Obama: I was against the war before I became weaselly?

Here’s more on Bill Clinton and Obama’s “fairytale.”

Here , the Slickster explains in detail how Obama’s “fairytale” is about his allegedly consistent and continued opposition to the Iraq war.

“We went through 15 debates and the Obama campaign has made the argument that his relative lack of service in the Senate was not relevant because he had better judgment than the other Democrats on the Iraq War...” Bill said. “And I pointed out that he'd never been asked about his statements in 2004 that he didn't know how he'd have voted on the Iraq War, and that there was no significant difference between his position as President Bush’s.”

Obama’s lame explainer:

Obama has said during this campaign that he hedged on his answer about the Iraq War authorization vote because he did not want to openly disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards, as they were the party's ticket at the national convention where he was speaking, and both of whom had voted for the war and yet to repudiate it.

Hey, Obama, that didn’t stop Dennis Kucinich in 2004, among others. Puhleeze.

There's more: "Obama: I was against the war before I became weaselly?" >>

151,000 - The Forgotten Number

Cross posted from BFD Blog!

We are all familiar with the number that is currently 3,921, but how many of the members of the American Executive and Legislative branches of government are familiar with, or have any interest in the number 151,000 which is an order or magnitude 38.25 times greater than 3,921.

It is without question that the death of 3,921 American service members at the hands of enemy combatants is a terrible tragedy for the American people. But what of the 151,000 Iraqi civilians, that have been killed in Iraq since the invasion by the United States in 2003? Those casualties are also a terrible tragedy for the American people, as are all of the other uncounted or unreported deaths of all other parties, whether civilian contractors of the United States or enemy combatants, occurring within the borders of Iraq since spring of 2003.

The number 151,000 comes from the latest survey conducted by the United Nations Word Health Organization, and could actually be as high as 223,000 in the estimation of the World Health Organization. The full survey results are available in the New England Journal of Medicine in an special article titled Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006.

Logic dictates that those 151,000 deaths are the responsibility of president George W. Bush and the Bushliburton administration initially, but they are also the responsibility of the Congress of the United States for their inaction, and apparent complicity, after it was factually established that the administration's justification for starting the war was a sham, and that continuation of combat operations and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq is illegal.

The deaths of 151,000 Iraqi citizens are also on the hands of all of the American people, as long as we allow our government, through the actions and in-actions of the Executive and Legislative branches, to prolong our occupation of Iraq.

Now some might make an argument that had the United States not intervened, and not overthrown Saddam Hussein, that left to his own devices, Saddam might have by this time killed as many, or more, innocent people than that 151,000 figure. That is a hypothetical that one can only speculate about, but what might be worth considering, in that hypothetical situation, in which the United States never invaded Iraq and in which Saddam was never deposed, captured, tried and executed, is that just possibly, given Saddam's iron fist-ed control of the country, that inter-tribal violence, that inter-sect violence, that violence effected by internal insurgents and external agents of Al Qaeda or other government or extremist groups would never have been able to begin in the first place. Strange as it may seem, that Saddam Hussein, while left to his own devices might have murdered more of his own countrymen, it is also within the realm of possibility that he might have not exterminated the lives of his countrymen on a scale as large as the current death toll. We will never know. But what we can conclude, is that had the United States not invaded and occupied Iraq, the people of the United States would not have been complicit in any deaths, that the credibility and reputation of the United States in world opinion would not have hit rock bottom, as it has now.

Is it not time for the American people to demand that our government cease operating as an arm of big business interests and return to operating in the interests of the people? Is it not time for our government to accede to the will of the people and extract our country from the disaster that we have created in Iraq?

There's more: "151,000 - The Forgotten Number" >>

David Swanson: "To Nancy With All Due Respect"

To Nancy With All Due Respect
By David Swanson, After Downing Street, Thursday, January 10, 2008

Dear Nancy. Cindy asked me to write you a letter and promised she would deliver it. So I picture the two of you in your home over tea as you peruse this and a four-foot stack of similar missives, and I hope mine catches your eye, and I hope there are no more of those annoying poor people out front, or that you're able to have them arrested quickly and quietly.

I know that there is good in you, Nancy, and I know that you are extremely smart. I can tell by the skill with which you've hidden from us that aforementioned good. But I'm concerned about how you will be remembered in history. Specifically, I'm concerned that you may not be remembered at all. If you were the leader who ended the wars, made peace, and impeached criminals, you would be remembered and quite possibly elected president some day. Attempting to impeach a president for an illegal war seemed to work pretty well for Congressman Lincoln.

If you plan to continue, instead, down the present course, then I feel obliged to let you in on a little secret: It won't be remembered as your war. If the planet survives and the occupation of Iraq is glorified with statues, none of them will be of you. And, as for your historic act of removing impeachment from the Constitution, the republic won't survive it, and neither will any memory of the Constitution. So there will be no history of your having ended it. Even if the rest of us are spared nuclear holocaust and global warming, your memory will, I'm afraid, be pretty well lost.

I'm sorry that you feel you have no good choices. I'm sorry that the media scares you so much. I'm sorry that your kids had to grow up with the name Hairy. But I think there is a pretty good option still open to you. Pretending you have other things to do won't work. After a year, the public now understands that any good bills on any issues will be vetoed, and that the way to end the occupation of Iraq is not to pretend to try to pass bills, but to refuse to pass any more bills.

Remember when you said that we should elect Democrats in 2006 so that you would have the power of subpoena? Well, you don't. Bush, Cheney, and gang have simply refused to comply. Remember when you said that your top priority was ending the occupation of Iraq? I'd hate to be any lower down on that list. Nancy, I've gone to rallies around this country and other countries and asked crowds if they can name the woman responsible for continuing to fund the occupation and for refusing to impeach. Each time, the shouts come: PE-LO-SEE

That's what you'll be remembered as, if you're lucky.

In contrast, the woman delivering this letter to you has withstood two years of full frontal corporate media assault and walked away smiling. If you grow a spine, I'm sure she'll be glad to give you tips on how to handle the corporate media. She is loved by many, hated by a few, and universally understood to say what she thinks. Cindy lost her son in the war you keep funding, the war that killed more Iraqis and Americans during your first year in power than in any previous year, the war that killed 9 Americans in the past two days. Your arms are dripping in blood up to the shoulders, Nancy.

You think Cindy is no threat to your seat in Congress. But you've only had one year so far to give Congress a record disapproval rating. You've got a whole year ahead of you. You can be smart, Nancy, and let the Cheney impeachment hearings begin. Or you can make the same move that your Party made during Iran Contra: avoid impeachment, avoid responsibility, allow further transfer of power to the White House, and lose the next elections. And. Be. Forgotten.

There's more: "David Swanson: "To Nancy With All Due Respect"" >>

Shell and Total Preparing To Loot Iraqi Oil Field Near Syria… What That Garners For The Rich, Who Are Not Like You & I

Crossposted @ My Buffalo River Home

Juan Cole @ Informed Comment provides the following tidbit:

Shell and Total are competing for rights to develop the Akkas natural gas field in al-Anbar Province near the Syrian border. But without a law on the sharing of oil and gas revenues, this foreign involvement is going to look like bank robbery.

Shell and Total are vying to develop a huge gasfield in what was Iraq’s most violent province as a source for exports to Europe.The Iraqi Government held talks with a number of potential companies last week regarding development of the Akkas field in Anbar province, northwest of Baghdad.

Akkas, close to the border with Syria, is thought to contain up to seven trillion cubic feet of gas – up to 6 per cent of Iraq’s estimated total of 112 trillion cubic feet. The field is capable of producing up to 50 million cubic feet a day, but this could be raised to 450 million cubic feet per day if developed further.

The Iraqi Government is keen to get the field operational as quickly as possible, using nearby Syria as an export route to Europe to restore revenues. A statement from Shell said that the Iraqi Oil Ministry had asked Shell to undertake “a long-term production test”. Total was unavailable for comment, but is also understood to be interested.

This is unlikely to make the cost of the gas for your automobile even one penny cheaper, but it DOES provide benefits for a select few, who you don't know, and WILL NEVER have the 'privilege' of meeting:

Dubai unveils 'fashion island' United Arab Emirates
January 9, 2008


Dubai Infinity Holdings has unveiled Isla Moda, a mixed-use development that will be located on The World, which it claims to be the world's first dedicated fashion island. The development will combine a fashion resort, themed residential villas, haute couture boutiques and luxury hospitality facilities. World-renowned fashion designers will be instrumental in designing each element of the development. [In Full]

It will be located here, on Dubai's new 'Continent':

Design of new "continent" finalized
Posted by: hipstomp on Monday, June 18 2007

It's not every day we get to tell you the final design phase of a new continent is underway, but today's one of those days.

The architects of Dubai's "The World" project, a series of man-made islands in the shape of Earth's continents, announced today that OQYANA-WORLD FIRST, the island community in the shape of Australasia, is undergoing its final design steps.

Over 50 consultants from around the world have been working on issues from engineering and ecology to security and water quality. [In Full]

Dick Cheney and his Halliburton buddies are all set...

How about you?

Related @ Technorati: Affluence, American Interests, American Protectorate, Arms Industry, Authoritarian, Autocracy, Baghdad, Bush Administration, Bush Family Ranch, Bush War, BushCo, BushWar, Capitalism, Capitalist, Cartography, Class Struggle, Class War, Classist, Concentrated Wealth, Conflict of Interest, Conspicuous Consumption, Corporate Ethics, Corporate Mafia, Corporate Society, Corporatism, Corrupt, Corruption, Dead Civilians, Dead Soldiers, Dick Cheney, Dubai, Economic Indicator, Economics, Ethics, Etiquette, Executive Privilege, Family Values, Geography, George W. Bush, Global Business, Global Capitalist Economy, Global Domination, Global Empire, Global Hegemony, Globalization, Globalized Business, Grandiose Delusions, Guest Worker, Halliburton, High Crimes, Humor, Hydrocarbon Resources, Ideology, Imperial Rule, Imperialism, Imperialist, International Diplomacy, International Investment, International Politics, Invasion of Iraq, Iraq Oil Ministry, Iraq Reconstruction, Iraq War, Iraqi Economy, Juan Cole, KBR, KBR-land, Kellogg Brown & Root, Kickback, Kleptocracy, Kleptocrat, Materialist, Middle East, Militarism, Military State, Military-Industrial Complex, Nation-Building, New World Police State, Oil, Oil And Gas Development, Oil Drilling, Oil Exploration, Oil Industry, Oil Production, Oil Reserves, Oil Resources, Oil Supplies, Oil Wars, Persian Gulf, Philosophy, Power Elite, Realpolitik, Sarcasm, Satire, Skull and Bones, Transnational Business, Transnational Corporation, U.S. Collaborators, U.S. Forces in Iraq, U.S. Government, U.S. Government Corruption, U.S. Interests, War Crimes, War Pigs, Warmonger, Warmongering, War-mongering, Wealth, World War III, World War Three, WW III

There's more: "Shell and Total Preparing To Loot Iraqi Oil Field Near Syria… What That Garners For The Rich, Who Are Not Like You & I" >>

More on why an Iraqi soldier killed two U.S. soldiers — defending woman?

At least one of the U.S. soldiers allegedly was beating a pregnant woman. If true, one hell of an oops. The Army says it will have no comment on an ongoing investigation.

There's more: "More on why an Iraqi soldier killed two U.S. soldiers — defending woman?" >>

Provocation in the Strait of Hormuz

Cross Posted at Edgeing, at Docudharma and SanchoPress

If the Iranians attack a US ship in the gulf, or shut down the strait, it will be, in historical context, retribution and retaliation for US Foreign Policy and imperialism over the past century, and we will be as much or more to blame than they.

We get what we give. As we sow, so we reap.

Imperialism is coming home to bite us on the ass, bigtime. It has been coming for a long time...

In about a year, when there will probably be a Democratic President sitting in The White House, we're going to have the same "Foreign Policy" we've had for the past nearly a century.

Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing changing.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly Of Intervention

If the chief natural resource of the Middle East were bananas, the region would not have attracted the attention of U.S. policymakers as it has for decades. Americans became interested in the oil riches of the region in the 1920s, and two U.S. companies, Standard Oil of California and Texaco, won the first concession to explore for oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. They discovered oil there in 1938, just after Standard Oil of California found it in Bahrain. The same year Gulf Oil (along with its British partner Anglo-Persian Oil) found oil in Kuwait. During and after World War II, the region became a primary object of U.S. foreign policy. It was then that policymakers realized that the Middle East was "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

Subsequently, as a result of cooperation between the U.S. government and several American oil companies, the United States replaced Great Britain as the chief Western power in the region.(5) In Iran and Saudi Arabia, American gains were British (and French) losses.(6) Originally, the dominant American oil interests had had limited access to Iraqi oil only (through the Iraq Petroleum Company, under the 1928 Red Line Agreement). In 1946, however, Standard Oil of New Jersey and Mobil Oil Corp., seeing the irresistible opportunities in Saudi Arabia, had the agreement voided.(7) When the awakening countries of the Middle East asserted control over their oil resources, the United States found ways to protect its access to the oil. Nearly everything the United States has done in the Middle East can be understood as contributing to the protection of its long-term access to Middle Eastern oil and, through that control, Washington's claim to world leadership. The U.S. build-up of Israel and Iran as powerful gendarmeries beholden to the United States, and U.S. aid given to "moderate," pro-Western Arab regimes, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, were intended to keep the region in friendly hands. That was always the meaning of the term "regional stability."

Provocation in the Strait of Hormuz
By Marc Ash, t r u t h o u t | Perspective, Tuesday 08 January 2008

Two separate news reports relying mostly on information provided by the Pentagon were picked up and disseminated by US mainstream media outlets Monday. The reports point to two separate instances involving US armed forces operating in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

The first, typified by The New York Times, "US Describes Confrontation With Iranian Boats", and the second, tucked away from the features sections, "Navy Fighter Jets Crash in Persian Gulf", reported by the Associated Press, are not connected directly in the reports, but bear consideration side-by-side nonetheless.

The report in The Times, in fact, tells you everything you need to know, albeit in a conclusionless form. US Warships are in the Persian Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz, through which all warships must pass to enter the Gulf, is the same passage through which all oil-bearing ships must pass bringing oil to the US. And "Oil prices on world markets spiked briefly on the news, which was first reported by CNN." That pretty much says it all.

US Navy warships are parked a few miles off the coast of Iran. They are there, apparently, to protect oil shipping lanes into and out of the Persian Gulf. Tensions are mounting. If provocation is at issue, those facts must remain front and center. If Iranian warships ever made it as close to the American coastline as US warships now lie to Iranian shores, our military would in all likelihood attack them. Iran is not attacking our warships - parked on their doorstep.

The US State Department last year warned Iran, "not to interfere with US interests in the region." What the State Department did not explain to the American people is what interests average Americans have in the region. The answer to that question is, likely none. That leads to the next question: whose interests is the American Navy protecting in the Persian Gulf? The owners of the oil tankers, apparently. The American people are the end consumers; we pay what's marked on the pump. Bluntly stated, the United States Navy appears to be in the Persian Gulf to protect the interests of US-based oil businesses, not the interests of the American people. Incidentally, the second-largest deposits of oil in the world lie beneath the soil of Iraq, so the same formula applies there as well.

Could Iranian forces sink an American ship a few miles off the Iranian coast? Yes, although it is highly unlikely that they would say beforehand, "I am coming at you, and you will explode in a few minutes." Would such a sinking take the lives of many good American sailors? Yes, it would. Such a sinking and the attendant loss of life would affect the best interests of the American people. The American armed forces are the true interest of the American people. For too long, the American people have turned a blind eye to their interest: their service members. It's time to bring our soldiers home and let the gas station mind its own business.

*emphasis added

This cannot be taken out of historical context. To do so is the "neocon" way.

If anyone is doing any "provocatin'" in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, it has been successive US and British administrations, and oil companies, for nearly a century...

There's more: "Provocation in the Strait of Hormuz" >>

Iraqi Soldier Turns His Weapon on American Soldiers, Killing Two and Wounding Three

On Saturday, the military announced that on December 26, Capt. Rowdy Inman and Sgt. Benjamin Portell, soldiers assigned to the Third Squadron of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, based at Fort Hood, Texas, died during a joint American-ISF combat operation in Mosul in northern Iraq. When the deaths were announced earlier it was said merely that the two died of small arms fire. That was true - but not the whole story.

A senior Iraqi military officer said that insurgent gunmen hiding in a vehicle and a building opened fire on the patrol, and during the firefight , one of the Iraqi soldiers turned his weapon on the Americans he was ostensibly supposed to be fighting with. It was almost certainly calculated that he killed the Sergeant and the Captain, and wounded three others.

He did not target other ISF personnel, but singled out Americans. The Iraqi soldier who murdered the two Americans attempted to flee, but was apprehended. Another soldier was detained as well, indicating that the gunman is suspected to have had at least one accomplice.

Iraqi Brigadier General Mutaa Habib al-Khazraji, who commands the Iraqi Army 2nd Division said that the gunman was an infiltrator who had ties to the insurgency.

The American military has thus far refused to cite a motive for the shooting, but would confirm that two Iraqi soldiers were in custody and that possible insurgent links were being examined. U.S. Army spokesman Major Gary Dangerfield did say that based on evidence thus far collected, and witness statements from American and Iraqi soldiers “we feel pretty confident that we have the right guy.”

Dangerfield also reported that B.G. al Khazraji had ordered an immediate stand down of theSecond Army Division under his command, and said that he would cooperate fully with the investigation. “We will not let this tragic, isolated incident hinder our partnership with the Iraqi Security Forces and keep us from establishing security in our area of operation,” he said.

The incident is sure to renew the pervasive questions about the loyalty of the Iraqi forces who are bing armed and trained by Americans to take over the security of the country as American forces withdraw.

From the New York Times:

...The Iraqi Army remains dominated by Shiites and Kurds, many of whom are suspicious of the allegiances of Sunni Arab soldiers. Many Sunnis, in turn, fear that the Kurds and Shiites are faithful only to their factions and are habitually hostile to Sunni Arabs.

...The American military did not disclose the circumstances of the shootings until Saturday afternoon, shortly after Reuters reported that Iraqi commanders had said that the American troops had been deliberately shot by an Iraqi soldier.

...The shooting was deliberate,” another Iraqi Army commander in Mosul, Brig. Gen. Noor al-Din Hussein, told Reuters. “It was not an accident.”

...He said the Iraqi soldier had been in the army for a year and was an Arab from the Jubouri tribe, which in Mosul is mostly Sunni. “There is some penetration” by insurgents, he said, “and we want to purify the Iraqi Army.”

News outlets have been quick to point to reductions in violence in Baghdad and western Iraq, but other parts of the country, specifically the north, remain gripped by violence and under the sway of insurgents fighting the American occupation.

Diyala Province, the most troubled region in the country has been rocked by a series of bomb blasts. In the provincial capital of Baquba, a bomb blast wounded three civilians, and north of Muqdadiya, an insurgent-planted bomb exploded and killed six and wounded four. A suicide bomber in Baquba killed four and sounded 23, and A truck driver was killed by gunmen in northeast Diyala. An American soldier died when an IED exploded under his vehicle.

Baghdad experienced the deadliest suicide bombing since September when, on New years Day a suicide bomber attacked a funeral for the victim of a previous suicide bombing, killing 34 and wounding 38.

As the unsustainable shell-game known as the Surge™ winds down, and American forces necessarily withdraw from Iraq, incidents such as this are likely to take place with greater frequency. Barrels of ink and trillions of pixels have been devoted to the infiltration of both the Iraqi Military and the Iraqi police by insurgents and all the things that can go wrong when you make a deal with the devil.

This would be a good time to start paying attention and taking notes, in case you haven't been. Petraeus comes back to Congress to peddle his special line of bullshit in March.

There's more: "Iraqi Soldier Turns His Weapon on American Soldiers, Killing Two and Wounding Three" >>

Don't let them change the subject; the war goes on

That image, courtesy of the Defense Department, is just a reminder of what's happening on the other side of the world as we count the caucus votes in Iowa.

The caucus-eve New York Times reported:

Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes...

The campaigns are moving to recalibrate what they are saying amid signs of this changing backdrop; gone are the days when debates and television advertisements were filled with references to Iraq...

Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush’s decision to send more troops there last year. Mrs. Clinton, who once faced intense opposition from her party’s left over her vote to authorize the war, now is rarely pressed on it, though Democrats say it continues be a drag on her in this state. Senator John McCain, a strong proponent of increased troop levels, is off of the defensive and now positions himself as having been prescient about what would work to quell the violence.

“You see much more concern about the economy,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist. “You see much more concern about health care. When we started it was principally concern about the war, and now it’s a mix of war, the economy and health care.”

Alex Castellanos, a senior strategist for Mr. Romney, said much the same thing was happening on the Republican side and suggested that it may have contributed to the success of Mike Huckabee, the Republican former governor of Arkansas...

We must not let them change the subject.

It's the war, stupid.

Most of the candidates would be happy to talk about something else. It was encouraging that DNC Chair Howard Dean mentioned the war at the top of the short list of issues where Democratic and Republican candidates are at odds. But someone should make sure to tell the candidates that.

That, my friends, is up to us.

As they continue the campaign and ask for your support, your help, your vote, and your money, remind them that getting out of Iraq is still a priority.

Challenge the candidates. Confront them. Put them on the spot. Make them uncomfortable. Keep the issue in front of the voters.

There may be a temporary reduction in violence in Iraq, but there is no exit strategy and not even a plan to begin withdrawing troops, except in the vaguest sort of way proposed by Gen. David Patraeus, who made it clear that could be revisited and changed at any time. A new assessment is planned in March. I suspect we'll learn that the general has been spending some time cuddling with Rosie Scenario.

Don't let them take the war off the table. Call it an occupation, if you prefer; I don't care what you call it, but when the military is killing people every day I tend to think of it as a war.

It's got to stop. We've got to stop it.

Need ideas? Iraq Moratorium #5 is in two weeks. You might start at that website.

Or do something else.

But do something.

We'll all feel better if you do.

There's more: "Don't let them change the subject; the war goes on" >>

"Battlefield of the Mind": U.S. Behavioral Specialists to "Deprogram" Iraqi Prisoners

(Also posted at Invictus)

This article details how U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies organize counterinsurgency operations against Iraqi prisoners, now numbering in the tens of thousands. No matter how they label and package it, it's counterinsurgency operations that are being described. And it was the special place of "behavioral specialists" in this plan that caught my attention. So please pardon this prefatory diversion into the world of science politics.

Psychologists at the American Psychological Association (APA) have been fighting for their place at the governmental funding table for decades now. A good part of what passes for politics in the field of behavioral sciences concerns the contest between psychologists and their institutional rivals (psychiatrists, and other types of behavioral "specialists"), most recently over the spoils of the lavishly-funded post-9/11 "war on terror". The internal split within APA over how or if psychologists should participate in CIA "black site" interrogations, and other such collaboration with U.S. torture, has roiled that organization.

An article over at the Psi Chi website, originally written in 2000, rehashes the issue of masters-level training for psychologists (Psi Chi being the honor society for psychologists), noting, in passing:

..."The master's degree in psychology continues to be the subject of considerable controversy".... Trent's (1993) opening statement in a more recent article followed the same vein when he said, "When the topic of master's-level training in psychology is broached, controversy abounds ..." (p. 586) and, citing Woods (1971), that "... Wilhelm Wundt raised questions about subdoctoral training even as psychology was establishing itself as a scientific discipline" (p. 586).

The American Psychological Association (APA) does not actively discourage pursuing the master's degree. APA, instead, tends to ignore it. For example, whereas APA's publication Getting In: A Step-By-Step Plan for Gaining Admission to Graduate School (1993) does discuss some pros and cons of a master's degree, there are only two pages of text devoted to the topic in this 221-page book.

Even more recently, the school psychologists of APA's Division 16 were shocked to find that APA's hierarchy, in the course of rewriting their Model Licensure Act (designed to guide states in the drafting of legislation and policies related to psychological licensure), planned to strip master's level practitioners in educational settings of the "psychologist" label, even though they have held this distinction for decades now. (You can read Division 16's Oct. 2007 reply to APA here).

Bitva over Plennies (apologies to A. Burgess)

Why is this discussion about masters-level practitioners relevant here? Well, if you have a well-attuned sense of irony, then you can appreciate the bitter humor that lurks among the larger atrocity that is U.S. treatment of its Iraqi detainees, and the role of medical and behavioral professionals in assisting the military and the intelligence agencies in this crime. What follows is from a Dec. 23 article in the Washington Post, "Deprogramming" Iraqi Detainees, by Walter Pincus. Bold emphases are mine.

Marine Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone, the commanding general in charge of detainee operations in Iraq, is seeking reinforcements from a contractor as he continues to maneuver on what he has called "the battlefield of the mind" and win over the roughly 25,000 Iraqi prisoners under his control.

In a proposal put out for bid Dec. 15, the Joint Contracting Command is seeking a team of professionals, including "teachers, religious and behavioral science counselors," who will "execute a program that effectively reintegrates [into Iraqi society] detainees, particularly those disposed to violent, radical ideology through education and counseling," according to the statement of work.

Part of the program will involve small detainee groups, possibly led by an Iraqi cleric and a behavioral scientist, "undergoing enlightenment, deprogramming and de-radicalization sessions" for six weeks.

The U.S. is looking for a contractor -- are you listening Blackwater? Or CACI International? Or Titan? -- to assemble the team, to be led by an American with managerial experience, and a "secret" level security clearance. Besides some years experience analyzing Middle Eastern affairs, this team leader should hopefully have, in addition, a master's degree in psychology or behavioral science. Why is this? Let us wait and see.

The No. 2 in the group is to be a "lead analyst" who must also be a U.S. citizen, have a secret-level clearance and have management experience. This person must also have five years of background in intelligence gathering and interrogation.

Looking for a Few Good Brainwashers

The emphasis on intelligence gathering and interrogation belies the programs purpose as one of "deprogramming and de-radicalization". But it makes sense when you realize one of the main non-enlightenment purposes of the Team is assembling "comprehensive individual assessments" of juvenile and adult prisoners, which could be used to "enable prudent decision-making on release or continued detention of detainees."

The third person in the proposed "leadership team" is supposed to be an an Iraqi cleric or some other person with a formal Islamic education, and an Arabic-speaker, as they will serve as the front man -- I mean, the "lead trainer/counselor for the deprogramming and de-radicalization efforts." And to make sure the Islamic specialist doesn't get too far off the enlightenment path, he will be assisted "by a 'psychological enlightenment' specialist who must have a master's degree in behavioral science. This assistant has the privilege of interviewing

"radicalized detainees to collect information about their motivations and pathways to radicalization" in order to "identify openings for change."

If that weren't enough, this battle for the Iraqi mind will include Iraqi social workers, teachers, and a cleric counselor, not to mention a specialists in "juvenile psychological enlightenment" (with the requisite master's degree in behavioral science, naturally).

The New Thought Reform

It seems the U.S. government is going to try and reprogram Iraqi prisoners, including children, using the same level of expertise used at your typical U.S. public mental health service. And APA, who has sworn to work with the National Security government, as their best handmaidens, gets to see its precious jobs go to non-doctoral workers. APA, as an advocacy group for its membership, has long posited the special role doctoral-level psychologists can play in society at large, and for the military in particular. (See their 2006 book, Psychology in the Service of National Security, edited by A. David Mangelsdorff.) But, here's the U.S. government placing a major new initiative on detainees and interrogation in the hands of -- gasp -- non-doctoral behavioral "specialists".

That's the "irony" part. The more substantive point is that once again the U.S. government is going to use these behavioral "specialists" in a mass campaign of interrogation and "re-education", of the sort that was decried when the Chinese did it in the 1940s and 1950s. Robert Jay Lifton described it as "thought reform and the psychology of totalism". The CIA paid journalists to label it "brainwashing". Now, the U.S. wants to call it "deprogramming", "deradicalization", and even more sinisterly, "enlightenment." Major General Stone refers to it generically as "the battlefield of the mind", channelling perhaps British psychiatrist William Sargant's 1957 classic of interrogation "science", Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-washing. The choice of words is likely coincidental, but isn't Maj. Gen. Stone looking for something like this, when he thinks of his new "team", deprogramming Iraqi detainees. Perhaps, like many religions, a "confession" will be involved. And Dr. Sargant happened to have a word or two to say about that battle over the mind:

To elicit confessions, one must try to create feelings of anxiety and guilt, and induce states of mental conflict if these are not already present. Even if the accused person is genuinely guilty, the normal functioning of his brain must be disturbed so that judgment becomes impaired. If possible he must be made to feel a preference for punishment -- especially if combined with a hope for salvation when it is over rather than a continuation of the mental tension already present, or now being induced by the examiner. (pp. 203-204, Malor Books, 1997)

Now, I ask any member of the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association, do you want masters-level psychologists taking on this level of work? Of course, the real question is, why would any organization of behavioral professionals even endorse the intent and goals of such abhorrent procedures as proposed by Sargant, or in whatever form the Marines' new counterinsurgency program is taking in Iraq today?

However you want to portray Maj. Gen. Stone's new "team" of behavioral specialists, interrogators, intelligence agents, social workers, and clerics, it represents a particularly sick form of imperialist intervention, and one that any mental health advocacy group, such as APA, should denounce forthwith, if it had any healthy bones left in its corrupted body.

Oh, and for those interested:

Bids for the three-year program must be submitted by Jan. 8. The contracting agency has capped the cost at $210 million, with a minimum offer of $5 million.

(H/T on this item goes to "skywriter". Thanks.)

There's more: ""Battlefield of the Mind": U.S. Behavioral Specialists to "Deprogram" Iraqi Prisoners" >>

A resolution: Work to bring the troops home

A New Year’s resolution: To do what I can to end the Iraq war and occupation.

To do something, even if it’s something small, to try to accomplish something big.

It takes a leap of faith, in 2008, to believe that anything you do can make a difference. After nearly five years of being ignored by the Bush administration and the Congress, many are disillusioned and/or cynical.

But, for the most part, they are still planning to vote.

If you believe that your one vote will make a difference in this country’s direction, why wouldn’t you believe that your one voice against the war can also make a difference?

When I wrote recently about the Iraq Moratorium , some readers responded that protests are meaningless or even counterproductive.

Protests not your thing? Fine. Do something else. Contact a member of Congress. Help an antiwar candidate. Wear a button. Whatever. Let a million ideas and individual actions bloom. But do something.

That’s what’s attractive about the Iraq Moratorium, a national umbrella uniting people and groups who want to bring the troops home. There is no “one size fits all” philosophy. There are no rules. People are encouraged to do their own thing. But they are encouraged to do something, and, whatever it is, to do it on the Third Friday of every month.

The Iraq Moratorium website collects information about past and future actions across the country and makes it accessible so people can share ideas and tactics and support and inspire one another.

Since Moratorium #1 in September, there have been several hundred actions in about 30 states, ranging from simple vigils to rallies and marches challenging war profiteers. The next round is scheduled on Friday, Jan. 18, and organizers are beginning now to list their plans on the website.

But group actions are just a part of the Iraq Moratorium. Individuals can take part, too, by doing something on the Third Friday of every month, whether it’s wearing a button or armband to work or school, putting up a sign, writing a letter to the editor, or dozens of other possibilities.

It would be nice if folks would sign the simple pledge on the website:

I hereby make a commitment that on the Third Friday of each and every month, I will break my daily routine and take some action, by myself or with others, to end the War in Iraq.

But even that formality isn’t necessary.

All you need to do is do something, once a month.

The Pentagon and the war machine will operates 24/7/366 this Leap Year.

How about resolving to spend a small amount of time, once a month, to try to make a difference?

Happy New Year.

There's more: "A resolution: Work to bring the troops home" >>