Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq War Resisters to Get Boost from Veterans Group
SAINT LOUIS - Members of a leading Iraq war veterans' organization voted this weekend to launch a campaign encouraging U.S. troops to refuse to fight.
The decision was made at the group's annual membership meeting, held this weekend in Saint Louis, Missouri alongside the annual convention of the Veterans for Peace organization.
"Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) decided to make support of war resisters a major part of what we do," said Garrett Rappenhagen, a former U.S. Army sniper who served in Iraq from February 2004 to February 2005.
"There's a misconception that they're cowards," Rappenhagen said. "Most war resisters have already gone on a tour in Iraq. They've seen the war firsthand and have come to the conclusion that it's morally wrong. This is something we all should support. So to break that timidness of how we view war resisters in America, IVAW decided to embrace them."
To underscore that point, the veterans group elected Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia chair of its board of directors. In the winter of 2003, Mejia was the first soldier to refuse to return to fight in Iraq after an initial tour in the war zone.
When Mejia came home on leave after six months in Iraq, he went AWOL rather than return. Ultimately, he served nine months in prison after the military denied his demand to be discharged as a conscientious objector.
"There's a sort of revolution taking place in the streets," Mejia said. "It's not being reported by the mainstream media, but we in the antiwar movement know what's going on. There is a rebellion going on in the ranks of the military that is not being reported."
Mejia noted more than 10,000 soldiers have deserted since the Iraq war began four years ago. According to the Army, the number of deserters has increased every year of the war. 3,196 active-duty soldiers deserted the Army last year, compared to 2,543 the year before.
Soldiers are also speaking up in other ways. Last October, antiwar soldiers launched a legal petition to Congress called an Appeal for Redress, which has garnered more than 2,000 signatures.
"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq," the Appeal says. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home."
Iraq Veterans Against the War has also begun organizing among active duty soldiers on military bases. Veterans have toured the country in busses holding barbeques outside the base gates.
In Watertown, near Fort Drum, New York and close to the Canadian border, veterans worked with the group Citizen Soldier to found a soldiers' rights coffeehouse. The coffeehouse, called A Different Drummer, has become a hub of antiwar organizing.
Twenty Fort Drum soldiers are now members of Iraq Veterans Against the War
Historian David Cortright, who protested the Vietnam war from inside the U.S. military and later authored the book "Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War," told OneWorld that a chapter of 20 antiwar soldiers at a U.S. Army base is significant.
"They are the ones who are courageous enough to speak out but behind them are many others who sympathize and agree," he said. "They might support a petition and help out in some way but because of family matters don't want to put themselves at risk. There's tremendous pressure from the command to conform, to obey, to keep your mouth shut. So the fact that there are a couple dozen who are willing to speak out signifies that there is a base of sympathy and support and opposition to this war."
Iraq Veterans Against the War also plans to step up efforts to undermine military recruiting efforts in the coming year.
In September, the organization plans to launch a "truth in recruiting" campaign. The campaign will include antiwar outreach into high schools and community colleges, protests at recruiting stations, and efforts to "make friends with a recruiter," whereby a person who is not interested in military service contacts a recruiter in order to waste his time and prevent him from encouraging others to join the ranks.
At least 3,707 U.S. soldiers have died since the Iraq war began four years ago. Some 20 percent of soldiers have suffered brain trauma, spinal injuries or amputations; another 20 percent have suffered other major injuries such as blindness, partial blindness or deafness, and serious burns.
Hundreds of thousands have already submitted disability claims with the United States Veterans Administration.
Copyright © 2007 OneWorld.net.
19 Comments so far
Show AllCleophus
That's the same reasoning used by the neocons to terrorize
innocent Iraquis many/most of whom did not support Saddam.
Now you want to do the same to those of us who vote against
these criminals, write letters to our representatives, and
protest in whatever way we can against the Bush cabal?
There may be some "Americans" that deserve the ire of the
world and some people in the world that will blame all of
us for the crimes of the few as you appear to be doing,
but I think you will find most of the anger is directed
appropriately at our so-called leaders. Though it is
likely common Americans will suffer most as a result,
instead of the real criminals in Washington.
The reason why most nations throughout the world do not like the USA and its people is NOT because of your so-called "freedoms" or lack thereof but because of your hypocrisy and dare I say your terrorizing of nations througout the world. Yes Americans will get away with terrorizing the citizens of Iraq like they did with terrorizing the citizens of Panama, Vietnam, Korea etc. which bothers most countries even more. Aside from invading Iraq, nothing bothers Southwest Asia more than financially supporting and condoning Palestinian oppression, which you continue to do. I mean, do Americans really want ANOTHER terrorist attack? Perhaps September 11th did not humble you enough. Americans are even upsetting Saudi Arabia by invading Iraq. How does the USA respond to this anger? Oh let's sell them some weapons! Explain this rationale greedy wasteful consumers. Enlighten me...
Was the CHOICE of invading Iraq out of misguided revenge, paranoia, and stealing from them worth it Americans? Was the CHOICE of using the citizens of Iraq as a scapegoat for your problems worth whatever future reprisals you will receive?
grailmaiden wrote: Please stop calling this an ANTI-WAR movement - it is a PRO-PEACE movement.
While I agree with your tenet that anti-war has negative connotations, anti-war advocates are not necessarily the same as pro-peace advocates. There is a difference, and we should not isolate anti-Iraq war people (many of whom are pro-war).
Three cheers and salutes for the IVAW and the VFP for taking action and making Camilo the chairman of the board. I had the honor of meeting him this year along with several other Iraqi vets, on a book and fundraiser tour, and Mejia is an intelligent and articulate speaker and will lead by example.
It is obvious that the one-party Congress has no real desire to leave Iraq, and if the American people really want our war crimes in Iraq to stop, we must support,in any way we can, the IVAW, VFP, and the COURAGE TO RESIST group, as well as any military people who leave the service before their "ETS" is up.
Imagine if our military men and women in Iraq woke up in the morning and said NO MORE VIOLENCE! And understood the simple truth that the common people in Iraq are just like us, they want to live and let live, and tend to themselves and their families. Just imagine!
I agree with all of you posters above, have seen the films, read the literature, talked to people, and GRAILMAIDEN, I think you may be right on the choice of words.
On other Common Dreams articles, I mentioned "The Christmas Truce of 1914", which was on the HISTORY CHANNEL, last year. It's also worth watching or reading about.
See this article, "Tomgram: Dahr Jamail, Iraq Reporter Schizophrenic in Disneyland", July 12, 2007,
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174819/dahr_jamail_iraq_reporter_schizophrenic_in_disneyland
And the part on the al Qaeda and 80 to 90 % vs 15 % matter in, "The Bloody Failure of 'The Surge': A Special Report", by Patrick Cockburn, Aug. 7, 2007,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/07/3029
In the case of Jamail's article, look for the info. on al-Qaeda.
It's good to read what IVAW and VFP are doing.
See this book, Google.ca
"nickhart August 21st, 2007 1:08 pm
... And donate to IVAW–they are doing more to end the war than all the Democrats and their allies (PDA, MoveOn, etc…) combined: ... "
DEFINITELY, and I think they're doing more than ANYONE, plain and simple. The way I SEE the situation, NO ONE can make a statement against the war like VETERANS OF WAR can; and veterans of the particular war in question, all the more so. Nonetheless, veterans of war provide voices that speak from being on the battle lines, in the war zones, so as welcome as it is for the rest of us to oppose war, our voices seem to mostly go unheard. It's easier for msm media to report about ordinary civilians protesting against war, than it is when it comes to reporting about veterans of the war in question dissenting and entirely in honourable, righteous, accurate, with first-hand-knowledge terms. After all, the latter are much more difficult to write off as a bunch of people who surely don't know what they're talking about. They KNOW first hand what they're talking about.
They don't seem to understand what the obviously real nature of al Qa'ida in Iraq is, for it's certainly NOT Iraqi resistance, is not even aligned with it. It fights against Iraqi Resistance, as was reported by Dahr Jamail.
"Tomgram: Dahr Jamail, Iraq Reporter Schizophrenic in Disneyland", July 12, 2007, TomDispatch.com
To quickly jump to where the article provides very important perspective on 'al Qaeda'in Iraq, people can just do a webpage search to jump to "corresponding with "H,"", minus the outer "", while keeping the inner ones, for '"H,"'.
A.Q. has LONG been very suspect and the email Jamail received from an Iraqi is very important perspective. Like the Iraqi says, NO ONE is in as good of a position to know about A.Q. in Iraq as Iraqis are; although, of course the people A.Q. is actually working for have totally absolute, certain knowledge of this operation which seems to be nothing less than another covert black ops organization. And U.S. troops would NOT be filled in on this secret op.
And we have what Patrick Cockburn's article of Aug. 7 2007 reported.
"The Bloody Failure of 'The Surge': A Special Report", by Patrick Cockburn,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/07/3029
Quote: "The US administration could portray this as a fresh turning-point. It had always pretended that the insurrection in Iraq was conducted largely by al-Qa'ida. In reality, Anthony H Cordesman, an Iraqi specialist at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, points out that al-Qa'ida's attacks make up only 15 per cent of the total in Iraq, although they launch 80 to 90 per cent of the suicide bombings."
MOST if not all suicide bombings in predominantly civilian Iraqi areas were far more likely the work of A.Q. in Iraq, than of real Iraqi Resistance, which consists of Iraqis who would not want to blow up innocent Iraqis. Of course they would NOT, and the same very much applies with the bombings at mosques in Iraq; most surely the work of A.Q. in Iraq, black ops, not real Iraqi resistance.
There may be an exception now and then, but real Iraqi Resistance would surely do all they could to avoid doing the above types of bombings. After all, it'd be very counter-productive to do otherwise.
Black ops is the very most likely scenario, and it's not something U.S. troops are going to be informed about; the U.S. leaders of black ops that also attack U.S. troops and otherwise put them in ever greater danger from retaliation due to increased anger over the criminal occupational war imposed on Iraq, all of the consequences thereof, well, the leaders of such black ops are NOT going to be going around informing the troops about this.
So of course most troops remain unaware of the black ops that have been going on in Iraq for several years now. The two British soldiers dressed up as Arabs and driving a car loaded with explosives in to Basra last Sept. or the one before is one example. The contractor similarly driving a car load with explosives in the northern part of Iraq, although I'm not sure if he was also dressed as an Arab, this is another example. And there are plenty of other examples. Israeli Mossad operating in northern Iraq was, I suppose known by Kurdish leaders, but are nonetheless much enough akin to black ops, for Israel has absolutely NO business, right, etc., to be involved in the war on Iraq; unless it's to try to persuade the Cheney-Bush administration to stop the war, which of course Israel is not about to start doing.
How much do the troops, including veterans of the Iraq war, really realise about the full nature of this war? Surely MUCH; but there are surely some elements that these soldiers and veterans haven't yet learned about or otherwise came to realise must surely be going on.
"Diplomacy by Deception" by John Coleman, 1998, is a very, very interesting book, and strikes me as very, very IMPORTANT. This web search provides a link to a downloadable PDF copy of the book, Google.ca
It covers British and U.S. wars of aggression on the Middle East history from the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as with respect to U.S. govt and Standard Oil corporation warring, mainly political it seems, against the Mexican govt during the first half of the 20the century; and ALL of this, M.E. and Mexico, ALL FOR OIL. Israel's benefited, for in this M.E. warring of aggression, it has also helped to protect Israel, but the main objective nonetheless remains the OIL.
It involves a LOT of what basically is black ops, while there's also more than just the 'basically' kind involved.
Lawrence of Arabia was duped a-la black ops manner, too.
The troops need to be informed of ALL of what they may be if not likely are up against, and it has very much the 'within' kind of theme to it all. U.S. troops' real enemies are not the people of Iraq, Iran, African countries, and so on, anyway. NO, the real enemies are ... from 'within' kind; within the U.S. govt, and otherwise controlling it, or so strongly influencing it that it basically is equivalent to control.
Anyway, it's great to read this GOOD NEWS about the IVAW and VFP.
These un-American veteran groups obviously hate us for our freedoms.
Unfortunately the American ruling class has no intention whatsoever of leaving Iraq. They (both democrats and republicans) think that it is crucial that we stay in Iraq--why else would it be that they have spent so much time and energy building our largest embassy in Baghdad and fourteen permanent bases. Its time to wake up and realize that the ruling class isn't listening to dissidents here, and nothing will change that until we can convince tens of millions of fellow citizens to join us. The fact that we now have Iraq vets participating in numbers is fantastic, but we need to figure out how to quickly inform the many who don't know what is going on.
I know these Patriots, and make no mistake, they are some of the most intelligent, compassionate, and informed citizens we have. Their courage and sacrifice in time of war is being manifested by them on the streets and military bases of our beloved country. If you want to know the truth about this war - talk to IVAW. If you want to help stop this war - support the IVAW. If you want to help reclaim this country - listen to and support all who oppose torture, illegal detentions, kidnapping, illegal wiretapping, the end of habeas corpus, and the destruction of the United States Constitution by the present executive branch of the federal government. It is, really, just that simple.
Please stop calling this an ANTI-WAR movement - it is a PRO-PEACE movement.
Calling the movement to end the obscene, illegal, genocidal war in Iraq a
PRO-PEACE movement is far more positive and better public relations than the negative phrase "anti-war".
The article mentioned that some people accuse the soldiers who protest the war of being "cowards" - this unfair label was also a slur against Vietnam War era soldiers who refused to fight - they were called "draft dodgers" "commie sympathizers" and "lefty pinkos" along with the phrase "Anti-War".
By calling this a PRO PEACE movement it would be a much more positive public relations image. The phrase "anti-war" still has negative conotatios of a pot smoking, unwashed, grungy dirty hippie who isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I agree with nickhart
Sir, No Sir! opened up my eyes to what REALLY stopped the war. Not civilians protesting in the street-- governments could NOT care less about that. Specially now, since there is no draft, middle-class parents don't have to worry that their babies will be in the line of fire, and won't raise a big stink to "their" people in congress.
But soldiers refusing to fight? That makes a difference! A big difference. Reminds me of the poster: "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
Thank you Veterans Against War who have fought in foreign countries and the citizens of reservations and the inner cities of America. These veterans have experienced the horrors of killing and have smelled blood and truly know war and can bring peace to this tortured world. It's time for all of us to stop the destruction of our planet. For what reasons are our jewels dying for? Freedom is a myth...awake and witness.
Homeboy,
Gilberto
I propose that everyone mobilize for the ANSWER Coalition's Sept 15 march in Washington D.C. Not only are the Iraq Vets Against the War leading the march, but they are going to do a 4,000 person Die-In on the steps of Congress. That kind of statement has a lot of potential. Big ups and respect to IVAW and the war resisters.
David Goodner
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?author=755
we already know from the war that millions of people protesting in the street solves nothing. how about millions of naked gun-toting people occupying the halls of congress
We have our own insurgency. And we know that insurgencies have many silent sympathizers. Maybe we have some future leaders in this group.
When will those jerks, our so-called leaders catch on? The only one who has been right all along about this is Dennis. The rest have to keep explaining themselves away or justifying themselves. Who needs that?
Yes indeed,
Support our troops, not their commander as thief.
3,707 represents the number KIA not the real # which is around 14,000+ those dying from combat related injuries. Not to mention those horribly disfigured and scarred for life. Stop this Fvking war!!!!
Read David Cortright's book, "Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War." See the movie "Sir No Sir": http://www.sirnosir.com Then you will understand what it took to stop the Vietnam War and what it will take to end the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. And donate to IVAW--they are doing more to end the war than all the Democrats and their allies (PDA, MoveOn, etc...) combined: http://www.ivaw.org