Martin Luther King, 1929-1968

The speech every American should hear on MLK day.  Decades later, his words still ring true.



Text available here.

Results Will Vary

Our logic is not always theirs:

Most governments declare, as policy, that they will not negotiate with terrorists. But this leading faction of Algeria’s military, driven to anti-compromise zealotry by the civil war, seems to mean it in a way that few others do. The audacious assault that may have killed several hostages shocked Western governments. But in the logic of the Algerian civil war, which ended 13 years ago everywhere but in the minds of the Algerian generals and Islamists who squared off this week in the remote Saharan desert, this was just another skirmish.

Fun & Giggles with an M-240B

Since dad and mom go away for months on end with multiple deployments, I guess it makes sense to explain why those dads and moms are away and what they do while away.  Still, nothing says family values than a five year-old with an M-240B. 

The kids get the whiz-bang of military hardware and the rest of us get the normalization of war.

A side note:  The Olympian ran the story with the photo in its dead tree version but the photo is nowhere to be found on The Olympian's website.  Hence the scanned version. 

It's disturbing enough.  Maybe that's why the photo is so scarce.

Always a Racket

A friend sent me a link to "War is a Racket!  Has Anything Changed?" which is an updated play on General Smedley Butler's classic truth about war.  On this Memorial Day weekend, it is a truth that should be well remembered, although in modern America we seem to have become very comfortable with that racket to our own economic and societal detriment.  Most readers of this humble blog no doubt already know this truth but I pass it along for you to keep in mind.  Maybe you will have an opportunity to share it with someone less aware than yourself.

Not only is war a racket, it is an enduring racket.  I came across that truth is in a review of  War Time:  An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences by Mary Dudziak.in The Nation.  What really brought the message home to me was this quote:

In almost every year of the last century, American soldiers served in a conflict that qualified for a combat medal. The military criteria for wartime, Dudziak notes, “swallow much of American history.” (emphasis added.)

And so far in the 21st century, American soldiers have been eligible for a combat medal.  Makes me think that the America's oft-recited pledge should read more like,   

I pledge allegiance
To the United States of America
One Nation at war,
Then, now and well into the future.

Apology for a Parade

A while back I received an email alert from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association (IAVA) asking me to support “…a single national day of action, coordinating the efforts of cities and towns nationwide to celebrate our nation's newest heroes and connect them with the resources they have earned.” Yesterday, the BBC asked if the US should hold a parade for returning veterans. My reaction to both was surprisingly, negative, which I thought was awfully churlish response to fellow veterans, many of whom sacrificed far more than I ever did.

That negative reaction is to the war in which those troops served. Despite their sacrifice and dedication, the Iraq war was a meaningless mission that did nothing good for America. It weakened the national economy, encouraged greater hostility toward this nation around the world and took the lives of almost 5,000 Americans and countless tens of thousands of Iraqis. The war began with lies and became an extended occupation that diminished America’s international credibility in so many ways. Exactly what would I celebrate about that “accomplishment”?

What I would do is apologize for sending these service members into harm’s way to no good end. The mission was not worthy of their sacrifice yet they performed it as best they could, as they trained to do. We owe them for that. IAVA has been at the forefront of advocating for this generation of veterans so I won’t gainsay their call for a national day of recognition and promoting veterans’ re-integration into society.

Genuine recognition will last much longer than a day, though. Veterans from the Global War on Terror, the Long War and ongoing Overseas Contingency Operations will be with us well into mid century. If America keeps it promises to these veterans, the nation will spend about a trillion dollars caring for them in coming decades. That obligation continues long after the guns fall silent and the troops come home.

Seeing that veterans do in fact receive the care and benefits that they have earned is certainly an appropriate recognition. That we sent them to war for a lie is not cause to celebrate.

An apology is more appropriate.

Martin Luther King, 1929-1968

The speech every American should hear on MLK day. Four decades later, his words still ring true.



Text available here.

(via Chuck Palazzo)

Stark Reality

Sebastian Junger speaks the truth about war:

[W]e may be disgusted by seeing U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters, but we remain oddly unfazed by the fact that, presumably, those same Marines just put bullets through the fighters’ chests. American troops are not blind to this irony. They are very clear about the fact that society trains them to kill, orders them to kill and then balks at anything that suggests they have dehumanized the enemy they have killed.

But of course they have dehumanized the enemy — otherwise they would have to face the enormous guilt and anguish of killing other human beings.

War is an ugly business. It makes the obscene normal. Every now and then that obscenity may intrude on the public consciousness but mostly we leave it to the soldiers.

And we wonder why they explode when they come home.

The New Black

When I was a lad, America was afraid of communists. They were everywhere. Or could be. You never knew. Even worse, they had rockets and bombs that could destroy America. Constant vigilance was essential. To call someone a communist in those days was tantamount to calling someone a traitor or Enemy of America.

These days "terrorist" is the all-purpose enemy, the constant danger. Brand someone a "terrorist" and that someone is suspect, their civil liberties restricted, even forfeit, in the interests of national security, of public safety. Most recently, respected Colombian journalist Hollman Morris was denied a US visa because of "terrorist activities". His transgression: associating with a rebel group while reporting on Columbia's long-running insurgency. Now America will not allow him a visa to accept fellowship for journalists at Harvard University.

Morris' reporting has embarrassed the Colombian government security forces which most likely assembled the allegations to torpedo Morris' visa. It may be a frame-up but the frame that worked was "terrorism".

America. Land of the Fearful.

Why March?

"To get from one place to another," according to my basic training drill sergeant. That's pretty much the entire point. From that perspective, after seven years of war, another march against the war doesn't take us anyplace we need to go. I did not march yesterday. The time and effort to travel to Seattle for any large-scale march (for which I find no evidence in the local media) the is just not worth it. I and many other Americans have been in the streets since 2003. Maybe we kept things from getting worse but we did not stop the greatest disaster of all: extended wars of occupation and garrisoned military bases around the world. To keep doing the same things and expecting different results makes no sense. If I'm marching I want to be going someplace.

Maybe 10,000, maybe less, turned out in DC yesterday to remind our government that many Americans do not consent to war in our name. I'm disappointed that the message doesn't come through more forcefully. Hundreds of thousands should be in the streets, just as millions around the world said "No!" to war seven years ago. Americans overwhelmingly voted to end the war in November 2008. But then, that didn't work, so maybe most of us have decided not to waste the effort required to march.

Here in Olympia, Veterans For Peace held a candlelight vigil Friday evening at Sylvester Park downtown for Iraqi civilians killed in the crossfire. We put up about 500 markers with the names of dead civilians of all ages and circumstances. At 7:34 pm, the time on 19 March 2003 of the first shock and awe strike, we read one name and rang a bell in memory of the dead. We did that 13 more times. Earlier in the evening our regular Friday vigil had more than the usual suspects and the Artesian Rumble Arkestra had its largest ensemble ever--I counted 18 musicians. I had a good breeze for my VFP flag.

Yesterday's marchers, however few, have my appreciation. As frustrating as it may be to petition without effect, the effort keeps the idea alive, still percolating somewhere in the national consciousness. Fortunately, the DC marchers had good weather and from the looks of it some had a good time. If nothing else, joining thousands of others in the streets, is a good reminder that we are not alone.

Best slogan: "Jobs and Education. Not War."

Best sign: "Drop My Tuition. Not Bombs."

Snarkiest sign: "Pinochet's Buddy, Kissinger, Has a Peace Prize, Too."

Leftover Thought

Yesterday I wrote about democracy not coming on the point of a bayonet. It struck me as I wrote that you never see or hear about bayonets in the current wars. That's probably good from a soldier's point of view. I mean, you have to be up close and personal to use a bayonet. Not only does that put you within range of your adversary's bayonet but it may even make you aware that your adversary is also a human being. That moment of doubt could cost your life if your adversary doesn't experience the same epiphany.

I guess the bayonet is too Old School for our modern wars. After all, when you can kill someone remotely from a computer screen in Las Vegas why would you want to get close enough to rip his guts open with an edged weapon before smashing his skull with the but end of your rifle?

Of course, war is still close combat. Firefights, IED's, artillery and ambushes offer plenty of opportunity to see The Other close at hand. It's just that these days you don't charge forward screaming, "kill, Kill, KILL!"

Enduring Truth

The Netherlands governing coalition has collapsed over differences about that nation's participation in the Afghan War. Opinion polls suggest that the war is deeply unpopular.

That is as it should be. War should always be deeply unpopular.

Choice or No Choice

Dhar Jamail has an article at Truthout about a stop-lossed GI incarcerated for writing and singing out his anger at being held in the Army beyond his contract date for a second deployment. The comment string is good, too. This one especially caught my eye.

With all of the abuse, stop loss, Gulf War Syndrome, declining Veteran care, etc etc, I can't see how our so called "volunteer" forces can continue to recruit.... How much more evidence does anyone need that this is a bad thing to "volunteer" for?

That anyone would willingly volunteer to participate in America's ongoing wars at this point in those wars' history amazes me. Eight or six years ago I can understand people's willingness to serve. But after years of lies, of sacrifice by American forces and the deaths of well over 100,000 Iraqis and Afghanis--all of which has made this nation no safer and certainly less economically secure--Americans should be voting with their feet NOT to serve in a military that is being sacrificed for no good reason.

But that's a hard choice for many people. The ugly logic of war is that once we begin the sacrifice, we must continue to make that sacrifice so that the original sacrifice will not be in vain. That makes it hard to change course, even when a clearly better choice is available and feasible. In a bad economy, the military offers money. Combine that with a what is often a genuine willingness to serve and volunteering probably makes sense.

That's the tragic part. Most people don't want war but somehow serving war is the easy choice.

And the wars continue.

Let’s Pretend

Rising to the defense of his own failed policies, former Vice (but actually the real) President Cheney has accused President Obama of pretending that America is not at war with terrorists. Cheney claims that the reality of the terrorist threat does not fit in with Obama’s magical thinking and charges that Obama’s pretend policy leaves the nation at risk. Dick Cheney waxes fearsome about the dangers to America from a president who pretends that the nation is not at war. In contrast, Cheney asserts that under his administration war was anything but pretend and America was safe.

But the eight years of Cheney’s wars were about as pretend as any fairy tale. Not only did his administration largely ignore what Cheney now presents as an existential threat to the US (al Qaeda) but it never mobilized the nation for war. Other than the military and military families, Americans have not been called upon to sacrifice. The administration did not ask for additional taxes (as Lyndon Johnson did) to finance the added costs of the war. We weren’t asked to conserve vital resources such as petroleum. No, the Cheney Administration just called it war, sent the troops and paid for it all on credit. You can’t get much more pretend than that.

Of course, the pretend does not extend to the actual battlefield. Out there the war is all too real, with live bullets and ordnance and genuinely dead people, not to mention the vast number of maimed and injured. Nothing is pretend out there save, perhaps, America’s illusions about what contributes to our national security.

Back in The Homeland, however, it’s a different story. Cheney can pretend that he led a nation at war even as his administration simply ignored an actual problem in favor of a war-of-choice in Iraq. The recent Christmas bombing attempt is the most telling proof of his administration’s failure: the same warnings that were ignored in 2001 were ignored in 2009. Yeah, I know, it’s Obama’s administration now but if Cheney’s administration had been serious about developing a strong intelligence and interdiction program during the past eight years, the Christmas bomber would have hit the radar and tripped some flags. The warnings were out there. Instead, we got eight years of Cheney’s wars and we are still at risk from the same mistakes.

Compared to that record, I will not begrudge Obama his “pretend” world. In fact, I want him to imagine a different world even as he deals with the realities of the world as it is. Dick Cheney would have us believe that the world is a fearsome beast that can only be kept at bay with force and violence. His world is the endless war of Nineteen Eighty-Four where all men are definitely not equal and the State’s interests are paramount. I and most other Americans would prefer a more practical, less draconian approach to the difficulties of sharing a planet with other peoples.

A more practical approach would recognize that violence and terror will always be part of the human experience. So too, will be fanatical idealism that justifies violence and terror for a cause. All that is real and any responsible government will act to prevent that violence from harming its citizens. But the response should also be proportional. Endless war and deployment of vast military force around the world is not a proportional or effective response to terrorism. War should be reserved for truly existential threats. Terrorism and Islamic extremism are not existential threats to America.

Nor is the threat unique to the US. Attacks around the world testify to that grim fact. So, instead of unilateral, costly and ineffective US wars, I want America to cooperate and collaborate with other governments and international institutions to secure potential targets, identify violent organizations and disrupt their operations. All this makes more sense than pretending to be at war and sending real people to kill and die. It makes more sense than discarding two centuries of civil liberty and rule of law.

If Cheney wants war, he would do no better than to declare war on economic injustice. A world where a small elite (including me and most Americans) enjoys wealth and privilege while many live at subsistence level or worse creates an environment for hatred and violence. Even if the ideologies and direction of violence originate among the educated and well-to-do, crushing poverty and hopelessness provide a receptive audience and willing recruits for their plans. Putting an end to that cycle would make America and the world much safer than all of Cheney’s wars.

I won’t pretend that will happen. I will imagine it as long as I live.

I don’t expect Dick Cheney to lead that war. He has always had other priorities.

Dog Bites Man

General Stanley McChrystal assures Congress of success in Afghanistan.

Stanley, meet William.

Deciding Obama 2.0

The Washington Post has pretty much the same article as the NYT. Taken together, they illustrate now the dimensions of the policy discussion, the players and dynamics.

As I noted previously the focus on changing from a never-ending commitment may be the most significant aspect of the story. Of course, the never-ending commitment in question is direct involvement in Afghanistan, not the world-wide network of military bases that is the American Empire. Still, any change in the right direction is welcome.

The WaPo quote that struck me hardest is this one:

Obama and his war council gathered in the Situation Room for the first of what would be nine official review sessions on a crisp Sunday in the second week of September. All of those in the room were familiar with McChrystal's classified 66-page assessment of "serious and deteriorating" conditions in Afghanistan, which made clear that "we were starting from zero after eight years of war," a civilian adviser said.

Eight years of war.

$233 billion.

932 Americans, 236 Britons, 367 other allied forces dead.

Many thousands of Afghan dead.

AND WE'RE AT FUCKING ZERO!!

That abomination is the legacy of CheneyBush and his goddamn neoconservative "Masters of War"

Goddamn them all. Every last one of them.

Deciding Obama

NYT today has the story of Obama's decision to up the ante in Afghanistan. It's a pretty typical account of how the various factions made their case and how Obama processed information. If nothing else, it certainly proves that Obama is not CheneyBush when it comes to considering military action. The article, however, does show Obama to be well within America's military-centric mindset which, of course, should be no surprise to anyone who has studied this nation's post WWII history.

Still, I wish Obama had made this speech. He did not and I am sad. I do, however, find a small glimmer of hope in the NYT article. After announcing his decision to his national security team at the White House,

Mr. Obama then went to the Situation Room to call General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry. The president made it clear that in the next assessment in December 2010 he would not contemplate more troops. “It will only be about the flexibility in how we draw down, not if we draw down,” he said.

That is a commitment Obama would do well to keep.

What Manner of Beast?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi describes her work:

"You have to go to somebody who is totally, completely, entirely opposed to war funding, and you need to have them vote on it. And you don't even want to vote on it yourself," she said in the July interview.

Veterans Day 2009

On this Veterans Day I am thinking of Pat Tillman and Barack Obama. Pat Tillman is prominent in my thoughts because I am reading Where Men Win Glory, John Krakauer’s story of Tillman’s life and death. Barack Obama looms large because he could possibly strike a blow for real change and real peace but probably will not.

Tillman’s story is well-known. He was the patriotic football player who left a lucrative career and died for his country. First hailed as a combat hero and brandished by the CheneyBush administration as a patriotic prop during an election year, the Army later admitted that Tillman’s died from “friendly fire”, he was killed by his own men in an ill-fated mission. Krakauer adds depth and detail to the story, drawn from Tillman’s t diaries and recollection of family and friends. Krakauer also details the Tillman’s final mission, which was also his first as a full-fledged ranger.

What emerges in Where Men Win Glory is an account of a thoughtful, determined and dedicated young man whose talent and sacrifice were wasted. Tillman is not perfect—at 18 he was charged with felonious assault, later reduced to misdemeanor assault, for severely beating another teenager and Krakauer doesn't ignore Tillman's other less edifying behaviors—but Tillman learns from his experiences, in life, on the playing field and in the Army. I particularly identify with the Specialist Pat Tillman who forgoes the opportunity to harass lower ranking soldiers.

Krakauer subtitles his book as “The Odyssey of Pat Tillman”. The subtitle is not an overreach. Tillman was on an odyssey. Not surprising--that’s what life is. Tillman’s odyssey just played out in a more public way. Like Homer’s Odyssey, Tillman’s offers lessons about the strength and power of determination. Tillman’s odyssey also reminds us of the irrelevance of honor and patriotism in the CheneyBush wars.

Which brings me to Barack Obama, inheritor of those wars, who must now decide what to do with them. All accounts suggest that he will send more troops and try to hold off the Taliban insurgency while he jump starts the Afghan army. Obama could take a different path, a path that would lessen the violence and allow Afghan society to rebuild on its own terms in concert with its neighbors and the international community. Robert Dreyfuss offers a cogent alternative in The Nation’s recent issue on Afghanistan. Dreyfuss’ plan is one of several less militarized courses of action that the US could pursue in Afghanistan. Unlike the military options, engagement and diplomacy are less costly (in oh so many ways), they are far less likely to provoke counter attack and are far more sustainable in the long run.

On this day for remembering the sacrifices of war, I hope for peace without expecting much.

postscript

Here's why America does not celebrate Remembrance Day on this date.

What Manner of Beast?

Dennis Kucinich (of course):

“Why is it we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war?.... Unlimited money to blow up things in Iraq and Afghanistan, and relatively little money to build things in the US.... Trillions for war and Wall Street, billions for insurance companies... When we were promised change, we weren't thinking that we give a dollar and get back two cents.”

More here.

Into the Breach

Reading accounts of the Fort Hood shootings, I am struck by the immediate and selfless behavior of the soldiers. One sentence particularly caught me attention:

Other unarmed soldiers in the area also began to sprint toward the gunfire.

They headed toward danger. Unarmed. No matter. They were ready to do what needed to be done. They would figure something out as the situation developed.

I call that bravery and professionalism. The normal person, upon hearing gunfire, would head the other way. Soldiers confront danger. That's the nature of the work.

Thursday at Fort Hood, the nation saw up close how good America's soldiers can be in difficult, dangerous circumstances. That's something to think about this coming Veterans Day.

Something else to think about is why America is squandering these soldiers in extended, foreign occupations. As has been often mentioned in the articles about the Fort Hood shootings, our soldiers and their families are bearing a disproportionate burden of America's "boots on the ground" around the world foreign policy.

Others are asking "What has America done in eight years?" Americans should ask the same question.