We have heard a lot from President Bush in the last week, as the “educator in chief” (as he called himself in Wheeling, West Virginia) embarked on another desperate round of PR to explain three years of war to the America people. Despite hours of talking — the text of his three speeches and Q-and-A fills more than 50 pages (10 point, single spaced) — the president failed to say what Americans want to hear. A March 17 Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans believe the war in Iraq is not worth the costs. But the costs continue to mount.

According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will increase more than 40 percent between 2005 and 2006. CRS estimates that in 2006 the Pentagon is spending $9.8 billion a month on military operations, compared to $6.8 billion a month last year. Democrats in the House Budget Committee estimate that once the most recent $68 billion in supplemental funding is approved, the United States will have spent more than $445 billion on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

This $68 billion request for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan passed in the House and is likely to be taken up by the Senate Appropriations Committee early next week. Once approved, these funds will mostly cover the predictable expenses of fighting two intractable wars — things like body armor and other protective gear, tanks and attack helicopters. These expenditures make sense if the United States is fighting what they are now calling “the Long War,” but why not add these costs to the Pentagon’s $439.3 billion budget request for 2007? Adopting this budget is a process open to full debate, as the House Budget Committee takes it up again today along with the rest of federal spending.

In January, the assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said, “This generation of service members will be in what we’re calling the Long War… Our estimate is that for at least the next 20 years… our focus will be… the extremist networks that will continue to threaten the United States and its allies.”

Why are we paying for the Long War with emergency supplementals that receive almost zero debate in Congress? Because it allows the Pentagon and Bush administration maintain the fiction that the war is happening on the (relative) cheap and foments a false sense of urgency that undercuts Congressional and public debate about the war and its costs.

Frida Berrigan | TomPaine.com (read more. . .)

Michael Blake is at the front of the march. The 22-year-old from New York state is not quite sure how he ended up in the military; the child of “a feminist mom and hippy dad”, he says he signed up thinking that he would have an adventure, never imagining that he would find himself in Iraq. He served from April 2003 to March 2004, some of that time as a Humvee driver. Deeply disturbed by his experience in Iraq, he filed for conscientious objector status and has been campaigning against the war ever since.

He claims that US soldiers such as him were told little about Iraq, Iraqis or Islam before serving there; other than a book of Arabic phrases, “the message was always: ‘Islam is evil’ and ‘They hate us.’ Most of the guys I was with believed it.”

Blake says that the turning point for him came one day when his unit spent eight hours guarding a group of Iraqi women and children whose men were being questioned. He recalls: “The men were taken away and the women were screaming and crying, and I just remember thinking: this was exactly what Saddam used to do - and now we’re doing it.”

Becoming a peace activist, he says, has been a “cleansing” experience. “I’ll never be normal again. I’ll always have a sense of guilt.” He tells us that he witnessed civilian Iraqis being killed indiscriminately. It would not be the most startling admission by the soldiers on the march.

“When IEDs [Improvised Explosive Devices] would go off by the side of the road, the instructions were - or the practice was - to basically shoot up the landscape, anything that moved. And that kind of thing would happen a lot.” So innocent people were killed? “It happened, yes.” (He says he did not carry out any such killings himself.)

Blake, an activist with IVAW for the past 12 months, is angry that American people seem so untouched by the war, by the grim abuses committed by American soldiers. “The American media doesn’t cover it and they don’t care. The American people aren’t seeing the real war - what’s really happening there.”

Inigo Gilmore and Teresa Smith |Guardian/UK (read more. . .)

Hyde concludes by warning against the delusions of triumphalism and cautioning that the future should not be seen as an extension of the present: “A few brief years ago, history was proclaimed to be at an end, our victory engraved in unyielding stone, our pre-eminence garlanded with permanence. But we must remember that Britain’s majestic rule vanished in a few short years, undermined by unforeseen catastrophic events and by new threats that eventually overwhelmed the palisades of the past. The life of pre-eminence, as with all life on this planet, has a mortal end. To allow our enormous power to delude us into seeing the world as a passive thing waiting for us to recreate it in an image of our choosing will hasten the day when we have little freedom to choose anything at all.”

That the world will be very different within the next two decades, if not rather sooner, is clear; yet there is scant recognition of this fact and what it might mean - not least in our own increasingly provincial country. The overwhelming preoccupation of the Bush administration (and Blair for that matter) with Iraq, the Middle East and Islam, speaks of a failure to understand the deeper forces that are reshaping the world and an overriding obsession with realising and exploiting the US’s temporary status as the sole global superpower. Such a myopic view can only hasten the decline of the US as a global power, a process that has already started.

The Bush administration stands guilty of an extraordinary act of imperial overreach which has left the US more internationally isolated than ever before, seriously stretched financially, and guilty of neglect in east Asia and elsewhere. Iraq was supposed to signal the US’s new global might: in fact, it may well prove to be a harbinger of its decline. And that decline could be far more precipitous than anyone has previously reckoned. Once the bubble of US power has been pricked, in a global context already tilting in other directions, it could deflate rather more quickly than has been imagined. Hyde’s warnings should be taken seriously.

Martin Jacques | Guardian / UK (read more. . .)

I am going to find a china shop somewhere in the city and walk in with a free-swinging baseball bat. My goal, which will be clearly stated, will be to improve upon the place. I will spend the next three years meticulously destroying everything I see inside, from the cash registers to the display cases to the nice Royal Albert tea sets in the corner. Along the way, I will batter the brains out of any poor sod unfortunate enough to get in my way. When I am done, I will claim with as much self-righteousness as I can muster that none of the mess is my responsibility. I will then, of course, refuse to leave.

Hey, if the president can do it, it must be legal, right? Unfortunately, the difference between my china shop analogy and what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq is that I won’t get anything out of it except an arrest record and a chance to enjoy my state’s municipal accommodations. Bush and crew are reaping far better benefits from the mayhem they have caused.

Here’s the deal, in case anyone is wondering: none of this, not one bit of it, can be or should be chalked up to “incompetence” on the part of Bush or anyone else within his administration. This was not a mishandled situation. Bush and the boys have gotten exactly, precisely what they wanted out of Iraq, and are now looking forward to fobbing it off on the next poor dupe who staggers into the Oval Office. They got what they came for, and have quit.

Consider the facts. For two elections in a row, 2002 and 2004, the GOP was able to successfully demagogue the rafters off the roof about supporting the troops and being patriotic, placing anyone who questioned the merits of the invasion squarely into the category of “traitor.” Meanwhile, military contractors with umbilical ties to the administration have cashed in to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

The same goes for the petroleum industries; did you know there are gas lines today in oil-rich Iraq? It’s true. The oil infrastructure is fine; indeed, it is the most well-guarded point of pressure in Iraq. There are gas lines because companies like Halliburton are not pumping the oil. They are sitting on it, keeping it as a nice little nest egg.

One would think this administration would be worried about the violence and chaos in Iraq. They aren’t, because the violence has become the justification for “staying the course.” Bush will mouth platitudes about bringing democracy to the region, but that is merely the billboard. What he and his friends from the Project for the New American Century wanted in the first place, and what they have now, is a permanent military presence over there. There was never any consideration of a timetable for withdrawal, because there was never any intention to withdraw. The violence today is a self-perpetuating justification, a perfect circle lubricated by blood, oil and currency.

William Rivers Pitt | t r u t h o u t (read more. . .)

George W. Bush has clarified the most vital reason why he must be impeached and removed from office as soon as possible: the slaughter in Iraq, and his clear statement that it will not end while he is in the White House.

Bush has made his departure the light at the end of the tunnel.

If he stays, more killing is inevitable. If he goes, a quicker end to the war is not certain, but it is more likely. Nobody expects Dick Cheney to pull out of Iraq if he succeeds Bush. But a successful impeachment and removal will reshape all American politics, and open up the possibilities.

Bush’s escalating unpopularity has moved impeachment talk out of the margins, toward the mainstream. Increasingly worried GOP hacks portray it as an attack on Bush’s ability to protect the country, and on our soldiers.

But polls now show a majority of US troops in Iraq say the war should end in 2006, not 2009. More than 80% of the Iraqi people want the US out now.

By pledging to prolong the slaughter, Bush endangers both our troops and our national security.

The war is destroying the American army. It recruits and trains hordes of anti-American terrorists. It is dividing and bankrupting our nation.

Impeachment and removal have become vitally necessary to preserve whatever defenses the US has left against international terrorism.

Harvey Wasserman | Free Press (read more. . .)

Tyranny is your creation. What we have today is the natural and inevitable outcome of ideas and policies you have promoted for the last generation. I once knew a guy who was still a Marxist in 1980. Whenever I asked him why Communism had failed in Russia and China, he said “Mistakes were made”. He could not believe that Marxism itself was at fault, just as you cannot believe that the ideology of the unregulated free market has created the world we live in today.

You are tempted to say: “Mistakes have been made”, but in fact, psychologically and sociologically, no mistakes have been made. The unregulated free market has operated to produce a government in its own image. In an unregulated free market, for example, cheating is merely another sort of advantage that, supposedly, market forces might eventually “shake out” of the system. Of course, anyone with common sense understands that cheaters do damage that sometimes cannot be repaired before they are “shaken out”, but according to the principles of the unregulated free market, the victims of that sort of damage are just out of luck and the damage that happens to them is just a sort of “culling”.

It is no accident that our government is full of cheaters–they learned how to profit from cheating when they were working in corporations that were using bribes, perks, and secret connections to cheat their customers of good products, their neighbors of healthy environmental conditions, their workers of workplace safety and decent paychecks. It was only when the corporations began cheating their shareholders that any of you squealed, but you should know from your own experience that the unregulated free market as a “level playing field” was the biggest laugh of the 20th century.

No successful company in the history of capitalism has ever favored open competition. When you folks pretended, in the eighties, that you weren’t using the ideology of the free market to cover your own manipulations of the playing field to your own advantage, you may have suckered yourselves, and even lots of American workers, but observers of capitalism since Adam Smith could have told you it wasn’t going to work.

Jane Smiley | huffingtonpost (read more. . .)

The Bush administration’s newly unveiled National Security Strategy might well be subtitled “The Irony of Iran.” Three years after the invasion of Iraq and the invention of the phrase “axis of evil,” the administration now highlights the threat posed by Iran - whose radical government has been vastly strengthened by the invasion of Iraq. This is more tragedy than strategy, and it reflects the Manichean approach this administration has taken to the world.

It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world’s most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration’s penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences.

For years, the president has acted as if Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein’s followers and Iran’s mullahs were parts of the same problem. Yet, in the 1980s, Hussein’s Iraq and Iran fought a brutal war. In the 1990s, Al Qaeda’s allies murdered a group of Iranian diplomats. For years, Osama bin Laden ridiculed Hussein, who persecuted Sunni and Shiite religious leaders alike. When Al Qaeda struck the US on 9/11, Iran condemned the attacks and later participated constructively in talks on Afghanistan. The top leaders in the new Iraq - chosen in elections that George W. Bush called “a magic moment in the history of liberty” - are friends of Iran. When the US invaded Iraq, Bush may have thought he was striking a blow for good over evil, but the forces unleashed were considerably more complex.

Madeleine Albright | Los Angeles Times (read more. . .)