Obama rightly debased the rationale of the previous administration for many of the actions they took over the last 8 years, but he did so in a way that was not (to me at least) designed to inflame partisan passions. Rather, he presented this information as a way to cause us to reflect on what America is supposed to be, how it was designed by our framers, and how it can be so easily derailed by weak minded officials faced with problems too big for them to handle and hard nosed ideologues whose only goal is to exert unopposable power without regard to moral and legal right and wrong. Obama also spread the blame for the savage departure from American values and ideals of the last 8 years to all politicians left and right-for the truth of the matter is that we, the American people, were let down on all sides by cowardly politicians and even more cowardly bullies. For 8 years, our elected officials threw out their responsibilities of due diligence and oversight in favor of political posturing. The actions, and inactions, of those who held elective office during the Bush administration and helped create the national nightmare or did nothing to prevent the fall into the abyss, has caused this country great harm both domestically and abroad. The blame is shouldered equally, and recent partisan bickering only further cements this as fact, for those who protest to their own defense most loudly are likely also those whose actions may seem most detestable.

“Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.” (Obama-5-21-09)

Obama has a tough road ahead. Calls from the left scream for investigations and “truth” commissions. Calls from the right demand an “end to persecution.” This balance is hard to manage while retaining the desire to right the wrongs of American governance. But again, Obama takes the right path, for he is the president, not the judge and jury of this nation. While recognizing the wrongs committed in our names, he also understands that to rectify those wrongs requires a return to rationality and legal principals that this country was founded on. It is not for the president to declare guilt or innocence or to demand trials for grevious wrongs done in the name of “freedom.” That is why we have a Justice Department and a court system and a Congress with investigatory powers. By promoting direct legal action, Obama would be unnecessarily politicizing what is in effect a legal matter, albeit one that goes to the heart of what it means to be America.

“That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.” (Obama 5-21-09)

At the end of the day, it’s not just what he says that marks this president as a class above his predecessor, but the way he says it, and the way he understands his role in American government. Obama embodies the difference between being president and being presidential- a difference as marked as that between being the class leader and the class bully. Perhaps the juxtaposition of these two quotes is the best illustration of all.

“I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.” George W. Bush

“In our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it comes to sensitive information.” – Barack Obama

It’s nice to have a real leader back at the helm.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Foiling Terror Plots Doesn’t Take An Army (August 10, 2006)

Law Enforcement Continuing To Succeed Where War Fails (October 4, 2006)

New Alleged Terror Plot Thwarted-Again Without Destroying A Foreign Country (June 2, 2007)

U.S. Should Rethink “War On Terrorism” Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida (July 29, 2008)

These articles, covering a span of about two years, are all saying the same thing: fighting terrorism is better done through law enforcement than through war. Interesting enough, the first three articles were written by me and posted at Bring It On. The final article was published yesterday by the Rand Corporation, a think tank developed by the US Air Force after WWII and today a major supplier of policy advice to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands and other defense agencies. Seems like the Rand Corporation is a little behind the “obvious curve.”

In it’s newly released report, the Rand Corporation says:

“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.” -Seth Jones, the study’s lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.

Hmmmmm….sounds an awful lot like this:

“There are terrorists who want to harm the west, specifically killing as many civilians as they can. If they are determined enough, some will succeed. But through the application of solid investigative work and application of the rule of law, many of these folks have been stopped before reaching their murderous intentions.” – Ken Grandlund, 8-10-06

And this:

“Law enforcement, including cooperation with intelligence agencies and other countries, is more effective in breaking up terror cells than going to war.” – Ken Grandlund, 6-2-07

I’m not trying to brag here. I’m just pointing out that for over two years, I’ve been saying publically what the Rand Corporation (and presumably the folks who rely on its reports to craft policy) is only now figuring out. I’m no genius, but then again, it doesn’t take a genius to state the obvious. Apparently it just takes waiting for an idiot president who has squandered untold billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, soiled the reputation of the United States of America and garnered the disgust of people everywhere to enter his final months in office for someone (in a position to be really heard) to finally stand up and state the obvious.

(Sarcastic) Kudos to the Rand Corporation and every other asshat politician, corporate executive, and neo-con ass-licker for finally facing the facts- namely that massive military action is a stupid way to deal with terrorists.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

“This is … one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration,” Gingrich said. “The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ‘Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.” (Raw Story has the full video clip here.)

To begin with, I’ve yet to see or hear convincing evidence that the Bush Administration actually deserves credit for the lack of attacks by terrorists on US soil since 9-11-01. Where Gingrich credits the administrations illegal domestic wiretap programs for halting domestic terror attacks, I think the closer truth is that a combination of US action in Afghanistan, a shift of targeting by the terrorists towards Europe and the Middle East, and the historical patience of the terror gangs is why America hasn’t had another attack.

Conservatives publically lamenting the lack of terror attacks on America isn’t new with GIngrich. We’ve heard this before- in 2004 and 2006 and even more recently during this election cycle. In an effort to bolster support for Bush’s most unsavory anti-terror tactics, GOPers have verbalized their wish that some terror attacks would occur.

In 2005:

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President’s fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

And again in 2007:

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Dennis Milligan, head of the Arkansas GOP said on June 3, 2007.

These people are undeniably crazy for power, it seems, if they truly wish for the death and destruction of their countrymen and women just to “validate” George W. Bush and his policies.

Remember this when you go to the polls-only one party actually wishes for terror attacks on America to justify their abuses of power at home and abroad.  The party that brought you the Iraq Debacle. The party that brought you Katrina. The party that brought you torture and spying on Americans. The party of massive deficits, distrust of science, and no capacity for true compassion, caring or common sense. That party is the GOP.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In return for North Korea’s agreement to take further steps to eliminate that country’s nuclear program, the United States has indicated that it may remove North Korea from it’s official list of countries that sponsor terrorism, a sign that would surely also remove North Korea from the vaunted Axis of Evil club that President Bush created in 2001. If, as it appears likely, Kim Jong-Il follows the example set by Libya’s Moammar Qhaddafi and relinquishes his push for WMD programs, this would mark the second time a country has dropped out of the Axis Program. (The first would be Iraq, which did not leave the club voluntarily, but was bludgened out of it. Insiders in Iraq claim that many local populations say that there should have been a vote after the removal of Saddam on whether the remaining country wanted to discard their membership in the Axis Program or continue on with a new titular head. Unfortunately, at the time, the U.S. wasn’t accepting application into the program.)

Insiders at the White House and State Department say that in light of recent events in the North Korean negotiations, there is considerable concern that the Axis Program will fade away unless new members can be recruited. Of critical concern to the president is the possibility that a shrinking Axis of Evil Program may weaken his ability to lash out at his political detracators and that his pet project, The Global War On Terror (TM) would lose considerable backing among his own supporters without a full contingent of Axis partners.

Iran, the last active member of the original Axis of Evil, has reportedly responded to the Help Wanted Ad (seen above and printed in most of the world’s main newspapers) in a manner befitting their status as ranking Evil Nation. Iranian president Mahmoud Amedinejad was overheard saying that if he’s not consulted about potential new members that he would discontinue his hard-line rhetoric and consider withdrawing his country from the program altogether. Apparently, Amedinejad is concerned that future Axis Program members may be mere “shadows of great tyrants. There are too many despot-wannabe’s out there trying to claim a piece of the action. I want veto power over any new applicants or I will bring fire and death to the world. And then I’ll quit the club too. Praise Allah.”

President Bush is expected to announce that filling the vacant positions in the Axis Program is his new top priority. He has created a committee to provide him with a list of names of those tyrants best suited to the task. Vice-President Dick Cheney will lead that committee, in part because he has the experience in such matters. After all, he did a fantastic job in a similar situation when he compiled the short list of running mates for then-governor Bush, ultimately deciding upon himself as the best of the best. Insiders speculate that Cheney may decide on a repeat performance. An unidentified source in the VP’s office claims to have heard Cheney muttering something about needing a new job in a year or so.

This photo (again from ABC News) shows a proud schoolmaster and teaching staff as they send their apt pupils off with their new skills. One wonders if they dispense actual certificates or simply strap on the vests right then and there.

The photo (and others, as well as a videotape) was obtained from a Pakistani journalist who had been invited to the event to document the occasion. On the videotape, a Taliban military commander, Mansoor Dadullah, was shown introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

“These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from
faraway places,” Dadullah says on the tape. “Why shouldn’t we go after them?”

Apparently this guy didn’t get the “we have to fight them over there so they don’t follow us home and fight with us here” memo the president sent out. Fortunately, there’s no possible way even one of these guys could make it into the US. After all, President Bush has personally done everything possible to make sure that our land borders are secure enough that we at least know who is coming in and going out, and he’s done everything a guy could do to make sure that airport security isn’t just a sham, and he’s even tried to keep an eye on all of our ports so that nothing bad could slip in through there. Yessiree, these Suicide Teams haven’t got a chance against the US.

Tell me again why we left the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight Saddam in Iraq?

Not a big deal you say? Congratulations! You can now get a job as an LA County Terrorism expert. That agency’s spokesman said they didn’t think there was any real danger since the man had called in to report the incident. And, after all, mercury is not toxic unless ingested into the body.

But according to surveillance video obtained by CNN (which you can view by clicking the link in the referenced post), the actions of the unknown man hardly look accidental. In fact, they appear to show the man deliberately kneeling down to pour the mercury on the platform, then calmly getting up and walking away. And according to a joint FBI and DHS intelligence bulletin released in 2005, calling the authorities could be just the kind of thing a would-be terrorist may do in a dry run to gather information about how authorities will react.

CNN analyst Pat D’Amuro, a former top FBI counterterrorism agent, says it’s premature to rule out terror.
“I’m not saying that in this video these people are terrorists, but there’s some very strange activity that needs to be identified here.”

EIGHT FRICKING HOURS TO RESPOND??? What the hell kind of security response is that? And yet the government and security organizations keep telling us that they are doing all they can to keep us safe? If this was indeed some kind of ‘dry run,’ the response of the authorities couldn’t be worse for us, nor could they be more promising for a terrorist group. We’re spending billions of dollars on homeland security, yet we can’t even count on the ‘experts’ to do their job in a timely manner? Imagine if a real toxic substance had been released…would they just nail boards up over the subway entries and run away? Or would they sit blithely by for hours while the potential chemical or biological agents worked their way through the subway tunnels or up into the streets while the culprits simply faded away?

I tell you folks…it’s bad enough to have a president who enrages our enemies at every turn, who taunts them with bravado and sneers, who practically dares them to ‘bring it on.” It is completely unacceptable for our homeland responders to sit on their asses while a potential toxic disaster sits untended on a subway platform.

Keeping us safe, huh? Not bloody likely.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

While it becomes increasingly clear that Bush’s war of choice in Iraq only produces more terrorists and does nothing to address the real problems associated with international terrorism, in Italy, we are once again shown that diligent, competant law enforcement can and does dismantle terror cells without any kind of ‘collateral damage.’

Hard to believe, eh? After all, aren’t those just the kind of tactics laid out by John Kerry during the 2004 election? Didn’t he note that fighting terrorists was as much, if not more, a law enforcement measure than one for the military? Do we need the military to stop terrorists? Sure, they were doing a great job in Afghanistan before Team Bush pulled a “Cut and Run” strategy that now has that country falling back into the hands of the Taliban. But do we need to blow up entire countries to isolate, track, and arrest the terrorists in the world?

Of course we don’t. But it will take better leadership than we have now to actually figure that out. Sadly, we’re still working with the government we have, not the government we want.

Spying On Americans-Good. Reading Convicted Terrorist Mail- Bad?

Ask yourself a simple question.

Which is more likely to uncover future terror plots and reveal terror operatives?

(A) Intercepting, recording, monitoring, storing, or listening to communications in America between Americans

or

(B) Monitoring and reading mail sent and received by convicted terrorists sitting in U.S. Federal Prisons

If you answered A, congratulations. You are the president of the United States or an elected legislator. But if you answered B then you have a brain.

Unfortunately, while the first option is being carried out with great vigor, and being touted as one of the best, most important tools to keep America safe, the second option, the one that could actually provide clues to terror operations, is barely being done at all.

According to a review of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, undertaken by the DOJ, letters are being written by convicted terrorists to other terrorists, including a letter sent to one of the Madrid bombing terrorists. That letter was being used to recruit more terrorists to the cause of jihad.

“The threat remains that terrorist and other high-risk inmates can use mail and verbal communications to conduct terrorist or criminal activities while incarcerated,” concluded the report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

So what exactly is being done to close this gaping hole in terror monitoring? Apparently not much. After all, we’ve got a bogus war and the surveillance of American citizens to conduct, and there’s only so much money to go around.

U.S. Won’t Attack North Korea? Why The Hell Not?

Remember the Axis of Evil? That nefarious threesome that our president targeted as the biggest threats to civilization as we know it? Remember the tough talking rhetoric that told us that no nation would be allowed to harbor terrorists or pursue WMD’s so long as George W. Bush was on the job?

Guess what? It turns out that George W. Bush is full of shit. In a recent speech, Bush told reporters that although North Korea (one of the fearsome triumverate of evil) was a “threat to international peace” and that “serious repercussions” would ensue following North Korea’s purported nuclear test, he asserted that no military response is planned to thwart this looming menace.

No military response? Why the hell not? After all, when it came to dealing with a non-nuclear member of the axis of evil (Iraq), Bush went in guns a-blazing, creating a whole world of hurt in that part of the world. In fact, military action against Iraq was always plan one for Bush, regardless of whether they had WMD’s, including a nuclear capability. But he used the false notion of an “imminent mushroom cloud” as an excuse to invade a country ruled by a horrific tyrant, not to go after al-Qaeda, not to bring democracy to the Middle East, but rather to settle family sleights and gain control of the Iraqi oil fields for his corporate minders. (Go ahead and argue these points, my conservative friends. I’m not here to offer proof beyond what we’ve rehashed time and again. The proof, if you ask me, is in the pudding so nastily laid out before us.) In fact, I’ll even submit that the Bush Administration was fairly certain, based on the evidence that existed but they excluded, that Iraq was nowhere near ‘going nuclear’ and that was a prime factor in targeting them when they did. It is easy to tear down a paper tiger you have built yourself.

But Bush is just engaging in classic Bully Behavior, so there’s nothing remotely surprising about his stance on North Korea. The bully always targets the weakest foes (or faux-foes as the case sometimes is) to dominate while slewing threats at those who might be able to offer a real challenge. We see the same thign happening right now regarding Iran.

Iran is also on the nuclear path, but experts warn they are at least 5-8 years away from any meaningful weapons program. Yet the Bush administration has overstated the Iranian nuclear capabilities and hyped up the threat as imminent. Again, what we have in Iran is an oil rich country and a competing religious ideology. Clearly, in the Bush declared War on Terror, where all bad guys are Islamic Terrorists, the countries you invade are the ones who can do your country the least physical harm. Iran not only doesn’t have nukes, they don’t have a system to get nukes to the US mainland. But they pray towards Mecca, so let’s target those bastards. By all accounts, US war plans are already far past the planning stages regarding Iran.

Yet curiously, North Korea, the only non-Muslim member of Club Evil, not only has nuclear capability, they have a missle system that could (potentially reach the US west coast. Yet where Iraq and Iran are to be dealt with militarily (after all diplomacy has failed) North Korea is not on the path to war with America. Again, why the hell not?

No oil in North Korea?

I’m not advocating for an invasion of North Korea, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I have to wonder why Mr. Bring ‘Em On isn’t being consistent. If ever there was a case against one of the three harbingers of world evil, North Korea is it. If ever there was a fulfillment of the reasons for pre-emptive war against a rogue nation that had no democracy, tortured it’s people, and sought WMD’s, North Korea is the proverbial “slam dunk.” If ever there was a case of “with us or against us” this is it, isn’t it?

Before the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, there was no real race for countries to get nuclear weapons for themselves. In that sense, the world was a safer place. Thanks to George W. Bush, rogue nations are scrambling to join the nuclear club as fast as they can. And clearly, if you want to remain unscarred by American military destruction, going nuclear may be the best way to go. In that sense, the world is immeasurably less safe. Thanks Bush.

Time to change the direction.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Bush again used the events of September 11, 2001 to further politicize America’s security and to drive a wedge between the American people. In the past, this effort has been successful, as so many American’s prefered to believe in the fantasies of their commander in chief. Today, fewer and fewer people are buying the administration’s version of reality. With mounting evidence to refute much of what the president believes, it’s no wonder that Americans of all stripes and political persuasions are turning away from Bush and his neo-con agenda. Much like a Hollywood film purportedly ‘based’ on real events, the difference between the real world and the world according to Bush is stark. Consider a few of the following points…

Bush Reality: “On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them. So we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.”

Actual Reality: Afghanistan is falling back into the hands of the Taliban, and our ally in the GWOT, Pakistan, has made peace with some elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This is hardly a picture of a Taliban on the run. And what was that again about distinguishing between terrorists and states that harbor them? Of course, when you ‘cut and run’ from an unfinished military effort, as Bush did in Afghanistan so he could start a war in Iraq, this is not an altogether unexpected result. If only Afghanistan had a bunch of oil, maybe we’d have finished the job. Then again…

Bush Reality: “Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice. “

Actual Reality: The U.S. government has closed up the task force whose main goal was to track and capture or kill bin Laden. In fact, they haven’t been actively looking for bin Laden for years. After downplaying bin Laden for years, Bush has only recently begun to reincarnate this boogeyman as we near the mid-term elections, an election that most politicians and pundits believe will result in reversals of the Republican majority in one or both houses of government.

Bush Reality: “I’m often asked why we’re in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat…The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.”

Actual Reality: Hussein was an evil, brutal dictator, but he posed no threat to the United States, unless one considers his desire to create his own oil bourse using Euros instead of dollars as the primary exchange currency. The recent Senate Intelligence Committee report states as much by noting that Iraq had no WMD’s and no ties to al-Qaeda. Kuwait may be safer today. Maybe even Iran or Israel are safer today. But ordinary Iraqi’s seem to be no safer, and certainly the U.S., Spain, Britain, Indonesia, and scores of other countries are not safer because Hussein was militarily deposed. This assertion by Bush is just another in a long string of false information clearly not supported by the facts on the ground.

Bush Reality: “We’ve tightened security at our airports and seaports and borders…”

Actual Reality: Little to no action has been taken to secure American sea ports, strengthen security at our borders, or improve actual security at airports, unless you count banning water bottles and frisking grandmothers. It is almost as if by simply saying the word ‘security’ Bush expects us to believe that it is being done. But several million illegal border crossings do not suggest a secure border. Less than 10% of port cargo being inspected either before shipping or before being off-loaded into ports does not suggest increased port security.

I could go on and on and on deflating the president’s bubble of false assertions, but you clearly get the point. The president and his policies have offered little to America and the world in terms of security or success against global terrorism. In fact, his policy of preemptive war has only helped fuel the fires that create more terrorists. Time and again, the most successful efforts against terrorists and their plots have been won through persistent policing and investigative work. They have not been borne at the end of a gun, with the drop of a bomb, or by waterboarding some captured jihadist.

George W. Bush may not be a 21st century Nazi, but his propaganda tactics sure would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Indeed, by sticking to the Nazi propaganda minister’s primary dictum, that one must only repeat a lie often enough for it to eventually be taken for the truth, Bush has riden a wave of irrational exuberance for the last four years. It took total annihilation for the German people to rid themselves of their insidious propaganda government. Fortunately for America, we only have to wait a few more months. Come November, America will be changing the direction. We’ve had more than enough of the course we’re on now.

“Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis,” the president said at the State Department after a day of meetings with his top defense, diplomatic and national security advisers.

Whew! Let me tell you what a relief it is to hear that. I haven’t felt this secure since Bush informed us that major combat operations in Iraq had ended back in May, 2003. The only thing missing from the event this time was a showy banner with a catchy slogan. Guess in the midst of celebrating this great victory for Israel, Rove forgot to call the printer.

But wait a minute…it seems that Hezbollah, Israel’s partner in warfare this past month, has declared victory too. How can this be? What’s a neo-con to do? Surely there can’t be two winners in this thing?

But there can perhaps be two losers, and maybe more. For certainty, the civilian populations of both Lebanon and Israel have been losers in this contrived conflict. It is they who have suffered the most deaths, not their military or paramilitary counterparts. It is they who have to struggle through the bombed out cities as they try to go about daily life. It is they who will be burdened with the financial costs of warfare as their governments tax them to rebuild and rearm. Yes, the biggest losers in this whole macabre game of geopolitical chess are the civilians. But they are not the only losers.

Lebanon as a country striving towards their version of democracy has suffered a great set back. Even if they were only a shadow of what we consider democracy to be, they were a primarily peaceful and beautiful country that has been unfortunate to be in the hotseat between Israel and those who have chosen to seek that country’s demise. With a decimated infrastructure and a populace able to see clearly who holds the real reins of power, the elected government of Lebanon is likely to slide towards the doctrines and practices of less progressive (okay- downright regressive) Islamic theocracies who have helped keep Hazbollah afloat all these years. For those Lebanese who are not Muslim, the times ahead could be troubling at best. And for those Lebanese who are Muslim, but not theologically insane and murderous, being subjected to a harsh Islamic rule may not be all they ever dreamed of.

Israel loses too, as her previously presumed infallability on the battlefield bears the stain of hundreds or thousands of civilian deaths caused needlessly in an action that should have been relegated to stalwart law enforcement practices instead of the raining death of bombs. The bravado of Prime Minister Olmert at the beginning of the conflict, that he would cripple Hezbollah, has put a stark spin on the falsity of political rhetoric, leaving the beleagured Israeli population back where they started- surrounded by people who hate them and who now have more courage to strike.

America also goes down swinging in this latest effort to bring about a ‘rebirth in the Middle East.’ Although a thinly veiled sideline player in this conflict, the U.S. once again miscalculated the amount of prestige and power she now has in that region of the world. Strangely, even after all the failures in Iraq, President Bush still lives in a reality bubble, where all is grand in the White House Magic Mirror. And no matter what the evidence bears or the rest of the world thinks, the mirror still tells George he’s the fairest of them all. America’s loss in this affair is a continued downswing in her own credibility. But (thanks to this Bush Administration) your reputation is already near the floor, it’s harder to get much lower. So at least our loss isn’t as great as the others.

Iran, ostensibly the biggest backer of Hezbollah also gets a little dirt on her nose too, if only because the whole conflagration has caused an increase in blustery talk from the Bush regime. Whether or not Iran really wants to go head to head with the U.S., their role in supplying Hezbollah with military arms and finances only adds fuel to the fire that they are indeed part of an ‘Axis of Evil.’ As if in cahoots with King George the Dunce, every word and action from Amedinijad brings the possibility of armed conflict between the two nations more likely, if only because they are being led by two undersized bullies at the sandbox.

The simple truth is this- nations that attempt to fight terrorist groups with conventional warfare will not be victors, even as they destroy much of those terrorists’ means of fighting. The costs in civilian lives will always be too dear in a world where warfare isn’t the public’s first choice for solving problems. The costs in infrastructure and materiel is too great to bear over a long term. And the loss of those things will only ensure that more of the affected civilian populations will join forces, either ideologically or practically, with the terror groups. The terror groups seem to understand this, just as they understand that conventional western governments will almost always choose the path of war against them, given enough time and provocation.

Gee, the more I look at things, the more it seems that maybe Hezbollah did come out the winners this time. After all, they do get to keep their weapons. They aren’t releasing the Israeli soldiers. And they’re still around to fight another day. Oh, and they are getting a lot of publicity too. Maybe even becoming hero-like to similar groups in the region and the world. And all because of an act that was criminal murder and kidnapping. Funny thing is that if Israel simply put Mossad on the trail of the actual perpetrators, much of this could have been avoided, or at the very least, delayed.

And who know what that delay may have achieved? Perhaps the nation of Labanon would have slowly purged the militant mullahs from their midst. Perhaps Hezbollah would have eventually become only a political band instead of the political-military apparatus it is now. Perhaps instead of another failed state in the Middle East, we would have realized an ally on the way to a more free and open system of government. But it seems we may never know now, and all because our President has advanced the use of war asa surrogate for diplomacy.

Hezbollah defeated? If that’s what defeat looks like, I’m sure glad they didn’t win.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In case you aren’t familiar with the practices of these ‘legitimate businesses’ let me fill you in on some of their favorite schemes, courtesy of this study from the University of Florida:

“Charges for payday loans vary, but a typical lender will charge around $17 or $18 for a two-week loan of $100. That’s roughly equivalent to an annual interest rate of 450 percent.”

and

“After collecting data from more than 13,000 ZIP codes across the country, the study’s authors found payday loan operations clustered in areas near military bases.”

And another from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“Their business is geared toward confusing people and trapping them in this treadmill and squeezing every dollar that they can out of them,” said Robert Pregulman, executive director of WashPIRG, a consumer protection group in the state. “The whole premise behind the industry is to target a certain group of people and take advantage of them.”

Let’s look at some truths here: in our current era of unending pre-emptive war and the massive call-up of National Guard and military reservists to act as cannon fodder, the number of active military families is increasing. At the same time, Congress, filled with ‘we love the troops’ Republicans, have been cutting benefits for the troops while increasing their deployments. For many reservists and guardsmen, this amounts to leaving a civilian job for full time military service with lower pay. Lower pay coming in makes it harder for families to pay the bills. Creditors come calling, credit ratings plummet, and the option of getting regular credit terms evaporates. In comes the payday loan, with all of its associated pitfalls and trapdoors waiting for a financially unsavvy customer to come walking through the door.

Here’s the rub though. The UCMJ (those rules that govern military conduct) takes a dim view of soldiers who can’t repay their debts. Penalties include docked paychecks, loss of rank or security clearance, and possibly time in the brig. As more military members turn to quick loans to make it to the next payday, they become more vulnerable to these consequences, especially as fees and interest rates stack up. This loss of manpower can be the difference between having a ready force or having one half-staffed or under trained. And we’ve all seen the consequences of not having good intelligence, enough troop strength, or poor training. It’s called the aftermath of Iraqi Freedom. By targeting military families, these businesses directly affect the security of our nation. They must be helping the terrorists then, right?

But it’s not just the terrorists who use suicide bombing as their main military tactic who are being aided and abetted by these payday loan companies. It is also local, home grown terrorists (read politicians who permit these predators to continue using these tactics) who benefit through donations from the payday loan industry. And as one lawmaker admits, the rise of these lending houses were made possible by lawmakers across the nation.

“We made it a much more profitable industry,” said Rep. Shay Schual-Burke, D-Normandy Park, referring to legislative action in 2003 that raised the maximum payday loan by $200 to $700. “We actually authorized these predators. I’m not too proud to say that we made a mistake.”

The answer to the problem goes beyond just regulating this ‘industry’ though. At the heart of the matter are two very key issues: education, and congressional responsibility.

Education, real education about personal finances, budgeting, and spending habits need to be addressed in high school or even junior high school if citizens (military and civilian alike) are ever going to break the cycle of debt. We need to teach people that a responsible personal budget can go a long way towards achieving a more satisfying life. And regardless of income level, knowing how to budget what you earn and owe is a skill all should have.

Congressional Responsibility, taking the form of laws against obscene interest rates, caps on maximum short-term loan amounts, fuller disclosure, and limiting the number of short-term loans a person can get would be a start. But for military families, the bigger solution lies in fully funding military benefits, raising military pay at the lower ends of the pay scale, and creating and funding programs for the families of active duty personnel.

Defenders of payday loans need not come crying to me about how these companies are just providing a service, and if you’re dumb enough to use them you get what you deserve. They may be providing a service, but so does the mob, and I’ve yet to see a politician stand up in praise of mob practices. And to call someone who is strapped for cash dumb does not address the issue at all. In many cases, the only dumb thing they did was take a job in the military during a time of war with a Congress and White House more concerned with corporate profits than the men and women who are keeping those profits afloat with blood and bullets.

I don’t know what we can do about this, other than pressure lawmakers to rein in these companies. But somehow I don’t think this is high on their radar screen at the moment. They all seem too busy battling each other over gay marriage, abortion rights, and other hot button non-issues. That, and racing to be the next politician indicted for corruption.

Just a little something to think about as we enter the Memorial Day Weekend.

(Cross posted at Bring It On)