General confusion
Topic: antiwar
Talk about an opportunity squandered.

One of today’s hottest national personalities has plopped himself down on Rochester’s lap, but nobody is asking the right questions.

Major General John Batiste came here recently to become head honcho at Klein Steel. The new Brighton resident left the military as a kind of, sort of protest against Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld’s prosecution of the Iraq war and conduct of the occupation. (I think the qualifiers are merited, considering what must be a cushy, non-sacrificial retirement for the general after 30-plus years in uniform.)

Batiste is just one of a half dozen top-brass retirees who've recently criticized Rummy and the war effort. I suppose it’s meaningful on some level that these guys are doing this. In my experience – and here I speak as an irrevocably and joyfully retired USMC Reserve corporal – most high-ranking officers are Yes Men of the first rank. Things have really got to be bad if they open their mouths. Even when they turn into civilians and, inevitably, CEOs.

Still, neither Batiste nor the others will displace another major general, Smedley Butler, USMC, in the hearts of peace activists and leftists. Butler’s declarations (“I was a gangster for capitalism,” etc.) set him comfortably apart from any loyal opposition.

But on to the important questions for Batiste and company:

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the governing document for all people in uniform, keeps coming up in discussions of Abu Ghraib, attacks by US troops on Iraqi civilians, etc. But for all its emphasis on the duties of subordinates, the UCMJ makes it clear that military personnel have a duty to obey lawful orders only (cf. the Nuremberg principles).

And it follows that if US actions in Iraq were and are unlawful, any orders related to carrying out the US mission there are equally unlawful.

So, dear Generals, why are you beating around the bush with issues like leadership, troop strength and deployment strategies?

Give us the goods: Do you think the war is legal or not? The world wants to know.

And here's another angle. If you thought the war was illegal back when you were in charge, why didn’t you refuse to follow or give orders in connection with the war effort, or failing that, resign immediately and make the matter public when it would really have meant something?

Conversely, if you thought or think the war is legal and should be fought until there’s some kind of conclusion, does it acually make much difference if a boob like Rumsfeld is in charge? You were moving in the circles of power, and you presumably have some good stories to pass along in this regard.

Whatever your feelings about the war’s legality, you couldn’t be unaware that the US occupation of Iraq is a disaster, that it’s making things there worse, and that the Iraqi people want US forces to get out with all deliberate speed. So why not, like Representative Jack Murtha and others, call for a withdrawal of US troops? Are you prepared to show some political courage? Or will you stay with the straight and narrow, the high and tight?

That’s what it comes down to, Generals. You need to ask yourselves some questions the media, if not some tribunal, should be asking you.

An open letter to lovers of theater, literature and justice:
Topic: antiwar
As you know, Rochester prides itself on being a cultural Mecca, not least because of its theater offerings. The city also is proud of its educational institutions – take recent PR bragging that our metro area is the functional equivalent of a “college town,” i.e. we’ve got a high student-civilian ratio. And of course, art and education get on famously together, as in Geva’s production of Inherit the Wind, which mounts a defense of freedom of thought and expression.

It’s great to live in a metaphorical Mecca. But today my cultural thoughts are turning not so much in that direction as toward the real world of Gaza – more precisely, to a theatrical production that, through the words of a young American who lost her life fighting injustice, showcases the daily tragedies of life in occupied Palestine and raises intriguing questions about free speech in America today.

I’m speaking of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a play produced by well-known actor Alan Rickman that had a successful run in London but just got the axe by the New York Theatre Workshop. (The Workshop’s director said the decision was a response “a very edgy situation” brought on by Ariel Sharon’s illness and the Hamas victory in recent Palestinian elections. Talk about weasel words. In artistic terms, such cowardice cuts the Big Apple down to the size of a sour cherry.)

Background shouldn’t be necessary here; if we had real independent commercial media here, Corrie would have long ago become a household name. But to review: In March 2003, the 23-year-old, who’d traveled from her home in Washington state to Palestine with other international solidarity volunteers, was crushed to death under a US-built Caterpillar tractor in Gaza. Corrie had been standing in the bulldozer’s path to stop the destruction of yet another Palestinian home in Rafah, a Gaza community on the Egyptian border.

Corrie didn’t present herself as a plaster saint. But her story has already inspired thousands of peace activists and certainly resonates among young Palestinians and Israelis. Likewise, her story would draw attention here in Rochester and other parts of Upstate. So how about it, Rochester theater aficionados and friends? Will you rise to the challenge?

Take a page from some New York City activists who are planning an informal production for March 22 at Riverside Church. Here’s what their webpage (www.rachelswords.org) has to say, as of 3/11: “An array of actors, academics, and activists will read the writings of Rachel Corrie and address how vital it is for the arts to provide a platform for difficult discourse, something that is greatly needed on the issue of Israel and Palestine. The current line up includes Maysoon Zayid, Kia Corthron, Malachy McCourt, Najla Said, Kathleen Chalfant, Betty Shamieh, Jonathan Tasini and Anthony Arnove. We are awaiting confirmation from many more who have expressed interest. We hope that ‘Rachel’s Words’ will provide a burst of light in the pervasive climate of fear and challenge to free speech that is increasingly prevalent in our society and open the door to many other silenced voices.”

Other groups around the country are staging similar events even earlier – on March 16, the third anniversary of Corrie’s death. You’ll find a growing list of these events linked to the URL above.

How wonderful it would be to find Rochester on the list. I guess it will depend on whether Rochester can shed its habitual stage fright about this thematic material - and take the cue.

The war at home
Topic: antiwar
Looking across New York State, decaying milltown by decaying milltown, you see the same old, tired parochialism calling the shots – attempting to define the future with no sense of the economic past. Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse – everywhere budget deficits stalk public services, political infighting serves as entertainment, political grandstanders make vapid promises to attract capital and jobs, and media types offer solutions shallower than the Erie Canal after winter draw-down.

Not to undervalue the microcosm. Consider two Rochester-area news items: first, the Transit Authority’s cutting bus fares for longer runs (good for exurban riders) while slightly boosting the cost of typical urban commutes (bad for the poor) and significantly hiking some Lift Line fares (terrible for the disabled); and second, an official plan to close the Highland Branch library - my neighborhood branch - if the city budget deficit maxes out, per Mayor Bob Duffy’s projections. Such actions, multiplied over a metro region, add up to real suffering. And local solutions, whether you’re talking about cleaning up the generic city hall or diligently crunching the budget numbers, do make a difference.

But not enough of a difference. Such things don’t expose the roots – the “macro” that’s brought us to the brink.

Upstate New York’s troubles have little to do with how we market ourselves to capitalists; how efficient or virtuous our local governments are, relative to those of other states or regions; or, much less, our weather and recreational attractions. Our troubles are rooted in historic, massive shifts in demographics and national economic policies. And these shifts are painfully obvious: depopulation, corporate disinvestment, planned or unplanned technological obsolescence.

An annual publication from the New York City-based War Resisters League makes the point – in black and white, and between the lines.

The publication is a modest two-sided flier: on one side, “Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes: the US Federal Budget 2007 Fiscal Year,” and on the other, “Paying for [the Iraq/Afghanistan] War: How Much and For How Long?” You can access the flier at www.warresisters.org.

According to WRL calculations – and they’ve honed their skills over the years - in 2007 the nation will spend, or throw away, $663 billion on the military. That includes the well-known Pentagon outlay of $429 billion, plus the increasingly familiar $100 billion “off-budget” expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus often-overlooked items like the military portions of non-Pentagon federal agencies and departments (e.g. $17 billion for the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons activities) and interest on the military-related portion of the national debt (estimated at more than $350 billion for this one year).

That’s one impressive chunk of change. But what does it have to do with Upstate New York’s decline and eventual fall? Briefly, the military spending system – the dollars-and-cents elements of Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex – is a topographical map of national political and social priorities and a road map of the nation’s physical, material responses to ideologies and power politics.

The biggest chunk of our discretionary funding (i.e. not including trust funds like Social Security) goes to war production and military personnel, and most of that sector is located in the Sunbelt and West; and further, with industry and research so beholden to Pentagon outlays, the bulk of the US economic infrastructure has followed the money south and west.

It’s slash-and-burn capitalism. We’re once again a “Burned Over District.” The good news is, it can’t go on this way forever. But I think it will go on for a good long time – absent the revolution of values our contemporary prophets (and alas, rarely our pundits) have demanded of us.

Free the CPT Four, and go in peace
Topic: antiwar
“We must be prepared to risk as much in our work as soldiers do in war.” Whatever the wording, this is an old sentiment among peacemakers, though most of us aren't put to the test.

For Christian Peacemaker Team members, though, the saying reflects daily experience as well as core beliefs. I say this from having seen CPT in action in Occupied Palestine.

My wonderful friend Kathy Kern, based in a Mennonite household in Webster, travels globally on CPT missions (here the word doesn’t have the odor of “crusade”). For a long time she lived with other CPTers in the middle of Hebron. And I do mean the middle: the group rented an upper-floor apartment above the main market street, down a few doors from a small but well-armed “settlement” of far-right Israeli Jews whose stated objective was to take all of the city and region from the 150,000 Palestinians there.

The Hebron settlers were clearly as dangerous as they were fascistic, but Kathy and the team didn’t give in to fear. Their purpose was simply to put themselves between warring factions to calm things down, if possible. Just as important, they bore witness to what was happening to Palestinians in Hebron every day: the full catalogue of oppression and humiliation. And with emails and webpages, op-eds and lectures, they let the whole world know.

Last week four CPT members - Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney, Norman Kember, and Tom Fox - were abducted in Iraq. Their captors probably don’t know how CPT has kept faith with the Iraqi people throughout the war (and through the preceding “cold war” of lethal US sanctions). Or how the group played a decisive role in revealing the crimes at Abu Ghraib, among other places. Or how the Baghdad-based team made it a point to live among the oppressed and help shoulder their burdens. (One photo now circulating of Tom Fox shows him cleaning up debris in the streets of Fallujah after the brutal, practically indiscriminate US military attack on that city.)

The captors probably, perhaps understandably, are filled with hatred toward the US, and the CPTers could be facing torture or death. Thus people worldwide are demanding that the four be released unharmed – maybe “praying for” is better than “demanding,” given CPT’s special devotion to prayer in its active, nonviolent, in-the-trenches form.

You can add your name to a petition for their release at www.freethecpt.org, and you can find all sorts of relevant information at www.cpt.org.

It takes more than truth
Topic: antiwar
She doesn’t know when to quit. And unfortunately, she can’t be fired.

Since Mary Anna Towler installed herself as chief foreign affairs commentator for the paper she owns and edits, the insipidity knows no end.

Take the most recent “Urban Journal” entry (City Newspaper, Nov. 23). After needlessly rehashing some very old news from the mainstream press – Bush’s pretexts for invasion and occupation and other material that was in the public domain well before the war started - Towler tells us “the best way, the only way, to support the troops” is “insisting on the truth.”

That’s the kind of talk that makes the neocons shake in their unblemished combat boots. You can imagine the war-room conversations: “Rummy, the liberals are beginning to ASK SERIOUS QUESTIONS about Iraq. I guess we’re toast.”

Only Tom Tomorrow could do that scenario justice - and expose the average liberal's ineptitude.

Here’s a reality check: The White House, with most Congressional Democrats in tow, launched a war of aggression against Iraq. In committing this supreme offense against international law and civilized norms, Bush and his lieutenants became war criminals of the highest order, with the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans on their hands. Now they insist on "staying the course," that is, continuing the criminality.

So all we can do is beg for an explanation?

Is it so difficult to demand an immediate withdrawal of US troops? Or to demand prosecution of the war criminals? (Removal from office would be only a start.)

Is it impossible – or too alternative – to help mobilize people against the war? To inspire street protests, boycotts, strikes, monkeywrenching? To support the war resisters and widen the resistance?

Hint: Those are questions I’d love to see on City Newspaper’s letters page. I’m sure the editorial responses would be oddly entertaining.

Back to the Urban Journal: Towler ends her 11/23 column with a list of the war’s effects, here and over there. No arguing with most items on the list, though again there’s nothing you haven’t seen before in the New York Times. But Towler cites these two as negatives: “the exhaustion of our military” (note the promiscuous use of “our”) and “the expansion of terrorism.”

Now, as anyone who takes more than a parochial view will understand, an exhausted imperial army can only be good news for most of the world. In the long run, or maybe not so long, it's also good for the American people.

Yes, it’s tragic that the weakening of US “force projection” capacities has come as a side-effect of carnage and destruction rather than through domestic political change. And there's always the possibility that this weakening of "conventional" forces will move some desperate hand closer to the nuclear button. But let's be grateful this Thanksgiving for what we've got: a depleted military whose potential for future invasions (Iran? North Korea?) is less than it was.

Let’s be careful about the term “terrorism,” too. Mary Anna Towler tumbles into the rat-hole – using the T word as shorthand for whatever the insurgents are doing, and by omission excusing or morally elevating whatever US forces do. But in reality, terrorism is terrorism. And all military forces, regular and irregular, resort to it.

You might even say the US military doesn’t “resort” to it and maybe never did – No, the Pentagon’s preferred first line of offense is a hefty grab-bag of terror tactics, from aerial bombardment to white-phosphorus “shake and bake” attacks to the machine-gunning of vehicles that “ignore signals to stop.”

Most important in this regard, we have to remember that the Pentagon and White House never heed mere political signals to stop. The policymakers are men and women of action (not the kind who take to the field themselves, of course, but chickenhawks who have others do their dirty work). Counteraction is the only thing they understand.

That’s why a hands-on anti-war mobilization is essential now. And why a polite request for information – including for the “truth” we knew long before Day One – is pathetically beside the point.


UPDATE, 12/16: Towler now writes that "it's time to start leaving Iraq," a conclusion she says has taken her "a while to reach." A while, indeed. The war's almost three years old.

How interesting. She's telling us essentially that up till now she believed we must stay - that the US must keep on fighting an illegal, murderous war and maintaining a destructive neo-colonial occupation. That's tantamount to saying the war was justified all along, and additional evidence that there's little functional difference between mainline hawks and doves.

One more point on the "it's time to start leaving" column. After much padding with material from an NPR interview with former NSA bigwig William Odom (hasn't everyone already heard this stuff on the radio?) Towler predictably turns to the New Yorker and some recent comments by reporter Sy Hersh. She draws a fatalistic dual conclusion: first, that we "won't be leaving Iraq" as long as Bush is in office; and second, that any withdrawal of ground troops will be balanced with an increase in US air power and thus an escalation in indiscriminate violence.

Well, yes, either or both will happen if we accept Bush's authority. But we've got other options. Protest. Resistance. Radical education and independent communication. Presidential power is massive, but mass action can neutralize it. There are many examples of this, past and present - as the late, great alternative newsweeklies used to remind us.