Tom Hayden

In this edition: Rep. Conyers forms congressional "Out of Afghanistan" caucus 96 Brown Baggers against Tea Baggers yesterday The parallels between Afghanistan and Robin Hood Challenge to the US "long war" in Colombia CONYERS FORMS CONGRESSIONAL "OUT OF AFGHANISTAN" CAUCUS by Tom Hayden For The Nation Rep. John Conyers, frustrated by Congressional inaction towards the Afghanistan War, is forming a new Out of Afghanistan Caucus as a focal point for Congressional opposition to the continuing conflict. The action came as the death toll for American soldiers crept over the one thousand mark and conservative estimates place the cost of Afghanistan-Iraq at more than one trillion dollars. According to a House source, the new caucus "creates a channel for members who are united against the war", after months in which the Congressional Progressive Caucus has not taken an oppositional stance. "There is a lot more conflict among Democratic members who don't want to oppose the Obama administration or who still believe this can be a humane war", the source added. Six members signed on immediately to Conyers' proposal, and a staff director has been assigned, Michael Darner of Conyers' DC office. The potential for the Caucus' growth can be measured in the 87 sponsors of Rep. Jim McGovern's exit strategy legislation, HR 5015. The problem all year has been the lack of an effective anti-war caucus organizing effort within the House. The new Caucus might fill that need. The action echoes the creation of the Out of Iraq Caucus by Rep. Maxine Waters in the early years of the Iraq War. That caucus was generated over the objections of House Democratic leadership and came to include over 70 members. Similarly, the new caucus has been formed without the official blessing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi at this point. Pelosi declared last year that she would never again pressure members of her Democratic caucus to vote for Afghanistan supplemental funding. In addition, outgoing House Appropriations chair David Obey gave the Obama administration license for one year before serious choices would need to be made between war funding and other urgent budget priorities. Those words will be tested soon since the Obama Administration and Senate Democrats are sending a supplemental funding package to the House containing not only $33 billion for the escalation but also a sweetener of $23 billion in funds to save teachers' jobs. In another replay of past budget battles, House Republicans are claiming they will refuse another bailout package, putting the onus for supporting the Afghanistan funding on the Democratic House majority. The new Caucus signals a desire by Conyers and others to draw the lines. BROWN BAGS FOR PEACE VERSUS TEA BAGGERS FOR WAR? On May 19, unnoticed by the media, there were 96 brown-bag vigils for peace and justice organized in Congressional districts by Progressive Democrats of America, health care advocates and other peace groups. That's on top of nearly 500 this year alone. The brown-baggers sharply contrast with the uprising known as the Tea Party, which won a US Senate primary with Rand Paul in Kentucky Tuesday.  The new question is whether there an anti-war wing of the tea-baggers. Rep. Ron Paul, father of Rand, wins standing ovations when he condemns Afghanistan as an unsustainable waste of taxpayer dollars. Will the Republican Party only adopt the anti-tax and anti-government portion of the Paul message, while ignoring the multi-trillion dollar costs and thousands of American deaths in military quagmires? Do they want to "take America back" only from the White House, Congress and big banks, but keep the bailouts flowing to the Pentagon?   ROBIN HOOD FILM MIRRORS IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN Headline: New York Times, May 14, 2010 The New York Times' haughty dismissal of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is an unfortunate sign of the times. Reflecting the current political atmosphere, A.O. Scott writes that the Robin Hood tale is "one big medieval tea party...kind of." This Robin Hood is "no socialist bandit", says the Times,  but a "manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and big government", turning history and the movie upside down.   The film by Ridley Scott is not nearly as political or propagandistic as the Times' review can be said to be.   But the film certainly is a morality tale about today's Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1187, the Muslim hero Saladin reconquered Jerusalem for the Arab nation, leading to the West's Third Crusade. In 1191, Richard the Lionheart inflicted a notorious massacre on thousands of Muslim prisoners. In Jerusalem, rivulets of blood ran in the streets. Those were pivotal moments in shaping today's Middle East, with Osama bin Ladin now following the legend of Saladin.   The Times' review not only ignores this parallel, but the choice to make Russell Crowe's Robin Hood character a traumatized veteran of the Crusades, who suffers flashbacks over the killing of women and innocent civilians, accuses the king directly, and returns to Europe with a burning resentment.   It is true that taxes and "big government" were at the center of Robin Hood's revolt, but not in the sense meant by today's Tea Party.  It was not liberal big-spenders who drew Robin Hood's fury, but the taxes wasted on the military crusades which bankrupted a people to perpetuate a monarchy. This Robin Hood fought for the rule of law, an elected parliament, and the end of a monarchical state.   Today's parallels lie in three wars - Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - that are seen as modern crusades by the Arab world, wars which will cost trillions of dollars, and which have resulted in unprecedented levels of suicide and mental illness among American soldiers.   Against these sobering lessons, it is impossible to understand Scott's twisted dismissal about the story of Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor as "liberal media propaganda." He is not only blind to the parallel with the Crusades, but sounds like royalty himself in pooh-poohing the idea of redistribution.   The Robin Hood film is little more than an adventure story on the surface, which will entertain more than educate most of its audience. The line in Hollywood these days is that anti-war films can't sell tickets, so the serious underside of this Robin Hood is mostly between the lines. But the character needs to be rescued from his fate as "the mischievous outlaw of future Mel Brooks and Bugs Bunny spoofs."   No doubt there are returning veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq who will appreciate this film more than the Times reviewer, and may act accordingly. CHALLENGE TO U.S. 'LONG WAR' IN COLOMBIA Colombia, the closest military ally to the U.S. in its conflict with Venezuela and Latin America's new nationalist bloc, may assert a new independence in the presidential elections between the oligarchy's candidate Juan Manuel Santos and the former Green Party mayor of Bogota, Antanas Mockus.   In the primary election on May 20, Mockus holds a slight lead, catapulting from one percent last January. It seems likely that both candidates will face a runoff on June 20.   Mockus, a moderate in the style of Barack Obama, favors "a certain stepping back" from long-standing US-Colombia drug war policies which have fostered right-wing paramilitary centers of power, gross human rights violations and a culture of impunity. Mockus also says he "admires" Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, targeted as the arch-enemy of Washington in the region. Faced with conservative reaction, Mockus amended his words to say he "respects" Chavez.  [LA Times, May 17, 2010] For his part, President Chavez has said the election of Santos could "generate a war". He blames Santos for a military strike into Ecuador against a Colombian guerrilla leader, which prompted Venezuela to mobilize forces on the Colombian border. "Hopefully", says Chavez, the Colombian people will elect someone "with whom I can talk and not someone who attacks neighboring countries with bombs." [Business Week, April 27, 2010]   According to Greg Grandin [Nation, Jan. 21], the US has signed an agreement with Colombia for seven new military bases, escalating tensions with Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil and others in the region. Grandin writes that the Pentagon is pursuing a "long war" policy involving counter-insurgency strategies based on Plan Colombia, which a 2004 Army strategist proposed to export to Latin America. In its 2009 budget request, the Pentagon proposed "full-spectrum operations throughout South America" and "epanded expeditionary warfare capability" against "anti-US governments" there. The phrasing was erased later from the budget document. US policy seems to blend militarization and privatization approaches into a single framework, represented by US State Department official Thomas Shannon's proposal for "armoring NAFTA." The lack of firmness from the Obama administration towards last year's military coup by the Honduran oligarchy is a further sign of the evolving policy direction. Most importantly, Obama seems to have given up his initial honeymoon with Brazil's president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who opposes Washington's militarism and seeks an independent international role for his country.   Recently, the fear in progressive Latin American has been that Washington, instead of accepting rapprochement with Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Brazil, will seek to defeat progressive governments in the region by promoting right-wing leaders, such as the new billionaire president of Chile, Sebastian Pinera.   The surge and possible election of Mockus in Colombia, however, plants an obstacle in the very center of the US counter-insurgency strategy for the region. The political dimension of all counter-insurgencies requires a stable in-country ally, but the past decade has left in place an unpopular culture of right-wing paramilitaries like a cancer in the center of Colombia's civil society. Five hundred unionists and 195 teachers have been assassinated in recent years and, as Grandin reports, the military is accused of murdering over 2,000 civilians and covering their bodies with guerrilla uniforms to indicate military "success."   "Plan Colombia is not really about drugs; it is the Latin American edition of GCOIN, or Global Counterinsurgency", writes Grandin. After over a decade of Plan Colombia [twice its authorized length], more coca flows into the United States than before, at lower retail prices on the streets.   During the early years of Plan Colombia, the US ambassador in Bogota was Anne Patterson, an early associate of Hillary Clinton. Today, the same Patterson is US ambassador to Pakistan. [The war on drugs in that region still leaves approximately ten thousand Europeans dying yearly of heroin overdoses.]   .



This article orginally appeared in The Nation. 

Editor's correction: The original version of this article states a "57 percent spike" in violence.  That figure has been corrected to 10 percent.

 

NATO countries are poised to add 7,000 soldiers to the 30,000-troop US escalation in Afghanistan, providing a cover of multilateralism for the Obama administration and the NATO commander, US General Stanley McChrystal. The NATO decision is expected to be ratified January 28 at a conference called by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Karzai administration and the United Nations Afghan Mission (UNAM).

To assuage European public hesitation, McChrystal is describing the troop surge for the first time as a step towards negotiating a political settlement with the Taliban. The London paper points out that "the prospect that an eight-year war could end with some Taliban leaders in power represents a remarkable turnaround" in US and NATO policy.

While NATO escalates its troop commitment, the London conference is billed as a display of "soft power" that will stabilize Afghanistan. One of the conference sponsors, the discredited Afghan president Hamid Karzai, will ask the conference for a $1 billion commitment to lure Taliban fighters onto the Kabul regime's payroll, a replica of the payments to 99,000 Sunni insurgents during the Iraq surge of 2007-8.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not identical conflicts, however. Iraq's Sunnis were a 20 percent minority fighting a majority Shi'a government and army, which the United States installed in power. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are powerful among the 45 percent Pashtun population, and cannot be defeated by Karzai's dysfunctional government or the northern Hazara, Tajik or Uzbek minorities. The situation resembles an ethnic-based stalemate, which Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged this week , in saying the Taliban are woven into the "political fabric" of Afghanistan.

One reason for the dovish hints is that European and Canadian public opinion strongly oppose the escalation. In Germany 71 percent are opposed, and in the UK 56 percent . In France, 82 percent are against increased troop commitments. Canada is committed to withdrawing troops in 2011, and pressure is building for other NATO nations to follow.

Obama's escalation is causing increased US and NATO casualties, a toll that is sure to increase rapidly as more troops arrive. In January, twenty-five Americans and twelve Europeans and Canadians have died, compared to twenty-four Americans and nine Europeans and Canadians during the same month last year. The 10 percent spike shows that the Afghan "fighting season" is becoming year-around rather than concentrated in the summer months.

Twenty-five deaths may seem a small number in the so-called war on terror, but the toll accumulates. The American dead in the war so far number 972, and will pass the 1,000 mark in the coming weeks. At that rate, an additional 1,000 Americans will die before the Obama administration's planned date for beginning withdrawals, in summer 2011. The numbers of American wounded leaped to 350 per month last summer. The cumulative European and Canadian death number is 617, doubling in a single year.

The cost of the eight-year war so far is $250 billion, and roughly $1 million per US soldier. It will become another trillion-dollar war by the end of Obama's second term. Along the way, the budget costs are likely to capsize Obama's domestic agenda and intensify inflationary pressures.

In keeping with the new tone of the escalation, the UK's Gordon Brown describes the London plan as "fully aligning military and civilian resources behind an Afghan-led political strategy," an echo of McChrystal's recent strategic plan. Brown promises that Afghan troops will begin replacing NATO units as early as this year. But beneath the rhetoric, Brown is pledging 500 additional British troops, bringing the number up to 9,500.

The London-based Stop the War Coalition is calling for mass protests in London this week, at both the conference and Friday's so-called Chilcott inquiry, an official investigation of the deceptions British and American officials employed in launching the Iraq War. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to testify Friday. Protests in several other European capitals are being organized as well.

Germany is particularly conflicted because both constitution and custom forbid the deployment of troops in war zones for aggressive purposes. Yet a German commander ordered the September 4, 2009, airstrike that killed some 142 Afghan civilians. The civilian deaths were denied at first, then acknowledged, then defended, resulting in the German official's resignation and widespread German debate. This week the Angela Merkel government is expected to send 500 more German troops, raising the total to 5,000. And Germany will train another 30,000 Afghan police and soldiers, doubling its current commitment.

The Karzai government recently raised alarms by predicting that NATO will remain in Afghanistan until 2024, to train and protect the still-weak Afghan security forces.

The current "talk about talks" runs counter to the neoconservative espousal of the "long war" doctrine, but there is no reason to believe that peace is at hand. Instead, the Obama/Pentagon plan is for brutal combat, including an emphasis on drones and special operations, for eighteen to twenty-four months, in the belief that the Taliban can be pounded into accepting an American-imposed peace settlement, and to permit Karzai's Afghan army time to grow into an effective force.

The sides are far apart. The Taliban, the Karzai government, some Europeans and the peace movement all agree that the United States and NATO must set a deadline for ultimate withdrawal of its forces, to be replaced by nonaligned peacekeeping troops. Further, negotiations must include the Taliban leadership, particularly Mullah Omar, who currently are headquartered in the Pakistan state of Baluchistan, over the Afghan border. They demand a lifting of the UN's so-called blacklist, which classifies 144 Taliban leaders as criminals and bars them from travel. Until the blacklist is suspended, no direct talks will be possible. Peace advocates also demand that 750 detainees be granted due process to avoid another Guantánamo. As an incentive towards peace, the Taliban have implied in recent statements that they may separate themselves from any Al Qaeda agenda in exchange for a power-sharing role in the future Afghanistan.

The United States and many in NATO, on the other hand, refuse so far to set a deadline for withdrawal, although Obama has announced a timeline to begin withdrawing. Nor will they negotiate with the Taliban leadership, viewing Omar as an ally of Al Qaeda. The United States has demanded that Pakistan "eliminate" Omar and the Taliban leadership in Baluchistan, or permit it to launch a military assault there. Recent statements by Gates and other US officials insist that the Taliban is linked irrevocably to Al Qaeda. Any US offer to negotiate at present is aimed at lower-echelon Taliban fighters in Afghanistan's villages. Although the United States has promised to identify the 750 detainees, any semblance of the rule of law is at best a work in progress in occupied Afghanistan.

The present quagmire is likely to result in bloodshed through 2011, reaching a crisis point when Obama is scheduled to begin the withdrawal of US troops. The Europeans and Canadians will be packed and ready to go by that point, and likely will linger no later. But the Pentagon, and the domestic hawks, could be predicting catastrophe if the United States departs, leaving Obama and the Democrats to choose between a deeper stalemate and the politics of strategic disengagement as the 2012 elections approach.

Research for this article was contributed by Emily Walker, of the Peace and Justice Resource Center.





American Deaths in Afghanistan Will Reach 1,000 in January Casualty Rates American - November, 2009: 18; December, 2009: 18 Coalition - November, 2009: 32, including US; December, 2009: 35, including US. Total - Afghanistan/Pakistan: unknown            US: 956 (2001 - present)            Canada: 138 (2001 - present) In this report: - Crisis in Iraq, by Raed Jarrar - Showdown Looming in Canada, by Colleen Fuller Crisis in Iraq by Raed Jarrar Ban of Sunni Political Leader Threatens Iraq Chaos Editor's note: In an unexpected resurgence of sectarian power politics, the Shi'a-led al-Maliki regime installed by the United States has banned the Sunni political leader, Saleh al-Mutlaq, from parliamentary elections scheduled for March. While the ban may be overturned, it is another sign that the US occupation has brought to power a regime determined to marginalize Sunnis, seriously complicating the planned US withdrawal of 50,000 more troops this year and complete withdrawal by late 2011. A delegation of American peace activists met al-Mutlaq, then an elected parliamentarian, and a cross-section of Iraqi leaders at an Amman conference in 2006. On January 1, 2007, American and Iraqi forces stormed his Baghdad house, killing six, while he was attempting to put a peace coalition in power. The following report is by Raed Jarrar, formerly from Iraq and now a senior fellow at the Peace Action Education Fund in Washington DC. The controversial announcement regarding banning Dr. Saleh Al-Mutlaq is not official yet, because the committee that announced it is not recognized by the Iraqi laws anymore. When Paul Bremer ruled Iraq, he created the infamous "de-baathefication" committee with the help of Ahmad Al-Chalabi. That committee was disbanded and replaced by another committee called the Truth and Justice Committee a couple of years ago, but the government never submitted any nominations for the new committee to be confirmed by the parliament. So what ended up happening is that the old committee just changed its title and claimed it can continue to do its work under the new name. But the parliament rejected this argument and never recognized the same old appointees to be confirmed for the new committee. But when the committee announced that Al-Mutlaq is banned from the upcoming elections because he supports and defends Baathist ideas, there was an outrage against the announcement not only because of the legitimacy of the committee, but because Dr. Al-Mutlaq has been a prominent member of the Iraqi political system since 2003. He's not only a head of one of the most important parliamentary blocs, but he also sits on the Iraqi Political Council for National Security. The move was seen as a cheep attempt to take down Dr. Al-Mutlaq by his political opponents from the current ruling parties. The way the Iraqi public sees it is that Dr. Al-Mutlaq, after uniting with Dr. Allawi and others, might end up winning the upcoming elections. So the ruling parties are trying to bring him down. If the Iraqi Supreme Court confirms Mr. Al-Lami's recommendations and bans Dr. Al-Mutlaq, his partners will withdraw their bid. This means that Dr. Allawi, Dr. Al-Hashemi, and others will not run in the upcoming elections. This will be a disaster that will destroy what little legitimacy the Iraqi political system has left, and it will definitely decrease the Iraqi public's participation in the upcoming elections.     The March elections have a lot of threats: they might be further delayed by the ruling parties fearing to lose, they might be stolen by the ruling parties with the lack of international observers, and they might be seen as illegitimate if Mutlaq and others were excluded in politically persecuted. What is more dangerous is that the Obama administration and Pentagon have been linking the US withdrawal to conditions on the ground, taking us back to the Bush days of "we'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up". There are 2 upcoming deadlines for US troops withdrawals: combat forces withdrawal that should take place between April and August of this year bringing the total number of US troops in Iraq down from 128,000 to 50,000, and the number of US contractors from 150,000 to 75,000. The second deadline is the end of the SOFA agreement when ALL US troops (combat+non-combat) must withdraw, ALL US contractors must withdaw, and ALL US bases must be closed ot handed over to the Iraqi side. The current deadline for the SOFA is Dec. 31st 2011, but that might shift a bit earlier in case Iraqis vote "NO" on a public referendum over the agreement triggering the one year cancellation clause. The next few months will be very important for Iraq and for the US withdrawal. The most important three things to watch: 1- If the Obama Administration falls in the slippery slope of "conditions-based withdrawal," that will take us to square one. If Obama succeeds in implementing the "time-based withdrawal" plan, things will be moving in the right direction.        2- The Obama Administration should encourage US NGOs to send international monitors to the March elections, and allocate emergency funds to cover their expenses. Otherwise, we have a possibility for claims of fraud to cause an Iran-style unrest. 3- The Obama Administration can pressure the Iraqi government (both the Cabinet and Presidential council) to create an inclusive environment that allows more Iraqis to participate in the political process, rather than persecute and alienate those who are willing to work with the system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Showdown Looming in Canada by Colleen Fuller Canada's initial involvement in Afghanistan began shortly after 9/11, when the Liberal government agreed to send a small number of soldiers to assist and support the US invasion. Most Canadians believed the framing of their participation as part of the country's longstanding commitment to peacekeeping, efforts that reflected their strong support for alternatives to war and destruction after WWII and the Korean War. But the first blow to public support occurred after four Canadians were killed, and another eight were wounded, in a so-called "friendly fire" attack by US military forces. A year later, in 2003, 1800 troops comprised Canada's commitment to the International Security Assistance Force. Within a year, as people began to realise that the fight was far from the peacekeeping efforts of yesterday, and that the risks to Canadian soldiers were very high, criticism began mounting. Soon it became clear that the main reason Canadians were fighting in Afghanistan was because we were not fighting in Iraq. It has become a costly and unpopular mea culpa.   Canada's participation in the US-led invasion of Afghanistan has never garnered support among a majority of Canadians. Disapproval for "the mission" (as it is now called) has hovered at about 56% in public opinion polls, compared to 41% who approve of Canada's involvement. Recently the issue has become intertwined with questions about the depth of democracy in our own country and whether or not the fight for these principles should be taking place on Canadian rather than Afghan soil. In addition, the war has had an overall negative impact on the culture of the country, with growth in military spending at the expense of other needed social programs such as health care and post-secondary education. The military has come to dominate and reshape our collective historical memory: no longer are literacy, lower mortality rates and improved quality of life our greatest achievement; rather the glories of battlefields past and present increasingly represent the essential character of the nation.   Since 2007, Amnesty International and the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) have been pursuing charges against General Rick Hillier, Canada's chief of defence staff (and a dead ringer for Colonel Miles Quaritch in Avatar), the Minister of Defence, Peter McKay, and the Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson. The two groups have also launched an international application for a judicial review of the transfer of prisoners detained by Canadian forces to Afghan authorities since 2005, charging that inadequate safeguards were in place to protect detainees from torture.  The BCCLA argues that "transfers of these detainees violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's international human rights obligations not to transfer detainees when there is a high probability of torture or ill treatment."   In November 2009, Richard Colvin, the former second in command at the Canadian Embassy in Kabul, was called before a Parliamentary committee to answer questions about the detainee issue. Colvin's explosive testimony before MPs described how he had warned Canadian officials, including top-ranking military officers and ministry staff, in 2006-07 that Afghan detainees handed over to Afghans were subsequently being tortured. Peter McKay, the defence minister, dismissed his testimony, saying Colvin was a "Taliban dupe." Prime Minister Stephen Harper who leads the right wing Conservative government, has adopted the harsh rhetoric of Dick Cheney, George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to denounce critics of the war, calling them "Taliban sympathizers" and "unpatriotic". The all-party committee has demanded that the government turn over documents referenced by Colvin, but Harper has refused - just as he has refused an unprecedented order by Parliament to release unredacted documents about the Afghan detainees to the committee.   Rick Hillier, along with two retired generals (who were given access to documents, unlike the Parliamentary committee), was put before the committee by the government to refute Colvin's claims that he had been ordered to stop reporting on the detainee issue. As things heated up during the holidays, Richard Colvin provided a 16-page rebuttal of his own which outlined the sources of his information about the torture of Afghan prisoners. His letter said that "embassy staffers were told that they should not report information, however accurate, that conflicted with the government's public messaging.". On December 3, 23 former diplomats (described as "models of discretion") wrote a letter expressing deep concern over the government's personal attack on Colvin, and within days the number of signatures had grown to 71. By the end of December, 132 had put their names to the letter and major newspapers began calling for the resignation of the defence minister. A Parliamentary vote supported a judicial enquiry in to the detainee issue and there is now a Facebook page demanding that an inquiry take place.   Amidst claims by the government that the Afghan detainee issue is "old news" and not even news that Canadians care about, the normally polite and reserved public is registering some concern about the direction their government has taken. A majority - 51% - told pollsters they believed Colvin's testimony, while only 25% said they believed the government.  The government's response to the political and constitutional crisis was to prorogue Parliament - on December 30th, a day when relatively few would be following the news. This is the second time in less than a year it has done so, the last time to avoid a non-confidence vote by the Opposition parties in Parliament. In an unusual front-page editorial the country's main national newspaper, the Globe and Mail said that by putting Parliament "on ice", Stephen Harper was allowing his government to "elude the detainee issue, a move that undermines the democratic rights of the people."   It is likely there will be a national election either in the Spring or Fall of 2010 - definitely not before the Winter Olympics. Whether the Opposition parties can keep the issue of war or peace at the front of people's minds will depend on a number of factors, including whether the news media will want to hold the Harper government's feet to the fire. On December 30th the same day that Harper suspended Parliament, four more Canadian soldiers and one well-known and respected journalist were killed by a roadside bomb. The death toll, and the internal crises that the war has contributed to - the lack of democracy and accountability, the redirection of taxpayer dollars to fund the military rather needed social programs, the crude and "un-Canadian" vitriol that now characterizes the federal government - will have to be political issues that progressive liberals and the left put on the public agenda. Colleen Fuller is an author and a researcher in health and pharmaceutical policy based in Vancouver.