What does the state of Alaska have in common with the US Military ?

Neither pay for rape kits! Figures have been coming out recently that continue to destroy the idea that the US military is a force of good, and in the case of the war in Afghanistan, a force capable of liberating women: servicewomen are TWICE as likely to face rape and sexual assault as their civilian counterparts.

After Congress threatened Department of Defense officials with contempt citations, the Pentagon admitted that

in 2007 there were 2,688 sexual assaults in the military, including 1,259 reports of rape. Just 8 percent (181) of those cases were referred to courts martial, compared to a civilian prosecution rate of 40 percent. And almost half of those cases were dismissed without investigation. (And I say Whitley "had to admit" the number of cases because in 2004, Congress woke up to the fact that the DoD was blowing off the issue and required the military to make yearly reports on all matters relating to sexual assault in the Armed Forces. But those reports did not indicate either prioritizing or progress -- hence the hearings.)

As the article notes, current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates played a key role in suppressing this information. This adds another reason why activists must challenge the logic of President-elect Obama's consideration of this war-mongering rape apologist.

An important - and positive - lesson in this case is that many revelations about command rape and abuse of women in the armed services have come to light during Winter Soldier testimonies organized by Iraq Vets Against the War and their allies in the antiwar movement. These gatherings, which have taken place from in the Pacific Northwest, Baltimore, DC, Madison, and other cities across the country, have been a venue for service people and vets to speak out about the racism, sexism, and brutality of the armed forces. Exposing these abuses is part and parcel of radicalizing and organizing the antiwar masses in this country who swept Obama into office and can give further confidence to active duty soldiers to speak out and get organized.

Obama’s Mandate: Why “Going Slow” is a Recipe for Going Nowhere Fast

Less than 24 hours after Barack Obama won the presidency with a greater share of the popular vote than any candidate in 20 years, talking heads from all quarters (including his own) began the mad rush to contain the tremendous popular energy that had infused his campaign. On November 5th, Robert Gibbs, a senior advisor to the campaign, told the New York Times that the masses of people across the country who spontaneously took to the streets in celebration of Obama's victory need to have "a realistic expectation of what can happen and how quickly.” William Galston of The New Republic, in a rather strange piece, argues that the economic crisis effectively precludes Obama from taking any effective action to remedy the crisis' effects on working Americans. Scott Winship, also of TNR, in one of the denser (as in more stupid) articles I've seen post-election, argues that since the Dems have a lesser margin in the House and Senate today than they did in 1992, 2010 could well see another "Republican Revolution" and its ensuing Contract on America.[1] Paul Krugman writes an effective riposte to such technocratic gibberish: "John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate."

The comparison of Obama and Clinton has become nothing less than a mantra among those seeking to convince the former to play ritardando. "Remember Hillarycare!" they mouthe with solemnity. The narrative is as follows: Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 promising sweeping changes (universal health care, federal anti-scabbing legislation, and a federal freedom of choice act, etc) and the end of Reaganism. He tried to move too fast, however, and gave the Republicans an opportunity which they took in 1994. Unfortunately, he had to spend the rest of his time in office battling a hostile congress (tear, cue violin.)

Very little of this narrative has anything to do with reality. Beginning with the end, it ignores the boatload of quite unsavory things Bill Clinton did accomplish during his presidency (the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, NAFTA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the destruction of welfare, the assault on Yugoslavia, etc). Based on this record, one would have the impression that Clinton worked quite happily with a Republican congress.

Beyond this, the core of the narrative is, quite simply, a fantasy. Bill Clinton did not move quickly to enact the progressive promises of his campaign. As Vincente Navarro, the "token leftist" of the Clinton's health care taskforce reminds us in a crucial article, "President Clinton made his first priority a reduction of the federal deficit (a policy not even included in his program), approved NAFTA (against the opposition of the AFL-CIO, the social movements, and even the majority of the Democratic Party), and committed himself to perpetuation of the for-profit health insurance system." If anything, Clinton brought on the Republican Revolution not by moving too quickly to the Left, but by executing a sharp turn to the Right.

Navarro's analysis rings true in several ways. First, Clinton's own staffers admit it. In the same article quoted earlier about the Obama campaign trying to dampen expectations, we find a curious admission from Paul Begala, one of Bill's senior advisors. Begala recounts Bill's reaction to his advice that the candidate needed to cool his backers' expectations:

“I remember talking about this to him in the closing days of the campaign,” Mr. Begala said. “And he started saying, ‘We didn’t get into this overnight and we’re not going to get out of it overnight.’ ”

“So I remember him talking about it and doing it — and it didn’t have any effect on the citizens,” Mr. Begala said. That was one reason, he said, that Democrats lost control of Congress two years later.

This rather extraordinary admission invites no comment from the Times' reporter, who is apparently intent on sustaining the goals of the Obama team.

Begala's comment is vindicated by an electoral analysis of the 1994 Congressional elections. Hailed by the Republicans as a mandate for a return to Reagan, the election illustrates the deadly effect Clinton's triangulation had upon his base. Voter turnout among those making $22,000 (2007 dollars) or less a year dropped sharply, by 21%. A drop in African American voting rates. And a drop in voting rates for women. Democratic turnout was down in every part of the country except the Mid-Atlantic and the Far West, where gains were minute. By turning sharply away from the positions which had fueled his campaign, Clinton drove a nail into his own political coffin. If Obama wishes to avoid a similar fate, he would do well to ignore the advice of the "go slow" crowd.

What Obama does or doesn't decide to do, however, is far less important than what those of us on the ground decide. Based upon the conduct of his advisors and his selection of Clintonite DLC hack Rahm Emmanuel for Chief of Staff, he's already made his decision. What is urgently needed now is for all of us who celebrated Tuesday night to turn a deaf ear to the go-slow liberals both inside and outside of Obama's administration and get down to the hard work of rebuilding the American Left.


[1] Less relevant to my argument, but perhaps more entertaining, is Ramesh Ponnuru's delusional fantasy that the American electorate is best characterized as "center-right."

St. Paul Police Target protestors, journalists

As many of you have probably heard, the police presence outside of the Republican National Convention for the Labor Day rallies was immense. CNN reported that the police received a federal grant of 50 million (taxpayer) dollars to beef up the police presence with 3,500 extra officers. A fact that strikingly shows the priorities of the feds, especially in light of the Republican charade to shuffle their convention schedule in hopes of hoodwinking us into thinking they actually give a shit about the people of the Gulf coast, is that this sum is a fourth of the necessary investment needed to rebuild the barrier islands and wetlands that would have acted as a major buffer to any hurricane. This could have potentially prevented the tragedy that was Katrina and the trauma being caused by Gustav.

Back to the title of the post. So, despite a spirited and well attended (about 10,000 people) march and several direct action events, the police victimized several journalists and activists, in particular Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were picked up for 'felony rioting' –which is absurd considering that they were journalists covering street demos– and Goodman was picked up for obstructing an arrest when she inquired into what was happening to her colleagues. (Here is a video of her arrest). Thankfully the three have since been released from custody, but the charges against Kouddous and Salazar have yet to be dismissed. In addition to these bogus charged that amount to an assault on free speech, all three were handled violently by the police. Here is DN's statement condemning the arrests and providing more details. While the case of the DN three has been more widely noticed, some 300 activists were picked up and attacked with rubber bullets, tear gas, and concussion grenades for participating in direct action against the Republicans. Ironically, Fox News has a fairly decent description of the horror expressed by the poor Delegates who were the targets of the activists' ire (one managed to get on a delegation's bus and yell "Thanks for fucking up the country"). Apparently, Fox has since paired down (excised) all mentions of the positive aspects of the protests and sit-ins and also the horrified convention goers interviews. Typical. Anyhow, the repression against activists and journalists stayed on par with the amount of security personnel and the tenor of the past eight years of Bush's assault on civil liberties.

Despite the repression, however, the outpouring of anger at the past eight years of Bush among leftists of all shades (from Obama supporters to far-leftists) was truly inspiring. Iraq Vets Against the War, Vets for Peace, the Campus Antiwar Network and the ISO all had excellent contingents. I personally met many people for whom this march represented their first foray into activism. Given the criminal fact that there hasn't been a national anti-war demo since January 2007, this march represented in a significant way the potential for rebuilding an anti-war movement in this country despite the cold douche of election year politics on activism.

Here is Socialist Worker's coverage of the protest.