Dear President Obama:

You knew, or had reason to believe, when you chose Gen. Stanley McChrystal as your "man in Afghanistan," that this was the same Gen. Stanley McChrystal responsible for the Pat Tillman cover-up. I quote from the Rolling Stone article that has set your blood to boiling:

After Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former-NFL-star-turned-Ranger, was accidentally killed by his own troops in Afghanistan in April 2004, McChrystal took an active role in creating the impression that Tillman had died at the hands of Taliban fighters. He signed off on a falsified recommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn't read the recommendation closely enough – a strange excuse for a commander known for his laserlike attention to minute details.) A week later, McChrystal sent a memo up the chain of command, specifically warning that President Bush should avoid mentioning the cause of Tillman's death. "If the circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death become public," he wrote, it could cause "public embarrassment" for the president.

"The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true actions," wrote Tillman's mother, Mary, in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk. McChrystal got away with it, she added, because he was the "golden boy" of Rumsfeld and Bush, who loved his willingness to get things done, even if it included bending the rules or skipping the chain of command. Nine days after Tillman's death, McChrystal was promoted to major general.

And now the chickens have come home to roost. Tell me, Mr. President, what were you thinking when you decided to entrust the future of roughly 30 million Afghans (not to mention the war you have chosen to promote against a counter-imperialist insurgency) to the hands of a known perpetrator of fraud?

In the immortal words of Crates of Thebes: "A man should study philosophy until he sees in generals nothing more than donkey drivers."

When, Mr. President, did you think would be the right time to begin to call upon your common sense?

Fire McChrystal. Turn him over to the Justice Dept. Begin the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In short: Do the right thing.

["The Runaway General" by Michael Hastings appears in Rolling Stone 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010].

FDR on his foes: “I Welcome Their Hatred”

FDR on his foes: “I Welcome Their Hatred”

The Consequences of the Loss of Leftism in American Political Life

It is almost unimaginable that I would find myself moved to write a brief blog entry on the consequences of the loss of Leftism in American political life; but, in the United States in the first decade of the 21st century, political and historical literacy has reached such a low ebb that one finds the terms "socialism" and "fascism" employed as synonyms in our popular discourse...And I doubt we've reached the bottom of the abyss of ignorance...

We must begin, then, with a definition of Leftism. Put simply: Leftism is the fundamental presumption that a primary function of a national government (if not THE primary function of such government) is to build and maintain an effective social welfare infrastructure for the benefit of its citizenry. In practice this means that it is the duty of the government to protect individuals--especially the weak and disadvantaged--from the predations of social groups.

Now, most governments around the world--including despotic ones--will at least give lip service to this notion and/or establish bureaucratic structures ostensibly designed to put it into action. And in many countries there are still active groups of citizens who advocate (even openly agitate) that their government conduct its business in accordance with this fundamental presumption.

The United States has earned the distinction of being one of the few countries on the planet where this presumption is exposed to open scorn by government officials as well as by individuals and groups in the private sector.

Today in the U.S., the fundamental presumption is that the national government's primary function is to recruit, train, and maintain a military apparatus which it deploys to protect and further the financial interests of private corporations.

Indeed, the militarized corporatocracy in the United States finances the political class which, in turn, invests a majority of the financial yield obtained from the population at large through taxation back into the corporatocracy through the military branch of the national government. It is a self-sustaining economic loop. If the weak and disadvantaged wish to benefit in some way from this economic loop, they must ally themselves in some fashion with its constituent actors.

It is not coincidental, therefore, that the economic crisis generated by the private banking sector has proved to be a boon for military recruitment.

In ancient Rome, when the Republic was replaced by the Empire, a similar socio-economic process has been observed:

"In Rome's early days the army was a militia composed of citizen-farmers who went back to their fields as soon as a campaign was over. However, the responsibilities of empire meant that soldiers could no longer be demobilized at the end of each fighting season. Standing forces were required, with soldiers on long-term contracts. [During the time of ] Cicero's childhood the great general Caius Marius supplemented and largely replaced the old conscript army with a professional body of long-service volunteers. When their contracts expired, they wanted to be granted farms [the economy of the ancient world was built upon an agrarian base whereas our modern economy is built upon an industrial one that is evolving into a post-industrial one] and where they could settle and make livings for themselves and their families. Their loyalty was to their commanders, whom they expected to make the necessary arrangements, and not to the Republic." Anthony Everitt, Cicero (Random House, 2003), p. 17.

Such are the consequences of the loss of Leftism in American political life. Republic is replaced by empire; civilian rule a mere show. We live today under the dictatorship of a militarized corporatocracy.

The Errors of Helen Thomas

Perhaps it was an error; perhaps she simply assumed that the unspoken cultural rule of courtesy permitting the elderly greater leeway when it comes to expressing their opinions would apply to her--she is, after all, 89 years old.

But whatever prompted Helen Thomas to freely express her opinion on the Israel/ Palestine conflict, she learned right quick that the document of the Constitution itself (as amended) and the Supreme Court decisions protecting political speech have little purchase in this country where the state of Israel is concerned.

Oh, sure, she didn't break any laws when she said what she did. No agent of the government will come knocking on her door with a warrant for her arrest. So, in that sense, Helen Thomas's right to express her political opinion has been safeguarded by the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps we should all take a moment to pat ourselves on the back.

But since when is legality the applicable yardstick in American politics? The Bush regime showed little regard for the Constitution, the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions. It's like Richard Nixon told David Frost: when the President does it, it's not illegal--some of us are actually old enough to remember a time when Nixon's view offended a majority of Americans. Evidently, that time has past.

So patting ourselves on the back (or stroking some less mentionable part of our anatomies) because we live in a great country where the Helen Thomases of the world can freely express their political opinions without legal repercussions is to be willfully blind to the real consequences in this country of expressing political opinions that the ruling elite find repugnant. For her "crime-think," Helen Thomas has been retired in disgrace.

And so it goes in these Orwellian States of Amnesia.