Iraq is just a comma for stupid people... Apparently, John Kerry's not funny enough to be in the majority party of Congress. He told a bad joke to a crowded rally of Democratic supporters in California. The joke wasn't well-written and Kerry's delivery was poor. He said that if you don't take advantage of your educational opportunities, "you end up in Iraq." Kerry apologized for his ambiguous expression because many were led by his phraseology to believe he meant that stupid people end up in the military and fighting our war in Iraq and this is considered an insensitive statement. George Bush personally re-read that statement to a crowd of his own supporters in Georgia who jeered at the mention of Kerry. Bush has demanded that Kerry apologize and he's even convinced John McCain to join his campaign against Kerry. If we had a more educated president, I wonder if the current headlines would be about a better policy for Iraq rather than a jab at the guy who we already swift-boated two years ago. When are our candidates going to start talking about plans for a better future rather than just jostling for a better sound bite on Iraq?

I'll say two things about this whole issue. The first is that John Kerry shouldn't have apologized for his ambiguous statement, because regardless of which of the two senses one takes the statement, both are true. The sense which the Republicans are pushing is not the way Kerry intended, but it is true too. If you don't take advantage of education and do poorly in school, then it is more likely that you will end up in Iraq and my own personal experience has taught me this. If you have intelligence and a choice, then you will avoid unreasonable risks. This is the point of either sense. In either sense, you don't go to Iraq.

There was recently a story in the New York Times about my hometown, Passaic NJ, where the French director, Michel Gondry, is filming his latest feature. Gondry has fallen in love with the post-industrial melting pot which is Passaic. The screenplay of Be Kind Rewind is about the town. The town has a special spirit which I tended to ignore while I was there, since I was a bit preoccupied with how I might get out. I don't believe for a second that the soul of Passaic is not deeply braided with my own, I'm just saying that I didn't appreciate the place while I was there. I got good grades which lead to a scholarship which got me to Syracuse. At Syracuse, I won a fellowship in the humanities which led me to Oxford. I watched "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (O.I.L.) unfold on satellite news from a couch in Jericho. This experience can fairly be contrasted with the stories of many of the guys who graduated with me, the one's who were by then in their second or third year in the USMC. As I said before, the soul of Passaic is tightly braided with my own. If I hadn't taken the academic way out, my second choice was the Marine Corps.

Passaic is a magical place--it is colorful, full of culture, saturated in struggle--the pain is not hidden, but is not unbearable. You can only realize and appreciate the beauty of such a place if you are not stuck there, only if you are there by choice. When I was still at Passaic High School, I felt trapped. I feared that I had no choices. I needed to get out to prove that I was not trapped and that my fears had not conquered me. Wherever I was going to be I needed to be by my own volition. Iraq by choice would be better than Passaic by default. I was determined to get out of that town because I needed to develop my own sense of agency. Everyone needs to do this for themselves, to find different ways and then pick one. The Marine Corps was an appealing alternative for me, but a more appealing means of getting out was through an education. George Bush might have me apologize for this choice--for insulting the troops by thinking there is anything in the world one might want to do besides serve in combat.

After getting an education, one can still go into the corps at a later date. But if you die in Iraq, you can't pursue your education. Somehow, while I watched those staged and choreographed exercises--the landings and dismounts, parachute acrobatics, and airborne tactics--I wished I were there. I was already living out a dream in Oxford, I had proved my own agency and made it to the exact place I wanted to be, but in those moments I felt like I belonged in Iraq alongside the people I grew up with but hadn't had the intelligence or good-fortune to have the same set of choices as me. I wanted to be alongside them because I didn't and still do not trust the intelligence of George W. bush and his men (especially Don Rumsfeld) to get our boys back home safely. They still haven't given our forces a clear mission.

That brings us to the actually intended sense of Kerry's statement. It is true that if you are uncurious, if you waste your opportunity to pay attention in the classroom or fail to inquire about the world from your privileged spot on a campus (should you be lucky enough to win one), then you will be more likely to make the sorts of massive mistakes which the President has made. You will be more likely to launch preemptive and unnecessary war. Bush is notoriously uncurious about 'foreign' ways of seeing, speaking, or thinking. He doesn't challenge his own narrow perspectives or parochial suppositions. He didn't take his own education very seriously. As a result, he 'leads' our troops to unnecessary danger, toward unnecessary risks, i.e. into Iraq. I place "lead" in quotations because its not like he was actually on the front lines or directing the land war from an aircraft carrier. He pointed and told the troops "go there and await further orders."

George Bush is uncurious himself, but put a very opinionated and especially arrogant man, Donald Rumsfeld, in charge of his Iraq adventure and then went back to being uncuriousness while our troops continued to die by the dozen. He's decided to believe that the criticism for his misadventure are being issued prematurely by those who don't understand the historical significance of the conflict.In late September, Bush told Wolf Blitzer that he often reminds people Iraq will be nothing more than "a comma in the history books." Which is more insulting to the honor of our troops, acknowledging that our system doesn't leave them with the best choices or characterizing the conflict within which they are seeing their peers die as merely "a comma?"

Who do you think should be apologizing? And when are we going to start talking about actual issues?

from the New York Times, Tues 25 Oct 2006
Director Puts New Jersey Town on Film, and on the Map
By CARA BUCKLEY

PASSAIC, N.J., Oct. 22 — Vincent Oliver stood firm on the gray slab of sidewalk where he has become a fixture much of the past two months. Peering through wire-frame glasses, he finally saw what he was waiting for, and broke into a gleeful metal-mouthed grin.

"Look at Danny Glover, he's right there — there," Vincent, a 17-year-old high school junior, half shouted, braces glinting, as a crowd around him pressed in, necks craned. "The old guy. He's like, 'Lethal Weapon.' "

Across the street from Vincent, another world bloomed. A corner store was illuminated by klieg lights. Inside, Mr. Glover, decked in dowdy clothes and gray hair, was filming a scene. Other actors were with him. Mia Farrow. Jack Black. Mos Def. Real movie stars, the likes of which most people in Passaic have never seen.

Vincent shook his head, half in a swoon. Nothing like this had probably ever happened in Passaic, a struggling, multiethnic city about 12 miles west of Manhattan. Nothing like this might ever happen again.

“I love it; there’s a tremendous sense of community,” [Mia] Farrow said recently on the set. “And we’ve been made to feel so welcome.”

Yet all good things must come to an end. Mr. Gondry may have loved Passaic, but he is also leaving Passaic: The film’s shooting is wrapping this week. Already, the director is feeling anxious. After giving so many people in Passaic what might, or might not, have been their big break, he said many had turned to him for career guidance, hoping, in a way, that he takes them with him when he goes.

“The idea is that they feel something is happening in their place, so that they feel good about it, because it’s a lovely place,” Mr. Gondry said. “But I’m not going to fix their life. And that’s something that makes me a little sad.”

from MSNBC.com via the AP, 29 Oct 2006
Audit finds many missing U.S. weapons in Iraq
Government report: About 14,000 weapons — 1 in 25 — unaccounted for
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Nearly one of every 25 weapons the U.S. military bought for Iraqi security forces is missing and many others cannot be repaired because parts or technical manuals are lacking, a government audit said Sunday.

The Defense Department cannot account for 14,030 weapons — almost 4 percent of the semiautomatic pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other weapons it began supplying to Iraq since the end of 2003, according to a report from the office of the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

The missing semiautomatic pistols, assault rifles, machine guns and other weapons will not be tracked easily: The Defense Department registered the serial numbers of only about 10,000 of the 370,251 weapons it provided — less than 3 percent.

We are not attracting the best and brightest into the government any longer. This is considered seperate from the issue of respect for the troops, bit it is not. If you respect the troops, then you will try to get the best advice in the world from the most knowledgable people before issuing orders to them. Those best and most knowledgable are being pushed away. This is not news. It is not an exaggeration. And it is not unimportant. But the issue of who we should get to be the professional employees of the bureaucracy has not even come up as an issue in this election cycle. Those who the Republicans have chosen, appointed, and placed in charge of our defenses don't seem to have any knowledge of history, economics, culture or morality. They are also arrogant and don't care to listen to those who have the knowledge which they lack. Their culture is anathema to professionalism, accountability, reflection, and transparency. They are driving away the people who are most qualified to protect us.

Those people who are the best for their positions and brightest in the government are being ignored and forced out. Richard Clarke was just the tip of the iceberg. He has a decade's worth of experience on counterterrorism, served three presidents and had an advanced degree from MIT, but Condi Rice, George Tenet and George Bush ignored him. His two former deputies, Steve Smith and Daniel Benjamin, have more than a decade's experience and degrees from Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, and Oxford between them, they have also left the government. They were ignored and marginalized within the government by this Bush administration.

In contrast, Don Rumsfeld has a Bachelor's degree from Princeton. In 1976, he was the youngest serving SecDef in American history. George Bush has degrees from Yale and Harvard. His father directed the CIA while Rumsfeld was first at the Pentagon. Regardless of how folksy they try to make themselves sound, these are not every-men. Regardless of how rebellious they try to paint themselves out to be, these men have been part of system for a very long time. But they were part of the system when things were very different. Their credentials do not indicate that they have merit or relevant experience. They are not intellectuals either. Their degrees and past positions are more indicative of the fact that these men are the children of privilege, i.e. they have had choices handed to them. They did not create their own opportunities and when given the opportunity to learn or listen to the knowledgable, they chose to ignore and act arrogantly.

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney advised George Bush to invade Iraq. Richard Clarke, Steve Simon, and Daniel Benjamin advised against this. Because Bush is uneducated, he didn't know who to trust. Because he is uncurious, he didn't investigate further before making his decision. Because he is arrogant, he marginalized and ignored the advise of the knowledgeable when he turned out to have made the wrong decision. Bush gave a speech last week wherein he said to the Iraqi people that he does "not have unlimited patience" but he's done nothing to actually bring about positive results in that country. While the countryside is falling apart, while violence increases in Ramadi, George Bush has allowed the Pentagon to pursue a completely foolish and inappropriate strategy in the mission "Together Forward II." The small and limited goal of the mission, to secure only one city and act as if doing so will be massively more significant than it actually is, isn't even doable with the current policymakers and advisors in place. They have already clearly demonstrated their ineptitude for this mission. They don't know how to think about this conflict. The current leadership needs to be replaced if we are to avoid further mistakes.

And because he is shameless, today George Bush is trying to paint truthspeakers as disloyal and unpatriotic when all they are doing is making statements about reality. Unfortunately, true statements don't always make for good punchlines and sound bites, but the strategy is entirely divorced from truth, so what does it matter to them anyway?

from the International Herald Tribune, Mon 23 Oct 2006
Strategy for Iraq: First, save Baghdad
By MICHAEL R. GORDON, New York Times

The Iraqi capital, as the generals like to say, is the center of gravity for the larger American mission in Iraq. Their assessment is that if Baghdad is overwhelmed by sectarian strife, the cause of fostering a more stable Iraq will be lost. Conversely, if Baghdad can be improved, the effects will eventually be felt elsewhere in Iraq. In invading Iraq, American forces started from outside the country and fought their way in. The current strategy is essentially to work from the inside out.

from the New York Times, Tues 31 Oct 2006
The Untracked Guns of Iraq
Editorial

About the last thing the United States ought to be doing in Iraq is funneling weapons into black-market weapons bazaars, as sectarian militias arm themselves for civil war. Yet that is just what Washington may have been doing for the past several years, thanks to an inexplicable decision that standard Pentagon regulations for registering weapons transfers did not apply to the Iraq war.

Of more than 500,000 weapons turned over to the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior since the American invasion — including rocket-propelled grenade launchers, assault rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles — the serial numbers of only 12,128 were properly recorded. Some 370,000 of these weapons, some of which are undoubtedly being used to kill American troops, were paid for by United States taxpayers, under the Orwellian-titled Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.

from the Guardian.com, Fri 27 Oct 2006
Holding back the tide
By DAVID CORN

Finally, George Bush has something to talk about that can help Republican candidates: homosexuals and illegal immigrants. Until recently, Bush was forced by circumstances (literally) beyond his control to address public concerns about the war in Iraq, which seems to be worsening by the day and dragging down the Republican party in the run-up to congressional elections. But Bush received a lucky break from the New Jersey supreme court. On Wednesday, it ruled that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits granted to married heterosexual couples, and the court ordered the state legislature to come up with a remedy for this imbalance. The legislators essentially have two choices. They can pass legislation permitting gay marriage, or they can enact a bill that provides gay couples all the benefits and rights afforded married people.

Bush grabbed hold of this news the way a drowning man reaches for a life preserver.