MATTHEWGOODONLINE

It’s no secret that former President Jimmy Carter has his detractors. His more recent attempts to confront the problems plaguing Israeli - Palestinian relations have drawn scorn from many quarters, with many labeling him anti-Israeli. And now, during remarks made at the recent Hay-on-Wye festival, he has done what no American President has ever dared to do – openly state that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.

Despite the fact that within the international intelligence community it is widely known that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal that ranges somewhere between 100 to 300 weapons, no major Western power has ever broke faith with Israel’s official policy of claiming that they do not possess one.

The Whistleblower

The existence of Israel’s nuclear program was made public in 1986 by The Sunday Times who ran an exclusive story based on information provided them by Mordechai Vanunu, once a nuclear technician at Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. Numerous leading nuclear weapons experts, including former nuclear weapons designers Theodore Taylor (US) and Frank Barnaby (UK), substantiated the information provided by Vanunu to The Times prior to the piece being published.

Vanunu had left Israel in 1985, disenfranchised with his work and personally tormented by the realization of what it was producing. He traveled to South East Asia for a time before briefly relocating in Australia where he met journalist Peter Hounam of The Times. In the fall of 1986, Vanunu left Australia for the UK, where he relayed his story to Hounam and also provided personal photographs he had taken while working at the site.

In late September of 1986, the Israeli Mossad employed a female agent posing as an American tourist to lure Vanunu out of the UK rather than directly involving the British government in his detention. Vanunu traveled with Cheryl Bentov, who was known to Vanunu as Cindy, to Rome, where he was seized by Mossad agents, drugged, and smuggled out of Italy on a freighter. Once in Israel he was tried in secret for treason and then spent a decade in solitary confinement. In all, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Vanunu was not executed because, according to former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit , “Jews do not do that to other Jews.”

After Vanunu’s release he did what any man of conscience would do – he spoke out again, reiterating his position on Israel’s secret program. Despite the fact that Vanunu’s knowledge of the program was by that time technically inconsequential, he was placed under house arrest. Following that, his movements would be restricted and he was closely watched.

On the 15th of this month…

“The Norwegian Lawyer’s Petition called on the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law, to grant Vanunu asylum and permission to work and stay in Norway.”

Vanunu had applied for asylum in Norway in 2004 following his release. It was later learned that while approval for his initial application for asylum was sought by then Prime Minister Kåre Willoch, it was ultimately rejected to protect Norwegian – Israeli relations.

There are those that consider Vanunu a traitor, just as there are those that considered Daniel Ellsberg a traitor. I believe that what Vanunu did was vital for Israeli democracy in that he revealed something not just to the world, but to the people of Israel itself that had been kept from them by their elected officials. Because no matter the reasons, disclosure is one of the most crucial elements in any true democracy.

That said; it would seem that ‘true’ democracy isn’t something that any of us are all that familiar with.

Flat Out Hypocrisy

According to the government of Israel, the State of Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, nor has it ever possessed them. That is, no matter how you slice it, a flat out lie. Were the same scrutiny applied to Israel as is being applied to Iran, the IAEA would quickly discover that the government of Israel has been lying for decades. And even if the UN were allowed to inspect Israeli facilities and found evidence of a nuclear weapons program, the truth is that not a damn thing would be done about it.

Now, ask yourself a question. How is it that one nation can get away with lying about the possession of a significant nuclear weapons program for decades while others are attacked relentlessly before proof even exists that they have one? Why is it that the UN’s watchdog can be set upon, for example, Iran or Syria, and not be equally persuaded to scrutinize Israel? Where exactly does that sort of hypocritical power and protectionism come from?

Before even entering into the corrupt and wholly one sided protectionist stance that the Western world provides Israel, let’s state the obvious excuses used by those that ignore blatant contradictions.

First, because of a mistranslation that was then used to produce sensational headlines the world over, the government of Iran has claimed that it wants to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Of course, given their position on the existence of the Israeli state, the Iranians are easy targets. Mind you, that’s not to say that if some reasonable Israeli – Palestinian agreement could be reached that Iran wouldn’t ultimately back it, just that they’re viewed by most of the Western world as lacking what we refer to as ‘a sense of morality’. As far as we’re concerned they’re terrorist sympathizers and if they ever did get the bomb, would use it without hesitation or any consideration of the inevitable and utterly devastating consequences (I have written extensively about this subject, so use the search engine if you’d like to research past entries). Of course, throughout history, most of the world’s foremost powers have supported terrorist organizations, not to mention used militant groups and financial organizations to overthrow governments – such as the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50’s. But that’s of little consequence as it applies to the world post 9/11. The presentation of all things black and white to the public at large is a time honoured tradition, such as the removal of Mosaddeq in 1953 (Operation Ajax). He dared to attempt to nationalize the Iranian oil industry and for that he was painted a Communist by the West and removed from power. The Shah was then reinstated and British Petroleum’s stranglehold over Iran’s oil conveniently continued.

The support of military proxies, whether large or small, is nothing new. Israel represents such a proxy with regards to Western interests in the region, its nuclear arsenal included. It is a nation whose transgressions are widely overlooked while the transgressions of others are not, a hypocrisy that continues unabated precisely because of foreign interests and the protections that they are able to provide.

On September 11th one of the most repeated questions was - “why do they hate us?” The answer to that question, while technically complex, can also be viewed in a rather simplistic light. What have we done in the Middle East in a spirit of equality that has ever provided counter balance? The reality is – nothing. We have exploited natural resources, supported despotic regimes when they have suited out purposes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, and watched from the sidelines while such support has led to the degradation and suffering of societies. We then have the gall to claim that we champion freedom and represent beacons of global liberty and conscience. To think that those watching on the other side of the fence aren’t aware of our hypocrisy is more than ignorant. And, if we’re to cut the shit and be honest with ourselves, the people of New York and Washington paid for it seven years ago. And since then, troops involved in the subsequent wars promoted and produced in the wake of 9/11, along with countless civilians, have been made to suffer the fruits of that ignorance as well.

Why do they hate us? It is, in truth, more a question of why we believe we have the right to play God with others? And that’s not merely limited to Western powers, but others as well. The answer to that question is as old as the ages – arrogance bolstered by economic power and military might. That is the foundation on which every major empire in human history has sat, and the very same that always, without exception, has cracked and ultimately crumbled under the weight of its own excesses and senses of invulnerability and superiority.

Jimmy

So President Carter did the unthinkable – he spoke the truth. In doing so he will be labeled numerous things I imagine. This is, of course, the same President who was in power during the 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, and who, despite that experience, is currently urging the US to start talking to the Iranians rather than continuing their current policy of isolationism.

I’ll not deny that I believe Carter to be one of the better Presidents in US history. Despite those things that plagued his one term in office, he remains a man of considerable worth to the cause of repairing the damage done by the Bush Administration with regards to global perceptions of the United States. I am also one of those ‘nut jobs’ that believes the claims of former Reagan White House staff member Barbara Honegger, not to mention those of former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, that the October Surprise was not fantasy.

If the Israelis can still claim, with a straight face, that they don’t have a nuclear weapons program (and get away with it) then I see no reason to start discounting something as plausible as the October Surprise, despite the conclusions of investigations to the contrary.

Removed from a situation, so much so that it has become an informational inconvenience, not to mention social taboo with regards to conversation, how do societies at war deal with the realities of war given the distance from which they are viewed?

With regards to fighting abroad, this reality provides those promoting conflicts abroad with the ability to use disingenuous justifications and rhetoric to not merely defend their purpose, but to casually address the failures produced by them. Besides those fighting in Iraq, what experience does the average American have with regards to what has, and is, transpiring there? How many Americans realize that the same problems that have plagued many parts of the country, such as intermittent power and other major deficiencies in Iraq’s civic infrastructure, have not been seriously address five years after the invasion of the country? How many Americans realize that their soldiers, and those private contractors in the employ of The State Department, are immune from prosecution for war crimes by the very government that the current administration has promoted as a democratic body steeped in the rule of law? Not even the International Criminal Court has any power over the prosecution of war crimes committed by US personnel.

Given that, and the remove at which we view the war, how entirely out of touch are we with regards to the temperament of Iraqis when it comes to such realities? That in their own country, members of an occupying force cannot be tried for crimes by Iraqi courts, nor tried by an internationally recognized body? Iraqi courts were sufficient enough to try Saddam Hussein and other members of his regime, but they are deemed insufficient to try US Marines guilty of raping and killing a teenaged girl, as well as members of her family. Likewise, Iraqi courts have no jurisdiction over private contractors, and cannot prosecute them for crimes committed against civilians either.

One fact that must never be overlooked, no matter how unpopular or tired this subject might be, is that Iraq is an occupied nation. It is home to well in excess of 100,000 foreign troops and countless private contractors. This reality does not reinforce the deliverance of stability whatsoever, but merely the presence of a military force that remains to ensure the survival of a government hastily put into place to ensure that American domestic perceptions of the operation as a whole were justified.

During the last five years, the occupation has led to the emergence of Jihadi groups in Iraq that were not present prior to the invasion, not to mention using methods of literal separation in an attempt to quell sectarian violence through the use of concrete walls surrounding neighbourhoods in locations such as Baghdad. Such methods helped curb violence for a time, something that, again, was used domestically to promote the success of ‘the Surge’, despite the fact that it did nothing to actually address the root of the problem itself. To claim that with the creation of a more stable security situation that such root problems can be address is a fallacy being that were those walls not to exist, the very same level of violence would no doubt resume.

The words of Donald Rumsfeld should, in truth, haunt Americans for decades to come. That pre-war planning was more than adequate and that all measures were taken during it to prepare for a variety of outcomes. Rumsfeld represented a community belief within the administration that the invasion would be both cost effective and that the occupation to follow would be short lived. This perception was sold to the American public, with continual excuses being provided in the aftermath of the invasion to justify why the Pentagon’s initial preparations were not adequate. This leads back to the remove at which we experience the war and the flexibility that that provides those that initiated it to continually excuse their complicity in what has since become a disastrous venture.

The removal of Saddam Hussein can no longer be provided as a justification for the invasion. While his regime was brutal, it was no more so than many others that, to this day, remain in power and continue to be the cause of various regional instabilities. Claims regarding his desire to amass weapons of mass destruction were blatantly false, with only the remnants of chemical weapon caches from the Iran-Iraq having ever been found. Given that, it should not be overlooked who supported him during that period, providing detailed satellite coverage of Iranian troop movements so that the use of chemical weapons would be devastatingly accurate – the CIA. Likewise, the use of the example of Halabja is not relevant with regards to US military justifications, as after the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja, the Reagan White House issued the weakest of statements, vetoed a Congressional bill that would have immediately stopped military support to Hussein’s regime, and then continued to fund it.

Following the Gulf War, the sanctions implemented against Iraq would take a devastating toll on the Iraqi population, killing in excess of 1 million people. At the time, the United Nations was deemed a viable vehicle with which to impede Hussein. But when it refused to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush Administration declared it to be as ineffectual as The League Of Nations, and unilaterally proceeded with military operations. Mere weeks later, President Bush declared combat operations at an end. Five years, and 4,000 US deaths later, his declaration has not only been proven false, but exposed the reality that an altogether arrogant and undereducated cabal within the administration planned a major military action that completely failed to take into account any of Iraq’s social realities.

No matter your view of the war, that is one aspect of it that cannot be argued away. That pre-war planning was, in effect, almost non-existent, that it completely failed to take into account a myriad of cultural and historical factors, not to mention the military requirements that were necessary to realistically implement the operation itself. It was, in essence, no different than the belief that a bridge made of steel and concrete could be held together with scotch tape.

By now it has become more than evident that the trauma caused by 9/11 was used by a group of individuals to enact one of the most devastating foreign policy doctrines in US history and that Iraq provided the perfect context with which to enact it with regards to the Middle East. Given that claims that Hussein’s regime had ties to al-Qaeda, or was involved in the attacks of September 11th have, since day one, been entirely false, the hegemonic realities of the invasion and occupation are abundantly clear. And yet, given our otherworldly distance from the realities of the conflict, we remain apathetically comfortable with not seriously confronting that fact.

Over the last five years, 4,000 American families have paid the price for the abuse of their trust. Driving around New York City it is not uncommon to see stickers on the backs of vehicles that read never forget with an image of the twin towers in the background. The irony, of course, is that 4,000 Americans, and countless innocent Iraqis, have died since 2003 because of a handful of politicians and pundits that, without hesitation, took advantage of the corruption of patriotism. Thus, if there is anything that the people of this nation should never forget, it is that.

I’m tired. Not a lot of sleep last night. I spent it in one of those semi-states of sleep, the sort where you’re aware that you have to be mindful of something that requires that you remain somewhat conscious but are still trying to sleep at the same time.

It’s clear and sunny here again today, as it has been this past week. In fact, it’s been uncommonly beautiful for this time of year, even given the chill the wind provides here on the West Coast that has the annoying ability to cut through everything that you’re wearing and go straight to your bones. We share that phenomenon with the UK, where it’s routine business as well.

I’m rambling, and I’m aware of it. I’m rambling because I’m having one of those mornings that I’m finding it difficult to concentrate. I’m having one of those mornings because, as has been the case over the last month, the list of things to touch upon grows so quickly every day that it seems almost impossible to retain it all and then translate it into something cogent.

Just off the top of my head there’s…

The recent revelation that the Canadian Armed Forces have stopped the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities because of a report of abuse on the 5th of November of last year despite the fact that last May, after a scandal broke regarding the Canadian transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities that were known for their use of torture, the government claimed that it was taking steps to immediately rectify the situation.

The recently released Manley Report, which, although critical of numerous aspects of the mission in Afghanistan, has basically provided the government with what can only be viewed as a blank cheque with regards to Canadian combat operations in that country. Of course, the report is non-binding, but its ramifications on a political level are extremely convenient. Canada, of course, is only one of three nations involved in direct combat operations in Afghanistan, and of the three represents the smallest contingent. That being the case, our losses, compared to those of the United States and the UK, are wholly disproportionate. The debate, however, remains transfixed on our continued support of the mission’s objectives, to help stabilize the nation and provide it security, even though other members of ISAF, with considerably larger forces in country, continue to refuse to have their contingents involved in direct combat operations. There is also the concern that even though our efforts are aimed at ensuring democratic stability in Afghanistan, that its implementation is, in effect, the representation of Western regional aspirations, and therefore not dissimilar to Soviet regional aspirations in the 70’s when the USSR was responsible for aiding in the supplanting of a pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. Thus, the real test of Afghan democracy will come when the nation has been secured and Western exploitative practices begin in earnest.

That is certainly not to say that the Taliban should be allowed to run rampant and plunge the nation into complete chaos, only that precluding the possibility of negotiations for the purposes of resolution is counter productive. Ultimately, there are always going to be those that support some, if not all, of the Taliban’s agenda, which raises a very important question: must those that do be wholly eliminated before progress can be made? And if they are not, what assurances do we have that there will not be a resurgence in the future that could seriously threaten the stability of the country, even after it possesses a well trained and equipped military? Given that, is it not fair to say that Western military involvement, on even the smallest of levels, will be required in Afghanistan for years to come?

Of course, all of that doesn’t even touch on the realities of the Pakistani frontier and the support covertly supplied those in opposition to the current Afghan government by elements within the Pakistani military establishment itself.

The possibility that Kenya could explode at any moment despite last minute attempts at political reconciliation aimed at stemming violence. As it stands now, the country is already in the early stages of a humanitarian crisis and also on the cusp of what could quickly turn into a genocidal event.

The recent disparity of global markets.

The continuing unrest in Pakistan.

The case of Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, who has been held at the facility since 2002. Khadr was captured at the age of 15 and, as the French Foreign Ministry recently pointed out…

“…all children associated with an armed conflict should be treated accordingly. As a minor at the time of the events, Mr. Khadr must be given special treatment — a point on which there is a universal consensus.”

The Canadian government has refused to intercede in Khadr’s case.

Gaza. While many have taken to illegally entering Egypt so that they can attempt to get food, fuel, and other sundries, Israel’s position remains steadfast, that being that the blockade is a move against the continued rocket attacks emanating from Gaza into Israel. The majority of the United Nations Security Council has labeled the blockade a violation of international humanitarian law and a collective punishment against the entire population, but the United States refuses to support that position without the inclusion of language that supports Israel’s concerns regarding the actions of Palestinian militants. Caught in the middle are, as usual, the 1.5 million residents of Gaza itself.

The firing of Linda Keen, President of The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, hours before she was to appear before a House committee in Ottawa. Keen was fired, according to Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, due to the government’s ‘lack of confidence in her leadership’. This, of course, happened after the Commission’s attempt to have the Chalk River facility closed due to safety concerns and government’s decision to ignore the Commission.

The realities of the sanctions against Iran.

The ruinous economic reality of America’s imperialist adventures.

The frightening resurgence of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

Media attacks on Heath Ledger following his death.

The Jose Padilla affair.

The continued humanitarian crisis unfolding in Somalia.

The Sudanese government’s decision to make Musa Hilal, a man accused of coordinating the Janjiweed militias in Darfur, an advisor to Federal Affairs Minister Abdel Basit Sabderat.

And So Forth

In truth, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Iraq is, of course, absent – primarily recent events in Baquba - as is the ever-evolving telecommunications scandal in the US and the Sibel Edmonds affair, the unrest in Zimbabwe, and events in Chiapas.

Last, but certainly not least, there are also those voices that tend to make excellent arguments on a routine basis, such as Robert Fisk, Stephen Zunes, and (for your viewing pleasure), the always brilliant Chalmers Johnson…

When, in 2001, President Bush announced the adoption of what is now known of The Bush Doctine as official US foreign policy, those who were aware of the policies promoted by a cabal of US neoconservatives throughout the 1990’s knew that it was, in truth, simply The Wolfowitz Doctine, the roots of which lay in Paul Wolfowitz’s 1992 draft of The Defense Planning Guidance commissioned by Dick Cheney, then Secretary Of Defense.

Excerpts of the draft were leaked to The New York Times in March of 1992, causing a controversy regarding US post Cold War foreign policy aims. In short, the draft outlined the unique position that the United States found itself in, that being the only global super power left after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that it should exploit that advantage to ensure that no rival could threaten that position. Thus, the inclusion of the use of preemptive, unilateralist military action became two of the fundamental platforms of the doctrine.

The draft states at one point…

“The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies.”

Following 9/11, the Bush administration adopted The Wolfowitz Doctine as official US foreign policy. At the time, and given the events preceding its adoption, many would overlook the lasting ramifications that it would have on a global scale. The adoption of the doctrine, at its core, opened the door for the preemptive invasion of Iraq, which was a subject tabled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 despite solid evidence at the time of Iraqi complicity. Of course, the world would eventually learn that the government of Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, but with regards to the tenets of the doctrine, culpability was not something that was actually required for purposes of justification. Given the doctrine’s unbounded philosophy, all that was required was the appearance of a regional concern. Even US historical culpability with regards to support for the regime of Saddam Hussein could be fearlessly disregarded. Given the traumatic domestic effects caused by the events of 9/11, the doctrine’s moral amnesia was only amplified.

What is now known as The Bush Doctrine has been official US foreign policy for a little over seven years. Beyond the hot wars that it has produced, it’s implementation has also had far reaching implications regarding the positions of others given its marriage of the ubiquitous threat of global terrorism and the promotion of preemptive action to deal with not only it, but a myriad of other security concerns that involve others that have used the implementation of the doctrine to adopt similar foreign policy positions.

In Wolfowitz’s originally draft, he outlined the continued threat posed by Russia, claiming that they represented the only power on earth that possessed the capability of destroying the United States. Despite this, the current administration has disregarded Russia’s traditional regional concerns and used its influence - politically, covertly, and militarily – to enact the tenets of the doctrine on Russia’s doorstep. It should then therefore come as no surprise when individuals, such as Russian General Yuri Baluyevsk, make statements such as…

“We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand … that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons.”

Sound somewhat familiar in tone? It should, because it’s precisely the same sort of position outlined in The Defense Planning Guidance and, by way of it, The Bush Doctrine. In truth, without the existence of the afore mentioned US foreign policy platforms, the atmosphere in which such statements could be made would not exist, or, at the very least, be dramatically reduced.

Of course, such statements aren’t taken for what they are, which is rhetoric that has become significantly amplified because of the tenets of current US foreign policy and its enactments - Iraq, for example. Wolfowitz was indeed correct when he commented that Russia remains a significant force in Eurasia, but what he failed to take into account was how, if those polices initially outlined in The Defense Planning Guidance were ever instituted, how the Russians would not merely react, but capitalize on the precedents set by them. Thus, because of the inherent arrogance of Wolfowitz’s position, and the transference of the core elements of his initial draft into current US foreign policy, a Pandora’s box has been opened with regards to how others can use the precedents set by The Bush Doctrine to their own advantage.

In between, of course, is the rest of the world, forced to sit on the sidelines and watch while the folly of arrogance dismantles global security.

The Vice President did his best to stall this latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (.pdf) for as long as he could in an attempt to ensure that certain language was not included. Fortunately, given the estimate’s findings, it would appear that the Vice President’s efforts were unsuccessful.

This morning the President claimed that, despite the findings of the estimate, Iran remains a global threat…

“Mr Bush said the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was “an opportunity for us to rally the international community” to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium - a key part of the process in making a nuclear bomb.

“I view this report as a warning signal that they had the programme, they halted the programme,” Mr Bush told a news conference. “The reason why it’s a warning signal is they could restart it.

“Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the know-how to make a nuclear weapon,” Mr Bush said.”

Cue the chorus of right-wing pundits clinging to the belief that just because the intelligence regarding Iraq was utter tripe doesn’t mean that the intelligence regarding Iran is. Then again, that’s what NIE’s are for, and it’s up to the administration that they’re prepared for to use as a basis for engineering policy. In this case, unfortunately, we’re talking about one of the worst administrations in US history, one that has proven its ability to employ falsehoods to enact its foreign policy initiatives.

Hopefully, in this case, the American public will keep their eyes and ears open.

Yesterday, Marjorie Cohn’s piece: Operation Iraqi Freedom Exposed: Bush Negotiates Permanent Presence in Iraq, detailed one of the most overlooked aspects of the Iraqi endgame, the use of that nation as a permanent US military foothold in the Middle East. She is, of course, not the first to suggest it. Since the invasion, it has been one of the most constant views of objective foreign policy experts, even though other issues, such as oil, have overshadowed it. That’s not to say that there hasn’t been a concerted effort to privatize a great deal of Iraqi industry, there certainly has, and that should definitely be taken into account, but the reality remains that since the loss of strategic bases elsewhere, primarily in Saudi Arabia, Iraq has become America’s new regional military frontier. Given that, Iran posses a threat, no matter the specifics.

While the Bush administration has claimed that diplomatic measures will be used to confront Iran, it mustn’t be overlooked that their version of diplomacy involves the implementation of sanctions, the categorization of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and the ongoing construction of an international consensus to isolate the Iranians as much as is possible. Unfortunately, that is not diplomacy, but simply another way to wage war – even more, to ensure it and, in the process, hopefully acquire international support. Thus, it would seem that the only lesson learned from the corruption of intelligence in the past is that there are better ways to go about acquiring the confrontation that you’re after.

A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the recent referendum held in Venezuela with regards to the democratic process. The White House, of course, claimed the outcome a triumph for the Venezuelan people. Ironically, when it comes to the war in Iraq, the White House refuses to even consider popular US opinion whatsoever, with the President even going so far as to claim that he doesn’t care if he lacks the support of the majority of Americans. Democracy, it seems, is thusly entirely dependent on perspective.

The NIE regarding Iran, which will be attacked infinitum no doubt, may very well get lost in the murky waters that the Bush administration has come to comfortably call home. It’s subversion is, in fact, paramount, and if successful will only provides another example of how the office of the President has subverted that portion of the intelligence community that it has been unable to politicize since 9/11.

As for the threat that Iran represents, I have exhaustively confronted that issue numerous times in the past, so use the search feature if you’re interested in delving further.

That said, while on the topic of nuclear weapons and the Middle East, Lew Buttler’s recent piece in the San Francisco Chronicle might be of interest to some of you…

“Many months ago Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, let slip a reference to Israel’s nuclear weapons. While it embarrassed him, it was no surprise to the rest of the world. It has been known for decades that Israel has nukes. Estimates are that there are probably as many as 200 in the Israeli arsenal, including thermonuclear (hydrogen) ones.

What is surprising is that there is almost never any public discussion in the United States, and certainly none in the White House or the Congress, about these weapons. Is there any understanding between Israel and the United States, its principal source of military aid, about their use? If so, does the understanding cover “no first use,” similar to the policy advocated in the United States at the height of the Cold War? What would the United States do if Israel were ever under an attack that might lead it to a nuclear response? Has the United States ever talked with Israel about its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? For Israel, are the weapons more of a danger to its security than a defense?

These have always been critical issues but are doubly important now that the United Nations, with strong U.S. support, is putting intense pressure on Iran not to develop the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Iran is responding that under the nonproliferation treaty, to which it is a party, it has the right to develop nuclear power, and that is all that it is doing. But, as was the case with India and Pakistan, eventually Iran will probably justify having nuclear weapons on the grounds that its sworn enemy, Israel, has them. Now an already tense situation has become worse with Israel’s unacknowledged Sept. 6 air attack on a supposed Syria nuclear installation, and the call by some hawks in this country for U.S. raids on Iranian nuclear facilities.

There is, of course, a long history of nuclear tensions in the Middle East. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactors to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. After the Persian Gulf War, in the 1990s, U.N. inspectors spent nearly seven years in Iraq inspecting its nuclear facilities. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s decision to expel those inspectors began the series of events that led to the United States invading Iraq on the premise that it had weapons of mass destruction. Now, if Iran continues to develop its nuclear capacity, a whole new crisis would develop if Israel tried to destroy Iran’s reactors as it did the Iraqi ones and, presumably, the Syrian installation.

The unspoken basis for U.S. policy about Israel’s nukes seems to be that we don’t want our enemies to have such weapons but we don’t worry as much if our friends, like Israel, Pakistan and India, have them. As for our enemies, the negotiations in North Korea and Libya show that even a “hard line” U.S. administration is willing to offer significant financial and other benefits to persuade them to give up their nuclear ambitions. When, as in the case of Iran, such bribes are not apt to work, then we are willing, more so than our European allies, to exert pressure and even contemplate military action.”

I love the War on Terror. Let’s face it, without it, what would I really have to write about on a daily basis? The world has been plunged into the most ambiguous event in modern history, placing those on all sides – and there is certainly more than one – in positions of ensuring their survival at any price. In that regard, even the perpetuation of the ‘war’ itself represents the survival of radical ideologies, be they those engineered in Washington or in the mountains of southern Afghanistan. Ironically, both existed long before the World Trade Center fell.

Since 9/11, that tragedy has been used to justify actions that, in truth, no sane society would ever permit unless something of that magnitude existed to provide manipulation. Then again, the people of the United States have been kept in the dark for so long with regards to the covert actions of their own country as to render them little more than four-year robots, required to help facilitate the democratic façade. When the DOD and the CIA have both operated outside of the Constitution since their inception without that fact being seriously debated or challenged, what other conclusion is there to reach?

Usury and indoctrination are not solely the tools of religious radicals. In truth, the technique was gleaned from far more experienced employers of that mechanism. And that is not to say that the United States, or even the Soviets, wrote the book on it, as it’s a text that spans centuries. Just that they simply added a chapter or two.

The beauty of the War on Terror it that it is a conflict without sides precisely so that they don’t have to be taken. Sure, the common perception of it is that it’s a war against terrorism, but that is such an impossibly grandiose statement that, were it true, it would require action to be taken all over the world, not just in those nations in which radical Islam exists. In truth, it would also require that action even be taken against those that instituted the War on Terror in the first place.

For those that, following the end of the Cold War, waited patiently for a chance to unleash an imperialistic US foreign policy doctrine steeped in the arrogance of a one world power, and all the benefits that come with it, the War on Terror is tantamount to Christmas 365 days a year. It is a war without rules, without defined goals, without a conclusion. It is a war in which those that are prosecuted by it can also be used as facilitators for its objectives. Take, for example, US relations with Sudan.

As some of you might be aware, the United States officially classified what has taken place in Darfur as genocide. Of course, when one examines what has, and continues to, take place there, there is no question that Khartoum aided the Janjiweed militias that have been largely responsible for what has transpired in Darfur. Khartoum has denied any connection, of course, despite the fact that last year much of the Janjiweed was absorbed into the Sudanese Armed Forces, primarily the Popular Defense Forces and Border Guards.

So what does that have to do with the War on Terror and the United States?

Well, even though the Bush administration has condemned what is taking place in Darfur as genocide, and even gone so far as to impose sanctions against Sudan, they have also been working with the government in Khartoum on initiatives to do with the war in Iraq, primarily focused on infiltrating Salafi Jihadi groups. The sanctions, while real, are soft, and thus meant to placate a world view that is decidedly critical of the Sudanese government’s complicity in Darfur while maintaining its ‘extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan’ – as the Los Angeles times put it in June of this year…

“The relationship underscores the complex realities of the post-Sept. 11 world, in which the United States has relied heavily on intelligence and military cooperation from countries, including Sudan and Uzbekistan, that are considered pariah states for their records on human rights.

“Intelligence cooperation takes place for a whole lot of reasons,” said a U.S. intelligence official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing intelligence assessments. “It’s not always between people who love each other deeply.”

Sudan has become increasingly valuable to the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks because the Sunni Arab nation is a crossroads for Islamic militants making their way to Iraq and Pakistan.

That steady flow of foreign fighters has provided cover for Sudan’s Mukhabarat intelligence service to insert spies into Iraq, officials said.

“If you’ve got jihadists traveling via Sudan to get into Iraq, there’s a pattern there in and of itself that would not raise suspicion,” said a former high-ranking CIA official familiar with Sudan’s cooperation with the agency. “It creates an opportunity to send Sudanese into that pipeline.”

So, in short, you condemn the government of Sudan for being complicit in what you have termed genocide and yet you willingly conduct intelligence operations with them.

That, in a nutshell, defines the War on Terror. Right and wrong have no place in it primarily because no defined enemy has ever been established. At first it was Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, which then grew into an ambiguous global network of terrorists, as Bin Laden’s capture became less likely – and, for all intents and purposes – less of a priority. Actions undertaken in various locations, such as in London, by individuals acting independently of any known or established terrorist group then filled the void, providing the war’s spin doctors the opportunity to place it in an improper context, that being that terrorism is alive and well and not, as in the case of the London attacks, based on racial or religious tensions within a specific society or something undertaken as a response to the US occupation of Iraq, among other things. In a sense, such occurrences are little more than blowback entirely respondent to a reckless and hypocritical US foreign policy doctrine, though they are never reported as such by much of the media. Instead, they remain vague in their purpose, with any door left open that infers a connection to a greater evil.

It is, in truth, difficult to find a historical comparison to the sweeping power provided by the ambiguity of the War on terror. Not even the National Socialists in Germany were gifted such an all-encompassing blank cheque with regards to indoctrination and public subversion. In truth, they would have probably marveled at the unprecedented, manipulative power that it has provided the United States and its allies. In their case, the restriction of civil liberties, etc, was overt, harsh, and decisive. Fear was employed on a much more basic and forceful level - nowhere nearly as subversively as it has been with regards to Western societies since 9/11. The crucial element, of course, is that public cooperation because of that fear has led to the acceptance of something that has not only been globally justified as both necessary and just, but completely open ended without limitation or a definition of finality.

If you do business with those guilty of genocide what does that say about you? There was a time when it would say very little, but given the ability to evoke the term ‘War on Terror’, the rules have changed. A world away, we view what has transpired in Darfur as a massive tragedy, but many, faced with the knowledge that the US government still has a relationship with the Sudanese government that is based on counter-terrorism initiatives, view the latter as being of equal importance. True, what has befallen those innocents in Darfur is horrific, but then again, so was 9/11. And that, when it comes to Western perceptions, is all that need be said. It doesn’t matter that the ratio of deaths is not even closely comparable, because, like it or not, admit it or not, we’re talking about the lives of foreigners in a part of the world that is wholly alien to us.

The War on Terror has amplified the need to ensure our security to a global level, enveloping the lives of others, allowing us to use who we will in attempt to ensure our ends no matter the transgressions of those that would aid us in doing so, or the innocent lives lost in the pursuit.

Like it or not, that truth alone renders the War on Terror already lost, though it will most probably take decades for most to come to terms with it.

In an article in today’s London Times, Tim Ried begins…

“President Bush imposed the harshest sanctions on Iran for a generation and branded its military a supporter of terrorism yesterday, fuelling claims that he is preparing possible air strikes against Tehran.”

I have to be honest; I’m somewhat confused. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush clearly included Iran in his “Axis of Evil”. Thus, the fact that the United States has taken this step doesn’t really come as a surprise to me, especially given the fact that they’ve been politically and covertly maneuvering against the Iranians for some time now. There’s no question that Washington is looking for a confrontation. The only thing that remains to be seen is if the President will act before he leaves office and if his administration can employ the same tactics that it did with regards to Iraq to sway the House into supporting him. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has made her views on Iran very clear, and they are by no means tame either. Thus, most of the Democratic majority, who are centrists by every definition of the word, may very well support a White House led initiative regarding air strikes. Given that the United States has already begun the process of instituting forward operating bases along the Iranian border speaks to the administration’s motives.

In no small way, the administration’s focus on Iran has developed to detract from the disaster in Iraq. It serves as an adjunct that provides the administration leeway with regards to the lack of real political and military successes in Iraq. By claiming that Iranian influence in Iraq to be of significant import places the onus on the Iranians, who were demonized even when a relative moderate was in power. Since Ahmadinejad’s seizure of the Presidency, matters have only deteriorated, though it shouldn’t be overlooked that his ‘victory’ in the 2005 Iranian ‘elections’ was a direct response to what was occurring on Iran’s borders, both situations being the result of a very reckless American foreign policy doctrine.

Secretary of State Rice claimed in testimony before Congress on Wednesday that Iran is…

“perhaps the greatest challenge for American security interests in the Middle East, and possibly around the world.”

We’ve heard those words before. They were used in 2002 and 2003 regarding the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Interestingly, little mention is ever made of Saudi influencing in Iraq, of its support of Sunni insurgent factions, or the fact that a very considerable portion of foreign fighters come from Saudi Arabia, helping bolster the numbers of Iraq’s Salafi Jihadi groups – better known to Westerners as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

There is also the Russian’s to factor into matters, who have remained one of the members of the Security Council, along with China, to continue to deal with Tehran rather openly. Of course, there are other matters regarding Russian-American relations that factor into it as well, and Rice’s comment can’t be discounted as one that doesn’t implicate the Russians as a factor regarding “American security interests in the Middle East, and possibly around the world”.

Now, I’m certainly not giving the Iranians a free pass. I’m sure that they have been covertly involved in Iraq, just as the United States, or any other power, would be were there a conflict raging on their border that could ultimately affect them. As for the nuclear question, I have been through that and would suggest using the search engine if you’re interested in reading my thoughts on that subject.

While the Bush administration has claimed, even after the implementation of these new sanctions, that a diplomatic solution to the problem is their preferred method, it can’t be discounted that there is a reason why eleventh hour diplomacy is being employed, and it has little to do with diplomacy itself. More to the point, it may have far more to do with due diligence on the part of the Bush administration in the event that they have to justify military action to the American people; that they can then claim that all avenues were exhausted despite the fact that they have been goading the Iranians for some time and that the American media has been diligently casting the Iranians in such a negative light as to basically pre-program the domestic psyche that a confrontation with Iran is not simply possible, but inevitable. True, Iranian covert involvement in Iraqi affairs has most likely resulted in the loss of American lives; and while that is certainly of concern, given the regional implications of the US occupation of Iraq, how can anyone think that those in the region would not ultimately involve themselves in some way? The Turkish military has bolstered its forces along the Iraqi frontier, even going so far as to suggest an invasion of northern Iraq itself to deal with cross-border raids by the PKK. At present they are attempting to have a list of high-ranking PKK members extradited from Iraq to Turkey. Of course, the United States is cooperating because it does not want to see the Turks invade northern Iraq, as they have threatened to do. The Turks have also threatened sanctions against parts of Northern Iraq, who receive electricity and other services from Turkey. But the reality is that the PKK will obviously not capitulate to the demands, nor do I believe that sympathetic Kurds in northern Iraq that believe in the ultimate creation of a free Kurdish state will easily betray them.

This where we come to the rather interesting ambiguity of what the sanctions implemented against Iran imply and the reality that exterior factors are playing a very real role in the situation. But before I delve into that, I want to focus on an overlapping issue – the issue of covert military complicity and how it is condemned by nations that have long standing traditions with regards to its use. In this case, I want to use Iran and the United States as examples.

The Hypocrisy Of ‘Might Makes Right’ Covert Military Complicity

The Iranians have been accused of training Shi’ite militants in Iran that then operate inside of Iraq in both an anti-occupational and sectarian manner.

The United States has trained countless paramilitary and militant organizations that have acted in those capacities throughout the world. Their support for a variety of military juntas and dictatorial regimes has also been considerable. One such regime was that of the Shah of Iran itself, who the United States and Great Britain put back into power after the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 50’s attempted to nationalize segments of the Iran’s oil industry.

US covert military support and training is, in fact, globally unprecedented. It knows very little limitation or restriction, operating in economic spheres, such as through numerous aid programs and the underwriting of World Bank loans to secure both privatization rights and military contracts. It has, and continues to, help develop, and by way influence, the intelligence capacities of foreign nations, train irregular and regular forces in nations that benefit their current policy platforms or have lucrative arms agreements with US defense contractors or third parties representing US arms interests. They have trained paramilitary groups, foreign domestic forces, and rogue militant groups that have been guilty of mass killings and disappearances, torture, mass imprisonments, industrial espionage, acts of terrorism, and psychological warfare. They possess a significant capability to manipulate information abroad, to control the flow of information, and employ counter-intelligence operations on a multi-national level.

Compared to this, the Iranians are the tiniest of bugs. While they are responsible for aiding numerous organizations, such as Hezbollah, theirs are operations that, by comparison, are utterly minuscule. Thus, placing things into proper context is obviously of importance, especially when anything that is going to come out of Iran about US covert activities is going to automatically be taken as a lie by the general public.

Iran As A Proxy Issue

Given the growing tensions between the United States and Russia, the use of Iran as a proxy issue is something that shouldn’t be overlooked. The sanctions out in place are focused on Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps. The Russians, on the other hand, (along with China) sell arms to Iran, and thus equip its military.

Today, Russian President Putin claimed that the implementation of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was akin to the introduction of MRBM’s by the Soviet Union into the Western Hemisphere…

“Similar actions by the Soviet Union, when it deployed missiles in Cuba, provoked the Caribbean crisis. For us, technologically, the situation is very similar.”

Of course, he went on to claim that the United States and Russia are allies and that he and Mr. Bush are good friends, but a statement of that magnitude is not made without purpose behind it. Nor are statements regarding the sale of weapons to Iran by the Russians made by the Assistant Secretary of State without purpose.

The two issues are, of course, conjoined, being that the defense shield is being implemented to guard against attacks from nations such as Iran. In fact, Iran has been specifically sited as one of the foremost reasons for the necessity of the shield.

Thus, you have the Russians and Chinese, two of the five permanent Security Council members, that have arms agreements with Tehran – and in the case of Russia have technologically aided in the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program, and the rest of the Council at odds with the Iranian program, sighting it as a threat. Interestingly, the implementation of the defense shield is in nations with which the US has burgeoning military ties and thus refuses to back down from its implementation.

At the end of the day, the five permanent members of the Security Council represent the five largest arms dealers in the world. So basically, this is all just mathematics. You need enemies to ensure return in the business of war, and when an age as politically and militarily ambiguous as the one in which we now find ourselves is ushered in, all bets are off.

Every so often someone speaks a little truth to power and pulls the crimson velvet curtain from the Kabuki Theater that passes itself off as United States foreign policy. The recently elected president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, has done just that. Correa has proclaimed that the United States may renew their lease of Eloy Alfaro Air Force Base in Ecuador on one condition… that Ecuador be allowed to open a military base in Miami…

I’m quite sure that friendly and generous proposition brought down the house at the U.S. Departments of State and Defense…

That Correa sure has some huevos grande, no…?

However, I think he really might have something here, after all anyone who publicly refers to our current president as a “dimwit” must possess a keen sense of judgment. Imagine the precedence this would set… just think of the exciting new investment opportunities from abroad…

Japan could build a naval base in San Francisco, Germany could put a Luftwaffe base smack dab in the middle of Milwaukee, China could test nukes in the Nevada desert… Central Americans could train death squads in Georgia (ummmm… hold it a second, don’t they already do that…?), and in a classic case of imitation being the highest form of flattery, Cuba could have their very own medieval prison in Florida. Seeing as how we are rapidly selling off our country’s resources and infrastructure to anyone holding our increasingly worthless currency, permanent military occupation of the United States might just be the solution to the concerns of our foreign investors… after all, they’d just be looking after their “interests.”

With foreign military occupation keeping order, multinational corporations could come here, privatize our natural resources and employ us en masse… they could pay us slave wages while ignoring environmental and health concerns… (”Get back to work peasant, be thankful you even have a job,” they’d indignantly huff between cigar puffs and cognac sips…) Hell, they could even put some fat, lazy American children to work… And if any of us complain or get out of line or form a union, it’s a bullet to the back of the head or, if we are lucky, a life of abject poverty in some corrugated aluminum shantytown with raw sewage flowing in the streets…

Yum.

How did I not see the incredible positives of being occupied by a foreign military until now?

Surely the need exists for a foreign entity to establish a military presence within our borders… to ensure we follow the Constitution, hold fair and honest elections, abide by habeas corpus, and govern via rule of law… since apparently we cannot seem to handle these tasks ourselves. We could show all the foreign news agencies our purple thumbs to prove we’ve just voted…

If the need arises, perhaps some other nation could set up a secret prison within our borders in order to torture whomever they deem to be a “person of interest,” you know… since we no longer recognize that irrelevant dusty relic known as the Geneva Convention…

Here is an idea… why not have some other country just dream up several off the wall accusations based upon thin “evidence,” whip their populace into a bloodthirsty fury and then invade our shores, overthrow our leaders, convict them in a kangaroo court, and then start a sectarian war… just think of the money they could make by arming all sides to the teeth…

No, you say? Not a good idea?

Why doesn’t Iran ask the IAEA to have a look into our nuclear program? After all, ours is the only nation inhumane enough to have actually used one of the damned things…

Here is some fat to chew on… While England, Russia, China, Italy and France also have military bases outside their territory, the United States is responsible for 95% of foreign bases on earth. According to U.S. government figures, the U.S. military maintains some 737 bases in 130 countries, although many estimate the actual number to be closer to 1,000. In short, we have our greasy mitts all over the place…

In all our self righteousness and arrogance, rarely do we American citizens consider what it is to see a foreign tank on our street, a foreign fighter in our skies, a foreign ship in our harbor…

My personal epiphany arrived over 20 years ago when I was a soldier stationed in Italy… My Italian Socialist girlfriend let me know in no uncertain terms that I was not in her country to protect her, but to protect my country’s interests… I can only imagine the idiotic bovine expression that must have been on my face when she said that, because up until that point I was a Reagan warrior and I had NO IDEA what she was talking about…

Moooo….

Ecuador wants military base in Miami
Mon Oct 22, 2007 By Phil Stewart
NAPLES (Reuters) - Ecuador’s leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador’s Pacific coast.

“So, then the other South American countries don’t have good relations with the United States because they don’t have military bases? That doesn’t make any sense.”

This morning’s confirmed it – sick. Probably bronchitis, so I put myself on antibiotics. The voice is hoarse and so forth. Don’t worry though if you have tickets to upcoming shows – I’ll figure a way to pull them off.

Anyway, on to more pressing issues…

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has taken the cake. In fact, she’s taken it and the bakery in which it was made.

Her and DOD grand-puba Bob Gates have been admonishing the Russians of late, the proposed Eastern European BMD shield being the impetus for many of the administration’s newfound concerns. One of them, according to Rice, is Russia’s increased military assertiveness – an interesting observation considering that the administration of which she is a part has set one of the most dangerous unilateral global military presidents in modern history.

Rice asserted in a recent interview…

“I think the rapid growth in Russian military spending definitely bears watching. And frankly, some of the efforts – for instance, Bear flights in areas that we haven’t see for a while – are really not helpful to security.”

One would think instituting a missile defense system on Russia’s doorstep wouldn’t be helpful to security either, but who is anyone to question the motives of the United States? Compared to US military spending, the Russians spend pittance – nowhere near the $650 billion plus dollars that the US will spend this year alone. In short, you can’t set a global precedent with regards to military proliferation and not expect others to follow suit. That’s simply ridiculous, though not surprising given the complete diplomatic incompetence of the Bush administration, not to mention the utterly arrogant presumptuousness of the Bush Doctrine itself.

Today is Columbus Day… which RAISES the question…

Is it the holiday marking the anniversary of the October 12, 1492 arrival of Christopher Columbus to the Americas?

Is it the benign holiday that Italian-Americans celebrate in honor of their heritage?

Or do we let truth get in the way… Is it a day commemorating the begin of a cruel and horrific genocide, the effects of which are still felt to this day?

We have come to learn that one man’s holiday is another man’s day of dread… for example; May 15th is celebrated as the date of Israel’s independence, while it is mourned by Palestinians as Al Nakba, meaning the “catastrophe.”

History is written by the victor, by the oppressor, by the slave owner…

Many people today don’t want honest answers insofar as honest means unpleasant or disturbing, They want a soft answer that turneth away anxiety.” Louis Kronenberger - (1904-1980)

What we were taught in elementary school was essentially a fairy tale… and correct me if I am wrong; I imagine some version of this fairy tale is taught even today… there is great resistance among various influential groups to keep teaching these fairy tales to our children… why let truth get in the way of nationalistic fervor…

Recently there has been much controversy over the attempt to “soften up” Japan’s role in World War II by some of that country’s educators and intellectuals.

There exists a power structure which does not invite question or revision. “History is what we say it is” becomes a foundation in order that future generations can commit crimes of imperialism in perpetuity, based upon falsehoods of their forefathers. We base the justification of our current crimes upon the lies of the past. The only way to bring this insanity to a halt is to tell the unvarnished truth.

I was planning on launching into one of my usual angry diatribes this morning… about the truth surrounding Columbus’ “discovery” of the Americas… In my research I found something far more intelligent and eloquent than anything I could have written…

I came upon a brilliant article by a man I have come to admire… Thom Hartmann… As far as I am concerned, he is one of the only talk radio hosts worth listening to… I have often commented to friends that listening to his show is akin to attending a grand university level socio-economics, history, psychology, anthropology, political science class, all wrapped into one… His book “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: The Fate of the World and What We Can Do Before its Too Late,” helped inspire Leonardo DiCaprio’s new movie The 11th Hour. I suggest checking him out if you are into that sort of thing…

www.thomhartmann.com

Without further ado…

Columbus Day - As Rape Rules Africa and American Churches Embrace Violent ‘Christian’ Video Games

by Thom Hartmann

“Gold is most excellent; gold constitutes treasure; and he who has it does all he wants in the world, and can even lift souls up to Paradise.”

– Christopher Columbus, 1503 letter to the king and queen of Spain.

“Christopher Columbus not only opened the door to a New World, but also set an example for us all by showing what monumental feats can be accomplished through perseverance and faith.”

–George H.W. Bush, 1989 speech

If you fly over the country of Haiti on the island of Hispaniola, the island on which Columbus landed, it looks like somebody took a blowtorch and burned away anything green. Even the ocean around the port capital of Port au Prince is choked for miles with the brown of human sewage and eroded topsoil. From the air, it looks like a lava flow spilling out into the sea.

These are all dimensions, after all, our history, which we celebrate on Columbus Day. But if we wake up, and we help the world wake up, it need not be our future.

Excerpted and slightly edited from “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: The Fate of the World and What We Can Do Before It’s Too Late,” a book by Thom Hartmann which helped inspire Leonardo DiCaprio’s new movie The 11th Hour. Hartmann’s most recent book is Cracking The Code: How to Win Hearts, Change Minds, and Restore America’s Original Vision.