Thank you for posting this. Eric is a tireless worker for peace and bringing the troops back NOW. I am working with him on the rally (I'm with VFP ch.72)

For those interested here is a draft of the resolution:

Resolution Calling for the Withdrawal of Oregon’s National Guard Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan:

Whereas, the National Guard was created for the protection of the sovereignty of US borders, and to protect the citizens of the several states from natural disasters or threats of violence within the individual state boundaries;

Whereas, the law of the United States provides that National Guard troops are under the command of the Governors of the various states, unless a war is declared by the United States Congress or a State of Emergency is declared by the President of the United States;

Whereas all conditions underlying PL 107-243 (10/16/02) authorizing military action against Iraq either have been proven false or have materially changed, as a government friendly to the United States has been installed in Iraq and elections held;

Whereas, the President’s Declaration of an Emergency justifying the invasion of Afghanistan (Exec. Order 13223; 9/14/01) has been superceded by the President’s own declaration that said emergency has ended (Exec. Order 13268; 7/2/02), and a government friendly to the United States has been installed and elections held in that country as well;

Whereas, Oregon’s National Guard troops have been called up in unprecedented numbers, at the highest per capita level of any state, to serve on active duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and furthermore have been poorly equipped and have received only rudimentary training for service in these wars, and are therefore suffering casualties at rates considerably higher than those of regular Army troops;

Whereas, Oregon’s National Guard troops are being subjected to unfair and involuntary extensions of duty well beyond the terms of their enlistment contracts, and their families, employers and communities have had to bear the hardship of accommodating the prolonged absence of the Guard members;

Whereas, the National Guard at home in Oregon has been decimated by the mobilization of our troops for these foreign wars, and whereas, a disproportionate number of National Guard members, in civilian life, serve as police officers, firefighters, EMT personnel, prison guards, etc., their absence has left our own communities vulnerable and ill-prepared for any natural disaster or terrorist attack within our own state borders;

Whereas, fewer and fewer Oregonians are willing to enlist in the National Guard because of the unfair treatment of Guard troops by the US Defense Department and Army;

Therefore be it Resolved: That the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon calls upon the Governor to exercise his power as Commander of the Oregon National Guard to immediately bring, or cause to be brought home, all Oregon National Guard troops presently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in training for those wars.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-- George W. Bush on Kosovo (Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999)

Still waiting.

You break it. You own it.-Colin Powell prior to the invasion of Iraq. No, I would say "You break it, you pay to fix it". Cancel all the contracts with Halliburton et all and give the $$ to Iraqi companies/contrators. Let them be part of the "ownership society". If they saw a chance to actually be part of the rebuilding of thier country, they might be willing to fight for a piece of the pie.

I'm not holding my breath. Until then I will be on the front lines calling out the lies of these monsters and demanding they bring the troops home now.

Some historical bits on the National Guard and the slow federalizing of it giving the power to the POTUS and not the state’s governors, this could help clear up or get you more confuses about this very tenuous situation around the country.

How the state’s militia started was under the Militia Act of 1792. The state's power of authority over its militia started to erode when President Teddy Roosevelt got the Dick Act(that supersedes the Militia Act of 1792)--because the federal government had a weak standing army in numbers during the early stage of the Spanish American War.

The federal government control got stronger when President Woodrow Wilson got National Defense Act of 1916--because we declared war on Germany over a possible threat again from Mexico with German involvement. A part of this act: “further expanded the Guard's role and guaranteed the State militias' status as the Army's primary reserve force…. Moreover, the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency.”

The more control over the National Guard to the federal government, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the National Guard of the United States a component of the Army at all times, which could be ordered into active federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.

Then the final chapter, maybe; of the federalizing of the National Guard was under President Richard Nixon. Following the experience of fighting an unpopular war in Vietnam, the 1973 Total Force Policy was designed to involve a large portion of the American public by mobilizing the National Guard from its thousands of locations throughout the United States when needed. The Total Force Policy required that all active and reserve military organizations of the United States be treated as a single integrated force. A related benefit of this approach is to permit elected officials to have a better sense of public support or opposition to any major military operation. This policy echoes the original intentions of the founding fathers for a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.

Another event that gave more power and control of the National Guard to the POTUS over the state’s governors; was when Governor Wallace refused to protect and enforce the Afro-American students rights when the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was unconstitutional. President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard twice in 1963 to deal with segregation issues.

The real question is: Has President Bush and/or the Congress declared a national emergency pertaining to acts of terrorism “that could start on foreign soil that could result on another 9/11 event”?

Please think about this subject.

I am totally for the governor’s of all states to pull out each state’s National Guard from Iraq. However, has the federal government have the rights to supersede the states rights, under the various federal acts that have been passed over the last century, dealing with who commands and controls the National Guard?

The executive orders Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001 Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism

Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002 Termination of Emergency with Respect to the Taliban and Amendment of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001

Pat,

I think you are missing the thrust of what the US is doing in Iraq. We are there to control oil and the geopolitics of the Middle East. The rest of the world knows that. That is why we get so little cooperation from the international community and so much resistance from Middle Easterners. "Owning it" is precisely the point. We will be happy to withdraw our forces to our permanent bases in Iraq as soon as a suitably compliant Iraqi government develops. That is not nation building or democratization, it is colonialization by proxy, something we have practiced around the world for a long time.

If the US was intent on an Iraq for Iraqis, there would be plenty of international help and a heck of a lot less insurgency. Given that US foreign policy is not likely to change in the near future, it would be better for both our servicepeople and the Iraqis for us to get the hell out of there.

Imperialism: Then & Now, by Tariq Ali and David Barsamian

Pat,

Give three examples of US invasion and occupation producing a stable democratic government. I can cite several examples of our meddling leading to decades of death, oppression, dictatorship, and instability.

I agree that the US holds responsibility toward the Iraqis. I do not believe that our presence under this administration will fulfill that responsibility. There are already over 100,000 dead Iraqis because of our [fear of WMDs/ War on Terrorism/support for democracy/they tried to kill my dad] [chose one], in addition to the 500,000 dead children victimized by the earlier sanctions we enforced. The latter toll was, according to our last Democratic Secretary of State, “worth it.”

Rape is never a proper way to show one is sorry for administering a beating.

Interfaith Network of Concern for the People of Iraq

Tom:

Italy. Germany. Japan.

Tom,

Where do you see the U.S. having colonized, apart from, say, some islands in the Pacific?

The Middle East is a sinkhole of tyranny and corruption. It has become slightly less so due to the deposing of Saddam Hussein, and all you can do is dwell on the supposed evil of your own country.

No doubt the U.S. was in Afghanistan just for the oil, as well as Kosovo and Somalia.

With citizens like you, who needs enemies?

From AP, Feb. 14, 2005:

Sen. John Kerry called for tens of thousands of new U.S. troops on Monday and said the country should adopt a series of initiatives to support military families.

Kerry said he plans to file legislation to increase the size of the military by 40,000 -- 30,000 in the Army and 10,000 in the Marines -- to help support the country's efforts in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism.

Here’s a comment from Kerry further down in the story: “The war in Iraq proved that a lightning-fast, high-tech force can smash an opposing army and drive to Baghdad in three weeks. But there is no substitute for a well-trained and equipped infantry to win the peace."

So I guess I’m confused: Are mainstream Democrats pro-Blitzkrieg now, or just pro-occupation?

I guess at the very least, had the Senator from Massachusetts won the election, violent American military assaults against the sovereignty of Middle Eastern nations and peoples would have been couched in more sensitive political terms than under a swaggering Texan's (albeit just as bloody).

I suppose, though, that Kerry’s election may indeed have had the effect of “bringing America together,” if for no other reason than a Kerry presidency would have made mass murder hipper and more palatable among the ranks of sophisticated liberals - and muted a large sector of the “antiwar” Left.

So from a truly antiwar perspective - that is, from one critical of military aggressions regardless if waged by Blues or Reds - let me say that it seems pretty clear now that the less warlike of the two major candidates actually won in 2004.

Prof, I'll accept Japan. Germany and Italy were joint operations with our allies. Of course, all three had highly developed economies already, making them less adaptable to puppet government. Also, they started WWII, not us, though I did not make that distinction in my challenge to Pat.

Anthony, The US usually doesn't colonize in the traditional sense [if you ignore the US itself, Hawaii, sections of Mexico, Guam, Guantanomo, Puerto Rico, and a few other places]. Usually, we set up governemnts that will suit our security interests and favor the businesses that dictate our foreign policy. You might check out the history of the US in The Philipines, Haiti, just about every country in Central America, Cuba, Vietnam [oops, didn't work], Granada, Iran [last time we let the CIA do the regime change, but it looks like it will be the Marines in a little while]....

If being a sinkhole of tyranny and corruption makes one ripe for invasion, we had better watch out. Every imperialist nation has had a good rationale for why the victims needed to be invaded. None of them stands up to scrutiny. Do a search on "white man's burden." Oil is not the only reason for US meddling, just a very common one these days.

If US foreign policy was run in a way that satisfied me, we would have a lot fewer enemies. I'll let others judge what kind of citizen I am. Are you are suggesting a new Committee on Unamerican Activites?

Panama, Grenada.

Not sure what other US invasions there have really been. Nicaragua? The invasion under Eisenhower certainly ended badly, but the Contras under Reagan (which I hated and opposed at the time) has turned out OK.

Vietnam was an invasion (I guess) but that was a French led effort that we stupidly bungled into in a poorly conceived Cold War effort.

Iran? Well we never invaded, so that doesn't fit your question, although we did prop up an autocratic regime.

The interesting question is this, Tom: do we withdraw from the world? Are Dems the party of neo-isolationism? Or do we engage and if so, how? We are the world's only superpower, what do progressives do with that military might? Invade Rwanda? Something else?

I don't know the answer to these difficult questions, but I am pretty sure that a) by stressing neo-isolationism, progressives will only further marginalize themselves, and b) by stressing neo-isolationism, we cede the moral high ground to the Republicans who claim they are trying to make a more just, democratic world.

Now, I know you snorted at that last comment, but that is their rhetoric, and I don't know what the Democratic response is.

"Get the boys home" sounds great but the military and political reality right now in Iraq is that ths would be crazy. The country would rapidly sink into civil war, potentially pulling the whole region down with it, pulling down the Saudi, Pakistani, and Egyptian regimes, and possibly sparking a serious regional conflagration.

And then, yes, the American (and European and Brazilian and Indian and ...) public would scream as the power generators turn off, the gas lines lengthen, etc.

Of course energy matters in all of this. Can we deny the importance of a vital US economy in today's world? A faltering US economy would hurt an awful lot of developing nations. Right now we are the engine--Europe is facing a demographic time bomb, Japan can't figure out it's way out of recession, and China basically sells consumer goods to the US.

Again, Tom, I don't know the answers here, but I know they are a lot more complicated than the rhetoric I sometimes hear.