By William Fisher
Last week’s announcement that Iraq will now have to pay for its own reconstruction has left some observers wondering whether the yet-to-be-formed government there will be up to the task.
Iraq's deputy finance minister, Kamal Field al-Basri, said it was "reasonable" for the United States to sharply cut back its reconstruction efforts after spending about $21 billion. "We should be very much dependent on ourselves," al-Basri said in an interview the American newspaper, USA Today.
That will prove to be a very tall order. In 2003, the World Bank estimated the total rebuilding cost would be $60 billion. Current estimates put the bill at $70-100 billion.
The new estimate comes at a time when little progress has been made in increasing Iraq’s oil production – which represents more than 90 per cent of the country’s income. Slowed to a near halt by insurgent attacks, Iraq now spends about $6 billion annually to import oil.
Iraq must increase oil exports from their current level of about 1.6 million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day, said Daniel Speckhard, director of the U.S. Iraq Reconstruction Management Office. The deputy finance minister said Iraq needs foreign investment to lift exports to three million barrels a day. That would equal the oil exports achieved by Iraq in the 1980s. Oil production today is far below prewar levels.
According to the Pentagon's prewar planning, oil production was supposed to provide the funds for Iraqi reconstruction. Vice President Richard Cheney and other senior Bush Administration officials emphasized this point repeatedly in their pre-war effort to justify the U.S. invasion.
Also facing the country is a massive rebuilding of infrastructure. Lack of security has also stymied efforts to rebuild electrical, sewer and water systems. A report last month by the special U.S. inspector general overseeing reconstruction said so much money was being spent on security that most sewer, irrigation, and drainage projects had been canceled.
Production by Iraq's national electrical grid remains at 4,000 megawatts, 400 megawatts below pre-war levels, with the average Iraqi receiving less than 12 hours of power a day. The shortfall has been attributed mainly to sabotage by insurgents.
Approximately 16%-22% of each reconstruction dollar spent by the U.S. has gone to protect projects and contractors.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because he is involved in the current Iraqi political process, a leading Middle East expert told us, “Because the U.S. did understand Iraqi culture, it did not anticipate the insurgency. Because it did not anticipate the insurgency, it could not have planned for the huge sums that would have to be spent on security.”
Critics of the Bush Administration see the end of American reconstruction funding as vindicating this position. Typical is Prof. Beau Grosscup, professor of international relations at California State University at Chico. He told us, “Having destroyed Iraq, the U.S. can't and now refuses to put it back together again. This decision reflects the disastrous reality of the U.S. occupation for the Iraqi people as it is obvious there won't be peace until the U.S. leaves. Meanwhile, the make-over of the Iraqi economy has been completed.”
But the Pentagon defends the reconstruction project as the best that could be achieved under very difficult and dangerous security conditions.
With the billions of dollars appropriated by the U.S. for Iraqi reconstruction almost all spent, other nations and multinational institutions will be asked to shoulder the burden for funding the large number of unfinished projects.
Speckhard said the U.S. aid program sought to "kick-start the economy" and "lay a foundation" that Iraq could build on. He added, "That kick-starting process has occurred.”
However, the extent of U.S. commitment to reconstruction has always been somewhat murky. "The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told reporters at a recent news conference. In an interview, McCoy reportedly told The Washington Post newspaper, "This was just supposed to be a jump-start."
But McCoy’s assertion seems to be at odds with previous administration statements. For example, in a speech on Aug. 8, 2003, President George W. Bush said, "In a lot of places, the infrastructure is as good as it was at prewar levels, which is satisfactory, but it's not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is for the infrastructure to be the best in the region."
While President Bush gave the impression that Iraq was slated for a complete makeover, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared less certain. He told the Senate Appropriations Committee in March 2003, “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction…(reconstruction) funds can come from…frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.”
On the other hand, that view seems to contradict a report submitted the same year by the prime consulting contractor hired by the Pentagon to lay out the future of Iraq’s economy. The company, BearingPoint Inc. of McLean, Virginia, said, “The reconstruction of Iraq has begun. Not the reconstruction of vital public services such as water, electricity or public security, but rather the radical reconstruction of its entire economy.”
Clearly, this has not happened. And the Administration’s recent decision not to ask Congress for additional funding for reconstruction suggests it is not likely to happen any time soon.
With many of Iraq’s key ministries in disarray and some dogged by persistent corruption, and with no permanent government in place, observers say it is doubtful that the country’s government will have either the resources or the expertise to manage the large-scale reconstruction projects that remain unfinished
Relatively little of the $30 billion allocated for reconstruction since the invasion
remains to be spent, and spending authority is scheduled to run out in June 2007.
According to a recent report by the U.S. special inspector general for Iraq (IG), reconstruction officials cannot say how many planned projects they will complete, and there is no clear source for hundreds of millions of dollars a year needed to operate the projects that have been finished.
The IG’s report described some progress but also cited a number of projects that have failed. For example, expensive electrical substations were built but not connected to the country's electrical grid.
Much of the reconstruction funding has been diverted to other projects. At least $2.5 billion earmarked for infrastructure and schools was diverted to building up a security force. Funds originally intended to repair the electricity grid and sewage and sanitation system were used to train special bomb squad units and a hostage rescue force. The U.S. has also shifted funds to build 10 new prisons to keep pace with the insurgency, and safe houses and armored cars for Iraqi judges.
Hundreds of millions of dollars from the reconstruction fund was also used to hold elections and for four changes of government, and to establish a criminal justice system, including $128 million to examine several mass graves of Saddam Hussein’s alleged victims.
In addition to the diversion of funds to other types of projects, the reconstruction efforts have been plagued by substantial corruption and overcharging by contractors.
The cost of security has eaten up as much as 25% of each project, according to the IG. A U.S. congressional report last October forecast that many reconstruction projects were unlikely to get off the ground because of security costs. Iraqi authorities estimate that 10 billion dollars are needed for the health sector alone, to build or rehabilitate and provide equipment for hospitals and clinics.
The bottom line here is that while Iraqi politicians squabble over the composition of their future government, Iraq’s infrastructure remains in shambles. If these leaders – and wannabe leaders – really care about their country more than they do about their party or their egos, real reconstruction provides a huge incentive for them to get on with the job.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
THE OXYCOPS
By William Fisher
Wheelchairbound multiple sclerosis patient Richard Paey is serving 25 years in a Florida prison for “trafficking” 1/2 gram of OxyContin, even though the prosecutor concedes that Paey never sold any of his medications. In prison, he now receives more pain-killing drugs than he was convicted of having.
Dr. William Hurwitz, a pioneering pain physician, was tried and convicted of violating the Controlled Substances Act -- which is intended to curb the illicit use of drugs -- and is serving a 25-year term in federal prison. He was also fined $2 million.
These are but two of hundreds of cases in which, in its zeal to stamp out the illegal drug use, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is cracking down on doctors who prescribe medications to relieve chronic pain, and the patients who depend on these drugs to live normal lives.
Hundreds of physicians have been put on trial for charges ranging from health insurance fraud to drug distribution, even to manslaughter and murder for over-prescribing prescription narcotics. Investigators have also seized doctors’ homes, offices, and bank accounts, leaving them with no resources for their defense.
In March 2004, DEA administrator Karen Tandy told Congress her drug warriors have "been successful in addressing OxyContin diversion as evidenced by a reduction in the rate of increase of OxyContin prescriptions being written and a leveling-off of OxyContin sales." But Ronald Libby, a professor of political science at the University of North Florida, told us he doubts that sales of opioids like Oxycodone have declined since 2004.
Drug diversion means the diversion of legal drugs for illicit purposes. Prescription drug abuse accounts for almost 30% of the overall drug problem in the United States, representing a close challenge to cocaine addiction. Sometimes these diverted prescription drugs end up for sale on the street, where they reap large profits for traffickers.
Starting in the mid-1990s, and ratcheting up in 2001, the DEA -- part of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) -- has been leading an aggressive effort to eradicate the illegal "diversion" of certain prescription painkillers. A particular target has been OxyContin, one of a class of drugs known as opioids, which was aggressively marketed by its manufacturer, Purdue Pharma.
In 2001, the DEA launched a campaign called the "OxyContin Action Plan”. The DEA says the plan is necessary due to increasing abuse of prescription drugs, particularly by youth. The agency, which has teamed up with state and local authorities, typically employs law enforcement methods developed in the government’s “War on Drugs”, including aggressive undercover investigation, asset forfeiture, and informers. It says its goal is to stop violations of the Controlled Substances Law.
But critics charge that the DEA has focused too narrowly on doctors, exacerbating the already widespread problem of untreated or under-treated pain. As a result, well-meaning doctors are finding themselves subject to costly, potentially career-ending investigations. Several doctors and many of their patients have already been sent to prison.
The DEA maintains that only “criminal doctors” are being targeted, and that its efforts to prevent the sale of prescribed medications have no effect on the legitimate treatment of pain.
The pain-management community disagrees. Authorities say the DEA program reportedly is having a chilling effect on physicians, who are leaving their pain management specialties for safer practices, and on their patients, many of who literally cannot function without medication. The Village Voice newspaper reports that medical schools are now advising students to avoid pain management practice altogether.
Ironically, the DEA crackdown comes at a time when the medical profession knows more than ever about how to treat the chronic pain that makes life intolerable – sometimes impossible – for the estimated 50 to 70 million Americans who live in chronic disabling pain.
Until about 20 years ago, the medical profession knew little about pain management. Today, pain management has become a recognized medical specialty, and it is estimated that there are some 5,000 pain management doctors practicing in the U.S.
The DEA’s programs also come at a time when there are more effective pain-killing drugs on the market and when the Internet makes it easier than ever to obtain them.
The DEA’s dilemma is separating legitimate prescribers and users from drug dealers. And the DEA’s task is made more difficult, not only by its zeal, but by the fact that those investigating and prosecuting are not doctors but lawyers and law enforcement agents.
Before he was ever charged with a crime, Dr. Hurwitz recommended that the DEA “suspend current prosecutions against physicians who treat pain unless and until a review by a panel of nationally recognized experts in medical pain management has found that there is an absence of good faith by the physician. If only the physician's adherence to standards of care can be questioned, then the case is not an appropriate one for the criminal process, and should be referred to the professional regulatory authorities,” he said.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, in a letter to the judge in the Hurwitz case, charged he was convicted on the basis of “false expert testimony”, which it described as “egregious.”
Their letter said, “That a tiny percentage of his patients then broke the law with their prescriptions does not justify imprisoning Dr. Hurwitz for the rest of his life. A conviction based on this false medical testimony should not stand….”
The Hurwitz situation is not isolated. Throughout the U.S., physicians have been prosecuted, jailed, or have lost their licenses to practice medicine. In addition to Hurwitz, Dr. Ronald McIver is serving 30 years, Dr. Freddie Williams is serving life, and Dr. James Graves received a 62-plus-year sentence for diversion in 2002.
According to Prof. Libby, who has become an authority on the subject, “Many doctors have been convicted and almost no one has been acquitted.” He told us, “Most attorneys tell their clients to cop a plea and not fight it in court.”
Richard Paey was convicted of fraudulently submitting multiple copies of opioid prescriptions to treat chronic pain. He was in New Jersey where his doctor treated him, but then moved to Florida where he was unable to find a physician to write prescriptions to treat his pain.
Frightened by what they term a “brutal display of executive power”, most doctors, including those in the field of pain management, have simply abandoned this sickest and most vulnerable segment of our population. Patients suffering from mild to moderate pain, and requiring low dosages of opioids may still find care, but those patients with high dosage requirements are increasingly shut out of care altogether.
In 2004 it was estimated that many of the 5,000 pain specialists in the United States, would not prescribe opioids. Those few medical practices that do treat chronic pain with opioids impose severe restrictions on patients’ freedoms. Prof. Libby told us that many doctors are now prescribing over-the-counter medications such as aspirin and Tylenol, “which are far more dangerous than opioids if taken in large quantities.”
The DEA claims it investigates less than one per cent of physicians who prescribe OxyContin or other drugs covered by the Controlled Substances Act. The agency reported arresting 34 doctors out of 963,385 registered doctors in 2003, for selling opioids to addicts or drug dealers for money, sex, or favors. That is less than 0.001% of the total number of licensed doctors, the DEA said.
But critics dispute that figure. Prof. Libby told us, “In 2001, the DEA carried 861 investigations of doctors. If we use this figure instead of 34 arrests it means that more than 17 percent of the roughly 5,000 doctors who treat pain patients were investigated. That means that than one out of every six doctors who treat chronic pain patients were under criminal investigation.”
A not-for-profit advocacy group, the Pain Relief Network, is suing to have the Controlled Substances Act declared unconstitutional, and is seeking to enjoin the DEA from enforcing the law against physicians.
To calm its critics, the DEA commissioned several pain specialists to work with
Federal officials to create guidelines for physicians who treat pain with opioids. These guidelines were posted on the agency's website, and most doctors were led to believe that following the recommendations would keep them safe from prosecution.
But that understanding didn't last long. Late last year the guidelines were taken off the DEA's website. The agency claimed it wasn't bound by any standards or practices when it came to determining what physicians it would investigate.
Removal of the guidelines coincided with Dr. Hurwitz’s trial. The doctor’s attorneys attempted to have the guidelines admitted as evidence on the belief that Hurwitz's practice conformed to their parameters. They failed. A few weeks after Hurwitz's judge refused to admit the guidelines as evidence, the DEA renounced them, and essentially declared it had carte blanche to launch an inquiry.
David Jorenson, the academic pain specialist who headed the committee that
authored the original guidelines, sent the agency a sharply-worded rebuke. Three other professional associations representing pain specialists followed with a second letter. And the National Association of state Attorneys General wrote to the DEA, expressing concern that the agency was overstepping its bounds and interfering with the legitimate treatment of pain. The letter was signed by 30 AGs from both parties.
However, the DEA remains unmoved, insisting its revocation of the guidelines did not represent a shift in policy and that its pursuit of doctors should have no
effect on legitimate pain treatment.
Dr. Alexander DeLuca, MPH, a member of the American Academy of Preventive Health and a Policy Analyst and Board Member of the Pain Relief Network, told us, ”Relations between physicians and the DEA have probably never been worse in modern times.”
He added, “Law enforcement does not deserve a place at the table where physicians, social workers, and politicians of good will need to meet to deal with drug use and pain problems as public health, not criminal, matters.”
Wheelchairbound multiple sclerosis patient Richard Paey is serving 25 years in a Florida prison for “trafficking” 1/2 gram of OxyContin, even though the prosecutor concedes that Paey never sold any of his medications. In prison, he now receives more pain-killing drugs than he was convicted of having.
Dr. William Hurwitz, a pioneering pain physician, was tried and convicted of violating the Controlled Substances Act -- which is intended to curb the illicit use of drugs -- and is serving a 25-year term in federal prison. He was also fined $2 million.
These are but two of hundreds of cases in which, in its zeal to stamp out the illegal drug use, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is cracking down on doctors who prescribe medications to relieve chronic pain, and the patients who depend on these drugs to live normal lives.
Hundreds of physicians have been put on trial for charges ranging from health insurance fraud to drug distribution, even to manslaughter and murder for over-prescribing prescription narcotics. Investigators have also seized doctors’ homes, offices, and bank accounts, leaving them with no resources for their defense.
In March 2004, DEA administrator Karen Tandy told Congress her drug warriors have "been successful in addressing OxyContin diversion as evidenced by a reduction in the rate of increase of OxyContin prescriptions being written and a leveling-off of OxyContin sales." But Ronald Libby, a professor of political science at the University of North Florida, told us he doubts that sales of opioids like Oxycodone have declined since 2004.
Drug diversion means the diversion of legal drugs for illicit purposes. Prescription drug abuse accounts for almost 30% of the overall drug problem in the United States, representing a close challenge to cocaine addiction. Sometimes these diverted prescription drugs end up for sale on the street, where they reap large profits for traffickers.
Starting in the mid-1990s, and ratcheting up in 2001, the DEA -- part of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) -- has been leading an aggressive effort to eradicate the illegal "diversion" of certain prescription painkillers. A particular target has been OxyContin, one of a class of drugs known as opioids, which was aggressively marketed by its manufacturer, Purdue Pharma.
In 2001, the DEA launched a campaign called the "OxyContin Action Plan”. The DEA says the plan is necessary due to increasing abuse of prescription drugs, particularly by youth. The agency, which has teamed up with state and local authorities, typically employs law enforcement methods developed in the government’s “War on Drugs”, including aggressive undercover investigation, asset forfeiture, and informers. It says its goal is to stop violations of the Controlled Substances Law.
But critics charge that the DEA has focused too narrowly on doctors, exacerbating the already widespread problem of untreated or under-treated pain. As a result, well-meaning doctors are finding themselves subject to costly, potentially career-ending investigations. Several doctors and many of their patients have already been sent to prison.
The DEA maintains that only “criminal doctors” are being targeted, and that its efforts to prevent the sale of prescribed medications have no effect on the legitimate treatment of pain.
The pain-management community disagrees. Authorities say the DEA program reportedly is having a chilling effect on physicians, who are leaving their pain management specialties for safer practices, and on their patients, many of who literally cannot function without medication. The Village Voice newspaper reports that medical schools are now advising students to avoid pain management practice altogether.
Ironically, the DEA crackdown comes at a time when the medical profession knows more than ever about how to treat the chronic pain that makes life intolerable – sometimes impossible – for the estimated 50 to 70 million Americans who live in chronic disabling pain.
Until about 20 years ago, the medical profession knew little about pain management. Today, pain management has become a recognized medical specialty, and it is estimated that there are some 5,000 pain management doctors practicing in the U.S.
The DEA’s programs also come at a time when there are more effective pain-killing drugs on the market and when the Internet makes it easier than ever to obtain them.
The DEA’s dilemma is separating legitimate prescribers and users from drug dealers. And the DEA’s task is made more difficult, not only by its zeal, but by the fact that those investigating and prosecuting are not doctors but lawyers and law enforcement agents.
Before he was ever charged with a crime, Dr. Hurwitz recommended that the DEA “suspend current prosecutions against physicians who treat pain unless and until a review by a panel of nationally recognized experts in medical pain management has found that there is an absence of good faith by the physician. If only the physician's adherence to standards of care can be questioned, then the case is not an appropriate one for the criminal process, and should be referred to the professional regulatory authorities,” he said.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, in a letter to the judge in the Hurwitz case, charged he was convicted on the basis of “false expert testimony”, which it described as “egregious.”
Their letter said, “That a tiny percentage of his patients then broke the law with their prescriptions does not justify imprisoning Dr. Hurwitz for the rest of his life. A conviction based on this false medical testimony should not stand….”
The Hurwitz situation is not isolated. Throughout the U.S., physicians have been prosecuted, jailed, or have lost their licenses to practice medicine. In addition to Hurwitz, Dr. Ronald McIver is serving 30 years, Dr. Freddie Williams is serving life, and Dr. James Graves received a 62-plus-year sentence for diversion in 2002.
According to Prof. Libby, who has become an authority on the subject, “Many doctors have been convicted and almost no one has been acquitted.” He told us, “Most attorneys tell their clients to cop a plea and not fight it in court.”
Richard Paey was convicted of fraudulently submitting multiple copies of opioid prescriptions to treat chronic pain. He was in New Jersey where his doctor treated him, but then moved to Florida where he was unable to find a physician to write prescriptions to treat his pain.
Frightened by what they term a “brutal display of executive power”, most doctors, including those in the field of pain management, have simply abandoned this sickest and most vulnerable segment of our population. Patients suffering from mild to moderate pain, and requiring low dosages of opioids may still find care, but those patients with high dosage requirements are increasingly shut out of care altogether.
In 2004 it was estimated that many of the 5,000 pain specialists in the United States, would not prescribe opioids. Those few medical practices that do treat chronic pain with opioids impose severe restrictions on patients’ freedoms. Prof. Libby told us that many doctors are now prescribing over-the-counter medications such as aspirin and Tylenol, “which are far more dangerous than opioids if taken in large quantities.”
The DEA claims it investigates less than one per cent of physicians who prescribe OxyContin or other drugs covered by the Controlled Substances Act. The agency reported arresting 34 doctors out of 963,385 registered doctors in 2003, for selling opioids to addicts or drug dealers for money, sex, or favors. That is less than 0.001% of the total number of licensed doctors, the DEA said.
But critics dispute that figure. Prof. Libby told us, “In 2001, the DEA carried 861 investigations of doctors. If we use this figure instead of 34 arrests it means that more than 17 percent of the roughly 5,000 doctors who treat pain patients were investigated. That means that than one out of every six doctors who treat chronic pain patients were under criminal investigation.”
A not-for-profit advocacy group, the Pain Relief Network, is suing to have the Controlled Substances Act declared unconstitutional, and is seeking to enjoin the DEA from enforcing the law against physicians.
To calm its critics, the DEA commissioned several pain specialists to work with
Federal officials to create guidelines for physicians who treat pain with opioids. These guidelines were posted on the agency's website, and most doctors were led to believe that following the recommendations would keep them safe from prosecution.
But that understanding didn't last long. Late last year the guidelines were taken off the DEA's website. The agency claimed it wasn't bound by any standards or practices when it came to determining what physicians it would investigate.
Removal of the guidelines coincided with Dr. Hurwitz’s trial. The doctor’s attorneys attempted to have the guidelines admitted as evidence on the belief that Hurwitz's practice conformed to their parameters. They failed. A few weeks after Hurwitz's judge refused to admit the guidelines as evidence, the DEA renounced them, and essentially declared it had carte blanche to launch an inquiry.
David Jorenson, the academic pain specialist who headed the committee that
authored the original guidelines, sent the agency a sharply-worded rebuke. Three other professional associations representing pain specialists followed with a second letter. And the National Association of state Attorneys General wrote to the DEA, expressing concern that the agency was overstepping its bounds and interfering with the legitimate treatment of pain. The letter was signed by 30 AGs from both parties.
However, the DEA remains unmoved, insisting its revocation of the guidelines did not represent a shift in policy and that its pursuit of doctors should have no
effect on legitimate pain treatment.
Dr. Alexander DeLuca, MPH, a member of the American Academy of Preventive Health and a Policy Analyst and Board Member of the Pain Relief Network, told us, ”Relations between physicians and the DEA have probably never been worse in modern times.”
He added, “Law enforcement does not deserve a place at the table where physicians, social workers, and politicians of good will need to meet to deal with drug use and pain problems as public health, not criminal, matters.”
Monday, March 20, 2006
EDITORIAL WRITERS: THE SILENCE OF THE SHEEP
By William Fisher
As the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq passed into history, the White House continued to dumb down what defines “victory”, Bush administration officials regurgitated their upbeat talking points, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote an op-ed claiming, “The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. Now is the time for resolve, not retreat.”
We may or may not agree with the president and his people, but at least they have an opinion.
Sadly, the same can’t be said of the editorial writers for America’s most influential mainstream media.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle all were silent on the subject. The Wall Street Journal touched on the anniversary as part of an editorial praising the Bush Administration’s decision to release most of Saddam Hussein's secret documents, and said, almost en passant, “The Iraq War is a long way from being over, and anything we can know about the accuracy of our judgments before and during the fight is well worth trying to uncover and understand.”
But the vast majority of daily newspapers that published editorials marking the anniversary were long on facts and analysis, excellent in their syntax, but virtually mute on solutions beyond “stay the course” and “support our troops”.
Proffering solutions was pretty much left to the op-ed punditocracy and, on television, to the seemingly endless parade of journalists, academics, and retired military generals who have learned how to increase their incomes as talking heads.
As for newspaper editorials, a few examples:
The Chicago Tribune: “Iraqi leaders are meeting, and some progress is being reported by (the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq). The reality in Iraq now: The path to security is mainly political, not military. All must give, or all will lose.”
The New York Times: “Our goal must be to minimize the damage, through the urgent diplomacy of the current ambassador and forceful reminders that American forces are not prepared to remain for one day in a country whose leaders prefer civil war to peaceful compromise. While we are distracted by picking up the pieces, there is no time to imagine what the world might be like if George Bush had chosen to see things as they were instead of how he wanted them to be three years ago. History will have more time to consider the question.”
The Los Angeles Times: “As it enters its fourth year, the war in Iraq defies simplistic characterizations from both ends of the political spectrum. The heroism of U.S. forces and of ordinary Iraqis going about their daily lives is inspiring. But the future of Iraq remains shrouded in gray uncertainty.”
Only two major dailies offered any ideas about the future – both totally predictable: “Stay the Course”.
The New York Daily News said, “America has been spared another terrorist attack, perhaps because the enemy is otherwise engaged. Libya has given up its nukes. Pakistan's atomic bazaar has closed. Resistance to despotic, terror-sponsoring regimes, like Syria's, has blossomed. There's been a great cost, of course. More than 2,000 U.S. troops have lost their lives, with thousands more injured. Americans - and the world - owe a huge debt to these heroes. Alas, in this Age of Terror, the choice not to fight can be disastrous; 9/11 proved that. As Iraq stabilizes and terrorists are eliminated, a recurrence of that day's horrors seems less likely. That's worth fighting for, anyway.”
And Mr. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post opined, “Three years later, Iraq has a formalized government - after a fashion, anyway - and the very fact that it is there at all is the worst possible news for the gangsters who labored so desperately to prevent its arising. For all the heartbreak, for all the despair, this is still a fact, and it is one worth celebrating. It is not yet happily ever after. But it's what there is, or now, three years on. If the current course is wrong, what's the alternative? The answer: There is no alternative. U.S. troops must stay in Iraq until that country can defend itself from those who would turn it into a jidahi haven.”
By contrast, many of the editorials in the Middle East press tied the Iraq anniversary to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Typical was the Saudi English-language daily Arab News, which wrote that the world has not become safer since 9/11 because, "There is now no international unity in the face of terrorism -- shattered as it was by Washington's attempted hijacking of it to fight the wholly unconnected war in Iraq, by the desire of other governments to use the situation for their own political purposes, and by the cowardice of some when themselves directly targeted by terrorists."
For U.S. print media, it was as if there never were any proposals beyond “Stay the Course” and “Support Our Troops”.
Where were the editorial writers’ opinions on whether it was all worth it? On whether the U.S. could continue to finance the Bush adventure? On whether America ought to be involved in nation-building? On the variety of proposals made for new diplomatic initiatives? On the many plans that have been put forward for withdrawal?
Absent. AWOL. Silent.
And the reason, it seems to me, is not fear of being called “unpatriotic”. The reason is that most editorial writers don’t have a clue about how to go forward.
In which case, probably to their shock and awe, they have a lot in common with our president.
But not with their readers.
As the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq passed into history, the White House continued to dumb down what defines “victory”, Bush administration officials regurgitated their upbeat talking points, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote an op-ed claiming, “The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. Now is the time for resolve, not retreat.”
We may or may not agree with the president and his people, but at least they have an opinion.
Sadly, the same can’t be said of the editorial writers for America’s most influential mainstream media.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle all were silent on the subject. The Wall Street Journal touched on the anniversary as part of an editorial praising the Bush Administration’s decision to release most of Saddam Hussein's secret documents, and said, almost en passant, “The Iraq War is a long way from being over, and anything we can know about the accuracy of our judgments before and during the fight is well worth trying to uncover and understand.”
But the vast majority of daily newspapers that published editorials marking the anniversary were long on facts and analysis, excellent in their syntax, but virtually mute on solutions beyond “stay the course” and “support our troops”.
Proffering solutions was pretty much left to the op-ed punditocracy and, on television, to the seemingly endless parade of journalists, academics, and retired military generals who have learned how to increase their incomes as talking heads.
As for newspaper editorials, a few examples:
The Chicago Tribune: “Iraqi leaders are meeting, and some progress is being reported by (the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq). The reality in Iraq now: The path to security is mainly political, not military. All must give, or all will lose.”
The New York Times: “Our goal must be to minimize the damage, through the urgent diplomacy of the current ambassador and forceful reminders that American forces are not prepared to remain for one day in a country whose leaders prefer civil war to peaceful compromise. While we are distracted by picking up the pieces, there is no time to imagine what the world might be like if George Bush had chosen to see things as they were instead of how he wanted them to be three years ago. History will have more time to consider the question.”
The Los Angeles Times: “As it enters its fourth year, the war in Iraq defies simplistic characterizations from both ends of the political spectrum. The heroism of U.S. forces and of ordinary Iraqis going about their daily lives is inspiring. But the future of Iraq remains shrouded in gray uncertainty.”
Only two major dailies offered any ideas about the future – both totally predictable: “Stay the Course”.
The New York Daily News said, “America has been spared another terrorist attack, perhaps because the enemy is otherwise engaged. Libya has given up its nukes. Pakistan's atomic bazaar has closed. Resistance to despotic, terror-sponsoring regimes, like Syria's, has blossomed. There's been a great cost, of course. More than 2,000 U.S. troops have lost their lives, with thousands more injured. Americans - and the world - owe a huge debt to these heroes. Alas, in this Age of Terror, the choice not to fight can be disastrous; 9/11 proved that. As Iraq stabilizes and terrorists are eliminated, a recurrence of that day's horrors seems less likely. That's worth fighting for, anyway.”
And Mr. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post opined, “Three years later, Iraq has a formalized government - after a fashion, anyway - and the very fact that it is there at all is the worst possible news for the gangsters who labored so desperately to prevent its arising. For all the heartbreak, for all the despair, this is still a fact, and it is one worth celebrating. It is not yet happily ever after. But it's what there is, or now, three years on. If the current course is wrong, what's the alternative? The answer: There is no alternative. U.S. troops must stay in Iraq until that country can defend itself from those who would turn it into a jidahi haven.”
By contrast, many of the editorials in the Middle East press tied the Iraq anniversary to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Typical was the Saudi English-language daily Arab News, which wrote that the world has not become safer since 9/11 because, "There is now no international unity in the face of terrorism -- shattered as it was by Washington's attempted hijacking of it to fight the wholly unconnected war in Iraq, by the desire of other governments to use the situation for their own political purposes, and by the cowardice of some when themselves directly targeted by terrorists."
For U.S. print media, it was as if there never were any proposals beyond “Stay the Course” and “Support Our Troops”.
Where were the editorial writers’ opinions on whether it was all worth it? On whether the U.S. could continue to finance the Bush adventure? On whether America ought to be involved in nation-building? On the variety of proposals made for new diplomatic initiatives? On the many plans that have been put forward for withdrawal?
Absent. AWOL. Silent.
And the reason, it seems to me, is not fear of being called “unpatriotic”. The reason is that most editorial writers don’t have a clue about how to go forward.
In which case, probably to their shock and awe, they have a lot in common with our president.
But not with their readers.
GIVE US YOUR HUDDLED MASSES – OR NOT
By William Fisher
There are some 10 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today, and there is no sign that the flow is going to decrease any time soon.
They pick and pack our agricultural produce, serve patrons at our hotels and restaurants and resorts, and help build our new houses. Most of them come from the southern border with Mexico. Many of them have been here for years and have children who were born in the U.S.
So serious is the problem of illegal immigration that Governors of some of the states on the U.S.-Mexican border – Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California -- have actually declared “states of emergency” in an effort to get the attention of Federal officials and lawmakers. Many raise the specter of Al Qaida allies sneaking in to commit acts of terrorism.
The Department of Homeland Security, which governs border control, appears incapable of dealing with the problem. That has led to the formation of citizens’ vigilante groups patrolling the border to “help” Border Patrol agents to identify and capture lawbreakers.
Meanwhile, skilled hi-tech workers, prospective university enrollees, and even State Department-sponsored exchange students, can’t get visas to come here. And those who come seeking asylum from political persecution or domestic abuse face an increasingly impossible task of convincing immigration judges of the validity of their claims.
Given these facts, the mantra of just about everyone who speaks on this subject has become “America’s immigration system is broken and must be fixed”. But that’s about where the agreement ends. As to what do about the problem, there are almost as many “solutions” as there are immigrants.
This was to be the year of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. President Bush spent a good deal of his once-hefty “political capital” to advocate for a “guest worker” program. But so polarized are the views of state officials, legislators and advocacy groups representing all points on the political spectrum that Congress-watchers are expressing serious doubt that 2006 will see any meaningful progress toward such reform.
Tom Barry, Policy Director for the International Relations Center (IRC), predicted flatly, “There will be no comprehensive reform proposal approved by the U.S. Congress during this session or any session in the near future because the immigration restrictionists have seized control of the debate.”
What is likely, experts agree, is a battle royal between two critical GOP constituencies: the “law-and-order conservatives” and business interests that rely on immigrant labor. One camp wants to tighten borders and deport people who are here illegally; the other seeks to bring illegal workers out of the shadows and acknowledge their growing economic importance.
The issue is complicated by the competing -- and sometimes counter-intuitive – demands of a wide range of groups and coalitions. Usually conservative business interests, particularly in the fields of agriculture, construction, and hospitality, want to open American borders to avail themselves of cheaper labor.
Groups representing states on the U.S.-Mexican border propose adopting draconian measures – including construction of a “security fence” -- to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. Others are advocating legislation that would tighten U.S. border security but give some legal status to newcomers. Still others are focusing on providing “a path to citizenship” for the more than 10 million undocumented immigrants already in the U.S.
Legislation reflecting the varied panoply of solutions has already been introduced. Led by conservative Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the House passed a bill in January that would create a giant fence along the Mexican border, and increase criminal penalties for immigration violations -- including some mandatory minimum sentences -- for people who encourage illegal immigration and for immigrants who return to the United States after being deported. It would also broaden the range of deportable aliens so that, for example, repeat drunk drivers can be kicked out of the country.
The House bill would also force employers to verify employees' Social Security numbers against a national database, reimburse sheriffs in the counties that border Mexico for the costs of holding illegal immigrants, and make both detention and deportation of illegal immigrants easier. The Bush administration, which earlier had proposed a “guest worker” program, supported the House the bill, which was passed 239 to 182.
Critics of the House restrictions, including many Senate Republicans, say the curbs would trample states' rights and lead to more unlicensed drivers while ignoring what they believe to be the crux of the problem: the millions of undocumented people already entrenched in the workforce.
In the Senate, two pieces of major legislation were introduced last year. One bill, sponsored by Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, calls for increased border security but also creates a guest worker program. It would require illegal aliens to pay all regular fees as well as a $1,000 fine to join the program and, after six years, another $1,000 fine to obtain a green card signifying legal permanent residence. Green card holders eventually can apply for citizenship.
Another bill was introduced last year by two border-state Republicans, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and Senator John Kyl of Arizona. It proposes a “work-and-return” rationale rather than the McCain-Kennedy “work-and-stay” approach.
Currently at the center of the task of attempting to craft passable Senate legislation is Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who heads the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. His "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006," would allow new immigrants to work in the country for up to six years without applying for citizenship. It would create a temporary status for the estimated 11 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here, provided they pay their taxes, remain employed, and pass background checks. The Specter bill does not limit the amount of time those workers may remain in that status.
Specter's proposal is likely to meet stiff opposition from champions of the much tougher immigration bill passed by the House. Some observers believe the differences in approach between House and Senate are irreconcilable.
One of the principal supporters of the House approach, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican and one of the shrillest voices in the immigration debate, said of the Specter proposal, "Words almost fail to describe the threat this bill poses to our national and economic security."
While most civil liberties and immigration experts favor any of the Senate proposals over the “enforcement only” bill passed by the House, they nonetheless express reservations about such issues as privacy, asylum, and due process protections for immigrants.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls attention to what it calls the lack of privacy protections in the Specter proposal. It says that under the bill’s “Employment Verification System”, all workers would be required to obtain a federal agency’s permission to work. All employers would be required to participate in a national employment eligibility verification program.
But, the ACLU says, “Legislators have not mandated that the private information flowing to and from the government be encrypted or that the databases be secured. Thus, the data provides a ripe target for identity thieves.”
“Even assuming a near-perfect accuracy rate in the program, millions of legal, eligible American workers could still have their right to work seriously delayed or denied -- while they fight bureaucratic red tape to resolve errors,” the ACLU charges.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents millions of employers, has also expressed strong objections to the employment verification provisions.
The ACLU says the government also would be given “extraordinary powers to detain non-citizens indefinitely without meaningful review.” This move, it claims, “would potentially place many non-citizens in a legal ‘black hole’ that subjects them to a life sentence after having served a criminal sentence, or, in some cases, without ever having been convicted of a crime.”
Another immigration authority, Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law of the University of California, told us, “The central goal of any comprehensive immigration legislation should be to build and maintain an immigration and judicial system based on core American values like fairness, family, and recognition for one's work; one that recognizes that the consequences of removal for most immigrants and their families are severe. Such legislation must contain safeguards and ensure due process for vulnerable groups seeking protection in the U.S., including refugees, children and victims of trafficking.”
She criticized Senator Specter's legislation for imposing “harsh criminal penalties on undocumented workers and other immigrants for even minor or technical infractions that cause them to lose their legal status, creates a permanent sub-class of immigrant workers with no real protections and no provisions for acquiring long-term legal status, and strips immigrants of judicial review.”
The IRC’s Barry told us, “The battle within the Republican party has been instigated by largely by social conservatives, and it is likely that their positions on enforcement will be adopted by the Republican party leadership, leaving the Democrats looking in the public mind as if that they are the ones without a clear stance against illegal immigration.”
He says the Kennedy-McCain bill is the “most comprehensive” legislation being considered, but adds, “This is a nonstarter in Congress and in U.S. society because of the fierce restrictionist sentiment that now frames the political debate over immigration in the United States.”
Apparently drowned out by the shrill charges and counter-charges in the immigration debate is a simple truth articulated by George Hunsinger, McCord professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and coordinator of Church Folks for a Better America. He told us, “No human being -- whether citizen or non-citizen -- should be placed outside the protections of the law. No one who performs needed work should be denied fair wages and decent conditions. A society that exploits immigrants for their labor while declaring them illegal is caught in a tangle of contradictions.”
But this is an election year for the U.S. Congress. So I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that simple truth to sink in.
There are some 10 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today, and there is no sign that the flow is going to decrease any time soon.
They pick and pack our agricultural produce, serve patrons at our hotels and restaurants and resorts, and help build our new houses. Most of them come from the southern border with Mexico. Many of them have been here for years and have children who were born in the U.S.
So serious is the problem of illegal immigration that Governors of some of the states on the U.S.-Mexican border – Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California -- have actually declared “states of emergency” in an effort to get the attention of Federal officials and lawmakers. Many raise the specter of Al Qaida allies sneaking in to commit acts of terrorism.
The Department of Homeland Security, which governs border control, appears incapable of dealing with the problem. That has led to the formation of citizens’ vigilante groups patrolling the border to “help” Border Patrol agents to identify and capture lawbreakers.
Meanwhile, skilled hi-tech workers, prospective university enrollees, and even State Department-sponsored exchange students, can’t get visas to come here. And those who come seeking asylum from political persecution or domestic abuse face an increasingly impossible task of convincing immigration judges of the validity of their claims.
Given these facts, the mantra of just about everyone who speaks on this subject has become “America’s immigration system is broken and must be fixed”. But that’s about where the agreement ends. As to what do about the problem, there are almost as many “solutions” as there are immigrants.
This was to be the year of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. President Bush spent a good deal of his once-hefty “political capital” to advocate for a “guest worker” program. But so polarized are the views of state officials, legislators and advocacy groups representing all points on the political spectrum that Congress-watchers are expressing serious doubt that 2006 will see any meaningful progress toward such reform.
Tom Barry, Policy Director for the International Relations Center (IRC), predicted flatly, “There will be no comprehensive reform proposal approved by the U.S. Congress during this session or any session in the near future because the immigration restrictionists have seized control of the debate.”
What is likely, experts agree, is a battle royal between two critical GOP constituencies: the “law-and-order conservatives” and business interests that rely on immigrant labor. One camp wants to tighten borders and deport people who are here illegally; the other seeks to bring illegal workers out of the shadows and acknowledge their growing economic importance.
The issue is complicated by the competing -- and sometimes counter-intuitive – demands of a wide range of groups and coalitions. Usually conservative business interests, particularly in the fields of agriculture, construction, and hospitality, want to open American borders to avail themselves of cheaper labor.
Groups representing states on the U.S.-Mexican border propose adopting draconian measures – including construction of a “security fence” -- to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. Others are advocating legislation that would tighten U.S. border security but give some legal status to newcomers. Still others are focusing on providing “a path to citizenship” for the more than 10 million undocumented immigrants already in the U.S.
Legislation reflecting the varied panoply of solutions has already been introduced. Led by conservative Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the House passed a bill in January that would create a giant fence along the Mexican border, and increase criminal penalties for immigration violations -- including some mandatory minimum sentences -- for people who encourage illegal immigration and for immigrants who return to the United States after being deported. It would also broaden the range of deportable aliens so that, for example, repeat drunk drivers can be kicked out of the country.
The House bill would also force employers to verify employees' Social Security numbers against a national database, reimburse sheriffs in the counties that border Mexico for the costs of holding illegal immigrants, and make both detention and deportation of illegal immigrants easier. The Bush administration, which earlier had proposed a “guest worker” program, supported the House the bill, which was passed 239 to 182.
Critics of the House restrictions, including many Senate Republicans, say the curbs would trample states' rights and lead to more unlicensed drivers while ignoring what they believe to be the crux of the problem: the millions of undocumented people already entrenched in the workforce.
In the Senate, two pieces of major legislation were introduced last year. One bill, sponsored by Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, calls for increased border security but also creates a guest worker program. It would require illegal aliens to pay all regular fees as well as a $1,000 fine to join the program and, after six years, another $1,000 fine to obtain a green card signifying legal permanent residence. Green card holders eventually can apply for citizenship.
Another bill was introduced last year by two border-state Republicans, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and Senator John Kyl of Arizona. It proposes a “work-and-return” rationale rather than the McCain-Kennedy “work-and-stay” approach.
Currently at the center of the task of attempting to craft passable Senate legislation is Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who heads the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. His "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006," would allow new immigrants to work in the country for up to six years without applying for citizenship. It would create a temporary status for the estimated 11 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here, provided they pay their taxes, remain employed, and pass background checks. The Specter bill does not limit the amount of time those workers may remain in that status.
Specter's proposal is likely to meet stiff opposition from champions of the much tougher immigration bill passed by the House. Some observers believe the differences in approach between House and Senate are irreconcilable.
One of the principal supporters of the House approach, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican and one of the shrillest voices in the immigration debate, said of the Specter proposal, "Words almost fail to describe the threat this bill poses to our national and economic security."
While most civil liberties and immigration experts favor any of the Senate proposals over the “enforcement only” bill passed by the House, they nonetheless express reservations about such issues as privacy, asylum, and due process protections for immigrants.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls attention to what it calls the lack of privacy protections in the Specter proposal. It says that under the bill’s “Employment Verification System”, all workers would be required to obtain a federal agency’s permission to work. All employers would be required to participate in a national employment eligibility verification program.
But, the ACLU says, “Legislators have not mandated that the private information flowing to and from the government be encrypted or that the databases be secured. Thus, the data provides a ripe target for identity thieves.”
“Even assuming a near-perfect accuracy rate in the program, millions of legal, eligible American workers could still have their right to work seriously delayed or denied -- while they fight bureaucratic red tape to resolve errors,” the ACLU charges.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents millions of employers, has also expressed strong objections to the employment verification provisions.
The ACLU says the government also would be given “extraordinary powers to detain non-citizens indefinitely without meaningful review.” This move, it claims, “would potentially place many non-citizens in a legal ‘black hole’ that subjects them to a life sentence after having served a criminal sentence, or, in some cases, without ever having been convicted of a crime.”
Another immigration authority, Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law of the University of California, told us, “The central goal of any comprehensive immigration legislation should be to build and maintain an immigration and judicial system based on core American values like fairness, family, and recognition for one's work; one that recognizes that the consequences of removal for most immigrants and their families are severe. Such legislation must contain safeguards and ensure due process for vulnerable groups seeking protection in the U.S., including refugees, children and victims of trafficking.”
She criticized Senator Specter's legislation for imposing “harsh criminal penalties on undocumented workers and other immigrants for even minor or technical infractions that cause them to lose their legal status, creates a permanent sub-class of immigrant workers with no real protections and no provisions for acquiring long-term legal status, and strips immigrants of judicial review.”
The IRC’s Barry told us, “The battle within the Republican party has been instigated by largely by social conservatives, and it is likely that their positions on enforcement will be adopted by the Republican party leadership, leaving the Democrats looking in the public mind as if that they are the ones without a clear stance against illegal immigration.”
He says the Kennedy-McCain bill is the “most comprehensive” legislation being considered, but adds, “This is a nonstarter in Congress and in U.S. society because of the fierce restrictionist sentiment that now frames the political debate over immigration in the United States.”
Apparently drowned out by the shrill charges and counter-charges in the immigration debate is a simple truth articulated by George Hunsinger, McCord professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and coordinator of Church Folks for a Better America. He told us, “No human being -- whether citizen or non-citizen -- should be placed outside the protections of the law. No one who performs needed work should be denied fair wages and decent conditions. A society that exploits immigrants for their labor while declaring them illegal is caught in a tangle of contradictions.”
But this is an election year for the U.S. Congress. So I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that simple truth to sink in.
EDITORIAL WRITERS: THE SILENCE OF THE SHEEP
By William Fisher
As the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq passed into history, the White House continued to dumb down what defines “victory”, Bush administration officials regurgitated their upbeat talking points, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote an op-ed claiming, “The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. Now is the time for resolve, not retreat.”
We may or may not agree with the president and his people, but at least they have an opinion.
Sadly, the same can’t be said of the editorial writers for America’s most influential mainstream media.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle all were silent on the subject. The Wall Street Journal touched on the anniversary as part of an editorial praising the Bush Administration’s decision to release most of Saddam Hussein's secret documents, and said, almost en passant, “The Iraq War is a long way from being over, and anything we can know about the accuracy of our judgments before and during the fight is well worth trying to uncover and understand.”
But the vast majority of daily newspapers that published editorials marking the anniversary were long on facts and analysis, excellent in their syntax, but virtually mute on solutions beyond “stay the course” and “support our troops”.
Proffering solutions was pretty much left to the op-ed punditocracy and, on television, to the seemingly endless parade of journalists, academics, and retired military generals who have learned how to increase their incomes as talking heads.
As for newspaper editorials, a few examples:
The Chicago Tribune: “Iraqi leaders are meeting, and some progress is being reported by (the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq). The reality in Iraq now: The path to security is mainly political, not military. All must give, or all will lose.”
The New York Times: “Our goal must be to minimize the damage, through the urgent diplomacy of the current ambassador and forceful reminders that American forces are not prepared to remain for one day in a country whose leaders prefer civil war to peaceful compromise. While we are distracted by picking up the pieces, there is no time to imagine what the world might be like if George Bush had chosen to see things as they were instead of how he wanted them to be three years ago. History will have more time to consider the question.”
The Los Angeles Times: “As it enters its fourth year, the war in Iraq defies simplistic characterizations from both ends of the political spectrum. The heroism of U.S. forces and of ordinary Iraqis going about their daily lives is inspiring. But the future of Iraq remains shrouded in gray uncertainty.”
Only two major dailies offered any ideas about the future – both totally predictable: “Stay the Course”.
The New York Daily News said, “America has been spared another terrorist attack, perhaps because the enemy is otherwise engaged. Libya has given up its nukes. Pakistan's atomic bazaar has closed. Resistance to despotic, terror-sponsoring regimes, like Syria's, has blossomed. There's been a great cost, of course. More than 2,000 U.S. troops have lost their lives, with thousands more injured. Americans - and the world - owe a huge debt to these heroes. Alas, in this Age of Terror, the choice not to fight can be disastrous; 9/11 proved that. As Iraq stabilizes and terrorists are eliminated, a recurrence of that day's horrors seems less likely. That's worth fighting for, anyway.”
And Mr. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post opined, “Three years later, Iraq has a formalized government - after a fashion, anyway - and the very fact that it is there at all is the worst possible news for the gangsters who labored so desperately to prevent its arising. For all the heartbreak, for all the despair, this is still a fact, and it is one worth celebrating. It is not yet happily ever after. But it's what there is, or now, three years on. If the current course is wrong, what's the alternative? The answer: There is no alternative. U.S. troops must stay in Iraq until that country can defend itself from those who would turn it into a jidahi haven.”
By contrast, many of the editorials in the Middle East press tied the Iraq anniversary to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Typical was the Saudi English-language daily Arab News, which wrote that the world has not become safer since 9/11 because, "There is now no international unity in the face of terrorism -- shattered as it was by Washington's attempted hijacking of it to fight the wholly unconnected war in Iraq, by the desire of other governments to use the situation for their own political purposes, and by the cowardice of some when themselves directly targeted by terrorists."
For U.S. print media, it was as if there never were any proposals beyond “Stay the Course” and “Support Our Troops”.
Where were the editorial writers’ opinions on whether it was all worth it? On whether the U.S. could continue to finance the Bush adventure? On whether America ought to be involved in nation-building? On the variety of proposals made for new diplomatic initiatives? On the many plans that have been put forward for withdrawal?
Absent. AWOL. Silent.
And the reason, it seems to me, is not fear of being called “unpatriotic”. The reason is that most editorial writers don’t have a clue about how to go forward.
In which case, probably to their shock and awe, they have a lot in common with our president.
But not with their readers.
As the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq passed into history, the White House continued to dumb down what defines “victory”, Bush administration officials regurgitated their upbeat talking points, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote an op-ed claiming, “The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. Now is the time for resolve, not retreat.”
We may or may not agree with the president and his people, but at least they have an opinion.
Sadly, the same can’t be said of the editorial writers for America’s most influential mainstream media.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle all were silent on the subject. The Wall Street Journal touched on the anniversary as part of an editorial praising the Bush Administration’s decision to release most of Saddam Hussein's secret documents, and said, almost en passant, “The Iraq War is a long way from being over, and anything we can know about the accuracy of our judgments before and during the fight is well worth trying to uncover and understand.”
But the vast majority of daily newspapers that published editorials marking the anniversary were long on facts and analysis, excellent in their syntax, but virtually mute on solutions beyond “stay the course” and “support our troops”.
Proffering solutions was pretty much left to the op-ed punditocracy and, on television, to the seemingly endless parade of journalists, academics, and retired military generals who have learned how to increase their incomes as talking heads.
As for newspaper editorials, a few examples:
The Chicago Tribune: “Iraqi leaders are meeting, and some progress is being reported by (the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq). The reality in Iraq now: The path to security is mainly political, not military. All must give, or all will lose.”
The New York Times: “Our goal must be to minimize the damage, through the urgent diplomacy of the current ambassador and forceful reminders that American forces are not prepared to remain for one day in a country whose leaders prefer civil war to peaceful compromise. While we are distracted by picking up the pieces, there is no time to imagine what the world might be like if George Bush had chosen to see things as they were instead of how he wanted them to be three years ago. History will have more time to consider the question.”
The Los Angeles Times: “As it enters its fourth year, the war in Iraq defies simplistic characterizations from both ends of the political spectrum. The heroism of U.S. forces and of ordinary Iraqis going about their daily lives is inspiring. But the future of Iraq remains shrouded in gray uncertainty.”
Only two major dailies offered any ideas about the future – both totally predictable: “Stay the Course”.
The New York Daily News said, “America has been spared another terrorist attack, perhaps because the enemy is otherwise engaged. Libya has given up its nukes. Pakistan's atomic bazaar has closed. Resistance to despotic, terror-sponsoring regimes, like Syria's, has blossomed. There's been a great cost, of course. More than 2,000 U.S. troops have lost their lives, with thousands more injured. Americans - and the world - owe a huge debt to these heroes. Alas, in this Age of Terror, the choice not to fight can be disastrous; 9/11 proved that. As Iraq stabilizes and terrorists are eliminated, a recurrence of that day's horrors seems less likely. That's worth fighting for, anyway.”
And Mr. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post opined, “Three years later, Iraq has a formalized government - after a fashion, anyway - and the very fact that it is there at all is the worst possible news for the gangsters who labored so desperately to prevent its arising. For all the heartbreak, for all the despair, this is still a fact, and it is one worth celebrating. It is not yet happily ever after. But it's what there is, or now, three years on. If the current course is wrong, what's the alternative? The answer: There is no alternative. U.S. troops must stay in Iraq until that country can defend itself from those who would turn it into a jidahi haven.”
By contrast, many of the editorials in the Middle East press tied the Iraq anniversary to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Typical was the Saudi English-language daily Arab News, which wrote that the world has not become safer since 9/11 because, "There is now no international unity in the face of terrorism -- shattered as it was by Washington's attempted hijacking of it to fight the wholly unconnected war in Iraq, by the desire of other governments to use the situation for their own political purposes, and by the cowardice of some when themselves directly targeted by terrorists."
For U.S. print media, it was as if there never were any proposals beyond “Stay the Course” and “Support Our Troops”.
Where were the editorial writers’ opinions on whether it was all worth it? On whether the U.S. could continue to finance the Bush adventure? On whether America ought to be involved in nation-building? On the variety of proposals made for new diplomatic initiatives? On the many plans that have been put forward for withdrawal?
Absent. AWOL. Silent.
And the reason, it seems to me, is not fear of being called “unpatriotic”. The reason is that most editorial writers don’t have a clue about how to go forward.
In which case, probably to their shock and awe, they have a lot in common with our president.
But not with their readers.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
THE AGE OF ANXIETY REDUX
By William Fisher
Airplanes crashing into buildings. Daily body counts from Iraq and Afghanistan. Hospitals filled with hideously mutilated young service men and women. Prisoners being tortured and abused. People being beheaded. Religious leaders urging us to “take out” heads of state. Katrina survivors stranded on rooftops while FEMA fiddles. Tsunami victims stranded nowhere -- just gone.
These are only a few of the kinds of grisly images bombarding the American people every day.
To which we can add the 24/7 menu of relentless television alarums: 90-mile-an-hour car chases, online child pornographers getting busted, corporate executives and congressmen being frog-walked to the slammer in handcuffs, judges receiving death threats, murdered children found in shallow graves, millions dead and displaced in Darfur, children dying from HIV-AIDS and many totally curable diseases, ports being turned over to ‘Muslim terrorists’, phone calls and emails being intercepted, and on and on and on.
And, as a not-so-delicate counterpoint to this scary dirge, the secretary of Health and Human Service tells us to buy extra cans of tunafish and powdered milk to put under our beds to ward off an avian flu pandemic, and the president exhorts us yet again to “stay the course”, go about our business as usual, but be sure to pay attention to the brainless haute couture color codes intended to tell us how scared we should be on any given day.
There is an old axiom in the news business: “If it bleeds, it leads.” So the blood and gore is nothing new. What’s new is its sheer volume and pervasiveness. And if anyone still believes it’s not having a profound and profoundly negative effect on the lives of ordinary Americans, we ought to ask them what they’ve been smoking.
This is not pop-psych 101. This is real. We are living though an age of high anxiety (for which the government’s favorite cliché is “the post-9/11 environment”) that is likely to have a very long-lasting effect on the American psyche.
One of the public’s responses to that post 9/11 environment is popping pills. Since that dreadful day, there has been a rapid and dramatic increase in sales of anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, and sleep aid drugs, according to one Atlanta-based health information service provider, NDC Health, which tracks retail pharmaceutical sales.
New prescriptions for sleep aid rose 27.5%. Anti-anxiety drug prescriptions are up 25% and anti-depressants up 17%. New prescriptions for anti-anxiety drugs and anti-depressants are up 13%, while sleep aid prescriptions are up 8%. Nationwide, anti-anxiety prescriptions are up 8.6%, anti-depressants up 2.6%, and sleep aids up 7.5%.
Therapists are reporting agitation, sleeplessness, survivor guilt and depression -- and not just among those directly affected by the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A New York psychiatrist says her practice increased by 25% since September 11 and that half of those patients had no direct connection to the attacks. "These people feel they have no control over their lives," she said. Another shrink reports that his practice increased by 50% since the attacks and that he didn't expect it to fall off anytime soon.
But many other medical authorities report that the sorry state of the nation’s mental health is deteriorating for reasons that reach far beyond 9/11. And far beyond World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In large and small, urban and rural communities in places like Kansas and Arkansas and Maine, citizens find themselves trying to live “old normal” lives but are unable to find respite from the low-level but persistent environment of fear, anxiety, and conflict that has come to be known as the ‘new normal’.
We all recall Karl Rove’s cynical observation that 9/11 would be a boffo campaign issue in the 2004 election. And it was. Now, equally cynical politicians from both sides of the aisle are using and will continue to use the “new normal” to divide us. Nation against nation. Left against right. Interest group against interest group. Church against State. Religion against religion. Immigrants against citizens.
When President Bush was elected (sic) in 2000, he promised to unite us through “compassionate conservatism”. Since when he has worked tirelessly to unite only his base. The result has been what John Edwards calls the “Two Americas”.
Many Americans are trying to cope by popping more pills.
But some of us continue to harbor some faint hope that by 2006 or 2008, the loyal opposition will come together with some manifesto that goes beyond “anyone but Bush”.
If they fail, we will all continue to live in fear. And pop more pills.
Airplanes crashing into buildings. Daily body counts from Iraq and Afghanistan. Hospitals filled with hideously mutilated young service men and women. Prisoners being tortured and abused. People being beheaded. Religious leaders urging us to “take out” heads of state. Katrina survivors stranded on rooftops while FEMA fiddles. Tsunami victims stranded nowhere -- just gone.
These are only a few of the kinds of grisly images bombarding the American people every day.
To which we can add the 24/7 menu of relentless television alarums: 90-mile-an-hour car chases, online child pornographers getting busted, corporate executives and congressmen being frog-walked to the slammer in handcuffs, judges receiving death threats, murdered children found in shallow graves, millions dead and displaced in Darfur, children dying from HIV-AIDS and many totally curable diseases, ports being turned over to ‘Muslim terrorists’, phone calls and emails being intercepted, and on and on and on.
And, as a not-so-delicate counterpoint to this scary dirge, the secretary of Health and Human Service tells us to buy extra cans of tunafish and powdered milk to put under our beds to ward off an avian flu pandemic, and the president exhorts us yet again to “stay the course”, go about our business as usual, but be sure to pay attention to the brainless haute couture color codes intended to tell us how scared we should be on any given day.
There is an old axiom in the news business: “If it bleeds, it leads.” So the blood and gore is nothing new. What’s new is its sheer volume and pervasiveness. And if anyone still believes it’s not having a profound and profoundly negative effect on the lives of ordinary Americans, we ought to ask them what they’ve been smoking.
This is not pop-psych 101. This is real. We are living though an age of high anxiety (for which the government’s favorite cliché is “the post-9/11 environment”) that is likely to have a very long-lasting effect on the American psyche.
One of the public’s responses to that post 9/11 environment is popping pills. Since that dreadful day, there has been a rapid and dramatic increase in sales of anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, and sleep aid drugs, according to one Atlanta-based health information service provider, NDC Health, which tracks retail pharmaceutical sales.
New prescriptions for sleep aid rose 27.5%. Anti-anxiety drug prescriptions are up 25% and anti-depressants up 17%. New prescriptions for anti-anxiety drugs and anti-depressants are up 13%, while sleep aid prescriptions are up 8%. Nationwide, anti-anxiety prescriptions are up 8.6%, anti-depressants up 2.6%, and sleep aids up 7.5%.
Therapists are reporting agitation, sleeplessness, survivor guilt and depression -- and not just among those directly affected by the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A New York psychiatrist says her practice increased by 25% since September 11 and that half of those patients had no direct connection to the attacks. "These people feel they have no control over their lives," she said. Another shrink reports that his practice increased by 50% since the attacks and that he didn't expect it to fall off anytime soon.
But many other medical authorities report that the sorry state of the nation’s mental health is deteriorating for reasons that reach far beyond 9/11. And far beyond World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In large and small, urban and rural communities in places like Kansas and Arkansas and Maine, citizens find themselves trying to live “old normal” lives but are unable to find respite from the low-level but persistent environment of fear, anxiety, and conflict that has come to be known as the ‘new normal’.
We all recall Karl Rove’s cynical observation that 9/11 would be a boffo campaign issue in the 2004 election. And it was. Now, equally cynical politicians from both sides of the aisle are using and will continue to use the “new normal” to divide us. Nation against nation. Left against right. Interest group against interest group. Church against State. Religion against religion. Immigrants against citizens.
When President Bush was elected (sic) in 2000, he promised to unite us through “compassionate conservatism”. Since when he has worked tirelessly to unite only his base. The result has been what John Edwards calls the “Two Americas”.
Many Americans are trying to cope by popping more pills.
But some of us continue to harbor some faint hope that by 2006 or 2008, the loyal opposition will come together with some manifesto that goes beyond “anyone but Bush”.
If they fail, we will all continue to live in fear. And pop more pills.
Monday, March 13, 2006
QUOTH THE CRAVEN EVERMORE*
By William Fisher
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For those who enjoy the political theater of the absurd, the Dubai Ports World soap opera was the only show in town last week.
And it was a hoot! The actors came straight out of Central Casting.
Here was George W. Bush admitting he knew nothing about the deal, but vowing resolutely to defend it to the death in the interest of national security. The United Arab Emirates were among our most steadfast allies in the “Global War on Terrorism”.
Quickly appeared the Majority Leader of Senate Republicans and presidential hopeful, Dr. Bill Frist, doing another drive-by Terry Schiavo diagnosis and quickly rushing to distance himself from his poll-challenged president, only to flip-flop the next day in favor of a 45-day ‘national security investigation’.
Enter Senator Hillary Clinton and her senior partner, Senator Chuck Schumer, racing to get to the right of George W. Bush to prove that the Dems are really hawkish on national security. Pushing to ban any foreign “government-owned” company from “buying” any American seaport, ever. Especially a country that sent us two of the 9/11 hijackers and used their banks to launder money to help terrorists.
Then there were those courageous Republicans across the Capitol in the House of Representatives, all up for reelection in November, all terrified by being led by an unpopular second-term president, virtually all voting in lockstep to kill the ports deal – and, at the same time, putting as much daylight as possible between their stumbling selves and their stumbling Dubya and, as a bonus, inflicting a bit of ego-flexing payback to the commander-in-chief who ignored them for six years.
It’s an old adage in Washington that the most dangerous place to be is between a politician and his microphone. And our always-patriotic lawmakers lost no time in using their mikes to whip up a toxic cocktail of misinformation to get their constituents drunk with jingoistic paranoia.
A project in which they were immeasurably helped by “The media”, which ran story after clueless story about this government-run Arab company “buying” our ports.
Small wonder then that, outside the Beltway, the people of America stopped watching The Simpsons long enough to rise up to speak with a single shrill voice: “No foreigners (read Arabs) running our ports!”
Not to worry that most of “the people” had never heard of the United Arab Emirates, couldn’t find Dubai on a map, and had not the slightest clue that most of America’s seaport terminals are already managed by foreign companies – including the largest, Long Beach, California, run by a company owned by our great friend and staunch ally, the Government of China.
It’s consoling to know that the people had so much in common with the Congress. And with the media.
Doubtless with a little friendly arm-twisting from Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condi Rice, and the venerable Senator John Warner of the Armed Services Committee, Dubai Ports World threw in their keffiyehs. They announced they would sell their U.S. port assets to “a U.S. entity” (providing they could avoid taking a financial bath in the process).
We still don’t know precisely what this means, but that’s OK; that’s the least we don’t know.
Among the unanswered questions:
If, as has been widely reported, there is only one U.S.-owned port management company, and it’s too small to take on the Dubai Ports World job, who’s going to run these port terminals?
If the Coast Guard and our Customs folks are ultimately responsible for port security, does it really matter who runs the terminals?
What, if anything, is wrong with the Treasury-led inter-agency review process that approved the UAE deal without telling the President, anyone in the Cabinet, or anyone in the Congress -- and what’s going to be done to fix it?
How is our public diplomacy maven, the culturally-challenged Karen Hughes, going to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of all those who think we’re doing a little unsubtle ethnic profiling of all things Arab?
And, most importantly, what exactly has our wildly dysfunctional Department of Homeland Security been doing to strengthen our seaport security? And at what cost?
These are serious questions. But don’t expect serious answers. It’s an election year.
Call Central Casting.
* With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe for playing with his words (Quoth the Raven Nevermore) in his poem, “The Raven”.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For those who enjoy the political theater of the absurd, the Dubai Ports World soap opera was the only show in town last week.
And it was a hoot! The actors came straight out of Central Casting.
Here was George W. Bush admitting he knew nothing about the deal, but vowing resolutely to defend it to the death in the interest of national security. The United Arab Emirates were among our most steadfast allies in the “Global War on Terrorism”.
Quickly appeared the Majority Leader of Senate Republicans and presidential hopeful, Dr. Bill Frist, doing another drive-by Terry Schiavo diagnosis and quickly rushing to distance himself from his poll-challenged president, only to flip-flop the next day in favor of a 45-day ‘national security investigation’.
Enter Senator Hillary Clinton and her senior partner, Senator Chuck Schumer, racing to get to the right of George W. Bush to prove that the Dems are really hawkish on national security. Pushing to ban any foreign “government-owned” company from “buying” any American seaport, ever. Especially a country that sent us two of the 9/11 hijackers and used their banks to launder money to help terrorists.
Then there were those courageous Republicans across the Capitol in the House of Representatives, all up for reelection in November, all terrified by being led by an unpopular second-term president, virtually all voting in lockstep to kill the ports deal – and, at the same time, putting as much daylight as possible between their stumbling selves and their stumbling Dubya and, as a bonus, inflicting a bit of ego-flexing payback to the commander-in-chief who ignored them for six years.
It’s an old adage in Washington that the most dangerous place to be is between a politician and his microphone. And our always-patriotic lawmakers lost no time in using their mikes to whip up a toxic cocktail of misinformation to get their constituents drunk with jingoistic paranoia.
A project in which they were immeasurably helped by “The media”, which ran story after clueless story about this government-run Arab company “buying” our ports.
Small wonder then that, outside the Beltway, the people of America stopped watching The Simpsons long enough to rise up to speak with a single shrill voice: “No foreigners (read Arabs) running our ports!”
Not to worry that most of “the people” had never heard of the United Arab Emirates, couldn’t find Dubai on a map, and had not the slightest clue that most of America’s seaport terminals are already managed by foreign companies – including the largest, Long Beach, California, run by a company owned by our great friend and staunch ally, the Government of China.
It’s consoling to know that the people had so much in common with the Congress. And with the media.
Doubtless with a little friendly arm-twisting from Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condi Rice, and the venerable Senator John Warner of the Armed Services Committee, Dubai Ports World threw in their keffiyehs. They announced they would sell their U.S. port assets to “a U.S. entity” (providing they could avoid taking a financial bath in the process).
We still don’t know precisely what this means, but that’s OK; that’s the least we don’t know.
Among the unanswered questions:
If, as has been widely reported, there is only one U.S.-owned port management company, and it’s too small to take on the Dubai Ports World job, who’s going to run these port terminals?
If the Coast Guard and our Customs folks are ultimately responsible for port security, does it really matter who runs the terminals?
What, if anything, is wrong with the Treasury-led inter-agency review process that approved the UAE deal without telling the President, anyone in the Cabinet, or anyone in the Congress -- and what’s going to be done to fix it?
How is our public diplomacy maven, the culturally-challenged Karen Hughes, going to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of all those who think we’re doing a little unsubtle ethnic profiling of all things Arab?
And, most importantly, what exactly has our wildly dysfunctional Department of Homeland Security been doing to strengthen our seaport security? And at what cost?
These are serious questions. But don’t expect serious answers. It’s an election year.
Call Central Casting.
* With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe for playing with his words (Quoth the Raven Nevermore) in his poem, “The Raven”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
