Wanted to let you know about this: www.kenwaldman.com/astheworldburns.htm

Official release date is October 1–earliest readers have been very enthusiastic.

Be well!

—–Ken Waldman www.kenwaldman.com/astheworldburns.htm

When our President, George Bush, says those words, he is talking non-sense. So is anyone else using these words.

The words are inflammatory, and their ultimate effect often deliberately to cause people to suspend any rational judgment about the things the speaker wants to do because of this so-called “War on Terror.” When rational judgment is suspended, people will do anything no matter how ineffective it is because of the emotional mind-clouding power, and the fear it gives rise to, when such meaningless words are used.

It is also extremely sloppy journalism to repeat this phase, except as a direct quote, because it is meaningless. It is as meaningless as “war on laziness” or the “war on weather.” Journalists seem never to have heard of semantics, which looks at the meaning of words and how their use affects us.

Right now, we as a country are involved in a number of situations, some dangerous, some not, one or two very separate wars, some diplomatic efforts, and a very diverse set of circumstances that may possibly threaten our way of life, and we, as a country, appear to be afraid of a number of diversified groups of people who reside in various countries. We are also, as a country, possibly threatened in a number of ways by a number of countries, as opposed to small scattered groups of people. All of these have been lumped together into a catch phrase that is entirely meaningless, namely a “war on terror.”

If we can define what these groups and countries are and distinguish how they differ from one another, it can help us to understand what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and what the characteristics of all this mixed up “war on terror” might really mean. This, of course, immediately implies that there is no one single opponent against whom we can wage war, but instead presents a variety of different situations, some more dangerous than others, each of them requiring that we handle them, as best we can, in different ways if we want to reduce any threat they pose.

• The first group of people that we claim to be fighting with is a vaguely defined group, once led by a man named Bin Laden, that calls itself Al Qaeda. It appears to be based in Afghanistan, but may have spread to various other countries. It is a loosely-knit, guerrilla group that dislikes “the West”, vaguely defined as European and American countries. We don’t know nearly enough about it to be “at war” with this group because it is so diffuse, and it is all too easy to confuse it with other groups at times. It is not certain that its leaders are alive or have control over this group because it is so diffuse. Originally, it was most probably responsible for the event known as “9/11”. We, as a country under President Bush, claim to be fighting this group but appear to have lost interest in pursuing this group forcefully.

I say “claim to be fighting” because, for all of our efforts, we have never caught Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda appears to be stronger than ever before. We have troops in Afghanistan, but they appear to be there mainly poised to defend the central government, which has been threatened by a number of groups including the Taliban (the prior totalitarian government), war lords in various provinces, and a loose network of guerillas including the Al Qaeda group. The current Administration, led by President Bush, has apparently de-emphasized our military efforts in Afghanistan and his rhetoric, his use of the words “war on terror”, appear to be mainly directed at Iraq, not Afghanistan.

The number of deaths of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan in this first military operation is 255 with 765 injured as of January 2006, as tracked by Wikipedia. I cite this figure in sharp contrast to the number of U.S. troops killed in the next military effort, still going on today, in Iraq which was 2,299 U.S. soldiers killed and 33,094 seriously injured as of March 2006 (cited at the site http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspxhttp://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx). The disparity between Afghanistan and Iraq, in terms of dead and casualties is very revealing about what is being emphasized.

• The second group that we were fighting was the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. It was a war declared by President Bush, with no real resistance from Congress. The enemy was a vague one – mainly the dictator, Saddam Hussein, who somehow had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and was linked vaguely to “terrorists”, the same ones named in Afghanistan as being Al Qaeda. None of these reasons has proven to be true. I repeat: None of the reasons given for this war have been proven to be true. As cited above, more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq as a result of this war. Because of what the President and his Administration have been saying, and repeating as a mantra, according to many surveys, many people in the U.S. believe, irrationally, that this war is being fought as a “war on terror.” This is simply not an accurate or true statement.

It appears that Iraq has three major ethnic groups that have never gotten along. When Saddam was in charge of the country, the Sunni controlled everything with an iron hand. The Shiites, although in the majority, had no political power. The Kurds, the third group, also had no power. Once Saddam’s forces were overcome by the U.S. forces, the Shiites grabbed political power, the Kurds grabbed the northern part of the country, and the Sunni who had control and resented losing it have begun conducting an insurgency. The Shiites and the Sunni both have deep hatred of each other; it is obvious that the Sunni aren’t used to being out of power, and the Shiites resent all of the terrible things that were done to their people when the Sunni were in power. This is has led to brutal killings, with our troops in the middle, mainly siding with the Shiite majority. The country at this time may be in civil war.

Our troops really aren’t fighting “terror” or “terrorists” here. They are actually intervening in an internal conflict that has been going on for a long time back to when England and Winston Churchill was involved. I will add that there have been instances of non-Iraqi individuals crossing the border into Iraq from Syria and Iran to attack American military forces, and some of these individuals may be linked to Al Qaeda, but that is not the biggest part of the problem. In fact, because of our invasion of Iraq and our destruction of the status quo, by eliminating Saddam Hussein, it may be that we have opened a whole new breeding ground for, and encouraged, these individuals to learn how to operate successfully and conduct terrorist operations.

Iraq thus appears to be involved in a civil war of Sunnis versus Shiites, with Kurds protecting their interests, and some outsiders conducting guerilla terrorist operations aimed at fomenting unrest and driving the U.S. forces out. We cannot be involved in a “war on terror” here because there are at least four separate parties here, and it isn’t always clear who is doing what to hurt or kill whom.

• A third arena whom we are not fighting is North Korea, a dictatorship that is working to build an atomic bomb capability. This country is a military threat to South Korea because it possesses a huge standing army of more than a million soldiers. It is a country with a well-defined government, not a loosely organized group of individuals. We have not declared war on them, nor have they declared war on the U.S. But for some reason, at times, they have been included in this “war on terror.”

• A fourth arena that is also sometimes referred to under the mantra of “war on terror” is Iran. Iran is the largest country in the Middle East, with a government that is primarily run by its religious right. They may provide a place for Al Qaeda and other groups which dislike the U.S. for various reasons to develop and train members. We are not at war with Iran, and they are not at war with us. But, for some reason, they also have been lumped into this “war on terror”.

• There are other places in the world, such as South America and the Philippines, that have been also lumped into this “war on terror”, but, again, we have not declared war on them nor have they declared war on the U.S. Numerous groups, some of which hate the U.S. and some involved in insurgencies against their existing government, have the earmarks of “terrorists” in that they conduct underground operations, kill people indiscriminately, have loose organizations, may or may not be linked to other similar organizations.

• In general, it is also important to separate different types of terrorists (a very maligned word) into specific and different groups. For example, Basque separatists, in Spain, commit what we would call terrorist acts. So do the Tamil Tigers in northern Sri Lanka. They can both be called “terrorists.” Please note that, although these groups commit acts that seem to be terrorist acts, such as blowing up bombs in public places and killed innocent civilians, both of these groups are internal in their countries and act much as if they were engaged in a civil war against their existing government.

• So we are not at war with all of the groups I’ve mentioned. We couldn’t be. Many of them have no government for us to declare war on. It is sloppy use of communication to say that we are engaged in a “war on terror” when we really need to understand that there are many such groups around the world, each separate and different, each requiring different tactics, each posing a different type of threat (in some cases, no threat) to our country.

Please remember that next time you hear these words. If you understand what has been said here, you will be able to determine how absurd such a claim is (“war on terror”) and look at what the person saying these words is really trying to do. He or she may be trying to scare you so you don’t think clearly; he or she may be pushing an agenda to take rights away from you; he or she may be saying such words to get elected again; or to be considered “patriotic” or “strong” or “effective”. Always listen to the words and match them to the actions. The outcome may surprise you and open your eyes to what is actually going on.

—Because it always elects the candidate most exactly in the middle of all
voting, RB is “top-dead-center-counter-extremist” & thus more anti-
terrorist than all the recent retrenchments combined. While it would
be equally useful for all else, RB’s real power is perhaps most clearly
shown in the case of potential inter-tribal war, as in Iraq. Had they not
chosen to require a (minimalist elitist) 2/3 vote for Prime Minister (“The Week”,
022406), a “variant” of RB, the Parliament might have lacked
(& still might lack) stability & the world would have been (& may still be) in danger
of going to war over some oil well, or multi-ethnic city. Elitism may
yet prove too clever. (Perhaps they’ll have to agree to deny the PM-ship
to all the parties’ leaders & hold a secret RB vote among the
parliament’s members before they’re done.) RB would be equally useful
for all other parliamentary &/or presidential systems, cooperatives,
collective leaderships, tribal groupings, religious confessions,
political parties, associations & cabals as well.
—Because it gives the minorities a real say in which majority member gets
chosen, RB is the only thing that will lead them to support of any plan more
than inadequate confederation.
—Because it gives all combinations of programs, not just parties, an equal
chance, RB is the only thing that’s truly just.
—Because it provides real-time alternatives to all proposals, from wherever:
market, coop or social, RB has brakes, reverse, 3D hyper-drive & goes
sideways. It will result in “phantasmagoric subtlefaction”. Both more
Liberty and Justice can be found in RB than in any ideology. Help put this
idea, in time (before “clockwork orange”, “1984”, cosmic collision
“category seven”, economic collapse or literalist contretemps) to as many
as possible. The $15,000 cost of a single full-page ad in USA Today,
enough to put RB to virtually everyone involved on earth, would be repaid
in a year & a half at the pre-9/11 US annual defense spending of $10,000
per family.
—You too run on the single issue of RB, promising a citizens’
advisory board based on OC to guide us in the rest, from the most local
on up, or at least only as a subterranean internal policy within your
personal group. Ten to the power of ten (ten levels of random groups of ten)
would be sufficient to organize & unite all mankind. The “additive”
form of RB, is to count first choices & then, if noone has 50 %, to add
in the next choices, & so on, until someone finally does. RB is the sole
unchangeable plank & bylaw of the Preferential (what RB’s called in
Robert’s Rules of Order) Ballot Party, the only practicable third party.
The more skewed (less top dead center) more commonly espoused,
“eliminative” form of RB, is called “IRV” (Instant Runoff Voting).
—While the Iraqis saw fit to include “their” (elitist) 2/3
vote in the new Iraqi constitution for PM, neither the Reps nor Dems spoke
out for a super majority during the recent Supreme Court
confirmations. Good enough for emergency situations, Australia, New
Zealand, Kerala India, Iraq, London, Ireland, Cambridge Mass, Vermont,
Ferndale Mich (?), Frisco, Berkeley, Takoma Park, the House Reps for
selecting the majority leader, the Utah Republican Party for nominations,
& both the Green & Libertarian parties, but not good enough for the rest of
us? Must be in somebody’s interest. How can we ask it of others if we do
not have it ourselves? I should accept if my name wins with the write-ins.
“Zoe”
www.preferentialballotparty.org
USA, Planet Earth

But oh, I forgot. He didn’t work there then! Silly me. But plenty of others did, and plenty saw that cute little wartime souvenir. So go way out on a limb and ask him anyway.