A few thoughts in praise of backwardness.

"We don't look backward," says President Obama in reference to imposing justice on powerful large-scale criminal suspects.  Of course, as we don't prosecute future crimes but only crimes of the past, "not looking backward" is a euphemism for immunity -- an immunity not granted to those accused of small-scale crimes or crimes with no victims at all.

"Forward!" says President Obama, making that seemingly vacuous word his slogan.  But the word has meaning; it means continuing thoughtlessly in the current direction, without seeking guidance from the mistakes or accomplishments or untested inspirations of the past.

The secrecy of the Obama White House, including record levels of classification, ground-breaking legal claims to secrecy, and record-level prosecutions of whistleblowers, moves us in practice to the position of rolling "forward" without a clear idea where we are or where we've just been.  This is nearly as fatal to good public policy as "looking forward" is to law enforcement.

We need to know our immediate history, but equally we need to know the history of distant times and places, for otherwise we can be greatly deceived by those in power -- including with that greatest deception of all: the idea that we are powerless.  Only history shows us what works and what doesn't in attempting to improve the world.

Only history reveals, as well, how dramatically different patterns of life and thought and notions of "human nature" can be in cultures separated by time and/or space.  It is always easier to imagine radical changes for the better after examining how radically different people have already been.

In 1888 Edward Bellamy wrote a book called "Looking Backward," which told the story of a man put into a trance in 1887 and awakened in the year 2000.  In 1888 people bought as many copies of this book as could be printed, created clubs and organizations inspired by it, and developed a political movement the lasting (though indirect) benefits of which are no doubt tremendous. 

Bellamy was, of course, looking forward, but we must look backward to recall an age in which anyone looked forward in a terribly useful or inspiring way.  In 1888, people imagined the world could be made a much more pleasant place to live.  In 2012 we are lucky if we can muster any confidence that the world will not collapse into an environmental or military or plutocratic hell on earth.

Bellamy got his prediction of the year 2000 largely wrong, but of course he was prescribing more than predicting.  He got his prescription wrong as well.  That is to say, what he prescribed was probably to some extent unworkable and undesirable.  But it is tempting for us to confuse these questions, to imagine that whatever hasn't happened couldn't have or shouldn't have.

Bellamy had no accurate notion of what technology would look like in the year 2000.  He idealized large and centralized bureaucracy.  He valued military-like discipline rather than cooperation in the workplace.  He imagined, absurdly I think, that a perfect society need not contain a mechanism for additional major changes.  He believed -- and I have doubts on the point -- that religion and superstition could persist harmoniously with extreme ethical enlightenment. 

In questionable moves, Bellamy bestowed greater power on the old than the young, built elitism into systems of governance and justice, and condoned the use of solitary imprisonment.  In notable silences, Bellamy's vision did not address the question of environmental sustainability or the problem of outsourcing -- which is not to say that his utopia could not have incorporated solutions to such concerns.

But Bellamy advocated nonviolent change over violent in a manner suggesting an understanding of history he had not lived through.  He argued plausibly for the elimination of debt, interest, and -- in fact -- money (which is not to say all forms of compensation).  He laid out plans for peace, relative equality of wealth, security for all, an elimination of (most) prisons and virtually all crime, and the serious and nonviolent elimination of something all men and women have longed for since at least the age of Shakespeare: lawyers and law schools. 

Bellamy's world would be prosperous and wealthy despite a retirement age of 45, in part through the elimination of debt, of militaries, of prisons, of tax assessors, of crime, of advertisements, of wasted or duplicated efforts (think of how much our "health insurance" system costs us compared to those of other nations), and -- here's the bit our current president would like, at least for the rich and powerful -- of a criminal justice system.  (I'm afraid the steps that could conceivably bring us closer to Bellamy's world would need to come in a proper order, with the elimination of accountability for those in power evolving late in the process). 

Bellamy may have been deluding himself if he imagined a world free of dangerous levels of selfishness.  But he was certainly on the right track in envisioning a world that did not promote selfishness as a virtue, that valued instead one's responsibility to society, to children, and to future generations.  Bellamy imagined huge advances for women's rights, many of which have in fact materialized.  But other dreams of "Looking Backward" remain dreams.

Can we have competition, checks, and balances, but no advertising or systemic motivations to deceive?  Can we have media outlets democratically managed by their consumers?  Can we put one umbrella over a sidewalk when it rains instead of each carrying our own?

Dare I say it?  Yes, we can.

But not until we abandon our affection for cries of "Forward!"

We're approaching three years since Howard Zinn left us, and to my ear his voice sounds louder all the time.  I expect that effect to continue for decades and centuries to come, because Zinn spoke to enduring needs.  He taught lessons that must be relearned over and over, as the temptations weighing against them are so strong.  And he taught those lessons better than anybody else.

We like to use the word "we," and to include in it everything the Constitution pretends to include in it, notably the government.  But the government tends to act against our interests.  Multi-billionaires, by definition, act against our interest.  Zinn warned us endlessly of the danger of allowing those in power to use "we" to include us in actions we would otherwise oppose.  It's a habit we carry over from sports to wars to economic policies, but the danger of a spectator claiming "we scored!" doesn't rise to the same level as millions of spectators claiming "we liberated Afghanistan." 

We like to think of elections as a central, important part of civic life, and as a means of significantly impacting the future.  Zinn not only warns against that misperception with incisive historical examples, and with awareness of the value of the struggle for black voting rights in the Southern United States, but he was a part of that struggle and warned against misplaced expectations at the time.

We like to think of history as shaped by important stand-out individuals.  We like to think of war as a necessary tool of last resort, as demonstrated by our list of "good wars" which generally includes the U.S. war of independence, the U.S. civil war, and the second world war (debunked by Zinn as 'The Three Holy Wars').  We imagine that political parties are central to our efforts to shape the world, but that civil disobedience is not.  We imagine that we often have no power to shape the world, that the forces pushing in other directions are too powerful to be reversed.  If you listen to enough Howard Zinn, each of these beliefs ends up looking ludicrous -- even if, in some cases, tragic.

If you haven't had enough Howard Zinn lately (and who has?), there's a new book of his collected speeches just published, called Howard Zinn Speaks.  Of course it's just a tiny sampling of his speeches, as he gave innumerable speeches over the years.  With one exception, these have been transcribed from speeches given without pre-written remarks.  Zinn doesn't have his footnotes in hand.  He paraphrases people rather than quoting them.  But he also says what he believes to be most needed, what he has thought about most deeply, what pours out of him in ever-changing variation on his one and only theme: We can shape the future if, and only if, we make use of the past.

The speeches collected here are themselves part of the past.  There's one from the 1960s, two from the 70s, two from the 80s, four from the 90s, and over half the book from the Bush-Obama years.  But the examples Zinn draws on, the stories he tells to make his points, go back for centuries into a past that most Americans only dimly recognize. 

Zinn traces the roots of racism and wars through Columbus, slavery, colonialism, and current U.S. wars.  "The abolition of war," he says, "is of course an enormous undertaking.  But keep in mind that we in the antiwar movement have a powerful ally.  Our ally is a truth which even governments addicted to war, profiting from war, must one of these days recognize: that wars are not practical ways of achieving their ends.  More and more, in recent history, the most powerful nations find themselves unable to conquer much weaker nations."

Four years ago, Zinn warned: "It is dangerous to look just to Obama.  This has been part of our culture, looking to saviors.  Saviors will not do it.  We cannot depend on the people on top to save us.  I hope that people who supported Obama will not simply sit back and wait for him to save us but will understand that they have to do more than this.  All of these are limited victories."

In April, 1963, Zinn spoke in similar terms -- if anything even more forthrightly -- of President Kennedy.  "This is beyond the South," he said.  "Our problem is not basically that Eastland is vicious, but that Kennedy is timid."  Obama Zinn criticized Kennedy for his actions and inactions in 1961 and again in 1963 when the Senate had the opportunity, as it always does, at the beginning of each new session, to change its own rules and do away with the filibuster.  Kennedy, Zinn had concluded, wanted to allow the racists to filibuster against civil rights.  Echoes of Zinn should be amplified between now and January loudly enough for current senators, and the current president, to hear. 

In May of 1971, Zinn said, "It's been a long time since we impeached a president.  And it's time, time to impeach a president, and the vice president, and everybody else sitting in high office who carries on this war."  In 2003, Zinn said, "There are people around the country calling for Bush's impeachment.  Some people think this is a daring thing to say.  No, it's in the Constitution.  It provides for impeachment. . . . Congress was willing to impeach Nixon for breaking into a building, but they're not willing to impeach Bush for breaking into a country." 

"It is true," Zinn says of our endless and perhaps permanent elections hang-up, "that Americans have been voting every few years for Congressmen and presidents.  But it is also true that the most important social changes in the history of the United States -- independence from England, Black emancipation, the organization of labor, gains in sexual equality, the outlawing of racial segregation, the withdrawal of the United States from Vietnam -- have come about not through the ballot box but through the direct action of social struggle, through the organization of popular movements using a variety of extralegal and illegal tactics.  The standard teaching of political science does not describe this reality."

Later (years later) Zinn says, without self-pity: "So if we don't have a press that informs us, we don't have an opposition party to help us, we are left on our own, which actually is a good thing to know.  It's a good thing to know we're on our own.  It's a good thing to know that you can't depend on people who are not dependable.  But if you're on your own, it means you must learn some history, because without history you are lost.  Without history, anybody in authority can get up before a microphone and say, 'We've got to go into this country for that reason and for this reason, for liberty, for democracy, the threat.'  Anybody can get up before a microphone and tell you anything.  And if you have no history, you have no way of checking up on that."

But if you do have history, Zinn says, then you gain the additional advantage of recognizing that "these concentrations of power, at certain points they fall apart.  Suddenly, surprisingly.  And you find that ultimately they're very fragile.  And you find that governments that have said 'we will never do this' end up doing it.  'We will never cut and run.'  They said this in Vietnam.  We cut and ran in Vietnam.  In the South, George Wallace, the racist governor of Alabama: 'Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.'  Enormous applause.  Two years later, Blacks in Alabama had in the meantime begun to vote and Wallace was going around trying to get Black people to vote for him.  The South said never, and things changed."

The more things change . . . the more we need to hear Howard Zinn.

Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznik have produced a phenomenally great book of U.S. history, and an accompanying television series premiering on Showtime on Monday.  Having just read half the book and having watched an advance copy of the first episode, my conclusion is that the book is dramatically better than the TV show, but that both are at the top of what's available in their respective genres.

The Untold History of the United States is not people's history in the sense of telling the stories of popular movements.  This is very much top-down history dominated by key figures in power.  But it is honest history that tears through myths and presents a reality not expected by most Americans -- and backs it up with well-documented facts. 

This is a history that focuses on foreign policy, and -- at least in the book -- begins with World War I.  No book can include everything one might have liked to see included, but this one is a terrific sampling of things I've wished were told more often and things I never knew before.  Some will call it a depressing tale lacking "all the good things the United States has done too."  I call it a refreshingly honest tale aimed at improving our conduct going forward.  I also come away with a deep sense of gratitude that -- for the moment anyway -- our society is still around at all.  After considering the steps that certain presidents and scientists have taken to destroy life as we know it, one has to be amazed we're still here.  Truman and Eisenhower figure prominently, and I believe that I have found in these authors a couple of men who might just agree with me that Harry Truman is the worst president we've ever seen.  They certainly make that case quite powerfully.

The book is excellent on World War I and on the New Deal, as well as on forbidden topics like the Wall Street Putsch of 1934 or the Nye Committee hearings on war profiteering.  The section on the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan is the best I've seen.  The history of the Cold War and who started it is invaluable.  The authors take on McCarthyism, the Eisenhower presidency, the Mossadeq overthrow, the Guzman overthrow, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and numerous other topics with great skill and insight -- and careful research. 

The Kennedy assassination, which Stone has famously dramatized on film before, gets a mere two paragraphs.  The discussion of the formation of Israel leaves much to be desired, but at least it's there.  The Korean War account is incomplete to say the least, as is the discussion of moves to impeach Truman -- for which there were motives the authors don't touch on.  But this is quibbling.  I would love for everyone to read this book, and I'll read the second half on Monday.

The book's take on World War II is far superior to that of the television show's first episode.  The episodes don't line up with the chapters, and so -- for whatever reason -- the TV viewers begin in World War II, not World War I.  The book has more useful material than the film and is lacking some material the film ought to have left out too.  The authors are very much in favor of U.S. entry into the war and wish it had come earlier.  They claim that Pearl Harbor was a surprise and reject claims that it was "abetted" by the U.S. government.  But who claims that?  Many have well documented that it was expected and in a certain sense desired by the Roosevelt White House.  But Stone and Kuznick's account makes crystal clear Roosevelt's desire for some such war-beginning incident, and their general account of the war is miles above any taught in any U.S. school I've ever seen.  (Kuznik teaches at American University, so students might consider enrolling there.)

The TV episode on WWII lacks background and context that the book provides in various chapters.  The bulk of it is standard history of supposed forces at work and intentions acted on.  The "untold" bits include Truman's racist murderousness, and a particular focus on the starring role the Soviet Union played in "winning" the war.  If Episode I serves to ease viewers into the fact-based reality being presented in "The Untold History," I'm all for it.  I suspect, however, that some of the other episodes that I haven't yet had time to watch will be far more engaging and exciting, as well as controversial -- or because controversial.  The episode on the dropping of the nuclear bombs might be the one to start your viewing with.  Or, if you really want to take my strongest advice: read the book!

From 1856 to 1860 Elihu Burritt promoted a plan to prevent civil war through compensated emancipation, or the purchase and liberation of slaves by the government, an example that the English had set in the West Indies.  Burritt traveled constantly, all over the country, speaking.  He organized a mass convention that was held in Cleveland.  He lined up prominent supporters.  He edited newsletters. 

And he was right.  England had freed its slaves in the Caribbean without a war.  Russia had freed its serfs without a war.  Slave owners in the U.S. South would almost certainly have preferred a pile of money to five years of hell, the deaths of loved ones, the burning and destruction of their property, and the uncompensated emancipation that followed, not to mention the century and a half of bitter resentment that followed that.  And not only the slave owners would have preferred the way of peace; it's not as if they did the killing and dying.

What does being right get you? Forgotten.  Who's ever heard of Elihu Burritt?

In 1862 four peace activists, including Eliza P. Gurney, met with Abraham Lincoln in the White House.  Lincoln, with tears running down his face, told them that he wished there had been no war, and that he would end it immediately if he could, but that he was merely a helpless instrument in the hands of his "Heavenly Father" who no doubt had some high purpose for all the suffering.  Lincoln carried a comforting letter from Gurney in his pocket when he was shot three years later. 

What comfort did Lincoln's superstition bring to three-quarters of a million dead and wounded?  What comfort did it bring to Burritt, who had known how to avoid the war and been forced to watch it proceed along with all the fools who supposed it "unavoidable"?  What comfort did it bring to centuries of students cruelly propagandized in elementary schools from that day to this with the idea that slavery can only be ended with war?

In 1885, U.S. peace activists prevented the Atlanta, a ship loaded with arms and munitions, from departing Philadelphia for Cuba.  They appealed to the governments in Washington and Madrid to submit their disputes to arbitration.  In 1896, the Universal Peace Union urged the Spanish government to give the Cubans their autonomy and withdraw all troops, while opposing any U.S. military intervention.  In 1898, the Pen and Sword, edited by D. R. Coude in Chicago, urged the President and Congress not to be "played for suckers" by yellow journalists out to sell more newspapers at the cost of launching a war.  Coude documented the lies and deceptions that had been moving the nation toward war. 

Peace activists flooded Washington with telegrams and letters insisting that the matter of the Maine be submitted to arbitration.  But many who favored peace in the abstract abandoned it, as is the custom, in the concrete.  "Though I hate war per se," wrote Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "I am glad that it has come in this instance.  I would like to see Spain swept from the face of the earth."  If that statement makes you think of what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said of Israel, it's worth remembering that he actually never said that, but that good U.S. liberals have said it of many nations over and over again for centuries now.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Theodore Roosevelt, and President McKinley were wrong, wrong to go to war, wrong to lust for genocide, and wrong to imagine they could wipe Spain off the earth.  D. R. Coude was right.  And who has ever heard of D. R. Coude?  Google hasn't.

In 1915, Jane Addams met with President Wilson and urged him to offer mediation to Europe.  Wilson praised the peace terms drafted by the Hague conference held by women for peace.  He received 10,000 telegrams from women asking him to act.  Historians believe that had he acted in 1915 or early in 1916 he might very well have helped bring the Great War to an end under circumstances that would have furthered a far more durable peace than the one made eventually at Versailles.  Wilson did act on the advice of Addams, and of his Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, but not until it was too late.  The Germans did not trust a mediator who had been aiding the British war effort.

What good is being right?  As early as 1935, U.S. peace activists were marching against U.S. provocations of Japan.  Can you imagine anyone more forgotten than they are?  It's almost treasonous to know about them.

But consider this.  During the U.S. civil war, pressure from peace activists forced a dispute between the U.S. and Britain to arbitration and away from conflict.  They did the same in 1869, leading to momentum in Washington and Europe for treaties of arbitration.  Among those celebrating progress in 1869 was Elihu Burritt.  Peace activists similarly prevented war with Mexico 20 years later and again advanced the cause of peaceful dispute resolution.  Peace groups in Europe helped prevent a war between France and Germany in the early years of the 20^th century.  And in 1926 -1927 U.S. peace activists again helped forestall war with Mexico.  At the same time, they built support for the Kellogg-Briand Pact that in 1928 banned war and proved immediately useful in halting war in Manchuria, Bolivia, and Paraguay.

The education of the U.S. public by peace activists before and after World War I, led to the situation in the 1930s when 62% of college students rejected the idea that a bigger Navy would make them safer and 16% said they would refuse to fight even if the United States were invaded.  In 1935, the New York Herald-Tribune's Institute of Public Opinion found that 75% of voters wanted a public referendum before any war could be launched, and 71% opposed joining in any war with other countries to "enforce the peace." 

Nuclear bombs have not been dropped in our wars since World War II.  The United States has not attacked Iran yet.  Israeli troops have refused direct orders to prepare to attack Iran.  The victories are never advertised.  But neither are the failures.  Silence is the strongest supporter of war.  In both victories and failures, it's worth knowing the facts and considering: Who has been right every time?  And who, in contrast, make up the full roster of experts on network and cable TV?*

*For further reading, pick up "Peace Or War: The American Struggle 1636-1936" by Merle Curti from which almost every incident in this article has been lifted.

By John Grant

In the parlance of the classic British colonial era, President Obama is faced with a bit of a sticky wicket in Benghazi, Libya. That metaphor, of course, refers to a patch of rough grass making it hard to hit the ball through the wicket in the British sport of cricket. British colonials liked to bring a little of England to the warm climes they colonized and played cricket on native-tendered grass between dealing with unruly wogs and quaffing gin and tonics to fight boredom and malaria.

By Linn Washington, Jr.

Much is rightly made of the ‘maverick’ character of former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Arlen Specter in obituaries and other media coverage since his recent death.

That maverick streak certainly animated Specter’s December 2010 Farewell Speech from the Senate where he criticized the lack of civility currently rampant in that body plus assailed both political parties for perpetuating legislative gridlock and abuses of Senate rules.

By John Grant

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
- P.T. Barnum
  

http://davidswanson.org/tubeworld

New Book for Ages 6 to 10: Tube World

Tube World is the first children's book by David Swanson, author of several nonfiction adult books. The illustrations for Tube World are by Shane Burke.

Parents: Have your kids been tired in the morning?  Have you found wet bathing suits in their beds?  Do they know things about far-away places that you didn’t teach them and they didn’t learn in school?  Do children visiting your town from halfway around the world always seem to be friends with your kids, and to only be around during certain hours of the day?  You won’t believe the explanation, but your kids might grin and wink at each other if you read it to them.

Kids: Did you know the center of the Earth was hollow?  Do you know the words that can take you there, if you’re under the covers in your swimming suit and prepared for the trip?  Can you imagine traveling anywhere in the world where there’s a swimming pool — and being home again in time for breakfast?  If you haven’t been to Tube World yet, this book will tell you the secrets you need to know.  And it will tell you about some children who discovered Tube World and used it to make the whole world a better place.

Buy the PDF, EPUB (iPad, Nook, etc.), or MOBI (Kindle) from Ebookit.

The paperback has been published in two versions, one with slightly better color, slightly better paper, and a dramatically higher price.

Buy the standard paperback from Amazon,

(If you order from Amazon it will ship right away even if Amazon says it won't ship for weeks; it is print-on-demand.)

Buy the premium paperback from Amazon,

Your local independent bookstore can order the book through Ingram.

Anyone can order the book in bulk at the lowest possible price right here.

Buy PDF, Audio, EPUB, or Kindle for $8 right here:

http://davidswanson.org/tubeworld

Advance Praise for Tube World:

“This book will make you laugh till water comes out your ears!”--Wesley

“This story is super flibba garibbidy schmibbadie libbidie awesome, mostly!”--Travis

“The best part is we saved 2,000 islands and pretty much the whole world in our swimming suits!”--Hallie

About Shane Burke:
Shane Burke lives in Denver Colorado and has been drawing and painting since he could hold a pencil. He took private art lessons when he was young and began winning awards and contests by the age of seven. His first big commission came at age nine when he created artwork for a billboard near his home town of Tracy California. His greatest influences came from his grandfather and elementary school teachers. He loved watching his grandfather paint landscapes and wanted to be just like him. Shane is a creative day dreamer and at complete peace when putting ink to paper.  You can see more of Shane's work at www.beezink.com

John Grant

“Blows that don’t break your back make it stronger.”
- Anthony Quinn in Omar Mukhtar, Lion of the Desert
 

For years, I’ve been working either in the journalism realm or as an antiwar veteran activist expressing the core idea that the United States of America is an “empire,” that its militarist foreign policy is “imperialistic” and that many of our perennial and current problems are rooted in the reality that, as an imperial nation, like many empires in history, we’re overextending ourselves and destroying something that is dear to all American citizens who love this country.

By John Grant

The patient, by the name of Israel, walks into the room and instantly bursts into a tirade of arguments conclusively proving his credentials, and says that he is better than everyone else.

-Ofer Grosbard

Israel On The Couch: The Psychology of the Peace Process

Americans have an Israel problem.

In January 2012, the White House and the Department of Defense released a pithy, strategic policy document, "Sustaining US Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense." Like all predecessor defense policies since World War II, its raison d'etre is maintaining American global supremacy through military superiority. And its premise: "Everybody else must be weaker," to sustain US national security. Cold wars and hot wars since World War II have turned us into a self-appointed global cop, notes Army veteran and international policy specialist Andrew Bacevich. As for statecraft, he adds, "Washington has become an intellectual dead zone."

The seeds of American militarism spawned by the Second World War compel us to probe beneath the "good war" moniker because it is the poster war that keeps war acceptable in our society. In this piece, the soldiers' and veterans' voices are unique in being few - it was our most popular war, critics are rare and in from voices of highly educated veterans and high-level military commanders.

READ THE REST.

Fast forward to 2048. The world is greatly changed, and in this year China invades France, occupying Paris and a good portion of the nation. The French are massacred, evicted, raped, chased, and terrorized. Towns are destroyed. Every town and village has its name changed to a Chinese name, and its prior existence erased from any history books produced from then forward.

Portions of France not yet under Chinese control shelter refugees by the millions. French citizens captured in their homes are held as "prisoners of war" and freed to become refugees in distant parts of France. China changes the name of its occupied areas from France to Chance. The remaining parts of the country are just referred to by their local (Chinese) names, as if they were part of no nation at all and yet somehow Chinese in the end.

By Mike Caddell

Wichita -- One of four Wichita museums is facing a $100,000 cutback in funding which may force its closure.  It is called “Cowtown,” a tribute to the glory days of white settler expansion and of cattle.  A distant cry is heard from the editorial board of the city’s single daily newspaper, the Wichita Eagle, which ran an opinion piece by Peter Brownlee, titled:  “Why pick on Cowtown?” 

Harry Truman spoke in the U.S. Senate on June 23, 1941: "If we see that Germany is winning," he said, "we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."

Did Truman value Japanese lives above Russian and German?  There is nothing anywhere to suggest that he did.  Yet we debate, every August 6^th or so, whether Truman was willing to unnecessarily sacrifice Japanese lives in order to scare Russians with his nuclear bombs.  He was willing; he was not willing; he was willing.  Left out of this debate is the obvious possibility that killing as many Japanese as possible was among Truman's goals.

By John Grant

Vietnam, a story of virtually unmitigated disasters that we have inflicted on ourselves and even more on others.

           -Bernard Brodie, 1973
 

By Yasmeen Ali

Lahore -- US Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), the chair and ranking minority member respectively of the Senate Armed Services Committee, say the US must not pay $5000 per truck as demanded by Pakistan, for supplies being shipped through this country to American troops in Afghanistan. McCain went further, calling the Pakistni demand “extortion.”