Winning hearts and minds, part 43: Inside Falluja: 'Nothing to come back to' (bbc.com, 12/24/04).

A good list of election reforms urgently needed here in the U.S. Here is a good list of basic reforms needed to call what we have a democratic system: t r u t h o u t - Hill and Richie | Cries for Electoral Standards Mount (truthout.org, 12/22/04)

F.B.I. E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order Authorizing Torture (truthout.org, 12/20/04).

t r u t h o u t - Majority Says Iraq War a Mistake, Rumsfeld Should Go, Subtitle: "56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake". (truthout.org repost from washingtonpost.com, 12/21/04).

New Papers Suggest Detainee Abuse Was Widespread (washingtonpost.com reposted at yahoo, 12/21/04) demonstrates again that actual truth doesn't aid the U.S. image abroad. Theft, long-term abuse, deadly shootings of detainees....

The most deadly attack against U.S. forces in Iraq just occurred. Yahoo! News - Rocket Hits U.S. Base in Iraq, Killing 22 (news.yahoo.com, 12/21/04) reports of an attack on a military base mess camp.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, responding to a question about how Iraqis will be able to safely get to some 9,000 polling places if U.S. troops can't secure their own bases, said there was "security and peace" in 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces.

And we just never see those 15? Do they have NAMES? I might like to see that list.

In case you're having a hard time wrapping your mind around the death tolls in Iraq, look at this: Iraq Body Count Visual Aid (mykeru.com).

Professor Cole discusses the probable religious government outcome of a democratic vote in Iraq. (juancole.com, 12/17/04) I'm not sure why Americans think this result is preventable: religion has a huge impact on elections here, and fundamentalists always wield some influence.

*

Some of my friends have been discussing Brad Carson's piece in the New Republic called "Vote Righteously!" (tnr.org, registration required), about losing to fundamentalists here in the U.S. I've received odd comments about this, from shock that there are fundamentalists who vote for religious issues rather than what government is actually supposed to do, to comments about needing to be more 'in touch' with fundamentalists here at home.

Here's my response to part of this discussion, which included a question as to whether or not the U.S. is in an internal culture war between fundamentalists/extremists and everyone else. It may not apply to the discussion Iraqis are having internally -- I'm not sure they feel free to have a discussion about what their nation's government should look like when they're occupied by an increasingly hostile and destructive foreign force, combined with a hostile and destructive internal resistance movement. But some of the same ideas may apply, so I'm posting this here.

We live in a country where 'equal pay for equal work' is still controversial, so I would propose that we have ALWAYS been in a culture war. Heck, the former slave-holding states all dumped the Democrats over civil rights, and have been living in a bitter enmity with the "culture" of the rest of multicultural (bad word!) America ever since. (There's a map floating around the web suggesting that the [so-called] red [Bush-majority] states, with just one exception, all were states or territories permitting slavery in our nation's history. [This was prior to the resolution of 3 state outcomes.])

I don't see 51% Bush vs. 48% Kerry as a "mandate" for taking on the values of our most socially regressive citizens. Even if it meant we could "win" the 51 by announcing that minorities and women need to 'know their place' and everyone needs to [take on fundamentalist beliefs] it wouldn't really be winning. We'd lose our own 48%. And we'd be living under our own version of the Taliban.

We should note that all my pro-choice groups note that they've gained five seats in Congress, and that every single pro-choice incumbent supported by Emily's List (a group I'm in that develops and supports pro-choice Democratic women) won re-election. South Dakota elected its first female rep; Wisconsin elected its first ever African-American rep, who also happens to be female. So the "too liberal" concept doesn't apply: choice isn't "too liberal" for everyone, and people are happy to elect women and minorities to federal offices. So it's not just "liberalism."

There are other cultural factors at work. I've read that southern white men will now only vote for one of their own, preferably a governor, preferably a Baptist, which is how Carter and Clinton made it in, and therefore that's all the Democrats should put forth as Presidential nominees forever. But that seems likely to alienate the rest of us over time, so I doubt it's a good solution. Better solutions may rest in removing social issues from the federal front pages through efforts that appeal to states-rights advocates -- making marriage solely the purview of religions, for example, as an example of how government should be smaller and less intrusive.

We may have to face the fact that some Americans don't want a democracy: they want a theocracy which reflects only their own belief systems, and which forbids the belief systems of others. Things we think of as practical government functions - like paved roads, post offices, foreign policy, equal opportunity enforcement and the EPA - as irrelevant. Kicking ourselves over not appealing enough to such folks [22-27% of the Bush voters for "morality"] won't help us, so I don't think we're having the right discussion if we're including them.

I think we can only appeal to the people who DO want democracy. I haven't heard 'Bush moderates' defined in any way; many of the Dems who I've heard interviewed voted for Bush based on WMDs they think were found, or other misinformation. But I think the people to appeal to, the Clinton-Republican-types, are a limited group who can be appealed to by the 'reality based community' on issues that don't require all of us who are brown or female to become serfs.

Here in the U.S. the situation is very different from that in Iraq in myriad ways, obviously. But one of the biggest ways is the long history of secular democracy here, and the fact that religious institutions have not rivaled the government for power in a significant way since our laws were established. Many western churches have a long history of supporting whatever government is in power, and using the government's authority to reinforce its own. There are notable exceptions, but the U.S. has never known a church-state rivalry that threatened the state seriously.

In Iraq, religious leaders hold more influence than the U.S. backed regime(s), and have stepped into the apparent power vacuums to provide basic services. In that respect, they are in a very strong position which U.S. fundamentalists would envy. If a religious coalition takes a strong position against the occupation and wins big, that will be perceived as a mandate for all their purposes, including a religious state. If a squeaker victory here is a "mandate," imagine what a big victory in Iraq for religious parties would look like.

So. The issue of fundamentalism and government are not as distant as Iraq to U.S. voters.

My vacation/special assignment have ended, although later than planned. And so I belatedly worked toward catching up on the news about war and peace in the world.

It has not been a good process.

There have been some particularly appalling reports about U.S. actions abroad this month. As we celebrate Peace on Earth and Goodwill Towards Men, I read about the U.S. intentionally bombing hospitals in Iraq to suppress reports of civilian casualties. The December 6th issue of the Nation included 'What Happened to Hearts?' by Jonathan Schell, which points out that without a hospital to report casualties, "there would be no international outrage, and all would be well."

Also see Controlling Information in the Attack on Fallujah by Bob Allen (laborstandard.org)

Since July when the Allawi government began ?authorizing? U.S. airstrikes against Fallujah, the hospital?s medical staff provided aid to a steady flow of casualties. Their daily accounts and accompanying photos exposed the U.S. war propagandists? claims of ?precision attacks.?

It wasn't just Falluja General that the U.S. bombed, either: US strikes raze Falluja hospital (news.bbc.co.uk, 11/06/04) describes the leveling of another hospital (Nazzal Emergency) by U.S. forces. Something called the Popular Clinic ("Fallujah residents say clinic bombed," abc.net.au, 11/09/04) was taken out by the U.S. There are also reports on other hospitals damaged by the U.S., and of U.S. forces firing on ambulances...

Things are so bad that the International Red Cross' Iraq web pages have quotes about how NO WARS ARE EXCLUDED FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW.

*

If it was the goal of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. two years ago to reduce the U.S. to a nation whose forces level civilian hospitals and don't abide by international law on the treatment of civilians, they've won.

It would almost be nice if the hijackers had SAID that was their goal: our proud military strategists might have tried to avoid the current situation just to save face.

*

The big mystery in reading the news is whether anyone actually believes a "democracy" can be brought about through war crimes and force against the voting public. I've seen no historical evidence that such an approach would work.