Serious people do not read the Huffington Psot

It is distressing to observe that the wealthy socialite and political activist Ariana Huffington who started the popular blog The Huffington Post, is not using her blog to social mobilize a grass roots movement in America to challenge the entrenched career politicians in Washington DC like other bloggers have done in Sweden and Italy. Instead of using the Internet and her blog to social mobilize a ground swelling grass roots movement, like Rickard Falkvinge in Sweden and Beppe Grillo in Italy have done, it appears Ms. Huffington is content just to use her blog as a online news tabloid with a ideological slant similar to her blog’s conservative counterpart, The Drudge Report

Whether Ms. Huffington was intimidated by agents from the shadow government in America not to rock the boat or she is just plain ignorant of how to use her blog for political and social mobilization, perhaps more progressive voters in America should begin to subscribe to independent blogs like Crooks and Liars, TomDispatch, and Opinione to get their news and information. One thing is sure; none of these blogs will waste their time posting stories related to Larry King or any other weapons of mass distraction media personality. These blogs are too busy writing about American foreign Policy, the upcoming resource wars of the 21st century, and ever declining condition of American democracy.

It is time Ms. Huffington decide whether she wants to use her blog, as a political and social mobilization vehicle like The Pirate Party in Sweden and Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement in Italy, or whether she wants to be the online version of the National Enquirer.

Books are lighthouses erected in the great sea of time

With not a single non-fiction book related to American government or international relations in best selling book lists like the New York Times or Barnes and Noble, it is evident why a majority of Americans is pathetically ignorant of international affairs and easily manipulated by politicians and their mass media sponsors. Perhaps when the decline of the American Empire is analyzed by future historians, the famous quote from the 19th century American essayist and critic E.P. Whipple will be used as a dissertation for a post doctorate degree.

Understanding the importance of reading non-partisan books written by academic professionals like Andrew Bacevich and Larry Bartels in addition to investigative jounralists like Stephen Kinzer and Philip Shenon, Opinione would like to advocate some well-written and thought provoking books for your summer time reading season.

The first book that should be on everyone’s to buy list this summer is Unequal Democracy. Written by Larry Bartels, the Director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University, the book offers an academic analysis of the relationship between politics and economics. The book was the winner of two national book awards in 2009 by the American Political Science Association and is packed with facts presented in a academic and non-partisan manner. The book is highly recommended for anyone wanting to get a true understanding of how the American political system functions. Future historians will undoubtedly use this book as a primary source document in their analysis of how the American Empire and its capital Washington DC mirrored the Roman Empire and the city of Rome before its downfall in 232 AD.

For readers who may want an in-depth and sobering look at the intimate relationship between political power and the news media, When the Press Fails by W. Lance Bennett, Regina Lawrence and Steven Livingstone is highly recommended. As all the books recommended, this book is written by academic members from the fields of political science and mass communication. After reading this book, you will never look at news the same way.

Expanding beyond the confines of domestic American politics, several new books just published such as Tom Englehart’s The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s, and Steven Kizner’s, Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future, would be an eye opener for anyone wanting to learn more American Foreign Policy. Surely to be make anyone who has believed the political rhetoric from politicians for the last 10 years feel like a complete moron, the books are a no holds bare on explaining how the Cold War era military industrial complex has now evolved into a corporate political complex. The book by Steven Kizner follows up on his groundbreaking book, Bitter Fruit, that explained the CIA’s overthrow of a democratic Guatemalan government in 1954. Reminiscent of Noam Chomsky’s intellectual explanation of American foreign policy during the Cold War in his book Hegemony or Survival- America’s Quest for Global World Dominance, the books by Kizner and Engelhardt are much more intriguing to read than any fictional military-political thriller by Tom Clancy.

By far the most highly anticipated this summer is the new book by Andrew Bacevich, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War. The same author who introduced the terms Incumbents Party and the National Security State Apparatus, this book will undoubtedly be another best seller for the retired lieutenant colonel and professor of international relations at Boston University.

Whether it is reading a paperback book while at the beach or a hard cover first edition while camping in the mountains, this new summer reading season offers an excellent new batch of non-fiction books.

With more Americans obsessed with their image and wanting to be seen with the latest new smart phone or other high tech product, wouldn’t you want to stand out and be seen reading something intellectual and educational rather than a book by Glen Beck or Spoken from the Heart, by the aristocrat and member of a political dynasty, Laura Bush.

Perhaps a famous quote by P.J. O’Rourke will inspire some people.

Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it. ~P.J. O'Rourke

A recent article by Andrew Bacevich on the McChrystal controversy

Thanks to MikeB302000 for posting an article Andrew Bacevich recently wrote for the Washington Post.

In the article, Endless war, a recipe for four-star arrogance, the retired Army colonel and professor of international relations at Boston University weighed in on the recent controversy involving General McChrystal and the remarks the former military leader of Afghanistan made in an article published in Rolling Stone Magazine.

For readers who are familiar with Andrew Bacevich, the article he wrote for the Washington Post echoes several of the books he published on the dangers perpetual war creates for democracy in America. While Andrew Bacevich takes the popular view that the general should have been fired, Bacevich also discusses how the remarks by McChrystal and his staff are reflective of both the declining level of respect military leaders have for civilian leaders and the toll perpetual war is having on democracy in America. To make his point very clear, in the very first sentence of his article, Bacevich writes: “wars are antithetical to democracy”.

If the American public truly wants to support their troops, they would read articles and books written by Bacevich and other experts on national security, instead of merely slapping a yellow magnet onto their gas guzzling SUV.

The Best Political Cartoons for the week of June 20

Starting this week, Opinione is starting a new feature on the blog where the Grand Prince will post some of the best political cartoons from the previous week.

Hope you enjoy this week’s selection.

If Your Not Outraged- Your Not Paying Attention

It was good to see that other intelligent and non partisan blogs such as Win Without War was able to see through the smoke screen of deception and manipulation related to the recent infotainment story about General McChrystal. Like Opinione, before the General was fired, Tom Andrews over at Win Without War knew the real story was about a failing strategy in Afghanistan and the disconnect between how the administration portrays the war in public and the reality of how the war is actually being waged.

As Tom Andrews writes:

Here are three points in the Rolling Stone article that contradict what the White House has presented to Congress and the American people about the war in Afghanistan:

"Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further." A senior military official stationed in Afghanistan told Hastings: "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of US forces next summer if we see success here."

General McChrystal's Chief of Operations Major General Bill Mayville, described the war in Afghanistan as unwinnable: "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win. This is going to end in an argument."

"If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular." This was how a Senior Advisor to General Stanley McChrystal characterizes the war in Afghanistan.

Looks like Opinione and Win Without War share the same wisdom and insight. Wouldn’t you agree?

A textbook example of “indexing” by the mainstream media

In a textbook example of “indexing” by the mainstream media, a recent Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings entitled The Runaway General, has been indexed by the mainstream media under the category of personal controversy, rather than the more correct category of military quagmire, or failed military strategy. The article by Michael Hastings, causing a firestorm of controversy in Washington DC, was intended to be a serious look at the direction the war in Afghanistan was taking after the Obama administration committed to the counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy advocated by McChrystal in October 2009. However, due to the herd mentality of the American press, the story is being framed as a showdown between President Obama and General McChrystal for the people who have not taken the time to read the article in its entirety.

The real story why General Stanley McChrystal is being called to Washington DC is not because of the derogatory statements the General and his staff said about Vice President Biden or other political leaders, but because political leaders are upset General McChrystal allowed a reporter to hear soldiers in Afghanistan voice their frustrations at how the war was being waged and openly questioning the counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy that General McChrystal advocated for back in 2009.

While the remarks made about Vice President Joe "Bite Me" Biden are getting all the attention, the more important aspect of the war itself are being downplayed and ignored. It is disappointing that more attention has not been focused on some of the remarks in the Rolling Stone article by McChrystal's chief of operation, Maj.Gen.Bill Mayville.

Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm. "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."

Another more important part of the article that the main stream press is not discussing is that the war in Afghanistan is considered by many people in the CIA as not being a vital interest to the United States. Tucked away on the last page of the article, the following paragraph is important to republish.

When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn't hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France's nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently messy, expensive and easy to lose. "Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan," he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. "It's all very cynical, politically," says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the region. "Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there's nothing for us there."

For politicians from both political parties, any article, like the one published in Rolling Stone that quotes several members of the military saying that the Afghanistan War cannot be won, would risk throwing the whole current political environment into chaos. Political leaders of today are incapable of leading the country and are too afraid to upset their wealthy corporate campaign contributors in the military industrial complex. These spineless politicians would rather continue bankrupting the country and allowing American service members to die in the world’s fifth poorest country, rather than stopping a war that over 53 percent of Americans now believe is not worth fighting.

By focusing attention on the disparaged comments made by McChrystal and his staff, allows the political establishment to deflect attention away from the failed counterinsurgency strategy which has only succeeded in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military and its corporate partners: perpetual war.

La Pequeña Hillary Clinton.

For the International viewers who may not be able to view the Viral Video Film School special on politics, the Grand Prince is posting a special video of La Pequeña Hillary Clinton.

Enjoy.

A little comedy to explain American politics

Unable to address serious issues in the Op-Ed sections of local newspapers and the free press as the founders of the Constitution envisioned, it appears that political strategists around the country are choosing to post their candidates speeches on websites such as YouTube, which are more known for political videos of Obama Girl or Its Raining McCains, than for discussing the serious issues facing hard working Americans. At a time when more people need to be involved and a more pluralistic voices needs to be represented in Washington, posting videos on YouTube and posting tweets of future campaign speeches is not the answer.

Perhaps the local press and Internet bloggers can further assist these candidates by giving more press coverage to non establishment political candidates running for office and reporting on stories that the main stream media and establishment political party candidates are either too afraid or incapable of discussing. In a Connecticut senate race, the tactical decision of the Blumenthal and McMahon campaign strategists to bypass the old medium of the newspaper in favor of the Internet and YouTube will be just as successful as Obama’s campaign in 2008, when his multi-million dollar YouTube campaign department was upstaged by the popular Obama Girl. Astute political strategists in America, know that YouTube is viewed more by 18-24 year olds than the voter demographic group who are actually going to take the time and go to the polls on election day. Perhaps the McMahon and Blumenthal campaigns will learn this in 2011, just as Hillary Clinton did in 2008 when her official campaign video on YouTube was viewed 24,000 times, while a parody video of a dancing Chilean little person dressed as Hillary Clinton was viewed over 392,000 times.

Please take the time to watch this video from Viral Video Film School from Brett Erlich as he takes a look at some of the funniest viral videos of politicians and American politics.

America’s other unfinished war

America’s other unfinished war recently made headlines when a protest in Iraq’s second largest city turned deadly when police fired into a crowd of protestors demonstrating about the lack of electricity and other basic services. According to a recent Associated Press news wire report:

More than 3,000 protesters marched through Basra, which suffers from searing summer temperatures that can reach 120 degrees (50 degrees Celsius) and high humidity. They carried banners and chanted angry slogans demanding a solution to the power cuts that persist despite billions of dollars in reconstruction money since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
It was a scene that has become more frequent across the nation as patience wears thin among Iraqis struggling to cope with less than six hours of electricity a day.

Although Bush supporters and other conservative voters in America may try to claim that Iraq is a relative success, the failure of the American supported government to provide basic services to its residents after seven years after the end of the war indicates that there is a lot more work to be done in Iraq before it can be considered a success.

The location of the protest in the Shiite dominated area of southern Iraq is a reflection of the continued internal political fragmentation within a country whose borders were drawn and determined by the British Empire in 1917. Unlike in post World War II Germany, a country that was able to establish its own borders and destiny after the 30 Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia, the people in Iraq are still suffering from the meddling of external powers such as Great Britain and now the United States.

The failure of the Iraqi government to provide more than two hours worth of electricity to the residents of Basra, is a result of the pervasive corruption in the Iraqi government enabled in large part by a corrupted political system in America. Ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, the political leaders of the United States need to take responsibility for this and begin to start holding the political leaders in Iraq more responsible.

Bisphenol A (BPA) and how it can harm your health

To help gain the political capital his administration would need to challenge the power of the defense, petro-chemical, and petroleum industries, political strategists in the Obama administration could have taken the Oval Office speech to speak about how petroleum harms almost every American in ways they would not suspect. One of the most recently documented ways in which petroleum harms nearly every American that Obama strategists could have included in the President’s Oval Office speech is the health consequences of the petro-chemical, Bisphenol A (BPA). With the growing trend of local governments banning the use of plastic bags, the Obama administration should also incorporate the issue of BPA and a more aggressive policy of recycling into their national energy policy.

BPA is used in production of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy linings to add strength and resilience to the products. U.S. manufacturers produce more than 6 billion pounds annually. While many uses pose no risk to consumers, some scientists have worried about the health effects of ingesting low doses of the chemical, which is used in the linings of canned foods as well as bottles and food storage products.

In 2008, Canada decided it was not going to take the chance, and passed legislation that prohibited BPA from being used in the products sold to babies and nursing mothers such as baby food containers and baby bottles. Quoted by the Washington Post in an news report in 2008, Tony Clement, the minister of health in Canada said,

"We have immediately taken action on bisphenol A because we believe it is our responsibility to ensure families, Canadians and our environment are not exposed to a potentially harmful chemical". The Minister of Health also that said the action was based on a review of 150 worldwide studies. "It's pretty clear that the highest risk is for newborns and young infants," he said in a telephone interview.

The Washington Post article also went on to inform its readers,

Wal-Mart Canada began pulling all baby products containing BPA from its shelves this week, and the chain said it plans to stop selling products containing BPA in U.S. stores by next year. Playtex said it would offer free non-BPA bottles to parents and will stop using BPA in all products by year's end. Nalgene, the maker of reusable water bottles that are popular among athletes, said yesterday it would discontinue production of bottles made with the chemical and recall existing products already in its stores.The move in Canada adds pressure on U.S. federal regulators to reexamine their position on BPA, which is suspected of causing breast and prostrate cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity and other serious disorders in laboratory animals. This week, a federal health panel in the United States for the first time expressed concerns about BPA.

BPA is used in production of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy linings to add strength and resilience to the products. U.S. manufacturers produce more than 6 billion pounds annually. While many uses pose no risk to consumers, some scientists have worried about the health effects of ingesting low doses of the chemical, which is used in the linings of canned foods as well as bottles and food storage products.

The debate over BPA, which has simmered for a decade, grew more intense in the United States after the National Toxicology Program, an office within the National Institutes of Health, acknowledged in a draft report that the chemical might cause cancer and other serious disorders. Scientists involved with the report said that the chemical mimics estrogen in the human body.

While it would have undoubtedly caused a firestorm in Washington DC and mobilized lobbying groups such as the American Chemistry Council against the Obama administration,it is important that the President and the US government begin to stand more on the side of the consumer than on the side of corporate America.

This one small issue is an example of the many small battles that American politicians who have to fight in the long term war against weaning America from its reliance on petroleum.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness

To this political analyst, it was no surprise that cynical mass media political pundits and opinion page columnists from the main stream press criticized and disparaged the recent speech President Obama gave from the Oval Office. Although his speech was lacking in clarity and was filled with generalities, the President should not be criticized for trying to have a frank discussion about petroleum. In an era of tough economic times with over 15 million Americans out of work, the President should not be faulted for trying to inject new and different ideas into the political debate.

While Opinione has pointed out in previous postings that his speech writers and political strategists could have used the speech to introduce new policy proposals such as encouraging the congress to offer tax break incentives for companies to invest in new plastic recycling into energy start up ventures, the President needs to devote the entire rest of his administration to help America decrease her demand for foreign oil and make the first step towards a post fossil fuel based economy.

How Taxpayers Are Subsidizing BP’s Disaster Through the Pentagon

While all the major media outlets have covered the circus show of BP CEO Tony Hayward testifying before Congress, relatively few media outlets have informed their readers that BP is the single biggest supplier of fuel to the Department of Defense, and that US taxpayers give over $2.2 billion a year to BP in government contracts.

As the author of TomDispatch points out in his introduction to a recent article by Nick Turse, America’s two ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, are not only out of control and seemingly unstoppable, but are more intimately connected than most Americans are aware of.

As Michael Klare wrote in his book Blood and Oil:

The American military relies more than that of any other nation on oil-powered ships, planes, helicopters, and armored vehicles to transport troops into battle and rain down weapons on its foes. Although the Pentagon may boast of its ever-advancing use of computers and other high-tech devices, the fighting machines that form the backbone of the U.S. military are entirely dependent on petroleum. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, the Department of Defense could neither rush its forces to distant battlefields nor keep them supplied once deployed there.

To help readers begin to get a better idea of how much fuel the Pentagon consumes, a recent article by Nick Turse published on Policy Policy in Focus is a good place to start.

According to Fuel Line, the official newsletter of the Pentagon’s fuel-buying component, the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), from October 1, 2001, to August 9, 2004, the DESC supplied 1,897,272,714 gallons of jet fuel, alone, for military operations in Afghanistan. Similarly, in less than a year and a half, from March 19, 2003, to August 9, 2004, the DESC provided U.S. forces with 1,109,795,046 gallons of jet fuel for operations in Iraq. In 2005, Lana Hampton of the DoD’s Defense Logistics Agency revealed that the military’s aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles were guzzling 10 to 11 million barrels of fuel each month in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Yet, while the Pentagon reportedly burns through an astounding 365,000 barrels of oil every day (the equivalent of the entire nation of Sweden’s daily consumption), Sohbet Karbuz, an expert on global oil markets, estimates that the number is really closer to 500,000 barrels.

With such unconstrained consumption, recent U.S. wars have been a boon for big oil and have seen the Pentagon rise from the rank of hopeless addict to superjunkie. Prior to George Bush’s Global War on Terror, the U.S. military admitted to guzzling 4.62 billion gallons of oil per year. With the Pentagon’s post-9/11 wars and occupations, annual oil consumption has grown to an almost unfathomable 5.46 billion gallons, according to the Pentagon’s possibly low-ball statistics.

As a result, the DoD had some of the planet’s biggest petroleum dealers, and masters of the corporate universe, on its payroll. In 2005, alone, the Pentagon paid out more than $1.5 billion to BP PLC – the company formerly known as Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (on whose behalf the CIA and its British counterpart covertly overthrew the Iranian government back in 1953) and then British Petroleum. In 2005, the Pentagon also paid out over $1 billion to N. V. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij -- also known as the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (and best known in the United States for its Shell brand gasoline) – and in excess of $1 billion to oil titan ExxonMobil.

Putting this information into context, it requires any intelligent person to ask what interests are the US military protecting?

Why President Obama should watch the classic movie- The Graduate

“I just want to say one word to you - just one word. Plastics.”

This insightful piece of advice given to Dustin Hoffman’s character in the classic 1969 movie, The Graduate, should now be given to President Obama as a way to promote economic activity, increase national security, and help restore the environment.

While many Americans might ask what possible role plastic has in any of those areas with the exception of the environment, recent scientific advances reveal how plastic could be a source of economic growth as well as a future source of energy. Unlike other partisan political analysts or pundits polluting the Internet, Opinione prefers to offer positive solutions and innovative ideas to the problems facing America and the world.

Scientific advances in converting plastic and rubber based products such as used automobile tires into a petroleum based energy source is perhaps one of the most intriguing uses of utilizing America’s abundant supply of garbage to its advantage. Who would have thought that the millions of discarded tires in vacant lots and the billions of plastic garbage bags, shampoo bottles, and other plastic products would be a future source of energy?

The progressive and innovative use of recycling petroleum based plastic back into petroleum has already been achieved from research done at the University of Hamburg in Germany and then applied for commercial application. A concrete example that any progressive candidate in America should include in their campaign rhetoric would include the German company PlastOil, which has been able to create private sector jobs for the German economy, while at the same time reducing the need for importing oil.

At a time when the American economy is struggling to recover from its worse economic downturn since the Great Depression, the American people need to be presented with innovative and progressive ideas to get the country moving again. Like the support for a high speed and light rail transportation system operating in every congressional district in America, the same kind of broad support in the Congress could be used to support a strategy of using plastic as a economic driver as well as a source of energy.

With land fills and garbage dumps in every congressional district and state in America, congressional support of harvesting plastic as a potential energy source would be great for the economy, great for the environment, as well as reducing the need for imported oil.

The technology of converting petroleum based plastic , back into a source of energy, would be a game changer in Washington politics.

Obama's continued inability to lead the country

To this political analyst, it was no surprise that during his recent address to the nation from the Oval Office, President Obama did not seize on the oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico to lead the country. Instead of only trying to influence public opinion and perform some kind of public relations damage control for his administration , President Obama should have used the bully pulpit in his recent Oval Office speech to speak to the American public about how oil impacts America's national security, the environment and its economy. The failure of Obama political strategists to use the prime time speech as a means to present a serious multi faceted approach to the issue of petroleum, indicates to this political analyst that the members of Obama’s inner circle are more afraid about upsetting the members on K street, than they care about leading the country and helping the people living along Main Street.

More Americans should realize that the same lobbyist firms on K Street in Washington D.C. who helped out the bankers get generous tax payer funded bonuses in aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, also played a role in the Gulf of Mexico oil catastrophe. The political power of these lobbyist firms and the thousands of lobbyists in Washington DC is the most caustic element eroding American democracy and makes a mockery of the democratic process in America. The failure of Obama political strategists to seize the moment and take the initiative to lead the country instead of merely only managing it, proves to this analyst that Obama and his inner circle of advisors are afraid of upsetting the status quo holders of power in America such as the lobbyist firms representing the defense, petro-chemical, and petroleum industries.

The inability to challenge the power of the corporate interests associated with the defense, petro-chemical, and petroleum industries was confirmed with the Machiavellian location of President Obama’s speech in Pensacola Florida. While most Americans know the names of chefs on the Food Network or the batting averages of their favorite baseball players, most Americans do not know that the US military is the largest consumer of petroleum in the entire world. If there is any serious commitment to lower the need for imported foreign oil, it would include a reduction in the size of the US military.

The unwillingness to speak frankly to the American people is one of the reasons why the political leaders in America are able to deflect attention away from themselves and continually allow corporations and the wealthy upper one percent of Americans control the political agenda through an army of lobbyists.

How Hollywood has helped militarism creep into American society

During World War II, the Office of War Information (OWI) declared that movies were an essential industry for morale and propaganda. The creation of this government office would mark the start of a long relationship between the government, Hollywood, and how Americans were manipulated in how they viewed their military. During the War, the Office of War Information enlisted many leading actors into the war effort including such great names as James Cagney, Clark Gable, Betty Grable and Rita Hayworth. With the release of The A Team starring the beautiful Jessica Biel and the handsome Liam Neeson, it appears the Department of Defense, has reinstituted the Office of War Information and enlisted a new group of Hollywood professionals to promote the military and a never ending war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beginning with movies in the 1940s, like the classic Casablanca, to television shows of today such as NCIS and Army Wives, Hollywood has acted as both a mirror on how the American public perceives its military, and how political leaders have used Hollywood to shape public opinion. Taking a trip through television history over the last 50 years, an astute and alert citizen can see how militarism has creped into American society in the way the military is portrayed in movies and television shows.

During the Golden Age of television, long before the savage fighting in the Vietnam War would be beamed into American living rooms on a nightly basis, the military was often depicted in situation comedy shows such as Gomer Pyle (1964), Hogan’s Heroes (1965), and F Troop (1965). Due in part to large segments of the television industry having served their two-year draft requirement in the military during the 1950s and early 1960s, most of the sitcoms reflected the consensus on what life was like in the military. This consensus included inept officers like Colonel Klink in Hogan’s Heroes, oblivious of the fact that his prisoners were escaping on a daily basis, to bumbling and naïve officers like the one depicted in command of F troop. At the same time, the popular sitcom Gomer Pyle showed how the easy going common sense approach to most things in civilian life, were turned into bureaucratic nightmares of complexity and inefficiency for the recently drafted Gomer Pyle, played brilliantly by Jim Nabors.

With daily images of the Vietnam War being beamed into living rooms across America on a nightly basis, the American population soon began to view its military in a different perspective. The naïve and bumbling images of officers on television sitcoms like F Troop and Gomer Pyle were replaced with daily images of compassionless officers such as General Westmoreland and inept bureaucrats like Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The iconic photograph of a Vietcong prisoner being executed on a street in Saigon in 1969 forever turned the majority of the American public against the war in Vietnam. The growing anti-war sentiment of the American people was reflected in the 1970 movie, M*A*S*H*, starring Elliot Gould, Donald Sutherland, and Robert Duvall, followed by a television sitcom based on the popular movie beginning in 1972.

Although the television show was about an Army medical hospital in the Korean War, the series was as much an allegory about the Vietnam War (still in progress when the series began) than a television series about the war on the Korean peninsula where over 36,000 American service members lost their lives. Reflecting the popular anti-war sentiment in the country at the time, M*A*S*H* often had plots involving civilian casualties, the bureaucratic inefficiency of the Pentagon, and the senseless nature of war. The years M*A*S*H* aired on television between 1972 and 1983, reflected the public’s general apathy and indifference toward the military and its political leaders in Washington DC. Compounding the public’s apathy toward the military after the Vietnam War was the Iranian hostage crisis and the subsequent failed rescue mission Operation Eagle Claw, which exemplified the poor condition and mission readiness of the US military.

Helped dramatically by the release of the American hostages released after 444 days of captivity on its first day in office, the Reagan administration used similar propaganda techniques used by the Office of War Information during World War II to gain public support for the use of the military. Although television executives did not know it at the time, the 1983 television series The A Team featuring a rogue band of special ops soldiers, would eerily resemble the actions of Colonel Oliver North and his use of mercenary soldiers in the jungles of central America during the Iran Contra Affair.

Beginning with the decision to send US military advisors to El Salvador in 1981, Ronald Reagan would use the US military over 20 times during his eight-year term in office. From battling the powerful Libyan air force in 1981 to invading and conquering the tiny island nation of Grenada in 1983, Ronald Reagan and his administration used these military incidents to demonstrate to the world that the United States military had recovered from its humiliating defeat in the Vietnam War. Helping the American public to heal the wounds of the Vietnam War, the television drama China Beach (1988) with the beautiful female lead of Dana Delany greatly contributed to more Americans having a more favorable opinion of the military and coming to terms with the Vietnam War. Reflecting the change in public opinion, other television shows and movies such as Major Dad (1989) and the movie Top Gun (1986) starring Tom Cruise as a handsome fighter Pilot, further helped to heal the wounds from the Vietnam War era.

At the end of the 1980s with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and America’s main adversary the Soviet Union defeated, the Pentagon faced the enormous challenge of justifying the size of its budget and its purpose. Almost as soon as the wall came crumbling down, President H.W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher began talking about a peace dividend in order to help recover from an economic recession in 1989 and 1990 that was commanding their attention. Luckily, for the Pentagon and the large permanent armament industry, a former Middle East ally, Saddam Hussein, would give the Pentagon and the arms industry the justification it was seeking, when Iraq invaded the oil rich country of Kuwait. Perhaps encouraged by shadow government officials with connections to companies who would profit from any conflict in the Gulf, Saddam Hussein and the fourth largest military in the world would be quickly defeated by the United States and its allies.

Following the ending of the war, the failure to remove Saddam Hussein from power was reflected in an ever increasingly partisan atmosphere in American government. The television shows of the 1990s reflected the partisan divide in Washington with the pro military and conservative establishment represented in JAG (1995) battling a more progressive and liberal segment of population reflected in the television series The X Files (1993).

Although based largely on paranormal and extraterrestrial themes, the X-Files also explored topics involving government conspiracies and secret government agencies. While some of the episodes involving the government conspiracies were far fetched, most of the plots for these episodes were based on variations of actual CIA experiments and operations like giving students LSD and seeing if they could be used for mind control. While the series began to run out of interesting plots and government conspiracy cases for the FBI agents to investigate, any anti-government feelings the public might have been supporting were quickly marginalized after the country rallied around the flag after the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

Reflecting the constant exposure to an administration determined to use military power as the centerpiece of its foreign policy, the involvement of the military in civilian society and the growing use of military contractors was evident in the 2003 premier of the CBS television series, NCIS. Centered on a civilian character, the portrayal of the military in civilian settings, further seduced the American public and helped blur the line between the domestic uses of the military inside America.

Reflecting the perpetual state of war in America, and the existence of two segments in society where one segment experiences the sacrifices war demands and another that does not sacrifice anything, was the premier of the television show Army Wives (2007). In a surreal parallel television world, the lead female actress Catherine Bell, who played a Lt. Col on the television show JAG, stars in the television show Army Wives.

The release of The A Team further glorifies perpetual war and indoctrinates the American public to think that mercenary soldiers have the best interests of the American people in mind. In reality, as the political philosopher Nicolo Machiavelli warned Prince Lorenzo Medici in his classic book, The Prince, “The wise prince, therefore, has always avoided these arms and turned to his own; and has been willing rather to lose with them than to conquer with others, not deeming that a real victory which is gained with the arms of others.”

James Madison one of the founding fathers in America echoed this sentiment when he declared: A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.

Unfortunately, unlike the noble and just cause of World War II, movies like The A-Team and television shows like JAG and NCIS characterize how Hollywood has helped militarism to creep into American society over the last 20 years, conditioning more Americans to feel comfortable with perpetual war and the use of mercenary soldiers.

The rise in popularity and support for an anti-Islamic political party in Holland

Well below the radar screen of most of the major media outlets in America, the people of Holland recently went to the polls after the government there collapsed in February in a spat over military aid to Afghanistan. While Sec of Defense Robert Gates was in Brussels on Wednesday asking for more European countries to help train Afghani security forces, the people of Holland, showed that they are not willing to fund a never-ending war in the face of the severe economic downturn and the decline of the Euro. The surge in popularity of a anti-Islamic political party, Party for Freedom (PVV) in addition to the high cost of sending members of its military to Afghanistan, were perhaps some of the reasons why the press in America did not report on the story.

To put the Netherlands in perspective, according to the Economist Magazine Intelligence Unit’s 2008 democracy Index, the Netherlands was ranked as the fourth most democratic country in the world. In the annual press freedom index report by Reporters Without Borders, the Netherlands was ranked as the 17th most free, while it was considered the seventh least corrupt country in the world.

The scant coverage of the election in Holland further supports the argument of how the mainstream media in America enables the political elites in Washington to continue an unpopular war due to the two party system in America compared to the Parliamentary system in the Netherlands. Contrary to how the mainstream media portrays the war in Afghanistan, similar to the people of Holland, recent polls in America, such as a recent poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News, finds a majority of Americans who do not support the war. Unfortunately, as the recent primary elections demonstrated in America, the only choice an American voter has is to support either a politician that supports the troops, or a politician that supports the war.

The most interesting aspect of the recent election in the Netherlands that is gaining the most attention, is the rise in popularity and support for an anti-Islamic political party, Party for Freedom (PVV). This political party demands an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques. Due to the global downturn in the economy and a typical reaction to foreigners in a country during tough economic times, the Party for Freedom (PVV) gained an increase of seats in the 150 seat Parliament from nine in the last parliament election to 23.

The maverick leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), Geert Wilders, has earned notoriety around the world with his campaign to ban the Koran in a bid to "stop the Islamisation of the Netherlands". Making any conservative political movement in America look like a liberal party in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, has called Islam a fascist religion and likens the Koran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf". He is widely known in Europe for his 17-minute commentary, "Fitna", which was termed "offensively anti-Islamic" by UN chief Ban Ki-moon. He goes on trial in the Netherlands in October on charges of inciting racial hatred against Muslims. He was barred from entering Britain in 2009, in order to stop him spreading "hatred and violent messages."


Like the recent election in Great Britain, due to the way Parliamentary systems form governments, the anti-Muslim Party for Freedom cannot be ignored. As in Great Britain, where the conservative Torries had to agree to form a government with the progressive Liberal Democrats, either the more centrist Liberal party (VVD) or the Labour party (PvdA) who each have 31 seats each in the 150-seat parliament, will have to form some kind of agreement with the anti-Muslim Party for Freedom reviewing election results from the other political parties, it appears most of the support for the Party for Freedom came from the Socialist Party, which saw it go from 25 seats in Parliament to 15. Of the other parties, the Greens got 10 seats (up from seven), the centrist D66 improved from three to ten seats, and the Christian Union earned five seats, one down from the last election.

The latest election in the Netherlands is further proof of how a Parliamentary type of government can be more pluralistic and dynamic.

The National Security Archive

Anyone who wants to see what politicians, diplomats, and intelligence agencies say and talk about behind closed doors, the web site, The National Security Archive should be book marked and referred to as much as possible.

Loaded with thousands of declassified documents from previous American administrations, the National Archive, allows visitors to research topics grouped into several categories, Latin America, Europe, The Middle East, and U.S. Intelligence.

Just a quick review of just some of the declassified material include a report by the CIA that the Soviets Planned Nuclear First Strike to Preempt West and another report, Robert F. Kennedy urged lifting the travel ban to Cuba in '63.

Most of the reports expose the ugly side of how governments operate and the Realpolitik approach to governing by even the most liberal administrations. One such example of this is the report that Bill Clinton signed an executive order, allowing the federal intelligence agencies to reclassify previously declassified material. This report, Declassification in Reverse, The U.S. Intelligence Community's Secret Historical Document Reclassification Program, and many others released by the National Security Archive, are used by newspapers and scholars.

Here is how the National Security Archive describes itself on its website.

An independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University, the Archive collects and publishes declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The Archive also serves as a repository of government records on a wide range of topics pertaining to the national security, foreign, intelligence, and economic policies of the United States. The Archive won the 1999 George Polk Award, one of U.S. journalism's most prestigious prizes, for--in the words of the citation--"piercing the self-serving veils of government secrecy, guiding journalists in the search for the truth and informing us all."

The Archive obtains its materials through a variety of methods, including the Freedom of Information act, Mandatory Declassification Review, presidential paper collections, congressional records, and court testimony. Archive staff members systematically track U.S. government agencies and federal records repositories for documents that either have never been released before, or that help to shed light on the decision-making process of the U.S. government and provide the historical context underlying those decisions.

Remembering the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty

On June 8 1967, during the Six Day War, also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, an American surveillance ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, was attacked and nearly sunk by Israeli forces. This attack was discovered later to have been a black flag operation carried out by the White House in order to use as a pretext for the United States to enter the war on the behalf of Israel. This would have allowed the United States to attack Egypt, prevent Israel from using a nuclear weapon, and take control of the Suez Canal, a vital transit point for oil from the Persian Gulf region essential for the US economy. While the reasons for the actual attack of the ship may never be verified, there is no doubt that the ship was attacked by Israeli forces.

The Six Day War or the 1967 Arab-Israeli War was a proxy battle by agents of the larger Cold War battle between the Unites States and the Soviet Union. Understanding the geo-political situation of the time, it is very likely that the United States may have been ready to sacrifice one of its own warships and the sailors onboard that vessel, in order to justify its entry into the conflict. Other analysts like Noam Chomsky,believe that the Israeli attack on the U.S. spy ship Liberty was motivated by concern that the U.S. might detect the planned attack on Syria by Israeli forces.

Yet another theory, James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, in his 2001 book Body of Secrets,proposes the motive for a deliberate attack was to prevent the discovery of a massacre by the IDF of Egyptian prisoners of war that was supposedly taking place at the same time in the nearby town of El-Arish.In 1995, mass graves of Egyptian soldiers were discovered outside of El-Arish, and IDF veterans have admitted that unarmed civilians and prisoners of war were murdered in the 1967 War.

Analyzing the geo-political situation at the time of the attack, it appears that the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was most likely a black flag operation carried out between the leaders of the Johnson administration and the Israeli government. This thesis is supported by the author of the book Assault on the Liberty, available on Amazon.com, who was an officer on the bridge when the attack started and subsequently spent many years researching and documenting the account of the attack and the cover-up that followed.

The combined air and sea attack by Israeli forces resulted in 34 crewmembers being killed, 170 crewmembers wounded, and leaving the ship severely damaged. Many of the deaths from the attack were from Israeli aircraft attacking

While all the sailors and men serving on the ship will forever remember that day, on the 43rd anniversary of the Israeli attack, it was no surprise that the media in America did not commemorate the anniversary.

The retirement of Helen Thomas

While the remarks by the 89-year-old Helen Thomas were disrespectful to all the victims of the Holocaust, it was disappointing to see Ms. Thomas end her distinguished career in a storm of controversy. Considering the First Amendment in the United States Constitution allows Ms. Thomas the freedom of speech, the more alarming story is a government official attacking Ms. Thomas for merely only voicing an opinion, while it remains silent and fails to a country that recently murdered one of its own citizens in international waters. These actions merit asking the question of who is the American government interested in protecting. Its own citizens and the people it is supposed to protect under the US Constitution, or foreign countries and the special interest political campaign donors like AIPAC who give them money?

At a time when America desperately needs the critical and unbiased voice of journalists like Helen Thomas to check the power of the government, her leaving will undoubtedly make many conservative and Israeli apologists very happy. For future historians analyzing the downfall of the American Empire however, the negative portrayal story of Helen Thomas will be used to show how the Republic principals the country was founded on, such as the freedom of the press and the freedom to free speech, was eroded as political elites influenced by wealthy donors and corporations continued to pursue Imperial ambitions.

While the remarks were in bad taste and insensitive, the more troubling issue is how the American people are being conditioned to support what the political elites in Washington DC want them to believe or what the main story of the day should be. Perhaps one of the reasons why White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was so reproachful to the remarks by Ms. Thomas was that it allowed the Obama administration a distraction from its own troubles. Some of more important issues White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and the press should have focused on instead of Ms. Thomas include, the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico the Obama administration has failed to stop, the killing of seven American service members in Afghanistan, and a administration incapable of putting more Americans back to work.

It was disquieting to see an unelected government official like Robert Gibbs attack Ms. Thomas, while it remains silent on criminal acts committed by the Israeli government.

This latest story is another glaring example of how the mainstream media in America breeds ignorance.

Applying the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes to the gun owner/survivalist in America

Over at the blog MikeB302000, an anonymous comment by a reader wrote: Remember: "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal".

As a political scientist, I could not help but to think of the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, and his thoughts on why men are equal. Although I know the anonymous comment was meant to be whimsical, the comment by this second amendment supporter validates the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, and offers an insight into the mind of the gun owner/survivalist in America.

As Hobbes writes in chapter one in his book, On the Citizen, men are by equal by nature, and our actual inequality has been introduced by civil law. Taking away that natural right, it is understandable why most gun owners in America are fearful of the government and of their fellow man. In Hobbes view, it is totally understandable that gun owners in American feel that way, and are only merely protecting their lives as much as they can, through natural law.

As Hobbes writes in the chapter, Man without Civil Society, man does not belong to a society for the love of his fellow man or to seek friendship, but for honor and advantage from them. Depending on the circumstances upon which they met, such as for business where the motive is profit, or for political reasons where the motive is political relationships, the reason is never friendship. Hobbes even explores the reasons why men meet for entertainment and fun and explains that men only do so to come away with a better idea of himself in comparison with someone else’s embarrassment or weakness. Even if this is sometimes harmless and inoffensive, it is still evident that what they primarily enjoy is their own glory and not society.

Applying the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes to the lone gun man in the woods with a fall out shelter full of dry goods and supplies, seems to offer an insight into the mind of gun owner/survivalist in America. While some people may look down upon a gun owner/survivalist in America or make fun of them, according to the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, there is nothing unusual about their behavior or thinking. They are only merely practicing their right of self-preservation.

As most Americans are discovering a little too late, more people should dislike the selfish and greedy politicians and Wall Street bankers seeking honor and advantage only for themselves.

Why Barney Frank protects the financial industry

Perhaps more Americans would have a better understanding of how their government operates if the press reported on a regular basis where politicians get their money from. If the press did this when it reported on a story about Barney Frank from Massachusetts, voters would clearly see why the congressman did not support tougher financial overhaul legislation as proposed in a recent financial regulation bill working its way through the corrupt corridors of Congress. Thanks to the non partisan organization, Open Secrets, for detailing where Barney Frank gets his funding from.

Top Contributors, 1989 – 2010

American Bankers Assn -$76,150
JPMorgan Chase & Co -$67,000
National Assn of Realtors -$70,042
Human Rights Campaign -$63,525
Laborers Union -$59,750
American Assn for Justice -$57,500
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employee-$57,000
FMR Corp -$25,500
Credit Union National Assn -$51,500
Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn-$45,996
American Institute of CPAs -$46,859
National Assn of Home Builders-$45,500
New York Life Insurance -$31,000
Bank of America -$40,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union-$41,948
Teamsters Union -$41,500
Mortgage Bankers Assn -$40,000
Liberty Mutual Insurance -$32,000
UBS AG -$20,000

Why the people on Okinawa dislike Americans, and hate the Japanese

In a story that Opinione has been following very closely over the past year, it appears that efforts by the Japanese government to close a redundant and unneeded US military base on Okinawa, has resulted in another Japanese civilian casualty. The resignation of the Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. Although some observers have commented that the recent North Korean attack on a South Korean navy ship justifies the US military presence on Okinawa, a leading scholar and expert on Japan, Chalmers Johnson, declares that the people on Okinawa are more afraid of the government in Tokyo than the governments in Beijing or Pyongyang. Okinawa, it is important to remember is the nation’s poorest prefecture.

To help Americans understand how the people living on Okinawa are mistreated by the mainland government in Tokyo, perhaps an analogy of where a power plant or landfill is placed in American communities would be a good starting point. While there is usually plenty of land and space to build a power plant in a certain area, wealthier more politically connected segments of a society will usual use the not in my back yard argument to thwart any unwanted development in their area, would could lower their real estate or home values. The power plant, new highway, prison, or whatever undesirable infrastructure project will usually be built in lower social-economic areas of a community. The failure of the Japanese government to support the closure of the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station is a very similar case in point.

This latest development in the fight to close the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station however comes as no surprise to many political analysts and experts on Japan such as Chalmers Johnson, president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute at the University of San Francisco, and a former CIA analyst. During his time living and working as a scholar in Japan, Chalmers Johnson learned that Okinawans are more afraid of their own national government than of China. In an interview with Stars and Stripes in May, Johnson said, “You must never forget how deeply hated the Japanese mainlanders are on Okinawa.,” Johnson said former Okinawa Gov. Masahide Ota once told him: “I dislike Americans, and I hate the Japanese.”

Perhaps Chalmers Johnson summed up the fight to close Futenma Marine Corps Air Station , just one of the hundreds of military garrisons the United States has around the planet ,when he wrote:

I find Hatoyama's behavior craven and despicable, but I deplore even more the U.S. government's arrogance in forcing the Japanese to this deeply humiliating impasse. The United States has become obsessed with maintaining our empire of military bases, which we cannot afford and which an increasing number of so-called host countries no longer want. I would strongly suggest that the United States climb off its high horse, move the Futenma Marines back to a base in the United States (such as Camp Pendleton, near where I live) and thank the Okinawans for their 65 years of forbearance.

Why We Fight

A recent post, The American Military Fetish by The Daily Kos, and posted on the website of MikeB302000, posed the question if having a large group of career military officers encourages America to go to war. While MikeB and The Daily Kos are on the right tract, as the director Eugene Jarecki of the 2008 documentary film Why We Fight and the author of The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril, the problem is much more engrained into American society.

The large amount of Four Star generals in the seven federal uniformed services is more a reflection of the out of control size of the Pentagon and the military industrial complex that former four star general and two term republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans about in his 1961 farewell address to Congress. As he declared in his 1961 speech, the greatest danger to the American republic is the acquisition of unwarranted influence from within the military industrial complex. A prime example of a source of unwarranted and unelected representatives influencing and advocating the use of military power are think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, and the Rand Corporation.

Although it would be difficult for most people to read the amount of books I have read on this subject, perhaps if they watched the movie Why We Fight, most Americans would getter a better understanding of why the United States has such a large military and why it goes to war so often.

Upon watching this movie they will begin to see how the military industrial complex that former four star general and republican President Dwight D Eisenhower warned the American people about, has now transformed in a corporate political complex of vast proportions.

Please take the time to watch this video clip of the movie, Why We Fight by Eugene Jarecki.

Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States

Follow the money. For anyone who wants to know why their elected leaders act the way they do, all you have to do is follow the money. From the lax oversight of the oil industry, to what new weapons system the Congress is funding, there is a river of dirty money flowing through the nations capital. Although most Americans may be aware that the total value of the entire Gulf of Mexico shrimp industry is valued at just over 3 billion dollars, the lobbying industry in Washington is worth three times all the oily dead shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico.

In Washington, money buys you influence and access. Understanding that the pro-Israeli political action committee AIPAC, is the third most powerful lobby in Washington DC, it is no surprise why American political leaders have not joined the rest of the Five Permanent members on the Security Council and condemned the latest war crime act committed by Israeli.

Supporting the Grand Prince is Anthony Cordesman, one of the most respected non-partisan national security experts in Washington.

[T]he depth of America’s moral commitment [to Israel] does not justify or excuse actions by an Israeli government that unnecessarily make Israel a strategic liability when it should remain an asset. It does not mean that the United States should extend support to an Israeli government when that government fails to credibly pursue peace with its neighbors. It does not mean that the United States has the slightest interest in supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or that the United States should take a hard-line position on Jerusalem that would effectively make it a Jewish rather than a mixed city. It does not mean that the United States should be passive when Israel makes a series of major strategic blunders–such as persisting in the strategic bombing of Lebanon during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, escalating its attack on Gaza long after it had achieved its key objectives, embarrassing the U.S. president by announcing the expansion of Israeli building programs in east Jerusalem at a critical moment in U.S. efforts to put Israeli-Palestinian peace talks back on track, or sending commandos to seize a Turkish ship in a horribly mismanaged effort to halt the “peace flotilla” going to Gaza.

It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews. This does not mean taking a single action that undercuts Israeli security, but it does mean realizing that Israel should show enough discretion to reflect the fact that it is a tertiary U.S. strategic interest in a complex and demanding world.

An attack in international waters is illegal. Period. End of discussion.

The headline by the Associated Press, Walking fine line, US doesn't condemn Israeli raid, sums up the moral decay that money from AIPAC and wealthy Jewish voters is having on American credibility as a impartial and neutral participant in the Middle East peace process. While most American news outlets sympathetic to Israel will try to frame the event as a right for Israel self defense, it distracts viewers from the issue of Israel illegally attacking a group of unarmed civilian protestors in international waters. Instead of framing the issue as American media outlets want you to see the issue, the more important aspect of the story is the violation of international law and The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by Israel.

This latest brutal act of violence against defenseless peace activists by Israel is a text book example of how a state is allowed to use violence, which otherwise would be labeled as terrorism if it was done by a non-state actor. Just imagine if the same attack was done by Somali pirates operating in international waters and you can see how Israel gets a free pass at using terror through the use of force.

Making the case even more embarrassing for Israeli supporters who want to play the victim card every chance they get, as War in Context and Robert Mackey points out at the New York Times, there is a parallel that some Israelis now find impossible to ignore: the resistance to the British naval assault on the SS Exodus in July 1947, as Jewish refugees used every makeshift weapon they could lay their hands on in their effort to repel British soldiers.

In international waters off Palestine the British Royal Navy intercepted the Exodus and British troops attempted to board.

Several hours of fighting followed, with the ship’s passengers spraying fuel oil and throwing smoke bombs, life rafts and whatever else came to hand, down on the British sailors trying to board, The Times reported at the time. Soon the British opened fire. Two immigrants and a crewman on the Exodus were killed; scores more were wounded, many seriously. The ship was towed to Haifa, and from there its passengers were deported, first to France and eventually to Germany, where they were placed in camps near Lübeck.

Perhaps Paul Woodward at War in Context puts the latest act of aggression by Israel in the perspective it deserves.

International outrage at the treatment of the passengers of the Exodus was instrumental in turning the tide of opinion in favor of the creation of a Jewish state. Who on board that ship would have anticipated that decades later it would be Jews themselves who became as callous as the British in their rejection of a humanitarian cause?