

 

The Big Three

After the previous post, it just occured to me that I am using The Big Three of Linux Desktop applications. Namely, the Evolution 1.2.2 mail and calendaring program, the mozilla 1.3 web browser, and OpenOffice.org 1.0.2. This is roughly equivalent in terms of functionality (but superior to, imho) MS Outlook, MS Internet Explorer, and MS Office. And all part of a free download.

Linux is so ready for prime time on the desktop.

^ posted at 12:59 AM

 

Writing tools redux

I'm giving OpenOffice.org 1.02 a go as my writing cyber-utensil of choice. It seems much more polished. It still has its own native interface (as opposed to using the stock KDE or GNOME interface--or Windows or Mac OS X for that matter). But on my new Mandrake 9.1 install, it looks fabulous. The fonts in particular display very smoothly.

It works with all file formats that I need or use regularly. Its native file format, .sxw, is not a binary format; it is zipped xml. It is open and accessible to other programs. I can easily export to html, pdf, or plain text. In addition, I can save as .doc for the MS Word people in da house.

I've enjoyed my time with LyX and LaTeX. It taught me to think differently about these processes. But I think that with styles and templates I can approximate the ease of LyX with the formatting power and ease of a full-featured, modern word processor.

There is no reason for anyone not to try OpenOffice.org. It is a free download, and is available for Windows, Linux, Unix, and Mac OS X in development.

^ posted at 12:47 AM

 

The Lawyers are after the Bush cabal

...according to this story, anyway. The main thrust is that the invasion of Iraq is a violation of international law, and a simple shift in philosophy would rectify the error. Here's an excerpt:

"Whether the war in Iraq is legal or not is a matter of debate, but had Washington argued in favor of human rights rather than against weapons of mass destruction, it would have succeeded in rallying more support..."

^ posted at 11:44 PM

 

The Agonist

I can't believe I haven't posted this link here already. The Agonist is an amazing resource for war information. This guy is tireless. He has a couple dozen browser windows open at once, and 2 TVs going for war news. He puts the best stuff he sees up on the blog with links. And now that he's gotten some major attention, people are starting to tell him things before it hits the mass media. Good stuff. This is the power of the blog.

^ posted at 2:50 PM

 

Iraq-O-Meter

Nothing more needs to be said. Kind of appropriate in this age of mass-media wargasm, soundbyte, get the facts quick "reporting."

^ posted at 2:43 PM

 

Protest Records

Go here to get your anti-war, pro-peace, rage-against-the-establishment fix.

^ posted at 2:40 PM

 

Cool Mandrake Stuff

This page is very useful to anyone out there running Mandrake Linux. It is an auto-config for urpmi, which is the automated software installation infrastructure for Mandrake.

^ posted at 6:47 PM

 

new Linux install

Well, I finally got around to fixing the Linux install that broke 6 weeks ago. The fix was simple: I installed the new version of Mandrake Linux 9.1 that just came out. You can order it from the link or you can download it.

I decided to keep it simple and stay with Mandrake. I thought for a long time about going back to Debian, but Mandrake just makes things easier for a desktop user (that's me). Plus, the new install looks gorgeous. Highly recommended.

Now, I just need to get the new version of Lyx 1.3.1 running and I'll be happy....

^ posted at 12:05 AM

 

This is what "Iraqi Freedom" looks like...

The starvation in Iraq has begun. People are suffering greatly at the hands of the US invasion force. Here are some excerpts from the Sydney Morning Herald:

"This war has quickly turned us into beggars," an old man who gave his name as Farak said as he sat on the side of a road near Nasiriya in southern Iraq yesterday.

In this part of the country, at least, years of UN economic sanctions that stripped cupboards have now been replaced by a fierce war which is depleting the few remaining valuable provisions, resulting in severe penury.

At least 100,000 small children in Basra are at risk of disease after water supplies were cut following US-led air strikes on the besieged southern Iraqi city, the United Nations Children's Fund warned today.

"We've been abandoned to our fate. Nobody has given us anything to eat. Nobody is providing security. All they do is arrive here, attack Saddam's forces, then leave," said Hussein Yaber, a 20-year-old shepherd living in a barn south of Nasiriyah.

Nowhere in Safwan were the scenes of celebration or relief US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had been counting on to confront their critics. Although the town was the first to fall to the coalition troops without resistance last Friday, by yesterday the British patrols were receiving no victory signs from the children in street. The atmosphere is tense, and the soldiers posted at the entrance and exit of the town can do little to assuage the growing anger directed at them.

The Baath Party is not the only object of rage. Frustrated Iraqis wander to checkpoints looking for relatives they said had been arrested by the US or British forces. "We go and we try to find water because it has been cut off in our area and then the Americans and British arrest people who are not even soldiers," said Mohsen Ibrahim.

^ posted at 12:32 AM

 

POWs, or detainees?

Now that Americans have been captured as POWs in the invasion of Iraq, Bush's previous policy is very likely going to get him into trouble. What if, for example, Iraq refuses to acknowledge their status as POWs, and instead calls them "detainees"? In this case, the POW/detainees would not be subject to the Geneva convention of war.

Furthermore, this invasion of Iraq is a violation of international law. So why does Bush appeal to international law to protect the people who are violating international law?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the POW/detainees--either captured soldiers or the denizens of Guantanamo Bay--should be mistreated. But George W. Bush has placed himself in a precarious position.

Most of the world cannot see a difference between Bush's "detainees" and the American POWs. That many Americans believe they are two completely different situations shows just how deeply racism and orientalism are rampant in America.

UPDATE: There is an excellent article by Anthony Lappé elaborating on this contradiction available here on the Guerrilla News Network.

^ posted at 6:26 PM

 

Bush policy: endless war

It's important to understand that the current invasion of Iraq is just one chapter in a very long, very unfinished story. Afghanistan was first, now Iraq. Who's next?

According to this story from a Pakistani paper, Iran is next. The story cites a CIA document that noted "regime change" was essential in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba and North Korea. Essential for what is not clear.

This is going to get worse before it gets better.

^ posted at 12:01 AM

 

Wait, we're there to liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator, right?

According to this Scripps Howard story, the US is now downplaying the importance of "getting" Saddam. According to the story, " 'The ultimate objective is not Saddam Hussein,' Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday."

Ummm, wait a second. I thought this invasion was all about getting Saddam out of Iraq. I thought George W. Bush gave him 48 hours to abdicate.

The contradictions are adding up here.

^ posted at 11:20 AM

 

Does it now get difficult?

Last night when I went to bed, cnn.com was reporting that the US invasion was "100 miles from Baghdad." I remember thinking that they made it pretty far without much resistance. My second thought was that the closer they get to Baghdad, the harder it's going to be for them. If I were Saddam, I probably would have given up the south of Iraq and put all my forces closer to Baghdad.

When the US military gets to Baghdad, it's going to encounter urban warfare. It's going to be ugly. When the casualties start to mount, I wonder how US public opinion of the invasion will change.

Sure enough, when I woke this morning, the headline on cnn.com was Marines encounter heavy resistance.

This invasion is a bad idea. I pray for the safety of everyone involved. This war is insanity.

^ posted at 10:49 AM

 

Published

It looks like a piece I wrote, Fueling The War Machine(s) in Iraq, is going to be published, space permitting, in the next issue of The Maine Commons.

^ posted at 12:57 AM

 

My Dear Americans

This article from ArabNews.com is interesting. Some excerpts:

The preliminary missile and bombing attacks on Iraq were just a taste of what will soon be unleashed on a weary and helpless population. As the US secretary of defense grandly announced in Washington last Thursday, “What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before.

Hundreds of cruise missiles, to give just one example, are to be launched in the first days of the attack. Those who survive the initial onslaught will be struggling to survive in cities from which there is no escape, and in which the water supplies, the sewage systems, and the electrical grids, have been deliberately destroyed. Diseases will be rampant, and death multi-fold...

And once the soldiers are in combat, you will be expected to unite behind the war. Images showing “smart bombs” exploding while Mr. Rumsfeld assures you that civilian casualties are being kept to a minimum will dominate the TV screens of a country far removed from the horrors.

You can be assured too that you will be spared the bloody realities of the dead and wounded of Iraq, as the human tragedy unfolding in Iraq will be told in numbers, in abstractions, in brief video clips, and not in the stories of real human beings, real children, real mothers and fathers. But remember that those abstractions were living flesh and blood.

Kinda sobering...

^ posted at 2:12 PM

 

7 in 10? That's it?

The Washington Post is reporting that 7 in 10 Americans back the decision to go to war. While at first glance these numbers may be disheartening, one must remember that this is the highest approval rating the war is ever likely to see. Every time war breaks out, there is a wave of passive acceptance among Americans; this is the "we must support our troops" mentality.

As an aside, this argument -- that once bullets start flying, a good American must stop protesting war to "support the troops" -- is competely fallacious. What better way to support the troops than to try to get them home?

Anyway, I'm heartened by the fact that 3 out of 10 Americans oppose the war already. The longer the war goes on, the more these numbers will grow.

I wonder what the approval rating of the first Gulf War was in 1991? I seem to remember it being over 90%. So the fact that it's 70% now is a good thing.

^ posted at 2:02 AM

 

It begins...

The US invasion of Iraq has begun. I am sad, yet strangely optimistic. This instance of intensified American aggression will only accelerate the process of waking people out of their slumber. America is now the only remaining superbully.

The American military attempted an assassination of Saddam Hussein. Bombs are falling in Iraq, people have already begun to die. There are border skirmishes between Iraq and Kuwait already going on. Oil wells in southern Iraq are on fire. It must be hell to be there right now.

Whatever your spiritual beliefs, I hope you will pray for peace. Here is my prayer: may the god and goddess ease the pain of the suffering, and help the souls of everyone along in their journeys.

^ posted at 12:53 PM

 

Good Media

There were some very interesting points today on Democracy Now. You can listen to streaming mp3s of hour one and hour two.

Dennis Halliday made the following points:

• news in America is not news, it's entertainment. As a result, the American people are largely misinformed.
• It's up to the American people to show Bush that his warmongering is unacceptable. The rest of the world has spoken with a loud, clear voice, and the US is the only country with popular support for the war. The American people have 48 hours to change the world.

Jeremy Scahill, a reporter in Iraq, pointed out the contradiction of men named Bush urging Iraqis to take matters into their own hands. After the Gulf War, there was a rebellion in Iraq, where rebel forces controlled 14 of 18 provinces in Iraq. Bush Sr. refused to help them, and the rebellion was crushed. So for George W. Bush to urge Iraqis to fight Saddam, seems pretty stupid.

In addition, Scahill has reported that many Shi'ite Iraqis are afraid that if America attacks Iraq, Saddam will use chemical and biological weapons not against American troops, but against rebellious Iraqis.

Ralph Nader was on, pointing out how difficult it is to dialogue with the Bush Cabal. The Bush Cabal has unilaterally refused to meet with any anti-war delegations. Bush is closed-minded, obsessively compulsed, and unwilling to have any input to the cluster of the War Machine.

^ posted at 1:44 PM

 

Kinda says it all, really

From Doc Searls: "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

^ posted at 6:10 AM

 

It begins...?

The UN is pulling out of Iraq. Apparently, George W. Bush is going to demand that Saddam Hussein yield power and leave Iraq or face US invasion.

I think my wife said it best: I feel totally fucking helpless.

And, as a possible sign of future media control, the website for Democracy Now! is currently inaccessible. Perhaps they are just being slashdotted (translation for non-geeks: slashdotted=the DN webserver may be overwhelmed by huge numbers of people trying to access the site, especially in the wake of imminent war)...

UPDATE (7:43pm): Democracy Now! is back up. So much for my conspiracy theories. :-)

^ posted at 2:54 PM

 

Linux easier to deal with than Windows?

There is an open letter written by an attorney who has switched from Microsoft Windows XP to Linux. It's a great read. He outlines the problems with both Windows and Linux, but concludes that he is simply more productive, and spends less time worrying about his computer, when he uses Linux on the desktop:

"...it has been months since I used Microsoft. I consider myself to have “made the switch.” Not out of costs reasons – I can afford to buy Microsoft's software and I don't think it is unreasonably priced. Not for philosophical reasons – I don't particularly like their business tactics, but I like a government interfering with free commerce even less. I didn't switch because of the BSOD ["Blue Screen Of Death"]. Since Windows 2000 this hasn't been an issue for me (I still prefer 2000 over XP, but my video card in my laptop needs XP in a bad way, ie BSOD is still there). I didn't switch because I want everything free – I'll pay for a good product and Open Source programmers should expect to be paid too (see the Kroupware project for a good example). I switched because it worked BETTER and made me more PRODUCTIVE.

In other words, I believe people should consider switching to be more productive and make more money or spend less time in front of their computer and more time sailing, hiking and playing with their kids.

He specifically is very happy with OpenOffice.org.

^ posted at 1:14 PM

 

David Reed on Intellectual Property

This is a good, short quote about the so-called "intellectual property" crisis we are in. I'm still working on a piece about this. But this is a good one:

Thursday, January 30, 2003
DPR at 10:50 AM:

The Intellectual Property Meme

Every time you utter the words "intellectual property" you buy into the idea that all information bit patterns are or should be inherently "owned" by somebody.

The term "intellectual property" appeared first in the late twentieth century, first as a collective description for an unrelated set of legal traditions that arose when kings had the power to grant favors to their favorites, and which carried forward in the common law.

But during the twentieth century, the collective label has been reified. We actually are in danger of accepting the absurd idea that information should be property, ownable and exchangeable.

It won't be long before it is accepted that everything you learn from experience on the job is the "property" of your employer, just as they claim ownership of your notebooks, and every creative thought you have, the contents of every phone call you make (from your office), and every keystroke you type on your computer. When they can download your brain, and wipe it clean, you'll be required to when you change jobs.

You can help stop this. Don't ever use the words "intellectual property". You can say patents, copyrights, trademarks - those are more well-defined terms, and if Congress doesn't pull another Boner (er, Bono), they are limited and narrowly targeted at a balanced social purpose. The authors of the Constitution were wary of royal monopolies like patents and copyrights, but they compromised because there was a reasonable social good served by *limited* monopolies on things that would pass into the public domain.

But if you buy into the concept of "intellectual property" it turns this all around. Limited becomes the exception, not the norm. The burden of proof falls on the government to explain why property ownership is "limited". The government imposing a limitation becomes a "taking" for which the government is required to pay a price which is calculated by measuring the value that the "owner" would be able to extract if they were to "own" the "intellectual property" forever.

Society's being conned by a smart collection of devious and dangerous radicals. These guys pose as "conservatives", but in fact they are activists, redefining the whole notion of information. Changing it from a non-rivalrous good into a fully rivalrous good, by getting the government to synthesize new "intellectual property" concepts into laws, and then enforcing them.

This goes beyond "fair use". The attack of fair use in copyright is only a small part of this large radical movement.

It's time for those of us who aren't lawyers to fight back. Whenever you hear the term "intellectual property" you should feel like another landmine has been planted in this radical cultural jihad against your mind.

^ posted at 12:17 PM

 

note: the following article has been permanently archived at The Maine Independent Media Center.

Fueling the War Machine(s) in Iraq

Why is oil so expensive right now?

Earlier this week, I was sitting in a local dojo watching my daughter take a martial arts class when one of the other parents asked a question. "Can anyone explain to me why oil prices are so high?" At first, I didn't really have a good answer, but this question has been haunting my thinking since. So I set out to investigate an answer. It seemed logical to me that the George W. Bush administration was connected to this most important question; after all, Bush has seized quite an arsenal of power in the US, and virtually every major player in the Bush administration comes from the oil industry. But given the simplistic, contradictory, and transparent rhetoric coming from the White House these days, it was clear to me from the beginning that I could pay no heed to the Bush administration's words; rather, I must look instead to their actions, and re-trace the logic of their actions in order to deduce their motivations. I began to look for clues. Why, indeed, is the price of oil so high? And, what is the motivation for the seemingly imminent attack on Iraq?

The Bush administration and the oil industry

I have already mentioned the first clue. The Bush administration comes almost entirely from the oil industry, with deep ties connecting them. George W. Bush has run several oil companies, specifically Arbusto, Spectrum 7, and Harken Energy. Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, one of the largest oil field services companies in the world. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice served on the board of Chevron, giving such exceptional service to the company that she had an oil tanker named after her. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "has between $3.25 million and $15.5 million worth of investments in energy-related companies."Secretary of State Colin Powell is involved with Gulf Stream, a subsidiary of General Dynamics, which produces oil-burning war machinery and private planes for the economic elite. There are many other examples of these ties between the Bush administration and the oil industry; the unifying point here is that the US government is under the control of a group of people with clear, distinct, and vested interest in the bottom line of the US oil industry.

Cheap oil for Americans, or profit for the oil industry?

The second clue is that this war has nothing to do with providing cheap oil to the American people. Writing in 1992, shortly after the first Gulf War, the Midnight Notes collective observed that

The US imports only 10% of its oil from the Persian Gulf, a rate that has not increased since the end of the [Gulf] War. It had (and has) many other motivations for controlling the Persian Gulf oil industry: US oil company profits and petrodollars for the US banking system, for example. The US government has no inherent interest in a low oil price. Over the past forty years, US policy makers have variously sought to increase and decrease the price of oil. Oil prices were declining between 1981-86 but began to increase thereafter.
(Midnight Notes Collective, Midnight Oil: Work, Energy, War, 1973-1992 (NY: Autonomedia, 1992), ix.).

Remember, Midnight Notes was writing at the beginning of the Clinton administration. They are correct that there is no general trend of the US government fighting for either high or low oil prices. Indeed, the tide has turned several times throughout history---sometimes low prices are fought for, sometimes high prices. The current administration, on the other hand, seeks profit for the oil industry, whether that profit comes from high or from low prices.

The machines of war

The third clue to consider is the scale of the US war machinery at work in the Persian Gulf, especially once war begins. As of this writing, there are 175,000 US soldiers already in the Gulf, with a vision of a 250,000-strong occupation force in Iraq after the war. There are already 50 warships and nearly 400 aircraft in the region, numbers that will only increase as the invasion unfolds. Now, think of the amount of oil required to fuel these vehicles. Huge ships and fighter planes aside, there are countless jeeps, troop transports, helicopters, cars, trucks, etc. moving in and around the Gulf. If and when the full-scale invasion begins, how many thousands of gallons of fuel will be burned in this waging of war? How many untold thousands of gallons have already been burned to move the war machines to their present, strategic locations? The Washington Post has reported that Pentagon estimates on the cost of the invasion have been increased to $95 billion" with huge reconstruction and occupation costs to come later." How much of that budget is for fuel? Is the recent price increase due to high oil prices? Is it any surprise that oil prices are high just now, with the invasion seemingly imminent? Then, once the attacks are over, and the fuel consumption of the "victorious" US military machine(s) goes way down, the American people will undoubtedly see gas prices fall once more, reinforcing the popular but naive opinion that war is somehow "good for the economy."

So these three clues, taken together, indicate that the very act of waging war in Iraq will be enormously profitable to the oil industry---millions of gallons of fuel will be burned, while the current high price of oil is unprecedented. The Bush administration understand that they have a limited window of opportunity to make enormous profits.

Why Iraq?

But why Iraq? Why not unleash the full fury of the US war machine(s) somewhere else? Given the colorful "high alerts" of the war on terrorism and the "threat" of the so-called "axis of evil," North Korea would seem to be a more imminent threat than Iraq, given their capability to strike the US with nuclear weapons. Additionally, the US has been waging war in Colombia for many years. 15 of the 19 terrorists that attacked on September 11th were Saudi Arabian citizens. If US policy is geared toward waging the "war on terrorism," then wouldn't Saudi Arabia seem the likelier target? Iraq is a brutalized, impoverished country; the first Gulf War virtually destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, and subsequent bombings and sanctions have resulted in countless deaths---500,000 children under 5 alone have died since 1991. Though Saddam Hussein is clearly a brutal dictator, it seems utterly unconvincing to say that Saddam poses any sort of clear and present danger to the American people. Indeed, Osama Bin Laden, the alleged architect of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, considers Hussein an "infidel," though this characterization has not stopped Bin Laden from urging unity among Arabs and Muslims against the US.

The fingers in the White House repeatedly point to Iraq's alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Indeed, this argument---that Iraq has WMDs and is therefore a threat to the US---is the centerpiece of White House rhetoric and their justification of invasion. Whether or not it is true that Iraq is in possession of WMDs is one question the US government may be able to answer; after all, Iraq was supplied most of its arms and WMDs by the US government. So if Iraq is indeed holding WMDs, the US government has the receipts for them. However, possession of WMDs is not enough to justify war; indeed, many countries around the world are in possession of WMDs, and the US has more of them than anyone else. There is an important question of sovereignty lurking here. Does a nation have the right to build its military power, even if it means acquiring WMDs? Perhaps more importantly, does one sovereign nation have the right to deny another nation its military capability?

Furthermore, what exactly is meant by a WMD? With a certain budget, one can build a WMD in a basement. Timothy McVeigh was convicted of bringing down a large building with fertilizer. Does that count as a WMD? The fact is that any nation with any sort of industrial capacity whatsoever is capable of producing WMDs. The ability to manufacture medicines indicate the possibility of chemical weapons. Oil production and refinement techniques indicate the possibility of missile transport. The notion of "criminal" has taken an important shift; rather than looking for a "smoking gun," we are looking for guns with the potential to smoke. We are dangerously close to enforcing law---up to and including capital punishment for hundreds of thousands of people---before any crimes have been committed. So given this philosophy of the war on terror, anyone on any level---sovereign nation or individual person---can be made into a target of this lawless war. So again, if anyone can be a target, why Iraq?

It can be no coincidence that Iraq has the second largest proven oil field in the world, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, representing "11% of the world's total" oil reserve. The report goes on:

In addition, many experts believe that Iraq has massive untapped reserves, putting it nearly on par with Saudi Arabia. Iraq's oil is also high quality and very inexpensive to produce, making it an extraordinarily profitable source.

After a US-led "regime change" in Iraq, the new puppet government of Iraq would be under US control, in a similar way to the regime change in Afghanistan. Predictably, the rhetoric coming out of the White House talks about "freedom and democracy" in Iraq; Bush is stating openly that he wants to make "an example" of Iraq. But an example of what? Again, we cannot turn to White House rhetoric; notions of "democracy" and "freedom" and "good vs. evil" have all been corrupted by this regime. If we examine the recent history of US policy toward Iraq, then the current situation gets even hazier. Yes, Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But as such, he is not exceptional in this regard. There are many brutal dictators in power worldwide, ravaging the people in their countries. Moreover, Saddam Hussein has been left in power for 12 years since the first Gulf War. Make no mistake---the US could have removed him from power during US occupation of Iraq in 1991. The decision to leave him in power was a conscious and deliberate one. So why Iraq, and moreover why Iraq in 2003? It cannot be for the good of the Iraqi people. They have suffered enough for 12 years as a result of US action since the Gulf War; economic sanctions, continued bombings, and low-intensity warfare enforcing the so-called "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq have resulted in countless deaths and untold suffering. So for George W. Bush to claim any action on behalf of the welfare of the Iraqi people is dubious, and at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. The US government has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated its complete lack of concern---if not deliberate disdain---for the Iraqi people. How many more Iraqi people must die at the hands of American military and economic power?

But what about the American people? Is the Bush administration acting in order to protect Americans in the wake of 9/11? It would not seem so. Millions of people, both in the US and abroad, have organized and marched against American imperialism and in favor of peace. Millions more share similar ideas. Every American bomb that falls in Iraq will give some other orphaned child or grieving relative a profound, personal reason to hate America. The fires of anti-American sentiment leading to terrorism against the US are stoked with every missile launch, every bomb exploded, every bullet fired. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq will motivate the people of the world to terrorism, the only method of counterattack available to them. The American people will be in more danger than ever.

So who benefits from the invasion of Iraq? The Iraqi people will not. The American people will not. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime certainly will not. This leaves only the Bush administration and its deep, multifarious connections with oil capital. US control over oil production will increase. Sales of oil will skyrocket, with oil at very high prices. You have to hand it to the Bush administration. Their objective is clear, and they will pursue that objective singly and relentlessly, without regard to the quantity or quality of human life lost in the process. The drums of war in the Oval Office are loud, and the machines of war in Iraq are hungry.

^ posted at 7:00 PM