What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
The Texas Wars of
Robert Gates:
On Affirmative
Action and Mexican Migrants
What's Robert
Gates's not-so-distant dirty past? Greg Moses turns over the
dirt in College Station, how Gates fought affirmative action
there and how Reagan and Bush's's slippery spook will run the
new Border War.The End of the Libération
Myth! Meet Libération, turncoat tool of neoliberalism.Pierre
Rimbert traces the decline and fall of one of radical journalism's
great hopes --the paper founded by Jean-Paul Sartre. Daniel Wolff describes how Bob Dylan
plays the music of the Apocalypse. Remember, we are funded solely
by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this
website by buying a
subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you
won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the
cost of this online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
This last Sunday Harry Reid, the incoming
Democratic majority leader in the US Senate, went on ABC's Sunday
morning show and declared that a hike in U.S. troops in Iraq
is okay with him.
Here's the evolution of the
Democrats' war platform since November 7, 2006, the day the voters
presented a clear mandate: "End the war! Get out of Iraq!"
and took the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives away
from the Republicans.
So somewhat to their surprise
the Democrats recaptured both the Senate and the House. Then
they went to work--to obliterate the mandate. The first thing
they did was reject Jack Murtha, the man who said "Quit
Now" in 2005. They voted down Murtha as House majority leader
and picked the pro-war Steny Hoyer.
Then Nancy Pelosi, chose Silvestre
Reyes as House Intelligence Committee chairman. Reyes promptly
told Newsweek, "We're not going to have stability in Iraq
until we eliminate those militias, those private armies. We have
to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to
take out the militias and stabilize IraqI would say 20,000 to
30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias
are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."
Reyes comes to his important
post with an open mind, meaning an empty one. He knows nothing
of the region. This became clear in his brief parley with a reporter
from Congressional Quarterly who had the impudence to
ply him with questions at the end of a tiring day when men of
mature judgment head for the bar. CQ's man asked Reyes if Al
Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite.
Reyes tossed a mental coin.
"Predominantly-probably Shiite." Wrong, of course,
since Al Qaeda is Sunni, of a notoriously intolerant strain.
It's as if Reyes had called the Pope a Presbyterian.
Then the pesky newshound probed
him on the matter of Hezbollah. "Hizbollah. Uh, Hizbollah"
Reyes answered irritably. "Why do you ask me these questions
at 5 o'clock?"
Back in 2003 Reyes, a Vietnam
vet, was opposed to the war. Give him clout as Intelligence Committee
chair and he starts citing John McCain approvingly, even upping
the mad Arizonan's troop-boost call by 10,000.
Next, the Democrats in the
Senate gave unanimous confirmation to Robert Gates as defense
secretary. Gates has a career record as one who slants intelligence
to suit his bosses' political agenda. Recently, as president
of Texas A&M, he deep-sixed affirmation action as college
policy. The Democrats in the Senate could have stretched out
the hearings, grilled Gates closely on his plans, taxed him with
his grimy past as Bill Casey's second-in-command in the Contra-gate
Era. Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh said flatly in
his memoirs that Gates was not truthful in his 1991 confirmation
hearings about his role.
Next, House Democrats welcomed
the Iraq Study Group report of James Baker and Jim Hamilton by
promptly reaffirming the Palestinian Terror Bill 2006",
written by AIPAC.
Then, on December 17 the Democrats'
Senate leader, Harry Reid, said it was okay with him to send
more troops to Iraq. This was the same Sunday morning that Colin
Powell, appearing on CBS, said a troop increase "cannot
be sustained" and that the thousands of additional U.S.
soldiers sent into Baghdad since the summer had been unable to
stabilize the city and more probably could not tip the balance,
Powell said.
Yesterday, it was instructive
to go to the Democratic websites in the wake of Reid's statement.
Nothing on Daily Kos, nothing on Truthout, nothing on any of
them. They had many words about Republican warmongering, about
McCain's call for more troops. About Reid, one of the top Democratic
leaders, about the evolving Democratic posture--nothing.
Now let's go to a Republican,
U.S. Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. While the Democrat Reyes
was calling for a troop hike, Smith was proclaiming, "We
have no business being a policeman in someone else's civil war.
I welcome the Iraq Study Group's report, but if we are ultimately
going to retreat, I would rather do it sooner than later."
Not cut and walk. Cut and run.
At least Gordon Smith can publicly
concede that as things stand, the Iraq mission is a disaster,
and quitting time is here. No prominent Democrats in Congress
but Jack Murtha can bring themselves to do that. (I include here
Senator Slither, otherwise known as Barack Obama, who trims to
every shift in the wind.) The language is always of pleasing
schedules, in which a (fictional) entity called the Iraqi Army,
at the disposition of an (imaginary) power called the Iraqi government,
can be welded into an (entirely fantastical) nonsectarian force
by (as yet unavailable and putatively suicidal) US military trainers.
Suicidal? A poll cited by the
Iraq Study Group found that 61 percent of Iraqis believe that
it is appropriate where possible to attack the US occupying troops.
Since the poll included Kurds, who are less hostile to the US
presence, we can assume that the percentage of Sunnis and Shiites
who think it a patriotic act to shoot or blow up a US soldier
is well above 61 percent. Now imagine yourself as a US trainer
embedded in an Iraqi unit, the vast majority of whose members
believe it right and proper to kill you. "Suicidal"
seems to be the correct term. These calls for a bigger US training
force are complete hokum.
You would have thought that
Democrats would rush to hang their hats on the the bipartisan
ISG report, calling for cut and walk. But the long-awaited report
is dead shortly after arrival. There aren't more than a handful
or so of Democrats who are going to be caught in the same room
as a report that calls for the return of the Golan Heights to
Syria and dares to raise the issue of the right of return of
Palestinians to their homeland.
In America these days persons
in political life can describe reality only if they are self-employed,
with a guaranteed independent income and above 75 years of age.
Jimmy Carter and James Baker are two prime examples of this truth.
Otherwise fantasy rules in Congress and the press, which has
consistently misrepresented the extent of the disaster in Iraq,
preferring to promote fatal illusions about a viable central
government and fantasies of the US being able to shape a new
model army of Iraqis.
Since the elections of November
7, elite liberal consensus, as represented by the Democratic
leadership and major opinion formers such as the editors of the
New York Times, has rallied to the notion of a "surge"
in U.S. troops in Iraq. "Surge" is a handy word. It
has the timbre of forceful majesty, of mighty ocean rollers roaring
onto a beach. It also has the promise of withdrawal, since what
surges can also recedes.
A faction among the U.S. commanders
in Iraq has been promoting the surge option to useful journalists
such as Michael Gordon of the New York Times. (Today, the Washington
Post reports that inside the Pentagon growing opposition
to the surge scenario. presumably on the reasonable grounds that
there aren't the troops to mount the surge and it would do nothing
to alter the situation anyway.)
Indeed, no reporter has played
a more assiduous role in fostering this "surge" option
than Gordon, a man who somehow skipped free of the misreporting
charges that finally caught up with his former colleague Judith
Miller, even though he shared a byline with Miller in the very
worst report, the claim that aluminum tubes were hard evidence
of Saddam's WMD program.
In the past months, in the
Times and on CNN Gordon has been laying down a propaganda
barrage against speedy withdrawal and for a hike in US troop
numbers in Iraq. When Murtha ran for the House majority leadership
position, the New York Times front-paged two stories by Gordon
attacking Murtha's advocacy of rapid withdrawal, and promoting
a troop increase.
At the Washington Post,
which editorialized against Murtha's bid, David Ignatius has
similarly been fostering the impression of feasible options in
Iraq. "With enough troops and aggressive tactics,"
Ignatius wrote earlier this year, "American forces can bring
order to even the meanest streets." In Iraq, in March of
this year, Ignatius, claimed to find "unmistakable signs
here this week that Iraq's political leaders are taking the first
tentative steps towards forming a broad government of national
unity that could reverse the country's downward slide."
His keen eye detected a "new spirit of accord."
So here we have the Times's
and Post's lead reporter/commentators on the war diligently
promulgating the core fantasy: that the United States has options
beyond accepting defeat. The vast majority of Iraqis want US
forces out. Militarily, the United States has been defeated.
Diplomatically it is isolated. Politically it is immobilized.
From the Republican defeats
at the November 7 polls through to the publication of the Iraq
Study Group report, there was a window for Washington to commence
diplomatic operations to get out with all speed.
That opportunity has almost
gone. Now a decisive moment approaches. The Democratic leadership
-- Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, Biden -- is recommending that the Democrats
in Congress vote to approve the supplemental budget appropriation
early next year, probably $160 billion, which will give Bush
enough money to keep the war going till he leaves town.
Enough Democrats have always
been available to push these appropriations through, sometimes
by huge majorities or, in the Senate, unanimous agreement. Here's
the record of shame:
By 2004, when it was clear
a disaster was unfolding and after Iraq's alleged WMDs had been
exposed as frauds invented by US and British intelligence agencies
and the press: HR 4613 -- Final House Vote July 22, 2004: 410-12.
Final Senate Vote July 22, 2004: 96-0.
In 2005, by which time it was
clear that the US attack had spawning civil war, plus staggering
corruption -- HR 1268: Final House Vote May 5, 2005: 368-58.
Final Senate Vote May 10, 2005: 100-0. HR 2863: Final House Vote
December 19, 2005: 308-106. Final Senate Vote December 21, 2005:
93-0.
By 2006 the American people
were turning decisively against the war. Bush's ratings were
among the lowest in presidential history. Up came HR 4939: Final
House Vote June 13, 2006: 351-67. Final Senate Vote June 15,
2006: 98-1. HR 5631 -- Final House Vote September 26, 2006: 394-22.
Final Senate Vote September 29, 2006: 100-0.
Years ago, my father used to
tell me that when it came to assessing the likely policy of the
British Labor Party, the best approach was to figure out the
worst option available, and then proceed under the assumption
that this was the course the Party would adopt. Here in the U.S.
I've always applied this useful journalistic rule to the Democrats,
with unfailing success. Never for a moment, after November 7,
did I doubt that Reid and the others would do the wrong thing.
As we warned after the election,
the role of the Democrats will be to ease through a troop increase
This prediction has turned out to be 100 per cent accurate.
Now comes the chance to see
whether the antiwar movement, the progressive Democrats, will
meekly toe the line, even as some start wasting their time promoting
a Kucinich bid for the Democratic nomination, which will exactly
the same effect as did his bid in 2004. It was clear from the
outset that the only substantive function of Kucinich's run was
to try to preempt defections to a Third Party candidate such
as Nader. Then, in Boston, Kucinich toed the line and fell in
behind Kerry. Once again doomed to fail, he'll do the same thing
in 2008.
This February, the peace movement's
choir, of which you are one, will up the ante of protest. Voices
for Creative Nonviolence, joined by Veterans For Peace, have
initiated the "Occupation Project" to occupy the hometown
offices of Representatives and Senators who have voted money
for the war.
All this clearly adds up to a historic opportunity.
Last week I spoke in Marietta,
Ohio to 35 people, and announced the Occupation Project. I asked
who among them would consider occupying their local congressional
offices. Without a moment's hesitation, six hands went up.
We talked about practical concerns:
having to work, how much will it cost, what will the charge be?
We talked about taking a vacation day and the modest fines involved
for a misdemeanor -- all compared to the enormous suffering Iraqis
and soldiers now endure in this war.
So now let's see how these
Democrats, all with their eyes cocked towards 2008 and the need
to hold the antiwar vote, react to the threat or the reality,
of being occupied.
The Mayan
Debate: How Many Hearts Can You Cut Out in an Hour? No Worries
About Malpractice Suits; Stone Knives Sharper Than Steel
From: Alan Prince
Date: December 18, 2006 12:24:18 PM PST
To: counterpunch@counterpunch.org
Subject: Aztecs
Luis J. Rodriguez writes:
"Supposedly with a flint
knife, priests were able to rapidly remove the heart while the
victims watched it throbbing in the priest's hand. In one account,
thousands were thus slain in one day. Yet even today with modern
tools, it takes around 15 to 20 minutes to open up the sternum
and the surrounding tissues to reach the heart. But we're supposed
to believe a few priests could do this to hundreds, even thousands,
in a few hours."
The knives were made from obsidian,
a volcanic glass that can form edges sharper and smoother than
surgical steel. There is no question that they could have done
the job, which was not intended as a repair.
The Aztecs ran an economically
oppressive empire and were not loved by the peoples they subjugated
or by their unsubjugated rivals. Cortez could not have won without
the help of a huge army from Tlaxcala, which participated in
the destruction of Tenochtitlan with a vigor that appalled even
the ghoulish conquistadors.
Torture and sacrifice played
a very different role in Mesoamerican belief than in European
(see Clendinnen's Aztecs), although Europeans have been
notable enthusiasts in their way (the year 1492 in Spain saw
more than Columbus's voyage). Mesoamerican practices were unrelated
to notions of punishment, and it's hard for us to grasp their
meaning from anything like an empathetic perspective. But we
should not be driven into sentimentality by Mel Gibson's pathological
mish-mash.
-Alan Prince
From: joe costello
Date: December 18, 2006 11:57:06 AM PST
To: backroom@rockamole.com
Cc: counterpunch@counterpunch.org
Subject: to Luis - Apocalypto
Dear Luis,
I would like to take issue
with a couple points in your Counterpunch piece on "Apocalypto." Let me start
by saying, I think scrutinizing the movie much beyond "Mad
Max IV," we run into serious problems, but I think it's
a well done "Mad Max IV."
I actually think Gibson should
get some credit for at least making a movie about the Maya, how
accurate he is of course is a good question. So a couple of points
about your comments. First,some of the cities of the Yucatan
were in fact occupied at the time of the Spanish Conquest, and
I think Gibson probably portrays them fairly accurately as cities
in disrepair and a civilization well past its peak. Secondly,
full eclipses are fairly rare and it is doubtful that the mass
of Mayans were educated to understand the science of the "movement
of the stars," which gave the priesthoods their power. The
priests had the power of the calender, essential for any agrarian
civilization.
On human sacrifice, it is without
a doubt the ancient civilizations of Mexico practiced human sacrifice,
on what scale is definitely opened for speculation. Your point
about taking 20 minutes to open a chest today is correct, but
they're trying to keep the patient alive. If you stretched someone
out across a stone alter and then plunged a sharp stone dagger
beneath the ribcage with no concern for the person's life, no
doubt you could get a heart out much quicker and still beating.
I was struck when traveling across these old civilizations how
death was with life everywhere, so different from our modern
culture, especially American culture, where death is removed.
Also, the point of how sacred blood was, as you point out, is
revealed in the importance of self-bloodletting amongst the elite,
and now I'm interpreting, blood sacredly symbolized the difference
between life and death.
There was a great essay by
the Italian writer Italo Calvino concerning his visit to the
Museo Nacional de Antropología. The guide he had was trying
to explain all the civilizations and what they were about, however
another he overheard would point to object and repeatedly say,
"Well, we are really to far removed to understand."
Spending several months traveling and reading about the old Mexican
civilizations led me to believe that. I think in fact your view
of "defending" the Mayans and Mexikas, is as fraught
with looking at them through the lens of modern Western civilization
as you accuse Gibson.
There was one thing I thought Gibson really hit well and was
an eye opener for me, how in fact little blood was shed in pre-iron
warfare. Where wood, stone, and muscle were the main weapons,
people were for the most just physically overcome and kept alive
as opposed to butchered. Quite different from our culture of
war today with missiles shot by "warriors" from hundreds
of miles away leveling whole cities, shredding bodies beyond
recognition.
Anyway, as I said, I don't
think Apocalypto could hold up to much more scrutiny beyond "Mad
Max IV," and as that, it's an entertaining enough and bloody
affair. However, I think Gibson deserves kudos for using Mayan
civilization, and in his own bizarre way, making them very human,
in fact in some ways more human than the civilization we and
Gibson represent.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
