[Peace-discuss] New year and new Congress won’t silence the same old war drums in Washington

[J.B. Nicholson]

C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> https://www.rt.com/news/569202-republicans-defy-voters-on-ukraine-policy/

The same op-ed author, Tony Cox, wrote supportively of Tulsi Gabbard (former Democrat 
House rep from Hawaii):

> In short, she was like a far better version of Kamala Harris. Try to imagine the
> current vice president being younger, smarter, likable and principled. Sprinkle in
> some extra credit points for military service and an ability to seem human,
> without the uncontrollable laughing in the most inappropriate moments. That would
> be Tulsi Gabbard.

I don't share Cox's optimistic view of Gabbard, as many here already know. Gabbard's 
previous statements on war (supposedly against "regime change wars" but for "surgical 
strikes" via drone[1]) struck me as indistinguishable from pro-war positions, 
particularly given what we knew at the time. In 2015 Daniel Hale told us and in 2021 
Marjorie Cohn reported in 
https://truthout.org/articles/drone-whistleblower-gets-45-months-in-prison-for-revealing-ongoing-us-war-crimes/ 


> During one five-month period during January 2012 to February 2013, nearly 90
> percent of those killed by drone strikes were not the intended target ... But
> civilian bystanders were nonetheless classified as 'enemies killed in action'
> unless proven otherwise.
That report and The Intercept's 2015 "The Drone Papers" series (see 
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ for more) detailed the Obama/Biden 
administration's use of drones to kill people worldwide (including Americans and 
minors including Anwar & Abdulrahman al-Awlaki) apparently with no due process.

Despite the reality of US drone war crimes, Gabbard was then called "anti-war" and 
"anti-establishment" by both her supporters and opponents (RT's CrossTalk show even 
called her "a real anti-war candidate" in 
https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/451973-tulsi-gabbard-peace-candidate/). The 
multi-year regime change war against Russia via Ukraine is being carried out in part 
with drones (contrary to a dismissive response suggesting this was not worthy of 
consideration) highlighting the unclarity of Gabbard's stance.

A couple of paragraphs in that same Tony Cox op-ed piece caught my eye regarding the 
strategy of supporting Republicans in order to reject Democratic Party belligerency:

> When Gabbard announced her exit from the Democratic Party on Tuesday, she spoke of
> “cowardly wokeness,” racial divisiveness, hostility toward people of faith and
> weaponization of law enforcement against political opponents. But the one real
> deal killer, the one truly irreconcilable difference, was war. “I can no longer
> remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an
> elitist cabal of warmongers,” she said.
> 
> Sadly, she could have said the same thing about the Republican Party. As economist
> and policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs pointed out in an interview on Monday, “This
> country is a war machine at the top.” He added, “We are a security state. We have
> a secret state which runs most of our foreign and military policy.”


This coupled with Gabbard's stance against independent candidacy or running with a 
third party (as she told Primo Nutmeg) makes me wonder if she'll run for elective 
office again with the Republicans[3], a party no less belligerent than the Democrats 
she criticized.



[1] Then Rep. Tulsi Gabbard told The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill in 2018 (see 
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ for audio and 
transcript), "[...] with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe 
that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical strikes, in 
and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no long-term occupation to be able to 
get rid of the threat that exists and then get out and the very limited use of drones 
in those situations where our military is not able to get in without creating an 
unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not causing, you 
know, a large amount of civilian casualties.". I still don't think that people who 
maintain such conflicting views are seriously anti-war.

[2] Star Wars actor Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) "revealed he sent over 500 drones to 
Ukraine via the country’s United24 fundraising platform in [September-October 2022]" 
(https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/565068-mark-hamill-drones-ukraine-ambassador/) or 
"The government in Kiev has requested from the US a number of C-RAM minigun air 
defense systems to counter Russian drone strikes [...]" 
(https://www.rt.com/russia/566164-ukraine-drone-air-defenses/).

[3] As I wrote on 2022-10-11: "I'll give Gabbard credit for leaving a neocon party. 
I'll withdraw this credit if she later joins the Republicans because they're also a 
neocon party (these parties agree on all of the biggest issues of the day, issues 
that cost the most money and lives, because both of those parties are funded by same 
people/organizations)."