August 27, 2006

Why is Peace so hard to find?

 
WHAT are they thinking?
 
By Monica Benderman
 
 
 
Every morning I walk out back with our three dogs.  I fill bird feeders, spread bird seed across the picnic table under the tall Georgia pines that shade our backyard and sense a hundred pairs of eyes watching from among the tallest branches, waiting for me to walk away and leave them to their quiet feeding.
 
I head inside for a cup of coffee, a spot on the couch and watch out the window as the backyard erupts with life.
 
I have watched this for three years now, and still every day it is a source of wonder and musings.
 
Why can't people get it right? These highly evolved beings with the ability to think, feel and reason still can't seem to get Peace right. 
 
In our backyard wildlife abounds -- wild life.  Animals and fowl with no civilized training, no high-priced degrees of higher learning, no training in non-violent resolutions; never having attended workshops on "organized resistance", Diplomacy 101 or Sociology, and yet somehow order is maintained.
 
We have squirrels, skunks, possum, blue jays, woodpeckers, cardinals, chickadees and tiny hummingbirds; cats and dogs and a myriad of other species.  Every individual is exactly that, and yet at the same time they all share a commonality - they live, breathe, and love nuts, cracked corn, raisins, suet, splashing in the birdbath or the nearby "doggie" pool, and they all sense a safe harbor in the space we leave as natural as possible between our backyard fences. 
 
"Highly evolved" humans believe war brings peace.  With gilded picture frames sedately displaying oversized diplomas announcing their successful completion of years of study in the hallowed halls of venerated institutions, speaking words reflecting the illusion of wisdom to those "less fortunate" who have had to gain their knowledge by simply living, these extollers of a virtuous leadership dare us to question an "authority" that proclaims weapons of destruction as the harbingers of a new age of peace, freedom and democracy.
 
"War brings Peace" - WHAT are they thinking?   
 
Gathering on the picnic table, mourning doves mingle with squirrels and share their morning repast of cracked corn; moving aside for the occasional bluejay that sweeps in targeting a sunflower seed seen from his perch in the tallest tree - not a single feather is ruffled, life goes on. 
 
Recently, a group of protesters claiming to want peace, forced open the doors of a conference room demanding entry to a high-priced meal held in honor of their opposition.  Expecting their voices to be heard and their demands to be met, skirmishes broke out, arrests were made and the high-priced meal continued. 
 
"Peace protesters - forced..." - WHAT are they thinking?
 
As I look out our window watching, in the midst of the communal sharing, one white dove settles - distinct amid the blues, browns, blacks and greys.  It makes me wonder -- why is Peace so hard to find? 
 
On an overpass near a military installation, anti-war activists held rallies publicly expressing their desire for peace and opposition to war.  On the opposite side of the same overpass, military supporters displayed their banners in support of the "troops" and in opposition to the actions of those across the road.  At the end of the day, the peaceful protesters contemplated a new location from which to make their statements fearful of what might happen if they continued to assemble on the same bridge as their opposition without first attending non-violence training. 
 
A bridge - differing opinions standing together -- and peaceful protesters contemplated walking away for a lack of understanding in non-violence -- WHAT are they thinking?
 
Just last summer five laying hens lived in a coop built along our back fence.  One morning I walked out through the trees to feed the hens and was startled to see a tiny gray kitten laying in a makeshift nest on the ground, snuggled in the ruffled feathers of two of the chickens.  Every day I went to watch as the chickens circled the kitten and pecked away at their scratch while the kitten drank its milk and ate its Kibble.  In a peaceful world, differences still exist but so do acceptance and understanding.
 
Is it really peace that we are after, or is it that we want everyone to think as we do? 
 
Is it acceptance that we offer, or are there strings attached to the promises we make? 
 
The white dove comes to our backyard every morning.  There is only one, and in its brilliance it seems starkly out of place. 
 
Is peace more than just a pipe dream - have highly evolved beings evolved too far?
 
In 1305 BC, ancient Chinese used drops of water to keep track of time.  With every drip they could hear the sound of life moving forward and time running away. 
 
Today we live as if time doesn't matter; every day moving closer to destroying ourselves as we seek to control that which is not ours to control.
 
Even in the rain the wild life finds its way to our backyard and huddles together in community - their oasis of peace in the midst of a highly evolved world of madness.
 
As they peacefully assemble I wonder -- "What are they thinking?"
 
 
Copyright 2006 The Benderman Foundation
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 13:42:09 | Permanent Link | Comments (4) |

August 26, 2006

Bush Against Iran

 
Why Bush will Choose
 
 War Against Iran

By Ray Close

 
Like many people, I find it extremely difficult to believe that President Bush could actually do anything so crazy as to launch a military attack against Iran, and that even if he wanted to, the Congress, the Pentagon, and the American public would ever countenance such action. But I remember in the spring of 2002 writing a "Dear Friends" memo just like this one predicting that the apparent intentions of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq would certainly turn out to be nothing but a bluff, and supporting that assertion by listing all the reasons why actually doing so would lead to utter disaster. Many of my friends told me at the time that I was missing the point --- regime change was DEFINITELY going to happen, and I was exaggerating the downside consequences. The problem is that today the downside risks of attacking Iran seem even more horrendous ---- and yet? (As George Will said last Sunday to George Stephanopoulos -- "When was the last time this president ever worried about getting approval in advance from the Congress or the public?") It makes me nervous when my president truly believes he is carrying out the will of God.

So this is why I reluctantly believe today that Bush will indeed launch an attack on Iran before the expiration of his term of office:

1. As expected, Iran has offered to enter negotiations, but has rejected the precondition that they discontinue uranium enrichment. Iran will continue to stall indefinitely in the expectation that the U.S. cannot summon the international political and economic clout to damage Iran to any critical degree in the near future. Meanwhile, Iran remains totally and sincerely convinced (with ample justification) that the U.S. is committed to overthrowing the Teheran regime on the tactical level, and waging a broader war against Islam on the strategic level. Rightly or wrongly, Iranian leaders interpret Israeli-US joint collaboration in Lebanon as the final proof of both suspicions. Nothing will shake that conviction. We can huff and puff, but the reality is that we will not succeed in either persuading or intimidating the Iranian leadership into doing what we want them to do. This is the nub of the problem in Washington: none of the principal decision-makers --- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice --- (even Rice!) --- understands and accepts this simple reality, and so all the expectations and calculations that go into the formation of U.S. policy start from a faulty premise.

2. The U.S. will fail to get the UNSC to establish (and then enforce) a regimen of sanctions that Washington considers tough enough --- despite the unanimous concern of the larger powers, including China and Russia, that a nuclear Iran would be undesirable. The Bush Administration will fulminate about weakness of resolve and false friendship of its “allies”, but this will only exacerbate the divisions and further expose the enfeebled state of American political and moral leadership and the deterioration of its international credibility. Iran will watch this soap opera, smiling like a Cheshire cat.

3. Whatever sanctions are eventually applied will have zero chance of persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions; most certain is the fact that Iran will continue its development program without any slowdown until it has passed the US-Israel "red line" of possessing the necessary raw material to produce a nuclear bomb whenever it chooses to do so. (As we all know, possession of an operational bomb may be as much as a decade or more in the future, but the "red line" of achieving all the necessary technology, equipment and ingredients could be crossed MUCH sooner than that --- and almost certainly before Bush leaves office in January 2009.)

4. So this is the calculus facing Bush:

a. He has vowed that he will not leave office without first ensuring that Iran cannot become a nuclear power. He has probably given the leaders of Israel a similar promise --- privately and perhaps explicitly. That means that he is effectively committed to attack Iran militarily before January 2009 if all other means of accomplishing the objective fail --- which they will. He believes deeply that Iran poses an existential threat to our ally Israel and an extremely dangerous threat to the American people, as well. Bush also believes that Iran is determined to sabotage American hopes of establishing a "new Middle East" ---- by covert support of anti-American terrorist elements such as Hizballah and Hamas --- backed up by the added power implicit in its eventual possession of nuclear weapons. Given Bush’s overarching dedication to “winning the Global War on Terrorism”, the neutralization of Iran has become a sine qua non, equal if not higher on his list of priorities than “victory” in Iraq --- another impossibility that he is stubbornly unwilling to recognize, even privately --- much less acknowledge publicly.

b. Bush presently intends (with little faith or sincerity) to exhaust all opportunities to achieve his objectives by diplomatic means or through economic sanctions. Failing those, he will attempt to achieve his purposes by intimidation --- by raising the threat of military attack. This will only stimulate more internal support for the regime inside Iran and more international opposition to U.S. policies, especially in the Muslim world. Without question, moreover, an escalating danger of US-Iranian military confrontation will greatly intensify internal and regional opposition to US objectives in Iraq. (Note: A mystifying disconnect in logic persists on this point in Bush’s mind.)

c. The best hope for avoidance of war with Iran (the catastrophic consequences of which are too numerous and wide-ranging even to catalog) will be opposition to the idea from the U.S. military and from American politicians of both parties who have an appreciation of the weakened state of U.S. defense forces. I am told, on the other hand, that Bush has been persuaded by some military advisers that STRATCOM (Strategic Air Command) has a workable plan for a comprehensive attack to be launched almost simultaneously against 1500 targets in Iran that will effectively prevent any Iranian retaliation, and will obviate the need for a major ground operation or post-conflict occupation. (The logic of this strategy apparently depends on the hope that destruction of Iran’s nuclear potential and its conventional military capabilities in a spectacular display of shock and awe will trigger an internal revolt against the present government, with moderate pro-western elements standing ready to seize power in the name of freedom and democracy. This must be another fantasy dreamed up in the twisted minds of people like Michael Ledeen and other neocon illusionists.)

5. I believe that Iran wants very much to be accepted as a respected member of the community of prosperous and influential modern states. And an Iran that was indeed a trustworthy member of that community would be an enormous benefit to America and to the world. That should be the objective of American policy, therefore --- accommodating and eventually modifying the legitimate national aspirations of a self-interested and pragmatic Iran --- not launching a potentially catastrophic preemptive war against a potentially powerful and influential Muslim nation of seventy million people. Coaxing Iran down a path leading toward successful achievement of international respectability and acceptance is the single most important “carrot” that we have to offer the Iranian leadership today. The potential value of that positive incentive has been completely squandered, however, by the pointless hostility and belligerence of American “diplomatic” language --- starting with the “axis of evil” and proceeding downhill from there to the most recent offer of patently unacceptable ultimatums. This has greatly diminished our own bargaining power while making the job of arriving at a reasonable accommodation with Iran infinitely more difficult in every way.

6. In order of importance, however, the attraction from Iran’s perspective of moving toward desired international acceptance and respectability is completely overshadowed by two other dominant factors at this time: the need to reinforce and preserve Iran’s national pride (recently enhanced by the apparent success of its Hizballah surrogate in Lebanon) , and its conviction that the United States is an implacable enemy whose aggressive bullying must be resisted at all costs.

7. Adding up all those factors, it seems clear to me that Bush has laid out the following course for American policy, adding up to a Catch-22 from which I see no escape:

a. Continuing futile efforts to achieve Iranian capitulation through weak and ineffective economic sanctions, to the accompaniment of counterproductive vituperation and bombast;

b. Quickly followed by a period of rapidly escalating threats of military action, during which international and domestic opposition to American policy will increase dramatically, making Bush’s choices increasingly more painful and difficult in every respect;

c. A judgment by Bush that the immediate risks and costs of preemptive military action against Iran are, in the final analysis, less formidable than the risks and costs of tolerating Iranian nuclear possession --- and the personal and national humiliation that would result from passive acceptance of that outcome.

d. Sometime before the end of his term, a massive air military attack on a wide range of carefully selected targets in Iran, in partnership with Israel, and against the advice of many of his advisers --- justified by the conviction that a nuclear Iran would pose an intolerable threat to American national security, firm in his faith that God agrees with him on that point, and certain that history will eventually recognize and properly appreciate his courageous and visionary leadership.


Ray Close, member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
He worked for the CIA for 27 years
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 11:34:02 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

August 20, 2006

Survivor Benefits

   
    70's Law Costs 61,000 Military Widows
    Thousands of Dollars in Survivor Benefits

    By Lizette Alvarez
    The New York Times
  

As many as 61,000 military widows whose husbands died of causes relating to their military service lose out on thousands of dollars a year in survivor benefits because of a law that dates from the 1970s.

Widows and retirees have spent decades trying to persuade Congress to change the law, which hits hardest at the widows of lower-ranking service members and is referred to by many critics as the "widow's tax."

The Senate passed such a change last year and again this year as part of the military authorization bill. But House Republican leaders oppose the change because of its steep price tag, nearly $9 billion over 10 years, Senate legislative aides from both parties say. A change was not in the military bill that passed the House, but lawmakers who support the change are hoping to make it part of the bill's final version, which is now being worked on by a bipartisan Congressional committee.

"My husband thought he was securing my future," said Edie Smith, a member of the Gold Star Wives, a group of military widows who are lobbying to change the law. "He didn't realize his own disability would void the benefit he purchased for me."

 A 1972 law created the Survivor Benefits Plan, a Department of Defense retirement income fund similar to a life insurance policy. The plan, in turn, pays benefits calculated according to a dead service member's rank and length of service.

 In addition, widows of veterans who died of service-related causes receive monthly cash stipends from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Known as the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation stipend, it is currently $1,033 plus $257 for each child.

But under the law, which placed restrictions on the plan that it created, the payment to widows enrolled in the Survivor Benefits Plan is reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation stipend.

For example, a widow who would be entitled to $1,000 from the Survivor Benefits Plan and the $1,033 Dependency and Indemnity stipend receives $1,033, not $2,033.

Widows whose husband paid into the plan are reimbursed their premiums, without interest, but the amount is taxed and does not make up the losses from the plan.

The Department of Defense opposes changing the law to allow both payments, arguing that survivors should not receive two separate benefits for a single death.

But widows and their supporters say that the Pentagon's opposition to a change in the law really stems from its cost, especially at a time of rising expenses for the war in Iraq.

They also argue that because service members paid into the Survivors Benefits Plan, its benefits should not be reduced.

"If you take one benefit from another, you don't leave the survivor with very much," said Col. Lee Lange, the deputy director of government relations for the influential Military Officers Association of America, which has made this issue a priority. "These are widows. Let them collect both."

Juan del Castillo, a retired Coast Guard commander who has been paying into the plan since 1972, accused the Pentagon of "stealing money from widows."

"They are financing their operation from money stolen from military widows,'' Mr. Castillo said. "They have been doing that since 1972.''

Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, who has pushed for five years to change the law, said he had allies in the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and the committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. The $9 billion price tag needed to insure a full payout under both plans sounds expensive, Mr. Nelson said, but is less than the price of a single aircraft carrier.

"Widows and orphans are made as a result of war," he said. "They are victims of war. They are giving the ultimate sacrifice, and the nation has an obligation to care for them."

In the last two years, Congress has passed several bills to ease restrictions in the Survivor Benefits Plan. It ended a reduction in benefits to widows who reached the age of 62. And in 2003, as more and more women were widowed because of the war in Iraq, Congress decided to allow those whose husbands died after Nov. 23, 2003, to receive money from both funds by designating surviving children instead of wives as beneficiaries. But that does not affect the vast number of the 61,000 widows whose husbands died before that date.

Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, does not support including the change in this year's military authorization bill. But he has said Congress is doing right by the widows, pointing out that last year it approved significant increases in life insurance payouts and death benefits.

That "should have been done a long time ago," Mr. Hunter said.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 02:29:17 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

August 08, 2006

Pure Stupidity,...

 
Army Ponders Amusement Venue, 
 
Hotel At Ft. Belvoir

By Timothy Dwyer
Washington Post Staff Writer

Army officials say they are considering allowing a private developer to build a 125-acre entertainment, hotel and conference center complex next to a national Army museum at Fort Belvoir that could draw more than 1 million people a year to traffic-choked southern Fairfax County.

The possibility of adding what county officials call a military theme park arises as about 22,000 employees prepare to be transferred to Fort Belvoir in the next five years because of the federal base realignment and closure recommendations, designed to save $49 billion nationwide.

The Army is considering the entertainment venue to help offset the cost of the $300 million museum, which a spokesman said is scheduled to open in 2013. No federal funds are being sought for the museum, but Fairfax has donated $240,000.

A Florida developer has submitted an unsolicited proposal for a military theme park that would include the "Chateau Belvoir" hotel and an entertainment district with bars like the "1st Division Lounge" and several "4D" rides.

"You can command the latest M-1 tank, feel the rush of a paratrooper freefall, fly a Cobra Gunship or defend your B-17 as a waist gunner," according to the proposal by Universal City Property Management III of Orlando. The company has no connection to NBC-Universal, which owns Universal Studios, a spokeswoman said yesterday.

Fairfax officials, who have no say over the Army's decision because the site is federal property, said they are worried about an entertainment complex's impact on traffic.

Supervisor T. Dana Kauffman (D-Lee) was so upset after hearing about the Universal City proposal last year that he threw company representatives out of his office. He said he had no interest in turning a military history museum into "Disney on Rolling Road." After the meeting, he said, he thought the entertainment concept for the Army museum was dead.

But last week, the Army told Kauffman and other Fairfax officials that it intended to move the museum from the Fort Belvoir entrance to the Engineer Proving Ground a few miles from the post because it needs to increase the size of the complex from 75 acres to 125, which Kauffman said is a prelude to an entertainment complex.

"It seems fairly clear that the Pentagon brass has decided the only way they can succeed with the Army museum is to make a museum wrapped in an amusement park," Kauffman said.

At last week's meeting, county officials pressed the post's commander, Col. Brian W. Lauritzen, about the plans for a large entertainment complex. Lauritzen, who did not use the phrase "theme park" to describe the plans, said the demand for more space for the museum complex seemed to be coming from Army leaders above him.

An Army spokesman, in response to written questions, said the Army is studying what it calls "a visitor destination concept" for the museum but did not elaborate.

"Should the concept be approved, the Army will publicly solicit expressions of interest in the visitor destination concept from the private sector."

The spokesman would not comment specifically on the Universal City proposal but said, "No special consideration is or will be given to any individual or company."

Fort Belvoir was chosen as the site for the Army museum in October 2001 over a location in Carlisle, Pa. The spokesman would not discuss plans for the museum, saying, "Plans are in the development stages and being reevaluated by the Army and are not ready for release."

A source familiar with the museum development process said the Army is considering the public-private partnership for the museum as a way to fund the project. The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to jeopardize his role in the project, said the Army did not solicit the Universal City proposal.

"I wouldn't say it was still on the table," the source said. "I would say the Army received it and said: 'Noted.' Now they are going to do a request for information and see if there is something that is compatible for the museum." The source said the Army will probably ask for other proposals, not necessarily theme parks. "I think they will start from scratch."

He added: "Whatever solution the Army picks, not everybody is going to be happy. There is going to be unhappiness in some quarters somewhere."

Officials with Universal City Property Management in Orlando did not respond to two phone messages. They told the Army that their concept would attract 3 million visitors a year, more than Hersheypark in Pennsylvania or Busch Gardens in Williamsburg.

Supervisor Gerald W. Hyland (D-Mount Vernon), who was instrumental in persuading the Army to choose Fort Belvoir for the museum, said the Engineer Proving Ground is "the wrong place to put it."

He said the original idea of putting the museum near the post's main gate would be better for traffic flow and would place it in closer proximity to other tourist attractions, including Mount Vernon.

In 1994, the Walt Disney Co. pulled the plug on a theme park near Haymarket and the Manassas battlefield after running into a groundswell of local, national and international criticism. Disney officials estimated that the park would have drawn about 6 million visitors a year.

Staff writer Alec MacGillis contributed to this report.

Copyright 2006 The Washington Post Company
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 14:54:06 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

August 05, 2006

Equipment Shortfalls,...

 
Army's Readiness Questioned
 
WASHINGTON - Up to two-thirds of the Army's combat brigades are not ready for wartime missions, largely because they are hampered by equipment shortfalls, Democratic lawmakers said Wednesday, citing unclassified documents.

In a letter to President Bush, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said that "nearly every non-deployed combat brigade in the active Army is reporting that they are not ready" for combat. The figures, he said, represent an unacceptable risk to the nation.

At a news conference, other leading Democrats said that those strategic reserve forces are critically short of personnel and equipment.

"They're the units that could be called upon or would be called upon to go to war in North Korea, Iran, or any other country or region," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Marine who has called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

In a statement released late Wednesday, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, said much has been asked of the Army during the nearly five years the U.S. has been at war.

"I have testified to the facts about our readiness and I remain concerned about the serious demands we face," said Schoomaker, adding that the Army needs more than $17 billion in 2007 and up to $13 billion a year until two or three years after the war ends.

He said the president, defense secretary and Congress have worked closely in the past on these problems, and "I am confident we will have a way to meet the many challenges that lie ahead during these dangerous times."

Murtha and Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., said they would like to see an emergency appropriation of $17 billion, but they will at least be asking for an increase of $10 billion in the $50 billion supplemental funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that the administration requested for the first few months of the 2007 fiscal year.

Schoomaker and other Army officials have been very vocal about their funding shortfall in recent weeks.

In recent testimony, Schoomaker said that in 2004 it cost $4 billion to repair or replace war equipment, but now it has reached $12 billion to $13 billion. "And in my view, we will continue to see this escalate," he said, adding that the Army is using up equipment at four times the rate for which it was designed.

Schoomaker traced the problem's origin to entering the Iraq war in 2003 with a $56 billion shortfall in equipment. The Army managed the situation by rotating in fresh units while keeping the same equipment in Iraq. Over time, he said, the equipment has worn out without sufficient investment in replacements.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press

CHOICE AMERICA NETWPORK

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 09:29:23 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |