This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Print it out: color best. Pass it on.
Military Resistance 11G9
“American Investigators Believe They Have Found A Failed Program That May Have Resulted In The Deaths Of American Soldiers”
“The Program Was Intended To Keep Insurgents From Planting Bombs In Roadside Drainage Culverts By Covering The Culverts With Thick Metal Grates”
“But Investigators Say That Hundreds, Possibly More, Were Never Installed”
July 23, 2013 By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, The New York Times Company [Excerpts] KABUL, Afghanistan — By now, the billions of dollars spent by the United States on flawed reconstruction projects in Afghanistan have become part of the war’s history. The military headquarters that the Marines did not need, the schools for which Afghans had no use, the road that cost $2.8 million a mile — the list runs long. In the past year, though, American investigators believe they have found a failed program that may have resulted in the deaths of American soldiers. The program was intended to keep insurgents from planting bombs in roadside drainage culverts by covering the culverts with thick metal grates. Thousands of the so-called culvert denial systems were supposed to have been installed since 2009. But investigators say that hundreds, possibly more, were never installed, and that an “investigation is looking into whether this apparent failure to perform may have been a factor in the death or injury of several U.S. soldiers,” according to a report on the investigation. The report was provided to The New York Times before its official release on Tuesday. Investigators found at least one case in which apparently missing or faulty grates resulted in casualties. The report said an Afghan contractor and his subcontractor who failed to do the work had been charged with negligent homicide and fraud by the attorney general of Afghanistan. One of the men is in custody. If the charges stand up, it will be the first documented case of a contracting failure in Afghanistan directly linked to American deaths. The report, by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, an internal government watchdog, described how overlapping commands could not properly monitor contractors to ensure that work was done on the grates, which cost from $800 to $6,500 each to make and install. The difficulties are symptomatic of what critics have called mismanagement that has plagued the broader American effort to rebuild Afghanistan and, by extension, the war effort. Since 2002, the United States has spent roughly $90 billion on relief and reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. Much of the spending took place in the last few years, as American commanders embraced a strategy that depended on building popular support for the Afghan government.
But as a result of poor management, many high-profile reconstruction projects intended to help win over Afghans have created the opposite effect, critics say, raising expectations, then dashing them when the projects failed to meet expectations or simply failed. The $2.8 million-a-mile road was among those, as was a $400 million fund to bring affordable electricity to a wide swath of southern Afghanistan, much of which remains reliant on a spotty power supply or mired in darkness at night. The program to protect culverts with metal grates appears to have suffered the same poor oversight as the larger projects that commanders once hoped would tip the strategic balance in Afghanistan. Citing the continuing investigation, neither the inspector general’s office nor American military or Afghan officials offered any details on the deaths that may have been caused. The investigation, conducted with the military’s help, had not determined precisely how many grates were supposed to have been installed, or even how many contracts were awarded, the report said. Contracts were handed out by different commands, and many records were incomplete or nonexistent. But investigators were able to identify at least 2,500 so-called grid points where culverts were supposed to be covered. Hundreds, maybe more, never were. The two Afghan men facing criminal charges were alleged to have not built or to have improperly installed 250 culvert denial systems in a single province. Officials did not specify the province, citing security concerns. Many of the records that investigators did examine contained no evidence — photographs, for example — to verify completed work, the report said. Problems with the culvert protection program were first raised publicly last year by the inspector general’s office, which sent an “alert letter” to the military. Afghan officials on Monday corroborated the inspector general’s assessment. On Highway 1, a road intended to connect all of Afghanistan’s major cities, 170 to 180 culverts have been destroyed by hidden bombs, said Ahmad Shah Wahid, the deputy minister of public works. Sections of Highway 1 were barely passable a decade ago, and Western officials have often cited the rebuilding of the road as a relative success. Yet in Maidan Wardak Province, which lies directly south of Kabul, insurgents have destroyed 56 culverts along a section of the highway that provides the main route connecting the capital with the areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan where the insurgents are strongest, Mr. Wahid said.
AFGHANISTAN WAR REPORTS
Three Americans Killed By Bomber On Donkey In Afghanistan
7.23.13 By Akbar Shinwari, Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube, NBC News KABUL, Afghanistan - Three American service members were killed by a bomber on a donkey in eastern Afghanistan Tuesday, officials said. The International Security Assistance Force announced the casualties in a statement, saying the release of their names and nationalities would be left “to the relevant national authorities.” An Afghan official told NBC News that three of the victims killed in the attack in Said Abad, Wardak province, were American. A U.S. military official said that an Afghan translator accompanying the troops was also killed. The attacker was riding a donkey when he approached the U.S. personnel and detonated the bomb. According to a U.S. military official, the bomber and the donkey were also killed in the attack.
POLITICIANS REFUSE TO HALT THE BLOODSHED THE TROOPS HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THE WAR
“The Interior Ministry Says More Than 2,700 Afghan Police Have Been Killed And Injured Since March 21” “An Astonishing Rate Of Around 22 A Day”
July 22, 2013 AFP [Excerpts] KABUL: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has contested a move by the parliament to sack his interior minister for failing to stem rising Taliban attacks. The interior ministry says more than 2,700 Afghan police have been killed and injured since March 21, in what would be an astonishing rate of around 22 a day.
“The U.S. Military Is Endangering The Health Of Troops And Civilians Working At The Main Marine Corps Base In Afghanistan By Burning Solid Waste In Open Pits”
“Two Of The Base’s Four Incinerators Built For $11.5 Million - Go Unused, And The Other Two Are Running Below Capacity”
July 19, 2013 By Jay Price, McCLATCHY NEWS SERVICE [Excerpts] KABUL, Afghanistan - A federal watchdog agency says the U.S. military is endangering the health of troops and civilians working at the main Marine Corps base in Afghanistan by burning solid waste in open pits even as two of the base’s four incinerators - built for $11.5 million - go unused, and the other two are running below capacity. The federal Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction says in a new report that the open burning at Camp Leatherneck, in Helmand province in the far south of the country, violates Pentagon regulations and poses long-term health risks for camp personnel, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Leatherneck is adjacent to the main British base here, Camp Bastion, and a major Afghan army base, Camp Shorabak. It’s surrounded by desert, and the air quality is notorious because of wind-blown dust. Respiratory and nasal problems are common.
That led a U.S. company last year to pledge donations of up to $2 million in nasaland sinus-cleaning and moisturizing products for troops stationed there and at other U.S. bases overseas.
“A Major Defense Contractor Used Campaign Donations And Insider Access On Capitol Hill To Defy The Air Force And Keep A Troubled Drone Aloft At A Cost To Taxpayers Of Billions Of Dollars”
“The Contractor — Which Had Revenue Of $25.2 Billion In 2012, More Than 90 Percent From The Federal Treasury — Defied Not Only The Leadership Of The Air Force, But Also The Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey”
July 16, 2013 By Richard H.P. Sia & Alexander Cohen, The Center for Public Integrity [Excerpts] With large budget cuts looming in the next decade, top Air Force officials knew last year they needed to halt spending on some large and expensive programs. So they looked for a candidate that was underperforming, had busted its budget, and wasn’t vital to immediate combat needs. They soon settled on the production line for a $223 million aircraft with the wingspan of a tanker but no pilot in the cockpit, built to fly over vast terrain for a little more than a day while sending imagery and other data back to military commanders on the ground. Given the ambitious name “Global Hawk,” the aircraft had cost far more than expected, and was plagued by recurrent operating flaws and maintenance troubles.
“The Block 30 (version of Global Hawk) is not operationally effective,” the Pentagon’s top testing official had declared in a blunt May 2011 report about the drones being assembled by Northrop Grumman in Palmdale, Calif. Canceling the purchase of new Global Hawks and putting recently-built planes in longterm storage would save $2.5 billion over five years, the service projected. And the drone’s military missions could be picked up by an Air Force stalwart, the U-2 spy plane, which had room for more sensors and could fly higher. But what happened next was an object lesson in the power of a defense contractor to trump the Pentagon’s own attempts to set the nation’s military spending priorities amid a tough fiscal climate. A team of Northrop lobbyists, packed with former congressional staff and bolstered by hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, persuaded Congress to demand the drone’s continued production and operation. In so doing, the contractor — which had revenue of $25.2 billion in 2012, more than 90 percent from the federal treasury — defied not only the leadership of the Air Force, but also the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey. He told the House Armed Services Committee in February 2012 that the Global Hawk “has fundamentally priced itself out of our ability to afford it.” The White House, in two messages to Congress last year, said it “strongly objects” to the lawmakers’ demand for additional Global Hawks, but the protests were to no avail. Northrop’s strikingly successful campaign to thwart the government culminated in a letter this May from two influential House lawmakers to newly installed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, reminding him of the requirement to buy three more of the drone aircraft. The Air Force, they complained to Hagel, had not heeded “clear congressional intent [and] explicit direction to complete the acquisition.” The letter, whose authors — Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. — received a total of $135,100 from Northrop Grumman’s political action committee and employees for their election campaigns and leadership PACs since the beginning of 2009, is emblematic of the political forces that helped stoke a 117 percent jump in the Defense Department’s procurement budget from fiscal year 2001 through its peak in fiscal year 2010. Northrop Grumman’s political strategy “is entirely predictable — hire the right people, target the right people, contribute to the right people, then link them together with subcontractors and go for the gold,” said Gordon Adams, who served as the senior White House budget official for national security from 1993 to 1997 and has studied defense spending and procurement for more than 30 years. “Killing a major program, in production, is rather like vampire-killing,” Adams added. “You have to drive a silver stake through its heart to make sure it is dead.”
The High Costs Of Villas And Mansions For Top Generals And Admirals.
“Some Senior Officers Have Quarters So Expensive They Violate The Military’s Generous Rules”
“The Sequester Has Forced Cancellation Of Tuesday Swim Lessons At The Ft. Myer Officers Club Pool”
The military will pay $160,000 a year to house Marine Gen. John F. Kelly, head of U.S. Southern Command, in Casa Sur on a swanky street in Coral Gables, Fla. The home is undergoing a $402,000 renovation. (David Cloud, Los Angeles Times / July 18, 2013) July 20, 2013 By David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times [Excerpts] CORAL GABLES, Fla. — Marine Gen. John F. Kelly works in a fortress-like headquarters near the Miami airport. Starting this fall, he will live in Casa Sur, an elegant home with a pool and gardens on one of the area’s swankiest streets.
The five-bedroom residence, across the street from the famed Biltmore Golf Course, is provided rent-free to Kelly as head of U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military operations in the Caribbean Latin America. The cost to taxpayers? $160,000 a year, plus $402,000 for renovations and security improvements now underway. Casa Sur is one of hundreds of high-end homes, villas and mansions where senior generals and admirals are billeted, according to a Pentagon report prepared for Congress last month but not publicly released. Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, the Air Force four-star who commands NATO, gets a 15,000square-foot, 19th century chateau in Belgium. Lt. Gen. Steven A. Hummer, head of Marine Forces Reserve, enjoys a 19th century plantation house in New Orleans listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and their deputies inhabit historic quarters in and around Washington — all staffed with chefs, drivers, gardeners and security teams. Generals and admirals say they need large houses with high security — as well as cooks and gardeners — because they often host visiting dignitaries or preside at ceremonial events. Keeping pricey properties makes fiscal sense, they argue, because the Pentagon either already owns them or would waste money finding a suitable rental every time a senior officer is moved to a new command. Some senior officers have quarters so expensive they violate the military’s generous rules, according to the 57-page Pentagon report. Three officers assigned to the NATO naval base in Naples, Italy, for example, have homes that exceed allowable expenses for their jobs, the report says. One of them, the commander of Submarine Group 8, occupies Villa de Lorio, a 6,600square-foot villa in Naples leased for $172,000 a year. But a Navy policy adopted last year says only officers in "high-risk billets" can have highcost leases — and a submarine group commander on the Mediterranean doesn’t qualify. At Ft. Myer, on a bluff in Virginia overlooking Washington, a row of stately red brick Victorians is reserved for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the chiefs of staff of the Army and Air Force and other senior officers. The sequester has forced cancellation of Tuesday swim lessons at the Ft. Myer Officers Club pool, and other base facilities have been closed one day a week. But otherwise the budget cuts have not pinched much yet, base spokeswoman Mary Ann Hodges said. "We’re a different kind of installation — more ceremonial," she said.
The chief of Naval Operations lives in Tingey House, a brick Georgian-style home at the Navy Yard in southeast Washington. The Marine commandant’s recently renovated residence — at 213 years old, one of the oldest continuously occupied houses in Washington — is on Capitol Hill, a few blocks from the Capitol. Generals Row, nine colonnaded Beaux Arts residences for senior Army generals at Ft. Lesley McNair, overlooks the Potomac and Anacostia rivers. Tennis courts and a pool take up part of the parade ground where four conspirators in Abraham Lincoln’s assassination were hanged. Casa Sur in Coral Gables has been used by the head of Southern Command since shortly after the U.S. command left Panama in 1997 for Miami, after the Panama Canal was handed over to that country’s government. After the commander at the time moved three times in two years, the city of Coral Gables offered to lease Casa Sur, which it had purchased for $900,000, for use as an official residence. Last year, the city said it would raise the $4,500 monthly rent, which is below the going rate. Eventually, the military agreed to pay $8,500 a month, and Coral Gables consented to pay for $275,000 in repairs and upgrades. The Pentagon picked up $126,000 more in new security measures, as well as pool maintenance. Construction workers last week were busy patching stucco around the front door and carrying drywall inside. The finished house will have a professional kitchen, two new bathrooms, a redone master bedroom, blast-resistant windows and a vehicle barrier, according to city records. Kelly, a former Marine commander in Iraq who was top military aide to former Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, has lived in a smaller house nearby since he took over Southern Command last year. He is scheduled to move into his new digs in October.
Comments, arguments, articles, and letters from service men and women, and veterans, are especially welcome. Write to Box 126, 2576 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10025-5657 or email firstname.lastname@example.org: Name, I.D., withheld unless you request publication. Same address to unsubscribe.
“At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh had I the ability, and could reach the nation’s ear, I would, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. “For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. “We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.” “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.” Frederick Douglass, 1852
I say that when troops cannot be counted on to follow orders because they see the futility and immorality of them THAT is the real key to ending a war. -- Al Jaccoma, Veterans For Peace
Australian Government Refugee Plan Needs Biting, Stern Rebuke:
A First Hand Report On Refugee Horrors
By Niko Leka:
“Locking Men Women And Children Up Indefinitely Behind Razor Wire In Desert Camps. Herding Them On Remote Isolated Islands”
Refugees who arrive in the country by boat will be resettled on the island nation of Papua New Guinea, AFP/Getty Images From: Niko Leka [Australia] To: Military Resistance Newsletter Subject: Doling out stern rebuke fiery ridicule and withering sarcasm
Date: Jul 24, 2013
Introduction For Military Resistance Readers By Niko Leka
“No-one who comes to Australia by boat will ever be allowed to settle here”, said Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Why, as climate catastrophe descends and corruption mires us in endless wars, is Australia’s PM concerned with a handful of poor souls? IN Australia both major parties are right wing. That means they are owned by vested interests, and so do not want to tackle major issues. Playing the racism card is the safest bet. What better target than asylum seekers, with no names or faces, and who are foreign? Both parties outdo each other in promising to be “tough” on people smugglers and “destroy their business models” in order to “stop the boats”. No-one talks about granting asylum to people fleeing from the wars and corrupt regimes that we fund and send soldiers to. Since the invasion of Afghanistan both sides have tried everything to be tough. Locking men women and children up indefinitely behind razor wire in desert camps. Herding them on remote isolated islands. “Enhanced screening” so they can send them straight back. They’ve even ‘excised’ Australia and all its territories from the migration zone, so if you come here by boat, then you haven’t come here at all. Tough, eh? But nothing compares to Manus Island (part of Papua New Guinea, PNG). Extreme heat, humidity, leaking tents on a sea of mud surrounded by razor wire, no medical or mental health services worth the name, raging infections and violence on all sides. Manus Island. Despite tight secrecy - no media, no visitors, not even the Australian Commissioner for Human Rights allowed to visit; the UN saw it and condemned it. “No, you cant put people there” they said. So our PM Julia Gillard, took out women and children (leaving the men behind), and dumped them somewhere not much better. She was looking weak, but meantime her opponent, Tony Abbott was sounding tougher and decisive. “We’ll tow the boats back! We will send all the Tamils back to Sri Lanks!“ Looked like Julia had no chance against Tony.
What to do? Well Julia had been put in place by the backroom boys, replacing the guy we had actually voted for. He was Kevin Rudd, and they dumped him for Julia because he thought he was running the country and getting too decisive about things like taxing mining companies. So Kevin was summoned back. He axed the Carbon tax first, to make sure the big boys didn’t axe him again. And then he strode stage. And gobsmacked us all.... But not me! I am prepared for gob-smacking shit because I read ”Military Resistance” and always stop, and take stock of all the shit when I read the quote from Frederick Douglas. The day had finally come to use Frederick Douglas on the ear of our nation. Now, read on....... ***************************************************************************
Refugee Plan Needs Biting, Stern Rebuke
July 22, 2013 By Niko Leka, The Newcastle Herald [Australia] Niko Leka is a member of the Refugee Action Network Newcastle. WITH his announcement that asylum seekers who come by boat will never be allowed to settle in Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has convincingly beaten Tony Abbott in their race to the bottom on asylum seekers. Mr Abbott was left floundering. Sending them all to Papua New Guinea, after so many reports about the hellish nature of conditions on Manus Island, probably ensures he will remain that way. Last Friday morning, members of the asylum seeker advocacy group Refugee Action Network Newcastle (RANN) were wondering how to get Jaimie Abbott to change her mind and agree to speak at a forum on asylum seekers proposed for next month. After Mr Rudd’s announcement, her presence and her party became irrelevant. It’s now a one-horse race. Thousands of Australians have come to the same conclusion: that Mr Rudd’s announcement has nothing whatsoever to do with asylum seekers. It is a cynical tactic to win an election at any cost. It is perhaps the climax of the contempt for the electorate displayed by the major parties since the Tampa election. It also reveals the arrogance of Canberra in treating neighbouring countries like a doormat.
A few months ago, former prime minister Malcolm Fraser called asylum seeker policies ‘‘wilful’’, and more like the actions of a tyrannical dictatorship than of a democracy. They are wilful because we are not being "flooded" by boat people. That is a perception created by Canberra spin doctors. He said of the coming election that had Australian policies been led in a humane direction, a majority would have followed. What does it say about the electorate that Mr Rudd can embark on such a flagrantly brutal program? Have a majority of Australians become moral cowards and racist rednecks since the Whitlam and Fraser years, when we welcomed a quarter of a million asylum seekers who arrived in boats? No, we haven’t. But our values and ethics don’t count in the election. It’s only the votes that follow the perception of strongest leader that count. For asylum seekers, this is a great tragedy. Rather than celebrating every arrival as a victory of the human spirit, of hope triumphing over unbelievable adversity, of regarding every safe arrival as a success, we have fiendishly turned it all around. Mr Fraser said for an asylum seeker policy based on deterrence to succeed, it would have to equal the terror from which people are fleeing. Offshore processing, remote and indefinite detention, refusal of the right to work or get an education did not equal that terror. In our detention system it did, however, extinguish all hope for many who came here. It forced them into loneliness, anxiety, despair and finally to a sense of hopelessness that life was not worth living. It is a history marked by so many anonymous deaths, suicides, so much self-harm, so much enduring mental illness. But it did not do anything to stop the continuing persecution, torture and murder of innocent Tamils, Hazaras, Iranians, Palestinians, Rohingyas. It did not stop the ‘‘push’’ factors that drive people to flee their homes. Perhaps Mr Rudd took note of Mr Fraser’s equation. His is a master-stroke of terror by proxy. Mr Rudd is well-informed of how manifestly unsuitable Manus Island is. It is bitterly ironical that he should seek to expand on it, and make it permanent. So asylum seekers will now have physical deprivation in a country racked by disease, poverty and violence, in addition to the cruelty our bureaucracies and their contracts are becoming so expert at inflicting.
And still, it will do nothing to stop the persecution of Tamils, Hazaras, Palestinians, Rohingyas and so many other victims of oppressive regimes. RANN urges the people of Newcastle to gather outside the office of federal member Sharon Grierson to air their protest at this gross injustice, as loudly as possible. We need to thunder into the deaf ears of Canberra, that we have had enough of this wilful, deceitful, cynical politics of fear. We need to respond with, in the words of the early human rights heroic campaigner Frederick Douglass, a “fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm and stern rebuke”.
“What Are, Generally Speaking, The Characteristics Of A Revolutionary Situation?”
Comment: T Whatever you may think of the politics of this writer, he was rather skilled at figuring out when a revolutionary situation was present: He describes the essential ingredients: 1. A ruling class split and at war within itself about what to do: “a crack through which the dissatisfaction and the revolt of the oppressed classes burst forth” 2. An economic crisis hammering the working class 3. A war that breaks the passivity of “peacetime” politics. 4. He might have added, had this been written later, a rulings class so blind and stupid it can’t conceive of a whole population rising in revolution against it, and an army happy to join the mass movement from below. ************************************************** 1915, Excerpts from Collapse Of The Second International & IMPERIALISM AND SOCIALISM IN ITALY, Kommunist, Nos. 1.2, 1915, By V. I. Ulyanov. [The writer used the pen name “Lenin” to keep the government from terrorizing his family. Excerpts] For a Marxist there is no doubt that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, we know that not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution. What are, generally speaking, the characteristics of a revolutionary situation?
We can hardly be mistaken when we indicate the following three outstanding signs: (1) it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their power unchanged; there is a crisis “higher up,” taking one form or another; there is a crisis in the policy of the ruling class; as a result, there appears a crack through which the dissatisfaction and the revolt of the oppressed classes burst forth. If a revolution is to take place …. it is necessary that “one is incapable up above” to continue in the old way; (2) the wants and sufferings of the oppressed classes become more acute than usual; (3) in consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses who in “peace time” allow themselves to be robbed without protest, but in stormy times are drawn both by the circumstances of the crises and by the “higher-ups” themselves into independent historic action. Without these objective changes, which are independent not only of the will of separate groups and parties but even of separate classes, a revolution, as a rule, is impossible. The co-existence of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation. This situation existed in 1905 in Russia and in all the periods of revolution in the West, but it also existed in the seventh decade of the last century in Germany; it existed in 1859,1861 and in 1879-1880 in Russia, though there was no revolution in these latter instances. Why? Because a revolution emerges not out of every revolutionary situation, but out of such situations where, to the above-mentioned objective changes, subjective ones are added, namely, the ability of the revolutionary classes to carry out revolutionary mass actions strong enough to break (or to undermine) the old government, it being the rule that never, not even in a period of crises, does a government “fall” of itself without being “helped to fall.” ***************************************
“Much Has Been Left In The World That Must Be Destroyed By Fire And Iron For The Liberation Of The Working Class”
Take the present army. It is one of the good examples of organisation. This organisation is good only because it is flexible; at the same time it knows how to give to millions of people one uniform will.
Today these millions are in their homes in various parts of the country. Tomorrow a call for mobilization is issued, and they gather at the appointed centres. Today they lie in the trenches, sometimes for months at a stretch; tomorrow they are led into battle in another formation. Today they perform marvels, hiding themselves from bullets and shrapnel; tomorrow they do marvels in open combat. Today their advance detachments place mines under the ground; tomorrow they move dozens of miles according to the advice of flyers above ground. We call it organisation when, in the pursuit of one aim, animated by one will, millions change the forms of their intercourse and their actions, change the place and the method of their activities, change the weapons and armaments in accordance with changing conditions and the vicissitudes of the struggle. The same holds true about the fight of the working class against the bourgeoisie. Today there is no revolutionary situation apparent; there are no such conditions as would cause a ferment among the masses or heighten their activities; today you are given an election ballot - take it. Understand how to organise for it, to hit your enemies with it, and not to place men in soft parliamentary berths who cling to their seat in fear of prison. Tomorrow you are deprived of the election ballot, you are given a rifle and a splendid machine gun equipped according to the last word of machine technique: take this weapon of death and destruction, do not listen to the sentimental whiners who are afraid of war. Much has been left in the world that must be destroyed by fire and iron for the liberation of the working class. And if bitterness and despair grow in the masses, if a revolutionary situation is at hand, prepare to organise new organisations and utilize these so useful weapons of death and destruction against your own government and your bourgeoisie. . This is not easy, to be sure. It will demand difficult preparatory activities. It will demand grave sacrifices. This is a new species of organisation and struggle that one must learn, and learning is never done without errors and defeats. The relation of this species of class struggle to participation in elections is the same as storming a fortress is to maneuvering, marching, or lying in the trenches. This species of struggle is placed on the order of the day in history very infrequently, but, its significance and its consequences are felt for decades. Single days when such methods can and must be put on the programme of struggle are equal to scores of years of other historic epochs.
************************** The question has been put squarely, and one cannot fail to recognise that the European War has been of enormous use for humanity in that it actually has placed the question squarely before hundreds of millions of people of various nationalities: either defend, with, rifle or pen, directly or indirectly, in whatever form it may he, the great-nation and national privileges, in general, as well as the prerogative or the pretensions of “our” bourgeoisie, that is to say, either be its adherent and lackey, or utilize every struggle, particularly the clash of arms for great-nation privileges, to unmask and overthrow every government, in the first place our own, by means of the revolutionary action of an internationally united proletariat. There is no middle road; in other words, the attempt to take a middle position means, in reality, covertly to join the imperialist bourgeoisie.
US, China Agree To Hate Each Other As Friends
When the two leaders arrived at the briefing, they were in excellent spirits, had removed their ties, and were still telling each other dirty jokes. June 10, 2013 by Dark Laughter, The Duffel Blog RANCHO MIRAGE, CA — Following joint U.S.-China talks Friday, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping released a new joint declaration of principles that stated the two countries had agreed that they were in total disagreement on basically all issues of governance, had
essentially no common interests in spite of being economically intertwined, and would continue to attempt to undermine each other at every turn by any means necessary. However, it also stated that the leaders had agreed that this rivalry to the death would not impact the two countries’ fundamental good relations, and that China and the United States hoped to continue to enjoy each other’s friendship while attempting to destroy one another. Speaking to press afterwards about what prompted the decision, the two stated that the breakthrough came while talking about North Korea. “I was pressing him about China’s backing of North Korea,” said Obama, “and we were both feeling very frustrated. Finally, he said “stop asking me for things you know I can’t give you. You know the situation. Our support for North Korea is just geopolitics …we hate those crazy, embarrassing assholes and they hate us right back. It’s like the opposite of our relationship with you.” “I asked him what he meant, and he said that even though China is a direct and active rival of the U.S. that wants to see us crumble in the long term, they still view the United States with great affection and respect,” he added. “That was when we had our breakthrough, because it dawned on me that’s exactly how Americans think of China as well. We’re like the Smiths and Joneses, two basically good neighbors who are in friendly competition that won’t end until one of them is dead and the other is crying on their grave, probably while also pissing on it.” “When China looks at the United States, we’re amazed at how similar our people are,” said Xi. “Generous, optimistic, hard-working, xenophobic, envious, and arrogant. “When we compare your pluralist plutocracy to ours, we sometimes think the only way it could be better is if you were Chinese as well.” Under the terms of the agreement, China will continue to make cyberattacks on U.S. businesses and government agencies, but the U.S. will initiate similar attacks on the personal computers of Chinese officials in search of evidence of corruption, which they will then leak to the Chinese public. Both countries agreed to deny all knowledge of these activities when discovered in order to prevent awkwardness that might impact their friendship. Regarding the theft of advanced military designs, Obama said he was willing to overlook it in the interest of moving forward diplomatically. “Let’s be honest,” he said, “they’re plans for the F-35 and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. China would do more damage to itself by building them than any of these vehicles would ever do to us on the battlefield.” With the resolution on cyberattacks, the two were able to subsequently achieve a stunning string of additional agreements, such as on economics, climate change, and security.
“It is agreed that we will continue to buy up U.S. debt to artificially weaken our currency and encourage trade,” said Xi, “but we will no longer attempt to scare our friends in America by pretending that there is any way to use this as leverage to attain military objectives without also destroying the economy of China.” “For our part, we will continue to allow your currency manipulation,” said Obama, “and we will no longer talk about finding ways to coerce you into complying with climate change initiatives. Instead, we will continue to sell you coal to fuel your ongoing cancer epidemic, and we will continue to subject your imports to transparent consumer protection standards, then release the shocking results to your people via the internet.” “It is agreed that the United States will continue to meddle in the affairs of China’s neighbors, to include propping up the Province of Taiwan,” said Xi. “We hope you have no problems with sexual assaults by your troops in Japan, Australia, and Vietnam. We will happily postpone our inevitable hegemony in Southeast Asia while waiting on the United States to alienate allies through off base incidents and eventually run out of money for foreign adventures. We can use that time to focus on developing our influence in the west.” “On behalf of the American people, we wish you the best of luck there, and hope that your Hui Muslim population makes many new friends,” chuckled Obama. When asked for more details about what this new declaration would mean for the military and intelligence communities, the two pledged greater cooperation. “We talked about it, and we’d like to see our militaries train together more often. We can both agree that we want stability, so we need to ensure that we have buy-in from these potentially destabilizing and more belligerent factions,” said Obama. “Joint training is a simple solution,” offered Xi. “These higher level commanders like getting plaques and medals that provide them with legitimacy, and joint training is the best way to do that without sending them to war. Also, joint training would be an excellent opportunity for our intelligence services to recruit assets and steal sensitive data.” “Not to mention a great chance to expose Chinese intelligence personnel to American freedoms, and get them to start thinking about how to betray their bosses and jump ship to go live in Canada or Australia when China finally implodes,” added Obama. The two then shook hands, and left to play another round of golf before the night’s pig roast, laughing like old friends.
MILITARY RESISTANCE BY EMAIL
If you wish to receive Military Resistance immediately and directly, send request to email@example.com. There is no subscription charge.
Military Resistance In PDF Format?
If you prefer PDF to Word format, email: firstname.lastname@example.org
CLASS WAR REPORTS
Bulgaria Anticorruption Protests Against The Government Turn Violent:
“Similar Street Demonstrations Had Caused The Previous Government To Collapse Last Spring”
“Recent Public-Opinion Polls Show They Are Supported By About Two-Thirds Of Bulgarians”
Police try to clear a path through protesters Tuesday so that lawmakers could leave the Parliament in Sofia. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images July 24, 2013 By SEAN CARNEY, Wall Street Journal SOFIA—Weeks of daily anticorruption demonstrations in Bulgaria turned violent Tuesday, adding to pressure on the country’s new prime minister hours after he had brushed off calls from protesters to step down. A group of unidentified activists broke off from the main protest outside the Parliament around midnight and began throwing stones, smashing some car windows, according to a police officer at the scene who declined to give his name. A protest organizer said 10 people were injured, none seriously. About 100 people were stuck inside the building late Tuesday, prevented from leaving by the activists. On Wednesday morning, police said they escorted out those who had been trapped overnight. Barricades set up by protesters were removed and the streets were cleared of garbage. Protests planned for Wednesday morning, which organizers said would reach 5,000 people, had not yet materialized, with only around 100 people still demonstrating outside the building.
Tuesday was the first time the protests, which were in their 40th day, had become violent. Similar street demonstrations had caused the previous government to collapse last spring. The new technocratic prime minister, Plamen Oresharski, has led a minority, center-left government since early elections in May. But his honeymoon came to a quick end after the government appointed Delyan Peevski, a young but well-connected media mogul, as head of the state security agency in mid-June. Tens of thousands of protesters returned to the streets, prompting the government to backtrack and name a new security chief. Protests have continued nightly, although the numbers have dwindled. About 2,500 people initially marched Tuesday from the prime minister’s office toward Parliament, chanting and waving flags. In an interview Tuesday, the prime minister said he would remain in office. He said the protests can continue indefinitely "as long as they are peaceful and abstain from provocations," with the police ordered not to intervene. Responding to the criticism, Mr. Oresharski said that he recognizes the history of corruption involving business interests and the government, but said no one could be expected to resolve it overnight. He also said that it is "unacceptable" to be derided as fostering corrupt practices when he’s only been in the office for a matter of weeks. The EU Commissioner for Justice and Fundamental Rights, Viviane Reding, expressed sympathy for the protests in an interview Tuesday and during a town hall-style meeting in Sofia to discuss the future of Europe. The message coming from the streets is "what the commission has been saying for many years," she said, namely that Bulgarian authorities must show "zero-tolerance in the fight against corruption." Protesters have for weeks been demanding an end to what some of them said was a corrupt judiciary, politicians turning a blind eye to graft, and opaque business lobbies. Recent public-opinion polls show they are supported by about two-thirds of Bulgarians, who have the lowest average per-capita income in the European Union. Mr. Oresharski, a former finance minister who in the late 1990s helped peg the country’s currency, the lev, to the German mark and later to the euro, said he knew the job of prime minister wouldn’t be easy. But "reality is more entangled than I expected." His government commands only 120 seats in the 240-seat Parliament and needs tacit support from ultranationalists to survive. Such coalition negotiations lead to unsavory compromises, which have spurred the protests, he said.
Some controversial appointments have soured public mood as well and prompted a joint rebuke from the ambassadors of Germany and France, who said nontransparent appointments only benefit corruption and organized crime. Mr. Oresharski acknowledged those concerns. "As for the qualities of those appointed, I too have my objections," Mr. Oresharski said, adding that parliamentary politics involves making compromises with partners. "But you know, sometimes legends sort of prevail over reality," he said. "These appointments are in no way different from appointments under previous governments. “Many of these people used to have the same positions in previous governments," and there were no protests then. Mr. Oresharski said he remains committed to democratic principles and keeping the country in the European Union and aligned with the West. As Bulgaria gets virtually all of its oil, gas and nuclear fuel from Russia, he said he’s trying to expedite a natural gas interconnection with Greece that would allow Azeri gas to come to Bulgaria in future, reducing reliance on the country’s traditional trading partner.
DANGER: POLITICIANS AT WORK
Vietnam GI: Reprints Available
[THEY STOPPED AN IMPERIAL WAR]
Edited by Vietnam Veteran Jeff Sharlet from 1968 until his death, this newspaper rocked the world, attracting attention even from Time Magazine, and extremely hostile attention from the chain of command. The pages and pages of letters in the paper from troops in Vietnam condemning the war are lost to history, but you can find them here. Military Resistance has copied complete sets of Vietnam GI. The originals were a bit rough, but every page is there. Over 100 pages, full 11x17 size. Free on request to active duty members of the armed forces. Cost for others: $15 if picked up in New York City. For mailing inside USA add $5 for bubble bag and postage. For outside USA, include extra for mailing 2.5 pounds to wherever you are. Checks, money orders payable to: The Military Project Orders to: Military Resistance Box 126 2576 Broadway New York, N.Y. 10025-5657 All proceeds are used for projects giving aid and comfort to members of the armed forces organizing to resist today’s Imperial wars.
DO YOU HAVE A FRIEND OR RELATIVE IN THE MILITARY?
Forward Military Resistance along, or send us the email address if you wish and we’ll send it regularly with your best wishes. Whether in Afghanistan or at a base in the USA, this is extra important for your service friend, too often cut off from access to encouraging news of growing resistance to injustices, inside the armed services and at home. Send email requests to address up top or write to: Military Resistance, Box 126, 2576 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10025-5657.
Military Resistance Looks Even Better Printed Out
Military Resistance/GI Special are archived at website http://www.militaryproject.org . The following have chosen to post issues; there may be others: email@example.com; http://williambowles.info/military-resistance-archives/.
Military Resistance distributes and posts to our website copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law since it is being distributed without charge or profit for educational purposes to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational purposes, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. Military Resistance has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor is Military Resistance endorsed or sponsored by the originators. This attributed work is provided a non-profit basis to facilitate understanding, research, education, and the advancement of human rights and social justice. Go to: law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml for more information. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
If printed out, a copy of this newsletter is your personal property and cannot legally be confiscated from you. “Possession of unauthorized material may not be prohibited.” DoD Directive 1325.6 Section 220.127.116.11.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.