Faces of War

A student stopped by my office this summer to ask for some help using the online scheduler. When I was typing in her information and I asked her to spell her user name, she started spelling like this: "Charlie, Alpha..." I realize now that my head jerked around in surprise, and I reappraised this attractive, twenty-something woman. She looked a little abashed at her "spelling" and explained that she just got back to the states. Tentatively, I asked where she had been stationed. She said, "Iraq." I shook her hand and told her, "thank you," and I managed not to tear up (as I usually do) until she left my office. We returned to our business, and I got her scheduled.

I won't forget her, or my writing student, whose reserve unit was called up in 2001--I haven't seen her since. Or the student whose father's unit was called to Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. Or the newlywed, whose husband's unit was called up last year, and who was having trouble with assignments because of her anxiety issues. Or one of our campus leaders, whose unit was called up last fall when he was a Freshman Studies intern.

That's just a few of the faces I can put on the troops who have so decidedly out-performed the president and his administration in this ill-begotten and mismangaged war.

This is an interesting article on how veterans of Bush's war respond to the efforts to end the war and bring our troops home safely: "Rallies not taken as personal slight: Vets see protests as attack on policy."

Winds of the Old Days

The difference a generation makes. Once it was my generation who faced the possibility of combat. I didn't have brothers, but by the time my husband's brothers' lottery numbers were drawn, the belief was widespread that Vietnam was a fiasco--our government wasn't willing to do what it would take to win it, and wasn't willing to lose it--and more and more people found it obscene to keeping sending more and more young men into it. One brother got a "bad" number--a number likely to come up that year--and he'd be drafted. Their dad helped the unlucky brother get into the National Guard so he would stay stateside and out of combat.

Now it's our children's turn. My grandchild is 17. Almost all my students are 18-21. I think many people won't examine how they feel about Bush's war until it gets personal--and with so few troops, it's not likely to get personal for most Americans. The question is, would you trust your child's life to leaders who have been so wrong so often--and who can't even provide protective gear? And that's why Cindy Sheehan has the ability to force us to face that question--she's one of the small minority of Americans who have been asked to sacrific for Bush's war. This gives her an authority to press the president on the issues he has stonewalled, like his hypothetical exit strategy.

But Bush can't tell her he'll bring the troops home, because he has no intention of bringing the troops home, no matter how this war goes. Permanent military bases staffed permanently with American troops--a primary, yet covert, reason he attacked Iraq--a plan the people of the Middle East recognize and oppose, with their lives, if necessary, but that Americans have not yet grappled with. It's just too painful to accept how this one president has changed what it means to be an American--because that changes each one of us for whom "American" is part of our self-identity. We used to despise the U.S.S.R. when that old world bully rolled over eastern Europe to build bases and control resources. And now, if we face the bully, we have to see that it is us. For many of us, that is so painful that we resist, with anger, anyone who tries to show us what Bush has led us to become.

My favorite anti-war song from the old days

Perhaps it's because I have a 17-year-old grandchild, or perhaps it's the in-coming college freshmen I've been meeting with all summer, or perhaps it's just that I work all day with college-aged students--or perhaps it's that old anti-war protestors never die--or all of the above--

In any case, once again I find myself resenting the old men who send out fine young people to die for reasons the old wankers dare not reveal.

Judy Collins sang this--perhaps I love it because it combines politics and religion, and that appeals greatly to me.

The Story of Isaac
Leonard Cohen (and Judy Collins)

The  door it opened  slowly,
my  father he came  in,
I was  nine  years  old.
And he  stood so tall ab ove me,
his  blue eyes they were  shining
and his  voice was  very  cold.
He  said, "I've had a vision
and you know I'm strong and holy,
I must do what I've been told."
So he  started up the  mountain,
I was  running, he was  walking,
and his  axe  was made of gold.    

Well, the trees they got much smaller,
yes, the lake a lady's mirror,
when we stopped to drink some wine.
Then he threw the bottle over.
Broke a minute later
and he put his hand on mine.
Thought I saw an eagle
but it might have been a vulture,
I never could decide.
Then my father built an altar,
he looked once behind his shoulder,
he knew I would not hide.

You who build these altars now
to sacrifice these children,
you must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
and you never have been tempted
by the devil or the Lord.
You who stand above them now,
your hatchets blunt and bloody,
you were not there before,
when I lay upon a mountain
and my father's hand was trembling
with the beauty of the word.

And if you call me brother now,
forgive me if I inquire,
"Just according to whose plan?"
When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must,
I will help you if I can.
And may I never learn to scorn
the body out of chaos born,
the woman and the man.
Have mercy on our uniform,
man of peace or man of war,
the peacock spreads his fan.

Shameful war

From Bob Herbert's 8/10 column:

Senator John McCain -- "It [is] a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay."

McCain is writing about Vietnam, but this quote clarifies why so many people compare Bush's war with Vietnam.

Permanent U.S. military bases: Why Bush is willing to sacrifice our children

TPM Cafe's Book Club has featured Larry Diamond, author of squandered victory, who from January to April 2004 served as Senior Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. The polls are showing that a majority of Americans are unhappy about Bush's war and a BIG majority are unhappy with Bush.

Diamond's discussion of the importance of the issue of permanent U.S. military bases to the people of the Middle East is essential to understanding the insurgency and its widespread support. Tennie Mark has said all along that Bush started the war with Iraq because he wanted to establish permanent military bases in the Middle East . And I've written several posts about that on this blog.

Diamond provides the most cogent explanation of how this intention to build permanent bases has fueled the insurgency and asks why Bush isn't being pressed on this by Congress and the so-called "liberal" media (that refuses to press Bush on any of his pretenses and deceptions).

I've pasted a section of Larry Diamond's post below--but I encourage you to read the entire forum on Diamond's book.

Aug 09, 200
Larry Diamond
.....
One of the issues that most baffles me in a way is the question of long-term military bases in Iraq. It's now pretty clear that the ambition to establish long-term American military bases in Iraq, in order to secure the Persian Gulf region, contain Iranian expansion, and enable us to draw down or withdraw altogether our forces in Saudi Arabia, was an important motivation for going to war. When we pressed so vigorously and relentlessly in the drafting of the interim constitution for the easiest possible means of ratifying a treaty, it became clear to me that we were looking to smooth the way for an eventual treaty with Iraq giving us long-term basing rights. 

At the same time, we know from a variety of sources, private as well as public, that intense opposition to US plans to establish long-term military bases in Iraq is one of the most passionate motivations behind the insurgency. There are many different strands to the violent resistance that plagues Iraq: Islamist and secular, Sunni and Shiite, Baathist and non-Baathist, Iraqi and foreign. The one thing that unites these disparate elements is Iraqi (or broader pan-Arab) nationalism-resistance to what they see as a long-term project for imperial domination by the United States. Neutralizing this anti-imperial passion-by clearly stating that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely-is essential to winding down the insurgency. 

There are four key elements to a political strategy for diminishing the violent resistance in Iraq. First, the Bush Administration must declare that the U.S. will not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Second, we should declare some sort of time frame (but not a rigid deadline) by which we think we can withdraw militarily-if Iraqi groups that are supporting or tolerating the violence will instead help build the new political order. Third, we need to talk directly to the (largely Sunni) political groups connected to the insurgency, some of which have been seeking to talk to the U.S. for almost two years. Fourth, we need an honest broker to help mediate these discussions and build confidence in the process; this might be a small international contact group including representatives from the United Nations and one or two of the European embassies in Baghdad.

The Bush Administration is refusing to take any of these four steps. It won't renounce the bases because it wants them. It won't consider any kind of timetable, even without fixed deadlines, even dependent on the cooperation of the other side, because it doesn't want to look weak, and it doesn't really know when Iraqi forces will be ready to assume the burdens of maintaining order (against an insurgency that is fueled in part by the lack of an Administration strategy). It has refused to talk to the insurgent groups because, again, it fears this being misinterpreted as a sign of weakness, and because, once you have said about the insurgency, "Bring them on," they are just "evildoers," what is left to discuss? They have taken steps to bring the marginalized Sunnis into the political process. The Sunnis have a place on the constitution drafting committee in large measure because of American pressure. I do give the Administration credit for that. But this is only the beginning of a political strategy.

The Bush Administration confronts a dilemma that it cannot resolve. We are bleeding in Iraq because of it. On the one hand, it clings to the geopolitical ambition-the dangerous illusion-that Iraqis will abide the establishment of long-term American military bases in Iraq, transforming their country into American ally from whose soil we could project military power throughout the region. Iraqis will not accept this by democratic means-not by a two-thirds vote of their parliament, not even by the more minimal simple majority that we were insisting on. Therefore, we would give up nothing of real value by declaring that we will not seek long-term military bases, but we would gain something enormously significant: the ability to erode the insurgency through political means.

What concerns me as much as anything is the listless state of our own democracy. Why have the Congress and the news media not effectively challenged the Administration on this issue? Why has the White House press corps not asked President Bush the obvious and urgent question, "Mr. President, do we seek long-term military bases in Iraq? If so, do you believe this strategic goal is worth the loss of more American lives in Iraq? If not, why don't you declare that we will not do so, so as to remove one of the most powerful political mobilizing grounds for the insurgency?" Why have the Congress and the media not challenged Secretary Rumsfeld: "Mr. Secretary, are we building permanent military bases in Iraq? What are our intentions there?"

Further Reading:
Larry Diamond's biography as a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution

"What Went Wrong in Iraq" by Larry Diamond.

--

How "war on drugs" hurts Americans

I've been reading the reports about the "meth epidemic" and wondering where these reporters have been for the last 25 years. I think I started seeing "meth" or powdered amphetamine (speed) in the late 70s. My son first got involved with illegal meth 20 years ago, when he was in the Marines. And our military continues to dispense speed to pilots and others who need the positive benefits--because it has many positive benefits.

In this opinion piece in the New York times, "Debunking the Drug War, John Tierney argues that the current media rave over the "meth epidemic" is overblown hype. Of course, that's what appeals to the gasp-entertainment that passes for "news" these days.

Amphetamines can certainly do harm and are a fad in some places. But there's little evidence of a new national epidemic from patterns of drug arrests or drug use. The percentage of high school seniors using amphetamines has remained fairly constant in the past decade, and actually declined slightly the past two years.

Nor is meth diabolically addictive. If an addict is someone who has used a drug in the previous month (a commonly used, if overly broad, definition), then only 5 percent of Americans who have sampled meth would be called addicts, according to the federal government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

That figure is slightly higher than the addiction rate for people who have sampled heroin (3 percent), but it's lower than for crack (8 percent), painkillers (10 percent), marijuana (15 percent) or cigarettes (37 percent). Among people who have sampled alcohol, 60 percent had a drink the previous month, and 27 percent went on a binge (defined as five drinks on one occasion) during the month.

And despite the horrible statistics on alcohol use, our society has survived the re-legalization of alcohol, as has all comparable societies in countries with comparable laws. In fact, alcohol, the ubiquitous drug, seems to have always been a problem for a percentage of the population, but that percentage remains fairly constant. The same is true for other drugs--a percentage has trouble with drugs, including alcohol, but that percentage stays consistant.

Also public opinion is turning on medical marijuana use. A growing number of Americans feels it is cruel and inconsistent to (a) allow people to legally smoke themselves into lung cancer, then (b) deprive them of marijuana, a useful and non-toxic drug that allows patients to tolerate chemotherapy--yet (c) allow them to legally drink themselves to death.

Bob brought to my attention an article in Texas Monthly, "Weed All about It" (the link takes you to a small exerpt that you can access without subscription), in which Gary Cartwright points out that the "drug war" provides jobs for powerful people who oppose decriminalization--people involved in the prosecution and incarceration of drug users. He also reports that powerful conservatives are supporting the decriminalization of marijuana.

In my social issues course, the textbook identified as "illegal services" crimes like drugs, gambling, prostitution. These do not involve criminals versus victims (i.e. "victimless"), nor do they involve coercion. These crimes involve illegal services that are sought by the "criminal."

When illegal services are lumped together with violent crimes, it's time to wonder who this lumping together serves. Cartwright argues that it serves the people who make their living from this conflation of crimes. This is a conflict of interest that is supported by government institutions and by the people who profit from keeping Americans afraid.

Flackbacks -- Vietnam

Crooks and Liars has video of the "Hardball with Chris Matthews" interview of the parents of Marine Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder who was among the 14 Marines killed in a single attack on August 4, 2005, in Iraq.

They report that their son was increasingly disturbed at the lack of progress, given the amount of military effort in Iraq. The military fights for ground that cannot be held, and that quickly reverts to enemy hands. There are not enough troops, the tactics are not sufficient for the situation, and we are not winning.

Bush's war has often been compared to the Vietnam War, but this interview brought it home to me. I graduated high school in 1966, so my cohort contributed many soldiers at the height of the Vietnam War. At 18, I believed that our country and our president wouldn't take us to war unless it had to be fought. Over the next two years, I came to believe that our country wasn't deployed troops in a way that would lead to victory. Instead, we were fighting without end in sight, and without signifigant gains.

In 1970, the movie Patton was released. I remember that it lead to my epiphany about the Vietnam War, that we needed a Patton who would protect his troops by fighting all-out to end the conflict and bring the troops home. Instead we had a war lead by politicians and a growing number of dead and injured, whose sacrifices brought no gains. To me, that disrespect for life was obscene, profane, and blasphemous. I thought we should either fight to win or bring the troops home. That war left the military broken--not enough people wanted to serve an institution that dishonored its own members.

And here we are again with Bush's war. The troops are maimed and killed to take a town, then they move on and can't leave the personnel to hold the town, so it reverts to the enemy. And the troops have to ask, why? Our troops are willing to sacrifice life and limb to win a just cause, but this politicians' war demands from them unending battle without significant gains or any end of combat within sight. And it's breaking the military again.

The Bush administration has reminded me of the Nixon years in so many ways, beginning with the carried-over crew from the Nixon administration, including Karl Rove and his CREEP-y dirty tricks. Bush's war is a replay of Vietnam, a lesson Bush never learned while he hoed hard down dissolution row.

I'd like to see a history book from 2025. Will it be known as Bush's War or Bush's Folly? Will he be tried for his war crimes against the American people? Will he ever face the consequences for his illegal war?

Imagine: A police officer tells a suspect to throw down his weapons or the police office will shoot. The suspect says he's unarmed and raises his arms. The police officer repeats that the suspect must throw down his weapons--or he'll shoot. The suspect repeats that he is unarmed. The police officer gives the suspect until the count of 30 to disarm. The suspect insists that he's unarmed, and just before the police officer reaches the number 30, he shoots and kills the suspect. It turns out the suspect was unarmed, just as he claimed. Will the police officer have to answer for this? Can the police officer escape inquiry by shifting the investigation--"Actually, I shot him because I believe he was involved with that kidnapping yesterday." And when it turns out the suspect wasn't involved in the kidnapping, the police officer shifts again, declaring that he shot and killed the suspect to bring peace to the mean and ugly streets.

Bush told Saddam to yield his weapons of mass distruction or the U.S. would attack. You know the rest. Bush will shift his rationalizations endlessly to evade his real reasons, because the U.S. public would not be willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters without a noble cause.

For a Christianist, Bush is singularly unwilling to repent or even to acknowledge his mistakes. This is a Christian nation, and we are willing to forgive the repentant sinner. Clinton was redeemed by his honest and sincere repentance, and he regained much of his lost stature. I just don't know that Bush is capable of either owning his mistake or owning the consequences. Or maybe Republican Jesus says it best.

"An eye for an eye" - for the record

Here is one of the favorite verses of the Old Testament Christianists (those who believe in Christianity, or Christianism):
Deuteronomy 19:21 (New International Version)
21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Leviticus 24:19-20 (New International Version)
19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.
Exodus 21:22-25 (New International Version)
   22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Okay, you caught me--I included the full context of that Exodus quote, when in reality the Old Testament Christianists NEVER quote Exodus 21:22, because it shows that the unborn product of a pregnancy is not covered by the "life for a life" law--it isn't a "serious injury"--it's just a civil matter, a tort. That sort'a sinks the whole embryo=personhood argument.

But back to the topic (if there is one): Then Jesus came along and changed that law--and this is where the Old Testament Christianists part company with those who follow Jesus. This is what the New Testament represents Jesus as saying:

Matthew 5:38-48 (New International Version)
    38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
    43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So seeking vengence, pay-backs, retaliation--that's not following Jesus. I'm going to extend that to mean that we don't go to war for retaliation, either.

Bush's war is a wicked war, any way you approach it. And George W. Bush is known as a Christianist because he professes he believes in Christianity (especially the do-over part), but his works don't indicate that he follows the passage above.

And while I'm in the Bible-quotin' mood, another passage that isn't heard much is the one that says you don't have to follow Jesus, but you do have to acknolwedge that there is a higher power. I've always understood these passages as meaning that it doesn't matter what language you use or what system of belief you profess or what name(s) you give to that highter power--you just need to profess your belief--you need spirituality to "belong to the kingdom"

Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:31-32).

Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:28-30).

And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven (Luke 12:10).

British perspective on Karl

I just read the Karl Rove profile in the Guardian:

In case you don't have time to read the entire profile, or don't want to register for the Guardian, here's the ending:

Alongside his ambition and fixation on politics he appears to have believed that the end always justified the means. At school debates he had a mountain of reference cards. Every debater on the team brought a shoebox of cards, but he would bring up to 10 boxes and dump them down, intimidatingly. A team-mate said "there wasn't a thing on 99% of them". He seems to have been a natural at what he called "pranks". Working on one of his first proper campaigns, aged 19 [in 1970], in Illinois, he infiltrated the Democratic campaign and stole its headed notepaper, which he used on the streets to distribute invitations to their HQ promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing".

Three years later, he was caught on tape boasting about such exploits to student Republicans; the party chairman at the time, Bush's father (George HW Bush) was so impressed he hired him as an assistant.

One of his menial jobs was to hand over the Bush car keys whenever George junior went to Washington. Rove's description sounds like the start of a love affair. "I can literally remember what he was wearing" he said of an occasion in 1973, "an Air National Guard flight jacket, cowboy boots, blue jeans. He was exuding more charisma than any one individual should be allowed to have."

Since that day, nothing has stood in the way of their political marriage: Bush's opponents have been smeared as lesbians (Ann Richards, the ousted Texas governor), crazed veterans with illegitimate Asian children (Senator John McCain) and cowards falsifying their war records (Senator John Kerry).

The dirty tricks out of the bag, Rove has been close at hand but leaving no discernible fingerprints. Until this week. For the first time in 32 years, he has been caught, and his survival now depends on the gratitude of his partner and protege in the White House.

As Robbie Burns put it,
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us!
This is how the British see us--and it's good to get some perspective.

What have we become?

Senator John McCain has nailed it, when it comes to the damage this Bush administration has done to the American identity--the identity each American uses in some way to form self-identity.

In Bob Herbert's column, McCain is praised for his response to arguments that the "detainees" in U.S. custody are not "prisoners of war" but are "terrorists" (a term that needs definining, see my earlier post). McCain's response is that it "is not about who they are. It's about who we are."

In further support of McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham's amendment to the defense bill, a letter from retired armed services personnel states that the treatment of detainees, supported by the White House, endangers our enlisted personnel and "is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations."

When you add this to the way Bush's attack of Iraq has changed the identity of each American, you see that the damage to our future generations is staggering. As I pointed out in the linked post, one of the reasons Americans are so drawn to the cowboy image is that the cowboy hero has the capacity for violence but restrains that violence according to a code of honor. Bush, despite his attempts to identify with the cowboy, violated that code of honor when he attacked without provocation a disarmed country. Bush is not a cowboy hero, but a gunslinger, or more accurately, an oilman--the Texas icon that displaced the cowboy and whose allegiance is to profit and the power of "might makes right" rather than the code of honor.

Since the president is the figurehead of the United States, these changes, if unchallenged, will affect the self-concept of all Americans, but especially the younger generation who is still forming self-identity. The only way to combat this corruption of what it means to be an American is to name the dishonor and shame the dishonorable.