Stephen Lendman

LCpl. Joshua M. Bernard bleeding to death somewhere in Afghanistan.

America's Afghan war is lost and illegal. The Bush administration got no Security Council authorization or congressional declaration of war.

International law expert Francis Boyle said Congress passed a War Powers Resolution Authorization. Doing so gave Bush "blank check" power "to use military force against any individual, organization, or state" at his discretion.

International and constitutional law be damned. Waging war on Afghanistan "is clearly illegal. It constitutes armed aggression. It is creating a humanitarian catastrophe for the people of Afghanistan."

It's also a lost cause. Pentagon commanders know it. So does Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis. In an unclassified report and more detailed classified one, he explained ongoing disastrous conditions.

From his own firsthand observations and what others told him, he concluded that America's war failed. It can't be won. Official statements conceal hard truths. He witnessed "the absence of success on virtually every level."

Every area he observed firsthand "all over Afghanistan....the tactical situation was bad to abysmal."

More »

Jordan Shilton

Evidence continues to mount of Breivik’s links with right-wing groups throughout Europe, contradicting the official presentation of him as a “lone wolf”.

On day two of his trial, Anders Breivik gave an hour-long defence of his slaughter of 77 people—mainly members of the Norwegian Labour Party youth section—in Oslo and the island of Utøya last July 22 and said that he would do it again.

Calling his massacre “the most sophisticated and spectacular political attack” in Europe since the Second World War, Breivik described himself as commander in an anti-communist, anti-Islamic “resistance” movement, at war against immigrants, Muslims and what he called a “Marxist dictatorship” in Norway.

Despite Breivik’s own insistence on the political nature of his crime, the preceding investigation and the trial itself are largely focused on the question of the killer’s sanity. Just days before the trial opened, a second report by court-appointed psychiatrists declared that Breivik should not be considered criminally insane, contradicting a previous assessment in November 2011.

The latest report was compiled over several months by two psychiatrists who conducted interviews with Breivik and observed his activity over long periods of time. But it by no means settles the question of Breivik’s sanity in the eyes of the court.

With two conflicting reports now having been presented, the court could yet conclude that the level of doubt about Breivik’s mental state is sufficient to declare him criminally insane. This would result in his serving his detention in a mental health institution rather than in prison.

The debate has served to obscure numerous questions over the role of the state and security forces in failing to prevent Breivik’s attacks. In January, it emerged that Breivik had warned Norwegian police in March 2011 that he was preparing a massacre of Labour Party youth members. This information was supposedly not communicated to the relevant authorities until after July 22.

This came on top of revelations about the failure of the intelligence services to detect Breivik’s purchase of large quantities of fertiliser from Poland, as well as their failure to investigate a farm which he rented on the outskirts of Oslo, where he prepared his attacks. The head of Norway’s intelligence service was compelled to resign as a result.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Washington needs enemies. When none exist, they're created. North Korea and Iran are prime targets. Neither poses threats. Yet they faced decades of false accusations. Like other nations, both reject domination. They want their sovereignty respected. They seek normalized relations with regional neighbors and the West. America's imperial ambitions block them. Threats follow.

Besides longstanding plans to replace independent regimes with client ones, Washington needs enemies as punching bags.

At issue is keeping fear heightened to wage imperial wars on humanity. One country after another is ravaged. Syria's next, then Iran. Another to be named later awaits. America never runs out of targets. It needs them to wage permanent wars. It's longstanding official policy.

America's been at war with North Korea since June 1950. Truman's war never ended. An uneasy unresolved armistice exists. It's unprecedented in length. Nothing in sight suggests an end game. Maybe another hot war's coming.

Provocations may precede one if Washington has that in mind once other priorities are settled. For its part, North Korea wants confrontation avoided at all costs, short of surrendering its sovereignty in the process.

In the meantime, beating up on Pyongyang continues. In his 2002 State of the Union address, George Bush combined North Korea with Iran and Iraq in his "axis of evil."

More »

William T. Hathaway

Yes We Did: Obama Deploys ‘Change Is’ Slogan

The first step towards that is to free ourselves from the strategies of deception with which the oligarchs try to shape our minds. The second is to join with others in active struggle. Just being angry isn't enough; to succeed we must be organized and militant.

To get a preview of Obama's strategies for winning a second term, we just need to read the liberal press. They are giving lip-service praise to the current protests while trying to steer them in a direction that serves the Democratic Party. Seeking to restore the fading illusion that the Democrats work in the interests of the 99%, they imply that if Obama is given a second term, his true nature will emerge and he'll crack down on the greed and corruption of the 1% and lead the country in a progressive direction. They conveniently ignore that he's done the opposite during his three years in office.

They also try to scare us into voting for him by claiming a Republican president would be much worse. In fact the differences between Republicans and Democrats are mostly a matter of image and style. Their military policies are equally aggressive, and their economic policies differ only in nuances. But the Democrats put a friendly face on their administration of capital. Their rhetoric is sprinkled with populist slogans as they're bailing out banksters and dropping bombs.

The more blatant style of a Republican president might actually be better now because it would generate more opposition at home and abroad. This opposition needs to build into militant resistance before it will produce real change. To prevent this sort of uprising was one of the reasons the corporate elite backed Obama. And until recently he's succeeded in quieting dissent. With masterful PR legerdemain, he put the antiwar movement to sleep while continuing to fight the wars. Under a Republican president we could revive the spirit of revolt and mobilize the people of the world against the empire. It's going to take that kind of international struggle to overthrow this colossus.

Another strategy of deception is to claim that the good old days of middle-class prosperity can be brought back. Both major parties say their policies will restore high employment at good wages. But those times are gone.

More »