Saturday, June 26, 2010

Media Missing the McChrystal Point

From: FAIR
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 12:19 PM
Subject: Media Missing the McChrystal Point in Rolling Stone

For the full Rolling Stone article, The Runaway General, click on:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/22-5  -Ed

Having trouble reading this message? Access it on our website: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4105

FAIR

Media Advisory
Media Missing the McChrystal Point

6/25/10

The media firestorm over the Rolling Stone profile (6/22/10) of General Stanley McChrystal mostly missed the real point of the article, which was a damning portrait of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Much of the media coverage stressed the criticism and insults hurled by McChrystal and his staff at various administration figures. Some of these remarks were more substantive than others. A joke about Joe Biden ("Bite Me") has been overblown; McChrystal and his staff seemed to be suggesting a list of possible gaffes the general might make following a speech.

The real significance of the piece is in the criticism--voiced by soldiers in Afghanistan and military experts--of the war itself. "Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm," wrote Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings.

A senior adviser to McChrystal stated, "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular." Hastings added that some officials see the war requiring a much larger troop presence: "Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further."

Hastings conveyed a sense of confusion over precisely what the mission in Afghanistan is supposed to be. Some soldiers complained that the rules of engagement put them at greater risk, though they were uncertain whether these were McChrystal's intended policies or rules that have been, as Hastings put it, "distorted as they passed through the chain of command."

Hastings also pointed out that McChrystal's history has been glossed over by the media, beginning in Iraq: "When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his infamous 'stuff happens' remark during the looting of Baghdad, McChrystal backed him up. A few days later, he echoed the president's Mission Accomplished gaffe by insisting that major combat operations in Iraq were over."

After Army ranger (and former pro football player) Pat Tillman was killed in 2004, McChrystal "signed off on a falsified recommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn't read the recommendation closely enough--a strange excuse for a commander known for his laserlike attention to minute details.)"

In 2006, there was a scandal about torture and abuse reminiscent of Abu Ghraib at another detention facility in Iraq that was overseen by McChrystal. "McChrystal was not disciplined in the scandal," Rolling Stone reported, "even though an interrogator at the camp reported seeing him inspect the prison multiple times."

Hastings concluded that the media have mostly "given McChrystal a pass" on these controversies. Indeed, a Washington Post story (6/24/10) on McChrystal's ouster noted in passing that he "had to fend off allegations that he played a role in the Army's mishandling of the death of Ranger Cpl. Pat Tillman," and that he "faced criticism for his oversight of detention facilities where prisoner abuse occurred."

Discussing the broader message of the Rolling Stone article is clearly not something the White House wants--and neither do corporate media, preferring the personal drama of military officials making politically damaging comments about political leaders, and the White House's attempt to assert control.

Thus, Obama's decision to dismiss McChrystal and bring in General David Petraeus seemed to bring sighs of relief. As Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote (6/23/10), it was a "rare" but welcome sight: "The commander in chief was being commanding." Milbank added that Obama's "best moments as president" including "defying his own party to ecalate the fight in Afghanistan."

The fact that he named Petraeus as McChrystal's replacement was essentially swapping one media favorite with another (Extra!, 11-12/07). "Naming the highly respected Petraeus as the new commander is by all accounts a great save," explained ABC Pentagon reporter Martha Raddatz (Nightline, 6/23/10). "It allows the administration to continue the same counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan without missing a beat." Raddatz helpfully added this assessment: "A warrior and a scholar, Petraeus is sometimes jokingly referred to as a water walker, since almost everything he touches seems to turn to gold."

Similar pronouncements were heard throughout the corporate media. The right-wing Media Research Center gathered them in a video reel, which Fox host Bill O'Reilly used on his June 24 show. Apparently the media's gushing enthusiasm for Petraeus is yet another sign of their left-wing bias.

So a story that was an indictment of the war became a lesson in how the White House would be sticking with its plan. As the Washington Post (6/24/10) put it, Obama's "decision to turn over the Afghan command to Gen. David H. Petraeus allowed the president to keep his war strategy intact." NBC Pentagon reporter Jim Miklasziewski (6/23/10) declared that "the military is very high on David Petraeus, and there should be no slowdown or hitch in the Afghanistan strategy." NBC reporter Chuck Todd (6/23/10) noted that the "one thing the president made clear: He may be changing commanders, but not the mission.... Trading McChrystal for Petraeus neutralized what could have turned into another political mess."

Of course, the war in Afghanistan would already seem to qualify as a "mess," to say the very least. But for now, Obama asserted presidential control--and that's something most reporters and pundits were eager to cheer.


Unsubscribe from this list

If you were forwarded this message and you want to receive future FAIR alerts delivered directly to you, subscribe by clicking here.

Home | Contact Us | Support Us | RSS | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Saturday: Los Angeles Rally to Save Social Security

 
Saturday, June 26: Los Angeles Rally to Save Social Security

Testimony, picket & rally at The Western Justice Center Foundation
55 South Grand Avenue, in Pasadena. From 7:30 a.m. until noon.
 
 
Social Security is under attack. But this Saturday in Los Angeles, you can
help fight back.

The Deficit Commission is the executive panel charged with deciding our
country's spending priorities. The problem is, it's filled with people who
are obsessed with using the deficit as an excuse to cut Social Security and
Medicare.

Until now, the commission has been holding only closed-door meetings in
Washington. But this Saturday, an outside group that will report back to the
commission is holding town halls on the budget across the country.

Here's the catch: that outside group is sponsored by a billionaire hedge
fund manager who's been working to gut Social Security and Medicare for
decades, and the organizers get to decide who can attend.

We need to speak out now so the commission knows that Americans won't let
their Social Security be cut. So we're partnering with a bunch of
progressive allies to hold rallies outside their events. We'll speak out and
make sure the media knows about the many progressive solutions to the
deficit‹like rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts and rooting out wasteful
military spending.

It's critical that we have a big crowd to show politicians and the media how
strongly voters feel about this. Can you make it to a rally outside the town
hall on Saturday morning at 7:30 a.m.?

The town halls are funded by Pete G. Peterson‹a Wall St. banker who has
pledged $1 billion to a campaign to end Social Security as we know it. Yet,
members of the official deficit commission are participating as if these are
neutral forums. That includes the co-chairs Erskine Bowles‹a board member
for JP Morgan‹and former Senator Alan Simpson‹who just got caught calling
people who need Social Security "lesser people."

It's critical that there are people at these town halls who understand that
Social Security didn't create the deficit, and cutting benefits won't
eliminate it.
By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus, and it will pay
full benefits until 2037.
Social Security benefits 53.2 million Americans, including 10 million
disabled Americans under 65, and over 6 million survivors of deceased
workers. It's often the only source of income for these people, and cuts
could be disastrous.
Social Security belongs to the people who pay into it every day of their
working lives, and cutting it is unfair and unacceptable.

So we need to get the message out. At the counter demonstrations we'll be
sharing stories from the people who rely on Social Security and Medicare,
making clear what's at stake. We'll also hand out fliers to town hall
participants explaining the facts about Social Security's future.

We really need a good showing on Saturday in Los Angeles. Can you join us?

<http://moveon.org/>http://moveon.org/

Inventing a Nation of Deficit Hawks, The Spill's Worst-Case Scenario, After McCrystal

From: ReaderSupportedNews

The Oil Spill's Worst-Case Scenario?

By Jeneen Interlandi
Newsweek: June 23, 2010

Efforts to stop the flow may have set the stage for an even bigger
catastrophe. Click on:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/23/the-oil-spill-s-worst-case-scenario.html

***

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4103

Inventing a Nation of Deficit Hawks

WaPo, NYT misreport polls on public and spending

"Gallup survey (6/17/10) for example, found that 60 percent of the public
approved of 'additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate
the economy."'

FAIR (For Accuracy In Reporting)
Posted 6/24/10

Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress like to argue that public
concern over federal budget deficits makes it impossible to pass a new round
of job-creating stimulus spending. And corporate media like to echo these
sentiments, despite there being little evidence that citizens are as
concerned about these issues as inside-the-Beltway deficit hawks.

In the June 21 New York Times, John Harwood wrote, "The same polls that show
voters upset about joblessness also show them upset about deficit spending,
which Democratic leaders consider their only short-term method of reducing
joblessness."

The Washington Post (6/19/10) put the same narrative on its front page under
the headline, "Election-Year Deficit Fears Stall Obama Stimulus Plan."
Reporter Lori Montgomery acknowledged that many economists see a greater
threat looming if the government doesn't provide additional stimulus. But,
she countered, "a competing threat--the exploding federal budget
deficit--seems to be resonating more powerfully in Congress and among
voters." The piece went on to note that the first stimulus package does not
appear to poll very well, and that voters "are sending mixed signals about
whether Washington should spend more on jobs or start minding the national
debt."

But most recent polls show far more public concern over unemployment than
deficit spending or the federal debt. As FAIR noted (FAIR Blog, 5/19/10),
recent surveys from CBS/New York Times and NBC/Wall Street Journal asked
voters to rank problems facing the country. Unemployment was more important
by a spread of 49 percent to 5 percent in the CBS/NYT poll, 35 percent to 20
percent in the NBC/WSJ survey, and 47 percent to 15 percent from a recent
Fox poll. Blogger Ben Somberg raised similar questions (6/19/10) in response
to the Post story.

And with all the media hysteria over federal spending and the deficit, the
public seems to have a somewhat muddled view of why it's even an issue. A
recent Pew/National Journal survey (6/17-20/10) that found 74 percent of
respondents believed that--contrary to what most economists would tell
you--"budget cuts to reduce the federal deficit" would help create jobs. The
same poll found similarly wide majorities seeing job creation from
additional spending on public works programs, more aid to state and local
governments, and cutting business and income taxes--all policies that would
increase the deficit. Surveys in which the public ranks these conflicting
priorities consistently give the deficit little emphasis.

So when the Post begins a May 19 story, "With voters up in arms over the
mounting federal debt," where is the evidence for that characterization? Or
for Times writer Matt Bai's suggestion (6/17/10) that "the federal deficit
has emerged as a chief concern for voters"? Or when the Times reported
(6/18/10) that the Senate's failure to pass a spending bill was evidence
that lawmakers "reacting to rising public concern, have grown reluctant to
vote for measures that add to federal red ink."

The evidence certainly isn't in the polls. One recent Gallup survey
(6/17/10), for example, found that 60 percent of the public approved of
"additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy."
One of the few polls to ask people to choose between jobs and the deficit
directly (CBS/NYT, 4/5-12/10) found 50 percent agreeing that "the federal
government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means increasing
the budget deficit," with 42 percent choosing deficit-reduction over
job-creating stimulus.

If such polls were taken seriously, news reports would state that
politicians were bucking public opinion in order to pursue fiscal austerity.
But outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post have turned
reality on its head.

ACTION: Please ask the New York Times and Washington Post to stop suggesting
that the public cares more about the federal budget deficit than job
creation.

CONTACT:
Arthur Brisbane
New York Times Public Editor
public@nytimes.com

Andrew Alexander
Ombud, Washington Post
ombudsman@washpost.com

***

http://www.thenation.com/blog/36568/after-mcchrystal-time-change-course-afghanistan?rel=emailNation

After McChrystal, Time to Change Course in Afghanistan

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor
TheNation: June 23, 2010

Editor's Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt of Katrina vanden Heuvel's
column at the WashingtonPost.com.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal has submitted his resignation. Or he's been fired.
In any case, it was time for him to go. His departure will help slow the
increasing erosion in civil-military relations-aided by both political
parties over the last 20 years-which has threatened civilian control of the
military.

It also means we can now turn to a more fundamental exit debate: How do we
change course and craft a responsible strategy to end the war in
Afghanistan?

It is critical we have this debate. Here's one good reason: McChrystal's top
aide believes this war is unwinnable. In the most important quote in Rolling
Stone's fascinating article, Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville argues that the only
way we win in Afghanistan is to redefine failure as victory: "It's not going
to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win. This is going to
end in an argument."

So, instead of redefining failure as victory, shouldn't we be debating how
to fundamentally change course?

Read the rest of Katrina's column at www.WashingtonPost.com.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka's Address in Cleveland

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/63-63/2135-afl-cio-president-richard-l-trumkas-address-in-cleveland

AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka's Address in Cleveland

Richard L. Trumka, AFL-CIO
June 19, 2010

Richard Trumka is arguably labor's most gifted communicator. He thinks big
without straying from his roots. It's a raw and powerful blend.


Thank you, President Roller [City Club Board President Jan Roller].
Good afternoon. I am delighted to be here with you in the great city of
Cleveland. I want to talk to you about the grave economic challenges we face
today - and the labor movement's vision for where we need to go.

There is no better place to have a discussion about our economic challenges
than Cleveland-where business and labor built the American middle class.
Cleveland embodies both the consequences of our failed economic policies of
the last three decades - and our hope for a different future.

The economic crisis has hit hard here-116,000 lost jobs in the last decade
in Cuyahoga County. Eighty-six thousand home foreclosures last year alone. A
self-defeating attempt to address budget shortfalls by attacking school
budgets and teachers.

But we can also see a glimpse of a better future in the Lake Erie wind
turbine project-with turbines built here in Ohio, in the OneCommunity
Project fiber optic network, and in Cleveland's role as a global center of
fuel cell development.

We're at a turning point today. The economic course our nation started on in
1980-the effort to have a low-wage, high-consumption society that imports
more and more of what it consumes-has hit the wall. We cannot afford to stay
this course- of letting the private sector and the financial markets run
amok, of outsourcing everything that's not nailed to the floor, and of
pushing down workers every chance we get. And last night's vote by
Republicans in the United States Senate to block a simple extension of
unemployment benefits for the most hard-pressed people without jobs is just
the latest shame. At some point, there is nobody left to buy the junk that
we import from everywhere but here.

We now face a future of prolonged high unemployment and stagnant or falling
wages-unless we do something different.

Today I am going to talk about doing something different.

We need a new national economic strategy for a global economy.

At the heart of our strategy must be a workforce with world class skills and
world class rights and trade policies that serve the interests of the
American people. But today I also want to talk to you about what may seem
like a strange subject--immigration--because it is patently clear that we
cannot talk about our national workforce strategy unless we face head-on our
own contradictions, hypocrisy and history on immigration.

The truth is that in a dynamic global economy in the 21st century, we simply
cannot afford to have millions of hard-working people without legal
protections, without meaningful access to higher education, shut off from
the high-wage, high-productivity economy. It is just too costly to waste all
that talent and strength and drive.

But immigration reform is not just an economic issue. The way we as a nation
treat the immigrants among us is about more than economic strategy-it is
about who we are as a nation.

I grew up in a small town in Southwestern Pennsylvania, not that far from
here. The immigrant path led from the coalmines to Pittsburgh to Cleveland.

And if you look around Cleveland at the ethnic clubs and the churches, you
see a city that immigrants built--Hungarians and Poles, Irish and Italians,
Serbs and Croats and Jews, as well as African Americans. Cleveland is a city
where the traditions of the places we came from are the very foundation of
our community.

It was not easy when my family came to this country. My parents fled poverty
and war from different corners of Europe. When I was a kid, there was an
ugly name for every one of us in all twelve languages spoken in Nemacolin,
PA-wop and hunkie and polack and kike. We were the last hired and first
fired, the people who did the hardest and most dangerous work, the people
whose pay got shorted because we didn't know the language and were afraid to
complain.

We got to the mines and the mills, and the people already there said we were
taking their jobs, ruining their country. Yet in the end the immigrants of
my parents' and grandparents' generation prevailed, and built America. This
is the history of my family, and this is the story of Cleveland and
Pittsburgh and Detroit and Chicago and Baltimore and a thousand cities and
towns across America.

And yet today I hear from working people who should know better, some in my
own family - that those immigrants are taking our jobs, ruining our country.
Haven't we been here before?

When I hear that kind of talk, I want to say, did an immigrant move your
plant overseas? Did an immigrant take away your pension? Or cut your health
care? Did an immigrant destroy American workers' right to organize? Or crash
the financial system? Did immigrant workers write the trade laws that have
done so much harm to Ohio?

My friends, we are most of us the children of immigrants.

But there was no labor movement in America until workers learned to look at
each other and see not immigrants and native born, not white and black, not
different last names, but our common fate as workers.

The labor movement believes that our goal as a nation should be a future of
shared prosperity - not stubborn unemployment and a lost generation. That
our economic strategy must bring us together instead of driving us apart.
Our strategy must help us be the kind of country we want our children to
thrive in-the country our history tells us we can be. The home of the
American Dream.

So exactly what is the American Dream? Some will tell you the American Dream
is the idea that in America anyone can become rich. And the fact that the
upper reaches of our society are relatively open is a good thing about our
country-but it is not the American Dream.

The American Dream is not that a few of us will get to be rich, but that all
of us will have a fair portion of the good things in life. Time to be with
our families. The chance for our children to get an education and the
opportunity to make their own way in the world. Laws that protect us, not
oppress us.

The American labor movement is all about the pursuit and the defense of this
idea of America. And we have learned through our history that it is only
when working people stand together-in the workplace and at the polling
place-that the American Dream is secure.

Recently, the American Dream brought a man my age named Elvino and his son
Ramon to America from Mexico. They are experienced bricklayers and were
hired to work on a large mixed-use housing development-a public project.
They and thirty others worked for five weeks, and the contractor just never
paid them.

For too many immigrants seeking the American Dream, this is the American
reality. Hard work rewarded with ripoffs. And then no way to seek justice.
That's why I am so proud to be able to say that Elvino, Ramon and their
co-workers are taking this injustice to the U.S. Department of Labor, thanks
to the efforts of Bricklayers Union Local 18 in Cincinnati and the
Interfaith Worker Rights Center-whose members understand that truly an
injury to one is an injury to all.

Immigration to the United States is part of a larger picture-the picture of
how we are getting globalization wrong. There is no better way to understand
that than to look at what has happened between the United States and Mexico
since NAFTA was implemented in 1994.

NAFTA was sold to the American public on the idea that increasing trade with
Mexico would create good jobs in both countries and slow the flow of
undocumented workers coming to the U.S. from Mexico.

Instead, inequality has grown and workers' rights have eroded in both the
U.S. and Mexico since NAFTA's passage. And illegal immigration flows have
tripled.

Today we treat our relationship with Mexico as if it were a national
security problem-solvable with military aid and a militarized border. And
that is a dangerous mistake. The failures of our relationship with Mexico
represent a failed economic strategy. They cannot be solved with guns and
soldiers and fences. They must be addressed through an economic strategy for
shared prosperity based on rising wages in both countries.

Instead, at the heart of the failure of our immigration policy is an
unpleasant fact, one that you almost never hear talked about openly: Too
many U.S. employers actually like the current state of the immigration
system-a system where immigrants are both plentiful and undocumented-afraid
and available. Too many employers like a system where our borders are closed
and open at the same time-closed enough to turn immigrants into second-class
citizens, open enough to ensure an endless supply of socially and legally
powerless cheap labor.

Our immigration system makes a mockery of the American dream. The people
doing the hardest work for the least money have no legal protections, no
ability to send their children to college, no real right to form a union, no
economic or legal security-no way to turn their contributions-their years of
hard work-into the most fundamental right of all, the right to vote. That is
intolerable for a democracy.

Recently, I met a young woman named Fabiola, who came to the United States
when she was two years old. Her parents have worked in the United States for
twenty-two years. Fifteen years ago, her father became a U.S. citizen, so
all her younger siblings who were born here also are citizens. But Fabiola
fell through the legal cracks and is now too old to become a citizen under
current immigration law.

But that has not stopped her from working hard to live the American Dream.
Recently, she graduated from the University of California with a degree in
international development. But she cannot find a job in her field because
she is undocumented.

How does Fabiola's story make any sense in economic or human terms? Her
talents and her education are being squandered because our immigration
system is simply not working

That is why the AFL-CIO is fighting to fix this broken immigration system as
a crucial element of our broader economic strategy. Because we stand for the
American Dream for all who work in our country. Because we are for ending
our two-tiered workforce and our two-tiered society. And because an
underclass of disenfranchised workers ends up hurting all workers.

But we are not for any kind of immigration reform. We will not support the
return to outdated guest worker programs that give immigrants no security,
no future here in the United States, no rights and no hope of being part of
the American Dream.

Immigration reform must begin with the principle that workers in the United
States deserve to enjoy a fair share of the wealth we create-that wages
should move up with productivity. The labor movement and a broad coalition
of faith-based and immigrants' rights groups have worked with former
Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall to put together such a program for
comprehensive immigration reform.

The AFL-CIO is for a fair path toward legalization for all undocumented
workers who are working to realize the American Dream. We are for the DREAM
Act, that gives young people like Fabiola a future in the only country they
know.

We need an independent commission to determine our society's genuine need
for more immigrants, and then we need to build a pathway that allows
immigrants to be securely part of our country from day one-able to assert
their legal rights, including the right to organize, without fear of
retaliation.

And together with this commission, going forward we are for establishing
real penalties for employers who break the law. We must focus enforcement
not on those who come here seeking the American Dream, but on those who
would exploit them.

This is the reform the labor movement is fighting for.

But instead, we see today a dangerous drift toward a politics of hate. Last
month, I went to Arizona to stand with working people who were the target of
a hate campaign-a campaign for racial profiling waged by the state
legislature and signed into law by the governor. A campaign to make anyone
who might look like an immigrant live in fear of the police. All of us
should fear such a system: In the end, don't all of us who aren't Native
Americans look like the immigrants and children of immigrants that we are?

As President of the AFL-CIO, my message to working people is that we all are
bound together by our lives as workers, our dreams for our families, and our
hopes for this country's future. The labor movement stands for giving all
workers in America the right to dream the American Dream.

Unfortunately, the American Dream is slipping away.

Today, as in any economic crisis, there are people who offer hatred and
divisiveness as the solution to the crisis. If our political leaders do not
lead, if they do not offer help in the present and a clear strategy for
prosperity in the future-starting with good jobs-those voices of hate will
grow, they will become more powerful, and they will feed on the public's
anger and pain and desperation.

President Obama has laid out in broad terms the approach we need to take. He
has spoken out for creating good jobs, rebuilding manufacturing, taking on
the challenge of climate change and energy independence, growing exports and
investing in our infrastructure, including our education infrastructure.

If we are truly going to build a world class workforce, we need to restore
workers' fundamental human right to organize and bargain with their
employers. And we need to make sure every worker in America - documented or
undocumented - is protected by our labor laws. That is why it is so urgent
that we reform our immigration system.

The President's strategy also requires that we invest in rebuilding our
country. Consider this fact-as a result of the economic recovery act, we are
now in the process of planning approximately 500 miles of high-speed rail,
including lines here in Ohio. Sounds good, until you realize that China, a
country about the same size as the United States, is in the process of
constructing 5,000 miles of high-speed rail.

Restoring workers' rights and building workers' skills. Creating the
infrastructure of the 21st century. Thinking strategically when it comes to
trade policy. These are the strategies for making the American Dream as real
for our children as it was for my parents.

But that will not be enough. We as a nation must be true to our better
selves-employers must not make a buck on the backs of workers who live in
fear of deportation, and workers must stand together in the workplace for
good jobs, safe jobs, health care for all, and retirement security we can
count on. And so when we talk about making the American Dream real, the
labor movement stands for making it real for all of us who do the work of
our country. All of us-no matter what we look like, who we choose to love,
or where we come from. Surely there we can find common ground.

Thank you.

Switch to Petraeus Exposes Afghan Policy Crisis

http://ipsnews.net/text/news.asp?idnews=51930

Switch to Petraeus Betrays Afghan Policy Crisis

by Gareth Porter
IPS: June 24, 2010

*WASHINGTON (IPS) - Despite President Barack Obama's denial that his
decision to fire Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as commander in Afghanistan and
replace him with Gen. David Petraeus signified any differences with
McChrystal over war strategy, the decision obviously reflects a desire by
Obama to find a way out of a deepening policy crisis in Afghanistan.*

Although the ostensible reason was indiscreet comments by McChrystal and his
aides reported in Rolling Stone, the switch from McChrystal to Petraeus was
clearly the result of White House unhappiness with McChrystal's handling of
the war.

It had become evident in recent weeks that McChrystal's strategy is not
working as he had promised, and Congress and the U.S. political elite had
already become very uneasy about whether the war was on the wrong track.

In calling on Petraeus, the Obama administration appears to be taking a page
from the George W. Bush administration's late 2006 decision to rescue a war
in Iraq which was generally perceived in Washington as having become an
embarrassing failure. But both Obama and Petraeus are acutely aware of the
differences between the situation in Iraq at that moment and the situation
in Afghanistan today.

In taking command in Iraq in 2007, Petraeus was being called upon to
implement a dramatically new counterinsurgency strategy based on a major
"surge" in U.S. troops.

Obama will certainly be put under pressure by the Republican Party, led by
Sen. John McCain, to agree to eliminate the mid-2011 deadline for the
beginning of a U.S. withdrawal and perhaps even for yet another troop surge
in Afghanistan.

But accounts of Obama administration policymaking on the war last year make
it clear that Obama caved into military pressure in 2009 for the troop surge
of 2010 only as part of a compromise under which McChrystal and Petraeus
agreed to a surge of 18 months duration. It was clearly understood by both
civilian and military officials, moreover, that after the surge was
completed, the administration would enter into negotiations on a settlement
of the war.

Petraeus's political skills and ability to sell a strategy involving a
negotiated settlement offers Obama more flexibility than he has had with
McChrystal in command.

Contrary to the generally accepted view that Petraeus mounted a successful
counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, his main accomplishment was to make the
first formal accommodation with Sunni insurgents.

Petraeus demonstrated in his command in Iraq a willingness to adjust
strategic objectives in light of realities he could not control. He had it
made it clear to his staff at the outset that they would make one last
effort to show progress, but that he would tell Congress that it was time to
withdraw if he found that it was not working.

As commander in Iraq, Petraeus chose staff officers who were sceptics and
realists rather than true believers, according to accounts from members of
his staff in Iraq. When one aide proposed in a memorandum in the first weeks
of his command coming to terms with the Shia insurgents led by Moqtada al
Sadr, for example, Petraeus did not dismiss the idea.

That willingness to listen to viewpoints that may not support the existing
strategy stands in sharp contrast to McChrystal's command style in
Afghanistan. McChrystal has relied heavily on a small circle of friends,
mainly from his years as Special Operations Forces (SOF) commander, who have
been deeply suspicious of the views of anyone from outside that SOF circle,
according to sources who are familiar with the way his inner circle has
operated.

In an interview with IPS, one military source who knows McChrystal and his
staff described a "very tight" inner circle of about eight people which
"does everything together, including getting drunk".

"McChrystal surrounded himself with yes men," said another source who has
interacted with some of those in the inner circle. "When people have
challenged the conventional wisdom, he's had them booted out," the source
said.

The McChrystal inner circle has been accustomed to the insularity that
Special Operations Forces have traditionally had in carrying out their
operations, the source added.

The primary example of McChrystal's rejection of outside expertise that
challenged his beliefs cited by the sources is the case of David Kilcullen.

Kilcullen, a retired Australian Army officer, is recognised as one of the
most knowledgeable specialists on insurgency and was an adviser to Petraeus
in Iraq in 2007-2008. Kilcullen is known for speaking his mind, even if it
conflicts with existing policy.

After McChrystal took command of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last
year, Kilcullen was slated to become an adviser on his staff. But after some
early interactions between Kilcullen, and the McChrystal team, that decision
was reversed, the sources said.

Kilcullen's views on targeted killings as wrongheaded clashed with the
assumptions of McChrystal and his inner circle.

McChrystal's staff was also supposed to create a "red team" of outside
specialists on Afghanistan who could provide different perspectives and
information, but after the inner circle around McChrystal tightened its
control over outside information, the idea was allowed to die, according to
one source.

Several members of McChrystal's inner circle are officers who worked for the
general during his five-year stint as head of the Joint Special Operations
Command, which carried out targeted raids aimed at killing or capturing
insurgent leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 to 2008, the sources
say.

Two of the key officers on McChrystal's staff who were part of his former
JSOC inner circle are his intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn and
his Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville.

Flynn was McChrystal's director of intelligence at JSOC from 2004 to 2007
and then his director of intelligence at the Joint Staff in 2008-2008.
Mayville also served under McChrystal at JSOC.

McChrystal's political adviser, retired Army Col. Jacob McFerren, is not a
veteran of JSOC. But he is described by one source familiar with
McChrystal's team as one of the general's old Army "drinking buddies".

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in
U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book,
"Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam",
was published in 2006.

(FIN/2010)
_______________________________________________
Rad-Green mailing list
Rad-Green@lists.econ.utah.edu

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

NY Times: McChrystal Out, Guns vs Butter

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html

Obama Relieves McChrystal of Command

By HELENE COOPER and JACK HEALY
Published: June 23, 2010

WASHINGTON - President Obama removed Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as commander
of American forces in Afghanistan on Wednesday, and tapped as his
replacement the general's boss and the architect of the 2007 surge in Iraq,
Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Mr. Obama, standing with General Petraeus and Vice President Joseph R. Biden
Jr. in the White House Rose Garden to underline the continuity and solidity
of his Afghan policy, said that he had accepted General McChrystal's
resignation "with considerable regret."

Mr. Obama said he had done so not out of personal insult, but because a
magazine article featuring contemptuous quotes from the general and his
staff about senior administration officials had not met standards of
behavior for a commanding general, and threatened to erode trust among
administration and military officials and undermine civilian control of the
military.

"War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or
president," Mr. Obama said. "As difficult as it is to lose General
McChrystal, I believe it is the right decision for national security."

"I welcome debate among my team," he said, "but I won't tolerate division."

Mr. Obama stressed that the change in leadership did not signal a shift in
his overall war strategy in Afghanistan, where thousands of new American
troops have been arriving in recent months among increasing casualties and
growing questions about the progress of the war.

"It is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy," Mr. Obama
said.

The reshuffle injected new uncertainties into relations between the United
States and the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who had urged American
leaders to let General McChrystal remain in place.

Although General Petraeus has held overarching responsibility for the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan as the head of the United States Central Command, it
was General McChrystal who spent more time in Afghanistan, building the
trust of Mr. Karzai and traveling to tribal meetings with him.

In a brief statement, General McChrystal said he supported the strategy in
Afghanistan and had resigned out of a "desire to see the mission succeed."

General McChrystal and Mr. Obama met for about 20 minutes earlier in the
day, after the general flew from Afghanistan to Washington on Tuesday amid a
growing furor over the article in Rolling Stone magazine.

The article quoted General McChrystal and his aides speaking critically of
nearly every member of the president's national security team, saying
President Obama appeared "uncomfortable and intimidated" during his first
meeting with the general, and dismissing Vice President Biden as "Bite Me."

The firestorm over the article was fueled by increasing doubts - even in the
military - that Afghanistan can be won and by crumbling public support for
the nine-year war as American casualties rise. The remarks also laid bare
the disarray and enmity in a foreign policy team that is struggling with the
war.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, once the general's biggest supporter,
criticized General McChrystal for "a significant mistake" while Adm. Mike
Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was described by a senior
aide as "deeply disappointed" by the comments. But Hamid Karzai, the Afghan
president, and his powerful half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, mounted a
full-throated defense of General McChrystal.

The Afghanistan team has suffered many internal conflicts, including
complaints from the American ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, about Richard
C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. In
one episode that dramatized the building animosities, Gen. James L. Jones,
the national security adviser, wrote to Ambassador Eikenberry in February,
sympathizing with his complaints about a visit Mr. Holbrooke had recently
made to Afghanistan. In the note, which went out over channels that were not
secure, officials said, General Jones soothed the ambassador by suggesting
that Mr. Holbrooke would soon be removed from his job.

The Jones note prompted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to
complain to Mr. Obama, and her support for Mr. Holbrooke has kept him in his
job.

In the Rolling Stone article, which was posted on the magazine's Web site on
Tuesday, one of General McChrystal's aides is quoted as referring to General
Jones as a "clown."

The infighting has been made more severe by the increasingly perilous
situation on the ground. Violence in Afghanistan is on the rise. The mission
to pacify Marja and Kandahar is far off track. And the effort to create a
viable Afghan government is increasingly in doubt because of widespread
corruption. Criticism is mounting on Capitol Hill, even among the
president's
backers, and many allies have announced that they are looking for the exit,
with others expected to do the same in the coming months.

General McChrystal had proved to be the one American official most able to
successfully deal with Mr. Karzai on a daily basis. Beyond that, Mr. Obama's
war strategy is in many ways a McChrystal strategy. The general devised the
plan, which called for thousands of extra troops to fight the insurgency
and, perhaps more important, create a sense of security for the Afghan
people.

There has been vigorous debate within the administration about how to
proceed in Afghanistan, but General McChrystal and his aides did not overtly
criticize administration policy.

Rather, the differences were personal, and publicly aired. One
administration official described Mr. Obama as being particularly furious at
a McChrystal aide's characterization of him as not seeming "very engaged"
during that first White House meeting.

Over all, the magazine article depicted General McChrystal at the head of a
small circle of aides engaged in what came close to locker-room trash talk
as they discussed foreign policy, the French, their allegiance to one
another and their own concerns about course of the war. The civilian
communications adviser who set up the interview, Duncan Boothby, has
resigned.


Helene Cooper reported from Washington and Jack Healy from New York.
Reporting was contributed by Dexter Filkins from Kabul, Afghanistan, and
Thom Shanker and Mark Landler from Washington.

***

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/obeys-afghanistan-at-long_b_617302.html

Obey's Afghanistan: At Long Last, It's Guns vs Butter

Robert Naiman: Policy Director, Just Foreign Policy
Huffingtonpost: JUne 18, 2010

One of the many destructive legacies of the Reagan Era was the effective
Washington consensus that wars and other military spending exist on their
own fiscal planet. Reagan got a Dixiecrat Congress to double military
spending at a time when the U.S. was not at war (unless you were a poor
person in Central America.) Meanwhile, Reagan got the Dixiecrat Congress to
cut domestic spending - we just couldn't afford those costly social
programs. Reagan pretended the two things were totally unrelated, and the
Dixiecrat Congress went along.


Ever since, the Democratic leadership and the big Democratic constituency
groups have largely collaborated in maintaining the destructive fiction that
we can shovel tax dollars to war and to corporate welfare called "defense
spending" without having any impact on our ability to provide quality
education, health care, effective enforcement of environmental, civil
rights, and worker safety laws, and other basic services to our citizens
that are taken for granted by the citizens of every other industrialized
country.

But maybe - maybe - that destructive connivance is coming to an end.

This week, House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey told the White
House that he was going to sit on the Administration's request for $33
billion more for pointless killing in Afghanistan until the White House
acted on House Democratic demands to unlock federal money to aid the states
in averting a wave of layoffs of teachers and other public employees.

Obey didn't just link the two issues rhetorically; he linked them with the
threat of effective action.

At last, at long last.

But why is David Obey standing alone?

Perhaps, behind the scenes, the big Democratic constituency groups are
pulling for Obey.

But you wouldn't know it from any public manifestation. Why? This should be
a "teachable moment," an opportunity to mobilize the majority of America's
working families to push to redirect resources from futile wars of empire
and the corporate welfare of the "base military budget" to human needs at
home and abroad. Where is the public mobilization of the Democratic
constituency groups?

If we could shorten the Afghanistan war by a month, that would free up the
$10 billion that Obey is asking for domestic spending. Rep. Jim McGovern's
bill requiring a timetable for military redeployment from Afghanistan
currently has 94 co-sponsors in the House (act here.) If McGovern's bill
became law, it would surely save the taxpayers at least $10 billion. Why
aren't the big Democratic constituency groups aggressively backing the
McGovern bill, demanding that it be attached to the war supplemental?

This isn't just a question of missing an opportunity. There is a freight
train coming called "deficit reduction." If the big Democratic constituency
groups continue to sit on their hands on the issue of military spending,
then we can predict what the cargo of that freight train is likely to be:
cut Social Security benefits, cut Medicare benefits, raise the retirement
age for Social Security and Medicare, cut domestic spending for enforcing
environmental regulations and civil rights and worker safety.

Ending the war in Afghanistan with a timetable for withdrawal would likely
save hundreds of billions of dollars. That's money that could be used to
prevent cuts from jobs and services at home.

And we can cut the "base military budget" - the money we are purportedly
spending to prepare for wars in the future, whether those wars have any
measurable probability of occurring or not - without having any impact on
our security.

The Sustainable Defense Task Force - initiated by Rep. Barney Frank, Rep.
Walter Jones, Rep. Ron Paul, and Sen. Ron Wyden - has modestly proposed a
trillion dollars in cuts to the military budget over ten years, targeting
long-derided weapons systems like F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and the V-22 Osprey. As Joshua Green notes
in the Boston Globe, even Dick Cheney says the V-22 is "a turkey." As the
current annual military expenditure of the U.S. is roughly $660 billion,
this would roughly amount to a 15% cut. Note that the U.S. is currently
spending about 4.3% of its GDP on the military, more than twice what China
spends as a percentage of its economy (2%.) If we cut our military spending
15%, we'd still be spending far more as a percentage of our economy (3.7%)
than China, and far more than Britain (2.5%) and France (2.3%). And in
absolute terms, we'd still be spending more than the next ten countries
combined - most of whom are our allies. Such a cut would free $100 billion a
year for deficit reduction and protecting domestic spending from cuts.

The president's Deficit Reduction Commission will recommend a package of
cuts to Congress in December for an up-or-down vote. Will the Deficit
Reduction Commission recommend real cuts to military spending?

On June 26, the deficit reduction freight train may be coming to your town.
The well-financed America Speaks is hosting a "national town hall"
discussion in twenty cities on June 26 about ways to cut the deficit,
promising that they will push the result into the Washington deficit-cutting
decision. Check to see if the freight train is coming to your town. If it
is, why not go and see if you can stow away some military spending cuts -
like ending the war and cutting the V22 - on board the train?

Dont Let the McChrystal Frenzy Obscure the Dirty Truth About Afghanistan

Hi. In sending you this particular essay I hope that people will look
beyond this maelstrom, in a way similar to looking beyond the Israeli
raid on the flotilla to the broad issue of Gaza and the ultimate isssues of
occupation and resolution of nationhood and peace in Israel/Palestine.
Just before the firing or not of McChrystal becomes the total focus of the
mass media and in turn, the public, here's a spur to keep eyes on the prize.

http://www.alternet.org/story/147302/dont_let_the_mcchrystal_frenzy_obscuure_the_dirty_truth_about_afghanistan

Dont Let the McChrystal Frenzy Obscure the Dirty Truth About Afghanistan

While we'll be treated to plenty of blather about the McChrystal incident,
the most important part of the story is largely being ignored by the
corporate media.

By Joshua Holland
AlterNet: June 23, 2010

It should come as no surprise that General Stanley McChrystal's return to
Washington to explain a series of derogatory comments he and his staff made
about the White House has ignited a media frenzy.

The story has everything a reporter could want -- tension within the
administration, a very public clash between civilian and military leaders
over just what we might hope to accomplish in Afghanistan, and even some
echoes of Truman's historic clash with General George MacArthur during the
Korean conflict.

But the story by Rolling Stone reporter Matt Hastings also reveals just how
narrow the discourse about our Afghanistan adventure really is. Because
while we'll be treated to tens of thousands of column inches and hours of
cable news blather about McChrystal's "insubordination," or whether Obama
looks "tough enough" in handling the situation, the most important part of
Hastings' article is largely being ignored by the corporate media.

Hastings told a tale of a project with no hope for success. His story shows
us that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is all about tactics dressed up as
a strategy. It's a profile of a military establishment running on inertia --
unable to withdraw because withdrawing is an admission of defeat, but also
unable to accomplish the wholly unrealistic tasks put before it.

This is perhaps the most revealing passage from Hastings' report:

"[Team Obama] are trying to manipulate perceptions because there is no
definition of victory - because victory is not even defined or
recognizable," says Celeste Ward, a senior defense analyst at the RAND
Corporation who served as a political adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq in
2006. "That's the game we're in right now. What we need, for strategic
purposes, is to create the perception that we didn't get run off. The facts
on the ground are not great, and are not going to become great in the near
future."

But facts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little deterrent to
a military determined to stay the course. Even those closest to McChrystal
know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how
deeply fucked up things are in Afghanistan. "If Americans pulled back and
started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular," a
senior adviser to McChrystal says. Such realism, however, doesn't prevent
advocates of counterinsurgency from dreaming big: Instead of beginning to
withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up
its counterinsurgency campaign even further. "There's a possibility we could
ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a
senior military official in Kabul tells me.


Again, counterinsurgency is a matter of tactics. The strategy, we have been
told for almost a decade, is to defeat the remnants of the Taliban and
create a functional, legitimate state in a country where one has never
before existed. It was a "state-building" project that was supposed to
enhance our security by fostering the kind of stability and economic
progress that would supposedly make Islamic extremism unappealing to the
masses.

But as the New York Times reported earlier this month, the leader of that
government, Hamid Karzai, has "lost faith in the Americans and NATO to
prevail in Afghanistan." An adviser told the Times that Karzai has no
"confidence in the capability of either the coalition or his own government
to protect this country," and for that reason he has been "pressing to
strike his own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan,
the Taliban's longtime supporter."

Anan Gobal noted that in 2008, after seven years of fighting, less than a
third of the country was under the control of the central government in
Kabul, and added: "Many say even that is now an optimistic assessment."
Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that the Pentagon was making cash
payments to Afghan warlords. According to Bloomberg, "Contractors told
congressional investigators they believe that, in turn, the 'warlords make
protection payments to insurgents' who are fighting the U.S."

Our tax dollars are actually financing those trying to kill U.S. troops.

According to a report released in January, the U.S.-backed government is
also awash in corruption, which Afghans now view "as a bigger concern than
security and unemployment." The government we're backing may be extracting
as much as one quarter of Afghanistan's gross national product in bribes.
And Karzai's own brother has been implicated in Afghanistan's rich drug
trade.

Hastings' report also paints a picture of a White House that despite its
grand promises of change continues to fight George W. Bush's war much the
same way as he waged it for seven years. He noted how similarly divorced
from reality the rhetoric coming from this White House has been to that of
the Bushies:

"There is no denying the progress that the Afghan people have made in
recent years - in education, in health care and economic development," the
president says. "As I saw in the lights across Kabul when I landed - lights
that would not have been visible just a few years earlier."

It is a disconcerting observation for Obama to make. During the worst
years in Iraq, when the Bush administration had no real progress to point
to, officials used to offer up the exact same evidence of success. "It was
one of our first impressions," one GOP official said in 2006, after landing
in Baghdad at the height of the sectarian violence. "So many lights shining
brightly." So it is to the language of the Iraq War that the Obama
administration has turned - talk of progress, of city lights, of metrics
like health care and education. Rhetoric that just a few years ago they
would have mocked.

The conflict in Afghanistan is now the longest one the United States has
ever fought. Tens of thousands of people have been killed, at a cost of
hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars. That there are electric lights in
Kabul is as pathetic a "milestone for success" as one could imagine, and
Obama's focus on how sparkly the approach to Kabul's airport is offers
evidence of the same obstinate dismissal of reality that was so maddeningly
common in the Bush White House.

Ultimately, what the Rolling Stone story tells us is that even those tasked
with carrying out Obama's Afghanistan policy know it's an exercise in
futility. McChrystal and his aides are protecting his legacy against
history's
harsh judgment of what will prove an incoherent policy from its inception.

Max Bergmann of the Center for American Progress didn't miss what lies at
the heart of the Rolling Stone report. "The significance of this food fight
is not in what was said," he wrote, "but in what it says about where the
United States is in Afghanistan":

What has become apparent is that . the mythic status now given to the
surge in Iraq led to a significant degree of over-confidence on the part of
McChrystal and others about their ability to turn the Afghan war around
after it had utterly deteriorated year after year under the neglectful watch
of the Bush administration.

The McChrystal incident provides some titillating political news for the
pundits to chew on for a few days. But it also tells us a lot about the
state of affairs in Afghanistan, and the picture is not pretty. That, rather
than some quotes from McChrystal's anonymous staffers, should be the Big
Story this week.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Oliver Stone Does Hugo Chavez, 500 activists block Port of Oakland

From: Karin Pally

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/20/BA0G1E28CV.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0rQyD9oxe

Activists Block Gates at Port of Oakland, prevent Israli Ship Unloading

By David R. Baker:
SF Chronicle: June 21, 2010

*(06-20) 12:35 PDT OAKLAND* -- Hundreds of demonstrators, gathering at the
Port of Oakland before dawn, prevented the unloading of an Israeli cargo
ship.

The demonstrators, demanding an end to Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip,
picketed at Berth 58, where a ship from Israel's Zim shipping line is
scheduled to dock later today. The day shift of longshoremen agreed not to
cross the picket line.

International pressure to end the Gaza closure has increased since Israeli
commandos stormed a flotilla of ships attempting to run the blockade on May
31, killing nine people. Last week, Israeli officials announced that they
would loosen but not lift the blockade, allowing more goods to enter the
impoverished area.

"Our view is that the state of Israel can not engage in acts of piracy and
kill people on the high seas and still think their cargo can go anywhere in
the world," said Richard Becker, an organizer with ANSWER, one of many peace
and labor groups involved in Sunday's action.

Becker estimated that 600 to 700 people joined the demonstration, many of
them arriving at 5:30 a.m. Oakland police, who estimated the crowd at 500
people, reported no arrests.

The demonstrators want to block the unloading of the Zim ship for a full
day. After convincing the day shift of longshoreman to honor the picket
line, the demonstrators dispersed around 10 a.m., Becker said. The ship is
scheduled to arrive in mid-afternoon, and the demonstrators plan to gather
again around 4:30 p.m. and re-establish their picket line before the evening
shift of longshoremen arrives at 6 p.m.

E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.

***

From: Michael W. Hathaway

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/21-3

South of the Border: Oliver Stone Does Chavez

by Prairie Miller
the James Agee Cinema Circle: June 21, 2010


Cuban leader Fidel Castro was interrogated some years ago by the New York
Times, demanding to know why freedom of the press is not allowed in Cuba.
Meaning, of course, beyond buzzwords, the inclusion of pro-capitalist
reporting. To which Fidel's checkmate reply was something like, we'll allow
that to happen when you allow a communist reporter on the staff of the New
York Times.

Now years later, this reality in the more than ever corporate owned US media
is far from a laughing matter, where the lines between who owns big business
and who finances and controls the US media and what constitutes so-called
news, are hopelessly blurred. Not to mention the concurrent pressure on
journalists to self-censor in order to keep their jobs, in particular in the
face of significant newsroom layoffs now with the economic crisis kicking
in.

So where do news investigators seeking the truth find themselves in this
moral and ethical quandary, while detouring around that dubious entity
called freedom of the press? Apparently in nonfiction filmmaking, if a
substantial portion of that impressive body of work lately is any
indication. And most exemplary among those documentaries right now is Oliver
Stone's South Of The Border.

Dismissing corporate media accounts as annoying fiction to say the least,
the multiple Academy Award winning director (Platoon, Born On The Forth Of
July, Midnight Express) and decorated Viet Nam veteran embarks on a road
movie of a very different sort. Serving as narrator, interviewer and
filmmaker, Stone is in search of the real story behind the election of seven
leftist presidents in Latin America, many of them demonized by a suspicious
colluding Washington DC and US media more interested in political domination
and control of foreign natural resources, and who knows how many conflict of
interest personal investments by politicians and media moguls alike.]

Written by eminent UK historian Tariq Ali (who had songs written in his
honor by John Lennon and Mick Jagger) and Mark Weisbrot, a leading
progressive authority on Latin America, South of The Border whether by
design or coincidence, ironically shares its title with the deplorable 1939
western of the same name. Starring Gene Autry and a cast of Mexican
villains, that film approached the notion of the southern border more akin
to the current right wing anti-immigrant surge.

And in a very different 'discovery' of the Americas, Stone introduces the
documentary with a gaggle of cackling imbecilic Fox 'news actors' mockingly
misrepresenting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a cokehead, juxtaposed
with Stone inviting the audience on a journey to find out who Chavez really
is, and where he came from. Including the president driving Stone himself to
the village and the hut made of palm leaves where he was born, along with
the surrounding rural collectivization that has vastly improved the lives of
the campesinos. And his continued efforts to oppose US meddling in the
affairs of his country, who sabotage his government over domination of vital
oil reserves. And attempted interference in his programs that address
terrible conditions of poverty by promoting economic equality, and
curtailing through nationalization the exploitation and enrichment of US
connected corporations.

The history of imperialism then and now is linked in the film in great
detail to its current propaganda arms, both the domestic and Venezuelan
corporate media, while Cuba is seen sending in 10,000 physicians and free
medicine to treat many impoverished Venezuelans who had never seen a doctor.
And in effect, poverty in Venezuela under Chavez has been cut in half.

And though South Of The Border is steeped in detailed information and a vast
corrective history, there are many casual moments of warmth, poignancy and
humor to be had as well. Including Stone bonding with Chavez in an emotional
exchange as two former soldiers in war; chewing coco leaves with Indigenous
Bolivian President Evo Morales (contrary to US media propaganda, a substance
in its organic state no more of a stimulant than coffee); and courageous
challenges to IMF debt servitude by President Christina Kirchner of
Argentina, who also remarks on how for the first time in history the leaders
of the 'new' Latin America look just like the people who elected them. And
in brief but similarly enlightening and euphoric sequences, Stone meets with
the presidents of Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador and Paraguay.

Gritty, grassroots and genuine in spirit, South Of The Border's salt of the
earth scrutiny initiates a reversal of the tide of corrupted US journalism.
And lifts the entire entity out of its debased opportunism, even if on the
big screen rather than the smaller version for US audiences. In a case in
which size matters, in more ways than one.

South Of The Border opens at NYC's Angelika Theater on June 25th, and at
Laemmle's Monica 4Plex 0n July 2nd in Los Angeles.

Cinema Libre Studio has been a leader in the distribution of social issue
and political films that tackle timely issues. More information is online
at: cinemalibrestudio.com andsouthoftheborderdoc.com.

Look for South of the Border: June 25 in NYC (Angelika Film Center), July 2
in Los Angeles (Laemmle's Monica 4-Plex and Laemmle's Sunset 5), Pasadena
(Laemmle's Playhouse 7) and Washington DC (AMC Loews Shirlington 7), July 9
in Chicago (Showplace ICON Roosevelt Collection), July 16 in San Francisco
(Sundance Kabuki Cinema), Berkeley (Rialto Cinemas Elmwood) and Palm Springs
(Cinemas Palm D'Or), July 23 in Phoneix (Harkins Valley Art) Dallas (AMC
Grand 24) and Houston (AMC Studio 30), July 30 in Minneapolis (Showplace
ICON at The West End) and Seattle (Regal Meridian 16). More to come soon,
check details at http://southoftheborderdoc.com/in-theatres/,
http://twitter.com/southborderdoc or
http://www.facebook.com/southoftheborder.
* * *
Prairie Miller is a WBAI film critic, and host and executive producer of The
WBAI Arts Magazine. She can be reached at: pmiller@wbai.org.