New Quaker Notebook

Green Is the New Camouflage
US general in Iraq calls for renewable power

The latest dirty hippie to issue an urgent call for renewable power is ... US Marine Corps Maj Gen Richard Zilmer. The top US commander in western Iraq recently sent the Pentagon a "Priority 1" request for solar panels and wind turbines to augment traditional diesel generators. (What's next, Major, wheatgrass chai lattes in the mess hall? Hemp uniforms?) Not only are generators huge fuel guzzlers, but they have a hot "thermal signature" that can call enemy attention to US outposts. Also, the US military spends more on transporting fuel than it does on fuel itself. "By reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers, and sailors," says Zilmer's memo. It adds, "Without this solution, personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current rate. Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success." That's one way of putting it.

Straight to the source: The Christian Science Monitor, Mark Clayton, 07 Sep 2006

Osama is in the bushes!

I'm watching Meet the Press and Tim Russert looks like he's grilling Dick Cheney on the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda and Mr Cheney keeps pushing the talk to 9/11 and how Iraq is central to the War on Terror and how the lack of attacks in the US is really evidence of good policy. "We've done a pretty good job," said the vice president. Meanwhile, in a series of speeches favoring his administration's national security policies, but ostensibly designed to commemorate the terror attacks in New York five years ago, President Bush is moving around the country trying to scare everybody into believing that the world is a dangerous place. "Since the September 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe" is the theme of the National Security Council's report 9/11 Five Years Later: Successes and Challenges¹ In Atlanta on Thursday Mr Bush said:

Many Americans look at these events and ask the same question: Five years after 9/11, are we safer? The answer is, yes, America is safer. (Applause.) We are safer because we've taken action to protect the homeland. We are safer because we are on offense against our enemies overseas. We're safer because of the skill and sacrifice of the brave Americans who defend our people. (Applause.) Yet five years after 9/11, America still faces determined enemies, and we will not be safe until those enemies are finally defeated.²

These our-we-safe-yet talking points are starting to sound like the Marathon Man dialogue we heard in 2004—all over again. Not only is the talk similar to what has appeared every few weeks prior to the 9/11 anniversary, but one would think that the Bush administration needs the specter of Osama bin Laden. We must be afraid. But the real threat would seem to be from within our own country, from within our own federal administration. This is the unnerving analysis of Tom Maertens, who served as National Security Council director for proliferation and homeland defense in the Bush White House and as deputy coordinator for counterterrorism in the State Department on 9/11. He argues that Americans' safety is directly threatened not by al-Qaeda, not by Osama bin Laden, nor by terrorists in the bushes, but by our own government.³

1. The report is also available in a PDF document.
2. See "President Bush Discusses Progress in the Global War on Terror," White House News Release, September 7, 2006. And then read this familiar blah, blah from Condoleeza Rice: "I think it's clear that we are safe—safer—but not really yet safe." See "Rice: US not entirely safe from attack," AP, September 10, 2006.
3. See Maertens' op-ed in the Star Tribune, September 10, 2006. The piece is reprinted online in Vox Verax and Maertens' site at the political blog Daily Kos.

The Greening of Iraq?

Osama is in the bushes!