Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMcCain Is Deluding Himself Over the 'Surge'
There's a hole in the US argument, and blood is rushing through
John McCain is desperate to talk about the surge rather than the splurge. His Iraq war is set to cost one trillion dollars, and his deregulation-mania has cost hundreds of billions. So in order to maintain his façade of being "tough on spending", he needs to shift the subject. That's why he has tried to shrink the debate about the Iraq War to one small question. Not: did Saddam have Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not: did Saddam have links to 9/11? Not: why do 70 per cent of Iraqis think the presence of US troops make them less safe and they should go home now?
McCain knows he will lose those arguments, so he wants us to talk solely about whether the surge of US troops last year has been successful. But a hole was just blown in that argument - and blood is rushing through.
Those of us who got Iraq wrong have a particular duty to honestly describe what is happening now. A major study by the distinguished scientific journal Environment and Planning A has just revealed the real picture. The Republican nominee claims the US troops have stopped the violence by their physical presence. To test this, Professor John Agnew and his colleagues used the same techniques the US government has adopted to monitor ethnic-cleansing in Burma and Uganda.
Here's how it works. When an entire ethnic or religious group is driven out, they abandon their houses - and aren't there to switch on the lights. Their areas become much more dark. If satellite images show night-light remains the same in the areas dominated by one ethnic group but significantly falls in mixed areas, you know ethnic cleansing is happening.
So what happened in Iraq? Before, during and after the surge, the areas that had always been Sunni and those that had always been Shia were brighter than ever. But in the vast mixed areas, half or more of the lights went out in the six months leading up to the surge. They then stabilised in half-darkness. By the time the US troops arrived, there were no more mixed areas left. The easy pickings - the Shia who lived next door, or the Sunni who lived up the road - had all been attacked. Sunni and Shia weren't killing each other any more because they had retreated into vast enclaves, cleansed and armed, surrounded by barriers manned by militias. Four million people had been driven from their homes.
Professor Agnew explains: "Our findings suggest the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for the process of ethno-sectarian neighbourhood homogenisation that is now largely achieved." The new US troops have simply built concrete walls between the newly-cleansed areas.
This study is a bleak vindication of my colleague Patrick Cockburn, who has been almost alone in telling the human story of the cleansing. Here's an example. In May 2006, four gunmen turned up at the house of Leila Mohammed, a pregnant mother of three children in north-east of Baghdad. "Be gone by evening prayers or we will kill you," they said. She was a Shia in a Sunni neighbourhood, so she had to run, or die. "Later I went back to try to get our furniture but there was too much shooting and I was trapped in our house," Leila said. "I came away with nothing." Now imagine millions of Leilas, and you have much of Iraq today.
Those who try to get past the checkpoints and walls to their old neighbourhoods find that the intercommunal hatred has not been soothed. Cockburn gives one typical example: "When one couple, both Shia, went last month to visit the house from which they had fled in the Sunni al-Makanik district of Dora in south Baghdad, they were immediately shot dead and their driver beheaded."
Yet Obama has failed to properly challenge this propaganda-surge about the surge. He echoes the McCain line that "the surge has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams", and shifts the conversation back to the decision to invade in the first place. He has evidently concluded that this case is too complex and too easily attacked with the ludicrous charge that he is "criticising the troops." So McCain is getting away with braying about the "great success" of wrapping one of the worst programmes of ethnic cleansing of our time in towering concrete walls of reinforcement.
42 Comments so far
Show AllConsidering McCain is of the portion of his generation whom still cling to the fantasy of Vietnam being a "winnable war," is it any surprise he is clinging to the "Surge" myth for all its' worth? It is well past time for McCain and his ilk to join the dustbin of history along with Confederate States of America partisans.
How many times have these people lied before about the facts????? So many times I can't count them and won't get into them here. And I am only counting the major lies. They say the surge has worked??? But, until I see more proof than what they are presenting. I am not inclined to believe it. I need a reliable source which Bush and Company aren't. So as far as I am concerned. The surge isn't a talk point for McCain! He is part of the 'evil empire' who got us into this mess! How many times do American's have to be fooled before they get it through their thick heads what Republican's are???? There is precious little that comes out of these people's mouths that is the truth.
This "Surge" escalation of troops was preplanned and prepaid, it was a planned Ethnic cleansing take a look at this article from Reuters:
http://www.Reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1953066020080919
Tells the whole story.
BillofRights
The surge has succeeded, as has the entire Iraq invasion. It just hasn't succeeded in the ways the elites would have you believe. They've made a killing, figuratively and literally.
These people aren't stupid and delusional. They know damn well what they are doing, and there are nothing but very bad intentions to be found.
The architects of this war are evil and are very smart. We need to stop underestimating how dangerous they are by merely suggesting that they are just pigheaded.
All troops need to be brought home immediately and all of those in power who have started the war, supported the war, and profited from the war need to be brought to trial and executed for treason and genocide. Then Iraq needs to be given reparations.
It's all a lot simpler than the tangled spaghetti web we have before us. Throw it all out.
The same day, Obama’s top national security adviser, Richard Danzig, who was secretary of the navy in the Clinton administration, told a press gathering that an Obama administration would increase military spending over the gargantuan levels already established under Bush. He said that he did not “see defense spending declining in the first years of an Obama administration,” adding, “There are a set of demands there that are very severe, very important to our national well-being.”
Danzig went out of his way to praise the current Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, saying that many of his policies “are things that Senator Obama agrees with and I agree with.” He said that Obama recognized the need for a smooth transition between the outgoing and incoming administrations, particularly in the two war zones, Iraq and Afghanistan. Asked if this meant that Gates might be retained, Danzig replied that Gates was a good defense secretary, and “He’d be an even better one in an Obama administration.”
read more: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/usel-o06.shtml
The "Political Elite" and "The Corporate Elite" could care less about the numbers of dead or displaced.....The bottom line is "Money, Power, and Control"....
People refuse to recognize Joseph Stiglitz´s numbers......The War in Iraq has cost the American people over 3 trillion dollars, not 600 billion, not almost 1 trillion, but 3 trillion dollars....
What is lost is the 2 trillion dollars worth of arms and supplies that were lost and unaccounted for by Donald Rumsfeld in 2002. Those arms and supplies had to be replaced.
What is lost are the studies from Johns Hopkins Institute that over 1 million Iraqis have died......What "Elitist" cares about them. What is lost are the 4 million Iraqis that are in refugee camps or detention camps.
What is lost is the fact that the "Elitists" have lost nothing. They haven´t lost any children. They haven´t lost any of their billion dollar savings....And, they laugh their way to their "Off Shore Bank Accounts" every Friday.....
What a SIN !!!
Will Henry Kissinger allow the People of the United States choose their next leader?
In the 70´s he said about Chile, "I don´t see why we need to stand by and see a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." He and President Nixon then mounted a campaign against the people of Chile.....They created a financial disaster, then assassinated General Rene Schneider, a leader of the Pro-Constitutional Military, then had Sañvador Allende assassinated. ("The CIA´s Black Ops" by John Jacob Nutter) Yes, to me, Henry Kissinger is the most powerful man in the world.
I like the way this DPA Hari ignores the fact Obama is also a warmonger and just wants to shift the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and focus the killing there. Obama can't make good arguments against McCain because he has no moral authority. Both representatives of Wall ST. and the MIC are pushing war. The little chicken hawk would literally sell his spineless soul to become president.
Any argument that tries to portray Obama as any less a warmonger than McCain is disingenuous. Obama isn't talking about peace.
And how idiotic to talk about "who got it right" as if Obama had voted against the war. The hypocrite wasn't even a Senator and has stated if had been he isn't sure which way he would have voted. Typical Obama, straddling the fence. Trying to be at once against war and for it.
Sioux Rose
Good posts: OREZ ENO & Z.
WAGELABORER: Thanks for noticing... I thought it had a timeless ring to it!
OREZ_ENO,
Thank you for your reply, it's nice to have civil exchange.
When I talk about "blaming" the troops, I realize that perhaps it's not a useful word. I want them to take responsibility for their actions. I don't think they need to be blamed or punished if they can understand that what they have participated in is wrong.
I think we're all looking at a large problem from different angles, but there is much agreement. I would suggest that the best way to move the discussion forward is to focus on the bravery and heroism of those who either refuse to serve, like Ehren Watada, or people such as yourself who take the incredibly courageous step of admitting your own mistakes. I completely agree with your description of why many people join the military. I think we can help these people by talking with them.
Here on CD (where none of us are too fond of the military), I can casually compare the US military to the KKK or Nazis, without raising too many eyebrows. In the real world of community organizing, I would never suggest such a divisive tactic. A person in the military would hear such a comparison, and then decide not hear another word I say. So this is a extremely sensitive subject, especially when you consider that some families are still grieving over the loss of their child, or the post-traumatic effects the war has had on them. I wouldn't recommend that much can be gained by disrespecting the troops in public.
So I would suggest we try to frame the discussion in the affirmative, i.e. the troops were lied to and manipulated, it is heroic to resist the war, it's okay to admit you were wrong, you won't be shunned if you admit the war is wrong, you will be embraced by a movement that needs you. The testimony of the Iraq and Afghanistan Winter Soldiers is more effective than a hundred street protests. Veterans For Peace is one of the best organizations I know of. What should be drilled in, again and again, is that for all the people who joined the military because they wanted to do good in the world, who perhaps now realize it was a mistake; it's not too late to do something about it. Their voices matter now more than ever. They have a tremendous opportunity to do good right now. A mutiny among the troops could put a stop to these wars immediately.
The hard part is dealing with history. It's not just Iraq, how do we get people to accept that non-defensive war is wrong? And that many so-called "defensive" wars were really wars of aggression? Of course, right now, we can put that lesson on hold.
It's no coincidence that some of the people most effective in rehabilitating even the worst gang-bangers are former gang-bangers themselves. The best person to help a junkie quit is a former drug user. There is nothing more powerful than a destructive person reforming themselves to help others.
z October 6th, 2008 9:32 pm wrote:
“I would suggest that the best way to move the discussion forward is to focus on the bravery and heroism of those who either refuse to serve, like Ehren Watada, or people such as yourself who take the incredibly courageous step of admitting your own mistakes.”
I think people like Watada would be more useful in this endeavor of trying to convince young people to not join the military than someone like myself. Old, senior citizens like me would not be taken seriously. Young people would say, “This guys got one foot in the grave. He’s senile. He obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about.” But young people, like Watada, would have more influence. Also, it is people like Watada who are the truly courageous ones. There’s nothing courageous about an old bozo like me in his final days admitting shame for his service in the military.
With that said, causing a large change in cultural attitude, like what you are suggesting, is very difficult. Perhaps it will take generations coming from the ground up. That’s why we need a new kind of president in this country. Until we have a president who genuinely uses the military solely for defense, as I believe it should be limited to, who expresses outrage at all the preemptive wars of the past, and who legislates real protection to prevent it from occurring again in the future, I doubt that our culture will change.
I also believe an effective strategy for changing America’s continued policy of immoral and criminal aggression both internationally and towards some of its own citizens, is to rewrite history to reflect the truth. For example, Kennedy’s assassination should be admitted to be a joint CIA/FBI operation conducted to counter Kennedy’s intention to limit their powers, as well as the Pentagon’s desire to start the Vietnam War. The museum in Dallas showing that Oswald did it should be redesigned to describe the multiple sniper operation that it really was. School textbooks should be rewritten. Such open admissions of evil, criminal behavior at the highest levels of our government, when taught to young people in the school system, might help prevent future generations from doing the same. If it is true that Vice President Johnson gave the final order for killing Kennedy, as I in my heart believe really transpired, then it should be so taught to all of us. And of course, since it is now part of the public record that Johnson lied about the Bay of Tonkin in order to get Congress to approve the funding for the Vietnam War, then it should be so taught. And if it is true, as I believe it is, that the 9/11 disaster was orchestrated by elements within our own government and possibly America’s corporate empire as a “New Pearl Harbor” to set the public mood for the authorization of the invasion of Iraq, as it is described in the document called Project for the New American Century (PNAC), then it should be so taught.
My limited understanding of history is that all evil empires, if they are to be extinguished, are eventually extinguished by force. Hitler is a good example. The British also suffered the consequences of violent opposition to colonial aggression, as in the American Revolution. In the end, I suspect that that is the way all of this will play out. I fear a global war that ends with America, and possibly also Russia, being totally obliterated by nuclear weapons.
But please don’t be deterred by my negative and depressive attitude. I applaud your efforts to get people to think about this problem of American aggression in the world and the role of the military, as well as civilian contractors, and to promote the idea that no one should join.
Having your name appear on a list of people targeted for assassination is just a signature away.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Accountability? Right !
Giant US Air Force transport jets are hauling pallets stacked with bundles of shrink-wrapped hundred dollar bills for US commanders in the field to distribute to insurgents they deem entitled.
This is another reason the US dollar continues to devalue. The US Treasury printing presses are running 24/7.
Along with completion of wholesale sectarian ethnic cleansing and the use of bribery to convert former Sunni insurgents into temporary allies of the US occupation forces, don't leave out the third big reason why violence in general has dropped in Iraq: Iran wanted a breather, too. Less violence in Iraq meant less attacks upon American forces stationed there that could be blamed upon Iranian weaponry or Iranian involvement in the insurgency.
What I consider one of the greatest ironies of all this babble about the success of the surge (an irony that is often overlooked) is how the very public announcement of a fixed time deadline for that mission by George W. Bush and General Petraeus had the effect of deescalating the ongoing bloodletting.
Never forget, the surge had a definite beginning, a middle, and an end, plus a clearly defined geographic area inside of Iraq where the mission would be conducted, and was conducted. All factions in the raging sectarian civil war underway in Iraq duly took note, and everybody simply adjusted their calendars and factional agendas accordingly.
I agree with Johann Hari that Barack Obama, for questionable tactical reasons in this election campaign, is letting John McCain get away with "braying about the 'great success' of one of the worst programmes of ethnic cleansing of our time in towering concrete walls of reinforcement." What Bush and McCain are desperately trying to convey is the same old pipe dream that raw US militarism can still work to achieve positive political results in the Middle East, if only we Americans just stay the course and tinker with our counterinsurgency tactics for awhile longer.
Will this snake oil sell in November, 2008 with American voters, who clearly turned against Bush's war policies in the 2006 Congressional elections?
Isn't it terrifying to reflect upon how the only place on the planet that anybody - literally anybody at all - is talking openly about victory on the horizon in Iraq for the American occupation forces is inside the US media cocoon, amplified through its right wing echo chamber? Just last week, the American media market was saturated with the feel good story of how recent removal of one of those blast walls in a mixed Baghdad neighborhood had Sunnis and Shiites dancing around their picnic tables together in celebration of Eid.
The same sort of peace-with-honor-is-at-hand bullshit went a long way to help Tricky Dick clobber George McGovern in the 1972 presidential election.
I sure hope Barack Obama is proven right, and most Americans are genuinely ready to move on and move beyond the flag waving, saber rattling rhetoric of the Cold War era. We shall all see soon enough.
And wouldn't it be wonderful if Barack's announced 16-month time frame for pulling out US combat forces deescalated the violence inside Iraq, much like the surge's time deadline did?
Bill from Saginaw
Dream on about Obama as peacemaker and time tabler. His 16-month plan can be as easily delayed or abrogated as any other campaign promise. Of course, if he wants to pull troops from Iraq just to send them and many more to Afghanistan, increase military spending and recruitment propaganda, as he says he does, I guess that's as close to a "peace" candidate as we have any right to expect. Lots more war, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, whatever, but hey, let's wind it down in Iraq. The surge worked beyond our wildest expectations, Barack said, so let's declare victory there and keep that war machine roaring elsewhere!
Bill says, "What Bush and McCain are desperately trying to convey is the same old pipe dream that raw US militarism can still work to achieve positive political results in the Middle East, if only we Americans just stay the course and tinker with our counterinsurgency tactics for awhile longer." So true. And equally true of Barack the Bold, as his own statements clearly reveal. But he's not Bush or McCain, so I guess he's a change agent, because he declares he is. Delusions are so comforting.
Honest Rog
Surely the Surge is said to work because AMERICAN fatalities and attacks against AMERICAN troops are down considerably. It is assumed that other deaths and great dislocation are irrelevant to the vast majority of the US electorate. Obama must tread lightly with the "success" of the surge not to reveal that he cares about the Iraqi civilians...The US media and voters seem not to care and he must not be out of sinc with the US public if he is to win the election.
The campaign slogan for the Sado/Masochist Party is "Continue the Pain! Vote for McCain!"
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
Quite simply, Obama realizes that many, probably most, potential voters are too stupid to understand the reasoning behind the surge and behind the conclusion that it hasn't been the all-out success McCain claims. Rather than lose votes by trying to educate Joe and Mary six-pack, Obama tries to focus the discussion on something they understand, the overall decision to go to war. All politicians are tricky, evasive, dishonest, and dirty. Our best option is to vote for the one with better ethics, especially if he represents a change from the old crooks. In addition, Obama is far less scary than McCain.
OREZ_ENO: "At the same time I do not pass moral judgment on them personally. That is reserved for the government, as well as for the American population who elected that government."
Thomas More: "I am glad that you state it is not for you to pass judgement on the kids that serve"
I'm a US citizen paying taxes. Why is it not for me to pass judgment? Who should if not the populace?
By your logic, you oppose the KKK, but don't judge Klansmen. You would oppose the Nazi party, but not Nazis.
If I said, "Don't tell that Nazi to quit the Nazi party, he's just confused. Please, don't tell him how wrong it is to fight with for the Nazis"
Would that make sense to you?
People in the US military are just people, not "bad" people. Many join up out of confusion, desperation, or because of family or peer pressure. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. But service in the US military in inherently wrong.
Why do you want to shelter the military from criticism? If these are just dumb people mistakenly committing atrocities, how do you expect them to learn that what they are doing is wrong? Don't condescend to the troops, they are human beings with free will. You treat hem like babies. You treat them the way Sarah Palin has asked to be treated.
Well, you can't have it both ways, if they are babies, then they shouldn't be allowed to make the decision whether or not to take part in genocide and actually kill people. If they are allowed to make that decision, as adults, then they should not be immune from criticism or scrutiny of their actions.
This war would not exist without the people to fight it. Hundreds of millions of people (if not billions of people) oppose these wars. They are being fought by 1,436,642 active personal. A world of six billion people is being held hostage and endangered by the actions of less than two million people in the military. Why are these people immune from criticism from the rest of the world? Though they might be dumb or confused, it is not an accuse to commit genocide and risk global instability.
z October 6th, 2008 5:53 pm
My complements to your position. I agree wholeheartedly. The truth is, I always say that I do not blame the troops individually because having been there once myself, I know how painful an accusation of blame is. Inflicting painful emotional wounds is not a good way to encourage rational analysis of the whole problem. But at the same time I do openly blame myself for having served in the military, and I will continue to do so in the hope of influencing others to not join. But I admit that it took many years before I was willing to admit that to myself. Such is the power of American culture.
I know you are correct. America would be a better place if we all started to openly show more disrespect, perhaps even disgust for the military, and maybe we should even openly blame those who join the military. It’s a tough stand, but your approach could knock some sense into this country. If you were running for president you’d get my vote.
Given enough jackbooted thugs anyone could force Mother Teresa to submit.
McCain is delusional, period. Obama is as greasy as a nickel porkchop. Both will see to the care & feeding of the Pentagon and the mollycoddling of Israel. What is new under the sun?
Science to the rescue. Of course to get elected, Obama can't seem soft on the raghead enemies of Israel. So he probably won't use this argument.
.
CSPAN VIDEO PLEASE WATCH
http://www.cspan.org/search.aspx?For=Nader
RWH: Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader (I) "INFORUM" Event
This week on Road to the White House, Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader held a campaign event in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club of California. Mr. Nader answers questions about his presidential campaign and past runs for the White House. The independent candidate will be on the ballot in 45 states this Nov. 4th and is polling 5 to 6 percent nationally, according to the candidate's website.
Sunday : Washington, DC : 9-05-2008
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
.
Sioux Rose
EKATON: Your analysis is the ONLY silver lining in the cloud, one that I have also predicted.
It is so disgustingly glib the way commentators discuss the very concept of a "surge working" given the backdrop of dead, maimed, displaced people, their lives and land turned into a living hell. Anyone who has directly supported this fire and brimstone enactment of infinite horrors will have to eventually walk in those same burning mocassins. What a travesty that mankind has theoretically had the benefit of history, moved through events that should have constituted some evolution of the soul (collective and individual), and still arrives at this most barbaric of courses, and while assessing the senseless ruins, like the ancient shaman bent over entrails of a dead animal, determines if the FATE was a success. (And people think astrologers are flaky?)
Thank you for your insight. Personally, I am puzzled why the technologically advanced, the so call free and just societies of this world, still rely on the barbaric practice of war/murder, not to protect themselves, but to steal, rape, and plunder other countries for the economic benefit of coorporations. I guess being technologically advanced does not guarantee being intellectually or ethically/morally advanced. I agree with this article that Obama fails to identify the surge for what it is, outright murder. Although, as this article points out, he may be afraid of appearing to not support the troops, his actions are really unsupportive. What America really needs is a leader who is brave enough to openly admit that the job that those troops were asked to do, in our name, was immoral and criminal from the very start all the way through to the present. The irony is that in so doing that leader would for the first time be authentically supporting the troops.
It’s odd how politicians, and most Americans for that matter, call the act of blindly sending troops into immoral and criminal battles supporting them. And people do it so well, don’t they? They put a yellow ribbon on their cars. They make a supportive smile and say “Go troops!”. I was once in the military and I certainly did not call such policies supportive. Indeed they were the very policies that placed me under greater danger.
When will Americans, particularly military families in America, finally admit that their sons and daughters lives are not being sacrificed for freedom? They are being wasted for greed. Every person who has died in Iraq (to name only one immoral war) has been a wasted life. To me pretending that they died honorably does them no service. At the same time I do not pass moral judgment on them personally. That is reserved for the government, as well as for the American population who elected that government. We need a leader who is brave enough to teach all of us that for many years we have been very wrong. We need to be taught that preemptive war is an unacceptable way to increase our economic wellbeing. Just as it was wrong for Hitler to invade Poland, it was wrong for America to invade Iraq.
If there really is an afterlife and if they could look down on us right now, our sons and daughters who died in Iraq would surely be disgusted at our continued denial that their lives were wasted on an immoral cause by a corrupt society. Authentic support would be to admit the truth and hopefully save future generations for the same fate.
I recently came across a great quote that could simplify just about any answer to any question about why conservatives to messed up stuff:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of the world's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;that is the moral justification for selfishness".
John Kenneth Galbraith, esteemed economist and advisor to FDR.
"What America really needs is a leader who is brave enough to openly admit that the job that those troops were asked to do, in our name, was immoral and criminal from the very start all the way through to the present. The irony is that in so doing that leader would for the first time be authentically supporting the troops"
Yeeaaah...supporting the Troops and all of humanity! And I'll be "straight up" with ya...this is one of the reasons I love Sarah Palin: for being exactly Sarah Palin - the softballs she's lobbing with the "terrorist" word I'd love to have a swing at on the National diamond. When she tossed out the "evil" word during the debate I so wanted "Joe" to stop right there and ask her to please define just who and what is "evil" - along with the "Haters" word, tearing the cover off of the common usage of "terror" and "evil" is the central front of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright ballgame - and until the "Wright" conversation is played out America will strike out on making contact with many of it's greatest promises.
So, "batter up!" - the long balls of terror, evil and hater are coming our way everyday - much thanks to Sarah Palin for making this so - so let's step up swinging, even if it's a multitude of misses, the breezes will help build the wind of courage we seek(the human talent to harmonize with tech advances), and even though the playing field is blotted with elephant and donkey excretions...it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game...the statue of Benjamin Franklin in Lincoln Park of Chicago wears a warm and mischievous smile, hopefully you'll find one of those today.
OREZ_ENO October 6th, 2008 3:48 pm
"Every person who has died in Iraq has been a wasted life. At the same time I do not pass moral judgment on them personally. That is reserved for the government, as well as for the American population who elected that government. Preemptive war is unacceptable. Just as it was wrong for Hitler to invade Poland, it was wrong for America to invade Iraq."
Sir, while I do not always agree with you, but I am glad that you state it is not for you to pass judgement on the kids that serve. I believe thats admirable of you. As to the rest (paraphrased above) of the above we are in total agreement. There are others that simply don't understand what the military really means to them and would judge others from their own lack of experience.
I would say to you that because you see that yellow ribbon, it doesn't mean for one moment that they support this war or this President. Supporting these kids that serve is not the same at all. I believe that is what you were really saying about Obama. Or am I wrong? I dobn't think for a minute he doesn't support these kids just as well as I know he totally opposes the war in Iraq.
Thomas More October 6th, 2008 6:10 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It’s often difficult in such a media to express the full depth of one’s feelings. My feelings about the yellow ribbons are from the perspective of one who served. I view them as empty, apathetic sympathy. I also base my current feelings about them on what I hear from those people I speak to in the course of my daily activities. It is my experience that most people who display them do agree with the war. Yes, once in a while I do meet someone who, as you suggest, doesn’t support the war itself and displays the ribbon to show sympathy for the troops, and I often wonder about the value of that. But mostly I find that those who display the ribbons still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, that Iraq was full of weapons of mass destruction, that the people in Iraq needed to be saved, that America is doing this to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world. They usually say that they display the ribbons to show their pride of the soldiers and solidarity with their noble cause. Naturally, I do not get to talk to every person that I see in traffic who displays a yellow ribbon. But that is the response I get most of the time from those I do get a chance to question about it.
Having served in a previous war I know the empty feeling of being caught up in a big mistake, a mistake that the country’s only efforts to end are a few patriotic or sympathetic statements or ribbons. Luckily for me, I was never engaged in battle. But I was greatly affected by being close enough to it to fear it, and to want to flee.
I don’t pass judgment on the individual soldiers because I know from my own military experience that their reasons for joining were noble in the first place. I joined because coming from a lower class family I had no chance for decent employment beyond under-the-table landscaping work. The military trained me in engine maintenance and later in electronics. They gave me personal pride that I didn’t get from cutting grass. They gave me a purpose in life that I otherwise would not have had. But it didn’t take long before I realized that joining was a very big mistake. I realized that my country collectively (its citizens and government) took advantage of me by letting me believe my service was a valuable contribution but knowingly used that service for evil, immoral, and criminal purposes. Sure average people were not privy to the evil itself, but they are guilty of electing the governments that do it and they are guilty of letting those governments continue to do it by turning a blind, apathetic eye. Often that is how I see the ribbons, nothing more than a blind apathetic eye.
Although I do not blame other soldiers, I do blame myself. By joining the military I became nothing more than a little cog in a big wheel whose purposes were evil. I am truly and deeply ashamed of myself for having done that. I only wish that when I was a young person I had been given some opportunities in civilian life. But in America at that time, and even more so in America of today, there is little opportunity in civilian life for young people from lower class families.
You ask if I believe Obama cares about the kids? I believe that he, like any other bought-and-paid-for candidate in one of the major parties running for president does not. I believe that for people in that inner circle, the lives of the kids who fight America’s wars are nothing more than necessary collateral damage. They are the cost of satisfying the greedy and evil desires of a Military Industrial Complex (MIC). I believe that in Obama’s deepest heart of hearts, the lives of these kids are no more important than his morning cup of coffee. There are a few politicians, like Kucinich and Nader (to name only two) who are authentic, but they are too few. Anyway, I don’t believe any person in this country could work their way into the presidential candidate position in the Democratic or Republican parties without first selling their soul to the MIC. Remember Obama’s speech to AIPAC? He’s bought and paid for.
Getting back to the people who display ribbons, could it be that most people display them to satisfy their own guilt for electing evil governments in the first place? And I truly don’t understand why they continue to do this. Guess what? This November they are going to do it again. Yet, the freedom to vote Nader is there. Everyone could to it if they wanted. But they don’t. And, you know what? I don’t think they know why either. I suppose they do it because they feel that unless they vote for a main party candidate they will somehow do great harm to their country, or possibly to their own feeling of wellbeing in it. I guess the propaganda machine has done its job with the American culture. But then, when they see their elected governments doing evil things, they display ribbons to show sympathy for the victims of the government’s policy. The whole process seems very silly.
I wonder how successful America would be in conducting its preemptive invasions around the world if average Americans began show more disrespect for the troops? Perhaps if my own father had shown disrespect for me joining the Air Force I might not have joined? But all he cared about was getting another hungry mouth out of the house. Wonderful country, isn’t it?
I love your analogy, siouxrose.
Oops, sorry, I was trying to delete above comment intended for another article.
Capitalism is the destroyer of all that is good.
Well, there the media goes again.... Reporting that the barn doors have been closed after the horse galloped away. It's kinda sad to see another geriatric contender for pres running on his delusional belief that the usa is an exceptional nation. Like Reagan, McCain is too old for the job. Like Quail, Palin is too young and dumb. I wonder if Johnny boy is suffering from dementia, or if he's really a Manchurian Candidate. Either way, the world's doomed if he's the next presidunce.
afganistan... government says - "getting bi laden"
reality... "pipeline for the to-be-stolen-shortly iraq oil"
iraq... government says "remove saddam and wmd"
reality... "oil for said pipeline"
war on terror... govenrment says "make america safe"
reality... need boogeyman to justify removing civil rights under the constitution, and keep the mic flush with cash.
Of course the surge worked. That was built into the definition upfront. The problem is that pundits and study groups assume it had something to do with what was going on in Iraq. It didn't. It was meant to provide a talking point for whomever (at the time) might be the Repub nominee.
Actually, they changed thedefinition after. The original definition was to stabilize Iraq (so that the government could pass the oil law, giving the oil to US companies.
They later changed it to "violence down". And Iraqis are still dying daily. It's just ignored by the corporate media. I watch INN news and they report Iraqi deaths daily.
Ethnic cleansing was the excuse for intervening in Bosnia, remember, Democrats?
and the US bombed Yugoslavia, thereby precipitating the predicted ethnic cleansing.
But this is worse.
The surge is working just like McCain said it was safe for him to walk through a Baghdad, market with a flak jacket; about 100 troops for body guards;and a couple of helicopters!
Bribing the insurgents was brilliant! Would someone care to take a guess at exactly how much the bribe cost or is that another figure that will be found unaccountable? Were they just handed a fistful of bills or did they sign up and get their pocket change through a reliable system with full accounting. Another mission too complicated for the folks back home to understand. Sorry, but we are talking about OUR money here and we have every right to demand accounting that is honest, above board and transparent. Accounting for our tax dollars is in no way a breach of 'security.' It is time to reduce the size of our military to something that is managable and prudent, something that can be 'drowned in a bathtub along with lobbyists.
Not to mention the fact that as part of the surge, the US has put insurgents on the payroll on condition that they not kill US troops. Are eternal payoffs part of the definition of "success"?
Both sides will agree that any success will have a cost attached to it. To the lib-left bleeding hearts crowd, it is better that the cost be measured in dollars than blood. And to the conservatives there is an upside because the former (once and future) insurgents are taking payment in US dollars which works for the US economy since when they get back to their insurgery and need bullets to kill American soldiers they'll have to buy them from US manufacturers. Bipartisanship you can believe in!
Yes, probably eternal payoffs ARE to be made, much as Egypt receives billions of dollars a year from the U.S. for not attacking Israel.
All ideologies aside, all politics aside, the United States is broke, and simply cannot afford to continue garrisoning the earth. We are now 11 trillion dollars in debt. We borrow money to prosecute warfare and a militarized foreign policy. The debt is unpayable. As soon as Communist Red China, Japan and Saudi Arabia decide to stop purchasing U.S. debt its all over. When you cannot afford fuel for your aircraft carriers and airplanes you cannot continue to make war. We are close to financial collapse but all our "leaders" care about is more war, more military bases, more boondoggle weapons systems. It'll end before long and it won't be pretty. But at least it'll end.
-- EKATON --
Well, there's always the option of stealing the money to run an empire. But given how well the surge has done at helping the usa get oil out of Iraq, I don't think the us gov't should persue that course.