Tonight I'll be in Philadelphia taking part in Philadelphian's Against Santorum's mockSantorum contest, and I need your help.

The Philly Metro features an article today about tonight's event, which features a quote from yours truly:

PHILADELPHIA -- Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg wants to be Rick Santorum.

"It's just crazy for gays to get married," he said. "It's like dogs getting married to a rock."

Actually, Urevick-Ackelsberg wants to be the first-ever "mockSantorum." Along with two other contestants, he'll go for the crown tonight at an event sponsored by Philadelphians Against Santorum (PAS), a group that wears its hatred for the conservative junior senator from Pennsylvania on its sleeves and Web sites.

"I like making fun of Rick Santorum," Urevick-Ackelsberg said. "I really think that comedy is our biggest vehicle for change. ... I really feel that kind of movement to fight against the fake seriousness of the right by mocking them is really kind of powerful."

Atrios posted a link to the Metro article, and the comment section filled up with other unlikely marriages that Rick Santorum is against (my favorite: "    Gays getting married is like stationery getting married to baked goods."), which gave me an idea. Since I'm going to be pretending to be one of the Republican "leaders" why don't I behave like them and pass the buck on to someone else. I figured it would be worth a shot to try and get other people to make my "jokes" for me!

You probably know by now that Rick Santorum has said that "proves that weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq" (something which our Armchair Generalist mocked very well), and I was planning on doing a joke about what exactly those WMDs are. My first idea was to say something along the lines of "WMD's were found in Iraq. Yesterday the Army raided a well known location where Mus-lam  agitators were  known to gather. They found cases upon cases of Ku-rans that were set to be mailed to schools across America. Do these Mus-lams know no shame?" Or something along those lines.

So here's your chance to get your joke onto a mockSantorum video. The snappiest answer to the following question gets their joke included in my mockSantorum routine: What were the "weapons of mass destruction" that Santorum says we've found in Iraq?

If you're coming to Yearly Kos- check out Paul at the panel on "The view from the ground"

I first heard of Paul Rieckhoff and his Veterans organization (at the time called Operation Truth, now known as Iraq and AfghanistanVeterans of America, or IAVA) in February of 2005 when OpTruth started cross-posting stories of Iraq and Afghanistan vets on Music for America's website. I had been volunteering with MFA, an organization focused on youth outreach through cultural events, for nearly a year by that point, and I was extremely excited to read stories about these wars from soldiers who fought in them. The debates about the wars, especially the Iraq War, were lacking a good dose of reality- with the right accusing all war critics of being anti-American or anti-troop, and the left claiming, amongst other absurd things, that this was "not our war"--and OpTruth seemed like a perfect organization to broaden and deepen the debates surrounding the war while at the same time giving soldiers an opportunity to express themselves.

Last week it was revealed that the personal information of 26.5 Million Veterans was stolen from a Veterans Administration employee who had brought the information home. The employee's home was burglarized and the information, which was located on the employees laptop and external hard drive, went missing. Now the VA faces a monumental task of making sure that the Veterans it is charged with caring for don't become victims of identity theft, a crime that has reached epidemic proportions in this nation, with 10 million victims in 2003 alone.

Jon Soltz, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee (IAVA PAC), has an opinion piece in today's Daily News blasting Congressmen Curt Weldon and Mike Fitzpatrick for their wavering support of America's Veterans.

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, on his campaign Web site, claims that helping veterans has been "a top priority on his agenda." Fitzpatrick is likely to face Iraq veteran Patrick Murphy in the general election. Rep. Curt Weldon, who is facing Afghanistan veteran Joe Sestak, writes on his congressional Web site that he is a "leading advocate for vets." Unfortunately, the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.

It is useful to examine where our nation is, in terms of its ability to care for the hundreds of thousands of troops who have returned home from war and who will be returning home from war.

In early 2005, because of budget constraints, Department of Veterans Affairs facilities began to cut back on services to veterans, had to postpone construction and repairs on facilities, kill orders for desperately needed medical equipment and keep staff positions unfilled - just to stay afloat. These cuts affect our returning heroes, they wait longer to be seen or receive services, pay more for their prescriptions and now have to pay fees to enroll in the VA system.

This past Friday I attended the premiere of the disturbing and heart-wrenching documentary When I Came Home at the Tribeca Film Festival. This is a movie that everyone should see, but there is a chance that you, as well as the rest of the world, may never get to see. The movie still doesn't have a distributor, and unless they believe that people will go to theatres to watch it, it may not get one.

IAVA's Paul Reikhoff gave a good synopsis of the movie last week at the Huffington Post:

When I Came Home explores the plight of homeless veterans in America, focusing on my friend Herold Noel, a 25-year-old Iraq War veteran from Brooklyn who faced homelessness upon his return from Iraq. Be sure to check out the powerful trailer on the website. Using Herold's story as a fulcrum, NY-based filmmaker Dan Lohaus examines the epidemic of homeless U.S. military veterans who served when called but now must fight tooth-and-nail to receive the benefits promised to them by their government. HOPE For New Veterans is currently tracking over a dozen homeless Iraq Vets in New York City right now. It's a tragedy and a travesty that there are homeless Iraq Veterans already -- and not enough people are aware of the problem. The film also traces the creation and day-to-day work of IAVA as Herold shows up at the office one day looking for help. From Senator Hillary Clinton to legendary rapper Chuck D, a broad spectrum of American icons are touched by their meetings with this young veteran and his story. When I Came Home premiers Friday, April 28th, at 5 p.m. More screenings will follow throughout the week, and tickets are available here.

I don't care what your position on the war is, every veteran deserves to be welcomed back into our nation as heroes. I hate the war that Herold went and fought in, but it was not his choice to start the war, and yet he fought. The very least that vets like Herold deserve when they return is treatment for their physical and mental scars and a hand readjusting to civilian life! It boggles my mind that our government would allow this to happen to our returning soldiers, though given the amount of homeless Vietnam Vets, I guess it shouldn't. But that doesn't mean that we can stand by idly and allow this outrage to continue.

There are a few ways that you can help.

1. If you are in or around New York City this weekend, please consider going to one of the final two screenings at the Film Fesitval. They are both at AMC 34th Street (312 W. 34th Street)- the first is on Friday, May 5 @ 1:45 pm the second is on Saturday, May 6 @ 4:00 pm. The number of tickets sold for the movie will have a very large impact on whether they can get a distributor or not.

2. Go to the official site for When I Came Home and watch the trailer. The more views that the trailer gets, the greater the chances of it getting picked up.

3. Send an e-mail to the film's director, Dan Lohaus, telling him that you'd love to be able to see the movie and asking him when you will be able to see it in theatres in your neck of the woods.

4.  TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!!

5. Visit IAVA's site, and support their work. I was already very familiar with IAVA, but I was absolutely floored at how Paul and Co. stepped into the breach and helped Herold in his time of need. If you need proof of how amazing an organization IAVA is, and why they need and deserve your support, this movie will show you.

I also would encourage you to go check out the other movie that IAVA had a hand in, also described by Paul:

The War Tapes is the first Iraq War documentary filmed entirely by the Soldiers themselves. This film will rock you. It has the best footage out of Iraq that I have ever seen. Filmmaker Deborah Scranton supplied hand-held video cameras to a New Hampshire National Guard unit deployed to Iraq just as the insurgency was emerging. The result is an unflinching depiction of this war, and the men and women sent to fight it. It's better than fair and balanced because it's honest and unfiltered. The War Tapes premiers Saturday, April 29th, at 3 p.m. It will also be showing throughout the week.

Crossposted at Blue Force and other places

Yesterday I took a look at a bunch of critical reactions, mainly but not exclusively from the left, to the calls for Donald Rumsfeld to resign coming from high-ranking military officers. Today I take a look at the reactions to the episode, and the anxiety it is justifiably causing, over on the revolutionary right. Below you'll find a collection of comedic (at least to me) posts from the right, broken down by the lame sophist arguments that the Black Shirts use to try and explain this whole episode away.

First we have this little tidbit from Westhawk, who goes first because he speaks to my favorite subject:
 

The American Democratic Party will be greatly tempted to take political advantage of this situation by perhaps enlisting some of these generals as spokesmen and as candidates for appointed offices in future Democratic administrations. They will entertain this temptation at their great peril, not to mention the possible peril of the Constitution.
...
With a little reflection, it should become clear to Democrat politicians that they should nip this idea of rebelling generals in the bud right now. They can do this by refusing to offer these six generals jobs in future Democrat administrations. In addition, Democrat politicians can publicly renew their support for civilian control of the U.S. military.

So a President blatantly flouts the constitution, the Congress neglects its duties as a check on the President, and the Democrats should speak out against the Generals who have exhausted every other option for imposing sanity on this administration? I have a different idea- Draft Anthony Zinni! Honestly, I don't like the idea of Generals rebelling, but who the hell else is standing up to the Jacobins who have hijacked our nation?

From the Judith Apter Klinghoffer we find out what the real problem is- the generals are pussies!
 

On This Week Joe Klein, whom no one can accuse of being a Bush fan, said that Bush repeatedly asked the generals in Iraq if they had everything they needed and they repeatedly assured him they did. But when Jerry Bremer asked them what they would do with an additional division, they said, we'd clear Baghdad. Excuse me? The American army in Iraq does not have a single general with enough guts to respond to the president's question with "depends on what you want us to do?"

Sorry, guys, civil control of the military is not our problem. Gutless military leadership is.

If only our military leadership was as brave as all of the members of the Bush Administration who fought valiantly in their generation's wars, or the steely nerves of all of the keyboard commandos who choose to fight the good fight from the safety of their computer consoles, we would have already won.

Of course, when all arguments fail, you can always fall back on, via Big Lizards Blame Clinton!

Typically, presidents don't hand out stars to people who object to their philosophies; think of LBJ and Gen. William Westmoreland. So the first assumption is that if President Bill Clinton elevated an Army colonel to a Brigadier General -- or made him Commander in Chief of CentCom (paging Anthony Zinni) -- that general is probably a Clintonista.

This author also gets the award for most ill informed:

It's hardly surprising that some men who have invested so much of their lives in one particular way of running a war would be angry, rebellious, and confused by a completely different way of running a war... or that some of them would lash out at the symbol of that change. They are no different from vice presidents at General Motors or IBM who furiously denounce splitting those companies into self-reliant business units instead of the normal corporate divisions they've had for twenty years.
...
Zinni is the epitome both of an Old School general and a Clintonista. To say we've "wasted three years" in Iraq is so absurd and demeaning to the troops -- including Marines -- that only politics can explain (but not excuse) it.

Uh, I know lizards have pea brains, but really, how about reading a book? You might come off as less of a pretentious know-nothing dickhead. Then again, maybe not.

Then there's the tactic used against John Murtha when he spoke up in the name of "those who cannot" (i.e. uniformed officers who are disallowed from publicly airing their grievances),  pretend that the lack of active duty officers speaking out in public means that there are not active duty officers who would like to speak out. Outside the Betway takes this tried and true approach to avoiding the issue:
 

The problem is that, while a handful of retired generals have spoken out, those actually in charge have not. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not only empowered but required by statute to serve as the president's chief military advisor and give his unvarnished professional opinion, regardless of their harmony with those of the SECDEF. Similarly, all general and flag officers are confirmed by the Senate. When called to testify before Congress, it is their sworn duty to answer truthfully, irrespective of the chain of command

Actually, I'm sure that these officers ARE speaking up to Congress. The real problem is that Congress has decided that acting as a check on the presidents power is either too hard or it gets in the way of the Glorious Right-Wing Revolution. And what, you might ask, did the above linked author have to say when Murtha spoke out on behalf of the active duty generals?

Congressman John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, has called for the immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. Since Congressman say stupid things on a regular basis, I ignored the story even after several e-mailed press releases.
...
Wounded soldiers are a tragedy and there's no doubt that the military life is difficult. But asking tired, wounded soldiers about their morale really doesn't tell us much about grand national strategy.

The author also says of  Murtha's arguments: "these are non sequiturs," "That's a lot of unsupported assertions," "I don't really see the relevance.," "This is another rapid-fire set of assertions, mostly emotional, that seem only tangentially related to the issue," "irrelevant," "absurd," and  "you haven't demonstrated anything of the sort." So- the lesson here is, don't listen to the military when they retire- listen to them when they're on active duty, but since they cannot speak up, listen to the congress people whom they report to, but since those congresspeople might say something that I disagree with, just listen to the Bush Adminstration (or at least the little voices in your head).

We can also find the simpletons challenging the generals abilities. I find this almost too pitiful to post. Almost.

These facts beg another question - Was General Zinni too ignorant to fully appreciate the potential likelihood of CENTCOM fighting a war in Iraq in the near future OR was General Zinni too incompetent to make the necessary preparations?

Although it is hard for me to imagine why on earth anyone would oppose such a dynamic, aggressive, substantive and consequential leader, it is nevertheless unnecessary to enthusiastically support Secretary Rumsfeld to detect the rant odor of hypocrisy and ulterior motives underpinning the all too convenient recent statements of General Zinni. In case there is anyone left who hasn't heard, General Zinni "knew all along" invading Iraq was a "bad idea" but at the time nobody wanted to listen. But what's new? After all General Zinni enjoys nothing more than another PR opportunity to say again "I told you so." In an uncanny way I actually agree with General Zinni, it is indeed too bad more people didn't pay closer attention to what he said and what he did on the eve of 9/11. Just for the record General Zinni - I told you SO!!

Indeed, because when Zinni was asked whether Iraq was a threat- what did he say? Oh, why bother bringing facts into this argument.

Of course, we cannot forget the tried and true tactic of blaming the media, who, you know, snuck into the Pentagon prior to the start of the war burned all of CENTCOMs plans, and forced the President and his Neo-Con Cabal to swap strategy for fantasy. Via Instapundit we find this gem, which is, at the very least, a bit funny (though I'm laughing at them):

A growing movement of retired and active-duty U.S. military officers, angry at the mismanagement, arrogance and even deception that have hampered U.S. efforts to secure peace and democracy in Iraq, have begun quietly calling for the resignation of top leaders they blame for the difficulties.

"I believe that it's time for them to step down," said one unnamed retired three-star general. "The editors of The New York Times and Washington Post and the news producers at CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC should resign effective immediately."

Damned media! Thank the lord that we have faithful servents of the glorious revolution to pick up and carry the President's water, we all know it's the media that should be carrying it!

The complete and total asshole award goes, as usual, to John "Ass-Rocket" Hindracker, at Powerline. Wanna know why Rummy shouldn't resign? How about because things are going great!?!?

When you're President, you get lots of free advice. Some of it is well-intentioned; much of it is not. Here is why I think so many liberals are anxious for President Bush to replace Rumsfeld: they have staked a great deal on the proposition that the Iraq war has not gone well, and, in fact, has been a disaster. But they are troubled because they are not at all sure that is true. By any reasonable standard, casualties have been low and Iraq's progress toward democracy has been impressive. This doesn't mean the project couldn't still go off the rails; it clearly could. But it is also possible--likely, I think--that the Iraqis will succeed in forming a government, violence will continue to decline, our troops levels will be substantially reduced, and, in a year or two, the consensus will be that the war was pretty successful after all. This, I think, is what liberals fear most. They want President Bush to stipulate, in effect, that the war has been poorly conducted and has been a failure. That's the way in which firing Rumsfeld would rightly be interpreted. This would largely insulate liberals against the consequences if the war does, in fact, turn out to be successful. The same logic, I think, explains why liberals are always hectoring President Bush to "admit his mistakes." What they fear, deep down, is that the President's policies haven't been mistakes at all.

Right, after all, if the President really is bringing on the Apocalypse than the Messiah is coming!

And last but not least, who could forget that old classic "If we do X, the terrorists have all ready won"? John Podhoretz puts together this weeks incarnation of that tired old jingle:
 

WHAT'S the dumbest thing George W. Bush could possibly do right at this moment - the action that would, more than any other, suggest his presidency was and is all but finished?

The answer: Fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Either a forced resignation or a dismissal would effectively bring the Bush presidency to an end. ...
...
 Yet such a move would be an unmitigated disaster for the effort in Iraq.

Imagine the aftermath of a Rumsfeld firing: The presumption in the press and from gleeful Democrats would be that Bush was effectively acknowledging that the military campaign in Iraq would be doomed to failure with Rummy at the helm.

It would be a time for endless recapitulations of the supposed errors in judgment made by Rumsfeld and his people before, during and after the war - all spun to support the contention (from the retired generals who are now on the offensive against Rumsfeld and the State Department types who never liked the whole business) that the war was misconceived and has been badly waged.

Days and days of those retrospectives would accelerate the sense of depression and futility among the American people about the prospects for victory in Iraq.
...
 If you are among those who now basically think we might as well declare defeat even before we go home, then by all means, shout "Fire Rummy" at the top of your lungs.

But if you are among those who believe the war in Iraq must be won and that we can win it, it is madness to join the "Fire Rummy" crew. Even if you think Rumsfeld doesn't deserve to keep the job, he must. There's no other way.

Just keep repeating "there's no other way" while you click your heels together and POOF! we now not only have a strategy for Iraq- we're already winning it!

Crossposted at Blue Force | National Security Progressives, Progressive National Security

There has been so much written about the retired officers speaking out against Donald Rumsfeld that it's a bit hard to keep up. Below are some of the pieces- blogs, op-eds, and articles- that you really shouldn't miss, though I'm leaving the comedy pieces (i.e. the Right-Wing attacks on the Generals) for the next piece:

The first must-read is an op-ed in the Washington Post from Richard Holbrook, who looks at the differences between this crisis and the last serious rift between the military and the President- when Harry Truman relieved Douglas MacArthur from duty during the Korean War. He concludes:

If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable; if the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan does not turn around (and there is little reason to think it will, alas), then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld. The only question is: Will it come so late that there is no longer any hope of salvaging something in Iraq and Afghanistan?

On the right-side of the isle we have a thoughtful piece from Pat Buchanan, who argues that Bush cannot abide by the wishes of these generals without seriously harming the firewall between the military and this nation's civilian leadership:

But if he bows to the Generals' Revolt and dismisses Rumsfeld, the generals will have effected a Pentagon putsch. An alumni association of retired generals will have dethroned civilian leadership and forced the commander in chief to fire the architect of a war upon which not only Bush's place in history depends, but the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world. The commander in chief will have been emasculated by retired generals. The stakes could scarcely be higher.

Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, dismissal of Rumsfeld in response to a clamor created by ex-generals would mark Bush as a weak if not fatally compromised president. He will have capitulated to a generals' coup. Will he then have to clear Rumsfeld's successor with them?

Bush will begin to look like Czar Nicholas in 1916.

To this I would say- too late. This President has already done everything in his power to cripple and overburden our military, and the Congress has been complicit in the entire ordeal (accept for brave men like John Murtha, who speak out on behalf of the generals, but who are then smeared as losers, troop-haters, and generally bad people). What should the generals do- stand by while our nation is pushed further into a hole from where we may never emerge?

Over at Whirled View Cheryl and the two Patricia's are having an interesting debate about the whole episode. Here's a quote from each:
PLS:

So generals--colonels, too--have a habit of getting uppity, even American generals. Billy Mitchell had to be court marshaled. Douglas MacArthur had to be relieved of command. The military leadership were, to my mind, culpably seditious under Bill Clinton, who made the very bad mistake of not strongly asserting civilian control when he was first scorned as a "draft dodger." At least Rummy, whom I despise in every other way, is willing to put overweening generals in their place.

Generals may give advice to presidents. They may give orders to their subordinates. But generals are subordinate to the American president, who has the right to choose his executive team.

CKR:

These men are retired from the military. They are not in the position of General MacArthur, who was serving at the time he openly criticized the President and was removed from command. We have had many retired military personnel making political statements. Dwight David Eisenhower, General of the Army, retired from that position and became President of the United States. John Kennedy served in the Navy, as did John Kerry. George Bush was in the Air Force reserves. Many senators and congressional representatives have served in the armed forces.

So where do we draw that line?

PHK:

Has it occurred to the Bush administration and the GOP that retired Generals Eaton, Zinni, Newbold, Batiste, Riggs, Swannack and Clark just might be doing the Republicans a huge favor by calling for Rumsfeld's speedy departure? Before the Congressional election endgame this coming the fall? After all, if these generals really wanted to send the administration a stronger message, one that would really hurt, they would foremost support - and work hard for - the election of a Democratic Congress in November. They wouldn't bother to tell the president now that - oh, by the way - Rummy's a liability.

Over at Crooks and Liars there are a bunch of relevant videos-  Wes Clark on Fox "News", Olberman's Countdown featuring Cobra II author Lieutenant General Bernard Trainor (Ret.), and Major General John Batiste on the Today Show.

At Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Ray Kimbell asks a question on a lot of minds- What Took You So Long?

Welcome to the party, boys. Where ya been? Eric Shinseki and Paul Rieckhoff and all of us bloggers have been waiting for you guys for a long, long time. Not that we minded, of course. After all, isolated stands in lonely positions against daunting odds are part of the military culture, right?

I know, I know, you were still holding out hope for that third or fourth star. And after all, there was that cushy board of directors gig for General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin or KBR hanging in front of you - can't very well do that if you're biting the hand that feeds them, now can you?

Anyway, thanks for figuring out what many of us over here at IAVA figured out a while ago, and what some guy named Washington said a few hundred years ago: "When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen." For those of you still playing catch-up, that means that even though we accept some restrictions on our ability to speak out, those of us in uniform don't cede our right as citizens to speak out on matters of national interest and policy.

Over at Democracy Arsenal there are a few interesting posts, but the one by Ike Wilson is particularly insightful, and looks at this episode from the perspective of the Soldier and the State.  

Perhaps we need to hear more from the generals when it counts the most -- during their tenure of professional service, when effective change is needed the most, and when errors in the making can be prevented.  Perhaps hearing from them after retirement and after the point of decision only muddies the already confusing waters for soldiers in the field, statesmen, and public alike.  There are already hints that this latest revolt is an act of defiance not just by these six former officers, but that the six could be acting as proxies for a wider group of active duty senior leaders -- that the active duty senior leadership is attempting to negotiate the unmarked mine-fields of contemporary civil-mil relations by speaking truth-to-Power, indirectly, through the retired officer community.

Who knows?  But if this is the case, perhaps that is the strongest indication that our traditional notions of the limits of if, when, where, and how our military should (must?) engage in the politics of war policy and strategy making deserve and demand an immediate reconsideration.  

There is more- much more- but I'll have to stop here. If you have any pieces that you've read that I didn't mention, please post them in the comments.

Update: This piece by Kevin Drum is another nicely thought out piece, with links to many other blogs discussing the Generals' Revolt.

Crossposted at Blue Force | National Security Progressives, Progressive National Security

by Patricia Kushlis, Cheryl Rofer, Patricia Lee Sharpe, and Linda Durham
Please feel free to use this post with your elected representatives or for public distribution.

Don't Bomb Iran
Bombing is wrong and would be counterproductive

Credible news reports indicate that the Bush administration is planning for a bombing campaign against Iran, possibly including nuclear strikes.  However, nuclear weapons experts believe that Iran will need at least three years to develop nuclear weapons and more likely five to ten years.  There is no imminent danger.

Iran has admitted to past violations, but current evidence suggests that Iran is in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  An attack with  conventional weapons would attract few or no allies and result in diminished non-military power for the US.  First use of nuclear weapons, by the only country to have used them before, would put the US in major breach of longstanding international norms.  America would become a pariah, a rogue nation, condemned and isolated by all.  

Such strikes would be impractical as well as wrong.  Military strategists have suggested that the US could avoid counterattacks from a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities if attacks on Iran's retaliatory capacity were launched simultaneously.  Others believe that popular support for the Islamic Republic would crumble under such stress.  They are mistaken.

Iran is not Iraq.  It is more populous and intensely nationalistic.  Despite strong political differences among Iranians, bombing Iran would generate a unifying patriotic response.  The Ahmadinejad regime would be strengthened, and consequences for US policy throughout the Muslim world would be severe.  Even crippled by air strikes, Iran could worsen the situation in Iraq and launch terrorist attacks on Israel by mobilizing Hezbollah and others.  Unilateral US attacks on Iran might also cause turmoil in Middle Eastern oil fields, especially in Saudi Arabia, whose wells are located in heavily Shiite regions, and would enrage Shiite communities in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere.  Demagogues would preach that the long expected US-led crusade had begun.  

The US would not be safer.  

There is a better way to create a safe world. Iran, the modern seat of an ancient civilization, wishes to be respected in a world where leadership seems open mostly to nuclear powers.  Iran must understand that bluster and threat won't lead to a place at the table.  The US must also understand that bluster and threat won't stop nuclear proliferation. Multi-party negotiations with Iran are already under way, but the US should expand its Iraq-centered consultations into broader bilateral and regional security talks. Dealing wisely and patiently with the Iran situation will go far to restore the moral and intellectual leadership of US.  Through cooperation, not fear, America can achieve a safer, stabler world and a more lasting peace.

Originally posted at WhirledView. Crossposted at Blue Force, amongst others

Below is a piece that Bill Winter, last night's Fighting Dem, asked me to post here. If you have any questions for Bill, please leave them below or at the Blue Force Blog (where this is crossposted). I thought the Booman community would appreciate his position...
-----------

I am running for Congress in Colorado against Tom Tancredo. I'm sure you may have seen some things about me at various sites and I would love to open a dialogue with you. So let me tell you about something that happened to me yesterday.

Crossposted at Draft Zinni! | It's Security, Stupid! and Daily Kos

Col. T.X. Hammes, in his insightful book The Sling and the Stone, which looks the emergence and evolution modern insurgency (what Hammes and others call "Fourth-Generation Warfare"), he looks at the two Palestinian Intifadas, and the horrendous results, for both the Israelis and the Palestinians, of the Palestinians adoption of the tactic of suicide bombings. I have personally felt a sense of almost complete hopelessness about the state of Israel since the escalation of violence began a few years ago, and I held out very little hope that anything could happen, with both the Israeli and the Palestinian Right-Wings entirely against a negotiated settlement, to break the impasse. And so I was almost moved to tears this week when I read, over at Direland, about an emerging Palestinian non-violence movement.

Someone on Kos suggested I crosspost this here.

Every time that I hear Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman or the other so-called "security Democrats" speak about the decision to go to war with Iraq I cringe. Do they really think that American's want to be told, as Joe Liberman said: "Bottom line, I think Bush has it right."? As uber-ass John Stossel would say: Give Me A Break!!!

However, each time that I read the reactions of liberals/progressives to this kind of drivel I get equally worried, since as a group we don't seem to have a firm idea of what a progressive foreign policy would look like.

In last weeks Marine Corps Times there was an article about a speech that Gen. Anthony Zinni (ret.) gave at the Marine Corps Association's Ground Dinner, where he outlined what in my eyes are a few of the basic tenets of a Progressive foreign policy.