War endangers our freedoms! (Didn't you know?)

I can hardly wait to see Michael Moore's latest opus, Where to Invade Next, his first film in six years. Here's the trailer.



Where to Invade Next received much critical acclaim at TIFF and other film festivals, and is being much talked up by the lamestream media for being "funny" and not as dark and disturbing as his best earlier works. That got me thinking again about Fahrenheit 9/11, recommended here a few days ago in a message to Republican voters who might have been thinking about supporting JEB! in the primaries.

One of the main themes of Fahrenheit 9/11 is the way in which Dubya and his war-hawk cronies engineered the "War on Terror" and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to gain more and more power over the American people through the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and so on. The result is that now, more than ever before, the Paranoid States of America is a police state!

Which brings us to Democracy in America, by Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville, a French political thinker and historian. De La Démocratie en Amérique is a classic text, published in two volumes, the first in 1835 and the second in 1840, in which M de Tocqueville examines the democratic revolution that he believed had been occurring in Europe and then America over the preceding seven hundred years. He had something to say about the relationship between war and freedom. Here's a quote from a 1945 translation.

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.... War does not always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase the powers of civil government; it must also compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of all t hings in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it.

I found that quote in The Ordeal of Total War, by Gordon Wright (Harper & Row, 1968). Here's Mr. Wright's commentary.

Tocqueville's dictum, appropriate enough in his own day, is even more applicable in the twentieth century. When nations must mobilize their total resources for a long struggle, the normal tensions between authority and liberty are intensified, and the trend toward dictatorship affects even the most democratic of nations. Where parliaments survive, their usual functions are sharply restricted; decision-making becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small executive group, or even in those of one man.

That was in 1968, before Americans learned the truth about Vietnam, before Nixon, before the Clintons and the Bushes. If Mr. Wright is still alive, he could justly say, "Don't say you weren't warned." Although it seems he doesn't stress the point in Where to Invade Next, Michael Moore can say the same thing.

Going after Taliban was a mistake, sez former general

A lot of Americans (and Canadians) think that the Canadian Armed Forces kind of let the side down by withdrawing their half-dozen aging CF-18s from the US-led mission against ISIS. When it comes to fighting Islamic terrorism (their argument goes) the Canucks will hold your coat until your nose starts to bleed. This is not true. Let me set the record straight.

True, the government of Jean Chrétien declined to join in Dubya's invasion of Iraq, presumably because they thought it was a huge mistake but (being Canadian) wewre too polite to say more than "We'll take a pass on this one. Maybe next time." The wisdom of this decision is apparent in retrospect. If you don't find it so, take a look at Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. You'll find a link to the full-length documentary in "Republican voters: WATCH 'Fahrenheit 9/11'!", WWW 17/2/16.

All the same, the Canadian government took a lot of flak -- figuratively speaking -- from within and without the Great Not-so-white North. So much so that when the Paranoid States of America decided to go into Afghanistan to chase after Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, they decided they'd better get into the scrap to make up for missing the first round. Little did they know that they'd have to fight not just al-Qaeda but the Taliban, since the Taliban controlled huge swathes of Armpitistan, including Kandahar province, one of the toughest targets. Sure enough, that's where the Canucks wound up. They lost proportionately more soldiers than the USA, beginning with four killed by "friendly fire" from the USAF. Some friends, eh!

Major-General Dave Fraser (seen here getting a gong from former Governor-General Michaëlle Jean) commanded both the Canadian task force and the expanded mission of the "Coalition of the Willing" to extend the authority of former Afghan president Krazi Karzai beyond the capital of Kabul in 2006. That was just over 4 1/2 years into the Afghan war and three years into the larger, bloodier struggle in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Today, in an interview marking the 10th anniversary of the Canadian deployment into Kandahar, Maj-Gen. Fraser had some rather astonishing things to say about the commission. He told Canadian Press that the West made a mistake deposing the Taliban regime in the aftermath of 9/11, and should have simply trained its guns on al-Qaeda. "We thought, naively, that regime change was the solution to the problem," he said. "Looking backwards, I would have actually left the Taliban government in power and said (to them) 'Stay out of the way. We’re here to find Al Qaeda. And as long as you stay out of the way, the special forces will go in there, they will do what is necessary to get Al Qaeda and we will leave.' Had we done that, we wouldn’t be where we are today."

Back then, no-one seemed to appreciate how profound the power vacuum was, he went on, and that the West was creating for itself "a 30- or 40-year problem" not only in Afghanistan but throughout the Middle East.

Maj-Gen. Fraser said the West has only repeated the same mistakes over the last decade. "We repeated it in Iraq," he told CP. "In Libya, we didn’t put any ground troops in and we created an even bigger mess because there’s no government whatsoever in Libya. We went back into Iraq and now for the very first time the international community is beginning to appreciate that regime change is not the solution. [That's] why we’re not pushing to do a regime change in Syria."

Right. Has anyone told the Prez, the Pentagon and the folks at Foggy Bottom about this? To take Maj-Gen. Fraser's argument to the logical conclusion, which is... wait for it... that Western meddling in what is basically a Muslim civil war is only making things worse for the people of the Middle East, and for the West as well? Has anyone learned anything from the events of the last 10 or 20 or 25 years? Errr, apparently not.

Footnote: Is Michaëlle Jean's ADC looking at her chest or what? Whatever happened to Her Serene Highness anyway? Last we heard she was swanning around Paris as the UN's "special ambassador" for her native Haïti. Is it possible she finally went home to share the misery of the poorest state of the Western Hemisphere? Errr, apparently not.

VIDEO: Republican voters: WATCH "Fahrenheit 9/11"!

I see by the meeja that George W. Bush has given a ringing endorsement to his "big little brother", "JEB!". I wonder what brilliant backroom boy thought having Dubya speak up for his brother would boost the Shrub's chances of becoming the Republican candidate for the Presidensity, or at least getting the GOP Establishment to coalesce behind him so as to deny the nomination to a real (?) conservative. [Who did you mean by that? Ed.]

I'm guessing the strategy is to position JEB! as the agent of continuity -- the one who will carry on the good works started by his brother and his father before him. Whether this is such a good idea at a time when most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, hunger for change remains to be seen. To any Republicans -- in South Carolina, let's say -- who think that more Bush-league government might not be such a bad thing, Walt recommends Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the War on Terror. The film is the highest grossing documentary of all time, and we have it for you, via YouTube, right here!

But first (as they say), IMDb's summary of what Fahrenheit 9/11 is all about. "Film-maker Michael Moore provides deep and though-provoking insights on the American security system, the level of paranoia, fear, uncertainty, false values and patriotism, which all combined together to set a stage for George W. Bush to launch a war on Iraq instead of focusing on getting the real culprit(s) behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

"This documentary also focuses on how some Saudis were safely and secretly flown out of America while planes were ostensibly grounded after the attacks. Archived film footage, candid interviews with politicians, and an overall waste of public funds for a war that was initiated on false pretension to wit: a weapon of mass distraction - to take the focus away from the real enemy and get Americans glued to their TV sets to watch innocent Iraqis and Afghans getting killed. And a war that would eventually alienate the USA and its citizens from almost every country on Earth."



Yes, JEB! is in the pro-Saudi "War on Americans" right up to his neck. He makes his first appearance in the film at about the 2-minute mark. As for the Bush family's connections to the houses of Saud and bin Laden -- not to mention Big Oil, Halliburton, etc etc -- anyone who thinks that connection ended with that expiry of Dubya's term needs his/her head read. Hey, Republican voter! Do you really want more of this?!