USA: Presidential Politics and the War

Usually I stay out of US electoral politics, but after the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and the occupation going into the sixth year and a large number of Americans who watch my site I decided to comment. I hear a lot about ending the war by both the Democratic candidates. When in reality none of the presidential candidates are truly for ending the war despite the widespread opposition to the continued occupation throughout the United States. Below I will detail the three candidates and their actual policies.

John McCain - Republican

John McCain of the three candidates is probably the most honest about his position on the war. He has taken the quintessential stance of the current Republican leadership that the war should have been fought and the policy title on his website is "Strategy for Victory in Iraq". John McCain is an interesting candidate in that he previously had spoken out against the administration on torture, actually served in Vietnam and, had in the past talked out against those on the strong religious right. This resulted in him being liked by people such as Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. During this election that however, changed resulting in him falling in line with the hard Republican and religious right.

McCain currently wishes for more funding for security forces and reconstruction. He wants to keep senior officials in place instead of rotating them, put pressure on Syria and Iran, convince the American people that it is important to stay in Iraq called "Win the homefront" on his website and, ultimately has no plan for ever withdrawing unless the Iraqi's 'stand up'. Which at the moment they seem to be doing just against each other and against US rule.

Hillary Clinton - Democrat

Clinton's website may be very against the war with the title "Ending the War in Iraq" and quotes such as "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today." These seem like more rhetoric then anything as her end to the war would still include tens of thousands of troops left in Iraq.

Clinton's campaign has been run on that she is the candidate with experience. When we look at her experience we also see a telling history. Clinton while her husband was President always supported his actions including bombings of Iraq and sanctions that resulted in the deaths of untold Iraqis. When she was acting as a Senator of New York she voted for the invasion and has not once truly apologized for that action. She sat on the Armed Services Committee during that time and, rarely created real opposition to the continuing occupation and, up until recently had not even acknowledged private military contractors. Clinton since a statement by the Obama team has now joined legislation to ban private contractors including groups such as Blackwater, but this has been a obviously political move not one based on ethics.

Barack Obama - Democrat

Obama has been touted by many to be the anti-war candidate. He made a speech against the invasion of Iraq prior to the invasion and in comparison to the other two candidates has a fairly clear history. Obama is believed to be a bridge due to his ethnic background, eloquent persona and, relative blank slate. Although, he has been better then the other candidates on the issue of Iraq, but is not anti-war. He may have the rhetoric of ending the war.

Of all the candidates Obama has probably the most comprehensive policy on foreign policy, but that includes being staunchly pro-Isreal, enlarging the US military, sending more forces to Afghanistan and, keeping 'residual forces' in Iraq. These residual forces would include 40-80 thousand forces as well as keeping in place the private contractors of which there are currently around 180 thousand which are not accurately kept in line. The US Embassy (which is less an embassy and more a giant military Americanized zone) and the green zone would still be kept in place under Obama's plan.

Ultimately I would like it to be understood that the rhetoric put out in the media about ending the war is anything but true by these candidates. Though Senator Obama seems to have the most comprehensive foreign policy plan he too is not anti-war and that should be understood. I ultimately do not support any candidate nor do I think a Canadian has the need to do so or not, but sadly what happens in those elections will effect Canada, Iraq, Afghanistan and, the rest of the world.

Ottawa: Hundreds Protest War, Thousands More around the World

Approximately 700-1000 people took over the streets of Ottawa yesterday in opposition to the continuing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The protest was part of a national and international series of protests against these continuing wars. March 19th is the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq which has killed over 29000 officially and some estimates go as high as one million dead as a result of the invasion. Protests in Canada and the UK were called for the Saturday before though many protests in the United States are happening actually on the 19th.

The Ottawa protest which joined Canadians coast to coast in over 20 reported cities was mainly focused on Canadian direct involvement in Afghanistan. The occupation has become increasingly unpopular throughout the country as according to the latest Angus Reid Poll [1] 61% of Canadians oppose the extension of the mission beyond February 2009 and 53% saying they would like to see a withdrawal even before February 2009. Despite the widespread opposition this past thursday a motion was past in Parliament to extend the occupation until 2011. It was opposed by the NDP, Bloc, and a few lone Liberals, but it was passed mainly out of desire by the Liberals not to go into an election, not what the electorate wanted.

Students started the rally here in Ottawa starting from the University of Ottawa and mainly comprising Carleton University and University of Ottawa students who were members of the Student Coalition Against War. They blocked off Rideau and Sussex with a mockuppation a reccuring theme for Ottawa students. With people in orange jump suits and many people with red paint representing blood on their hands they denounced the war and shouted about war profiteers including companies like SNC Lavalin and Boeing. The protest was marched down Sussex to meet the main demonstration starting at the National Art Gallery.

At the National Art Gallery there were a number of speakers organized by the Ottawa Peace Congress. Some of the speakers included Francios Picard of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, the assistant to the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, members of various local peace groups, Qais Ghanem a poet and Green Party candidate for Ottawa South, NDP Member of Parliament Libby Davies as well as her colleagues from the Gatineau NDP coalition, a representative from the Association of Arab Professionals and, performances by the Just Voices Choir and the Raging Grannies.

As demonstrators started to get cold due to the snowy weather the protest was moved going through part of the market leading to the United States Embassy. Outside the Embassy a large die in was enacted using a giant tarp and about a third of the demonstrators. Chants were shout out such as "Bush and Harper are the Same the Only Difference is the name" and "Bush Bush We know you, your daddy was a killer too" as well as the death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan being read out. It has been estimated around 40,000 people have been killed so far in Afghanistan. Afterwards the protest moved up to a brief stop off at Parliament Hill. After that the demonstration split up many people going home and some going to the Anti-War teach-in that happened at the Ottawa Public Library including a recent CBC documentary on how Drug Lords rule Afghanistan's parliament, a live video feed from Winter Soldier the testimonies of US soldiers testifying of the atrocities they've seen and done in Iraq and Afghanistan, finishing with some speeches from Afghanistani community members.

All Images are my own property. Unfortunately my camera battery died before the actual march started images are of the Student Protest and pre-march presentation

Activist Video: Sara Marlowe Power of the People

Rise up! Show the power of the people tomorrow!

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION
WORLD AGAINST WAR
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW
RALLY AND MARCH
Saturday, March 15, 1 PM
Gather at the National Gallery
(Giant Spider, St. Patrick and Sussex, map)
Student Protest outside University of Ottawa Morriset Library 12 noon

Across Canada: Canadian Peace Alliance Call-Out

Activist Video: 5 Years Too Many

Protests are happening around the world to mark the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. For those in Ottawa please join in the protest against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ottawa Saturday March 15th
1pm Rally And March starting at the National Gallery
2:30pm A Teach in at the National Archives of Canada

For those in other parts of Canada go to: The Canadian Peace Alliance
For those in the United States go to: 5 Years Too Many
For those in the UK go to: Stop the War Coalition

Opinion: International Terrorism

I decided to post this as I will be gone for the weekend. This was from the same course as the Free Trade paper. I think I've seriously progressed since writing this but its still something interesting to read.

The Fall of the Soviet Union brought with it hope for a more peaceful future, a future that had been hoped for after many major wars such as World War One and Two. A concept of not having two opposing sides in constant opposition and struggle, that undermine world peace. President George W. Bush's famous speech after the September 11th terrorist attacks has undermined that concept of peace and reinvigorated a duality of being ' either with us or with the terrorists'. They have since used hegemonic control to lead a war on terror. The war on terror however, only further destabilizes the world in their defile of international law in the name of national security.

Terrorism creates an entirely mode of physical conflict in comparison to war. Conventional methods of military intervention are not effective in the ending of terrorism. The United States method of otherthrowing governments that are deemed bastions for terrorists has proven extremely ineffective. Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorist organizations since the fall of Saddam Hussein and, although the Taliban, who had close ties with Al Qaeda, in Afghanistan was overthrown the country is mainly run by regional warlords. This entire policy runs upon a concept that the United States can combat terrorists in other nation-states so, they do not have to deal with terrorists upon it's soil. This entirely conception of reality has flaws if one looks at September 11th and the London Bombings. The terrorists who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were trained at flight schools in the United States and, the London suicide bombers were British born. Terrorism is a new type of warfare, a international battle that in many ways cannot be fully won.

United States' foreign policy tends to create more problems that it later combats with military force. Here are three examples Panama in 1990, Afghanistan in 2001 and, Iraq in 2003. In 1990 United States troops invaded Panama and devastated the civilian population to capture the 'narco-terrorist' General Noriega. Noriega was a former CIA contact who had been on the CIA payroll when George H. W. Bush was CIA director. In 2001 the United States led a coalition to invade Afghanistan in order to disband the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had been given CIA money and training in the 1980s in an effort to stop the country from coming under Soviet control and, the Taliban had been honoured guests of George W. Bush earlier in his political career. The most currently talked about war is the war in Iraq. The United States led a “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq to quell terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction yet both of these reasons were false. The ruler they deposed was Saddam Hussein who had been given United States' support during the Iran-Iraq war and whose Ba'ath party had been given support earlier to launch a coup d'etat over the former government of Abdul Karim Qassim. These three conflicts are only a small example of United States' international involvement. The first and foremost change the United States government could do to prevent terrorism would be to stop funding terrorist groups or regimes, even if at that time the support is militarily convenient.

The worst part of United States foreign policy is its disregard for international law. The invasions of Panama in 1990 and Iraq in 2003 were direct violations of international law and were in fact condemned as illegal by many states around the world. The United States government did not stop with its illegal activities there. There have been growing scandles about unlawful detention, illegal invasions of privacy and, the use of torture. For the stability of world peace and to be in the moral right a state must follow international law especially in relation to the conduct of war.

The United States' approach to the war on terror goes against moral and legal conviction. International law and cooperation are the only way to ensure world peace. The United States has gone against the fundaments of peace and has been a major contributor to terrorism. To prevent further terrorism the United States should begin by ending their engagement in it and to work with the other many states of the world.

Opinion: 7/7 One year On

Well today is the first anniversary of the 7/7 transit bombings in London. I remember specifically being worried about a friend of mine who was in London. In the UK today there will be a two minute moment of silence for those who have died.

One year later where are we? Security since 7/7 has become stronger only resulting in one innocent man being shot by police. The cause of the bombings was stated by the terrorists as due to British aggression. Yet, Britain still is engaged in occupation most notably of Iraq bringing much more terror down on Iraqi civilians. Instead of reaching out to Muslim and Arab communities Islamophobia and racism has continued to increase. This is certainly a sad day, but not only for those who lost their lives in London.

USA: On July 4th

Not being American, I feel others should be doing the talking today. So, I will let the youth blogging sensation speak for me.

Not Just a Number

Bravery

The Time is Now

Iraq: Japan to Bring Military home

The Japanese government has made the decision for withdrawl from Iraq right before the Japanese Prime Minsister visits Washington. Japan joined the US lead coalition to invade Iraq with a small contingent of troops. They have been working in the south alongside British command. Not a single Japanese troop have been killed or wounded, but Japanese civilians have been taken captive.

Despite the relatively small force of less than a thousand military personnel, the mission was very significant to Japan who hasn't deployed since World War 2 in such capacity. Although, the move may have been favourably seen in the halls of Washington and London, many Japanese opposed the move. With the removal of Japanese troops this will leave American, British, South Korean, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Georgian, Danish, Australian, El Salvadorian, Azerbaijan, Mongolian, Albanian, Latvian, Czech, Lithuanian, Slovakian, Armenian, Bosnian, Estonian, Macedonian and, Kazakhstani forces in Iraq. The rescue of the Christian Peacemakers Team disclosed that there are also Canadian forces in Iraq, but how many and doing what is unknown.

USA: Is the Draft Returning?

During the Vietnam war due to a constraint on military forces the United States instituted a draft. There had been previous drafts during the War of 1812, the Civil War, WWI, WWII and, the Korean war. After the draft was ended the military rebuilt itself from Vietnam which had decimated the US forces. They rebuilt it as a all volunteer army and, have had overwhelming dominance since.

The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have weighed heavily on US forces. There has been declining enlistment rates, rapidly declining reenlistment rates and, a strain on the overall military. Some soldiers have been redeployed to Iraq multiple times and, there has been growing rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and soldiers going AWOL. In a way to try to counter this the US has a stop-loss program and has increasingly lowered its standards for military duty and, now even recruits at some high schools.

Despite all this the public eye for a draft is heavily opposed both by the government and the majority of citizens. A bill for mandatory military service was introduced to the house in 2003, but was overwhelmingly defeated. At the time there was a lot of media coverage of the event. Earlier this year in February 2006 another bill has got fairly little attention other then for a few online sites. The bill is the Universal National Service Act of 2006 introduced by Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel that would require mandatory military service.

The Act would require all Americans aged 18 to 42 to serve two years of mandatory service, which could be extended by the President if they so wish. The only exceptions of that group are students in full time secondary school who may first finish high school, people with disabilities, volunteer members of the armed forces, and conscientious objectors. If their objection is approved they will have to serve civilian service in compensation. The last time a Conscription bill was introduced it was overwhelmingly defeated, but with a strained military in Iraq and Afghanistan and, no foreseeable timetable for withdrawal the results of the bill may be different.

Solidarity

Here are some solidarity images. Use freely. It would be nice to have links back to my site, but its not mandatory. http://sparkoffreedom.blogspot.com/

Afghanistan Solidarity

Haiti Solidarity

Iraq Solidarity

Palestine Solidarity

Tibet Solidarity

UK: British Anti-War Activist Fined for Reading Aloud

Milan Rai (seen above at another demonstration) a author and founder of the British Anti-War group Justice Not Vengeance was put on trial March 16, 2006 for an unauthorized protest. The trial was moved to today and the verdict was a fine of £350. What was he doing to warrant arrest? Reading aloud the names of killed British soldiers from the Iraq war too close to the Cenotaph, a famous war memorial near the British Parliament. The prosecution came due to a new law enacted last year the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which prohibits demonstrations within a kilometer from Parliament without Police consent and six days notice.