As the United States withdraws its combat forces from Iraq, the government is hiring more private guards to protect U.S. installations at a cost that could near $1 billion, according to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.
The above is from Walter Pincus' "With U.S. Forces in Iraq Beginning to Leave, Need for Private Guards Grows" (Washington Post) and it covers the report from the Office of the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction which projects $935 million could be the cost of mercenaries working "U.S. facilities in Iraq".
As troubling as that is (and it's troubling) so is the brazen, out in the open nature of the counter-insurgency cheerleaders. Counter-insurgency is war on the people. It involves turning a people against their own, it involves death squads, it involves so much more. At the New York Times hideous War Whore blog, this intro appears:
In his second "A Soldier Writes" column, Capt. Tim Hsia considers the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan against the historical backdrop of the experiences of Britain and Russia there. In today's New York Times, Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane look at the divided opinions among counterterrorism experts on whether the United States needs a growing ground force in Afghanistan to prevent another major attack on American soil.
But "divided opinion" looked at will never include the Times allowing the voices opposed to counter-insurgency to speak. Even though they know for a fact that the military's 'gurus' are lying to public repeatedly. (It was a Times reporter, after all, who corrected Monty McFate on NPR, not realizing McFate had lied before he joined the live broadcast.) (If you're late to the party, McFate had insisted that anthropologists working on counter-insurgency in Afghanistan always identified themselves as such. No, they don't. And in fact, they carry guns and are dressed in military garb.)
As for the column itself, it's ahistorical. And that's by design.
"Does Wal-Mart want to be seen as supporting the kind of hate Beck is spouting?"
That's today's Democracy Now! Can someone ask Amy Goodman -- on air -- to explain her political leanings?
ColorofChange has the worst image (earned) in the Bay Area for being anti-Arab. Arab-Americans run like crazy from the organization.
Today we're all supposed to shudder and cry for Van Jones. And Amy brings on ColorofChange James Ruker.
"Fox has made clear they will go on . . . witch hunts," whines Ruker.
So let me get this straight, the laughable ColorofChange attempts to start a boycott against Beck among advertisers to shut down Beck's speech but it's a witch hunt to call Van Jones a Communist?
If you're a Communist, you're a Communist. Calling a Communist a Communist isn't hate speech, isn't outrageous.
Van Jones is a Communist. Not was, he is. And that's fine in the Bay Area and we're not especially troubled by it. But that's the Bay Area. And when you're a Communist and you go to work for the White House, you're asking for trouble -- for yourself and the White House. He never should have been brought in.
Center for Media Justice's Malkia Cyril insists, "This is about who can criticize and participate in democracy." She then goes on to whine that Van Jones was fired "for signing a petition almost ten years ago." First, he gave his resignation, he wasn't fired. Second, the petition is not one that anyone working for a White House should have signed. Whether you are a 9-11 Truther or not isn't the issue. The issue is the impression created by being one. The issue is the perception it creates about the White House.
But it comes down to the fact that Barack didn't need a Communist in the White House.
"When communism cast its shadow across so much of the globe, you stood vigilant in a long Cold War -- from an airlift in Berlin to mountains of Korea to the jungles of Vietnam."
Do you believe that? I don't. I don't believe in the Communist 'menace.' But those aren't my words. Those are Barack Obama's words to the VFW *August* 17th. [Corrected from "September 17th" to "August 17th."]
Van Jones shouldn't have been in the administration to begin with. There's a rush by some to insist he's no longer a Communist. What is that? A viral condition?
No, it's the uneducated (and the fellow travelers) coming together to present a stereotype of a Communist. Communists aren't some figures hiding in the shadows cut off from the world. Communists are part of the fabric of America and interacting with business doesn't mean you can't be a Communist. It's a stupid little stereotype that wasn't even true in the USSR when it was active.
Van Jones is a Communist. I have no problem with that. But can he work in the administration? No. Not when Barack's repeatedly gone out of his way to insist he's not a Socialist. (Barack is not a Communist and he is not a Socialist.) He can't work in the administration when Barack's giving speeches about the Communist 'meance.' It doesn't fly. It goes against Barack's self-presentation.
Van Jones never should have been invited in. There's a lie out there that he wasn't "vetted." He was vetted. They didn't think this would be a problem. It was one.
And it's amazing that toy radical, Red-diaper baby Amy Goodman (who -- stereoytpe implosion -- did not grow up in poverty and comes from a hearty Communist family) wants to talk about the petition (the same Amy Goodman that refused the 9-11 Truth Movement time on her show and when forced twice made sure to stack the deck against them -- one wonders what Chip Berlet will say about Van Jones -- not a damn thing, watch and see). She doesn't want to talk about the Communist issue.
"In a minute, we'll talk about a number of issues," Goodman lies. They will not say the C-word on the program. Communism. It's not the end of the world. It's a political belief and it's as valid as any other.
But the reality is that you can't have a Communist in the White House if you're already taking pains to create a public wall between yourself and the left (which Barack is) and you can't have a Communist in a White House where the president gives speeches against the alleged Communist 'menace.'
"The whole attack by Glen Beck that drove this," says Amy Goodman.
ColorofChange wanted to go on the attack. They learned (for the first time?) that others can attack back. No surprise. They tried to rob Glen Beck of his job and, in the end, Van Jones was robbed of his job. Don't throw matches if you don't want to start a fire -- and don't forget you might be the one burned by the fire.
Malkia Cyril wonders, "Where was the progressive media echo chamber?" Of course, closet cases always need and long for an echo chamber. The left doesn't need an echo chamber. Judging by Cyril's remarks, such an echo chamber would have done as she did, never utter the C-word.
Look, I said it and I wasn't struck by lightening.
A left echo chamber wouldn't have helped Van Jones. There was no smear against him. That's what did him in. Barack's not going to risk his own neck for Van Jones or for anyone else. Jones was a distraction and had to go. (And that was conveyed to Jones who then resigned.)
And for those who refuse to grasp reality, grasp that Democracy Now! spent almost forty minutes on this story and refused to touch the Communist angle. They're part of the problem and part of the reason Van Jones had to step down. They're the ones doing their part (in order to stay in their own political closet) to make sure Communism is seen as a dirty word -- one that can't be mentioned.
Instead of an echo chamber, some on the left might try getting honest. They hurt themselves. All the ones in the political closet allow Van Jones to be stereotyped. If they'd come out earlier this decade, there might not be the need for the White House to walk away from him. Instead of pointing at Beck -- who only highlighted the public record -- they need to take some accountability. (And before any drive-by reads this as an endorsement of Beck, I've never watched him, I've never listened to him. He's not the issue. If you think that, you've missed the point and all the distractors succeeded.)
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.
the washington post
the new york times