CThru.com Presents Tony Ward

……As a follow up to our earlier feature on the illustrious success of the anti-rape campaign, “THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION TO RAPE ME”, spearheaded by Creative Director Charles Hall. We decided to publish a follow up post on the continuing global reach the advertising campaign continues to impose. Rape crisis Scotland contacted Mr. Hall to use the campaign to bring awareness to rape conviction rates in Scotland, a deplorable less than 3%.

Upon arriving in Edinburgh, Charles was introduced to the METRO news headline of the day; “RAPIST OF GIRL AGED 10 FREE IN MONTHS”. This appalling court ruling served as a backdrop for the new task at hand for Charles and his creative team. He contacted regional artists Julie Cerise to contribute photographic images, and New York based graphic designer, Graham Clifford to contribute their talents for the new campaign. To learn more about Julie Cerise’s photographs, log on to www.juliecerise.carbonmade.com. To learn more about Graham Clifford’s graphic design, log on to www.grahamclifforddesign.com.

Posted By Melissa Norbeck
Animal Paintings by Joanne Hoffman

Animal cruelty is a matter I feel passionately about. Cruelty toward animals should not exist; there needs to be stiffer punishments which actually fit the crimes. Cruelty comes in many varieties: the selling of fur (cats, dogs, rabbits, etc… the animals are stuffed and piled into crates and then skinned alive), fighting of dogs, killing of wildlife, slaughtering of horses, clubbing of seals, testing on animals, and the everyday torture and neglect of family pets, just to name a few.

A big problem is over population. Between five and ten million stray cats and dogs live on the streets in America. And people are still allowing their dogs and cats to have more litters. It comes down to responsibility. The average lifespan of a stray animal is less than two years. That is an unnecessary, short, and brutal existence. To quote Bob Barker, “Help control the pet population. Have your pet spayed or neutered.”
Another form of cruelty is the killing of animals for human consumption. I have been a vegetarian for the past 17 years. I cannot make people stop eating meat, but the inhumane and cruel ways animals are killed need to stop.

More examples of cruelty: McDonald’s scolds its chickens alive. Ringling Bros. Circus beats its animals. Pigs receive no pain relief when they have their teeth removed with wire cutters. Chickens have their sensitive beaks cut off without painkillers. (Research has proved that chickens are smarter than dogs, cats, and even some primates.) Veal calves are confined to crates so small they can’t even turn around. Many companies test their products on animals. Companies need to work toward cruelty-free methods. And when it comes to fighting, people choose to fight, animals don’t.

Animals depend on us for almost everything, and we as human beings owe it to them – to protect them, to take care of them, and to not purposely put them in harmful situations. There needs to be justice. The animals do not deserve this treatment. There is just no reason for the torment and the torture, no reason at all.

The Humane Society, PETA, ASPCA, and World Wildlife Fund are just a few of the organizations who have been helping animals live better lives.
When we stop the killing and the suffering of our animals, we can restore the humanity!

……John and I go back a long ways. He was the first journalist to write about my erotic photographs when he reviewed a solo exhibition at Pentimenti Gallery in Philadelphia, 1994. Pentimenti was the first gallery to take notice of the sea change to occur in the direction of my photographic career in the early nineties. We didn’t actually meet until years later, when we were introduced socially by a mutual friend, the great documentary photographer Harvey Finkle.

John and I became regulars at Harvey’s Monday Night football parties, where the food, wine and conversation flows on a variety of topics the least of which is football. We got to know each other a little more over the years as a consequence. Recently he has become a regular contributor to this blog. I asked his close friend Harvey to write a little something about the pictures that accompany the post, in an effort to introduce you to a man filled with many passions, including our over zealous agressions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am so honored to have John part of the Tony Ward Studio team. All photos courtesy of www.harveyfinkle.com.

.

John Grant

Renaissance man. A superb photographer, videographer, novelist, journalist and craftsman. John is also a leader, having been at the helm of the local Vets for Peace for about a decade. His facility with words is such that he constantly appears on the pages of our local newspapers in letters or guest op-eds. I first met John through our political activities. Both of us having traveled to Central America during the 1980’s, every once in a while I would grab a photo of John in a variety of actions. And, you can bet that any issue or subject that John touches, his knowledge is totally comprehensive. As well as a tremendous source of knowledge, he is my good friend. Harvey Finkle

…..It was a beautiful spring day in Lancaster County. I had just finished up classes for the day and called my girlfriend Nancy to see if she would take a drive with me to visit one of my professors at his house, to pick up a painting he gave to me for being such a good student. Gordon Wise headed the Art department at Millersville University, a small state teachers college tucked away, just outside the city limits of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. His home was located in Mt Gretna, a beautiful area with rolling hills, lots of trees and plenty of farmland.

It took us about forty five minutes to drive from MSU campus to his place. Even if it had taken longer I wouldn’t have cared because I was driving my first car, a 1967 Camaro that I simply adored. When Nancy and I ascended the long hilly driveway, the first thing we noticed was the contemporary architecture of the home. There were enormous plate glass windows installed floor to ceiling along the first floor of the home so that Mr. Wise could enjoy the magnificent natural landscape that seduced him in to building his home in that area of Lancaster County. I stopped the car immediately and thought; wouldn’t this make an interesting picture? The glass became a mirror of our image.

We proceeded to get out of the vehicle to walk towards the front entrance. Nancy followed and then paused next to a tree to fix her dress. We were being playful in the car and she wanted to look perfectly respectable when I introduced her to the noted professor. I raised my camera to take a picture of our refection when she spontaneously hugged the tree pretending it was me………TW

……I had the pleasure of meeting Genevive Zacconi in 2006, when she curated an art exhibition entitled, “Negative Exposure” for Trinity Art Gallery in Philadelphia. Her unusual interest in the erotic as well as the macabre, forms the basis of her unique vision. A distinct persona that is reflective in her paintings. Genevive was born in Philadelphia in 1981. As an artist and curator, she has been involved in numerous art exhibitions around the globe and has been featured on MSNBC, New York Press, Coagula Arts Journal and Juxtapose magazine.

In addition to creating her own art, Genevive has also worked as a painting assistant to Ron English, headed the first Philadelphia branch of “Dr. Sketchy’s Anti -Art School”, and was the founding director of Trinity Art Gallery in Philadelphia and Paul Booth’s, Last Rites Gallery in New York.

Genevive is currently curating an exhibit within “The Dirty Show” (the worlds largest art show) to take place in Detroit, February 12 to the 20th, 2010. The exhbit will include works by Michael Hussar, David Stoupakis, Shawn Barber and yours truly. To learn more about Genevive’s work, log on to www.genevive.com……..TW

Posted by John Grant

The column, below, by Stu Bykofski, ran in the Philadelphia Daily News recently. Aware of my views on the war, he had called and asked would I watch the Presidents speech with him at his home and, then, he would write about our exchange of views. I fully enjoyed the time with Bykofsky and consider him a valued new acquaintance. He even stopped by our little anti-war demonstration at City Hall the other day to say a quick hello. Bykofsky first went to work for the Daily News in 1972, and he is now one of its most respected columnists. So he fully understands the rough-and-tumble of ideas. Here is his column and a letter-to-the-editor response to the column I expect will run in the Daily News soon.  

Af-Pak speech: Both sides now
By Stu Bykofski
Daily News Columnist, December 3, 2009

PLYMOUTH MEETING’s John Grant supported and voted for Barack Obama, but it was “no sale” Tuesday night after the president outlined his plans for expanding the war and our chances for success in Afghanistan – which Grant sees as entering a fruitless, budget-busting quagmire.

Some of you may know Grant from his frequent Op-ed pieces that take issue with various American policies. A member of Veterans for Peace, the 62-year-old Vietnam vet is a self-described dope-smoking socialist, although he admits that he enjoys being a provocateur.

I invited Grant to watch the president’s speech with me because I knew how he felt – he was against entering Afghanistan in the first place – but I didn’t know precisely how I felt.

At the end, Grant disagreed with sending more troops, while I favored it, but it was not because of Obama’s persuasiveness.

His arguments had the flavor of leftovers, a meal we had eaten before. His speech came more from the head than the heart and lacked passion.

With that said, we now have an American president from the left after an American president from the right reaching the same conclusion: America’s safety and security are threatened by the swamp that is Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Are they both wrong? Are they both stupid? Are they both evil? Is it possible that both presidents saw things in the daily threat assessment that they cannot share?

Obama may be wrong, but when he says that our safety and security are entwined with Af-Pak, do I dismiss that?

Grant would say yes, because “the military-industrial complex has this guy by the balls.” Grant even grumped over Obama’s selection of West Point as the launchpad for his policy.

Several times during our conversation Grant described himself as a “radical” and, after the speech, when I asked him what the U.S. should do now, he returned to mistakes made after 9/11 because radicals are interested in root causes, he said.

When I pressed him to support a “radical” solution – pull all our troops out now, immediately, at once – he demurred, saying that he was a realist and that it would result in chaos. He would garrison our current troops behind the safety of walls.

For how long? When would we withdraw? How quickly? Grant said he didn’t have those answers and felt that I was trying to corner him.

In his speech, Obama said that maintaining the status quo – Grant’s plan – would lead to deterioration of the effort.

Grant said that if we escalate the war, al Qaeda and the Taliban might do the same. Fair point, they might. They also might retreat into the mountains, go quiet for 18 months and re-emerge as U.S. troops begin to leave, now that we’ve provided their military planners with our timetable.

We have no good options in Af-Pak.

Anyone who is certain that a strategy will succeed is a polemicist or a propagandist. There is no sure path. Oddly, what happens if we stay in is more certain than what happens if we quickly depart. If we stay in, more American deaths. If we exit, will the Taliban be satisfied to “own” Afghanistan again or will it offer a platform from which al Qaeda and radical Islam can attack Pakistan and other countries?

As an example of how complicated the situation is, one of Obama’s goals is to support the fragile democracy that is Pakistan.

That government is allied with us, but the majority of conspiracy-prone Pakistanis, according to polls, think that the U.S. is the greatest threat to world peace, and that bombs going off in Pakistani cities are planted by the CIA, Blackwater or Israel’s Mossad. With friends like these . . .

Obama didn’t mention “victory,” or the brutality and viciousness of the Taliban toward women. He avoided emotional appeals, yet it’s the same old “fear, fear, fear, the bogeyman, just like George Bush,” said Grant.

“I do not trust my government,” said Grant, even with Obama and the Democrats in control.

I won’t go that far, but I will trust Obama, now that he is an unwilling “war president,” to make the least bad of the miserable choices in front of him.

He could be wrong and so could I.

A response: Obama defends the government’s prestige

Dear Editor:

It was nice of Stu Bykofsky to invite me to his home to watch the speech by President Obama. I’m glad I was helpful to Stu for him to figure out how he “felt” about escalating the eight-year-old war in Afghanistan. He was a gracious host, and we had a fine time exchanging views. Unfortunately, he then used me a bit like a punching bag in his Thursday, December 3 column.

I’ve been in and out of the journalism business in Philadelphia for 34 years, and I went to Stu’s home fully aware of the risks. So I’m not complaining; in fact, I think Stu is a great guy.

Living in such a dangerous world, it’s easy to lose focus on exactly what the Obama West Point speech was about. As Stu pointed out, I’m a bit of a “provocateur,” so let me be provocative and suggest that Obama’s speech was not about Afghanistan at all or about really solving the threats to America’s security concerns. Obama’s speech was, instead, about reinforcing his political power as a Democratic President by not jeopardizing the prestige of the US government in time of war and, especially, the prestige of a post-Vietnam generation of generals led by General David Petraeus. Petraeus and others supporting his new counter-insurgency doctrine actually argue these days that we could have won the Vietnam War — if only we had been smarter. Obama’s speech established that he was fully invested in this new doctrine and, thus, as a “liberal” was not opposing the vast and entrenched power of the military-industrial complex, the institution General Eisenhower so eloquently warned the nation about in 1961 as he left the Presidency.

This idea about “prestige” is not mine. It is from Stanley Karnow’s highly respected book, Vietnam: A History. He writes about John Kennedy’s reluctance to escalate in Vietnam and how Kennedy said escalation was “like taking a drink. The effect wears off, and you have to take another.” Karnow writes how, despite his reluctance, Kennedy could not in the end hold out against the strong militarist tide pushing for escalation and, even, his own rhetoric about stopping communism in Southeast Asia. Karnow writes that Kennedy “could not backtrack without jeopardizing the American government’s prestige — and in time that consideration would become the main motive for the US commitment in Vietnam.” 

I submit that 48-years-later President Obama finds himself in the very same bind Kennedy did — maybe even worse — unable to do what people like me would have liked him to do, which is to summon the courage to fashion a policy and speech that faced up to this tragic cycle. Instead, like Kennedy and Johnson, Obama chose to reinforce the American government’s prestige and that of its military leadership by throwing more young men and women into a war policy that was doomed from the moment the Bush/Cheney administration set it in motion from their White House inner sanctums. The Profile In Courage I would have liked to see from President Obama was one in which he recognized that the nation needed to take a hit on its prestige, that defending this kind of prestige is in fact against the best interests of the American people, especially now when our economy is on the ropes and we have so many un-addressed domestic problems. Such a policy and speech would have entailed a calculated and gradual extraction of our military forces from Afghanistan. 

Obama’s Special Ambassador to Southwest Asia Richard Holbrook recently spoke by phone with Stanley Karnow. He handed the phone to General Stanley McChrystal, who asked the Vietnam historian what wisdom he had concerning the war in Afghanistan. Karnow reportedly said: “We should not be there in the first place.”   

Maybe Stu is right when he says, on one hand, I’m a “radical” while on the other I’m a “realist.”  But what I clearly am not about — what Stu oddly labeled as “Grant’s plan” — is “maintaining the status quo” in Afghanistan. The fact is I’ve written against, and taken to the streets against, the status quo of that war and the one in Iraq before they were even launched. 

All this is in the spirit of dialogue. Again, I enjoyed my exchange of views with Stu Bykofsky and would be glad to engage in more of it in the future on the topic of Afghanistan and the War On Terror. Truth does not come in a single voice; it is reached in an open and honest dialogic process. 

Sincerely,
John Grant

……..I had just left the studio for a brief walk to have lunch with a new model when I heard a scream from the backseat of a passing taxi. “Tony, Tony, Tony” she said as I noticed a waive from the passing vehicle. I quickly turned, a familiar face for sure, but couldn’t precisely place the context. The taxi came to a stop. A very attractive woman exited the vehicle and proceeded to run towards me as if in slow motion. My heart started to pound as the day suddenly became more exciting and invigorating.

I remembered who she was. Natalie, a stunning brunette that I photographed several years earlier told me it was such a coincidence to see me that day, because she was just talking to her girlfriend about my work and that she wanted to introduce me to her. I said, “sure just call the studio to set up an appointment.” That answer wasn’t good enough for Natalie. She insisted right then and there that I go with her to meet her friend, who was working just down the block from where I was about to have lunch.
We hurried to her friend’s place of employment, a classy restaurant in the heart of town where she worked as a hostess. Natalie insisted once I saw her, I wouldn’t be disappointed. She guaranteed that i surely would want to photograph her, and also mentioned that her friend had a desire to have nude photos taken. We entered the restaurant. I sat at the bar in anticipation to meet the new subject.
When she entered the room, it was almost if all the air had left it. I could already see through the clothes as my imagination transported me to an erotic journey with the woman I just met. I did everything to maintain my cool as I became instantly infatuated.
The new subject explained that she had been talking to Natalie about having erotic pictures taken to present as a gift to her boyfriend. The couple were recently engaged to be married. Because of her employment status, I suggested it would be wise to create a pseudonym for the set of pictures, as I was certain the pictures would be published. Norma Rockwell came to mind, as she reminded me of a character that could easily appear in a perverse version of a Norman Rockwell painting.

Norma and I made arrangements to meet at a small, charming hotel where the photographic sitting would take place. I asked her to bring a few pieces of lingerie from her wardrobe for the erotic encounter.
As soon as we checked in to our room I asked Norma to put some of her items on the bed. I picked a few things knowing whatever we selected had to accentuate her statuesque body. The shoot progressed innocently at first and then the sexual persona of Norma took over as she began to gently play with her genitals. All for the love of a man she was soon to marry…….TW

Posted By John Grant

It was sad watching Barack Obama cave in to the militarists on the war in Afghanistan. One, he didn’t have to give his speech on the war at West Point, which was 100% Bush; he could have given it at some location symbolic of the dire need to invest in America’s many domestic problems. Where exactly did Obama go wrong? From a progressive vantage point, he seems to have made a classic pact with the devil in order to reinforce his political capital. A writer I knew wrote a book called The Liberal Dilemma in which he outlined the problem everyone on the left faces in this country. How adamantly does one stick to one’s progressive ideals (and remaining marginalized without power) versus how much does one compromise those ideals in order to obtain power (in order to actually accomplish much-needed reforms.) Last night, Obama went too far on the compromise end of this continuum and may have fallen off the continuum entirely. 

Garry Wills, below, expresses the betrayal well. The item, at bottom, about Dan Senor’s support of the speech shows just how far he went. I met Dan Senor in the Green Zone in Baghdad in December 2003, where he was a high-powered Bush flak supporting the Iraq War who sat in with several other Green Zone warriors on a meeting our veteran and military family group had with Paul Bremer’s assistant. Senor was interested in us, he said, because a visit by the parents of soldiers in a hot war zone was “unprecedented,” something reminiscent of Russian mothers taking buses to visit their sons in places like Chechnya. Senor is now co-author of a book in stores reveling in Israel as a modern free-enterprise miracle, an “exceptionalist” argument that totally dismisses Palestinian rights. That someone like Dan Senor is supportive of Obama’s decision to escalate in Afghanistan only underlines that the decision was a bad one.

It will now take time to tell how really bad the decision is to send 30,000 more young American targets into a doomed war. John McCain said, “the worst thing we can do in Afghanistan is pursue half-measures.” To me, that means either heed the hard historic realities of counter-insurgency warfare and go all-out and send in 500,000 plus troops equipped with our most super-lethal weaponry and unburdened with moral concerns for killing civilians — or use our intelligence and diplomatic powers to remove our military forces and take a different tact. Trying to have it both ways like Obama has done is only doing exactly what we did in Vietnam — escalating the violence to avoid the really hard decisions and advance the crisis to a later date. As Stanley Karnow wrote about the war in Vietnam, our escalation decisions were about the “prestige of the American government” and not about “winning,” since McNamara and others knew early on that was impossible. That Obama chose West Point to give his speech only emphasizes how much “the prestige of the American government” — and especially the prestige of our post-Vietnam brotherhood of generals — played in his decision. He seems to have employed his well-known intellectual and analytic powers to bolster his political position in a war culture rather than using those powers and his bully pulpit to extricate the nation from the disastrous legacy of the Bush/Cheney period. He took the easy road. Tragically, it could have been different, and he could have given an altogether different speech outlining why, for our own good as a nation, we cannot afford this war any longer — and how we are going to honorably extricate our military without abandoning the Afghan people. He would have had to concede a hit on our “prestige,” but in the end it would have gone down in history as a “profile in courage” just like Kennedy’s when he stood up to Curtis LeMay in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We in the peace movement now have our work cut out for us to continue to speak truth about this doomed war and to hold the Obama’s feet to the fire on his declared July 2011 withdrawal.

…..I first met Bob Shell at the Gramercy Park Hotel in New York city while attending a Photography Expo at the Jacob Javits Center back in 1995. At the time, Bob was the editor in chief of Shutterbug, one of the largest photography publications in America. We were introduced at the convention by a mutual friend, Reiko Ikeda a representative of MegaPress, a photography syndication group based in Tokyo. I was represented by Miss Ikeda as was Bob, so the three of us decided to meet back at Bob’s hotel after various convention activities to meet for drinks and dinner. I also asked Bob to review a portfolio of photographs that I brought along with hopes that Bob would review the pictures for an editorial he would later publish in Shutterbug magazine.

After that initial meeting in New York, Bob and I became friends. He lived and worked in Radford, Virginia, so we spent most of our time, over many years communicating by phone about photography and related matters. A regular part of our conversation centered around the use of various cameras and lighting techniques each of us employed when working with models.

There was a particular model that Bob mentioned quite often, her name was Marion Franklin. They developed a friendship and eventually became lovers. Ms. Franklin enjoyed being photographed by Bob and enjoyed modeling for him on numerous occasions. She apparently was a big fan of my book Obsessions, a result of Bob’s earlier recommendation to find a book publisher. We talked often about making a trip down to Radford to photograph Marion, as well as other models that Bob frequently worked with in the Radford area.

That trip was never meant to be. On June 3, 2003, Marion died during a photo shoot at Bob’s studio. He was later prosecuted, and convicted in September of 2007. He is presently serving a 32 year sentence for involuntary manslaughter and other charges.

Bob and I communicated numerous times after Marion’s death. He explained the tragic events of that fateful day and implored his innocence of the charges levied by his claims of an overzealous prosecutor who won conviction by jury trial on September 3, 2007.

After Bob’s conviction, I lost track of him for a while. I scoured the internet trying to figure out where he was sent to serve his sentence. A year passed and then a couple of things happened in the fall of 2008. I received an email from a friend of Bob’s, who also believes that he was wrongfully convicted. I was contacted because Bob had been asking about me and sought my help. I responded in kind, still believing in his innocence, I conferred with several of my attorney friends for advise and a course of action to have Bob’s case reopened.

At around the same time, I became friends with a renowned private investigator who has since offered support in having a closer look at Bob’s case. We have already uncovered various problems with the prosecutions case, especially in the area of mitigation and will keep readers informed of our course of action over the coming months. The habeas corpus clock is ticking for Bob. He has already exercised most of his standard appeals. Short of clemency from the governor of Virginia or a new trial, Bob is imprisoned for life unless someone that believes in his innocence takes action. To learn more about Bob’s case log on to www.bobshelltruth.com. TW

Posted By John Grant

Will President Obama cave-in to the generals?

General Stanley McChrystal was appointed commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan due to his leadership in Anbar Province in Iraq, where he was given credit for the success of “the surge.” The propaganda had it that additional troops led to the success of the surge in Iraq. But as people like Bob Woodward have pointed out, that is not the way it really happened. Woodward attributed it to a “secret weapon” he would not reveal. It turns out that secret weapon was General McChrystal’s Special Operations Command, which included highly secret units that captured or assassinated people who were labeled ”irreconcilables,” the current buzzword in Petraeus counter-insurgency doctrine for people who refuse to go along with our program — ie. those who would not accept the $300 a month paid to insurgents to play ball with us. Those captured were sent to a highly secret unit in Baghdad designated by numbers that constantly changed to avoid accountability and staffed by soldiers in civilian clothes with beards, no ranks and using only fictitious first names — all designed to make tracking and accountability difficult or impossible. (This was all reported in an Esquire magazine article several years ago.) In fact, a Navy investigator was tasked to investigate charges of torture by this unit and the investigator threw up his hands and gave up because of the fictitious names and the rest. McChrystal assured his men that the Red Cross would never set foot in the unit, and it never did. Allegations of abuse and torture were reported in the Esquire article — as were tales of innocent people being run through the whole process.

None of this was even hinted at during the Senate confirmation hearing for General McChrystal. He was rubber-stamped through, we were told, because he was so desperately needed in Afghanistan, where we were basically losing the game. It was very clear that McChrystal was named commander to bring this “secret weapon” to the challenge in Afghanistan. Soldiers in these special ops units were to serve for something like five years with periods of 90 days or so in country, then some down time back in the US for rest and training; then, it was back to the front and so on. The point was to establish a long-term commitment to the war effort. The reporters have likely only broken the surface of this secret tactical program that is so critical to the larger, long-term counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan, which entails ground troops and a host of civil affairs and development tasks.  McChrystal is a very cool, smooth customer able to keep secret what he must and present a good face for the propaganda when that is needed. He likes to talk about having “humility” and about how our new task is to “protect the people.” Of course, the Taliban employ the same propaganda notion that they also are about “protecting the people” — from us. As is usually the case in such wars, the population is stuck in the middle receiving the brunt of the violence. The unavoidable challenge is that the Taliban are Pashtuns and they have lived in this very rugged terrain using Islam as a disciplinary ideology for centuries — and they don’t like outsiders. As a Vietnamese officer said to Robert McNamara years after our war there, “We knew you would eventually leave, because you could leave. We lived there and could not leave.” 

As Keith Olberman pointed out eloquently in a Special Comment Monday night, “Mister President, we cannot afford this war.”  Afghans see us as occupiers, and that won’t change. He spoke of “making our troops suffer to make our generals happy.” He mentioned the Pat Tillman case, where General McChrystal ”was willing to stand truth on its head” and pass bald-faced lies to the press and the American people. Why should we trust this man? Olberman wanted to know. “The Pentagon is in the war business!” Olberman cried — so of course they are pushing for more war. We elected an adult, civilian commander-in-chief to represent us, the hard-working, reasonable citizens of this nation, and to tell the generals “No” — as John Kennedy did vis-a-vis General Curtis LeMay and others who wanted to invade during the Cuban Crisis and as Kennedy did in being reluctant to follow McNamara’s call to escalate in Vietnam. (I’ll leave for another time any speculation about what happened to Kennedy in the end.)  

We can’t afford this war because it costs $1 million to support one soldier for a year in Afghanistan. It costs over $1 million for an MRAP truck designed to be destroyed as it protects our soldiers when they hit an IED. It costs $400 for each gallon of gasoline needed to run the MRAPs at something like 5 MPG. Now we learn the Taliban are getting stronger in the north where we thought things were calm and we had a clean route to get supplies in via Uzbekistan. We learn they are becoming more sophisticated in attacking us; that is, they are learning more about us and, as happens over time in wars like this, they will develop new strategies and tactics to attack our young soldiers. Our military is now stretched to the crisis level, with families suffering under multiple deployments, PTSD and record-high suicides. Wall Street has been bailed out, but unemployment across the nation is at unacceptable levels and we’re being told we don’t have the resources to create jobs to do things like maintain our crumbling Infrastructure.  Food stamps are now being distributed in the US at unprecedented levels and growing. Health care is an insult to common decency.  Fear of everything is on the rise. The list of domestic dysfunction goes on.  

We need to recognize the empire is showing signs of strain, and we need to find a better way fro the good of Americans here at home.  Let’s hope President Obama can figure that out before it’s too late.