This month began with 140,000 American troops in Iraq — 13,000 more than in late July.

Almost 30 months have passed since Time magazine’s mid-April 2004 cover story, “No Easy Options,” reported that “foreign policy luminaries from both parties say a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would cripple American credibility, doom reform in the Arab world and turn Iraq into a playground for terrorists and the armies of neighboring states like Iran and Syria.”

Back then, according to the USA’s largest-circulation newsmagazine, “the most” that the president could hope for was that “some kind of elected Iraqi government will eventually emerge from the wreckage, at which point the U.S. could conceivably reduce the number of its troops significantly. But getting there requires a commitment of at least several more months of American blood and treasure.”

As I noted in my book War Made Easy, which came off the press nearly 18 months ago, “Hedge words were plentiful: ‘the most’ that could be hoped for was that ‘some kind’ of elected Iraqi government would ‘eventually emerge,’ at which time the United States ‘could conceivably’ manage to ‘reduce’ its troop level in Iraq ‘significantly,’ although even that vague hope necessitated a commitment of ‘at least several more months’ of Americans killing and dying. But in several more months, predictably, there would still be no end in sight — just another blank check for more ‘blood and treasure,’ on the installment plan.”

President Bush keeps demanding those blank checks, and Congress keeps cutting them. What Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism” provides ample justifications. For Bush, one of them involves couching the choices ahead in military terms — to be best judged by military leaders. This is, in essence, an effort to short-circuit democracy…

Read the full column.

When Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, invited President Bush to engage in a “direct television debate” a few days ago, the White House predictably responded by calling the offer “a diversion.” But even though this debate will never happen, it’s worth contemplating.

Both presidents are propaganda junkies — or, more precisely, propaganda pushers — so any such debate would overdose the audience with self-righteous arrogance. The two presidents are too much alike.

Each man, in his own way, is a fundamentalist: so sure of his own moral superiority that he’s willing to push his country into a military confrontation. This assessment may be a bit unfair to Ahmadinejad, who hasn’t yet lied his nation into war; the American president is far more experienced in that department…

Read the full column.

Nearly five years into the “war on terror,” it’s still at the core of American media and politics.

    Yeah, I’ve seen the recent polls showing a drop in public support for President Bush’s “war on terror” claims. And I’ve read a spate of commentaries this month celebrating Bush’s current lack of political traction on the terrorism issue, like the New York Times piece by Frank Rich last Sunday triumphantly proclaiming that “the era of Americans’ fearing fear itself is over.”

    That’s a comforting thought, hovering somewhere between complacent and delusional.

    Reflexive fear may be on vacation, but it hasn’t quit. The “war on terror” motif is fraying – but it remains close at hand as a mighty pretext for present and future warfare…

Read the full column.

The leading pro-war Democrat in the Senate is hoping for a landslide in the New York primary next month. And unless progressives quickly mobilize to dent her vote total, she’s likely to get it.

Hillary Clinton, of course, intends to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. But first there’s her quest to win big for reelection. If antiwar voters cut into Clinton’s percentage in the primary on Sept. 12, despite overwhelming media visibility and a massive campaign war chest, her momentum would take a hit.

After Sen. Joe Lieberman lost to antiwar challenger Ned Lamont in Connecticut’s Democratic primary last week, I thought some more about the fast-approaching Senate race in New York, where anti-war candidate Jonathan Tasini (www.tasinifornewyork.org) will be on the ballot next to Clinton…

Read the full column.

Syndicated columnist Richard Cohen declared in the Washington Post on Tuesday that an-eye-for-an-eye would be a hopelessly wimpy policy for the Israeli government.

“Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness,” he wrote. “For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy’s back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to reestablish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.”

Cohen likes to sit in front of a computer and use flip phrases like “punch out your lights” as euphemisms for burning human flesh and bones with high-tech weapons, courtesy of American taxpayers.

Read the full column.

After getting out of Lebanon, writer June Rugh told Reuters on Tuesday: “As an American, I’m embarrassed and ashamed. My administration is letting it happen [by giving] tacit permission for Israel to destroy a country.” The news service quoted another American evacuee, Andrew Muha, who had been in southern Lebanon. He said: “It’s a travesty. There’s a million homeless in Lebanon and the intense amount of bombing has brought an entire country to its knees.”

Embarrassing. Shameful. A travesty. Those kinds of words begin to describe the alliance between the United States and Israel. Here are a few more: Government criminality. High-tech terror. Mass murder from the skies. The kind of premeditated action that the U.S. representative in Nuremberg at the International Conference on Military Trials — Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson — was talking about on August 12, 1945, when he declared that “no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.”

The United States and Israel. Right now, it’s the most dangerous alliance in the world.

Read the full column.

The Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times could not have been any clearer.

“The story really takes us back into the 8th century, a truly barbaric world,” John Burns said. He was speaking Tuesday night on the PBS “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” describing what happened to two U.S. soldiers whose bodies had just been found. Evidently they were victims of atrocities, and no one should doubt in the slightest that the words of horror used by Burns to describe the “barbaric murders” were totally appropriate.

The problem is that Burns and his mass-media colleagues don’t talk that way when the cruelties are inflicted by the U.S. military — as if dropping bombs on civilians from thousands of feet in the air is a civilized way to terrorize and kill.

When journalists maintain a flagrant double standard in their language — allowing themselves appropriate moral outrage when Americans suffer but tiptoeing around what is suffered by victims of the U.S. military — the media window on the world is tinted a dark red-white-and-blue, and the overall result is more flackery than journalism.

Based on the available evidence from Abu Ghraib to Afghanistan to Guantanamo, anyone who claims that U.S. foreign policy does not include torture is disingenuous or deluded…

Read the full column.