by Andrea Perrault

After the events of January -- the election of Scott Brown to U.S. Senate and the declaration of "personhood" to corporations by the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems that we’re on another rocky, rollercoaster, Red vs. Blue ride into this year’s midterm elections. Was Barak Obama right to declare in his State of the Union address that a philosophy of "you lose, I win" is now all too dominant in our culture, and that every day is Election Day? What can ethical people do to preserve genuine democracy? As political parties seem to fade from the mainstream and independents carry more clout, does any consistent political philosophy have value? What role do political values have in an ethical approach to life? Are small "d" democratic ideals out of fashion?

Technology plays a significant role in the unfolding of today’s events, whether they be political or cultural. The term "IM" -- instant messaging -- carries significant weight in our twenty-first century culture. This instant response approach allows little time for reflection, or learning, or for a politician to grow into the job. His or her immediate carrying out of campaign promises will be the test of our willingness to support that leader. President Barak Obama is a perfect case in point. He vowed to end the wars; even though he set a timetable to exit from Iraq, we’re more mired in Afghanistan than ever, and Yemen looks like a new frontier of war. Since his election, the economy tanked due to the policies of the Bush administration, yet Obama kept the same Wall Street cronies to steer his fiscal strategies. Main Street and regular folks got no bail-outs, but bankers and auto industry tycoons benefited nicely. The voters who swarmed to the polls to elect him in 2008 may likely stay away in 2010. The implied instant message to Obama was to get back on track with your promises and move faster. Conversely, the health care issue dominated the Obama agenda in his first year, but his having given so much authority to Congress to work out the details surely backfired. The voters who found fault with this strategy, and hated its likely result, went to the polls en masse to provide Scott Brown with an unpredicted victory in Massachusetts. The instant message to Obama in this case was SLOW DOWN -- we don’t want a multi-thousand page tome rife with protectionism.

Did the election of Scott Brown prove that, as Governor Patrick asserted in his State of the State address, the electorate showed that "it has all the power it needs to make the change it wants." If so, politicians and thinking public beware -- here’s your Instant Message: the public will vote for change regardless of what that change may bode.

The electorate is more polarized than ever -- Democrats and Republicans are stretched so far apart that each can’t even conceive of being civil to the other, much less actually have mutual friendships. Independents have newfound clout, although there’s no consistent platform there. Politicians of Ted Kennedy’s day understood that political views are important in political debates in political venues, but they do not define or encompass "humaneness." Humanity may be doomed in today’s political and civic world. The Instant Message here is that we need to bring ethics back. But will anyone listen? If so, for how long will that Instant Message find an audience?

Raed Jarrar Meets with Current Affairs Group

by Margo Woods

On January 24, 2010 the Early Morning Current Affairs Group was joined by Mr. Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi born architect, blogger and political analyst who is working with Mass Peace Action. Mr. Jarrar presented an illuminating overview of the current Iraqi situation and focused on a few very critical points pertaining to a US withdrawal.

The most important aspect he stressed was that in late 2008 there was a dramatic shift in the ground rules of the conflict. Initially the Bush administration position was that a withdrawal of troops would be dependent on the situation on the ground. This could be interpreted in many ways (this was the type of solution we used in South Korea), was very open ended and could easily result in a long term presence of US troops and contractors. In 2008, the negotiations changed and the agreement of withdrawal was a time based action. 100% of US troops, contractors and bases were to be withdrawn by December 2011. This Mr. Jarrar thought was a good plan since it was what Iraqis wanted -- an end to the occupation. It would also signal that the US was not a colonizing power or interested in nation building. Even if Iraq fell into chaos, and it could, it was their chaos. Al Queda wants the US to stay because it helps them recruit in Iraq. If the withdrawal happens as scheduled, it also signals that the US has kept its word which will help us in the international arena and in peace keeping in the Middle East. Obama has also supported an even shorter time schedule for significant troop withdrawal which would start by August 2010. This withdrawal agreement, however, did not seek or obtain congressional approval in the US which is a shortcoming. There is concern that the US CIA and military will pressure Obama to return to the Bush plan which would have negative effects on our status in Iraqi and in the Middle East as not keeping our word. Since it is an executive agreement the president could use his power to change it. Mr. Jarrar encouraged all of us to support Obama in the timed complete withdrawal of US troops as currently in place, regardless of the outcome of the Iraqi elections. It is true that the government is weak/unstable, corrupt, and has provided little result in the reforming of services, health care and education. However, prior to the war the country had excellent health care, services and education and would have to figure out how to develop these again.

The history of the US policy in Iraq is very different from the current direction recently agreed upon in 2008. Initially the Bush Administration was supporting a three state solution in which the three sections would
essentially return to the older war-lord control rather than a national unity of all of Iraq. This was favored in the pre-invasion during meetings in London of the three fractions and the Bush representatives. This arrangement was seen as being more friendly to international oil and gas companies that would then contract favorable arrangements with each of the three separate "countries." Currently in Iraq, the parliament is seen as the duly elected body that is more representative of the Iraqi people, but the executive branch is seen as a puppet government of the US (the Vichy government of Iraq). It seems that the US had more influence in determining the executive branch and it does not have the support of the people. It is curious that currently there are no plans to have a US team to oversee the elections in March. Without such a team the outcome may be contested. We should encourage and support a US or international agency to oversee the election. Would a “poor" election be an excuse for changing our timetable?

Iraq has the 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserve in the world. In 2006, the Iraqi congress passed a new benchmark law which supported national control of Iraqi oil. This new law was in conflict with the earlier three state solution. The Iraqi congress has set strict criteria for agreements with multinational oil companies which are more favorable to Iraq. These actions, which were motivated by the nationalistic sentiments of the Iraqi representatives and which have been accepted by our government, help to rectify the impression that the US entered Iraq to control their oil. These actions/treaties were not readily released by the US government, but access to them was obtained via the Freedom of
Information Act and were commented on by Mr. Jarrar. There are agreements to set up 37 year leases with individual companies with a set level of return that is considered acceptable by the Iraqis and with Iraqi control over the production rates.

A loss in the production rates would negate any influence of the OPEC nations and drive down the price of oil paid to Iraq. We may want cheap oil but this would result in Iraq not having any control of its most valuable resource which accounts for 93% of its GDP. Why this information is not more known in the US is an important question.

The last topic discussed was the dropping of  the prosecution of the "Blackwater Crimes" by US contractors and a recent apology by Biden concerning this. We will see if this prosecution moves forward. Mr. Jarrar again stressed that the most important thing to the Iraqi people is that they not be an occupied nation. It is estimated that 1 million Iraqis died and 5 million were displaced in this war. Many of the displaced were to help put in place the case that there was a natural division geographically in the three ethnic groups in Iraq. This Mr. Jarrar firmly denied. He again asked that we support President Obama in keeping with the timed withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Public opinion could be swayed depending on events and special interests. We should all keep this in mind if you have faith in the Mass Peace Action Group and the American Friends Service Committee and their work for peace.