Is supply and demand for labor enough to cause wage increases following income tax increases?

Jack doesn't buy it:

"(Your follow up)  looks good as far as it goes but it's still based on the assumption that the labor market exists in a free market, supply and demand environment. This is not the case. 

The buying power of companies is disproportionate to the selling power of labor, particularly in an environment where there are few if any legal barriers to exporting jobs overseas. Rather than taxes affecting labor, oligopoly control of the labor market is the chief determinant. Companies keep a comfortable (to them) level of unemployment in order to convince labor that it should be grateful to have a job and therefore willing to accept a lower wage.

The correlation between taxes and wages, because of the invalid free market assumption, may be no more valid than the correlation of sun spot activity and the level of the stock market which held for quite a number of years. Just because things happen together does not mean they are related in a cause and effect relationship."

If I read this right, Jack asserts that because of the overwhelming dominance of business in our economy, there isn't a meaningful marketplace for labor in the US in which supply and demand forces interact to then respond to changes in tax policy, which is the basis of Hartmann's argument on raising taxes. The ability of companies to outsource labor takes away any bargaining power labor may have, even in response to pressure to get paid more if taxes were raised.

 

Hartmann argues that there is a marketplace for labor that influences wages, and he doesn't hedge it in the context of international labor competition or decreased unionism, as I did previously:

As economist David Ricardo pointed out in 1817 in the “On Wages” chapter of his book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, take-home pay is also generally what a person will work for. Employers know this: Ricardo’s “Iron Law of Wages” is rooted in the notion that there is a “market” for labor, driven in part by supply and demand.

He continues with the points that I summarized in my original post on this topic, that if taxes are raised and they take a bigger bite of the paycheck, the worker will seek a raise, or possibly change jobs. The wage data support some relationship between taxation and wages in that within a year or two of tax increases, wages do start to increase. 

But what is the mechanism for this and will it work in today's job market as described by Jack?

Is there a way these supply and demand forces can work today, or must we wait for some other economic conditions to re-emerge before raising taxes could have any wage-raising effect like may have happened in the past?

We can consider a few basic things about the labor market:

1. If there was no demand for labor, then there would be 100% unemployment. We are seeing a statistical 9.4% rate with a much higher actual rate when those who've given up looking are figured in. Yet even with those dismal numbers, some people can find jobs. Some employers are looking for help, or at least keeping their help. There is some domestic demand for labor now, even in the Great Recession.
   
2. If there was no significant demand for labor, anyone who was even employed at all would be paid the federal minimum wage only and not much more. We do, however, see many workers paid more than minimum wage. They have better education, more specialized skills. So for some workers at least, there must be some domestic demand.
   
3. Some jobs can't be outsourced. Most jobs in the US today are in the service sector. If you want to sell someone shoes in Boston, they could buy them online and take the chance they don't fit, or they could go to a local store, try them on and make sure they fit. That local store will need someone at least present to manage it and so a job that won't be outsourced to another nation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says this sector is where most domestic job growth will come, suggesting continued demand for service labor here in the US.
   
4. There is more demand for some workers than for others. Those with scarce skills, such as computer scientists, are needed badly in the US. We have to recruit from other countries to find enough to fill the available openings in the US.
   
5. So, if income taxes were raised on US computer scientists and this caused them to seek better paying jobs to offset the bigger share of taxes, wage inflation would appear in that part of the labor market. So I would assert that even today, wage inflation could occur and then lead to wage increases, at least for portions of the labor market where there is enough demand.
   

We could reasonably say then that wage inflation could occur even in today's domestic labor market for at least in-demand workers, but is the labor market so bad now that upward pressure from higher taxation would not lead to offsetting wage increases in general? Would higher taxes only lead to wage increases for in-demand job sectors and just squeeze everyone else more? 

Consider this economic mechanism: Could higher taxes for all lead to wage inflation for in-demand workers, who would then spend more and so generally increase consumer demand and then increase the need for more workers in less in-demand sectors and then hiring/job changing would follow in those sectors leading to across the board wage increases? (Real trickle-down economics..?)

Perhaps this is the mechanism through which "Ricardo's Iron Law" functions and which also explains the lag in raising wages after a rise in taxation. In-demand labor gets raises first, then their consumer demand rises (these middle-class workers spend their raises vs the wealthy who save income increases, see Hartmann's article) and consumer demand rises, hiring/job changing increases, demand for labor goes up and then wages rise, even for less in-demand workers.

We know from the economy we see before us that lowering taxes does not raise wages or create consumer demand, nor create incentive to invest in jobs by the investor class, or automatically create jobs. Faced with this ongoing realty, vs "common sense" assumptions about tax reduction and prosperity that are not holding up, I think that eventually more people will become willing to give progressively raising taxes a chance, to see what happens. 

I would not be surprised if it leads to wage growth and increased demand. It would lead to less wealth for the rich, so they would oppose it (and continue to do everything they can to make sure no one even considers this idea) but if enough people are willing to risk it, we could see all of; better incomes for working people, better funding of good government, such as public schools and colleges, a reduced budget deficit and a reduced national debt as well. 

We would have a better America for everyone, including the rich.

What matters most for me is having hope for seeing improvement in the quality of life for my kids in the future USA. This is what I think our current leaders are frittering away with their tax cutting, gutting of reasonable and needed government and endless war spending.

What do you think kind reader? 

Send comments to jtcorey(at)gmail.com, or comment below.


- U.

How do supply and demand for labor cause wages to rise if taxes are raised?

Jack Silvia wrote:

"When taxes are raised, increases in wages soon follow because of the interaction of supply and demand for labor."

You need to elaborate on this. How does an increase in taxes raise the demand for labor? Conservatives argue that raising taxes, particularly on the investment class, reduces the demand for labor. What is your argument against this position?

======================================================

After writing a long response, I realized it should have been shorter, so here's the meat and potatoes to start and the full course to follow. I'll try to be more succinct in the future... - U.


Short answer excerpt:
Regarding the conservative view that higher taxes reduce demand for labor we can see from current economic conditions that lower taxes do not cause the wealthy to add employees to their companies and create jobs. There are trillions of dollars on profits sitting in business bank accounts with no incentive to hire more employees. Large corporations have had a banner last year or two, but it isn't leading to hiring.

Writer Dave Johnson suggests that we focus on improving demand rather than expecting tax cuts to cause companies to create jobs. It's the other way around. Demand causes companies to add jobs:

Businesses Want To Kill Jobs, Not Create Them
Many people wrongly think that businesses create jobs. They see that a job is usually at a business, so they think that therefore the business "created" the job. This thinking leads to wrongheaded ideas like the current one that giving tax cuts to businesses will create jobs, because the businesses will have more money. But an efficiently-run business will already have the right number of employees. When a business sees that more people are coming in the door (demand) than there are employees to serve them, they hire people to serve the customers. When a business sees that not enough people are coming in the door and employees are sitting around reading the newspaper, they lay people off. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

Businesses have more incentives to eliminate jobs than to create them. Businesses in our economy exist to create profits, not jobs. This means the incentive is for a business to create as few jobs as possible at the lowest possible cost. They also constantly strive to reduce the number of people they employ by bringing in machines, outsourcing or finding other ways to reduce the payroll. This is called "cutting costs" which leads to higher profits. The same incentive also pushes the business to pay as little as possible when they do hire. (It also pushes businesses to cut worker safety protections, cut product quality, cut customer service, "externalize" costs by polluting, etc.)

Again, there is pressure to cut wages to increase profits, but if a company can't get workers, except at a higher cost due to the level of taxation (Hartmann's argument), they will have to pay more and so workers will have more to spend and the demand will develop, creating more jobs in a positive cycle, like we had during more prosperous times, when taxes were higher.

====================================================

Here's the long version. :)
Hartmann describes this process as employers learning what employees will accept as pay in the labor market given whatever the current level of taxation is, otherwise they lose labor to other employers. If a total salary was $75,000 with an income tax of $18,000, the take-home pay is $57,000. If an employee stays with this arrangement, then the employer has an idea of what the current market is for that labor. If income taxes are raised, the take-home salary might decrease to $52,000 and the first effect is for the employee to feel the pinch. Throughout a population of workers, this will have the effect of them looking for other work that pays more, to offset the increased taxes and increase their take-home back to what it was. Over time with all labor acting in this way to some degree, upward pressure on wages develops.

Hartmann refers to Alan Greenspan calling this "wage inflation." From a Wall Street point of view, a very bad thing, labor costing more. From a labor point of view these higher wages as taxes are increased are a good thing. As wages increase, a new equilibrium develops in the economy where working people have more money in their pockets to spend and this stimulates the economy where "trickle-down" economics does not.

Conversely, as taxes are lowered, the initial take-home pay would initially be more, but then an employee might might accept a pay cut because they are still taking home enough to pay for their expenses. But this starts downward pressure on wages to reduce the cost of labor resulting in lower wages and less disposable income for working people over time. Higher taxes put upward pressure on wages. Lower taxes reduce that upward pressure and so wages start to drop.

Hartmann's article describes that historically the data support that when taxes are raised, wages rise, as taxes are cut, wages begin to fall. Taxes and wages apparently find an equilibrium at whatever level taxes are at. At one equilibrium, workers have more money to spend compared to costs, such as housing. At another taxation equilibrium, workers have to borrow to keep up the middle class lifestyle and this is the pattern we have seen in the last few decades.

Hartman is trying to uncover the specific economic process that has helped to lower or stagnate wages in the US labor market since the 1980s. I didn't have room to discuss this in the Op-ed, but I think that tax policy is part of the process, and what Hartmann does not discuss (likely for the same space reasons) is how American labor is also now competing with lower cost labor overseas and how unions have been weakened during this time as well, reducing upward pressure on wages in general. So together, tax policy, international competition and decreased unionism contribute to stagnant wages. Raising taxes would help toward raising wages, based on Hartmann's argument, even given the other factors, like international labor competition.

Regarding the conservative view that higher taxes reduce demand for labor we can see from current economic conditions that lower taxes do not cause the wealthy to add employees to their companies and create jobs. There are trillions of dollars on profits sitting in business bank accounts with no incentive to hire more employees. Large corporations have had a banner last year or two, but it isn't leading to hiring.

Writer Dave Johnson suggests that we focus on improving demand rather than expecting tax cuts to cause companies to create jobs. It's the other way around. Demand causes companies to add jobs:

Businesses Want To Kill Jobs, Not Create Them
Many people wrongly think that businesses create jobs. They see that a job is usually at a business, so they think that therefore the business "created" the job. This thinking leads to wrongheaded ideas like the current one that giving tax cuts to businesses will create jobs, because the businesses will have more money. But an efficiently-run business will already have the right number of employees. When a business sees that more people are coming in the door (demand) than there are employees to serve them, they hire people to serve the customers. When a business sees that not enough people are coming in the door and employees are sitting around reading the newspaper, they lay people off. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

Businesses have more incentives to eliminate jobs than to create them. Businesses in our economy exist to create profits, not jobs. This means the incentive is for a business to create as few jobs as possible at the lowest possible cost. They also constantly strive to reduce the number of people they employ by bringing in machines, outsourcing or finding other ways to reduce the payroll. This is called "cutting costs" which leads to higher profits. The same incentive also pushes the business to pay as little as possible when they do hire. (It also pushes businesses to cut worker safety protections, cut product quality, cut customer service, "externalize" costs by polluting, etc.)

Again, there is pressure to cut wages to increase profits, but if a company can't get workers, except at a higher cost due to the level of taxation (Hartmann's argument), they will have to pay more and so workers will have more to spend and the demand will develop, creating more jobs in a positive cycle, like we had during more prosperous times, when taxes were higher.

Another source that suggests that tax policy has negatively impacted working people comes from an article at Mother Jones by Kevin Drum.

Drum writes that researchers Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have found that changes in tax policy since 1979 have resulted in less overall wealth for the bottom 80% of wage earners and much greater wealth for the top 20%, especially the top 1%. Here's an interesting graphic:



This set of data suggests that if tax policy had been left as it was in 1979, most working people would be better off today and most wealthy people would still be wealthier, but they wouldn't be quite as wealthy. This higher level of taxation would have lifted all the boats. Lowered taxation since the 1980's has resulted in an almost identical transfer of wealth from the bottom 80% of earners to the top 1% based on these data, lifting only the yachts.

This supports the argument that tax policy impacts how wealth is distributed in an economy. As taxes have been lowered the wealthy have gained significantly while income for working people has stagnated, likely through the process outlined by Hartmann.

Sociologist William Domhoff has a terrific fact-filled site:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/

One section is about wealth inequality and this graphic helps illustrate how much the gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us has grown just since 1990, never mind since 1979.


We could examine the exact process for a long time, but I think it's fair to say that there is a connection between tax policy and how wealth is distributed. It's why the very wealthy are so concerned about lowering taxes. Lower taxes re-distribute wealth upward. They feel it's more "fair" but the economy slows and becomes dysfunctional for the majority that it is supposed to benefit. Higher (progressive) taxes re-distribute it downward and then demand grows, jobs are created and the economy functions better, for more people. One re-distribution helps build a strong and stable middle class. The other destroys it and creates a less desirable country to live and work in. One functions for just a few. The other functions for everyone.

If we continue with the current policy, which has for example, some capital gains taxed at a maximum of 15% where working labor is taxed higher (25 to 35%) we have a situation like in pre-revolutionary France where the tax burden was mostly on the Third Estate (working people) and that lead to instability and violent revolution.

We should be wiser than that, but our leaders haven't shown much wisdom during my lifetime, so we'll need to talk about better ideas and try to get our leaders to listen and change things before the economy and society completely fall apart.

Keep those messages coming.

- Universal

My good friend, Dr. Jonathan Corey, recently had another Op-Ed piece printed in the Newport Daily News (RI). This time, the topic was taxation. Please read on and send more emails.

- Universal

It’s time to end taboo against raising taxes on rich

Newport Daily News Op-ed Wednesday, January 12, 2011. Page A7.

During an era of increased economic productivity, incomes for the middle and working classes have remained relatively flat, while income and wealth for the highest paid have grown almost exponentially. Why aren't economic growth and tax breaks for the wealthy resulting in more widespread prosperity?

It's time to speak the taboo. The rich pay too little in taxes.

A recent article "Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts" by Thom Hartmann, an excerpt from his new book "Rebooting the American Dream: 11 Ways to Rebuild Our Country," is helpful in understanding how wealth inequity in the U.S. has increased, why it is a problem, and how we can save the American middle class. The article can easily be found online via a Google search.

Hartmann's article reveals key understandings about taxation that we seldom hear about. One is that raising taxes affects the rich differently than the rest of us. The rich are defined by Hartmann as those making over about $400,000 per year (the top one percent of the population, worth about $19.1 trillion, averaging $8.3 million per household, controlling about 33 percent of the total wealth). They have such a surplus that even with a high income tax rate (above 50 percent) their spending stays about the same. With a low tax rate, as we see today, the surplus does not “trickle down” and is often sent to overseas banks or investments, not contributing to improvement of the domestic economy.

For the rest of us, historical data show that when taxes are cut, wages drop. When taxes are raised, increases in wages soon follow because of the interaction of supply and demand for labor and so the tax cost is eventually offset. Then the higher wages are spent here, stimulating demand, creating jobs, raising the general standard of living and so meeting the needs of the People, as we experienced in the 1950s to 1970s when taxes were much higher.

Additionally, when taxes are raised, individuals see a closer connection between the cost of government and their taxes and so government actually slows in growth or shrinks, such as during the Clinton Administration. Together, raising taxes and shrinking government helps to balance the Federal Budget. Compare that to the growth of government following the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, where government grew and then borrowed heavily to offset lost tax revenues, creating the multi-trillion-dollar national debt we face today.

There are more reasons to raise taxes on the wealthy. Wealth inequality is normal, but at some point, it becomes dysfunctional for any society or economy. For example, when a relatively small number of people control too much of the total wealth in an economy, their participation in markets skews them, and the principles that drive markets cease to function because too few people are making buying and selling decisions where many more people should be. This leads to speculation, market bubbles, collapse and economic instability. With excessive inequity the impoverished remainder of the population doesn't control enough of the income to spend on consumer goods to keep demand up and create jobs. It's the downward cycle we are experiencing now.

Current tax policy is re-creating a monied aristocracy that our Founding Fathers were wary of, for good reason. They pursue a self-serving agenda not conducive to the greater good. Today we’re seeing pressure to cut wages and pensions, cut spending on unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security, and to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for average Americans, while it’s unseemly to even suggest that the wealthy also sacrifice by paying their share as they easily did in the past.

At some point, wealth inequality must be restrained for the greater good. To make an extreme example, imagine if Bill Gates had all the money in the economy and the rest of us were left to fight over the last dollar. In such a situation, we would likely agree that something should be done. So the question is, at what point between where we are now and further inequality do we as citizens in a society reasonably decide that too much wealth inequality exists and that it's time to reduce it to bring the economy back into a functional realm that meets the needs of the People?

We must progressively raise income taxes to a reasonable level to raise wages, reduce the counterproductive impact of wealth inequity, balance the Federal Budget, and restore funding for infrastructure, education and other necessary elements of widespread prosperity that good government fosters. This will get our economy functioning again for more than just the wealthy.

--------------------------------

Jonathan Corey has a doctoral degree in behavioral science from the University of Rhode Island. He is an instructor of sociology at Bristol Community College. His research interests include, among other topics, the Psychology of Peace and Conflict.

My good friend, Jonathan Corey, encouraged me to re-start this blog, so I'm starting off by posting an Op-Ed piece he had published in the Newport Daily News in Early September, 2010.

Please send letters and comments.

- Universal

=============================================================

Published in Newport Daily News Editorial Page September, 2010

The study of the Psychology of Peace and Conflict can provide a useful vocabulary to help us better understand how individuals and leaders think about conflict and reconciliation as well as provide insight into why some individuals and groups respond to conflict differently than others.

One key term for understanding how individuals respond in conflict and reconciliation situations is “bias” which is displaying attitudes for or against something. Group bias is a particularly important type, because it combines strong individual self-identification with a group with strong negative beliefs about out-group members. For example, an individual might identify himself or herself as a vegetarian and also hold negative views toward meat-eaters. Another person may think that Fords are the only kind of car worth driving and that anyone who drives a Chevy must be deluded. Simple experiments in a classroom can show that even a temporary and mundane group identification, such as thinking that one belongs to a group who over-estimates dots on a screen as opposed to a group who under-estimates the number of dots, will lead to negative attributions from one group toward the other.

Research has also shown that bias makes it easier for groups to support violence toward one another. By contrast, other research has shown that creating conditions in which opposing groups work together toward a common goal can reduce the sense of group bias and negative attribution, and so can reduce the likelihood of violence between the groups.

Type of personality may also impact how individuals respond to events. A personality type called “Powerlessness” can be identified by a brief questionnaire and those who are strong in this personality type tend to think that they cannot affect social and governmental problems. Interestingly, this personality type then frequently tends to become involved in activism of various kinds such as involvement in protests.

Another personality type, called “Right-wing authoritarianism” (RWA), was first outlined in 1950 by Theodor Adorno and later by Robert Altemeyer. This personality type can be identified using a questionnaire with items like: “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important values children should learn.” Respondents rate their agreement or disagreement on a numeric scale. The key characteristics of RWA are submission to authority, conventional thinking, and support for authoritarian aggression. The RWA scale has been tested many times and has been found to be very reliable. It is interesting to note that investigators have not been able to find a "Left-wing Authoritarianism" personality type.

High RWA individuals seem to submit to authority figures that may be identified as another personality type known as “Social Dominance Orientation” (SDO). Individuals with this personality type, also identified by a simple questionnaire, feel that they should lead others and that their particular group should dominate others.

Altemeyer once ran a “quasi” experiment in which he had students take part in an international relations simulation game conducted over three evenings at a college campus. He first had many students take the RWA and SDO surveys and then purposefully selected mostly low RWA students to play one night, then some high RWA students played also another night and then some high SDO students were also included the third night. He found that the mostly low RWA group made modest progress toward reducing conflict and improving living conditions globally. The game with the high RWA students resulted in higher levels of international conflict. The night with the high SDO students would have resulted in global nuclear war if the game had not run out of time.

This is far from an exhaustive review of relevant terms, and there is much more research available on these and related topics than can be discussed here. How citizens and leaders think and act about justice, peace and conflict should be influenced in part by knowledge of psychological concepts including group bias and personality types as part of understanding how we tend to think and act on the individual and group levels. From this we can also better understand our responses to events on the national or international levels.

Decisions about who leads us, and about the policies leaders devise and execute, should be informed by research about study of the Psychology of Peace and Conflict. This knowledge about our own thinking will make a difference over time in our national responses to conflict so that we may again have some hope for a future that includes periods of real peace with prosperity, periods that have become increasing rare for the United States in the past century, even until today.

============================================================

The Value in Valuing a Significant Middle Class


The difference between the so-called "First World" and the

so-called "Second and Third Worlds" can be summed up by the presence or

absence of a significant middle class.

These ordinal terms are specious to begin with, and perhaps

"industrialized" or "developing" worlds may be better terms to use, but

if we look at the US as a "first world" nation, we can observe a

relatively stable social and economic structure being in place. Rioting

over basic needs such as food, jobs or basic social justice happens from

time to time but we could view those kinds of occurrences as highly

unique. We have poverty, but it is currently experienced among a

minority of individuals representing all ethnic groups in some quantity.

If we take this very simplistic description as a snapshot of the current

status of the US, we could point to the larger number of people who

don't fall into the categories of either extreme wealth or poverty as

"middle class" and note that this large segment of the American

population focuses much energy and time on concerns such as gaining and

advancing in employment and housing, gaining access to education and

having some access to recreation and religion if desired, all with the

expectation of personal safety and potential social or economic

advancement. Such benign activity is what people around the world dream

of as a goal for themselves and their family, to not have to worry about

clean water, finding housing, or being able to access education or work.

When elites begin to view this bucolic middle class life as expendable

and not needing or deserving of support, (such as when Congress approves

laws such as NAFTA which destroy jobs here and also in other nations

such as Mexico, driving the illegal immigration problem) they fail to

see the stability advantages that a broad middle class brings to a

society. As jobs and economic stability are steadily lost, the middle

class shrinks and instability eventually increases. Enlightened

self-interest should encourage those in power to strive toward a society

that values a large middle class as a means to ensure stability for

themselves. 

Why would some elites see the middle class as expendable? Just World

thinking and Social Darwinism may help explain. 

If enough elites see the world as “just,” that is that “people get what

they deserve,” then they may over time influence the development of

government and society toward a state in which everyone is “on your

own.” This belief, which could be labeled in America as “rugged

individualism,” can be expressed through decreased social spending which

slowly erodes programs which could help people enter or remain in the

middle class.

“I got mine, you get yours.” “Survival of the fittest.” “I am wealthy,

therefore I must deserve that. Conversely, you are poor, therefore you

must be dumb and lazy, and so since the world is a just place, poverty

is what you deserve, and I will not share what I have to seek to undo

this inevitable process.” This may be the kind of social darwinist

thinking underlying our leaders’ lack of understanding about the

benefits of a strong middle class and so their lack of policy support to

sustain a strong middle class in America.

Under this social darwinism taxes may go down, but social needs go unmet

and some individuals steadily cease to be able to function as “middle

class” and so we see annual reports from the government itself reporting

millions gradually slipping from middle class status into that of

poverty. And as this poverty increases, we will see increased social and

economic instability such as nations like Brazil experience with its

small upper and middle classes and very large numbers who live in

poverty. Already America has some indicators of degrading public health,

such as infant mortality rates at about what some “third world” nations

experience.

What we should be doing is valuing what a middle class does for society

and seeking to grow it, rather than sacrificing it on the alter of

globalism. At the same time we should be seeking to grow middle classes

worldwide through fair trade and support of improved educational systems

globally. Instead, our nation focuses on ongoing war and defense

spending. Resources are wasted, and the elites pursuing these policies

are self-satisfied because “the world is a just place, and I must

deserve this power that I have, and those who are poor must deserve it…”

We have the ability to do better and I think we need to get an

understanding of this concern across to our nation, especially those at

the top who, whether we like the idea or not, have the power to

influence these trends.

Ending a Century of US Imperialism

I am sure that some readers might see me as coming across as some kind of liberal softy on the issues, but I am trying to be rational and am seeking to identify the most widely beneficial paths, among numerous imperfect options, to deal with the issues we face.

Our leaders in contrast take the path of what will most immediately and directly benefit US policy (and create profit for connected contractors and corporations), and negative effects upon those it actually affects are minimized and ignored. Their approach often literally leaves a "scorched Earth" in its wake. Iraq is only the latest example of this deadly style of decision making. (See also Haiti, the Philippines...)

Reading this article below by retired Lt. General Greg Newbold of the US Marine Corps, I guess my point of view on this war at this point is not so far off from what others think. But for different reasons.

The policies of this (and previous administrations) are contrary to our American and human values. Unlike this author, who blames our failures in Iraq on policy and strategy at the top, I criticize our leaders actions because the violent options they choose to follow are unable to create the peaceful outcomes they claim to be seeking.

No matter the strategic choices made, this effort cannot succeed because it is unjust and it is unjust because it is violent.

For this to succeed, we must be willing to do as the ancient Assyrians, Egyptians, Israelites, Greeks and Romans of the ancient world did. We would have to slay every able bodied man and boy, impale them on stakes for the world to see, pile up their skulls by the city gates and sell their women and children into slavery. That is how conquest worked in the ancient world, absolute terror and domination. Peace and justice were not valued. These ideas hardly existed at all. The ends (domination) matched the means (war).

The idea of military domination cannot work long-term in the modern post enlightenment world.

Because our modern means (war and violence) do not match our modern ends (peace, justice and real security), we cannot achieve the ends, and so because our leaders constantly choose violence, peace and justice is constantly pushed further away. This is not because peace and justice is unrealistic, it is because we keep allowing our leaders to fool us into thinking their choice, violence, makes sense.

We need to wake up.

Our modern version of conquest is a "cleaned up conquest" which cannot work, and since the ancient form is obviously evil, our logical enlightened course is to create a system of international relations based on law and not the raw power of state monopolized violence. This is why applying principles of nonviolence is crucial to re-inventing how we conduct international relations, now.

The author below was on the inside. He knows what happened to bring this war about because he was there. This isn't some liberal guess based on media accounts. Yet it's too bad Newbold still thinks that throwing more good violence after bad makes sense. The cycle must stop.

From the very beginning, I said we were being fooled, and some people thought I was way off. The passage of time is showing that to be suspicious of our leaders was, and still is, the wise position to take if you don't want to be fooled... again.

Universal

ps. Check the link on the Philippines. There are many similarities between that war between Filipinos and the US from 1899 - 1902 and the current one in Iraq. There are invasions, scorching of whole towns, torture, manipulation of the press, scapegoating of low level soldiers. It's amazing how many parallels there are between that first war in which the US extended its power outward and the current one in which we are engaged today as we seek to extend the "American Century."

---

Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go --
by Greg Newbold (Lt. Gen., USMC, Ret.)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1181587,00.html


A military insider sounds off against the war and the "zealots" who pushed it

"I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough ..."

Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. US Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented, and found himself marginalized. Lieutenant General Greg Newbold of the United States Marines, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:


Sunday, April 9, 2006 -- In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam.

Yet to those of us who were truly counterculture -- who became career members of the military during those rough times -- the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of, and casual about, war lead us into another one, and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement.

It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again.

From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness, and therefore a party, to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq -- an unnecessary war.

Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable.

I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat -- al-Qaeda.

I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public.

I've been silent long enough.

I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood.

The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice.

With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak.

Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important.

Before the antiwar banners start to unfurl, however, let me make clear -- I am not opposed to war. I would gladly have traded my general's stars for a captain's bars to lead our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

And while I don't accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view -- at the moment -- is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts.

If, however, the Iraqis prove unable to govern, and there is open civil war, then I am prepared to change my position.

I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship.

To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting.

The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department.

My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results.

Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard.

When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent.

The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan (for different reasons than this author considers - U.) was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort.

There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public, and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post. Army General John Abizaid, head of Central Command, has been forceful in his views with appointed officials on strategy and micromanagement of the fight in Iraq -- often with success. Marine Commandant General Mike Hagee steadfastly challenged plans to underfund, understaff and underequip his service as the Corps has struggled to sustain its fighting capability.

To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress -- from both parties -- defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs, and heard cautionary tales before the invasion, from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni, but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq.

So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them.

It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security, but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly.

And that we won't be fooled again.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner ElBaradei agrees with Envision Something Better posting from August 2005.

In a New York Times article set for publication on December 11, 2005, International Atomic Energy Agency General Director Mohamed ElBaradei calls for a new strategy for reducing the threat of nuclear war in general, and the threat posed by Iran specifically. In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, ElBaradei describes "feelings of insecurity and humiliation" as being at the root of why nations turn to nuclear weaponry. This is a common sense understanding, that our leaders ignore, but explains not only other nations' interest in nuclear arms, but our own as well.

Repeat readers may recall a posting of mine from August 10 of this year, "Is Iran the Next US Target?" Link to Posting here. I wrote about how to reduce the nuclear threat posed by Iran last August. Here's a quote:

"Fear of the US and Israel is why Iran is seeking nukes. Instead of treating Iran as part of an "axis of evil" we should be trying to work with them to help them feel safe. What to do? We should leave Iraq, including all "enduring bases." If we meant to free Iraq, then do so now. Our presence there is perceived as a threat by Iran. The US should begin treating both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian issue with equality. This will send a positive message to the region and reduce tension for all, including Israel. The US should stop its current efforts to develop "tactical nuclear weapons" and re-commit to non-proliferation for all, not just those the US doesn't favor. The US should reach out to Iran diplomatically and with exchange of citizens to seek the fostering of a positive relationship with that nation so that it doesn't feel threatened and doesn't feel the need to develop nukes."

ElBaradei apparently agrees with my view that it is mistrust and fear which leads to proliferation. Though he does not draw the connection in his speech, I think it is clear that mistrust is also a cause of terrorism; therefore it is imperative that policies which create mistrust be examined and modified. This must be recognized as reasonable and necessary to actually achieving the goal of reducing the terror threat and increasing just conditions worldwide.

Elbaradei's speech mentions that "we cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons or dispatching more troops,...these threats require primarily multinational cooperation." This too coincides with my calls for cooperation as a better response to the threat we face, rather than responding with war as US leaders and our allies continually do.

It is apparent from reading ElBaradei's speech that there is a latent understanding out there of the necessity of emphasizing principles like restraint, cooperation, and outreach as a response to the threats we face, rather than continuing to believe in the possibility that an endless "war on terror" can actually bring about a positive future worth striving for. War has not achieved lasting positive outcomes as of yet before or since 9-11, and there appears to be little evidence that is will do so at any point in the future.

We need new ways of understanding international relations. We must begin seeking win-win solutions to conflicts rather than continuing with the win-lose, zero-sum, expectations our leaders ascribe to which continually push them to war as a response. ElBaradei seems to agree with this view, as his suggestions point toward restraint, cooperation and outreach among nations and cultures.

This is what I have been calling for, like a lone voice in the Blog wilderness.

Read ElBaradei's speech and think about how we can do a better job of preventing and decreasing conflict. Don't just accept endless war without considering the possibility that other options exist. They do, but our leaders do not consider them or speak of them. They are not interested in non-war responses.

We must begin to see these new options and expect our leaders to enact them. If our current leaders and political parties will not, then new leadership and new political parties which will be open to constructive and realistic possibilities must replace those who ignorantly, and stubbornly, lead us today.

Let me know your thoughts.

Universal

ElBaradei Calls for Nuclear Arms Cuts

By WALTER GIBBS

Published: December 11, 2005
URL Here

OSLO, Dec. 10 - The world should stop treating the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea as isolated cases and instead deal with them in a common effort to eliminate poverty, organized crime and armed conflict, the director general of the United Nations' nuclear monitoring agency said Saturday in accepting the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.

Pool photo by Jarl Fr. Erichsen

Mohamed ElBaradei signing the Nobel ledger Friday in Oslo.

The director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, said a "good start" would be for the United States and other nuclear powers to cut nuclear weapon stockpiles sharply and redirect spending toward international development.

"More than 15 years after the end of the cold war, it is incomprehensible to many that the major nuclear weapon states operate with their arsenals on hair-trigger alert," Dr. ElBaradei, 63, said.

Despite some disarmament, he continued, the existence of 27,000 nuclear warheads in various hands around the world still hold the prospect of "the devastation of entire nations in a matter of minutes."

Feelings of insecurity and humiliation, exaggerated by today's nuclear imbalance, are behind the spread of bomb-development programs at the national level, said Dr. ElBaradei, who has headed the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1997. No less dangerous, he added, are the presumed efforts of extremist groups to acquire nuclear materials. With goods, ideas and people moving more freely than ever, the containment of nuclear technology must be part of a broad global effort, he said.

"We cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons or dispatching more troops," he said. "These threats require primarily multinational cooperation." Dr. ElBaradei said the manufacture and sale of nuclear fuel for power generation, which can also be enriched to make bombs, should be placed under multinational control, with his agency operating as a "reserve fuel bank" for accredited nations.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee divided the 2005 award between Dr. ElBaradei and the atomic energy agency as a whole. Dr. ElBaradei and Yukiya Amano, the agency's board chairman, were awarded diplomas and medals in a colorful ceremony before more than 1,000 dignitaries at Oslo City Hall.

The committee chairman, Ole Danbolt Mjos, lauded Dr. ElBaradei and his agency for resisting "heavy pressure" in 2003 to fall in line with an American contention that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program despite the failure of the agency's inspectors to find hard evidence. "As the world could see after the war in Iraq, the weapons that were not found proved not to have existed," Mr. Mjos said.

In what appeared to be an allusion to that episode, Dr. ElBaradei said: "Armed with the strength of our convictions, we will continue to speak truth to power, and we will continue to carry out our mandate with independence and objectivity."

For the Nobel committee, this year's choice of winners was a return to basics after last year's untraditional award to Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan environmentalist whose tree-planting campaigns are only tangentially related to war and peace. When Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist who helped develop dynamite, died in 1897, he left money in his will to honor someone each year "who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Dr. ElBaradei and the agency will split this year's prize money of 10 million Swedish kroner (about $1.3 million) and have promised their shares to charitable causes.

Nonviolent "People Power" can provide a means to achieve lasting and positive social and political change, and is needed now when there is a real leadership vacuum in the US Federal Government

Below is a great article by Jonathan Schell at The Nation summing up where we're at now with our national leadership.

As Schell writes, facts are steadily piercing the Bush "Administration's" faith-based reality and the failures and frauds are beginning to be revealed almost daily now. They are coming apart at the seams, but to them it's just business as usual.

I have the word "Administration" in quotes because Schell here asks, if they aren't really governing, then do we even have a government? (This is illustrated by the lack of a real Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.) So he asks, if it isn't governing, what is it doing? ( It wishes to acquire, increase and consolidate the power of the Republican Party, he writes.)

Schell writes that this willful ignorance of reality and facts can't be effective "...as long as the system still functions. " To me that's the problem. If Congress won't oversee the Executive Branch as it's supposed to, and the media won't ask the hard questions because they're afraid to, the what is left in the system to make it work?

The answer is in nonviolent "people-power."

As people become increasing disillusioned by a government that lies constantly through compliant media, and does nothing to make their lives better, they will become open to the idea of doing something positive for themselves. The American Civil Rights Movement is evidence to Americans and to the world that nonviolence is the best strategy we have to cause change without causing further conflict as occurs with the use of violence.

Look at events in France today. Young ethnic minorities are burning their own schools because of blind rage at the frustration felt by having no jobs, no real equality, and no real options. They obviously don't know about using nonviolence and so they "shoot themselves in the foot" by turning to violence as the Israelis, Palestinians, and our own government have done, for example. They entrap themselves in cyclical violence and they lose the support of others who would have been behind them had they responed nonviolently.

Talk such as this sounds like mushy "kumbaya" to most, but that comes from lack of knowledge about what nonviolence really is.

Rosa Parks was just in the Rotunda in the US capitol after her death. If she had not used nonviolence, and Drs. King and LaFayette had not used it, there would still be segregation in the South and we'd still be experiencing violence such as the French are today. Instead, we have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, and a changed nation which, far from being racially perfect, largely understands the benefits of integration and of equality of opportunity (even if our leaders do not.)

The recent post Nazi parade riots of ethnic youths in Toldeo shows the continuing need for nonviolence education here in the US. We have a long way to go still, but it is clear that a nonviolent response in Toldeo would have been more effective in drawing attention to racial problems there, and the violent response by those youths was exactly the response the Nazis wanted to use - to prove the inferiority of those ethnic youths.

Again, violence is the trap, and nonviolence is the way out.

Nonviolence is clearly superior to violence in achieving lasting social and political change. It is our best hope to save our youth, and re-take America and the World from those who use violence to enrich and empower themselves, as our ruling elite does systemically with war.

Nonviolence and "people power" is the way to end the "rule" of those who hold power today, and bring about a new direction for America. It will take ongoing education and training, but hey, what else do we have going on?

Universal

Related links:
http://www.uri.edu/nonviolence/
http://www.thekingcenter.org/ (You MUST visit this site) :)

---

Letter From Ground Zero | posted November 2, 2005 (November 21, 2005 issue)

Faith and Fraud

Jonathan Schell
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/schell

A factitious picture of the world built up by the Bush Administration over its five years in power is now going to pieces before our eyes. Great jagged spikes of reality, like the crags of the iceberg that ripped open the staterooms of the Titanic, are tearing into it on all sides. The disrespected world of facts, an exacting master, is putting down this governmental insurrection against its ineluctable laws.

The pivot is of course the war in Iraq, which in its origins and conduct was and remains a colossal, blood-drenched fraud. But now a majority of the public has caught on and wants the United States to withdraw. In addition, a special counsel has reached directly into the White House and, for the first time since 1875, indicted an official who works there: the Vice President's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, who was trying to suppress the truth about the war by punishing a truth-teller, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

But of course, the Administration's rebellion against the factual world has gone far beyond the war. The government has been mobilized across the board to erase or deride knowledge of everything from the largest problems now requiring the world's attention--such as global warming and the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their materials (while the Administration ransacked Iraq in vain for them)--to the comparative minutiae of domestic policy, such as the cost of prescription drugs, the extent of power-plant pollution and malfeasance in the award of Pentagon contracts.

As the fantasy explodes, new aspects of the machinery of falsehood are being brought into view. The willful, concerted, energetic tenacity of the defense of fiction is notable. The twenty-two pages of Libby's indictment portray the office of Vice President Cheney skillfully and relentlessly deploying all its resources to protect the single false allegation that Iraq was purchasing uranium in Niger before the war. Cheney and his team worked for weeks to marshal the information and misinformation with which to smear Wilson. Meetings were held to discuss just how to spread the dirt to reporters. A misleading identification ("former Hill staffer") for the designated smearer, Libby, was concocted.

Did the Administration know the truth and lie to others, so that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," as the head of British intelligence put it contemporaneously? Or was it that Bush officials "misled themselves.... And then they misled the world," as the United Nations inspector at the time, Hans Blix, has recently said--in keeping with the old principle of salesmanship that the most persuasive deceiver is a self-deceiver? Or did the Administration, like an overzealous policeman who believes someone is guilty and plants evidence on him to "prove" it, just believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and, combining faith and fraud, fix the facts to fit its belief? Whichever it was, the effort was arduous and protracted. And the same can be said of other assaults on factual truth and its tellers. For hiding the real world, with its powerful capacity to pour forth oceans of new facts every day, is not an inconsiderable task.

Perhaps that's why, in a more recent discovery about the Bush officials, they turn out to have had a minimal interest in actually running things. Many have noted that the Administration had no plan for running Iraq. But it took the federal response, or lack of one, to Hurricane Katrina to show that the same might be true of the Administration's approach to the United States. In light of this new surmise, other puzzles melt away: a Clear Skies Act that dirties the skies, a Social Security plan to address a financial shortfall that deepened the problem and so forth. It has turned out that the Republican Party, which has long seen government as "the problem," not "the solution," is uninterested in governing. But if a "government" ceases to govern, can we call it a government? If a "supermarket" sells no food, can we call it a supermarket? We all keep referring to the "Bush Administration," yet administering seems to be the last thing on its mind.

These disclosures bring a new question to the fore: If the Bush outfit is not governing, what is it doing? The answer comes readily: It wishes to acquire, increase and consolidate the power of the Republican Party. At home the GOP is to become a "permanent majority for the future of this country," in the words of former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, now also indicted, and abroad the country would be the imperial ruler of the globe.

But if the manufacture of illusion is a shortcut to power, it is a poor long-term strategy in a democracy--as long as the system still functions. The dream of the one-power world may have expired in intractable Iraq, but the dream of the one-party state at home is not yet dead. Bush's difficulty is that his chief opposition is not the weak-kneed Democrats, unable to mount effective opposition even to the Iraq War, but the neglected stuff of the real world. What is currently "voting" against Bush, you might say, is not so much the bloc of independents or security moms or any of the other slices of the demographic pie that public opinion pollsters examine but the molecules of carbon dioxide heating up the global air, the collapsed water purification system of Iraq, the dollars fleeing our Treasury, the wages emptying out of people's pockets.

The weekend following Libby's indictment, a surprising consensus emerged among outside political observers in both parties: Bush should admit error and hire new counselors who could "talk reality" to him, in the words of Ken Duberstein, a chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. The White House quickly brushed the advice aside. Through a spokesman, Bush declined the opportunity to admit anything. And then, bright and early Monday morning, he nominated right-wing Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, in a trumpet call to rally his right-wing political army. As John Yoo, a right-wing former Bush Administration Justice Department official put it, "With this nomination, Bush is saying 'Bring it on!'" No one would talk reality to Bush. He would fight the truth-tellers, and the truth they would tell him, to the end.

Could Seeking Win-win Solutions Have Prevented US and UK Leaders of Being Guilty of the War Crime of Making a War of Aggression?

The author of the article that follows, John Pilger, investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker, makes the case that the US and UK have committed the highest of war crimes, the act of causing a war of aggression to achieve geopolitical aims rather than acting in defense. (Germany did this with the Blitzkrieg of Poland, Czechoslovakia etc, at the start of WW2.)

As Pilger indicates, under International Law, both the US and UK could be charged and potentially convicted of this. It won't happen, but technically, it's possible.

The US used to support the International Crimes Court (ICC) under Clinton, but Bush has rejected the authority of this body and has waged a "campaign of impunity" to make one-to-one deals with nations to keep our soldiers and CIA agents from being tried in this court. ("If you don't make a deal, we'll stop doing business with your country...") This is part of our recent leaders' pattern of acting to keep the US above any international law.

America should stand for Something Better than ignoring international democracy, starting wars, and torturing prisoners.

A RAF officer will soon be on trial in the UK because he refuses to go back to Iraq because he has determined that the war is illegal under international law. His trial could bring out much evidence of how the war was forced upon the world by leaders who wanted war to achieve specific geo-political ends. (See list below.) If this war wasn't really an act of defense, then it becomes a war crime under international law.

So why have US and UK leaders gone to such extremes in regard to Iraq? Why have they risked being labeled in History as war-makers? Why have they been obsessed with taking Iraq?

Here's my best list (so far) of why this war has happened:

Taking control of Iraq:

• protects 25% of the world's oil supplies from falling into the control of Russia or China, or an Islamic power, and keeps it under US control. Even if we can't actually get much right now because of instability, no one else can either
• the occupation prevents Iraq from trading oil in Euros which Saddam was threatening to do, which would have threatened the US dollar value and the US economy, (Iran is now setting up an oil exchange to do this, and now we see them in US crosshairs...)
• Iraq provides a place to base US troops permanently to keep expanding military control of the region, (note current events with Syria...)
• the US presence protects Israel by eliminating a major financial supporter of the Palestinians, Saddam, and
• provides a means for the US to act against the US and Israel's other regional enemies, such as Iran, and now most imminently, Syria.

This is mostly about maintaining the US's position as sole world superpower. Check the official US National Security Strategy to see it in black and white.

From this position of unmatched military strength, US leaders feel they they can best protect US interests. The problem is, this US approach costs many thousands of people their lives, and costs many billions of people the chance to live freely and in safety without interference from the US or its allies. War is not the way to "spread Democracy." It is the problem.

With these strong geo-political needs pushing them, the US and UK made the war on Iraq happen, not by faking or falsifying, but by filtering facts that they had complete control over (and we citizens had few other sources with which to cross check these top-secret "facts") to make us all think Saddam was a threat (WMD, mushroom clouds etc...)

Intelligence findings which supported the argument that Saddam was a threat were emphasized, that which said he was no threat were suppressed. In this way our leaders misled us and the world.

Emerging documentation, like the "Downing Street Memo" now underscore this, and the recent "CIA Leak Case" is related to this push for war through the manipulation of intelligence findings. (Joseph Wilson was one of only a handful of people in the world capable of countering US leaders' arguments for war with facts. That's why they went after him through his wife, CIA Agent Valerie Plame.)

Think about it for a moment.

If we can believe and accept that our leaders could do "dirty tricks" against Joseph Wilson, and that it is just normal "playing hardball" in Washington, then it's not beyond possibility that they "played hardball" with us too and misled us.

We need to stop being either so naive, or so in denial about our leaders.

With such a long list of reasons to invade Iraq, it's easy to understand why US leaders were so hell bent on taking Iraq, no matter the cost in dollars or human lives. If they don't use military force, then the worldwide status quo that they control will be threatened. Yet the current international status quo is unjust and oppressive to billions of humans.

We need a positive direction for the US and the World, not endless war.

If our nation had a different approach to international relations over the years, we wouldn't be in this situation. Our leaders see challenges in "win-lose" terms which leads to conflict. Instead, if our leaders sought "win-win" solutions to problems, we'd have better relations in the world and we'd have found ways to get beyond our thirst for oil, obsession with military power, etc...

Our leaders are responding "normally" from an American perspective. We grow up thinking that violence can solve problems. Sit and watch cartoons on TV, most movies, and most video games, and you'll see conflicts "solved" through violence. The truth is, none of these conflicts are solved. They are just changed. The conflict is supressed for a time untill it appears again in a different form. This is no real solution. We see our leaders responding this same way, but on a much larger and more deadly scale.

We need to teach and learn new ways of responding to conflict, so future leaders can do better than our current ones do. We must recognize the trap of violence. We must recognize the self-made trap that the "War on Terror" is. We must decide to do Something Better for ourselves and our children.

Universal

---

John Pilger's site: http://www.johnpilger.com

The Epic Crime That Dares Not Speak Its Name
by John Pilger
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct05/Pilger1027.htm

Thursday, October 27, 2005 -- A Royal Air Force officer is about to be tried before a military court for refusing to return to Iraq because the war is illegal.

Malcolm Kendall-Smith is the first British officer to face criminal charges for challenging the legality of the invasion and occupation. He is not a conscientious objector; he has completed two tours in Iraq. When he came home the last time, he studied the reasons given for attacking Iraq and concluded he was breaking the law.

Kendall-Smith's position is supported by international lawyers all over the world, not least by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, who said in September last year: The US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN Charter.

The question of legality deeply concerns the British military brass, which sought Tony Blair's assurance on the eve of the invasion, got it and, as they now know, were lied to. They are right to worry; Britain is a signatory to the treaty that set up the International Criminal Court, which draws its codes from the Geneva Conventions and the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter is clear: To initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, counts one and two, Conspiracy to wage aggressive war and waging aggressive war,refer to the common plan or conspiracy. These are defined in the indictment as the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances. A wealth of evidence is now available that George Bush, Blair and their advisers did just that. The leaked minutes from the infamous Downing Street meeting in July 2002 alone reveal that Blair and his war cabinet knew that it was illegal. The attack that followed, mounted against a defenseless country offering no threat to the US or Britain, has a precedent in Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland; the lies told to justify both are eerily similar.

The similarity is also striking in the illegal bombing campaign that preceded both. Unknown to most people in Britain and America, British and US planes conducted a ferocious bombing campaign against Iraq in the ten months prior to the invasion, hoping this would provoke Saddam Hussein into supplying an excuse for an invasion. It failed and killed an unknown number of civilians.

At Nuremberg, counts three and four referred to War crimes and crimes against humanity. Here again, there is overwhelming evidence that Blair and Bush committed violations of the laws or customs of warincluding murder ... of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war.

Two recent examples: the US onslaught near Ramadi this month in which 39 men, women and children -- all civilians -- were killed, and a report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur in Iraq who described the Anglo-American practice of denying food and water to Iraqi civilians in order to force them to leave their towns and villages as a "flagrant violation" of the Geneva Conventions.

In September, Human Rights Watch released an epic study that documents the systematic nature of torture by the Americans, and how casual it is ... even enjoyable. This is a sergeant from the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division: On their day off, people would show up all the time. Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC [prisoners'] tent. In a way, it was sport ... One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal [baseball] bat. He was the fucking cook!

The report describes how the people of Fallujah, the scene of numerous American atrocities, regard the 82nd Airborne as the Murdering Maniacs. Reading it, you realize that the occupying force in Iraq is, as the head of Reuters said recently, out of control. It is destroying lives in industrial quantities when compared with the violence of the resistance.

Who will be punished for this? According to Sir Michael Jay, the permanent under-secretary of state who gave evidence before the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee on 24 June 2003, Iraq was on the agenda of each cabinet meeting in the nine months or so until the conflict broke out in April. How is it possible that in 20 or more cabinet meetings, ministers did not learn about Blair's conspiracy with Bush? Or, if they did, how is it possible they were so comprehensively deceived?

Charles Clarke's position is important because, as the current British Home Secretary (interior minister), he has proposed a series of totalitarian measures that emasculate habeas corpus, which is the barrier between a democracy and a police state. Clarke's proposals pointedly ignore state terrorism and state crime and, by clear implication, say they require no accountability. Great crimes, such as invasion and its horrors, can proceed with impunity.

This is lawlessness on a vast scale. Are the people of Britain going to allow this, and those responsible, to escape justice? Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith speaks for the rule of law and humanity and deserves our support.