Just in time for Veterans’ Day there’s a new lawsuit against KBR, a Texas-based construction company accused of making at least 100,000 soldiers in Iraq sick from contaminated air.
At least 22 separate lawsuits claiming KBR poisoned American soldiers in Iraq have been combined into a single massive lawsuit that says KBR, which until not long ago was a subsidiary of Halliburton, sought to save money by disposing of toxic waste and incinerating numerous potentially harmful substances in open-air "burn pits."
According to one of the lawsuits (PDF), filed in a federal court in Nashville, KBR burned "tires, lithium batteries ... biohazard materials (including human corpses), medical supplies (including those used during smallpox inoculations), paints, solvents, asbestos insulation, items containing pesticides, polyvinyl chloride pipes, animal carcasses, dangerous chemicals, and hundreds of thousands of plastic water bottles."
Grievances against KBR range from breathing problems to cancer.
There are also allegations in the article that military officials did little, if anything, to prevent the incineration of materials, and even had KBR burning them in plain site of the soldiers.
I'm really trying to back off of making fun of Young America's Foundation. Honestly. But sometimes they make it just too easy. Take, for instance, the poll they put up on their site this week:
Yes, you're reading that correctly. The poll question is, "Why haven't Obama's youth brigades signed up for military service?" The options to answer are, "They prefer telling others how to live their lives," "They are chicken hawks," "They are just chickens," and "All of the above." (The current winning answer, by the way? It's D, winning at 63 percent.)
The question is first of all weird because Obama didn't actually campaign on going to war. In fact, he campaigned on the idea of getting out of Iraq. Furthermore, some on the left are growing impatient with Afghanistan and continuing to protest the U.S. presence there.
But the implication here is obvious. YAF seems to believe that Real Americans ™ enlist in the military when their president is in power. But if that's true, then why did Jason Mattera, YAF spokesman, insist that he didn't need to enlist in the military because he was busy "fighting the battle of ideas"? Watch it:
We wrote two pieces about the state of the anti-genocide activism movement recently by our staff writer and former editorial intern Matt Zeitlin. John Prendergast himself responded to the story: Read More »
Stephen M. Walt has an important column up at Salon. Using the controversy over Bill Kristol's new gig as a New York Times columnist as a springboard, Walt argues that there is less of a difference between the liberal and neoconservative views on foreign policy than we think, and that a third, oft-underrepresented group has in recent years been excluded from the mainstream discourse: foreign policy realists.
So it turns out that we have no motivation to go to war with Iran (except that they're, you know, Muslim and anti-American), since they stopped their weapons program since 2003. What the report more or less shows is that Iran has been deescalating a war situation instead of baiting one.
Brian wonders why it took so long for the report to be released and why the intelligence community would defect from the administration. To me, the second point of wondering doesn't seem surprising. After all, the administration has more or less blamed the entire Iraq war on faulty intelligence, something I'm sure gets under the skin of many intelligence professional at the DoD and the CIA. The decision to go to war didn't rest with them, it rested with the president.
Furthermore, I think this really shows how hawkish our entire foreign policy community is on Iran. Even so-called liberal publications like the New Republic in the last year have published essays suggesting a hawkish policy on Iran.* What's more, a lot of people aren't considered serious thinkers in the foreign policy community unless they show evidence of at least minor hawkishness. This seems like a problem to me.
Kay Steiger recently blogged about our generation being more isolationist than older generations.
I would fit the mold you just described above (sort of). Until we can fix our foreign policy, we have no business getting into other country's business.
My friend Mark over at UN Dispatch alerted me to a new poll conducted by the UN Foundation which shows that overall people have more faith in international co-operation than military action. What's really interesting, though, is that young people (which the UN defines as the 15-24 age range) view themselves as islolationists more than older generations do. They tend to resist interference in other countries' internal problems. I'm all for resisting military invasions, but what I think is danerous about this, though, is that it suggests a general disengagement with what's going on in the world. There are plenty of places (see: Pakistan and possibly Sudan -- although there are some strong arguments to be made for military intervention there) where some strong diplomacy could swing things in a favorable direction. Since the US has so much power when it comes to trade (although to a lessening degree lately) it makes sense to monitor what's going on in other countries.
I'm interested to know, what do other young people think about isolationism?
I just wanted to share a cool new project of the Institute for Policy Studies/Foreign Policy in Focus. It's called US Policy World, and it's essentially a Wiki for US foreign policy.
Check it out: www.USPW.org
This is a great chance to interact with foreign policy scholars and write a little bit about international affairs.
I'm probably going to take some serious flack from commenters for saying this, but I think the most important idea to come out of Saturday's candidate forum at Kos was Hillary Clinton's suggestion that the War on Terrorism be re-labeled the War on Terrorists. Like so many liberals I've been frustrated by what Clinton correctly identifies as the peculiarity of fighting a war on tactic. And the shorthand "War on Terror," which technically means war on an emotion is so illogical as to be completely meaningless. I've never had quite the right alternative though. Some have suggested that after September 11th, President Bush should have simply declared war on Al-Qaeda. I think a restrained approach like that would have been acceptable, but in recent years so many Islamic jihadists groups have sprung up in the Middle East, Asia and Europe that are not explicitly part of Al-Qaeda but share its goals and methods. So I think Clinton's suggestion that we re-conceive the war as focused on them collectively is the correct response for liberals both as a matter of politics (it's tough but sensible) and policy.
From the University Club, I walked a block and a half east on M Street to the Westin City Center, where the Center for U.S. Global Engagement was kicking off IMPACT ’08: Building a Better, Safer World, an “initiative to elevate development and diplomacy as priorities in American foreign policy.” The conference might have been about foreign policy priorities, but my priority was finding some free lunch.
At the Take Back America conference held in Washington DC this week, the top Presidential candidates spoke to the 3,000 progressive activists, policy wonks and politicians presiding to convince them that they are the true progressive candidate going into 2008. Yet, what a remarkable shift in political ideology from the past 4 cycles. It seems that a new progressive movement is afoot and it is gaining steam not just due to the massive dissatisfaction with the Bush era and conservative policies, but through the enthusiasm of Democrats in recent months for the chance to seize the moment and move the country farther to the left to a magnitude that hasn't come to fruition since the days of the civil rights era of the 1960s or maybe even the New Deal Roosevelt Era of the 1930s and 40s.
Candidate after candidate rolled on stage uttering words such as the need for a "progressive agenda in America." We all may recall how Democrats have strayed away from their progressive-liberal roots in recent cycles post-Reagan era stigmatization of liberalism in American culture. The byproduct of that was the Democratic Leadership Council and the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat at best. Therefore it is very fulfilling to hear the Democratic Party of today use "progressive" in a new light, a re-energized way of signaling a new direction for the country. It has signaled the beginning of a new progressive movement and a movement that is actually winning at the polls.
The 2006 mid-term elections ushered in Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. The more important victory was the large number of progressives that got elected into the Senate that year. At the conference, some of these movers and shakers in the progressive movement were featured speakers on panels including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Can we imagine for one second the magnitude of this massive political shift. The Senate, post 2006, actually has its first self-described Socialist. Sherrod Brown, a progressive populist, won in a state that has been solidly Republican for decades yet Ohio now has not only Sherrod Brown but a very progressive governor, Ted Strickland who recently signed into law gay rights legislation. The same goes for Colorado and its rising star governor Bill Ritter and their anti-discrimination bill. Ladies and gentleman, this is not just a temporary blip on the radar screen caused by deep dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The former governor of Colorado was a conservative Republican, as was the state historically, yet they elected a majority Democratic legislature, a very progressive Governor, and a Hispanic Senator in 2004. The 2008 Senate seat in Colorado is open and the door for liberal Mark Udall representing liberal Boulder to win is wide open. In fact he is heavily favored to win. Can you imagine Colorado, a Western state bordering Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska being a bastion of deep blue in the West by 2008? The answer to that is definitely yes and thats exactly whats happening in Colorado. One cannot parallel the blunders in Iraq for such a deep political realignment. It is indicative of a larger political realignment that is currently in the process of developing in this country.
Going back to the Presidential election, the successes of 2006 were part of a larger process going into 2008. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in his closing speech for Take Back America 2007 stated that the 2006 election was the watershed beginning of a massive shift. The 2008 election will seal that shift for a generation. Again I strongly reiterate, it is much more than just the Iraq War. Conservatism in this country has grown and flourished since Reagan's ascension in 1980 and Carter's embarrassing defeat ala the Iran hostage crisis. Liberalism was dead at that point as we were perceived as weak, incompetent, and wrong for the country. Anti-gay activists and pro-Lifers gained power and momentum. That era continued into the 1990s, and gained even more influence in the 2000s as an atmosphere of fear plagued the post-9/11 world. Can you imagine Al Gore in 2000 using "progressive" to categorize the political ideology of his policy proposals? Never. That is why, I emphasize again, the magnitude of this moment. Every candidate on that stage that we can actually take seriously (excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson basically sounded the same more or less on health care, education, the War in Iraq, national security, terrorism, the environment, global warming, the AIDS crisis, Darfur, spending, corruption, competence, and world leadership. Something remarkable was evident at that conference. Although we may all support varying candidates based on personality, style, experience, or approach, we were all part of the same emerging movement.
On that stage, the candidates spoke to the liberal base of the party. It was evident from the beginning that not only was Barack Obama well received, but it was a pre-conceived fact that that would occur with the multitude of Obama wearing attendees at the conference throughout the three days. Obama's speech was very positively received and I must say that for a guy who strongly prefers Hillary Clinton, I must give him a lot of credit. The crowd went wild for him, clapping at almost every line that he uttered. I will also express my deep sympathy for John Edwards, who has a great message, but was in the predicament of going right after Obama. This created an atmosphere where about 1/3 of the audience left right after Obama finished all the while people stampeding (and I will admit I stood on a char desperately aiming to get a closeup photo) to the front of the stage to get autographs and photos taken. It was just unimaginable that someone could top his speech. People were overwhelmed and emotionally drained creating a very awkward situation for Edwards where the crowd was enthusiastic but not nearly as much as for Obama. Unfortunately, I resorted to watching Bill Richardson's speech online and it seemed like a good speech, and well received but not a first tier breakout speech by any means.
I will devote an entire paragraph to Hillary Clinton because I feel her speech asks for such. First and foremost, her speech was very dull and what I would call "safe." She said nothing that got booed in the first 25 minutes nor much applause either. Now I say that because the progressive crowd at Take Back America isn't too cozy with Hillary because of her stance on the war and funding. People just weren't excited by her. I blame the early morning hour (8am) which was strategic timing so that she wouldn't go on the same day as Obama and Edwards. It was actually announced in the latter part of the first day of the conference that she would speak on Wednesday instead of Tuesday which I understood as a tactical campaign move. It was also strategic for her to talk about Iraq last which was a way for the negative atmosphere not to set the tone for her entire speech. She was indeed booed, as media reports have circulated, for a comment she made referring to the fact that the US military has done its job and that it is time for the Iraqi government to step up and do its job too. I, for one, agree with that. But people like "code Pink" attack people on the left and eat them alive. I actually was very angry at the Code Pink women for heckling her and Nancy Pelosi and I actually struck a conversation with one of the ladies from their organization. It was very discouraging to see that people don't understand the limitations of a certain number of votes in the Senate. I expressed my frustration with the ability within the Republican Party to unite under a mantra that is winnable and as the record has shown has won in the past with great success. Yet our side bickers for not going far enough and we just destroy each other and lose.
With the anger came optimism. There is a new emerging progressive era coming and this country is ready for change. People are sick of conservative government. People are sick of vetoes on stem cell research funding. People are sick of the lack of good health care. People are sick of an incompetent government that destroys our reputation around the world. People are done with the Conservative Era. Our generation is vastly different from any before us. We are much more likely to be pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights and gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-living wage, and pro-universal health care. Our generation hates the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated this country since the Vietnam War. A new progressive majority is building with the help of the influx of Hispanics. People are ready for not just turning the chapter, but writing a new book. People are ready for a completely different kind of politics. There is something brewing, and I sensed it at Take Back America 2007. Again, its not just about Iraq. We, as progressives, must look at the broader picture.
A new progressive era is upon us as Americans are ready to embrace liberal values because liberal values ARE American values. This mantra was constantly reiterated at the conference. I knew at Take Back America 2007 that progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party and they aren't being alienated but embraced. Progressives are replacing the moderates. Progressivism is becoming mainstream. Universal health care is supported by all the Democratic candidates. Such a plan would have been heretical and Socialist only 10-20 years ago. Every candidate supports Civil Unions for gays and lesbians publicly and enthusiastically. Although I acknowledge that isn't enough, the country is moving in the right direction on the issue. I'm confident that privately many of these candidates support full marriage equality such as Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd. 46% of Americans support full marriage equality, according to a newly released Gallup Poll. That's the highest in history. It is, after all, nearly a majority. A vast majority want us to do something about global warming. A vast majority are willing to do their part to help that happen. This country is based on liberal values. We cannot forget that nor shall we abandon that. A massive political realignment is on the horizon and it is developing right as I write. A new Progressive Era is upon us and we must embrace it and propose our plans to the American people. We must do it in a way that breeds consensus and fairness. I embrace the impending Progressive majority with open arms.
I too was at Take Back America yesterday, wowed and moved by both Obama and Edwards' speeches. But I find it strange that Matt and Ezra found Edwards so "persuasive," "direct," and "plausible" on foreign policy. Edwards laid out a wildly optimistic vision in which:
1. American energy independence (hence, no more oil cash) forces Middle Eastern nations to invest in education, economic development, and good government.
2.The United States starts to rely on homegrown energy sources (ethanol).
3. Europe doesn't have enough empty space to compete, so it invests heavily in African agriculture and energy.
4. African poverty lifts.
These would all be excellent accomplishments. But the causality here is far from assured. I agree with Brian Beutler that this seems "incredibly difficult to pull off." And more disturbingly, the notion that we can "remake the Middle East" politically just by decreasing our dependence on their oil -- as Edwards suggested today -- is, I fear, as ignorant of entrenched ethnic and religious tensions as the neo-conservatism of George W. Bush. Both theories over-reach and rely upon a grandiose rhetoric in which the United States is not a helpmate to the world's disenfranchised but a direct architect of ideal societies. (To be fair, Edwards' words on aid to alleviate global poverty had an entirely different tone.)
The exceptionalist (and exemplarist) impulse in American history is well-covered, and has of course led to both triumphs and tragedies. Call me a realist, but I'm hoping for a newer, humbler tone to a progressive foreign policy.
Fresh on the heels of its green issue featuring Leo DiCaprio with an adorable baby seal, Vanity Fair has devoted July to Africa, with U2's Bono acting as symbolic "guest editor." I admit I was skeptical at first, especially considering the glossy adds for Product (Red)--Bono's effort to donate a percentage of profits from consumer goods to health care in Africa--throughout the magazine. And the Brad Pitt interview with ArchbishopDesmond Tutu is unreadable. But I highly recommend Sebastian Junger's reporting from Chad on China's growing economic influence in Africa and support for the genocidal Sudanese regime. Junger highlights fears on the continent that over-reliance on Chinese construction, labor, and oil investments will create a neo-colonial relationship. And he points out that the United States' blockage of China's attempt to purchase UNOCAL forced China's hand in pursuing oil reserves in beyond-the-pale Sudan. A reminder that energy policy is a crucial aspect of our foreign policy. And that climate change and poverty and genocide go hand in hand.
The profile of Jeffrey Sachs is interesting if you don't already know a lot about him. I also wouldn't miss "The Lazarus Effect," which details exactly how the uber-slick Product (Red) campaign works: The advertising dollars are drawn from each company's marketing budget (Gap, Apple, Converse, etc.), so no charity funds are going toward PR. And so far, Product (Red) leather jackets, watches, iPods, and such have raised $25 million to provide Africans with anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS. (I just can't figure out why those annoying parentheses are part of the name).
If you make it through all this, the excerpt from Tina Brown's new book on Princess Diana is pretty absorbing. Who knew she was secretly in love with a Pakistani heart surgeon?
Even-tempered thinking on Israel/Palestine is in short supply. So that's why the story of what's happening to New Voices--a progressive Jewish magazine distributed on college campuses--is particularly sad. After publishing articles that criticized select elements of Israeli government policy and writing about alternative student tours of Israel that travel to the occupied territories, New Voices lost tens of thousands of dollars of funding and had to layoff a staff member. Now New Voices' funders are forcing them to publish rabid advertisements decrying the supposed "anti-Semitic climate" ravaging American college campuses.
That's just the kind of over-heated rhetoric that made Jewish students like me tune out. As New Voices editor Ilana Sichel tells The Nation, "To suddenly be told you have to toe this party line--it's contrary to what we stand for and it's contrary to what the Jewish intellectual tradition stands for."
Isn't it refreshing to see that in some countries the leader of government steps aside when his foreign policy does not have majority support? Such is the case in Italy where Prime Minister Romano Prodi is said to be stepping down because he fell just short of a majority in favor of a resolution of support for his foreign policy. If only we had a parliamentary system here, Dick Cheney would be taking the oath of office any day now. Or would we be getting the first female president?
Via Daily Kos: A useful chart of the competing Congressional proposals to stop the escalation and end the war, as well as the stances of many of the major presidential hopefuls. Some of the proposed legislation repeals the Iraq resolution of 2002 (which gave President Bush sole power to take the country to war), others cap troop levels or prohibit the President from deploying troops who aren't fully militarily prepared (such as National Guards). Some call for withdrawal within 90 days, others propose a time frame of a year and half or more. Some prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, while others ignore the possibility of a permanent occupation. Some stress creating a Special Envoy to the region and a "diplomatic surge," others are more isolationist.
Far be it from me to disagree with my role model, MikeTomasky, but I was intrigued by his post on "Comment is Free," the online opinion page of the Guardian. Mike argues that the reason Hillary Clinton refuses to admit that she was wrong to support the Iraq War is the influence of the foreign policy establishment: "This is a bunch whose views are well to the right of the Democratic primary electorate. And it is a bunch in whose good graces Hillary Clinton, a cautious and establishment politician at her core, is fervent to stay."
Well, he's certainly right about the first point, as he illustrates with figures like Ken Pollack and Richard Holbrooke. One the second, though, I'd offer a slightly different analysis. I'm not sure that Senator Clinton is so concerned with sucking up to those guys -- I think if she moves to the left to get elected they'll still gladly take jobs from her. I think she, being in some sense a member of that same cadre, simply subscribes to the same way of thinking that they do.
As Mike points out, the foreign policy elite include many former government officials. Just as the Clintons became more hawkish after eight years of actually serving (or being so close to it, in Hillary's case), isn't it possible the same thing happened to their advisors who now fill the ranks of Brookings et al? (A more cynical, but equally valid, explanation might be the effect of eight years of being influenced by the group think that emerges from career military officials and bureaucrats.) I, for one, though I disagreed with their support for the war from the beginning, never doubted the Clintons' sincerity.
Correction: This post originally stated that Mike neglected to mention that many foreign policy elites also served in government. I regret the error.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
