Originally published at TomDispatch.com

We’ve now been at war with, or in, Iraq for almost 20 years, and intermittently at war in Afghanistan for 30 years.  Think of it as nearly half a century of experience, all bad.  And what is it that Washington seems to have concluded?  In Afghanistan, where one disaster after another has occurred, that we Americans can finally do more of the same, somewhat differently calibrated, and so much better.  In Iraq, where we had, it seemed, decided that enough was enough and we should simply depart, the calls from a familiar crew for us to stay are growing louder by the week.    

The Iraqis, so the argument goes, need us.  After all, who would leave them alone, trusting them not to do what they’ve done best in recent years: cut one another’s throats?    

Modesty in Washington?  Humility?  The ability to draw new lessons from long-term experience?  None of the above is evidently appropriate for “the indispensable nation,” as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once called the United States, and to whose leaders she attributed the ability to “see further into the future.”  None of the above is part of the American arsenal, not when Washington’s weapon of choice, repeatedly consigned to the scrapheap of history and repeatedly rescued, remains a deep conviction that nothing is going to go anything but truly, deeply, madly badly without us, even if, as in Iraq, things have for years gone truly, deeply, madly badly with us. 

           Read more... 

Cross posted from Border Jumpers, Danielle Nierenberg and Bernard Pollack.

While in Harare, Zimbabwe, we met with the Labour and Economic Development Research Institute of Zimbabwe (LEDRIZ), an initiative of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) which started operating in September of 2003. The research institute's primary objective to develop, through research, well-grounded policy positions designed to influence development processes and outcomes at the national, regional and international levels. This is particularly important in the context of globalization where national policy is increasingly giving way to regional and international developments. In this regard, the ability to anticipate developments will help in designing proactive policies that respond promptly to external challenges.

LEDRIZ shared with us the training and research materials and documents they use in training programs throughout the country around the "8 Socio-Economic Rights.’ Rather than directly endorsing political candidates, ZCTU advocates for democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe. LEDRIZ is strategically positioning itself to be part of every major economic policy debate in Zimbabwe, an impressive feat given the tight autocratic rule President Mugabe maintains over the country. In addition, LEDRIZ is fighting hard to establish progressive policies such as opposing the privatization of public utilities, providing support for the informal sector, protecting workers' pensions and their ability to retire with dignity.

In establishing an aligned research institute, the labor movement in Zimbabwe is following the examples of the US, European, South African and Namibian trade unions. Such a research think-tank is particularly helpful in an economy like Zimbabwe's which has experienced a wrenching brain drain, undermining capacity. The main strength of LEDRIZ is that it is a member of several national, regional and international networks such as the Alternatives to Neo-liberalism in Southern Africa (ANSA) which it coordinates; the African Labour Research Network (ALRN); and the Global Union Research Network (GURN), launched in January 2004 under the coordination of the ILO Bureau of Workers’ Activities and the International Trade Union Council (ITUC).

Cross posted from Border Jumpers, Danielle Nierenberg and Bernard Pollack.

Imagine being one of only five opposition voices in a country of thirteen million people, where all radio, print and television is strictly controlled by the government. That's Ben Madzimure’s uphill battle everyday as editor of "The Worker," the voice of the labor movement, in Zimbabwe--especially because his newspaper is only printed once a month, with only 5,000 copies distributed throughout the country.

"Zimbabwe used to have such a vibrant and independent media but most of the press was shut down," said Madzimure. Today many of the print reporters across the country bite their tongues and print the government's viewpoint. Madzimure, on the other hand, actively seeks out stories the government doesn't want mentioned, such as worker discontent and political corruption, and provides an unfiltered analysis of current events.

           Read more... 

With Karl Rove arrogantly proclaiming not only that he did nothing wrong, but that he is very much on the correct side of history, it is interesting to look back and see how he would fare in accordance with the standards of his first political hero, Richard M. Nixon.

As a young man growing up in Salt Lake City, Rove adhered strongly to the Nixon Vietnam position. He accepted Nixon’s position of demonizing opponents of the Vietnam War, including questioning their patriotism.

After Nixon’s death progressive historians asserted that Nixon and his administration’s foot soldiers demeaned true patriotism by embracing a narrow standard wherein, if they failed to support a flag waving posture operating lockstep within Nixon’s narrow dogma relating to Vietnam, they were labeled as unpatriotic.

Like so many of Nixon’s stalwart young supporters, including of William Kristol, Dick Cheney and others, Rove had no stomach for traveling to Southeast Asia and fighting for a cause he verbally supported.

           Read more... 

By David Swanson

Sixty-five congress members, including 60 Democrats and 5 Republicans, voted to end the occupation of Afghanistan on Wednesday. But 356 congress members, including 189 Democrats and 167 Republicans voted to keep the war going. The vote followed three hours of debate created by Congressman Dennis Kucinich's introduction of a privileged resolution.

The debate featured three leaders from three groups of congress members: the war opponents (almost all Democrats), the pro-war Democrats, and the pro-war Republicans. Given this alignment, which has existed for nearly a decade now, is there any reason for supporters of peace and justice to take heart? I think so. Here's why: If the 60 Democrats acted in good faith and would have voted the same way even if the bill had a chance of passing, or even if that could be said of only 38 of them, then we may very well see funding of the wars dry up. If the leadership includes unrelated measures in the next war funding bill ($33 billion coming in April or May), measures that lead all the Republicans to vote No (as happened last July), then only 38 Democrats have to vote No to block the bill.

           Read more...