9/11

When the planes hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon that morning, I said to someone, "This is the worst day of my life."

I didn't know then what I meant, but it was as if the crust of the earth had suddenly cracked and we would never again feel safe going about our daily lives. Over time, that feeling has receded, but the world has not been the same since.

What we lost that day seven years ago is social trust--the sense of not having to be constantly on guard against the malice of unknown people who want to hurt or kill us for no personal reason whatsoever.

Before 9/11, we took for granted unspoken rules that protect us: We could walk safely in front of cars that would stop for red lights, eat food that had passed through the hands of countless unseen people, hand over our children every day to strangers who would protect and nurture them.

We still do all that and more every day, but we can’t board a plane, go to a stadium or walk a crowded street with the same sense of security we had before 9/11/01.

Our public life has become meaner, coarser and, in this political season, we are not the people we were in the last century--fiercely opinionated, intensely competitive but optimistic and generous underneath it all.

When Barack Obama and John McCain come to New York for a forum after the Ground Zero memorial today, we can only hope that some of that spirit is still there to inspire them.

Is Petraeus a Lame Duck, Too?

Behind-the-scenes scuffling over the General's next appearance before Congress reflects a growing Pentagon rift over deployment of troops in the Middle East as well as resistance to being used for political purposes.

According to the Christian Science Monitor: "Days before the top US commander in Iraq gives his official assessment on troop levels there, a high-level move is afoot to keep Gen. David Petraeus out of the political spotlight. Many senior Pentagon officials want to shift public and lawmaker attention away from Iraq to Afghanistan...

"Members of Congress have requested that Petraeus make another appearance on Capitol Hill, sure to draw the kind of attention that a visit from the high-profile general engenders. The Defense Department has refused that request, ostensibly because of scheduling issues. But as the Pentagon struggles to muster more troops for Afghanistan, officials worry that the general's testimony on Iraq will upstage other needs."

The subtext of this maneuvering is growing Pentagon unease over the Bush Administration's unprecedented politicization of the military and the desire of top brass to dial back during the election campaign.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told reporters last week, "We are an apolitical, neutral organization in this country, and we need to stay out of politics, those of us in uniform. And it is very tempting in this time because of where we are, and we just shouldn't do it."

As John McCain and Republican convention yahoos howl this week about victory in Iraq, under the radar there is movement toward Barack Obama's sanity in calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq to combat terrorists where they live, but military leaders seem to be doing their best not to get caught in that crossfire.

Cheney's New, Improved War

The Vice-President of the United States is packaging his attack on Iran.

Unfazed by the disaster in Iraq, Cheney’s Neo-Cons are “rolling out” a “new product” exactly as they did in 2002 and, as then, over the resistance of the State Department.

The New York Times reports “Condoleezza Rice has been arguing for a continuation of a diplomatic approach, while officials in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office have advocated a much tougher view. They seek to isolate and contain Iran, and to include greater consideration of a military strike.”

In the Washington Post, retired Gen. Wesley Clark writes, “Think another war can't happen? Think again. Unchastened by the Iraq fiasco, hawks in Vice President Cheney's office have been pushing the use of force...And what would we do with Iran after the bombs stopped falling? We certainly could not occupy the nation with the limited ground forces we have left.”

In the U.K., the Telegraph reports “Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran” and a senior intelligence officer warns “that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq--arming and training militants--would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories” to “provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.”

This follows a U.K. Times story about a speech by a conservative think tank expert saying “military planners were not preparing for ‘pinprick strikes’ against Iran’s nuclear facilities. ‘They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,’ he said.”

The President started the campaign rolling here with an echo of the warnings about Saddam’s WMD in a recent speech to the American Legion: “Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust...We will confront this danger before it is too late.”

Back in May, our bellicose former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton was telling the British, ”We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb” and that “senior White House officials” share his thinking.

So even before the Surge and in the face of public clamor to get out of Iraq, Cheney and his crowd were covertly planning a war against Iran.

About all this, Sen. Bernie Sanders has been warning: "We have got to put pressure on the mass media not to play the same craven role that they played in Iraq, where they essentially collapsed and became a megaphone for Bush's policies.”

He should be telling that to his Congressional colleagues and reminding them that another botched Bush war could create an unprecedented crisis for American democracy.

U.S. Casualties: Cooking the Books

The new biography of George W. Bush is titled “Dead Certain.” Today we get a cheery headline from the Pentagon, “Combat Deaths in Iraq Decline,” which should be called “Dead Wrong.”

Not only is the conclusion faulty, but the numbers themselves have been doctored. Using as its source iCasualties.org, the report says about fatalties that “by June, the number fell to 93, then to 66 in July and to 57 in August.” But the figures on the web site are 101, 79 and 81 respectively.

For those months a year earlier, the numbers were 61, 43 and 65. The only “decline” seems to be in the veracity of the people trying to make a case that the Surge is saving American lives.

Those numbers, right or wrong, represent young men and women with grieving families who will not find comfort in any statistics about this endless mayhem. But the least they, and we, should be able to expect is the simple truth of how many there are.

Today the President is in Anbar, saluting the “remarkable turnaround” there. The only turnaround worth hailing would be that of our troops starting to leave.

For more on this subject, see this.

Bush's Blitzkreig

The Pentagon has plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to “a national security expert,” which is Washingtonese for a Bush flack who works for something called the Nixon Center.

Will somebody please hide Dick Cheney’s copy of “Mein Kampf” and remind him of what happened after shock and awe annihilated the Iraqis’ military capability.

If his Neo-Cons want to play soldier again, send them off to camp with spray guns and tell Congress to start working on a resolution to make it clear that attacking Iran is not covered by the blank check they gave the Administration to go into Iraq.

September Song for Iraq

All year long, politicians of both parties have been tuning up for September. Now, as the lyrics say, the days are dwindling down to a precious few for Congressional Republicans who have to face the music next fall, but George Bush is still playing the waiting game in Iraq.

He now plans to ask for another $50 billion to keep funding the war in the belief that the mixed signals of progress that Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are bringing to legislators will be enough to cow Congress into going along.

But the White House may be misreading the sheet music. John Warner’s little solo last week following Dick Lugar’s aria should reinforce earlier humming by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner that the chorus of yea-sayers is thinning out. Even the "sliming" of Congressional visitors to the war zone this month seems to be backfiring.

Add to all that unprecedented cacophony among the military, who are sounding notes of discord about what to do next.

Starting next week, there will be loud disharmony in the Washington air.

Make Love, Not War

The “gay bomb” would never have worked. Al Quaeda and the Shiite militias would have countered with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and the end result would have been a new generation of better-dressed terrorists.

If the Pentagon is really serious about sexual warfare, they should be working on a straight bomb that could be used against civilian populations. Instead of Los Alamos, they could try it out over Washington, D.C. after removing all Congressional pages to a secure area.

Better yet, combine the two and turn the Capital into a new Woodstock with everybody in tie-dyed clothes passing a timetable for getting out of Iraq and chanting “Make Love, Not War.”