A Practical Policy

Not long ago, President George Bush the Second did Senate and House leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the biggest favor of their Congressional lives by vetoing the Democrat Iraq War funding proposal – first, in pretending to differ significantly with the Democrats, and, second, in preventing any War funding going forth, for the moment.  

The President’s main complaint was that the plan provided a poor set of teeth to keep biting into Iraq and sucking out the rest of its oil.  

In vetoing the Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Clinton-establishment Iraq War Plan, the President announced, “I am not accustomed to being at a loss for fangs.”  

He seemed concerned that the mere regular full set of teeth offered to him by Congress would not be enough to satisfy his thirst, bottomless as it is. 

No matter. Pelosi and Reid readily returned to the rest of their plan for controlling Iraq – popularly known as the PR Plan.  

They vowed, “We will work with the President in whatever way we can.” They meant the statement to be totally ambiguous, but unfortunately for them, upon uttering it, the official pair instantly collapsed to the ground, apparently for lack of some vital measure of blood and bone, as well as some bizarre overabundance of scales, claws, and oozing oil. 

“Defunding the war immediately is totally impossible,” uttered Pelosi and Reid in unison while slithering across the ground, sliming their way back to their Gang of Democrats. The Republican Gang applauded silently from the side.  

 “It seems clear now,” one observer remarked, “that the Democrat and Republican parties are gone – if parties they ever were – and are replaced by gangs. Official suite gangs.” Oddly, no one was heard to contradict him. Within hours, a person we can only identify as Deep Source delivered to us the following rather striking internal document. We have rarely seen a government document quite as internal as this, and we must confess, as good members of the press, we hope to see very few more like it. “The 10 Point PR Plan (For Internal Consumption Only)”: 

First, Pretend that you intend to end the War against Iraq. Second, Propose a full War budget with deceptive clauses so that it seems like you may soon end the occupation that you in no real way will, at all. Third, Write the plan so that the President will veto it, so that it looks like the Dems and Reps actually disagree on something substantial. Fourth, After the President’s veto, pretend again to throw sand in the gears of the War Machine when in fact you are keeping it fully oiled, fully fueled, and fully going. Fifth, Once again, submit a proposal to fully fund the War. Of course, pretend the opposite. Claim you are managing the War better, toward withdrawal, and speak often of a deep appreciation for “the troops” as they are sent to kill and be killed. Sixth, Scarcely ever refer to the corporate contractors who are making a killing in Iraq. And never mind that these are not really “private” contractors but corporate contractors operating in the public domain by way of huge amounts of public money, operating outside of much if any direct public control and oversight – the better for Congress to throw the money and will of the people at corporate command. Pretend to voters that this is “the best of all possible worlds” no matter what the facts and your conscience may or may not tell you – or might tell you if you had one. Best to believe in what you are doing, after all, if possible, regardless. Seventh, As the years pass, carry Right along with the War under the new President(s) of the United States, all the while claiming to be in the process of ending it – just a few more benchmarks, slaughters, necessary bribes and expropriations – repeat indefinitely. Eighth, Continue on and on. Rotate US forces, large and small, in and out of various other regions ripe for ordering and extraction, all around the world – as investors desire, or public relations demand. Continue to internally strip mine the US and the people of whatever wealth can be found and had, per tradition, any rhetoric to the contrary. Ninth, Explain that you do what you do on behalf of “the troops” in the interests of “America” – and the world. Lie when necessary – it’s your job we’re talking here – if at all unconvinced of the grand necessity of what is going on. Tenth, Live in infamy. Like it or not, this goes with the territory. It’s an unfair world for everyone, but we may take comfort in knowing that things are the best they can possibly be, at this point and time in our careers. 

There it is. The Pelosi-Reid Plan, the internal face at least. Like we said, we hope never to see another document like it, and we continue to take steps to ensure that we don’t. We are rededicating all our employees, no matter their personal views, toward this end – Deep Source or no Deep Source. 

Meanwhile, 20,000,000 human rights groups have come out against the PR plan. Every indication, however, is that the Pelosi-Reid Gang intends to fight for their right to dictate the funds and shape of the War, rather than continue to allow President Bush and the Republicans to take all the credit.  

Pelosi and Reid responded to the groups: “We believe in human rights, but who is going to pay for our next round of campaign ads? We speak to human rights concerns, so we expect to be left alone to act on our needs. Oh – and the troops. Unlike some people, we don’t forget them, of course. They do as they are told in dying for our right of re-election, which is far more than can be said for the human rights community – far more. So lighten up. Line up with us behind the flag. There’s a War on. Get used to it. We have. It’s the very least we can do. The very least. Thank you all.” 

Pelosi and Reid were last seen slithering through D.C. 

Thus far, there has been scant further response from the 20,000,000 human rights groups. Conventional wisdom believes they have been rendered speechless. Others suggest they are mobilizing to act. Meanwhile, one group notes, “The PR Plan feeds the flames. Thanks to the fire lit by half a trillion US tax dollars – Iraq burns.”

___________________________
[This “Plan to Abolish America” series of satires consists of slightly revised pieces posted in advance of the coming “Petraeus Report” on Iraq. The series began with The Petraeus Plan to Abolish Iraq, and will likely end with the same Plan.]

General David Petraeus, current commander of the US occupation of Iraq, reported today, in what he terms a “nuanced” account, that exactly one half of Iraq is “shot to hell” but that the other half is “just fine and dandy” — give or take a few disagreeable conditions which Iraqis will just have to get used to, like massive truck bombs, car bombs, Air Force assaults, general firefights, and other slaughter.

Apparently given the “no go” is the remarkably popular suggestion of US troops that members of Congress and the Bush Administration (who have caused, allowed, or funded even a single day of the war) be required during every government recess and half of all other work days to drive bright yellow Volkswagen Bugs around the most dangerous roads in Iraq to find and defuse Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Reportedly General Petraeus initially considered the plan, then shelved it, for now, as being too dependent on government employees for work that could otherwise, PR considerations aside, be outsourced to the tens of thousands of lucky corporate hires currently overruning Iraq. Petraeus again characterized his decision as “nuanced.” He foolly believes he is doing the right thing. Thus far, it must be said, there has been no independent confirmation of the “nuance” that Petraeus is executing in Iraq — but the real situation seems clear. As Petraeus noted, “Iraq is going to have to learn…to live with…sensational attacks.” To the General, “living” is apparently a rather unsensational, “nuanced” thing.

The Pentagon and major media confirm the much desired “nuance” of the Petraeus account and efforts, and say Petraeus would know how to win Iraq if anyone does (which, off the record, sources deep in the Pentagon are said to doubt, utterly, actually), and that Petraeus is just the man for the job, having survived full frontal live-fire gunshot during training in 1991, before being operated on by former surgeon and current warhawk Senator Bill Frist. “Petraeus is the man” the Pentagon says — after all, here is a guy who survived a parachute malfunction a mere few years ago, suffering only a broken pelvis. If this guy doesn’t know how to survive disaster, who does? (Well, of course, there’s that plucky 78 year-old Texas lawyer who the (full of) Vice President Dick Cheney shot in the heart and face while drinking beer and hunting little fowl in Texas last year — but that’s another story.)

Former embedded reporters confirm, Petraeus is the man who repeatedly asked them before and after the 2003 thunder run into Baghdad, “Tell me where this ends.” At the moment, it seems clear, it ends where it all began with President Bush, Congress, the Military Industrial Complex, and now General Petraeus – all of whom claim to be directed by “the troops” who, it is said, keep asking for more funds than the current half a trillion US tax dollars so they can keep going on “Living the Dream!” — slaughtering and being slaughtered in balmy Iraq.

Meanwhile, reportedly, chants of “General Betraeus, General Betraeus” have been heard echoing from all across Iraq and the US, apparently by US soldiers and citizens alike who have yet to see the wisdom in the General’s “nuance.”

Military Families Against The War and other dissident groups, it is reported, have drawn a line in the sand. They claim, “Rearranging Generalships in Iraq is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic – after it sunk.” Anti-militancy groups have been heard to wonder, even while marching forth, “When in the hell is everyone going to get a grip and do what ought to be done? Out now. Reparations. Slash the military budget. Praise the sane and take a pass on the ‘nuance’.”

“‘Resign’ is not in my vocabulary,” General Petraeus has been heard to remark, categorically. Though in the future, ”book deal” may be. Whatever the future. If.

At last word, General Petraeus has not recently been shot in the chest, nor broken his hip, nor been blown into bloody little pieces by an IED, and, by all nuanced accounts, is still alive – as is the United States’ little ”Forever War” in Iraq, and elsewhere.

___________________________
[This "Plan to Abolish America" series of satires consists of slightly revised pieces and will run in advance of the coming "Petraeus Report" on Iraq. The series begins here with The Petraeus Plan to Abolish America and Iraq, and will likely end with the same Plan.]

by Margalit Fox 

A self-described ‘somewhat combative pacifist and cooperative anarchist,’ Ms. Paley was a lifelong advocate of liberal social causes. During Vietnam, she was jailed several times for antiwar protests; in later years, she lobbied for women’s rights, against nuclear proliferation and, most recently, against the war in Iraq. For decades, she was a familiar presence on lower Sixth Avenue, near her Greenwich Village home, smiling broadly, gum cracking, leaflets in hand.

from Environmental Crisis and Despair, by Bill Fletcher

When Rosa Luxemburg suggested that the future was one of “socialism or barbarism” there was a tendency by many people-even in the midst of World War I-to view this as hyperbole. As it turns out, it was rather prescient. This warning through juxtaposition is critical but not enough. Understanding that we must turn away from barbarism-in whatever form-and toward socialism and the end of capitalist exploitation is a critical awareness but it must be translated into organization and action…. 

…it is important to dream. By dreaming I mean to suggest that we consider possibilities for the future that improve the human condition. Being a science fiction fan and a Star Trek devotee I always remember a scene from the film Star Trek: First Contact. Captain Piccard, having traveled back (from the 24th century) to the middle of the 21st century, is speaking with a scientist from that era. She asks how much the starship Enterprise cost to build. His response was quite interesting. In effect he said, the economics of the 24th century are quite different from yours. For us the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our existence. We seek to better ourselves. It is that notion that must work itself into our everyday realities and serve as the inspiration for action.

From a ZNet sustainer commentary:  http://www.zmag.org

by Megan Lane:

“Crime fiction can show you something about a society and a character that’s incredibly deep, whereas so-called literary fiction is about linguistic pyrotechnics. That’s why I’ve always been a fan of this type of writing.”

Publishers, too, believe there is a lot more mileage in the genre. “Like a Greek myth, there’s an awful lot writers can do with good crime stories,” says Ms Wisdom.

“We like harmony and shape, and that’s what a good crime novel gives you – a lovely story arc with a beginning, middle and end – and a morally acceptable outcome, which a lot of post-modern literature will not give you. It can also give you humour, absolute horror, romance, a puzzle. Crime fiction is only going to get bigger.”

For good crime fiction, see Mainstay Press.

Mike Collett-White (Reuters):

Two movies about the Iraq war and its impact on Americans back home are among 22 competition entries at the Venice Film Festival this year, lending political weight to a cinema showcase laden with Hollywood productions.

Paul Haggis’ “In the Valley of Elah”, starring Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon, is the eagerly anticipated film based on the real-life murder of a young soldier who returned to the United States from Iraq.

It is up against Brian De Palma’s “Redacted”, which tells the story of a U.S. army unit that persecutes an Iraqi family and also examines the way media cover the conflict.

…

Reads like a novel though is sheerly the facts on the ground. Laden with irony, tells it like it is: “The Iraqis don’t deserve us. So we betray them…”

Life Sentences  The US Tour of Gunter Grass

by David Streitfield

Streitfield’s article doesn’t seem to me to be a very sympathetic or understanding portrait but holds some interest.

What about the war novel in which the road to Hell is paved with bad intentions? 

Frank James wonders why would Bush cite The Quiet American?

In his speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City, President Bush summoned up the Alden Pyle CIA agent character of Graham Greene’s classic Vietnam novel “The Quiet American” which is essentially a contemplation on the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

I’m not sure he really wanted to go there or why his speechwriters would take him there.

…

What the Pols Should Read - Ken Emerson 

When asked by the Associated Press to name the last novel they had read, many of our umpteen presidential candidates responded predictably with thrillers by the likes of Grisham or Patterson (James or Richard North). Sen. John McCain’s choice of bedside reading was the most intriguing. Did Hemingway’s “A Farewell to Arms” give him second thoughts about the war in Iraq?

If it were up to me to assign the pols summer reading, I’d put “Phineas Finn” at the head of the list. The second of Anthony Trollope’s six “Palliser” novels chronicling political life in Victorian England, “Phineas Finn” is the outstanding volume in an outstanding series and can be enjoyed independently of its companions. Weighing in at more than 700 pages, it can’t be polished off during a quick flight from D.C. to Des Moines, but England’s greatest 19th-century political novel is instructive and illuminating to this day.

…