Afghanistan, Several Sane Politicians, & Perpetual War

Years ago, Elites (public and private) co-opted the Congressional powers to start a war, issue assassination orders, & make rules concerning captured enemies... and gave them to the Executive Branch.  The Powers-That-Be then announced that the entire world is a battlefield, and that the people we're fighting are neither soldiers or criminals.  Instead, they are "enemy combatants".  In this new Orwellian world, that means---according to most politicians---those enemies have no rights of any kind.  Furthermore, those people even suspected of being such an enemy also have no rights.  They can be kidnapped, rendered to allies with no ethics, tortured, held incommunicado, and even imprisoned indefinitely.  This is not only unethical, immoral, & unconstitutional, it's insane as well.

All of the above has resulted in Perpetual War...which is both Machiavellian and Orwellian.  It's also a very good thing for Mega Bankers and the War Industry...commonly referred to as the Defense Industry.

For ten years, I've been pointing out here on this blog that the Constitution is crystal clear on this whole issue.  Only Congress has the delegated power to start a war.  [Article I, Section 8]  The Executive Branch, with the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces [Article II, Section 2],  manages the war after it has been started by Congress.  The Supreme Law of the Land is so clear on this matter that one doesn't even have to be an attorney, much less a Supreme Court Justice, to understand it.  The Constitution also assigns Congress the power and duty to "...make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water".  [Article I, Section 8]  The CIA and the Military (i.e., Executive Branch) are not given that power.  Finally, only Congress has the power to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" (assassination orders).  [Article I, Section 8]  The President does not have that power.

Imagine my joy when finally I heard on the News last night these words from Representative John Garamendi of California:  "Congress has the only power to declare war.  It's in the Constitution.  And yet, in all the seven and a half years I've been in Congress, we have never taken up the issue of war.".  He's one of ten Congress people who are co-sponsoring a legislative bill to de-fund the Afghan War... a war that's been ongoing for over sixteen years, and has no end in sight.  Three of the co-sponsors of the bill are Republicans and seven are Democrats.  At least it's a start.  From what I've heard so far, it doesn't return the powers (described above) stolen from Congress, but it's a start.

Those politicians in DC who believe that Laws passed by Congress and/or Executive Orders can over-ride the U.S. Constitution by transferring Congressional powers to the Executive Branch are violating their oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend" that document.  The same is true of those who believe because the President is Commander-in-Chief, he/she has the power to decide when a war begins, who is to be assassinated, and which rules apply to captured enemies.  Being Commander-in-Chief does not mean one is allowed to ignore or bypass other parts of the Constitution.  Those powers have been seized by the Executive in an unconstitutional manner.  The President never had those powers, and still doesn't...at least, not legally.

Critics in office say the Supreme Law of the Land is out-of-date.  So...change it.  There are ways to do that...legally.  Critics then say, it's too difficult.  Yes, and purposely so, but it's not impossible.  It has been done over two dozen times.  Instead of violating your oath of office, get off your lazy butts and try to change it.  I suspect the reason none of you do is because then you also would have to deal with an Amendment for Term Limits...which would be the best change for this country in a good long while.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

US Combat CONTINUES in Afghanistan

Not too long ago, President Obama announced that the US combat mission in Afghanistan "has ended".  Like many of his utterances, this one also proved to be untrue.  It wasn't long after the announcement that the NYT reported this:  Obama had signed a secret order authorizing the remaining 10,800 troops to engage in combat.

Most recently, just the other day, the NYT also reported that combat night raids by US Special Forces had increased... now that the "combat mission in Afghanistan has ended".

Another lie from a Fed politician... go figure.

If there ever has been a President begging for impeachment, it is Barack Obama.  The man truly and literally is incredible.  Not only does he lie, but he violates the Constitution over and over.  [I've detailed such violations in several previous posts.]  Of course, he most likely won't be impeached because Republicans commit the same violations.  None of the DC politicians want a public discussion of why the President is not permitted to put this nation at war.  Only the Congress has the power to do that.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

Obama's Orwellian Use of Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas in your mind simultaneously.  It causes people to change their beliefs or behaviors, or to somehow justify the contradictory ideas...in order to achieve some peace of mind.  In crude, common parlance, it "fucks with your mind".  Obama appears to be a master of this technique.

EXAMPLE---
His ideas and actions regarding the concept of Perpetual War are a prime example.  He says one thing, then does the opposite.  For instance, he claims that the Afghan War essentially is over... that our "combat mission" there is done, finished.  The facts are:  according to the NYT, Obama wrote a secret memo authorizing the remaining 10,800 U.S. troops to engage in combat.  The Afghan War is not over for us.

He supposedly ended the second Iraq War... but now we're back in Iraq with 2600 ground troops and war planes.  He makes a big deal out of the fact that the troops are trainers and advisors.  The number of them started out as 300; very quickly that became 1300.  Now it's 2600.  Is this a pattern?  He says they don't have a combat mission, but holding true to that will be almost impossible.

Obama's Drone Wars pretty much have institutionalized Perpetual War.  That's because "terrorists" will always exist, especially given that U.S. actions continually are creating them.  He claims that we must not accept the concept of Perpetual War, but his actions virtually guarantee that the highest levels of Gov't already have accepted it.  Regarding war, Noam Chomsky made this comment about Obama, "He's worse than Bush."... I agree.

EXAMPLE---
His ideas and actions regarding the U.S. Constitution are another example.  He sometimes reluctantly points out that he's a Constitutional scholar; but anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Constitution readily can see that he violates it more than Bush-Cheney did...and that's quite a feat.  Obama, like Dubya Bush (and others, including Bill Clinton), thinks that because he's Commander-in-Chief he can ignore Article I of the Supreme Law of the Land, especially Article I, Section 8.

Article I, Section 8 ENUMERATES the responsibilities of Congress, the duties of Congress.  Those responsibilities do not belong to the Executive or the Judiciary.  They include:  the power to put us at war; the power to issue assassination orders (Letters of Marque and Reprisal); the power to make rules concerning captures on land and water; and several others.

Even IF one accepts the unconstitutional premise that Congress does not have to "declare war" for us to be at war, that instead, Congress can issue a "Resolution" giving the Executive permission to go to war at some point in the future, at a time of his choosing... even IF all that, Obama still has violated the Law.  For his current ISIS War, he has been using a Congressional Resolution from the second Iraq War (over ten years ago).  Common sense should tell anyone that's ridiculous--- that was an entirely different situation from today.  That "Authorization" has expired.  The fact is:  he's currently at war without a Declaration of War OR a legitimate "Authorization" from Congress.  [Not only that, currently he's not asking Congress to issue an "Authorization"; instead, he's giving them one written by the White House.  That's not how it works---Congress is supposed to construct the document and determine the conditions.]  At the same time, he has planted the subtle idea in our minds that he's a Constitutional scholar.  If he is that, then he's ignoring Article I, Section 8 of that document... particularly, the war-making clause.  Just because other Presidents have done the same thing in the past does not excuse Obama one bit.

Barack Obama, more than any other President in my long memory, not only says one thing and does the opposite... but additionally, he does more to blatantly make it appear as if those actions are logical and not contradictory.  He's the unapologetic King of Cognitive Dissonance, hands down.  He beats out Dick Cheney... and that's quite an accomplishment.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

The State and Perpetual War

According to a couple different news stories, one in the New York Times, recent setbacks in Afghanistan have put a "cloud" over the Administration's timetable for withdrawal of troops in that country. Big surprise. :) I remember when they created that timetable; it seemed at the time that few people paid much attention to the phrase, "depending upon conditions on the ground". Most folks seemed to focus on the announcement that we would begin serious troop withdrawals in July of 2011. I also remember when then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld stated that "major combat has ended in Afghanistan". That was in 2003. Will we ever stop trusting these politicians? Apparently they either are extremely short-sighted, incompetent, or out-right liars.

It seems to me the chances are good that we will not be leaving Afghanistan next year, or even in 2012. If by some chance we do leave, I suspect that we'll simply "invade" another country, perhaps Pakistan, or some other -stan in Central Asia, or maybe Iran. We don't, of course, technically "invade" any country (except Iraq); instead, we are invited in by some corrupt puppet government or "government-in-exile", thus it all seems above board. The reason for our 700+ overseas military bases once was the threat of worldwide communism; now it is worldwide terrorism. Or so the story goes.

I agree with those who believed that communism (from certain quarters, at least) was a threat, and I believe that terrorism (from certain quarters) is now a threat. But terrorists usually do not engage in conventional warfare, as did the communists in, say, Korea. Terrorism is best handled by intelligence agencies and law enforcement. If you disagree with that premise, consider this: if we are to combat terrorism with conventional military forces, then those forces will have to remain forever in countries where terrorism is found. If they don't, what happens when we leave? The terrorists simply will come out of the woodwork and pick up where they left off; we will never kill or capture all terrorists.

If one takes a serious look at human history, the conclusion reached regarding war almost certainly has to be that the State loves (or those that rule love) that activity. War provides certain advantages to rulers: common people are manipulated more easily if they have a common enemy; there is the opportunity to obtain and/or secure natural resources; if the rulers have a vested interest in defense industries, then there is the opportunity to make a lot of money; and there is the opportunity to obtain and/or secure transportation routes for resources such as natural gas and oil. [Our interest in Afghanistan seriously began years ago when Big Oil wanted right-of-way for a natural gas/oil pipeline across most of the country.]

A long time ago, Machiavelli refined the concept of "perpetual war" in order to control the masses and gain resources. I don't think much has changed regarding War and the State since that time.

At the risk of sounding like a "conspiracy theorist", I don't believe that the national politicians in DC "rule" this country. I also don't believe that the People "rule" this country. Instead, we are ruled by multi-national, mega corporations...Crony Capitalists (not genuine Capitalists). [Crony Capitalists are more like Fascists...they are married to the State.] Most importantly, it's NOT a conspiracy. It's right out in the open for all to see. If you haven't seen it, then apparently you're not looking very hard.

So what can we do to correct the situation? Somehow we have to figure out a way to elect people to office who will not become unduly influenced or controlled by the Corporatocracy. How do we do that? Good question. Perhaps a start would be to demand term limits and genuine campaign finance reform. A Constitutional Amendment may be required. But how do we demand anything? I think different forms of boycotting may be the answer. For example, boycott incumbents of both political parties. Better yet, boycott the parties themselves. Why keep electing and re-electing the politicians who have brought us to this point? It makes no sense. We could boycott elections, but I doubt that will ever happen. Because we really do have taxation without true representation, we could stop paying taxes...but most likely that will never happen, at least, not within my lifetime. I'm open to other suggestions.

I don't claim to know the solution, but I believe that if we don't do something decisive, then this country...We the People as sovereigns...are doomed in terms of a free society. Alexis de Tocqueville warned us in the 1800s of what he termed "soft despotism". Google his name and that term, and see what you think.

Obama's War: Part II

He surely owns it now, doesn't he? The reasoning for expansion of the war is: a "surge" in troops now will allow for a sooner end to combat. Please! Give us a break. How many times have we heard that one? The same reason was given (more than once) during the Vietnam war. The same reason was given during the Iraq war; but we still have about 100,000 troops in that country. The war in Iraq hasn't ended yet.

If you were not listening carefully, you may have gotten the impression that the plan now for Afghanistan is to start pulling out troops during July of 2011...for sure. Wrong! That's not what they said, they being Obama, Gates, Clinton, etc. Some troops may be pulled out in 2011, depending upon various conditions; however, that could change, and it does not portend the end of our involvement in that war.

There is nothing new about this "new" strategy. It's all smoke and mirrors for the benefit of an increasingly disgruntled public. As I watched the news tonight, and listened to Obama, Clinton, and Gates, I was sickened by the hemming and hawing, the contradictory responses to Congress, and the slickster way in which the principals laid the groundwork for an extended war in Afghanistan. National politicians appear to think that they're being professional when they equivocate, being honest when they beat around the bush, and being smart when they display a total lack of common sense.

Who are these people?!

"Obama's War" in Afghanistan

PBS Frontline has an online video that is a preview of a full piece airing later this month, Obama's War. The preview is gritty, with graphic imagery and graphic language. As I watched it, it became obvious that the similarities between the Vietnam War and the Afghan War are striking.

The Viet Cong (VC) were insurgents. The Taliban are insurgents. Eventually the Vietnam War turned to "winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese". General Petraeus very recently announced his "Full Spectrum Operation", which is focused on doing the same thing relative to the Afghans. The VC largely avoided major frontal engagements with the US military; instead, they utilized sniping, ambushes, land mines, etc. The Taliban are (for the most part) doing the same thing. In Vietnam, General Westmoreland kept calling for more and more troops. The same thing (with a different General) is happening regarding Afghanistan. In Vietnam, the VC terrorized the local villagers; in Afghanistan, the Taliban are doing the same thing. The Vietnam War was long and grueling; the Afghan War is entering its NINTH year. Eventually, public opinion in the USA turned against the Vietnam War. Public opinion is finally beginning to turn against the Afghan War as well. Quite rightly, people are beginning to ask, "What is our purpose there?".

The Generals and other officers interviewed on the Frontline piece stated that our purpose in Afghanistan is now to "protect the People from the Taliban". According to those officers, that is our primary purpose. If that's the case, does anyone see this war ever ending? Another legitimate question would be: what happens when we leave the country? Or better yet, does anyone see us ever leaving Afghanistan? If we did, would not the Taliban (who unquestionably are fanatics) simply continue on in our absence?

It is my belief that the next troop increase will be substantially more than the last increase, and that the increases will continue. Essentially, we will become the Afghan Police Force, with no end in sight. On second thought, apparently we are already the Afghan Police Force.

It is long past time to get out of both Iraq AND Afghanistan. It makes no sense to believe that we can be the Police Force of the world. Even if we wanted to do that, we can't afford it.