Controlling the Dialogue, Pt. I

The current espionage scandal involving Lawrence Franklin, and possibly to embroil his masters, Doug Feith, et al at DOD, as well as some murky liaisons at AIPAC and who know where else at this point, has gotten my attention. Far from acting contrite, tucking their tail, etc, I expect AIPAC to go on the offensive with denials and accusations of anti-Semitism enough to go around. Israeli officials have already declaimed that they do no spying on their US allies, having learned their lesson with Jonathan Pollard they say.

So much for the first line of deniability. The fallback position, which gets to the crux of much of the mischief (too gentle a word) involving the all-too-cozy relationship between Israeli political and intelligence operatives and US policy makers involves the whole construct of AIPAC. Ostensibly an American Jewish entity, the open channel of connections that really exists with Israel tells the truth.

If anyone cared to verify this for oneself they could. But few seem interested in opening their eyes to these connections that, especially under the neo-cons, not only involve the apparent coordination of strategy and policies, and who knows what intelligence secrets (will this be another defense; hey, we have a “special relationship”). Few really want to stir that hornet’s nest at all because, in the intricate way virtually all politicians are beholden to the Israel lobby, they all have a hand in that pie. Or, vice versa; if you get my point. But its ok, eh, we have a “special relationship”?

Much of my interest involves the mechanisms by which the so-called “special relationship” is manifested, fostered, defended and, I definitely think, psychologically embedded in the American psyche. Aspects of this mechanism include:

- Nurturing World War II guilt (including the US role in not being proactive and welcoming to so many Jews seeking escape from Nazi Germany)

- Obfuscation of the political entity of the state of Israel and the religion of Judaism. This confusion is mirrored in the media which, not surprisingly uses information from AIPAC and similar groups as authoritative sources; often interchanges the words “Jews” and “Israelis”.

- Obfuscation and conflation of the political origin of the entity Zionism with the religion of Judaism

- Promotion of the idea that opposition to policies and actions of the State of Israel is equivalent to anti-Semitism

- Perpetuation of the myth that Israel is weak and vulnerable amidst powerful and aggressive neighbors, whereas Israel has stared its own “preemptive” wars, is the only nuclear power in the region (but refuses to abide by international nuclear protocols) and has, by dint of US Congressional mandate, a “qualitative edge” in military hardware over all its neighbors.

- Perpetuation of the idea that US interests are allied with Israel somehow because it is the only “democracy” in the region, whereas US strategic interests are pragmatically more allied with oil producing nations of the region, with the US/Israel being a thorn in the side of all other mideast relationships

- Unquestioning support of Israeli policies and acts is necessary because the “rest of the world” is against Israel.

Overplaying the military card: Can Kerry bite back?

I have said all along that Kerry should not overplay the military card. My feeling comes not from a strategic concern for the campaign, though that can be questioned, but from a feeling that military service is not the sine qua non of leadership, of the presidency.

Sure, maybe Kerry was laying a trap for Bush to fall into: attack Kerry, and Kerry pounces on Bush's record. But obviously Bush and Rove are ruthless strategists who think nothing about employing the big lie to thwart that trap, nay to go on the offensive. Kerry should have seen it coming instead of basing the substnce of his fitness to be commnader-in-chief on his military service, replete with VFW hats front and center at every appearance I saw.

The issue for me has less to do with anti-military than the paramount importance of bolstering the supremacy of civilian government. We are not a banana republic although, with the apparent rightward drift in politics these days, the darker side of military-cum-dictatorship inferences creeps uncomforatbly into my mind.

Neither, to me, is the issue the use of 527 ads, those soft money surrogates for the candidates. Both parties are using them. And though Bush self-righeously calls for Kerry to disavow their use (through his current press clone), in fact the Bushies use of 527 is crucial to the current attack on Kerry's Vietnam service. Can anyone doubt that Karl Rove has had some fingers in that pie?

No, not the 527's -- the procedural vehicle for getting the message de jour out -- is my concern, at least in this election, but the truth or falsity of the message. The whole 527 business is a smoke screen. Kerry has challenged the Bush campaign crossing the lines into active collaboration with a 527, but who will care two years from now what the FEC decides. Certainly these nuances are loss on Joe Public.

Its just amazing that with the hindsight of the smears of Bush sytle politics -- Willie Horton and Michael Dukakis, the rumor and slander campaigns against John McCain and Max Cleland, that the Kerry folks couldn't have seen this one coming. Putting oneself inside the head of a Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, or a Bush for that matter may be an unseemly and diffcult task for someone who doesn't live and breathe the worst sort of propaganda; its exactly what Kerry better hope some of his own strategists are able to do.

Vietnam - metaphor for a mindset

I have been thinking lately more about Vietnam. Seems like that comes naturally everytime one of our esteemed political leaders sends in the military. Brings back memories of that quitessential conflict of my 20's. Will it ever be thus? For a lot of us, I bet, it will since it had a lot to do with helping to form who we became as citizens and our attitudes towards politics, war, chauvinism and American arrogance.
(which I thought was pretty hard to top until President Codpiece proved that he could not only be more arrogant about the French and the rest of the world, but more arrogant than the French, or at least their popular image).

My own Vietnam odyssesy involved every effort I could muster to stay as far away from the military as possible. Indeed, I was married, in school, had some quaisi legitimate physical complaints and, at the end, my only sibling was in a mental hospital. I had a peripheral activity in helping a few souls also dodge the draft, as I was in law school and took great interest in reading, understanding and using the draft regulations to defeat the system. And I helped a few others to do so in a minor way.

I don't feel proud at all about that record, and have looked back over the past 40 years at times and almost lamented "missing" the experience of the military. When it seemed like they were closing in on me at times I contemplated, what then was, the choice between taking 2 years as an enlisted man (in whatever service) or 4 years in Navy JAG. Fortunately, I say, I never had to make that choice as my deferrments eventually carried me over the magic 26th year.

All this is prelude to trying to coalesce some of the conflicting principles that afflicted my generation and continue to afflict us and perhaps all who contemplate war, unjust or not. And Vietnam, in my view, was misconcieved, dishonestly sold and prosecuted, by about any measure.

So here's a starter list, conceived in light of the current political season and climate. Feel free to add you own dichotomies via comments:

micro/macro
leaders/peons
wheels/cogs
power/impotence
Calley/Kerry
Cheney/Kerry
Military policy/front line grunts
communist stooge/nationalist movement
do one's duty/oppose moral bankruptcy
America right or wrong/America wrong when wrong
draft inequality/self-preservation
America,love it or leave it/Hell no! we won't go
body count/body bags