California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

There's Never Enough Money for Peace; There's Always Money for War ... Until There Wasn't

by John Lawrence

President Biden wants $106 billion for wars in Ukraine and Israel and to strengthen the border after spending $112 billion on war in Ukraine alone since 2022. Of this $61.4 billion would be for the war in Ukraine. Biden thinks it's outrageous that the American Congress won't just fork over the money to continue this war. While he thinks it's unconscionable that the Republican House won't fork over the money, it's completely conscionable that they should fight tooth and nail over any money allocated for peace in the world. After all we're the United States of America. We can't just go back on our - or is it Biden's - word about war. We can be wishy washy about peace or about helping people either inside or outside the US, but a President's word must be Golden about war. After all democracy is at stake ... or is it? Well, in a democracy, it's possible, although unlikely, that money won't be voted for war. After all, Biden is not an autocrat. He just can't continue a war if Congress doesn't vote the money for it.

One phrase unlikely to be heard regarding the war in Ukraine is "sphere of influence." Why? Because it's taken for granted that a large country's sphere of influence extends outward over smaller, surrounding countries. Take the US for example. The US' sphere of influence extends over the whole western hemisphere. When a socialist leader was chosen in Argentina in a democratic election, the US undermined his regime. Salvadore Allende was elected President of Argentina in 1970, He had pledged to nationalize the mostly U.S.-owned copper companies, a large industry in Chile. Allende threatened US interests in Argentina, and this would not be tolerated, democratic election or not. The U.S. spent $8 million on covert actions between 1970 and the 1973 coup which ushered in the repressive Pinochet regime, according to a 1975 Senate report. So the US is all for democracy until its interests are threatened. In fact there is a long history of US intervention in Latin America. But according to western thinking, Russia, a super power with nuclear weapons, should have a sphere of interest of zero.

The United States participated, directly or indirectly, in Latin American regime change more than 40 times in the last century, according to historian John Coatsworth. That figure doesn't include a number of failed missions like the 1961 Bay of Pigs assault in Cuba. Some of the more stinging U.S. moves included the ouster of democratically elected governments in Guatemala in 1954, in Brazil a decade later and in Chile in 1973. If the US' sphere of influence includes all of Latin America, one might consider or even be as bold as to ask the question, what is Russia's sphere of influence? Would it include a country on its border that arguably had once been a part of Russia? Most of Ukraine fell to the Russian Empire under the reign of Catherine the Great; the Crimean Khanate was annexed by Russia in 1783, following the Emigration of Christians from Crimea in 1778, and in 1793 right-bank Ukraine was annexed by Russia in the Second Partition of Poland. So much for history.

The question must also be asked does the fate of Ukraine in the current war affect one way or another US interests? What are US interests in Ukraine? According to Joe Biden it's all about the idea that any country should be free to join NATO if it so desires. Is this something that the US should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve? Might the money be spent in some other way that might better promote peace in the world? Russia obviously considers Ukraine to be in its "sphere of influence." The architecture of the war as designed by Joe Biden is that the US would supply weaponry to Ukraine to fight a defensive war to push Russia out of its territory. At the same time the war was not meant to expand to a larger conflagration that would imperil a world war. The consequence of that is that all the dying and property destruction would be by Ukrainians and in Ukraine. This is a formula for disaster if the war should become a war of attrition which it has. A whole generation of Ukrainian men mostly are being wiped out. Of course a lot of Russians are dying too, but property destruction is taking place mainly in Ukraine.

Joe Biden has personalized the war in Ukraine as a vendetta between himself and Vladimir Putin. This does not bode well for a future peace settlement, and a peace settlement must come at some point or Ukraine will essentially be destroyed by an ongoing war of attrition. Ukraine obviously wants to expand the war to Russian territory with the help of more advanced US weaponry, something that Biden has resisted giving to them because he wants the war contained within Ukrainian territory. He doesn't want an expanded war which could develop into a World War. This is to his credit, but it leaves Ukraine in the position of being totally dependent on US weaponry, and, since the US is a democracy and not an autocracy, ironically if the House of Representatives will not allocate the money for the continuance of the war in Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war. Is there any kind of back channel communication going on about a peace settlement?

At this point a good hard look should be taken at trying to have a peace settlement of the war in Ukraine. The alternative is either a war of attrition which will grind Ukraine down to the point that, whether or not it becomes a member of NATO, it will be a defeated nation. Or Ukraine could lose even more territory to Russia if the war grinds on especially if it grinds on without advanced US weaponry. It has become a proxy war of the US with Russia and a personalized vendetta between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. This dos not bode well for the future of a peaceful world which needs to cooperate in the war that really needs to be fought - a war which threatens the whole human and animal world - the war against climate change. For that war all nations including the US and its erstwhile enemies - Russia, China, Iran and North Korea - need to cooperate. The whole human race needs to be on the same page. But if history is any guide, the human race much prefers the drama of war than it does the quotidian banality of peace.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Needs to Step Down But Not Because of His Age

by John Lawrence

In a nutshell his ego is too involved in the Ukraine war, and his stance on the Israel-Hamas war is ineffective and feckless. Trump is about to hand Biden a defeat, not at the ballot box, but by virtue of his control over the House of Representatives. The House will do what Trump tells them to do, and what he is telling Speaker Mike Johnson is to not hold a vote on military aid to Ukraine which is something Biden so desperately wants. So it's easy to see why Trump would use his influence over the House to hand Biden a major defeat here just like he handed Biden a defeat over solution of the border issue. So where would that leave Biden who has set this major US policy in motion? The flaw (or fly if you prefer) in Biden's ointment is that he has never given even lip service to a negotiated settlement of the war in Ukraine. A peaceful solution would be a loss to Biden since his ego is so entrenched in the idea of Ukraine winning that war with the help of US weaponry. Biden also has a deep vendetta against Vladimir Putin. It's personal with Biden although I at least have not seen any demonization aimed by Putin at Biden. So Biden has a dilemma. He cannot tolerate the idea that he will not be able to sell Ukraine weapons which just means a transfer of funds from US taxpayers to US weapon makers ^i.e. the US military-industrial complex, with Ukraine the beneficiary of the actual hardware. Some pundits have gone as far as to urge Americans to support the war on the grounds that it benefits American GDP!

As far as the Israel-Hamas war is concerned, Biden doesn't seem capable of tamping down Netanyahu's hawkish determination to do "whatever the hell he wants," to quote another actor, in Gaza. Netanyahu is playing Biden for a sucker. Biden's unmitigated support for Israel is falling on Netanyahu's deaf ears making him oblivious to Biden's entreaties to go slow in Gaza. In short Biden has no control over Netanyahu, and the IDF is certainly committing their share of atrocities there mainly on women and children. Revenge is no justification. Instead of one horrific and unjustified act, namely, the October 7 attack on Israel, we are treated to two horrific and and one partially justified act, namely Israel's war on Gaza. In his book, The End of Race Politics, Coleman Hughes writes, "[Ibram X.] Kendi explicitly endorses the logic of taking an eye for an eye. He supposes that the way to remedy a harm is by imposing an equal and opposite harm - that the way to remedy one kind of injustice is by replacing it with another kind of injustice. If I strike you, you strike me; if I steal from you, you steal from me; if I kill your child, you kill mine.

"Human history shows us how wrongheaded the neoracist [substitute war mongering] conception of justice is. It shows us that taking an eye for an eye doesn't stop injustice; it instead participates in it. It creates new injustices in a misguided effort to remedy the old ones. It then demands that those new injustices be remedied by yet newer injustices in the future. The neoracist [substitute war mongering] logic of retaliation will lead inevitably to a cycle of wrongful discrimination that never ends."

Netanyahi is strictly an "eye for an eye" kind of guy. Although Coleman Hughes is writing about racism, the same logic applies to war. Biden does not seem amenable to this logic. He is stuck in a wishy washy stance that says, yes Israel has a right to respond to the Hamas attack by devastating Gaza, but Israel should use restraint so that it doesn't do any more harm than is necessary [whatever that is]. Netanyahu makes no bones about the fact that he wants to wipe Hamas [and Gaza] off the map, and Biden seems incapable of restraining him all the time giving him more money. If I fight with my neighbor and say to my father, "Hey Dad, I need you to give me more money, so I can more effectively fight my neighbor," and my Dad says, "Well, here's the money son, but don't harm your neighbor too much," what is going on here? The son is controlling the father, not vice versa, and Netanyahu is controlling Biden. This is not a good position for the President of the United States to be in.

We need a fresh approach to the US' role in both of these wars. Biden is too entrenched in Old Thinking. His ego is too involved. Therefore, he should step down and allow other leadership to step forward who, hopefully, can have a more enlightened and creative approach to the solution of the problems created by these two wars. Both of these wars are stalemates in a sense. Both of them perpetuate the cycle of violence. Both of them do nothing to prevent an ongoing loss of innocent life as well as non innocent life as if there were such a thing. Where are the peacemakers? Blessed are the peacemakers. We are stuck in the Old Testament when what is needed is New Testament thinking. Biden should stop while he's ahead. Think of the example of Lyndon Johnson who was a President who did a lot of good before he was brought down by his quotidian involvement in war. Biden has done much good for the economy, but it is time to hang up his old thinking about war. We need new leadership; we need a new approach; we need new thinking. We need those who think, "How do we create peace, not how do we win this war."

Off the Top of My Head

Advocating For Public Housing as a Solution to Homelessness

by John Lawrence

Simple Fact: As housing prices rise, rents increase and more people are forced out onto the streets. In a market economy, whether a person is housed or not has nothing to do with human needs. It has everything to do with how much people are willing and able to pay for housing. Recent history has shown that there are few if any alternatives for those at the bottom of the economic scale. Market rate housing will never be able to accommodate them. Every day more people all over the country fall into homelessness. Section 8 is a joke. Landlords can always raise rates, section 8 or not, and people must wait for years even to obtain it. Affordable housing is a joke as is mixed economic level development. As long as housing is a totally private part of the economy, some people will inevitably be left homeless. So what is the solution? In lieu of an economic right to housing, government provided and owned public housing must take up the slack for those who can't afford market rate housing or market rate rents. Past history of public housing is not auspicious. That's why a new approach needs to be tried. It seems to me that a mixed level development in which some units are government owned and, therefore, rent controlled outside the market and some units are private market rate development might make sense. That way you wouldn't just have a development consisting of all poor people. There would be people there at all economic levels and also hopefully ethnically diverse.

The problem with prior public housing developments is that they turned into ghettos consisting of people almost exclusively on the bottom rung of the economic ladder and usually consisting of people of one particular ethnicity, usually black. They were poorly maintained and degenerated into crime infested and unhealthy pits. So the problem is how to provide non-market rate housing for people who can't pay for market rate housing in such a way that it doesn't degenerate into a ghetto. It can't be private development because private development without rent controls will always inevitably price people out of affordability. So it must be government owned so that it can be priced outside the market and in many cases be free. In order that it not become a ghetto consisting exclusively of those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, it must be mixed in terms of different rents and different ownership levels, also different sizes and amenities. For instance, some units in a mixed level building could be privately owned and priced at market rates and other units in the same building could be government owned and priced at a level that people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder could afford. For instance, some units might be one bedroom, others could be 4 bedrooms.

Homelessness cannot be solved with market rate or even privately owned "affordable" housing. Privately owned housing will inevitably seek ownership by those who want to profit from their ownership either by charging market rate rents or by selling the property at market rates. Government owned or public housing can be subsidized in such a way that everyone, who otherwise would be homeless, can be housed precisely because they need not be priced at market rates. Rent or ownership can be determined outside the market and units that are government owned can be interspersed with units that are privately owned in the same development in order to insure economic and ethnic diversity. Additionally, the government owned units must be well maintained at government expense. Poor people will never properly maintain housing units because maintenance is a luxury compared with the necessities of life such as food. Proper maintenance helps to insure that a development will not degenerate into a ghetto.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Needs to Bring These Two Wars to an End

by John Lawrence

Whether Biden wins or loses the next election, he still has a chance to bring two wars to an end. This will not only benefit the world situation, it will enhance his chances for reelection. First the war in Ukraine has ground to a stalemate, a war of attrition. This is not salubrious or propitious. The human race can ill afford the kind of enmity that war and the killing of innocents portends. The human race has to be most concerned about climate change, adaptation and mitigation. Instead, we are frittering away our chances to prevent a catastrophic outcome. But for Biden and others peace is not on the agenda, winning is. Taking sides in which we are the good guys and the other side are the bad guys is not helping the situation. Demonizing the heads of government in countries and creating enemies out of them is not productive for combating our common enemy  - climate change - nor is it productive for creating world peace. Is world peace even a consideration here? We all have to get along; the world is too small a place. Notwithstanding the war in Ukraine, Russia is a petrochemical producer which is contributing to climate change. We must get away from the production and usage of fossil fuels. Warring countries have no incentive to do that. Only cooperation among major countries has a chance at tamping down the production of fossil fuels.

Biden needs to create a peace conference, a peace initiative, for finding a compromise and solution to the war in Ukraine. Instead he wants to keep pouring money and weapons down the drain to support a war of attrition. This is totally a Cold War mentality with regard to Russia. Instead, there needs to be peace and compromise in that part of the world. Russia seems at least to be amenable to that. So should Ukraine be, but Ukraine will never be amenable to peace as long as the US keeps pouring money and weapons into it. Instead the war will only expand as attacks are starting to take place in a wider arena, something Biden did not contemplate at the outset. Instead of pouring gas on the fires of war, Biden needs to take a different attitude, an attitude of peace and reconciliation. He needs to get his dander down, and instead of insisting on winning, insist instead on creating peace in the world. Use the might of the US military to enforce the peace instead of promoting the war. The US military could be used to enforce the peace instead of winning the war.

The war in Gaza also needs to be brought to an end. Netanyahu is playing Biden for a sucker. Israel is the recipient of billions of dollars from the US. That gives Biden the right not just to suggest a solution, but to insist on a solution. The solution, which most knowledgeable people agree on, is the two state solution. So lets get on with creating it! Instead Biden is an enabler for Israel's war to turn Gaza into a refugee camp. This accomplishes nothing. Biden needs to take Netanyahu and Israel down a peg or two. The Palestinians have every right to a decent and peaceful life as do the Israelis. This needs to be created, and it can't be created as long as Netanyahu has a free hand to continue the war. Revenge is no solution; the two state solution is. Let's get on with it. It has to be an all out effort, one in which Israel cannot be allowed to have the controlling hand or the last word. On the world stage Israel and Ukraine are after all only bit players. Instead they are consuming the world's attention and resources when peaceful solutions of these two wars are not impossible to figure out. It's only hubris which is preventing those peaceful solutions from being manifested and implemented. The principals at least should be trying.

The prevailing mentality of us versus them is self defeating. It's a luxury which the world at large can no longer afford. We are destroying resources and innocent lives when we need to be pulling together to combat our common enemy - climate change. There are enough refugees in the world. There are too many children growing up without the resources necessary for happy and productive lives. Instead they will be candidates for future resentments and hatreds of those responsible for their predicaments. It is a vicious circle. Retribution, resentment and revenge is being created in the younger generation as we speak because war, hatred and recrimination is being allowed to continue. The world's collective foot must be brought down against the continuation of these two wars. Instead each side seems to think that, since they are in the right, the wars must continue. Their hubris and egotism must prevail over the other side's hubris and egotism. They are too dug in. Outsiders must discourage this. Instead the US and the west is encouraging it or at least taking a hands off attitude. They are saying in effect "you guys solve the problem," but they never will as long as each side insists on winning and not compromising.The protagonists of war must not be given a hands off attitude by the noncombatants. Instead, they must be reigned in in such a way that those who are not obsessed with retribution have the last word.

Off the Top of My Head

It's Time for a Cease Fire in Ukraine

by John Lawrence

Biden should snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Ukraine by calling for a cease fire and a peace process. It doesn't look like he's going to get Congress to allocate the money that Ukraine needs to continue the war which has degenerated into a grinding war of attrition. The lines seem to have been drawn mainly as they existed in 2014 when Russia took over Crimea and large portions of the Donbas, a process which Obama didn't raise a hue and a cry about. Biden, on the other hand, has burnished his Cold War credentials and got his ego involved in expressing outrage over what Obama considered a fait accompli. Meanwhile, people are being killed and real estate is being destroyed mainly in Ukraine. Those seemed to be the ground rules which Biden predetermined: (1) the fighting would take place only in Ukraine, not in Russia and (2) American weapons but no American boots on the ground or in the air would be used. The war was supposed to be a defensive war in which Russia was to be pushed out of Ukraine which would maintain the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It seems that this objective can no longer be obtained in light of the fact that the US Congress is vaccilating over sending more money to Ukraine so it can continue a pointless war of attrition. There must be a better way. Yes, there is and that is to envision a peace process as an alternative to more killing and real estate asset destruction.

What would a peace deal in Ukraine look like? Writing in the New York Times, Julian E. Barnes said this on February 4, 2024:

Last year’s Ukrainian counteroffensive was a failure. Russia’s defenses in the territory it has captured look impenetrable. Republicans in Washington are blocking further Ukraine aid. President Volodymyr Zelensky is on the precipice of firing his top general — who may well become his chief political rival.

It’s a difficult moment for Ukraine. And another year of frontal assaults on the trench lines could make 2024 look like 1916, a year in World War I that brought harrowing loss of life but few battlefield gains.

...

But the situation is grim. The country has lost nearly one-fifth of its territory. In 2014, Russia took Crimea and orchestrated a separatist rebellion in parts of the Donbas. It grabbed the rest since the current phase of the war began in 2022.

Ukraine has lost a generation of young men — killed and wounded — to the war. It is also running out of ammunition, supplies and equipment. While Europe just approved $54 billion in economic assistance, it is American money that delivers Kyiv’s military might. But most House Republicans now oppose further Ukraine aid. And even pro-Ukraine Republicans are asking Biden administration officials what strategy can break the current battlefield stalemate. Meanwhile, the funding is ensnared in a border policy debate.

If Ukraine can’t get what it needs to beat Russia, what kind of deal could it make?

The author goes on to say

Vladimir Putin may accept a peace deal that gives him the territory he occupies now and that forces Ukraine to stay neutral, halting its integration with Europe. Ukrainians call this bargain a capitulation. But without additional American aid, they may be forced to take it.

A better deal for Ukraine would give it back at least some of its land, plus a promise that the United States and Europe would help defend it against Russia. Perhaps then Putin would think twice about further attacks. In this scenario, Ukraine might not join NATO or the European Union immediately, the prospect of which helped drive Russia’s invasion in the first place.

So with the prospect that Biden will not be able to successfully prosecute a proxy war in Ukraine against Vladimir Putin and the fact that the American people have either lost interest or don't want to fund this war any longer, he might better initiate a peace process there instead of continuing a futile, bellicose operation just as America is about to vote in November on whether Biden should get another four years. The continuation of the war in Ukraine does not enhance his prospects. More money for military operations in Ukraine might be better spent in rebuilding Ukraine after a cease fire has taken effect. A peaceful settlement might recognize the lines of control where the front lines exist now. Down the line a plebiscite could determine which side should control the disputed territory. Russian is the most common first language in the Donbas and Crimea regions of Ukraine and the city of Kharkiv, and the predominant language in large cities in the eastern and southern portions of the country. People in this area might prefer to be aligned with Russia rather than Ukraine. If so, it makes sense to stop the fighting, institute a cease fire and start a more orderly and civil process to determine the future of this part of the world. One less war in the world is always a good thing. The principals need to get their egos and recriminations out of the way first before this can happen.

Off the Top of My Head

Netanyahu is Playing Biden for a Sucker

by John Lawrence

It's clear that Netanyahu doesn't condone the two state solution which Biden favors. Despite Netanyahu's intransigence, Biden and the US keep on giving Israel, one of the most prosperous countries in the world, more money. While the US has given Israel around $4 billion annually, it has given a relative pittance of $500 million annually to the impoverished Palestinian people. Most knowledgeable people think that a two state solution is the only way to resolve not only the crisis in Israel and Palestine, but in the larger Middle East as well. However, Biden is not demanding that Netanyahu accede to the two state solution. Why not? Why does the US keep giving billions of dollars to Israel when Israel is belligerent and intransigent about a rational solution to the problems between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Instead, an intractable problem remains, one which is guaranteed to provide additional conflict and bloodshed in perpetuity. I have written before that the US and the UN should impose a two state solution on Israel and Palestine. Indulging Israel only means that the conflict in the Middle East will never end. The additional issue is that the US has some 30 military bases in the Middle East. The people on these bases are sitting ducks to be picked off by militias operating in those areas as we saw recently when 3 US soldiers were killed at Tower 22 in Iraq. Why are these bases still there? Iraq doesn't want them there. Syria doesn't want them there. They are just contributing to the enmity that exists between some countries, mainly Shiite countries, and the US. Bin Laden's big beef with the US was the presence of US military bases in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. He sought to drive US personnel out of these areas by force. When that didn't work, he began formulating plans to attack the West with an evolving, deadly new brand of jihad. We all know what that led to. Clearly US military bases in the area are a major irritant to Shiite countries such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. And it is cooling what had seemed to be promising developments with the Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

I wrote previously:

The Two State Solution Must Be Created, Implemented and Enforced ... Now.

We know what a Two State solution would look like. Even all the details have been worked out. It's just that Israel and the Palestinians won't agree to it. Therefore, it must be imposed on them ... both. They should not be free to continue their mutual madness forever. What a bizarre notion of "freedom:" this portends. Why, sir, your freedom includes a right to hate and attack your neighbor in perpetuity. Free and sovereign states should not be impeded from protecting themselves even if in the long run they are not protecting themselves but just involving themselves in endless rounds of attacks and counter attacks. The world's most powerful nation just stands back and says in effect "we don't want to impose ourselves on your freedom and sovereignty. You have a sovereign right to go on with endless rounds of revenge, hatred and war."

UN peacekeepers should separate the two sides and impose peace on Israel and Palestine by imposing a two state solution backed by the power of the US. The world should say to them, "Enough." You guys are totally incapable of solving your problems, and, left to your own devices, you will go on killing each other indefinitely. By virtue of your incompetence at creating peace among yourselves, you have both lost your right to come up with a workable solution, and, therefore, one must be imposed on you, like it or not. You have both lost your right to be completely free and sovereign nations. You are both making the world a worse place. Therefore, the world community has lost its patience and tolerance for your local squabbles which are forcing the whole world to stop what it is doing and deal with your seemingly overwhelming problems. We'd like to get on with solving the problem of climate change instead of devoting our attention to interminably, intermittent wars.

World leaders seem to be more adept on giving military advice rather than advice on creating peace in the world. They are just moving pieces around on a chess board devoid of any consideration of how many people will be killed or maimed in the process. For them war is a rational game. The peace makers can't seem to make a rational game out of the steps necessary to create peace in the world. It's not in their play book. So millions of innocents have to suffer because one side is right and the other side is wrong or vice versa. Where are the leaders willing to take a chance on peace?