CHANGE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AWAY FROM MILITARY AID TO HUMANITARIAN GOALS

While most European nations are reducing their standing armies and their defense budgets, the United States is increasing the billions of dollars it spends every year for war planes, missiles ad bombs. This is the result of the militaristic policy of people like Bush and Cheney who think that the world's problems can be solved with soldiers and bullets. Furthermore, with a Republican administration for the last seven years, the U.S. has been giving more money for military weapons to countries like Israel and Colombia. We can see the results.

Israel invades Gaza and over the last few days more than 100 Palestinians have been killed, of whom at least one third are civilians including women and children. The bullets and bombs used by the Israeli Defense Forces are those provided by U.S. aid. If Israel's actions violate international law and are a form of state-sponsored terrorism inflicted on civilian populations in Gaza, then the United States has provided aid and military hardware to terrorist organizations.

Similarly, the U.S. has given Colombia hundreds of millions of dollars to beef up its military to fight FARC, the group that violently opposes Colombia's social and class system. Now FARC is not to be lionized because it engages in kidnappings, murders and other human rights abuses. But neither is Colombia or its administration led by Colombian president Alvaro Uribe. But the dispute between FARC and the Colombian government can never be solved by bullets and military operations, and the use of these tactics just makes the resolution between these two groups that much more intractable.

The United States needs to recognize its own bellicose intentions towards the rest of the world. Yes, let the U.S. continue with foreign aid for food, education and standard of living, but let it cease seeding the world with bombs, guns and missiles which can solve none of the world's problems or disagreements, but only exacerbate conflicts and bloody confrontations. Israel and Colombia are prime examples.

SEN. BIDEN PROPOSES NEW FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS PAKISTAN

Sen. Joe Biden has released his new policy towards Pakistan. What I like about it is that it avoids helping Pakistan militarize, and instead it concentrates on non-military aid to help the people of Pakistan in their everyday needs. It is not a Musharraf policy but a Pakistan policy. It is focused on the people, not merely on its leader.

For purposes of disclosure, I have contributed to Sen. Biden's campaign, as well as to that of Sen. Obama, Dodd and Edwards.

Sen. Biden describes the elements of his plan:

"Here are the four elements of this new strategy.

"First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned: it's our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

"Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We're now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it's not clear we're getting our money's worth. I'd spend more if we get better returns--and less if we don't.

"Third, help Pakistan enjoy a "democracy dividend." The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. And I would tie future non-security aid -- again, above the guaranteed baseline -- to Pakistan's progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.

"Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people's lives."

What I like is the emphasis on schools, clinics and roads. Also educational exchanges and high impact projects that change people's lives.

Instead of more Bush/Cheney militarism and threats of bombs and missiles, Biden has come up with an alternative using friendship and diplomacy.

STOP THIS MADNESS WITH IRAN

According to observers, the reason why George Bush is arranging to sell billions in the most advanced war planes and bombs to certain Arab Sunni states, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, is to hem in non-Arab Shiite Iran and to show it that it has enemies well-armed in its immediate vicinity.

Robin Wright writes today in The Washington Post that Bush and Cheney see themselves, and thus by extension, the United States, in another "cold war," only this time with Iran.

"When the first Cold War began, in 1946, Winston Churchill famously spoke of an Iron Curtain that had divided Europe. As Cold War II begins half a century later, the Bush administration is trying to drape a kind of Green Curtain dividing the Middle East between Iran's friends and foes. The new showdown may well prove to be the most enduring legacy of the Iraq conflict. The outcome will certainly shape the future of the Middle East -- not least because the administration's strategy seems so unlikely to work."

This is foreign policy madness not seen in over 50 years since the anti-communist crusades of the 1950s. Bush and Cheney think they have an "evil" country in Iran that they must put in its place. They see threats in everything Teheran says or does. But this does not have to be.

Instead of firing missiles and bullets at the Iranians, let's sit down with them and work out a peaceful solution to threats perceived on both sides. Iranians are well-educated, young and sophisticated. Although some Iranians are gung-ho with sharia as the law of Iran, most Iranians are willing to live and let live without the need to convert the rest of the world.

The solution of Bush/Cheney - filling the entire Middle East with cluster bombs and war planes - will never work. The "hard power" of the United States is impotent in changing a people's beliefs and way of life, or in making other nations genuflect to the United States. Rather, Americans need to sit down with the Iranians and cooperate with them. In other words, befriend them. All other solutions are futile, retrograde and reminiscent of the foolish foreign policy of America when it thought that it as the most powerful world militaristic power could bully other countries into submission.

BUSH AND CHENEY - STOP THREATENING IRAN

Why must Bush & Co. send dozens of navy carriers and war ships to the Persian Gulf within striking distance of Iran?

Is this the extent of Bush's foreign policy - solve all problems with guns, bombs, war planes? Naked militarism?

A better idea - sit down and negotiate with Mr. Ahmadinejad, President of Iran. Let the U.S. talk with Iranian leaders. This is far better than bombing Iran and Iranians.

But as a condition of negotiating, there must be no threats, no ultimatums, no warnings. How would the United States like it if some other country, perhaps more powerful in military weaponry, would dictate terms of negotiation? If Americans put themselves in the place of Iranians, it would be clear that such threats would be instantly rejected as demeaning and insulting. Therefore, it is understandable when Iran rejects threats enunciated by the United States.

BUSH/CHENEY BELIEVE GUNS AND MISSILES ARE THE ANSWER TO ALL PROBLEMS

Messrs Bush and Cheney continue to think the United States can solve all national problems by bombs and missiles. How else explain the move by the U.S. to implant missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland? There must be some flaw in the American psyche that causes Americans to want to control everything at the barrel of a gun. That's why Mr. Cheney said in campaigning for the 2000 elections that he would beef up the U.S. military. I am sure that promise had a a positive effect on those many Americans who think war is the answer to all problems.

So I can understand Vladimir Putin's concern over American militarism. He and most Russians must think that missiles placed in European countries adjacent to Russia are a direct affront to Russian sovereignty and self-defense. American proponents of the missiles claim they are defensive as against Iranian or North Korean aggression. But this is made up of whole cloth. Iran does not have a missile that can reach Europe, much less the United States. And it has no nuclear weapons. North Korea has its hands full just putting bread on the table for its citizens.

Furthermore, why must the U.S. constantly treat Iran as the enemy? I want the U.S. to sit down with Iran as well as with North Korea and negotiate from a friendly non-belligerent posture. How come Russia befriends those "evil-doers" Iran and North Korea? Why don't both countries constitute an "imminent" and "deadly" threat to Russia? Why is the United States the only country that believes itself the target of these "enemy" countries? Instead of American foreign policy being paranoid, let's dump Bush/Cheney and establish a sane foreign policy that believes in friendly negotiation rather than bellicose missile rattling.

U.S. BOMBING KILLS MORE AFGHANI CIVILIANS

The BBC reports today another 21 civilians were killed by U.S. air raids on civilians houses in Afghanistan.

"US-led forces have killed at least 21 civilians in an air strike in southern Afghanistan, local officials say. Helmand provincial Governor Asadullah Wafa said civilian homes were bombed in Sangin district, where foreign and Afghan troops are battling the Taleban . . ."

"Wednesday's reported deaths came a day after the US military said it was "deeply ashamed" over the killings of 19 Afghan civilians by US Marines in early March."

U.S. military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan shows the futility of relying on bullets, bombs and fighter jets to "win." Killing people will never be a successful way to achieve political ends. If the political goal of the United States is to make the people of Afghanistan friendly to the U.S., dropping napalm bombs on villages will always result in just the opposite - Afghanis who hate the United States and will do anything to take revenge.

Militarism can never be the answer for U.S. political problems. Beefing up the U.S. Army, Navy and Marines Corps, spending billions on new carriers, developing the smartest weapons - all these expressions of a militaristic view of the world will never succeed in making enemies of the U.S. its friends.

INTERVIEW WITH TED KOPPEL ON MORNING EDITION NPR

I listened to Steve Inskeep interview Tedd Koppel this morning on NPR, discussing the presence of U.S. Special Forces in Ethiopia, and their participation in the invasion of Somalia this past December. I think the important part of this story should have been the ongoing militarism of the United States. Over the past 100 years, the U.S. it seems has been in a foreign war about once every 10 years. Why should the U.S. have forces in countries overseas? Why does the U.S. think it can invade sovereign countries anytime it wants? Can any American really believe the U.S. can successfully pursue its foreign policy by way of tanks, planes and bombs? This is the story that I wish Steve Inskeep would have pursued.