The Portland school board is set to adopt a rule to give “counter-recruiters” skeptical about the value of joining the military the same access to high school students that military recruiters enjoy under federal law.

Instead of standing out on the school sidewalk waving signs and offering fliers, anti-war activists will be able to staff recruiting tables and hand out pamphlets in the school career center or cafeteria, just like military recruiters in uniform.

It’s about time.

The US government is supporting whatever kind of tyranny it can get its hands on in Honduras, the state and its corporate colluders. The coup government, police, and military are all benefiting from lavish US support and the corporatist feudal drug lords and their private paramilitaries are too.

In a post in August on the US preference for martial rule of law enforcement I wrote briefly about Honduras: The illegal military coup in June of 2009 was supported by the Obama administration despite having recognized it as unconstitutional and illegitimate, according to WikiLeaks diplomatic cables. The military basically kidnapped the President and forcibly removed him from power probably in the interest of a few rich thugs. What followed were a whole host of human rights violations – including 3,000 people killed in Honduras including journalists, lawyers, and leaders of popular organizations – most of which were never investigated. Nevertheless, Obama administration had “representatives from the U.S. Department of State [meet] with de facto president Porfirio Lobo Sosa to convene a working group in charge of the implementation of the Merida Initiative,” which fuses the military with law enforcement duties, usually resulting in oppressive policies towards the people.

And now, Dana Frank at Nation gives us an important, and extensive, update:

Since 2009, beneath the radar of the international media, the coup government ruling Honduras has been collaborating with wealthy landowners in a violent crackdown on small farmers struggling for land rights in the Aguán Valley in the northeastern region of the country. More than forty-six campesinos have been killed or disappeared. Human rights groups charge that many of the killings have been perpetrated by the private army of security guards employed by Miguel Facussé, a biofuels magnate. Facussé’s guards work closely with the Honduran military and police, which receive generous funding from the United States to fight the war on drugs in the region.

New Wikileaks cables now reveal that the US embassy in Honduras—and therefore the State Department—has known since 2004 that Miguel Facussé is a cocaine importer. US “drug war” funds and training, in other words, are being used to support a known drug trafficker’s war against campesinos.

…[Miguel Facussé] was one of the key supporters of the military coup that deposed democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya on June 28, 2009.

Frank explains how even as US-supported private paramilitaries kill, steal, torture, and pillage, “the Honduran police and military have launched successive waves of repression against entire campesino communities.” Frank goes into the grisly details of each incident, which I encourage everyone to read. But just as the US and, as is notable politically, the Obama administration throws guns and butter around the world, especially the Middle East, to oppressive governments that bow to US interests, so do they do it in Honduras. US aid to the essentially military regime in Honduras has increased every single year since the coup in 2009, with $68 million allocated for 2012. And, as Frank documents, Obama has “allocated $45 million in new funds for military construction, including expansion and improvement of the jointly operated Soto Cano Air Force Base at Palmerola (supplied now with US drones) and has opened three new military bases.” “Police and military funding,” Frank continues, “almost $10 million for 2011, rose dramatically in June with $40 million more under the new $200 million Central American Regional Security Initiative, supposedly to combat drug trafficking in Central America.”

So to sum up:

First, the US embassy met at least twice with a known, prominent drug trafficker. Second, it was aware that he was a backer of the coup and met with him as it was playing out, as if he were merely a “prominent businessman.”

Third, most importantly, the United States is funding and training Honduran military and police that are conducting joint operations with the security guards of a known drug trafficker, to violently repress a campesino movement on behalf of Facusse’s dubious claims to vast swathes of the Aguán Valley, in order to support his African palm biofuels empire.

Current Honduran President Porfirio Lobo was in Washington, DC, the first week in October, trumpeting his commitment to defending human rights and fighting drug wars—with President Obama’s full blessing. In reality, both are providing cover and support for a war against impoverished campesinos, to promote the economic interests of Honduras’ richest and most powerful man.

I finally got around to reading the Michael Hastings piece in Rolling Stone on Obama’s decision to go into Libya. Regrettably, I think Hastings is far too forgiving and simply not critical enough of the administration and perhaps of his sources. I won’t respond to the entire piece, as it would be too lengthy, but there are a few points I want to bring up before this post-Gadhafi reconstruction euphoria completely rewrites history.

According to Hastings, some in the Obama administration, most notably U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, were eager to have Libya “become the first test case for R2P”:

In January 2009, during her first speech at the U.N. Security Council, Rice reinforced the Obama administration’s commitment to a theory called “responsibility to protect.” R2P, as it is known in foreign-policy circles, is a U.N. doctrine accepted in 2005 that laid the international framework for humanitarian intervention. Although the Bush administration endorsed R2P, it was criticized – by Rice and others – for not putting the doctrine into practice to prevent civilian deaths in Darfur in 2006. As defined by Rice in her speech to the Security Council, R2P states that the “international community has a responsibility to protect civilian populations from violations of international humanitarian law when states are unwilling or unable to do so.”

Unless, of course, the US or its allies are the ones putting civilians at risk. Take, say, Iraq. By the most conservative estimates available, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent war and occupation eradicated well over 100,000 human lives, the vast majority of whom were civilians (more inclusive estimates go much higher). All kinds of horrible war crimes were committed throughout the war. On weak and falsified evidence, the Bush administration took the United States to war against a non-threatening Iraq. This makes it a war of aggression, which in the words of the Nuremberg Trial is the “supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” By the logic of R2P, France, whose government vehemently opposed the war, had the right – indeed, the responsibility – to militarily attack the United States in order to “protect civilian populations” of Iraq “from [impending] violations of international humanitarian law” from a belligerent US. Does anybody, anywhere actually buy this?

Or take Obama’s surge in Afghanistan for another example. For virtually every six month period since the beginning of the surge, the rate of civilian casualties as increased considerably. Children, for example, are one Afghan constituency that have borne the brunt of this rise in civilian death. Tens of thousands have been killed since the start of the war and a big chunk since the start of the surge. Such a proliferation in casualty rates for innocent people was a perfectly predictable consequence of Obama’s impending surge in 2009.

One of the hallmarks of the surge strategy has been raiding Afghan homes in the middle of the night. “An estimated 12 to 20 night raids now occur per night,” according to a report from the Open Society Institute, “resulting in thousands of detentions per year, many of whom are non-combatants.” And many of the associated tactics, like “mass detention operations, holding entire villages for questioning on site for prolonged periods of time,” may violate international law, the report found. Serious violations of international humanitarian law take place in Afghan prisons, where detainees are systematically tortured – again, an easily predictable consequence of the unbounded post-surge US support for one of the most corrupt governments in the world. US-supported local militias, referred to by Gen. Petraeus as “arguably the most critical element” in the surge effort, regularly commit gross violations of human rights with impunity. Just recently it was revealed that American troops forced Afghan civilians to march ahead of them on roads believed to have been filled with bombs and landmines planted by insurgents, a grave breach of the international laws of war.

Again, using the anointed doctrine of “humanitarian” intervention recently exemplified by the Obama administration in Libya, would it not be justified for, say, China to bomb the Pentagon and the White House? Of course not, because R2P is not about humanitarian intervention, it’s about who wields power and – as in most issues in international affairs – rules and norms don’t apply to the US. We’re exceptional.

There is one more piece to this R2P puzzle worth mentioning. Hastings does note it in his piece, but unfortunately it’s almost in passing. That is, where there is potential genocide or mass killing, the R2P doctrine obligates the US to intervene to stop it. Hastings writes:

Joining Rice in the push for intervention was Samantha Power, the former Harvard professor and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning A Problem From Hell, which argues that the West must be willing to take military action to prevent genocide in other countries.

This clearly comes with certain qualifications as implemented by Washington. In Libya, Gadhafi’s pre-NATO intervention body count may not even hit 1,000 – yes, a serious crime, but minuscule compared to the tens of thousands claimed by US propaganda. Compare that to the death toll of approximately 300,000 in the Sudan. This contradiction can also be seen in Obama’s incessant support for brutal, murderous responses to peaceful Arab Spring protests in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc.

An interesting case is Syria, where around 3,000 civilians have died as a result of Bashar al-Assad’s violent crackdown. Why Libya, but not Syria? Well, Assad is not an ally of the US, so the thousands of dead civilians don’t harm US “credibility.” Gadhafi, on the other hand, was an ally of the US at the time of his crackdown. But he was a dispensable ally whose oil could be exploited to greater benefit without him, as opposed to other Middle Eastern dictators (like Khalifa, Saleh, and the Saudis) who are indispensable. As Hastings reported, “[P]resident [Obama] apparently shared the impulse to use Libya to make up for the administration’s slow-footed response to the Arab Spring.” Indeed, its perfectly believable that the Obama administration launched the war in Libya for “credibility” – a public relations stunt for the Arab world’s perception of America. Here again we can see the bastardization of the R2P doctrine. How vacuous its altruistic pretensions!

R2P breaks down as soon as you take even a cursory look at how it is implemented by the esteemed hegemonic superpower, the Responsible One. It is not about “protecting civilian populations from violations of international humanitarian law,” especially when we or our allies are the violators. And there simply is no genuine concern in the halls of power in Washington for dying civilians, unless US interests or credibility is at stake.

It is truly startling at how many self-styled ‘progressives’ are still intent on apologizing for Barack Obama’s Bushian foreign policy. Perhaps the most disturbing article that I have read by apologists for Bush-lite was Robert Creamer’s “A Great Day: Obama Ends the War in Iraq.” According to Creamer’s biography on the Huffington Post, he has been a “political organizer and strategist for four decades” who has been dedicated to “campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, pass Wall Street reform, change America’s budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform.” He is also married to Congresswoman Joan Schakowsky from Illinois.

Perhaps it is the Illinois connection that has him doing everything he can to heap praise on Barack Obama. It is inexcusable, however, that he would have written such an article after professing to work intimately on campaigns to end the War in Iraq. Simply put, he should know his facts.

Creamer begins the piece misleadingly:

This afternoon President Obama announced that at the end of this year, America will withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq.

Obama began his campaign for president by forcefully, clearly promising to end that war. This afternoon he delivered on that promise.

President Obama did, in fact, campaign to end the war in Iraq. He was also a very outspoken critic of it during his time in the US Senate. But why did Obamareally announce a withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq (never mind that 150 will remain behind)? Surprisingly, in a rare burst of sanity, Michelle Bachmann gave the reason why: “we’re being kicked out.” The Iraqi government, despite much arm twisting by the Obama administration, refused to grant American troops immunity after the year’s end. Obama and friends, defeated and demoralized, had no other option but to leave.

But even such an important development in the war in Iraq is not solidified yet. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been in talks with the Iraqi government about what to do after “the reduction of combat presence.” Thousands of private military contractors and State Department quasi-soldiers will remain in order to ensure “stability.”

If you thought it couldn’t get any worse, it does get much, much worse. Creamer then attempts to argue that Obama “fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy.” I would agree with such a sentiment, only in that Obama has been more efficient in killing innocent civilians in his Drone War on the World than Bush could have ever dreamed of.  Creamer then uses the war in Libya to demonstrate how fundamentally different Obama has been from Bush:

• The Libyans themselves overthrew a dictator;
• America spent a billion dollars — not a trillion dollars, as we have in Iraq;
• America did not lose one soldier in Libya;
• We accomplished our mission after eight months, not eight years;
• Most importantly, America worked cooperatively with our European allies, the Arab League and the Libyan people to achieve a more democratic Middle East.

The Libyans would have been utterly incapable of overthrowing the Gaddafi regime had it not been for the NATO operation. If the NATO planes of death were not busy bombing Gaddafi and his loyalists, the weapons depots would have never been looted and Gaddafi would have continued to use his endless cash to hire mercenaries from around Africa. Additionally, it was an American Predator drone strike coupled with a French missile strike that initially hit Gaddafi’s convoy allowing the anti-Gaddafi forces to ultimately capture and execute him. Last I checked, the “Libyans” had no such capabilities.

While only $1 billion has been spent so far, it remains to be seen how active the US will be in Libyan reconstruction efforts. The price could easily balloon from here on out. It is also odd that a self proclaimed progressive would rather see $1 billion spent on overthrowing an African dictator rather than feeding and educating impoverished American children.

Creamer is correct to note that there were not any American casualties, but are the lives of an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 Libyans to be overlooked? The death count is by no means conclusive and will only rise once Libyans are harmed by their bombed out infrastructure much like the 500,000 Iraqis who died thanks to their decimated infrastructure.

Again, it is premature to decisively call this the end of the Libyan war as the prospect of civil war and strife remains high. Surely Creamer would not want to be caught with egg on his face like Bush was after declaring “Mission Accomplished.”

It’s also worth remembering that troops from North America, Europe, Asia, and South America took part in the mission in Iraq. Strength in numbers and consensus does not justify regime change, whether it be Saddam or Moammar.

Creamer can continue to say how different Obama has been from Bush in the realm of foreign policy, but the facts just don’t add up. They’re especially nothing for a progressive to gloat about.

I’m currently reading Harvard psychologist and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker’s new book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. To read, it is at once a delight and an aggravation. But I’ll spare you the book review. For now, I just wanted to excerpt a particular passage relevant to this site:

In one of his pensées Blaise Pascal (1623-62) imagined the following dialogue: “Why are you killing me for you own benefit? I am unarmed.” “Why, do you not live on the other side of the water? My friend, if you lived on this side, I should be a murderer, but since you live on the other side, I am a hero, and it i just.” Voltaire’s Candide (1759) was another novel that slipped scathing antiwar commentary into the mouth of a fictitious character, such as the following definition of war: “A million assassins in uniform, roaming from one end of Europe to the other, murder and pillage with discipline in order to earn their daily bread.”

Together with satires suggesting that war war hypocritical and contemptible, the 18th century saw the appearance of theories holding that it was irrational and avoidable. One of the foremost was gentle commerce, the theory that the positive-sum layoff of trade should be more appealing than the zero-sum or negative-sum payoff of war. Though the mathematics of game theory would not be available for another two hundred years, the key idea could be stated easily enough in words: Why spend money and blood to invade a country and plunder its treasure when you can just buy it from them at less expense and sell them some of your own? The Abbé de Saint-Pierre (1713), Montesquieu (1748), Adam Smith (1776), George Washington (1788), and Immanuel Kant (1795) were some of the writers who extolled free trade because it yoked the material interests of nations and thus encouraged them to value one another’s well-being.

I would add another, Frederic Bastiat, who put it succinctly: When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.