[N.B. This was my commentary for June 17th on K's Frame of Mind, an "Internet radio" show. Every Sunday evening, I pop on for a few minutes to discuss the previous week's political developments -- usually the subject is presidential politics, but occasionally, as you can see below, it's not. Listen in -- the show is great fun!]
Over the last 4 years, Al Qaeda in Iraq and their fellow insurgentshave painstakingly developed and then demonstrated their capabilities. They’ve developed those capabilities because that’s what fighting forces who want to win wars do. They’ve demonstrated those capabilities because proving to the world — and especially to the American public — that they cannot be stopped from continually increasing their ability to kill American troops is their key to victory.
What we’re seeing in Iraq right now is the beginning of a new phase in the war, based on a demonstration of the third of three operational capabilities the insurgents have worked hard to develop.
The first capability was to effectively attack American military ground vehicles. With the help of (allegedly Iranian) shaped charges for their improvised explosive devices, that capability has been developed and demonstrated.
The second capability was to effectively attack American helicopters. Once again, developed and demonstrated. An insurgency without an air force can’t deny the US Forces air superiority. It can however deny them air supremacy to the extent that that supremacy relies on rotary-wing support.
The third capability, now being demonstrated, is the ability to isolate areas of Baghdad. The insurgents received some help with thes from the US and Iraqi government forces themselves, who closed off all but 28 routes into and out of the city, starting last fall with the trenches. In the last week they’ve demonstrated their own capability by bringing down several bridges.
Prediction: US casualties are about to rise precipitously as the insurgents isolate sections of Baghdad, force US troops out of their vehicles, keep the skies clear of American helicopters, and engage on a much leveler playing field — light infantry versus light infantry. Casualties will still be disproportionate — the US troops are better trained, better equipped and better able to bring larger forces to bear as needed — but the cost is still going to rise … and the insugents will be seen as having a fourth key capability, that of dictating the terrain and terms upon which the fighting occurs.
This has also been posted at the Carnival Of Anarchy http://carnival-of-anarchy.blogspot.com/
The natural environment is the key issue today. This is not to reduce all other struggles and problems to it in a reductionist way, however. But what happens to the environment will have a determining effect upon the nature and direction of social change for the next generation, if not sooner.
We are facing two interrelated natural environment based crises – global warming and peak oil. Nothing real is being done about either, and the authorities are not preparing the population for a possible dire future. The orthodox left – social democrats – mainstream Greens - trumpets band aid solutions – Kyoto, hybrid cars, wind power etc. all well and fine in their way, had they been introduced 30 years ago! Only the minority; radical Greens, socialists, anarchists, decentralists, are really telling the truth to the people – that the auto, imported food, suburban sprawl, Walmart life style has to go and has to go now, otherwise heavy times ahead.
This brings me to class struggle. Of course, it goes on all the time, the ruling class or elite warring against the populace and the people fighting back with absenteeism, other forms of sabotage, and strikes. 98% of the aggression come from the rulers, however. The people tend to respond in a reactive manner. One can hold a romantic view of the proletariat, but nonetheless the previous statement is true, If you look at history. The people seem to go on the offensive only after a serious shock like a lost war, an attempted right-wing coup, or a bone-grinding economic depression. This reactive nature is understandable. Most people are not ideological and only wish to go about their daily lives. They will put up with an incredible amount of abuse as long as they are allowed some minimal level of “normal” existence. What I am suggesting is that the combined crises of peak oil and global warming will be such a shock.
We don't know the severe the crisis will be, but some people who have studied the issue, such as James Howard Kunstler, imply it will be the most severe crisis humanity will have faced since the Late Middle Ages, when the people endured famine, war and plague as a result of climate change, over-use of the land and the cutting down of the forests.
What type of reaction occurs really depends upon us, the libertarian-decentralist minority. The better prepared areas will pull through easier than those that have not prepared. Those of us who work to build community and support for local food production, farmers markets, public transit and struggle against developer-idiocy, will have in the long term, saved lives. Masses of people will turn against the rulers, finally realizing they have been lied to. Much of the true-believer Hummer - MacMansions crowd will turn to fascism. Of course, some are 90% there already.
Whether the mass of the people turn to fascism or communitarian socialism, will in some way depend upon how we tackle this issue now. And tackle it we must. I suggest a place to begin would be a sticker with the slogan “Is Your Town Prepared for Peak Oil?”, in smaller print below, “Or Is It Still All Shopping Mall and Suburban Sprawl?” and the web address of one of the peak oil sites. (Something similar about global warming for those areas that will be effected the most.) This could be followed up with a poster listing suggested actions that could be taken to survive peak oil/global warming.
If it has a seal from the guvmint, it must be trustworthy, right?
sigh…
( from USDA Broadens Interpretation of `Organic’ for Some Foods )
The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave interim approval Friday to a controversial proposal to allow 38 nonorganic ingredients to be used in foods carrying the “USDA Organic” seal.
…
The list approved Friday includes 19 food colorings, two starches, hops, sausage casings, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, gelatin, celery powder, dillweed oil, frozen lemongrass, Wakame seaweed, Turkish bay leaves and whey protein concentrate.
To all those who believed that the state needed to step in and create a uniform set of standards: I hope you’re happy! Enjoy those factory “farm” sausage casings!
Finding food that is actually organic can now be challenging, and it’s only gonna get worse thanks to inevitable assaults on food integrity and farmers who actually care by USDA and it’s cult of centralization. Some are wise to what’s going on, even if the typical “progressive” prefers to keep head buried in sand while chanting the mantra “if only the RIGHT people were in charge…”
Two voices of dissent against the continued institutionalization of food can be heard from Eliot Coleman and Michigan-based Eden Foods. Here’s Coleman’s take on the subject:
My opinion on this topic is the same today as it was when this national process began. There is a better way of achieving cleaner, more nutritious food for consumers than imposing a national definition of “organic.”This better way, letting individual labels define themselves, was the practice in Europe during the ’70s and ’80s. The various European “organic” organizations — Nature et Progres, Lemaire-Boucher, Soil Association, ANOG, Bio-Organic, Demeter — each defined and published standards to which their food was grown, based on their different theories of how to produce the best quality food. There was even a Swiss supermarket chain, Migros, with its own line of low-chemical-input foods called “Migro-sano.” Migros contracted with Swiss farmers to grow food to specific standards which banned the chemical inputs Swiss consumers were most concerned about, while allowing the less toxic products.
This open system offered numerous advantages to European consumers. Not only was there a range in price and quality, there was also the power to continually upgrade the standards. Whenever new agricultural research raised flags about a previously acceptable input or practice, the consumer shift to the labels not using that input or practice forced the other labels to shape up. This was a system driven to become ever better in response to the concerns of astute consumers rather than, as with any politically controlled system, ever more watered down in response to the influence of the powerful lobbyists.
Consumers should be aware that the virtues of this successful European model are presently seen as its fatal flaws. Such a wide range of consumer opinions and flexibility for improvement is unacceptable now that “organic” is big business. The expanding “organic” industry needs one simple, lowest-common-denominator definition for international trade. That is what the new Organic Standards are. But my question is this: Shouldn’t the “organic” food option place the benefit to consumers ahead of the needs of corporations?
Such an arrangement could have thrived here in USSA if it weren’t for those seeking food industrialization and/or political privledge. It is illegal to market produce as organic without a state permission slip if more than $5000/year is earned by the farmer. Thankfully, one can always wage a war of words against USDA and corporate “organics” by not only condemning the national certification and the growing uncertainly surrounding the word organic, but also by promoting alternative certification that simply chooses another word to associate with truly organic food. The latter tactic is being employed by those seeking certification through Certified Naturally Grown.
While Eden Foods needed to comply with the state to be allowed to continue marketing their products as organic, they weren’t happy about it. Eden refuses to dignify USDA by placing that infamous seal of theirs on food packaging. Here’s an excerpt of Eden’s statement regarding USDA “organic”:
In the first draft released to the public, the USDA announced its intention to allow food grown in city and industrial sewage sludge, genetically engineered food, and irradiated food to be certified organic. This became infamously known as the ‘Big Three.’ As deafening public outcry caused the USDA to ‘cave,’ Eden issued a press release that the struggle to save organic standards was still very much alive. We recognized the ‘Big Three’ as a common negotiating tactic: Make an offer that is so ridiculously unacceptable that all future offers would seem good by comparison.Our concerns have been realized. Under USDA it has become cheaper and easier for manufacturers to market ‘organic’ food that is not organic by any reasonable definition.
The most serious degradation of national organic standards occurred in October 2005. In a back room deal the Organic Trade Association lobbied Congress to legalize the adulteration of organic food with basically any toxic additive a manufacturer may want to use, including substances that do not need to appear on ingredient panels. More than 400,000 consumers contacted their government representatives asking them not to weaken organic standards in such a way, but agribusiness influences prevailed.
As a result, food bearing the ‘USDA Organic’ seal no longer needs to be natural food.
As a company that has worked for decades alongside salt-of-the-earth organic family farmers to grow and make food by the highest possible organic standards, we cannot in good conscience add a symbol to this food that essentially cheapens it.
Read their entire statement here.
I fail to see how anyone can in good conscience continue to support USDA’s “organic” racket in any way.
You are currently browsing the leftlibertarian.org weblog archives for June, 2007.
