Your nation and world news in brief | Politics – Winston-Salem Journal

Italy works quickly to thwart spread of virus

CODOGNO, Italy Italy scrambled Sunday to check the spread of Europes first major outbreak of the new viral disease amid rapidly rising numbers of infections and a third death, calling off the popular Venice Carnival, scrapping major league soccer matches in the stricken area and shuttering theaters, including Milans legendary La Scala.

Concern was also on the rise in neighboring Austria, which halted all rail traffic to and from Italy for several hours after suspicion that a train at its southern border with Italy had two passengers possibly infected with the virus on board, authorities said.

The decision to call off Venice Carnival was announced by Veneto regional Gov. Luca Zaia as the number of confirmed virus cases soared to 152, the largest number outside Asia.

Man in home-built rocket dies after launchBARSTOW, Calif. A California man who said he wanted to fly to the edge of outer space to see if the world is round has died after his home-built rocket blasted off into the desert sky and plunged back to earth.

Mad Mike Hughes was killed on Saturday afternoon after his rocket crashed on private property near Barstow, Calif.

Waldo Stakes, a colleague who was at the rocket launch, said Hughes, 64, was killed.

The Science Channel said on Twitter it had been chronicling Hughes journey and that thoughts & prayers go out to his family & friends during this difficult time.

LONDON The U.S. government and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will face off Monday in a high-security London courthouse, a decade after WikiLeaks infuriated American officials by publishing a trove of classified military documents.

A judge at Woolwich Crown Court will begin hearing arguments from lawyers for U.S. authorities, who want to try Assange on espionage charges that carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.

Assange has been indicted in the U.S. on 18 charges over the publication of classified documents. Prosecutors say he conspired with U.S. army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer and release hundreds of thousands of secret diplomatic cables and military files on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

MIDWAY, Ga. Six people, including three children, were killed early Sunday in a head-on collision on a Georgia interstate, authorities said.

The crash happened early Sunday morning on Interstate 95, Liberty County sheriffs officials said.

Officers received reports of a white Lexus traveling southbound in a northbound lane of I-95, Liberty County sheriffs deputy Lt. Jason Colvin said.

Deputies arrived to find a head-on collision between the Lexus and an SUV with no survivors, WSAV-TV reported.

The driver of the Lexus, which had Florida license plates, was killed, Georgia State Patrol Trooper Markus White said.

Two adults and three children in the SUV also died.

The children ranged in age from about three to 10, authorities said. Their car had Virginia plates.

The rest is here:
Your nation and world news in brief | Politics - Winston-Salem Journal

From the archive: Meryl Streep as Karen Silkwood, 1984 – The Guardian

Life is never easy for whistleblowers see Mordechai Vanunu, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden among many others. But in 1974 Karen Silkwood, a lab technician who had doubts about the safety of the nuclear plant she worked at in Oklahoma, died in extremely mysterious circumstances before she could reveal the information. It was her death itself that led investigations into safety practices at the plant. Joyce Eddinton interviewed Meryl Streep, who played Silkwood in Mike Nicholss eponymous film, for the Observer Magazine of 8 April 1984 (The Karen Silkwood File).

What did Streep think? I dont know what happened. I went into the movie thinking that, of course, she was killed, but now its more of a mystery than ever. She was full of contradictions. She loved her children and yet she left them. She was on about safety, yet sometimes she smoked dope and popped pills on the job.

Silkwoods car ran into a ditch on her way to hand over a folder full of evidence of hazards at the plant to a New York Times reporter. Police concluded she had fallen asleep at the wheel (there were traces of sedatives in her blood). The folder was never found.

Streep admitted to some dark thoughts about the subject matter and became worried that something might happen to her, too. Afterwards I realised that was absurd, she said. We were not presenting anything in the film that was not a matter of public record. We did not need to embellish the story.

Silkwood had to be decontaminated at the plant at one point after she had extremely high readings of plutonium when Streep filmed the scene, they shot jets of water up her nostrils. They filmed that sequence twice and wanted to do it another time, she said, but I said no. Its notable that after Sophies Choice and Silkwood, Streep chose the romantic drama Falling in Love as her next film.

Read the original:
From the archive: Meryl Streep as Karen Silkwood, 1984 - The Guardian

Presidential Pardons Through History: Whos Received Them? – The New York Times

For as long as there has been a republic, American presidents have been granting pardons and no, you dont need a lifeline from Geraldo Rivera.

Mr. Rivera, the Fox television personality, vouched for the former New York City police commissioner Bernard B. Kerik to get a pardon from President Trump, who this week granted clemency to Mr. Kerik and 10 other people.

Among them were the so-called junk bond king of the 1980s, Michael R. Milken, and Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., a former owner of the San Francisco 49ers, as well as the former Illinois governor Rod R. Blagojevich, whose corruption sentence was commuted by Mr. Trump.

They joined an exclusive club of reclamation figures, many of them with sordid pasts and political connections: politicians and pirates, the owner of the New York Yankees, fixers in the Iran-contra affair, Deep Throat and a former president, Richard M. Nixon.

Is Roger J. Stone Jr. the ally of Mr. Trump sentenced Thursday to 40 months in prison for obstruction and perjury next?

Here is a sampling of some of the more infamous pardons and the presidents who granted them.

Washington didnt wait long to exercise the pardoning authority of the president prescribed by the Constitution, which historians said was one of the few aspects of monarchy rule in England that the framers adopted.

In 1795, Washington granted the first pardons to John Mitchell and Philip Weigel, who were convicted of treason for their roles in the Whiskey Rebellion. The insurrection broke out in western Pennsylvania after the federal government placed a steep excise tax on distilled spirits.

Early on, the framers had debated which branch of the government should have the power to pardon the president or Congress.

There was this fear about a too-powerful president, Barbara A. Perry, the presidential studies director at the University of Virginias Miller Center, said in an interview this week.

The French pirates Jean Lafitte and Pierre Lafitte were best known for their marauding ways in the Gulf of Mexico. The two brothers smuggled goods and enslaved people to southern Louisiana and flouted the law.

Jean Lafitte redeemed himself when he helped defend New Orleans during the War of 1812, earning a pardon from Madison for his and his brothers smuggling crimes. A national historical park and preserve is named after Jean Lafitte, as well as a former blacksmith shop on Bourbon Street that legend has it was used by the brothers and has laid claim to being the oldest structure used as a bar in the United States.

John C. Frmont, known as the Pathfinder of the Rocky Mountains, was a central figure in the exploration of the West. He was the military governor of California and an Army officer. But his insubordination during the Mexican-American War led to Frmonts being court-martialed.

Polk pardoned Frmont, who went on to become the newly formed Republican Partys first presidential nominee in 1856, a race that he lost.

Brigham Young, a patriarch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ascended to power as the first governor of the Utah Territory. But tensions had been festering between the federal government and the colonists in Utah, which prompted Youngs removal by Buchanan.

The president sent U.S. Army soldiers to Utah to assert federal rule in the territory in what was known as the Utah War. Buchanan ultimately pardoned Young for treason and sedition.

In 1862, a band of Dakota Indians attacked white settlements in the Minnesota frontier and was accused of killing 490 people, including women and children. The hostilities culminated years of strained relations between the influx of settlers and the starving Dakota, historically known as the Sioux, who had been promised food and other supplies in a series of broken peace treaties.

Lincoln, whose grandfather had been killed by Native Americans, spared 265 of 303 Dakota who had been condemned to death. They were either fully pardoned or died in prison.

I could not afford to hang men for votes, Lincoln said at the time.

On Christmas Day 1868, Johnson granted pardons to all those who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War.

I think there is almost this religious sense of mercy and clemency to try to bring the country back together, Professor Perry said.

Johnson was also known for pardoning Samuel A. Mudd, the doctor and tobacco farmer who was convicted of conspiracy in Lincolns assassination after he helped set the broken leg of John Wilkes Boothe and harbored him following the shooting.

James Michael Curley was the embodiment of Bostons Democratic machine. He was elected mayor several times, but his incumbency was interrupted by multiple defeats. He served in Congress and as Massachusetts governor.

Curleys political career was also marred by corruption and cronyism. He spent five months in federal prison after being convicted of mail fraud. In 1950, Truman granted Curley a full pardon after securing his release.

Ford granted 382 pardons in 29 months after assuming the presidency in 1974, according to Justice Department records.

None has been dissected more than Fords pardon of former President Richard M. Nixon for all federal crimes he committed or may have committed or taken part in while in office. The pardon came only weeks after Nixon became the first and only U.S. president to resign from office.

Nixon had been facing impeachment by the House and almost certain conviction by the Senate for impeding the investigation into the breakin at the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex. The men involved in the break-in were tied to agents of Nixons re-election campaign.

Ford did not want the circus of that to be plaguing him through his presidency, Professor Perry said, pointing out that the pardoning of Nixon cast a dark shadow over Fords 1976 campaign. That was probably the primary reason for Fords defeat.

Ford was also known for pardoning Iva Toguri DAquino, the Japanese-American who was linked to the Tokyo Rose broadcasts and was convicted of treason in 1949 for disseminating propaganda from Japan to U.S. servicemen in World War II. She maintained her innocence until her death in 2006.

It has been 10 years since he died, but legions of baseball fans still know him as The Boss.

George M. Steinbrenner III, whose domineering largess turned the Yankees into a billion-dollar enterprise, was granted a pardon by Reagan for making illegal contributions to Nixons campaign in 1972.

Reagan also was known for pardoning W. Mark Felt, the No. 2 official at the F.B.I. who later revealed he was the informant known as Deep Throat during the Watergate scandal.

On Christmas Day 1992, Bush granted six Reagan administration officials pardons for their roles in the Iran-contra affair, including former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger.

Weinberger had been indicted on charges that he lied to Congress about secret arms sales to Iran that helped underwrite U.S.-backed rebels in Nicaragua.

The pardons wiped out one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases in the Iran-contra affair, which drew condemnation from the independent prosecutor in the case, Lawrence E. Walsh.

Marc Rich, the fugitive financier who fled the United States after his indictment on charges of widespread tax evasion, illegal dealings with Iran and other crimes, received a last-minute reprieve from Mr. Clinton as one of the presidents final acts in office.

Not long after the pardon, it came to light that Mr. Richs former wife, Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton library.

Mr. Clinton also pardoned Roger Clinton, his half brother, who had been convicted on drug charges; Patty Hearst, the publishing heiress convicted in a 1974 bank robbery; and Susan H. McDougal, a onetime Clinton business partner who was jailed in the Whitewater scandal.

In one of the largest uses of clemency power by a president, Mr. Obama pardoned 212 people and commuted the sentences of another 1,715 people during his two terms, according to the Justice Department.

Mr. Obama often granted clemency to those convicted of nonviolent crimes under tough drug laws, which disproportionately affected black and Latino people.

In 2017, Mr. Obama intervened in the case of Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst convicted of leaking military and diplomatic materials to WikiLeaks in 2010. The president commuted all but four months of her 35-year sentence. Ms. Manning had been jailed for seven years. In May, Ms. Manning was sent back to jail after refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks, an organization that publishes leaks online.

As one of his final acts in office, Mr. Obama pardoned Willie McCovey, the Hall of Fame first baseman for the San Francisco Giants, who pleaded guilty to tax fraud charges for failing to report tens of thousands of dollars received in fees from autograph shows.

Mr. McCovey, who died in 2018, had been sentenced to two years of probation and was fined $5,000.

See more here:
Presidential Pardons Through History: Whos Received Them? - The New York Times

Chelsea Manning’s lawyers renew call to release her from jail …

Lawyers acting for Chelsea Manning, the former US army intelligence analyst who leaked hundreds of thousands of secret documents to WikiLeaks, have renewed efforts to secure her release after almost a year of incarceration.

The former soldiers attorney, Moira Meltzer-Cohen, has lodged a motion with a federal court in the eastern district of Virginia calling for her to be set free more than 11 months after she was detained.

Manning is being held at the Alexandria detention center after she refused to testify before a federal grand jury investigating WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

In December the UNs special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, denounced Mannings ongoing incarceration as itself a form of torture. In addition to being jailed the former soldier is also being heavily penalized financially.

For every day she refuses to testify, she is being fined $1,000. The total has already reached about $230,000.

In the motion for release, Meltzer-Cohen decries Mannings prolonged incarceration as a form of unlawful punitive sanction on the grounds that it is serving no purpose because the inmate will never be coerced into testifying.

As the motion puts it: Over the last decade Chelsea Manning has shown unwavering resolve in the face of censure, punishment, and even threats of violence. As Ms Mannings resolve not to testify has been unwavering, and as her moral conviction has become only more developed since her confinement, her incarceration is not serving its only permissible purpose.

Manning, who spent seven years in military prison for her massive intelligence dump to WikiLeaks in 2010, refused to testify to the grand jury on a point of principle.

In a statement she explained her position was based on my long standing belief that grand juries, as they function in the contemporary era, are often used by federal prosecutors to harass and disrupt political opponents and activists through secrecy, coercion, and jailing without trial.

She added: No matter how much you punish me, I will remain confident in my decision.

Manning initially refused to testify before a grand jury in the eastern district of Virginia in March 2019. She was called to ask questions about WikiLeaks and Assange who had been the subject of a secret US government investigation for years.

Assange is now being held in Belmarsh prison in London. He faces extradition proceedings to the US after a grand jury returned 18 charges against him relating to receiving secret diplomatic and military documents.

Excerpt from:
Chelsea Manning's lawyers renew call to release her from jail ...

The Law Says Chelsea Manning Must Be Freed From Prison – The Intercept

Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning arrives at the Albert Bryan U.S Courthouse on May 16, 2019, in Alexandria, Va.

Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

What has long been clear no amount of jail time will coerce Manning into speaking is now, surely, undeniable. The sole purpose of Mannings detention has been to coerce her to testify, and it has failed.

On Wednesday, Mannings legal team filed whats known as a Grumbles motion in court, asserting that Manning has proven herself incoercible and so must, according to legal statute, be released from her incarceration.

Should Judge Trenga agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify, he will be compelled by the law to order her release.

It is a grim peculiarity of American law that a person who refuses to cooperate with a grand jury subpoena may be held in contempt of court and fined or imprisoned with the express purpose of coercing testimony, but when the coercive condition is absent, such incarceration becomes illegal. Wednesdays motion directs Judge Anthony Trenga, who is presiding over the grand jury and Mannings imprisonment, to accordingly recognize the illegality in this case.

The key issue before Judge Trenga is whether continued incarceration could persuade Chelsea to testify, said Mannings attorney, Moira Meltzer-Cohen, on filing the Grumbles motion. Judges have complained of the perversity of this law: that a witness may win their freedom by persisting in their contempt of court. However, should Judge Trenga agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify, he will be compelled by the law to order her release.

If the motion is successful, Manning will be freed for the very reason she has been caged: her silence. The judge can decide to recognize that Manning wont speak as a consequence of more time in jail or because she will continue to face unprecedented $1,000-per-day fines. Any other conclusion, after her months of steadfast and principled grand jury resistance, would fly in the face of all reason. The whistleblowers actions and words make it plain.

I have been separated from my loved ones, deprived of sunlight, and could not even attend my mothers funeral, Manning said in a statement Wednesday. It is easier to endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort, and live the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self-interest and not principle.

Federal grand juries have long been used to investigate and intimidate activist communities from the late 19th century labor movements, to the Puerto Rican Independence Movement and black liberationists of the last century, to the more recent persecutions of environmentalists, anarchists, and Indigenous rights fighters. Manning has consistently shown her refusal to cooperate with any such process, and again asserted in her latest statement that grand juries are used by federal prosecutors to harass and disrupt political opponents and activists through secrecy, coercion, and jailing without trial.

The Grumbles motion filed on Wednesday contains a letter from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, written late last year accusing the United States of submitting Manning to treatment that is tantamount to torture. As I wroteafterthe letter was first released, Melzer not only criticized the torturous practice of coercive imprisonment and harsh fines, but noted that Mannings categorical and persistent refusal to give testimony demonstrates the lack of their coercive effect.

The motion also includes a personality assessment carried out by Dr. Sara Boyd, a clinical and forensic psychologist from the University of Virginia, which suggests that Manning is constitutionally incapable of acting against her conscience. Manning exhibits long standing personality features that relate to her scrupulousness, her persistence and dedication, and her willingness to endure social disapproval as well as formal punishments, Boyd wrote.

Mannings consistent behavior in the face of immense hardship and financial ruin should be wholly sufficient evidence that she will not be coerced; the personality assessment and the letter from the U.N. rapporteur no more than state the obvious. Were the judge to decide to continue imprisoning Manning, which he has the discretion to do, he would do so in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Meltzer-Cohen, Mannings attorney, has in the past successfully seen a grand jury resister released as a consequence of her filing a Grumbles motion. In 2014, her former client, a New York-based anarchist, was released after spending 241 days in a federal prison for refusing to testify. Meltzer-Cohen filed a motion arguing that since the young man had made amply evident that he would never cooperate, the coercive premise of his imprisonment was proven invalid.

That motion was aided by letters from friends and acquaintances, as well as a Change.org petition arguably less august testimony than that which accompanies Mannings motion. But the judge in that case ruled, begrudgingly, that the evidence compelled him to release the prisoner. The refusal to testify is somehow transmogrified from a lock to a key, the judge wrote in his decision. At the time, Meltzer-Cohen told me that the case illustrated the power of grand jury resistance; that people have been capable of standing strong in the face of serious consequences and that resisters can survive and even prevail.

It is a perverse juridical logic that finds potential justice in brutally coercing a witness to testify before a secretive hearing, ripe for governmental abuse. But even the nefarious law, if followed to the letter, demands that Manning be immediately freed.

Read the original here:
The Law Says Chelsea Manning Must Be Freed From Prison - The Intercept

Stone gets over 3 years in prison for Trump cover-up – Thehour.com

Roger Stone, former adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, center, arrives at federal court in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 20, 2020.

Roger Stone, former adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, center, arrives at federal court in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 20, 2020.

Photo: Bloomberg Photo By Andrew Harrer

Roger Stone, former adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, center, arrives at federal court in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 20, 2020.

Roger Stone, former adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, center, arrives at federal court in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 20, 2020.

Stone gets over 3 years in prison for Trump cover-up

Roger Stone, the longtime Republican operative and Donald Trump associate, was sentenced to 3 years and four months behind bars for lying to Congress and tampering with a witness to protect the president during the Russia investigation.

The sentence is in line with the three-to-four year range recommended by the Justice Department after it overruled the longer term sought by the prosecutors assigned to the case. He was also ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.

Stone's sentencing Thursday by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington caps a week of political turmoil that followed Trump's Feb. 11 criticism of the original recommendation that his friend receive a prison term of as many as nine years. The four prosecutors in the case all stepped down after the Justice Department said it was withdrawing their proposal and submitting a new, more lenient one.

Jackson said the case against Stone was clear and explicitly rejected his argument, backed by the Trump administration, that it was politically motivated. Instead, she said, the prosecution was the result of Stone injecting himself into the election to try to help damage the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.

"He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president," Jackson said. "He was prosecuted for covering up for the president."

Stone was not taken into custody. The judge said Wednesday he would be allowed to remain free while he requests a new trial and pursues other legal options after his sentencing.

The outcome is sure to be picked apart by partisans looking for any sign that Jackson, whom Trump has targeted on Twitter, either caved to the president or pushed back against him by imposing an even tougher sentence. Stone declined to speak at his sentencing, but his lawyer asked that Stone be given no time for the charges on which he was convicted in November.

The government's reversal on its sentencing recommendation prompted Democratic lawmakers to accuse Trump of using the Justice Department for his own bidding. It also set up a rare clash between the president and his attorney general, William Barr, who complained on television that Trump's comments were harming the public perception of the Justice Department as impartial.

At the sentencing Thursday, Justice Department lawyer John Crabb apologized to the judge for the "confusion" caused by the withdrawal of the original prosecutors, whom he defended as acting "in good faith." He said there had been a miscommunication within the department over "what the appropriate filing should be."

Asking Jackson to impose a tough sentence "without fear, favor or political influence," Crabb said. "This prosecution is righteous."

Stone, who is planning to appeal his conviction, has also filed a sealed request for a new trial. Details of the motion aren't public, but Trump and other Republicans have claimed the jury foreperson was a Democrat biased against Stone. An earlier request for a new trial alleging bias by a different juror was denied by Jackson.

Speculation that Trump will pardon Stone has also swelled since the president issued a slate of high-profile clemencies Tuesday to several well-connected individuals convicted of white-collar crimes. Since his tweet denouncing the original sentencing recommendation for Stone as a "miscarriage of justice," Trump has continued to criticize the case, including during the sentencing.

Stone was the last person charged during Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 22-month investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The case against him included evidence that Trump knew about a plan by WikiLeaks to release emails damaging to Clinton that U.S. intelligence believed were hacked by Russia. Stone lied to Congress to protect the president, prosecutors said.

A federal jury in Washington found Stone guilty in November on all seven counts against him. Others in Trump's circle who have been convicted or pleaded guilty include his 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort; his deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates; his first national security adviser, Mike Flynn; and his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. Manafort is currently serving a seven-and-a-half-year sentence.

Flynn's sentencing has been delayed as he seeks to withdraw his guilty plea to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. If the sentencing proceeds, it could set up another clash between Trump, the Justice Department and Democrats.

The charges against Stone stemmed from his September 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, which was also probing Russian meddling.

Stone was accused of withholding from the congressional panel evidence of his conversations with two possible intermediaries with WikiLeaks -- Randy Credico, a comedian and talk show host, and the conservative author and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi. Each of the two had communicated with WikiLeaks, the U.S. said, but Corsi was Stone's real liaison.

Jackson said she factored into Stone's sentence his "intolerable" social media activity during his trial. Last year she issued two gag orders barring him from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, where he had frequently posted comments critical of the Mueller investigation and promoting right-wing conspiracy theories. Stone apologized for one post that included an altered picture of Jackson herself with a pair of cross-hairs over her head.

The U.S. also pursued Stone's contacts with the campaign. Gates, the 2016 deputy chairman, testified for prosecutors that, during the campaign, he overheard Stone telling Trump over the phone that WikiLeaks planned future releases of emails damaging to Clinton. Trump said in a written response to Mueller that he didn't recall any such conversations.

Prosecutors summoned Steve Bannon, the chief executive of Trump's campaign, to tell jurors that he viewed Stone as the campaign's "access point" to WikiLeaks and its trove of stolen documents. Bannon said Stone bragged of his relationship with WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.

At a Wednesday hearing in London, where Assange is fighting extradition to the U.S. over charges relating to Wikileaks' publication in 2010 and 2011 of State Department cables and other classified documents passed to him by Chelsea Manning, lawyers for Assange claimed he was offered a pardon by Trump if he "played ball" over the 2016 emails.

The White House denied the story on Wednesday as "a total lie."

Read the original:
Stone gets over 3 years in prison for Trump cover-up - Thehour.com

The Pentagon’s Art of the Deal: Wars without victories and weapons without end – Milwaukee Independent

The expression self-licking ice cream cone was first used in 1992 to describe a hidebound bureaucracy at NASA. Yet, as an image, it is even more apt for Americas military-industrial complex, an institution far vaster than NASA and thoroughly dedicated to working for its own perpetuation and little else.

Thinking about that led me to another phrase based on Americas seemingly endless string of victory-less wars: the self-defeating military. The U.S., after all, has not won a major conflict since World War II, when it was aided by a grand alliance that included Soviet dictator Josef Stalins godless communists. And yet here is the wonder of it all: despite such a woeful 75-year military record, including both the Korean and Vietnam wars of the last century and the never-ending war on terror of this one, the Pentagons coffers are overflowing with taxpayer dollars.

The lack of results should not surprise anyone who has been paying the slightest attention, since the present military establishment has been designed less to protect this country than to protect itself, its privileges, and its power. That rarely discussed reality has, in turn, contributed to practices and mindsets that make it a force truly effective at only one thing: defeating any conceivable enemy in Washington as it continues to win massive budgets and the cultural authority to match. That it loses most everywhere else is, it seems, just part of the bargain.

The list of recent debacles should be as obvious as it is alarming: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen (and points around and in between). And even if it is a reality rarely focused on in the mainstream media, none of this has been a secret to the senior officers who run that military. Look at the Pentagon Papers from the Vietnam War era or the Afghanistan Papers recently revealed by the Washington Post. In both cases, prominent U.S. military leaders admitted to fundamental flaws in their war-making practices, including the lack of a coherent strategy, a thorough misunderstanding of the nature and skills of their enemies, and the total absence of any real progress in achieving victory, no matter the cost.

Of course, such honest appraisals of this countrys actual war-making prowess were made in secret, while military spokespeople and American commanders laid down a public smokescreen to hide the worst aspects of those wars from the American people. As they talked grimly (and secretly) among themselves about losing, they spoke enthusiastically and openly to Congress and the public about winning. In case you had not noticed, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq that military was, year after endless year, making progress and turning corners. Such happy talk (a mixture of lies and self-deception) may have served to keep the money flowing and weapons sales booming, but it also kept the body bags coming in (and civilians dying in distant lands)and for nothing, or at least nothing by any reasonable definition of national security.

Curiously, despite the obvious disparity between the militarys lies and reality, the American people, or at least their representatives in Congress, have largely bought those lies in bulk and at astronomical prices. Yet this countrys refusal to face the facts of defeat has only ensured ever more disastrous military interventions. The result: a self-defeating military, engorged with money, lurching toward yet more defeats even as it looks over its shoulder at an increasingly falsified past.

The Future Is What It Used to Be

Long ago, New York Yankee catcher and later manager Yogi Berra summed up what was to come this way: The future aint what it used to be. And it was not. We used to dream, for example, of flying cars, personal jetpacks, liberating robots, and oodles of leisure time. We even dreamed of mind-bending trips to Jupiter, as in Stanley Kubricks epic film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like so much else we imagined, those dreams have not exactly panned out.

Yet here is an exception to Berras wisdom: strangely enough, for the U.S. military, the future is predictably just what it used to be. After all, the latest futuristic vision of Americas military leaders ishold onto your Kevlar helmetsa new cold war with its former communist rivals Russia and China. Add in one other aspect of that militarys future vision: wars, as they see it, are going to be fought and settled with modernized and ever more expensive versions of the same old weapons systems that carried us through much of the mid-twentieth century: ever more pricey aircraft carriers, tanks, and top of the line jet fighters and bombers withhey!maybe a few thoroughly destabilizing tactical nukes thrown in, along with plenty of updated missiles carried by planes of an ever more stealthy and far more expensive variety. Think: the F-35 fighter, the most expensive weapons system in history and the B-21 bomber.

For such a future, of course, todays military hardly needs to change at all, or so our generals and admirals argue. For example, yet more ships will, of course, be needed. The Navy high command is already clamoring for 355 of them, while complaining that the record-setting $738 billion Pentagon budget for 2020 is too tight to support such a fleet.

Not to be outdone when it comes to complaints about tight budgets, the Air Force is arguing vociferously that it needs yet more billions to build a fleet of planes that can wage two major wars at once. Meanwhile, the Army is typically lobbying for a new armored personnel carrier (to replace the M2 Bradley) that is so esoteric insiders joke it will have to be made of unobtainium.

In short, no matter how much money the Trump administration and Congress throw at the Pentagon, it is a guarantee that the military high command will only complain that more is needed, including for nuclear weapons to the tune of possibly $1.7 trillion over 30 years. But doubling down on more of the same, after a record 75 years of non-victories (not to speak of outright losses), is more than stubbornness, more than grift. It is obdurate stupidity.

Why, then, does it persist? The answer would have to be because this country does not hold its failing military leaders accountable. Instead, it applauds them and promotes them, rewarding them when they retire with six-figure pensions, often augmented by cushy jobs with major defense contractors. Given such a system, why should Americas generals and admirals speak truth to power? They are power and they will keep harsh and unflattering truths to themselves, thank you very much, unless they are leaked by heroes like Daniel Ellsberg during the Vietnam War and Chelsea Manning during the Iraq War, or pried from them via a lawsuit like the one by the Washington Post that recently led to those Afghanistan Papers.

My Polish mother-in-law taught me a phrase that translates as, Dont say nothin to nobody. When it comes to Americas wars and their true progress and prospects, consider that the official dictum of Pentagon spokespeople. Yet even as Americas wars sink into Vietnam-style quagmires, the money keeps flowing, especially to high-cost weapons programs.

Consider my old service, the Air Force. As one defense news site put it, Congressional appropriators gave the Air Force [and Lockheed Martin] a holiday gift in the 2019 spending agreement $1.87 billion for 20 additional F-35s and associated spare parts. The new total just for 2020 is 98 aircraft62 F-35As, 16 F-35Bs, and 20 F-35Csat the whopping cost of $9.3 billion, crowning the F-35 as the biggest Pentagon procurement program ever.

And that is not all. The Air Force (and Northrop Grumman) got another gift as well: $3 billion more to be put into its new, redundant, B-21 stealth bomber. Even much-beleaguered Boeing, responsible for the disastrous 737 MAX program, got a gift: nearly a billion dollars for the revamped F-15EX fighter, a much-modified version of a plane that first flew in the early 1970s. Yet, despite those gifts, Air Force officials continue to claim with straight faces that the service is getting the short straw in todays budgetary battles in the Pentagon. What does this all mean? One obvious answer would be: the only truly winning battles for the Pentagon are the ones for our taxpayer dollars.

Dopes and Babies Galore

I cannot claim that I ever traveled in the circles of generals and admirals, though I met a few during my military career. Still, no one can question that our commanders are dedicated. The only question is: dedication to what exactlyto the Constitution and the American people or to their own service branch, with an eye toward a comfortable and profitable retirement? Certainly, loyalty to service (and the conformity that goes with it), rather than out-of-the-box thinking in those endlessly losing wars, helped most of them win promotion to flag rank.

Perhaps this is one reason why, back in July 2017, the militarys current commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, reportedly railed at his top national security people in a windowless Pentagon room known as the Tank. He called themincluding then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, Jr.a bunch of dopes and babies. As the president put it, Americas senior military leaders do not win anymore and, as he made clear, nothing is worse than being a loser. He added, I want to win. We do not win any wars anymore We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we are not winning anymore. (And, please note, that has not changed a whit in the year and a half since that moment.)

Sure, Trump threw a typical tantrum, but his comments about losing at a strikingly high cost were (and remain) absolutely on the mark, not that he had any idea how to turn Americas losing wars and their losing commanders into winners. In many ways, his strategy has proven remarkably like those of the two previous presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Send more troops to the Middle East. Drone and bomb ever more, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq but even in places like Somalia and Libya. Prolong our commitment to loser wars like the Afghan one, even while talking ceaselessly about ending them and bringing the troops home. And continue to rebuild that same military, empowering those same dopes and babies, with yet more taxpayer dollars.

The results have been all-too predictable. Americas generals and admirals have so much money that they do not ever have to make truly tough choices. They hardly have to think. The Air Force, for example, just keeps planning for and purchasing more ultra-expensive stealth fighters and bombers to fight a future Cold War that we allegedly won 30 years ago. Meanwhile, actual future national security threats like climate-related catastrophes or pandemics go largely unaddressed. Who cares about them when this country will clearly have the most stealth fighters and bombers in the world?

For the Pentagon, the future is the past and the past, the future. Why should military leaders have to think when the president and Congress keep rewarding them for lies and failures of every sort?

Trump believes America does not win anymore because we are not ruthless enough. Take the oil! The real reason: because Americas wars are unwinnable from the git-go, something the last 18 years should have proved in no uncertain way. And the irony of all ironies is that the wars are completely unnecessary from the standpoint of true national defense. There is no way for the U.S. military to win hearts and minds across the Greater Middle East and Africa with salvos of Hellfire missiles. In fact, there is only one way to win such wars: end them. And there is only one way to keep winning: by avoiding future ones.

With a system that could not work better in Washington, Americas military refuses to admit this. Instead, our generals just keep saluting smartly while lying in public the details of which we will find out about only when the next set of papers is released someday. In the meantime, when it comes to demanding and getting tax dollars, they could not be more skilled. In that sense, and that alone, they are the ultimate winners.

Dopes and babies, Mister President? No, just men who are genuinely skilled in the art of the deal. Small wonder Americas leader is upset. For when it comes to the military-industrial complex and its power and prerogatives, even Trump has met his match. He has been out-conned. And if the rest of us remain silent on the subject, then so have we.

Read this article:
The Pentagon's Art of the Deal: Wars without victories and weapons without end - Milwaukee Independent

Can the World’s Second Superpower Rise From the Ashes of 20 Years of War? – The Bullet – Socialist Project

War/Peace February 17, 2020 Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies

February 15 marked the day, 17 years ago, when global demonstrations against the pending Iraq invasion were so massive that the New York Times called world public opinion the second superpower. But the US ignored it and invaded Iraq anyway. So what has become of the momentous hopes of that day?

The US military has not won a war since 1945, unless you count recovering the tiny colonial outposts of Grenada, Panama and Kuwait, but there is one threat it has consistently outmaneuvered without firing more than a few deadly rifle shots and some tear gas. Ironically, this existential threat is the very one that could peacefully cut it down to size and take away its most dangerous and expensive weapons: its own peace-loving citizens.

During the Vietnam War, young Americans facing a life-and-death draft lottery built a powerful anti-war movement. President Nixon proposed ending the draft as a way to undermine the peace movement, since he believed that young people would stop protesting the war once they were no longer obligated to fight. In 1973, the draft was ended, leaving a volunteer army that insulated the vast majority of Americans from the deadly impact of Americas wars.

Despite the lack of a draft, a new anti-war movement this time with global reach sprung up in the period between the crimes of 9/11 and the illegal US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The February 15, 2003, protests were the largest demonstrations in human history, uniting people around the world in opposition to the unthinkable prospect that the US would actually launch its threatened shock and awe assault on Iraq. Some 30 million people in 800 cities took part on every continent, including Antarctica. This massive repudiation of war, memorialized in the documentary We Are Many, led New York Times journalist Patrick E. Tyler to comment that there were now two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.

The US war machine demonstrated total disdain for its upstart rival, and unleashed an illegal war based on lies that has now raged on through many phases of violence and chaos for 17 years. With no end in sight to US and allied wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Yemen and West Africa, and Trumps escalating diplomatic and economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela and North Korea threatening to explode into new wars, where is the second superpower now, when we need it more than ever?

Since the US assassination of Irans General Soleimani in Iraq on January 2, the peace movement has reemerged onto the streets, including people who marched in February 2003 and new activists too young to remember a time when the US was not at war. There have been three separate days of protest, one on January 4, another on January 9 and a global day of action on January 25. The rallies took place in hundreds of cities, but they did not attract nearly the numbers who came out to protest the pending war with Iraq in 2003, or even those of the smaller rallies and vigils that continued as the Iraq war spiraled out of control until at least 2007.

Our failure to stop the US war on Iraq in 2003 was deeply discouraging. But the number of people active in the US anti-war movement shrank even more after the 2008 election of Barack Obama. Many people did not want to protest the nations first black president, and many, including the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, really believed he would be a peace president.

While Obama reluctantly honored Bushs agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw US troops from Iraq and he signed the Iran nuclear deal, he was far from a peace president. He oversaw a new doctrine of covert and proxy war that substantially reduced US military casualties, but unleashed an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, a campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria that destroyed entire cities, a tenfold increase in CIA drone strikes on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and bloody proxy wars in Libya and Syria that rage on today. In the end, Obama spent more on the military and dropped more bombs on more countries than Bush did. He also refused to hold Bush and his cronies responsible for their war crimes.

Obamas wars were no more successful than Bushs in restoring peace or stability to any of those countries or improving the lives of their people. But Obamas disguised, quiet, media-free approach to war made the US state of endless war much more politically sustainable. By reducing US casualties and waging war with less fanfare, he moved Americas wars farther into the shadows and gave the American public an illusion of peace in the midst of endless war, effectively disarming and dividing the peace movement.

Obamas secretive war policy was backed up by a vicious campaign against any brave whistleblowers who tried to drag it out into the light. Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden and now Julian Assange have been prosecuted and jailed under unprecedented new interpretations of the WWI-era Espionage Act.

With Donald Trump in the White House, we hear Republicans making the same excuses for Trump who ran on an anti-war platform that Democrats made for Obama. First, his supporters accept lip service about wanting to end wars and bring troops home as revealing what the president really wants to do, even as he keeps escalating the wars. Second, they ask us to be patient because, despite all the real-world evidence, they are convinced he is working hard behind the scenes for peace. Third, in a final cop-out that undermines their other two arguments, they throw up their hands and say that he is only the president, and the Pentagon or deep state is too powerful for even him to tame.

Obama and Trump supporters alike have used this shaky tripod of political unaccountability to give the man behind the desk where the buck used to stop an entire deck of get out of jail free cards for endless war and war crimes.

Obama and Trumps disguised, quiet, media-free approach to war has inoculated Americas wars and militarism against the virus of democracy, but new social movements have grown up to tackle problems closer to home. The financial crisis led to the rise of the Occupy Movement, and now the climate crisis and Americas entrenched race and immigration problems have all provoked new grassroots movements. Peace advocates have been encouraging these movements to join the call for major Pentagon cuts, insisting that the hundreds of billions saved could help fund everything from Medicare for All to the Green New Deal to free college tuition.

A few sectors of the peace movement have been showing how to use creative tactics and build diverse movements. The movement for Palestinians human and civil rights includes students, Muslim and Jewish groups, as well as black and indigenous groups fighting similar struggles here at home. Also inspirational are campaigns for peace on the Korean peninsula led by Korean Americans, such as Women Cross the DMZ, which has brought together women from North Korea, South Korea and the United States to show the Trump administration what real diplomacy looks like.

There have also been successful popular efforts pushing a reluctant Congress to take anti-war positions. For decades, Congress has been only too happy to leave war-making to the president, abrogating its constitutional role as the only power authorized to declare war. Thanks to public pressure, there has been a remarkable shift.

In 2019, both houses of Congress voted to end US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen and to ban arms sales to Saudi Arabia for the war in Yemen, although President Trump vetoed both bills. Now Congress has passed bipartisan bills to explicitly prohibit an unauthorized war on Iran. These bills prove that public pressure can move Congress, including a Republican-dominated Senate, to reclaim its constitutional powers over war and peace from the executive branch.

Another bright light in Congress is the pioneering work of first-term Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who recently laid out a series of bills called Pathway to PEACE that challenge our militaristic foreign policy. While her bills will be hard to get passed in Congress, they lay out a marker for where we should be headed. Omars office, unlike many others in Congress, actually works directly with grassroots organizations that can push this vision forward.

The presidential election offers an opportunity to push the anti-war agenda. The most effective and committed anti-war champion in the race is Bernie Sanders. The popularity of his call for getting the US out of its imperial interventions and his votes against 84 per cent of military spending bills since 2013 are reflected not only in his poll numbers but also in the way other Democratic candidates are rushing to take similar positions. All now say the US should rejoin the Iran nuclear deal; all have criticized the bloated Pentagon budget, despite regularly voting for it; and most have promised to bring US troops home from the greater Middle East.

So, as we look to the future in this election year, what are our chances of reviving the worlds second superpower and ending Americas wars?

Absent a major new war, we are unlikely to see big demonstrations in the streets. But two decades of endless war have created a strong anti-war sentiment among the public. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll found that 62 per cent of Americans said the war in Iraq was not worth fighting and 59 per cent said the same for the war in Afghanistan.

On Iran, a September 2019 University of Maryland poll showed that a mere one-fifth of Americans said the US should be prepared to go to war to achieve its goals in Iran, while three-quarters said that US goals do not warrant military intervention. Along with the Pentagons assessment of how disastrous a war with Iran would be, this public sentiment fueled global protests and condemnation that have temporarily forced Trump to dial down his military escalation and threats against Iran.

So, while our governments war propaganda has convinced many Americans that we are powerless to stop its catastrophic wars, it has failed to convince most Americans that we are wrong to want to. As on other issues, activism has two main hurdles to overcome: first to convince people that something is wrong; and second to show them that, by working together to build a popular movement, we can do something about it.

The peace movements small victories demonstrate that we have more power to challenge US militarism than most Americans realize. As more peace-loving people in the US and across the world discover the power they really have, the second superpower we glimpsed briefly on February 15, 2003, has the potential to rise stronger, more committed and more determined from the ashes of two decades of war.

A new president like Bernie Sanders in the White House would create a new opening for peace. But as on many domestic issues, that opening will only bear fruit and overcome the opposition of powerful vested interests if there is a mass movement behind it every step of the way. If there is a lesson for peace-loving Americans in the Obama and Trump presidencies, it is that we cannot just walk out of the voting booth and leave it to a champion in the White House to end our wars and bring us peace. In the final analysis, it really is up to us. Please join us!

This article was produced by Local Peace Economy, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Read more from the original source:
Can the World's Second Superpower Rise From the Ashes of 20 Years of War? - The Bullet - Socialist Project

Can the world’s second superpower rise from the ashes of twenty years of war? – NationofChange

February 15 marks the day, 17 years ago, when global demonstrations against the pending Iraq invasion were so massive that the New York Times called world public opinion the second superpower. But the U.S. ignored it and invaded Iraq anyway. So what has become of the momentous hopes of that day?

The U.S. military has not won a war since 1945, unless you count recovering the tiny colonial outposts of Grenada, Panama and Kuwait, but there is one threat it has consistently outmaneuvered without firing more than a few deadly rifle shots and some tear gas. Ironically, this existential threat is the very one that could peacefully cut it down to size and take away its most dangerous and expensive weapons: its own peace-loving citizens.

During the Vietnam war, young Americans facing a life-and-death draft lottery built a powerful anti-war movement. President Nixon proposed ending the draft as a way to undermine the peace movement, since he believed that young people would stop protesting the war once they were no longer obligated to fight. In 1973, the draft was ended, leaving a volunteer army that insulated the vast majority of Americans from the deadly impact of Americas wars.

Despite the lack of a draft, a new anti-war movementthis time with global reachsprung up in the period between the crimes of 9/11 and the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The February 15th, 2003, protests were the largest demonstrations in human history, uniting people around the world in opposition to the unthinkable prospect that the U.S. would actually launch its threatened shock and awe assault on Iraq. Some 30 million people in 800 cities took part on every continent, including Antarctica. This massive repudiation of war, memorialized in the documentary We Are Many, led New York Times journalist Patrick E. Tyler to comment that there were now two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.

The U.S. war machine demonstrated total disdain for its upstart rival, and unleashed an illegal war based on lies that has now raged on through many phases of violence and chaos for 17 years. With no end in sight to U.S. and allied wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Yemen and West Africa, and Trumps escalating diplomatic and economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela and North Korea threatening to explode into new wars, where is the second superpower now, when we need it more than ever?

Since the U.S. assassination of Irans General Soleimani in Iraq on January 2nd, the peace movement has reemerged onto the streets, including people who marched in February 2003 and new activists too young to remember a time when the U.S. was not at war. There have been three separate days of protest, one on January 4th, another on the 9th and a global day of action on the 25th. The rallies took place in hundreds of cities, but they did not attract nearly the numbers who came out to protest the pending war with Iraq in 2003, or even those of the smaller rallies and vigils that continued as the Iraq war spiraled out of control until at least 2007.

Our failure to stop the U.S. war on Iraq in 2003 was deeply discouraging. But the number of people active in the U.S. anti-war movement shrank even more after the 2008 election of Barack Obama. Many people did not want to protest the nations first black president, and many, including the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, really believed he would be a peace president.

While Obama reluctantly honored Bushs agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw US troops from Iraq and he signed the Iran nuclear deal, he was far from a peace president. He oversaw a new doctrine of covert and proxy war that substantially reduced U.S. military casualties, but unleashed an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, a campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria that destroyed entire cities, a ten-fold increase in CIA drone strikes on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and bloody proxy wars in Libya and Syria that rage on today. In the end, Obama spent more on the military and dropped more bombs on more countries than Bush did. He also refused to hold Bush and his cronies responsible for their war crimes.

Obamas wars were no more successful than Bushs in restoring peace or stability to any of those countries or improving the lives of their people. But Obamas disguised, quiet, media-free approach to war made the U.S. state of endless war much more politically sustainable. By reducing U.S. casualties and waging war with less fanfare, he moved Americas wars farther into the shadows and gave the American public an illusion of peace in the midst of endless war, effectively disarming and dividing the peace movement.

Obamas secretive war policy was backed up by a vicious campaign against any brave whistleblowers who tried to drag it out into the light. Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden and now Julian Assange have been prosecuted and jailed under unprecedented new interpretations of the WWI-era Espionage Act.

With Donald Trump in the White House, we hear Republicans making the same excuses for Trumpwho ran on an anti-war platformthat Democrats made for Obama. First, his supporters accept lip service about wanting to end wars and bring troops home as revealing what the president really wants to do, even as he keeps escalating the wars. Second, they ask us to be patient because, despite all the real world evidence, they are convinced he is working hard behind the scenes for peace. Third, in a final cop-out that undermines their other two arguments, they throw up their hands and say that he is only the president, and the Pentagon or deep state is too powerful for even him to tame.

Obama and Trump supporters alike have used this shaky tripod of political unaccountability to give the man behind the desk where the buck used to stop an entire deck of get out of jail free cards for endless war and war crimes.

Obama and Trumps disguised, quiet, media-free approach to war has inoculated Americas wars and militarism against the virus of democracy, but new social movements have grown up to tackle problems closer to home. The financial crisis led to the rise of the Occupy Movement, and now the climate crisis and Americas entrenched race and immigration problems have all provoked new grassroots movements. Peace advocates have been encouraging these movements to join the call for major Pentagon cuts, insisting that the hundreds of billions saved could help fund everything from Medicare for All to the Green New Deal to free college tuition.

A few sectors of the peace movement have been showing how to use creative tactics and build diverse movements. The movement for Palestinians human and civil rights includes students, Muslim and Jewish groups, as well as black and indigenous groups fighting similar struggles here at home. Also inspirational are campaigns for peace on the Korean peninsula led by Korean Americans, such as Women Cross the DMZ, which has brought together women from North Korea, South Korea and the United States to show the Trump administration what real diplomacy looks like.

There have also been successful popular efforts pushing a reluctant Congress to take anti-war positions. For decades, Congress has been only too happy to leave warmaking to the president, abrogating its constitutional role as the only power authorized to declare war. Thanks to public pressure, there has been a remarkable shift. In 2019, both houses of Congress voted to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen and to ban arms sales to Saudi Arabia for the war in Yemen, although President Trump vetoed both bills.

Now Congress is working on bills to explicitly prohibit an unauthorized war on Iran. These bills prove that public pressure can move Congress, including a Republican-dominated Senate, to reclaim its constitutional powers over war and peace from the executive branch.

Another bright light in Congress is the pioneering work of first-term Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who recently laid out a series of bills called Pathway to PEACE that challenge our militaristic foreign policy. While her bills will be hard to get passed in Congress, they lay out a marker for where we should be headed. Omars office, unlike many others in Congress, actually works directly with grassroots organizations that can push this vision forward.

The presidential election offers an opportunity to push the anti-war agenda. The most effective and committed anti-war champion in the race is Bernie Sanders. The popularity of his call for getting the U.S. out of its imperial interventions and his votes against 84% of military spending bills since 2013 are reflected not only in his poll numbers but also in the way other Democratic candidates are rushing to take similar positions. All now say the U.S. should rejoin the Iran nuclear deal; all have criticized the bloated Pentagon budget, despite regularly voting for it ; and most have promised to bring U.S. troops home from the greater Middle East.

So, as we look to the future in this election year, what are our chances of reviving the worlds second superpower and ending Americas wars?

Absent a major new war, we are unlikely to see big demonstrations in the streets. But two decades of endless war have created a strong anti-war sentiment among the public. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll found that 62 percent of Americans said the war in Iraq was not worth fighting and 59 percent said the same for the war in Afghanistan.

On Iran, a September 2019 University of Maryland poll showed that a mere one-fifth of Americans said the U.S. should be prepared to go to war to achieve its goals in Iran, while three-quarters said that U.S. goals do not warrant military intervention. Along with the Pentagons assessment of how disastrous a war with Iran would be, this public sentiment fueled global protests and condemnation that have temporarily forced Trump to dial down his military escalation and threats against Iran.

So, while our governments war propaganda has convinced many Americans that we are powerless to stop its catastrophic wars, it has failed to convince most Americans that we are wrong to want to. As on other issues, activism has two main hurdles to overcome: first to convince people that something is wrong; and secondly to show them that, by working together to build a popular movement, we can do something about it.

The peace movements small victories demonstrate that we have more power to challenge U.S. militarism than most Americans realize. As more peace-loving people in the U.S. and across the world discover the power they really have, the second superpower we glimpsed briefly on February 15th, 2003 has the potential to rise stronger, more committed and more determined from the ashes of two decades of war.

A new president like Bernie Sanders in the White House would create a new opening for peace. But as on many domestic issues, that opening will only bear fruit and overcome the opposition of powerful vested interests if there is a mass movement behind it every step of the way. If there is a lesson for peace-loving Americans in the Obama and Trump presidencies, it is that we cannot just walk out of the voting booth and leave it to a champion in the White House to end our wars and bring us peace. In the final analysis, it really is up to us. Please join us!

FALL FUNDRAISER

If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.

Link:
Can the world's second superpower rise from the ashes of twenty years of war? - NationofChange

Can the Worlds Second Superpower Rise From the Ashes of Twenty Years of War? – Common Dreams

February 15 marks the day, 17 years ago, when global demonstrations against the pending Iraq invasion were so massive that the New York Times called world public opinion the second superpower. But the U.S. ignored it and invaded Iraq anyway. So what has become of the momentous hopes of that day?

The U.S. military has not won a war since 1945, unless you count recovering the tiny colonial outposts of Grenada, Panama and Kuwait, but there is one threat it has consistently outmanoeuvred without firing more than a few deadly rifle shots and some tear gas. Ironically, this existential threat is the very one that could peacefully cut it down to size and take away its most dangerous and expensive weapons: its own peace-loving citizens.

During the Vietnam war, young Americans facing a life-and-death draft lottery built a powerful anti-war movement. President Nixon proposed ending the draft as a way to undermine the peace movement, since he believed that young people would stop protesting the war once they were no longer obligated to fight. In 1973, the draft was ended, leaving a volunteer army that insulated the vast majority of Americans from the deadly impact of Americas wars.

Despite the lack of a draft, a new anti-war movementthis time with global reachsprung up in the period between the crimes of 9/11 and the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The February 15th, 2003, protests were the largest demonstrations in human history, uniting people around the world in opposition to the unthinkable prospect that the U.S. would actually launch its threatened shock and awe assault on Iraq. Some 30 million people in 800 cities took part on every continent, including Antarctica. This massive repudiation of war, memorialized in the documentary We Are Many, led New York Times journalist Patrick E. Tyler to comment that there were now two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.

The U.S. war machine demonstrated total disdain for its upstart rival, and unleashed an illegal war based on lies that has now raged on through many phases of violence and chaos for 17 years. With no end in sight to U.S. and allied wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Yemen and West Africa, and Trumps escalating diplomatic and economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela and North Korea threatening to explode into new wars, where is the second superpower now, when we need it more than ever?

Since the U.S. assassination of Irans General Soleimani in Iraq on January 2nd, the peace movement has reemerged onto the streets, including people who marched in February 2003 and new activists too young to remember a time when the U.S. was not at war. There have been three separate days of protest, one on January 4th, another on the 9th and a global day of action on the 25th. The rallies took place in hundreds of cities, but they did not attract nearly the numbers who came out to protest the pending war with Iraq in 2003, or even those of the smaller rallies and vigils that continued as the Iraq war spiralled out of control until at least 2007.

Our failure to stop the U.S. war on Iraq in 2003 was deeply discouraging. But the number of people active in the U.S. anti-war movement shrank even more after the 2008 election of Barack Obama. Many people did not want to protest the nations first black president, and many, including the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, really believed he would be a peace president.

Obamas wars were no more successful than Bushs in restoring peace or stability to any of those countries or improving the lives of their people.

While Obama reluctantly honored Bushs agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw US troops from Iraq and he signed the Iran nuclear deal, he was far from a peace president. He oversaw a new doctrine of covert and proxy war that substantially reduced U.S. military casualties, but unleashed an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, a campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria that destroyed entire cities, a ten-fold increase in CIA drone strikes on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and bloody proxy wars in Libya and Syria that rage on today. In the end, Obama spent more on the military and dropped more bombs on more countries than Bush did. He also refused to hold Bush and his cronies responsible for their war crimes.

Obamas wars were no more successful than Bushs in restoring peace or stability to any of those countries or improving the lives of their people. But Obamas disguised, quiet, media-free approach to war made the U.S. state of endless war much more politically sustainable. By reducing U.S. casualties and waging war with less fanfare, he moved Americas wars farther into the shadows and gave the American public an illusion of peace in the midst of endless war, effectively disarming and dividing the peace movement.

Obamas secretive war policy was backed up by a vicious campaign against any brave whistleblowers who tried to drag it out into the light. Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden and now Julian Assange have been prosecuted and jailed under unprecedented new interpretations of the WWI-era Espionage Act.

With Donald Trump in the White House, we hear Republicans making the same excuses for Trumpwho ran on an anti-war platformthat Democrats made for Obama. First, his supporters accept lip service about wanting to end wars and bring troops home as revealing what the president really wants to do, even as he keeps escalating the wars. Second, they ask us to be patient because, despite all the real world evidence, they are convinced he is working hard behind the scenes for peace. Third, in a final cop-out that undermines their other two arguments, they throw up their hands and say that he is only the president, and the Pentagon or deep state is too powerful for even him to tame.

Obama and Trump supporters alike have used this shaky tripod of political unaccountability to give the man behind the desk where the buck used to stop an entire deck of get out of jail free cards for endless war and war crimes.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Obama and Trumps disguised, quiet, media-free approach to war has inoculated Americas wars and militarism against the virus of democracy, but new social movements have grown up to tackle problems closer to home. The financial crisis led to the rise of the Occupy Movement, and now the climate crisis and Americas entrenched race and immigration problems have all provoked new grassroots movements. Peace advocates have been encouraging these movements to join the call for major Pentagon cuts, insisting that the hundreds of billions saved could help fund everything from Medicare for All to the Green New Deal to free college tuition.

A few sectors of the peace movement have been showing how to use creative tactics and build diverse movements. The movement for Palestinians human and civil rights includes students, Muslim and Jewish groups, as well as black and indigenous groups fighting similar struggles here at home. Also inspirational are campaigns for peace on the Korean peninsula led by Korean Americans, such as Women Cross the DMZ, which has brought together women from North Korea, South Korea and the United States to show the Trump administration what real diplomacy looks like.

There have also been successful popular efforts pushing a reluctant Congress to take anti-war positions. For decades, Congress has been only too happy to leave warmaking to the president, abrogating its constitutional role as the only power authorized to declare war. Thanks to public pressure, there has been a remarkable shift. In 2019, both houses of Congress voted to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen and to ban arms sales to Saudi Arabia for the war in Yemen, although President Trump vetoed both bills.

Now Congress is working on bills to explicitly prohibit an unauthorized war on Iran. These bills prove that public pressure can move Congress, including a Republican-dominated Senate, to reclaim its constitutional powers over war and peace from the executive branch.

Another bright light in Congress is the pioneering work of first-term Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who recently laid out a series of bills called Pathway to PEACE that challenge our militaristic foreign policy. While her bills will be hard to get passed in Congress, they lay out a marker for where we should be headed. Omars office, unlike many others in Congress, actually works directly with grassroots organizations that can push this vision forward.

The presidential election offers an opportunity to push the anti-war agenda. The most effective and committed anti-war champion in the race is Bernie Sanders. The popularity of his call for getting the U.S. out of its imperial interventions and his votes against 84% of military spending bills since 2013 are reflected not only in his poll numbers but also in the way other Democratic candidates are rushing to take similar positions. All now say the U.S. should rejoin the Iran nuclear deal; all have criticized the bloated Pentagon budget, despite regularly voting for it ; and most have promised to bring U.S. troops home from the greater Middle East.

So, as we look to the future in this election year, what are our chances of reviving the worlds second superpower and ending Americas wars?

Absent a major new war, we are unlikely to see big demonstrations in the streets. But two decades of endless war have created a strong anti-war sentiment among the public. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll found that 62 percent of Americans said the war in Iraq was not worth fighting and 59 percent said the same for the war in Afghanistan.

On Iran, a September 2019 University of Maryland poll showed that a mere one-fifth of Americans said the U.S. should be prepared to go to war to achieve its goals in Iran, while three-quarters said that U.S. goals do not warrant military intervention. Along with the Pentagons assessment of how disastrous a war with Iran would be, this public sentiment fueled global protests and condemnation that have temporarily forced Trump to dial down his military escalation and threats against Iran.

So, while our governments war propaganda has convinced many Americans that we are powerless to stop its catastrophic wars, it has failed to convince most Americans that we are wrong to want to. As on other issues, activism has two main hurdles to overcome: first to convince people that something is wrong; and secondly to show them that, by working together to build a popular movement, we can do something about it.

The peace movements small victories demonstrate that we have more power to challenge U.S. militarism than most Americans realize. As more peace-loving people in the U.S. and across the world discover the power they really have, the second superpower we glimpsed briefly on February 15th, 2003 has the potential to rise stronger, more committed and more determined from the ashes of two decades of war.

A new president like Bernie Sanders in the White House would create a new opening for peace. But as on many domestic issues, that opening will only bear fruit and overcome the opposition of powerful vested interests if there is a mass movement behind it every step of the way. If there is a lesson for peace-loving Americans in the Obama and Trump presidencies, it is that we cannot just walk out of the voting booth and leave it to a champion in the White House to end our wars and bring us peace. In the final analysis, it really is up to us. Please join us!

See the original post:
Can the Worlds Second Superpower Rise From the Ashes of Twenty Years of War? - Common Dreams