LET'S DANCE!

All of us want to end the agony in Iraq with the least possible "collateral damage."
I have already offered my modest proposal (1/15/07 blog) in three parts: 1) get a
just and lasting peace arrangement in Palestine. 2)Establish diplomatic
relations with Iran, with the view of working together on mutual concerns,
particularly in Iraq. 3) Offer the Sunny resistance one last chance to end the insurgency in exchange for semi-autonomy and a fair share of the oil revenue, understanding that if they refuse, they will be ruthlessly and thoroughly crushed. One stone won't be left on top of another in the areas that are still resisting. This
can't be allowed to drag on. It will spread to neighboring countries if it does!

Now I have received welcome and much-needed support via Tom Friedman's (TF)
column today, in The New York Times. Tom travels widely in the Middle East, has
lived there, and cultivates key contacts throughout the region. I am not a fan
of his love for globaliztion, or his cheer-leading for big business, but on this
question, he's got some persuasive facts that make a lot of sense.

TF lists a number of indications that the people of Iran may be open to improved
relations: 1)Iranians were among the few on 9/11 to hold spontaneous pro-U.S.
demonstrations. 2) They have long protected their Christians and Jews. 3) They
hold regular elections, and their women vote, hold public office, and are fully accepted in the work force. 4) They actively helped the U. S. defeat the Taliban in
Afghanistan, and are as strong in their opposition to al Qaeda as we are. 5) Their
brand of Islam (Shia) is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity. 6) They
have more bloggers per capita than any other country in the Muslim Middle East.

I would add that the Iranian's language (Farsi) is the 3rd most-used language on
the inter-net, after English and Mandarin Chinese! The young people in Iran, who
make up the majority, love everything American except our current leadeship and
it's looney foreign policy. Most of us are in that same boat with them!

As TF continues to point out: "The hostility between Iran and the U. S. since the
overthrow of the Shah in 1979 is not organic. By dint of culture, history and
geography, we actually have a lot of common interests with Iran's people." He
reports a conversation he had in Davos with Mohammad Hossein Adeli, Iran's
former ambassador to London, who told him: "there is now a debate in Iran as
to whether we should continue to act so harshly against the Americans . . . There
is now more readiness for dialogue with the United States." The Iranians
appreciate that that we have destroyed their two biggest enemies: Saddam and
the Talaban.

It's true, of course, that Iran has sponsored terrorism against us. That was in
Lebanon, where we were supporting Israel. That's why Palestinian peace must
come first. Here I disagree with T. F. He says resolving the Iran-U. S. conflict
must come first, then the Israel-Palestine conflict. But Iran will not trade
away it's support for Hezbollah and Hamas as long as that fight continues.
Once that is settled, those terrorist organizations will be out of business.
Their whole reason for existence is that struggle. Once Hezbollah and Hamas
are at peace with Israel, and Iran no longer needs to support them, we will
lose our excuse for refusing to talk to Iran because "they support terrorism."

By the way, we have something else in common with Iran: we both have
crazy presidents who are losing popular support and have been beaten in
recent elections. They are dangerous because they may want war to
bolster their flagging support. The American people are not blameless:
we allow our crazy president to continue a criminal enterprise in Iraq that
keeps on killing with no achievable purpose, no plausible rationale, no
legal or moral justification, no logic, no reason, no end in sight.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

BROKE AND DESPERATELY ILL

"A society is seriously out of whack when legalized loan sharks are encouraged
to close in on those who are broke and desperately ill." --Bob Herbert (BH)

Both Herbert and Paul Krugman (PK) have important op-ed columns on health
care in today's New York Times. I hope you'll read both. Herbert points out:
"A serious illness for people already in shaky economic circumstances can be a final
push into bankruptcy. . . There is an epidemic of personal bankruptcies in the U. S.
and medical factors are believed to play a role in as many as half of them."

"It's one thing to reach for your Visa or Mastercard to pay for a Barbie doll or flat-
screen TV," continues BH. "It's way different to pull out the plastic because you've
just learned you have cancer or heart disease, and you don't have any other way to
pay for treatment that would prevent a premature trip to the great beyond."

As Herbert explains further, this medical debt, in many cases, is to be paid off at
sky-high interest rates. If you are late, or miss a payment, they bump the interest
rate to as high as 30%. Many families are crushed by the load, driven from their
homes, forced into bankruptcy, and worse. (As I have stated in another context,
that's what is destroying families: it's not gay marriage!) Think of this trauma
added to that of serious illness!

The rest of the industrialized world considers the plight of our 45 million uninsured,
and shake their heads in disbelief at our indifference and neglect of the needy. And
they take note of our pride, our wealth, and our claim to be "a Christian country."
It just doesn't track, does it?

Those countries all have universal health care. Everyone is insured in a single-
payer plan, like Canada has. Eighty per cent or better of the Canadians
approve of their system. What percentage of our people approve of ours?

Instead of fixing our broken system which is breaking our middle class, Mr. Bush
wants to entice the uninsured with tax breaks, so they'll buy insurance! (He
knows of few problems he can't solve with tax breaks.) Paul Krugman says of
this nonsense: "Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what
it's like to be uninsured." (emphasis mine.)

Krugman goes on to explain: "Most people without health insurance have low
incomes, and just can't afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-
deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low
tax bracket. Of those uninsured who aren't low-income, many can't get
coverage because of pre-existing conditions -- everything from diabetes to a
long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions don't solve their problem."

Further, P. K. adds: "The administation also believes, for some reason, that
people should be pushed out of employment-based health insurance --
admittedly a deeply flawed system -- into the individual insurance market,
which is a disaster on all fronts. Insurance companies try to avoid selling
policies to people who are likely to use them, so a large fraction of premiums
in the individual market goes not to paying medical bills but to bureaucracies
dedicated to weeding out 'high risk' applicants -- and keeping them
uninsured."

Harry Truman tried fifty years ago to introduce a single-payer health plan
that covered everyone. He couldn't get fellow Democrats to support it. I'm
hoping someone can do that now. As Bob Herbert says: "At the very least,
in the short term, we need to protect financially vulnerable patients from a
credit card universe in which there are no legal limits on fees or interest,
and where the abuse of customers is the norm."

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

COMING DISTRACTIONS

Afghanistan will be heating up militarily as the weather does. Congressman
John McHugh, returning from a trip there with Hillary Clinton and Evan
Bayh, said that everyone they talked to warned "that when the snows melt
in the passes, it will bring a new onslaught from al Qaeda and the Taliban . . .
one that directly threatens not just the Karzai presidency, but threatens
Afghanistan itself, and logically, it follows, threatens our investment in
blood and treasure."

Is the threat being overstated? To answer that, we need to look at the
history, the demographics, the economy, the religion, and the politics of
the region. As to history, the British invaded Kabul in 1839 and set up
a puppet Shah who wasn't accepted by the natives. The Brits then were
forced to withdraw through the mountains, in winter. Their 16,000
troops were steadily whittled down in ambushes. Only one of them, a
doctor, survived. I am indebted to Maureen Dowd for this story. As she
pointed out, "The lesson is that Afghanistan is a no man's land that can't
be tamed by gringos. The British Empire, on which the sun never set,
never succeeded in accupying Afghanistan."

Dowd talked to a Brit who has written extensively on Afghanistan. He
told her: "The Afghans are extraordinary fighters, tough and resourceful
and cruel, and they know their business inside out. On their territory,
they're unbeatable. They love fighting and dealing with invaders. It's
almost a game to them. . . Eventually, I suppose, we'll get out of Iraq and
pretend it's a success when it's just a mess . . . Afghanistan is slightly
different. You cannot ever win. When you consider the Russians put in
more than 100,000 troops and couldn't do it. There is only one way to
deal with the Afghans, and that's to buy them." (The latter, by the way,
is how we got, and keep, the help of the Northern Alliance warlords
against the Taliban. They are still on our payroll, though they are also
reaping millions from the opium and heroin trade, protection rackets,
corrupt police, and on and on.)

This is one reason I want us to make nice with Iran and negotiate their
help against the Taliban. They did it before. They have tried several
times to patch things up with us. We have always rebuffed them on
the grounds they support "terrorists," meaning Hamas and Hezbollah.
To the Muslim world, Hamas and Hezbollah are legitimate freedom
fighters helping the Palestinians resist the illegal, immoral, and
illegitimate Israeli occupation of their homeland, which we support .
If we would use our best efforts (which we have never done) to get a
just and lasting peace in Palestine, that would be the end of Hamas
and Hezbollah. They would be out of work, and Iran would no longer
see a need to support them, and we could join forces with Iran in helping
the Shia majority clean up in Iraq, as well as the fight against the Taliban in
Afghanistan.

I plan to write further on the demographics, economy, and politics in
Afghanistan, and how the Taliban is taking control of the dominant
ethnic group there. Unless we get a lot more help than we have there
now, and more understanding of what's going on, we are building sand
castles against an incoming tide, milking a dry cow (farmers understand that), kicking a dead horse, or whatever other expression of futility you can think of.
Have a nice day!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

The Need For Leadership

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who
helps to perpetrate it." ---M. L. King

"Dr. King held the unfashionable view that we had an obligation to
help those in trouble, and to speak out against unfair treatment
and social injustice. 'Our lives begin to end,' he said, 'the day we
become silent about things that matter.'" ---Bob Herbert (BH) in
today's N. Y. Times. When King came out early on against the
Viet Nam war, he was widely reviled, and it cost him important
support in his quest for racial justice. The New York Times
headlined an editorial, "Dr. King's Error." Of course, King
was right, and the Times in tragic error.

All of which reminds me of Barak Obama ("Barak" means "blessing"
in Swahili.) Actually, everything these days reminds me of Barak!
As I told a friend recently, Obama has King's idealism, vision and
eloquence, and JFK's smarts and charisma. Is all that enough? No,
he must also have King's courage. And that remains to be seen!

If he wants to be president, I suggest he go soft on gun control.
(I'm a pragmatist, remember.) It sunk Gore in Tennessee, Missouri,
Arkansas, West Virginia, and on and on. With any one of those
states, Gore would be president today. Yes it's an important issue.
Is it as important as the damage Bush keeps on doing around the
world? The untold lives lost? Western democratic governors prove
that you can carry red states if you give in on guns. Guns are little
boys' toys. If they can't have their toys they go crazy! Unfortunately,
some of them go crazy with their toys!

But I digress. One of the most serious controversial issues O.
must deal with, is immigration. I hereby offer him, free of
charge, the best possible solution: (drum roll) A Marshall Plan
for Mexico! If they have jobs there, they won't risk their lives
to come here. A fence won't work, or spending millions more on
border patrol. We're blowing upward of $2 trillion destroying Iraq.
For less than a tenth of that, we can get the Mexican economy
humming. Let's do it.

Speaking of Mexico, as I just was, do you know why Lincoln was
defeated for re-election after one term in the U. S. House of
Representatives? Because of his opposition to the Mexican war,
which he rightly saw (and said) that it was an immoral land grab
on our part. That, of course, brings us back to Obama, who opposed
this war, (because he has good sense), and has already had as much
national experience as L. had when he ran for president.
As for experience, Obama has had some of the most valuable you
can get. He has been an organizer for social action in poor black
neighborhoods in Chicago. If Bush had had that kind of experience,
do you think his response to Katrina(or lack thereof) might have been
different? O. understands full well why "the nations prisons are filled
to the bursting point with black men who have failed, or been failed,
and have no viable future." (B.H. again) And why "too many black
Americans are willing and even eager to see themselves in the
culturally deprived (and depraved) lineup of gangsters, pimps and
whores." (Ibid.)

More later: jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

AIDING AND ABETTING A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

David Ignatius, who writes for The Washington Post, and whose column appeared today
in The Oregonian, wrote about the Middle East: "In this volatile part of the world, there's
just one area where I wish President Bush would take more risks --- and that's in
diplomatic efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. If you want to strike a blow
at Iran, Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads all at once, that's the way to do it.
Secretary Rice made a start this week, but this is one poker game where we should be
adding more chips --- doubling down the American stake in peace."

Mr. Ignatius is right, of course. But he is too polite to explain that it is our continuing
to aid and abet Israel in its criminal activities in the West Bank and Gaza that is the
main cause of the burning (and increasing) hatred of us in the Muslim world. Jimmy
Carter has now written a frank and honest book that shows in detail from history how
and why Israel's brutal occupation and destruction in Palestine is, indeed, criminal.
Everything Carter says in PALESTINE PEACE OR APARTHEID is substantiated in
an earlier book by Tanya Reinhart: ISRAEL/PALESTINE - How To End the War of
1948. Reinhart is a professor at Tel Aviv U. and a regular columnist for Israel's
largest paper, so she cannot be called anti-Israel. Nor can Carter, who received
the Nobel Peace Price for his successful efforts to bring about a lasting treaty
between Israel and Egypt.

Jimmy Carter fits (as does Barak Obama) Confucius' definition of the truly
noble man: "He is universally minded, and no partisan."
(More on Obama later). Carter's book is based both on extensive research, and
long experience in the holy land. As, of course, is Reinhart's. The latter reports
accurately: "The Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous
Palestinian inhabitants." It's a process still going on, as ever more Palestinian
homes are blown up or bull-dozed, their olive and citrus orchards deliberately cut
down, and their wells filled in with rocks. The Palestinians reported in 2001 that
112,000 olive trees had been uprooted, and over 10,000 homes demolished. This
is much more than vandalism, folks! This is gangsterism! And we are paying
for it and supporting it! Reinhart again: "The Israeli army that defends our
homeland behaves brutally, uses torture, fires upon innocent civilians. What
justifies the behaviour of this army? We call it self-defense but this is, I suggest,
only the surface of our justification. (We think) our historic suffering, as a people,
entitles us to the violence of our current behaviour."

More on this later. jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

A MODEST PROPOSAL

A N. Y. Times editorial (1/14/07) said: "It was surreal how
disconnected Pres. Bush was the other night, both from
Iraq's horrifying reality and America's anguish over this
unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war.
Indeed, most Americans seem far ahead of the President.
They understand that what the country urgently needs is
for Mr. Bush to chart a way out of Iraq that also limits the
chaos that will be left behind.

It's true that B. said little new, and even less that made
sense. For example, he warned: "If the Iraqi gov't
does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the
support of the American people." As if that hadn't
already been lost, along with everything else. As a former
high B. aid remarked: it's really "repackaged stay-the-course
dressed up to make it look more palatable."

So what's to be done? Actually, it is not incumbent on
those of us who strongly opposed this misadventure
from the beginning to now come up with a solution. It's
as if we're on a bus speeding down a dead-end road
that will take us over a cliff if we continue on that
course. The majority of us are now screaming "STOP!"
But the Pres. complains bitterly that no one offers a
better idea than continuing steady as she goes.

My suggestion has three parts, two of which are urged
in the report of the I. S. G. They are all aimed at curbing
the incredible hostility toward us that is growing in the
Muslim word. First, and most important, we must use
our substantial leverage on Israel to force a just and
lasting settlement with them and the Palestinians. We
are giving them $3 billion a year, plus armaments like
cluster bombs, which they used on civilians in Lebanon.

Please read Jimmy Carter's excellent new book on this
issue, and you'll understand that there's nothing
mysterious about the form such a settlement must have.
This has long been established and agreed on by all sides.
Israel simply refuses to end their illegal occupation of
the West Bank, and remove their illegal settlements
from that territory. Until and unless that happens,
nothing else of significance can be accomplished.
Anything short of this is nonsense!

The second step, also hard, and also advocated by the
I. S. G., is establish a working and civil relationship
with Iran. We have something in common: our
mutual concern about the resurgence of the Taliban.
Iran is hostile to the Taliban because of its oppression
of Shiites in Afghanistan. Iran is equally opposed to
al Qaeda for the same reason. We can find ways to
join forces with Iran against those mutual enemies.
The young people in Iran like us, and admire the U. S.
They are the majority. There is little support among
them for their flaky president. (Sound familiar?) He
talks a lot, but has little real power. The country is
completely controlled by the ruling Ayatollahs and
they are cautious: they don't want trouble with us,
and in fact, would like better relations. Let's go for
it. Sure it's risky. Pushing them toward war, as we
are doing now isn't?

My third suggestion will blow your mind, but I'm
serious about it: we need to choose sides in Iraq
and make sure the side we pick wins decisively
(and quickly). Otherwise civil war will destroy
that country utterly! In line with suggestion
two (above), the side we pick must be the
majority Shia, against the Sunnis, who are the
main insurgency, but less than 20% of the
population. We're for democracy, remember?
Bonus: The Shia will make short work of al
Qaeda in Iraq! They'll be gone! Downside:
85% of the world's Muslims are Sunnis.
They will not be happy about this, and may
cut off our oil. But if suggestion two works,
we'll be able to get oil from both Iran and Iraq.
The Kurds will join the Shia vs. Arab Sunnis,
if as a result they end up with the oil in their
area. The Arab Sunnis in Iraq need to be
warned of what's coming, and given 90 days
to end the insurgency or else. Otherwise
they will be without oil income, and without
much voice in affairs. They will be in a
situation similar to that of the Shia under
Saddam. That is what the insurgency has
earned them. If they want to keep it up, it will doom
them.

Well, let me know what you think: jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

AFTER THE SPEECH

Here is a letter I sent to the editor of The Oregonian on 1/12/07: "Regarding Iraq, Debra
Saunders is right about one thing, it can get worse! And probably will, whether we go or stay.
It's a deteriorating situation, as the I. S. G. reported, and will remain so, for reasons laid out by David Brooks, among others.

I am also in agreement with Leonard Pitts: ". . . it still strikes me as wrong, for reasons both moral and pragmatic, to come in, blow up those people's country, then walk away and leave them in the rubble." So Leonard, we stay and keep making more rubble? Is that a good
idea?

David Brooks is to be applauded also for pointing out the difference between what Mr. Maliki has actually agreed to, and what Mr. Bush says Maliki will do. In Arab culture, one doesn't
openly disagree with the boss. One politely agrees, then goes and does what one wants anyway.
What Mr. Maliki wants is to stay in power with the help of the Shiite militias. So he is not going to be fighting them, or helping the Americans fight them. Just a few weeks ago, he asked us to lower our profile in Iraq. Bush is doing the opposite of what was asked. Maliki doesn't want
U. S. troops "embedded" (supervising) his troops. It humiliates Arab troops, and they drag their feet or go AWOL, taking their weapons with them and selling them on the black market.
It is probably neither within Maliki's power or his intent to do most of the things Bush is demanding of him.

One of the dangers of fighting religious fanatics is that we may become like them: fanatics facing contrary facts simply close their minds and redouble their efforts. Mr. Bush is "listening" to
contrary views without hearing them. His ears are as closed as his mind. He listens to his
"heaveny father" and some TV preachers, but ignores the counsel of his earthly father's closest friends and advisors.

As the ancient Greeks said, "when the gods war, men have to die." That's because, as the Aztecs knew, the gods require human sacrifice. Our saber rattling at Iran and Syria is convincing more and more of the Muslim world that, as the Islamists have long claimed, we are out to destroy Islam. That doesn't have to be true to be believed. But it strengthens the most
extreme people in those countries.

Maureen Dowd wrote in the 1/13/07 N. Y. Times that: "I feel good about the new war with Iran. How can you not have confidence in the crackerjack team that brought you Operation
Iraqi Freedom, which foundered and led to Operation Together Forward, which stumbled and led to Operation Together Forward II, which collapsed and was replaced by The New Way
Forward, the Surge now being launched even though nobody's togther and everything's going
backward? I say , bring it on. If a pre-emptive war in Iraq doesn't work, why not try a pre-emptive war on Iran in Iraq?"

What is my solution? Stay tuned. I'll turn to that next time, I hope!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

NOT IN REALITY

The fiction about Iraq began with fake reports of lethal weapons, and continued with "Mission
Accomplished" followed by rosy reports of school openings, elections, transfer of authority, a
parliament, a constitution, and so on. The reality was, and is, that there were no weapons
stockpiled, the mission wasn't accomplished, the schools had no water or electricity, and students are afraid to attend anyway.

The elections were strictly according to sectarian instructions, and intensified sectarian divisions. They caused sectarian strife that quickly escalated. No authority was transferred, because authority requires control, and there wasn't any. The Constitution expresses majority determination to have religion the final rule. All of this was misrepresented to the American public, as was the growing insurgency as well. And the brewing showdown between the Sunni minority and the developing Shia-led rule. We are now caught in the middle of a civil war that is still not fully acknowledged by our national leadership. THAT IS THE REALITY!

The only real question about the coming "surge" (escalation) is, according to Paul Krugman in
today's N. Y. Times, " whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. As for "cynical," he
points to Sen. Biden's charge that they are just buying time (with blood), hoping to hold out
until they can hand off the problem of getting out to the next administration. That way, they
were not defeated, somebody else was.

Daniel Kahneman, an expert on irrationality in decision-making, thinks they are delusional, says Krugman, ". . . that the administration's unwillingness to face reality in Iraq reflects a basic
human aversion to cutting one's losses -- the same instinct that makes gamblers stay at the
table, hoping to break even. . . . Of course, such gambling is easier when the lives at stake are
those of other people's children," adds Krugman. He goes on to observe: "Well, we don't have
to settle the question (cynical or delusional). Either way, what is clear is the enormous price
our nation is paying for President Bush's character flaws." And the consequences, I might add,
of letting national elections be determined by issues like God, guns, and gays!

There may be another explanation for the administration's mind-set. Ron Suskind reports that a senior adviser to Pres. Bush told Ron: "that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from our
judicious study of discernable reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment
principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,'
he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. . .We're
history's actors. . .. and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Perhaps this
explains Bush's remark that the Iraq war will ultimately be just a comma in history. They are
creating their own reality! Facts don't matter. Evidence can be ignored. Casualty figures are
irrelevant in the big picture of remaking history! Unfinished paintings can look messy. We
have to finish the painting, bloody as that will turn out to be. Or is it, as Paul Krugman opines:
"Iraq has become a quagmire of the vanities -- a place where America is spending blood and
treasure to protect the egos of men who won't admit that they were wrong. We'll see what
Mr. Bush has to say tomorrow evening. Is he creating his reality, or ours?

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net