Thursday, January 25, 2007


I think the anti-victory-in-Iraq vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday was a disgrace ... and indicates how evil and self-serving politicians can become when they think that their power base is in jeopardy. If one calls the Neo Cons who are for the Iraqi war “chicken hawks” ... perhaps we should call these Con Neo Cons, "plucked chickens", or "chicken fingers", or “Chicken Little’s”, or even, "Brothers of Islam". During the cold war, Russia liked to call such people "useful idiots". Before you, who may belong to one of the above appellations, takes too much umbrage at these comments, think of the patience that we “chicken hawks” have visited upon you when you have shrieked your insults at us.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007


I have a question for any of you liberals who have graduated into rabidness: Would you have us win in Iraq if that means that Bush would go down in history as a good or even a great president?

Sock Raties

Monday, January 22, 2007


There are two articles in this morning’s newspapers that neatly illustrate a point that the major media outlets in the U.S. have been drumming out an anti-Bush and anti-U.S. message for at least the last two years. Both these articles have to do with U.S. losses in Iraq over the weekend. One is in the NY Times (page A6) headlined “U.S. Toll in Iraq Is 27 for Deadly Weekend” and the other in the Boston Globe (page A6) headlined “Cunning, sophistication seen in Iraq ambush”. Both articles detail how Sunni terrorists, dressed up like American soldiers (but with beards no less) conned their way into an Iraqi government compound and killed five American servicemen.

These articles also highlight a helicopter crash in which 12 American soldiers were killed and other combat incidents: one, where two Marines were killed and another, where five servicemen were killed, both in Anbar Province. The NY Times does mention that the first attack “was repelled by American forces” and that, earlier, and American raid had killed a guard in Moktada al-Sadr’s posse which was then diminished by a quote from another al-Sadr lieutenant as “inhuman and against human rights”.

Both articles managed to bring up other past incidents where large numbers of U.S. troops were killed … and other weekend incidents where Iraqi citizens (including young children) were blown up by insurgents. Neither article thought to report or even estimate bad guy losses.

This is not reportage … this is propaganda, but, unfortunately, not pro U.S. propaganda.

Thursday, January 11, 2007


To all my liberal, self loathing readers. Here is an example of why it is all downhill from here. It essentially says that we, as the most powerful force in the world (for the nonce), must follow, not lead. There is a groupthink now in this nation's mainstream media that is exemplified in the following snippet. If you keep nodding your head as you read this, you have drunk the kool-aid. (You also probably think that hanging Saddam was cruel and unjustified.) American Liberals confuse that fact that we have not been "successful" in Iraq (as defined by the NY Times) with whether our strategy of taking the fight to radical Islam around the world is flawed. Not that this attitude on your part is necessarily wrong. It is just means that you have gone into your shell and should go shopping for a prayer rug (and learn where Mecca is). And please, please do not mourn when Israel is in ashes.

Published on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 by
How the World Will See the Surge
by John Brown* see brief bio below

There has been much press commentary in recent days concerning the administration’s planned surge of American soldiers in Iraq. According to The New York Times, this “rapid influx of forces … could add as many as 20,000 American combat troops to Baghdad.” The domestic consequences of what some media are calling a military escalation have been widely analyzed.

But US pundits, reflecting our widespread national assumption that Iraq is essentially about ourselves, have not sufficiently commented on the possible international reactions to the President’s latest initiative overseas. Below are speculations, based on what polls and foreign media have been saying about the U.S. in recent years, about how some public opinion abroad, taken as a composite, will look at this latest Bush foreign-policy move.

1. The surge is yet another expression of US unilateralism. The Americans do what they want when and how they want, no matter what non-Americans -- including Iraqis -- think. They are not bothering to get international support or approval for their surge. The rest of the world be damned.
2. The Americans say one thing and do another. They proclaim peace as their goal in the Middle East but use military force whenever things don’t go their way. While they love to boast about their wholesome values, they brutally kill innocent civilians in Baghdad neighborhoods in a surge to restore “stability.” Their public diplomacy, whatever they say it is, is no more than blatant, hypocritical propaganda.
3. Elections in the U.S. don’t really matter. Americans in November didn’t vote for more troops in Baghdad, but their president is doing precisely that. The so-called opposition party in the U.S. is just part of an American imperialistic system that wants to dominate the rest of the planet, including its oil reserves, and that allows the White House carte blanche in carrying out aggressive military operations like the surge anywhere, any time.
4. The U.S. is under the control of an anti-Muslim, anti-Arab lobby. The White House is in fact controlled by a coterie of ideologues that wants to redraw the map of the Middle East in favor of Israel. The surge is their latest effort to accomplish this.
5. The American international media, both private and US government-supported, are not to be trusted. Their coverage of American military actions, with its traditional neglect of civilian victims, will try to show the surge in the best of lights. As for USG-funded outlets like Alhurra, they don’t offer the real news. For more accurate reports, better to turn to the BBC or Al Jazeera.
6. The surge will result in more US casualties, but that’s the Americans’ own fault. They are bringing disaster after disaster upon themselves because they refuse to understand or negotiate with the world outside their own borders. The Americans have no idea of the real situation in Iraq, where they are occupiers, not liberators.
7. The surge is further evidence of sheer American incompetence. US efficiency, planning, and management are far overvalued. Simon Jenkins, The Times (January 7): “I have not heard one remotely plausible game plan for the 'Battle of the Surge.'”
8. The U.S., like ancient Rome, has overextended itself. The more it tries to control the world through the force of arms, the less successful it is in doing so. The surge, per se a minor military move, is yet another illustration of America’s imperial decline caused by its hubris. How can American soldiers possibly “clean up” Baghdad neighborhoods, when their own cities are marked by incessant crime and violence?
9. The surge, while historically of limited significance, gives added evidence that the future no longer belongs to the U.S., which has become desperate in finding ways to influence events. The American era -- the twentieth century -- is just about gone forever, and another Bush military push in Iraq won’t bring it back.
10. Any “superpower” that thinks it can “win” a universally condemned war with an additional 20,000 troops is certainly not a model to follow. Forget about the made-in-Hollywood American “dream.” America is now producing one nightmare after another. It’s become a mortal danger, not a universal hope.

John Brown is a Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, and a Research Associate at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University. He's a former Foreign Service officer who practiced public diplomacy for over twenty years, now compiles the "Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review," which can be obtained free by e-mail by requesting it at

Wednesday, January 03, 2007


"Let the dead take care of the dead." -- Jesus Christ

(On the other hand, I wouldn't mind being constantly reminded that Jimmy Carter had achieved room temperature.)