Continuing to follow the thread of the response to a response to Michael Moore’s “Open Letter to President Barack Obama” — One email exchange later…
It begins here with a comment, in reply to what I wrote, made by Mr. Lurtsema.
***
> I appreciate your response, although I do take issue
> with what appears to by a holier than thou attitude
> with a suggestion of my being empty headed. That said,
> I’ll take that as a miscommunication. Civil dialogue
> rather than name calling is much more interesting.
***
It is not you, particularly, for I hardly know anything about you, that
I’m calling empty headed. That being said, I do consider boneheaded the
arguments typically put forward in support of both the Iraq and the
Afghanistan adventures in military exercise. (I use the term “argument”
most loosely here, to characterize what are most often a haphazardly
organized set of knee-jerk, thought-free responses and prejudices, rather
than actual well-though-out ideas supported by reasonable argument, or
informed by fact.) I call these arguments empty-headed because they are.
If a person so strongly identifies with them that he or she feels painted
by the broad brush of dismissal, then so be it. For the time being let us
allow ourselves to assume you are an exception.
***
> I was sent into harms way by our government when I was
> a poor and somewhat pissed off boy. I still question
> the merit of where and why I was sent. Truth be known,
> I have no idea why I was sent. I went because I said I
> would. When you agree to become a spearhead, you stab
> whatever you are pointed toward or you have a good
> chance of ending up dead.
***
I also served during wartime. I was lucky not to have to go through
what many I know have done. Being in a theatre of war, against my
will (like yourself, having gone because I had given my word to
fulfill an obligation), I reserved the right to look around and pay
attention to where I was, and why I was there–even then, when I was
much younger than I am now. I particularly noted who stood to gain
and who stood to lose, and the people who were sent “into harms way”
(as the current journalistic cant has it), and who were carefully
arranged to be far, far away from any possible danger.
***
> There should be an implicit trust in the government
> that decides to send you or your child into harms
> way. Unfortunately, I long ago lost trust in my
> government. Because of that, I opposed every measure
> that set us on middle-eastern soil from 1991 forward.
> I was appalled that we invaded Grenada and Panama . I
> was deeply saddened at the loss of my brother Marines
> lives to a truck bomb 1982, and I was ashamed of my
> country’s support for a dictator in Iran before that.
***
I am truly sorry for your loss. I am sorry for many losses like it. So
much so, that on memorial day and on veteran’s day, I DO NOT (with few,
specialized, exceptions) participate in the state-sponsored exercise of
fakey national mourning which goes out of its way to tell us that “these
brave men” died “to defend our country”, when typically they were
required to die for rich men’s schemes and rich men’s dreams,
transacting, in the words of President Calvin Coolidge, the business of
America, which ever remains, as he pointed out in a brief moment of
honesty, business. Let us not forget, shall we, that the post-civil-war
US military history is one of more-or-less ongoing, often covert, armed
action some place or another in the world. (Undoubtedly, because we are
corresponding by computer, you must be acquainted with the record, or
can access it as readily as I. It is there to find.) Let us not try to
explain this fact away as some sort of exercise in national defense.
When I’ve visited memorials and gravesites of those who have died,
invariably I have come away with the conviction that it remains ever and
always a travesty for a young man (or now, young woman) to die in the
flower of his (or her) youth so that better profits might be assured to
nameless stockholders, and more power accumulate in the hands of upper
management. It is hard enough to bear when a young soldier dies during
warfare in a war for a worthy cause, as in the second world war, or the
civil war. It is an abomination for a young soldier to die so that
wealthy, old men are able to make more money or put pressure upon a
recalcitrant foreign leader who refuses to obey, or to advance their
political or military careers.
Add to this, my outrage at exercises in national stupidity–which includes
the Reagan administration’s stationing of the Marines in Beirut as well as
the present exercise in no-bid contracts we are now engaged upon–and you
can begin to understand my not-so-peaceful take on the current
war-party-sponsored arguments for the ill-conceived and deceptively
executed Afghan and Iraq adventures.
***
> However, after 9/11, I believed and still believe we
> should go into Afghanistan to decapitate the terrorist
> threat. I was appalled that Bush decided on invading
> Iraq – but I was not surprised either. He did name
> Iraq and several others Terrorist nations that told the
> world that he take care of them. That said, I am still
> for making the people responsible for 9/11 pay for
> their actions, no matter where that leads, whether to
> the caves of Afghanistan or the halls of power right
> here in the United States.
***
There is so much that might be said here. Let’s begin with the favorite
reason for everything in 21st century political America, namely, the
“look-the-other-way” terrorist attack on 11 September 2001. Setting
aside certain anomalous details originating within the Bush
Administration surrounding the events of that day, lets take the attack
at face value as wholly and entirely perpetrated by unassisted foreign
nationals sponsored by ‘Soma bin Laden. Ok. So stipulated. We all know
the US response. The US chose “war in our time” for decades. Here is the
appropriate response: We (along with the entire world who was at that
time behind the US, almost entirely) had a duty to hunt down and
prosecute these criminals who committed violent crimes against humanity.
(Note the designation: Crimes against humanity, not simply crimes or acts
of war against the US, for people of all nationalities and cultures died
in the attacks.) Had we done this, while at the same time isolating
Afghanistan for harboring the criminal cabal who planned and sponsored
these and other terrorist acts, and had we purposefully tried the
perpetrators before the world court (a la Nuremberg), all the terrorists
associated with the attack, including, possibly, Osama bin Laden, would
now be sitting in jail for life. The US would stand tall in the world’s
eyes as a wise nation and to-be-reckoned-with force for peace. Terrorist
enemies of peace would be increasingly brought to justice. More and more
it would be hard to avoid naming terrorists for what they are–violent
wreckers who choose to attack the innocent–instead of allowing them to
remain heroes and fighters for freedom in the minds of many angry and
oppressed people. This was our nation’s chance to do the right thing. It
didn’t happen. Why? Lots of reasons, of course, but one of the main
reasons is that the US arrogantly chooses again and again to reach for
the military gun when confronted with events like this, when they
originate overseas.
Note the sharp contrast with the Oklahoma City bombing perpetrated by
Timothy McVeigh and friends. That was rightly seen as a criminal act.
The perpetrators were found, tried in open court before the eyes of the
world, convicted according to the established facts and punished. (Note
that we did not start a war with McVeigh’s home state for harboring him,
or round up and perpetually imprison his known associates that had no
knowledge of his actions beforehand–some of which harbor rather extreme
“militia movement” views about the US government.)
The POINT of the comment is this: Acts of war happen between
nations. We attacked Afghanistan because they had harbored a
criminal prior to his involvement in a particularly public crime,
and they did not hand him over after a purposefully, ridiculously
short deadline. Our “successful” attack upon this nation happened
with the collusion and active cooperation of tribal interests and
factions within the country who helped us for their own reasons, and
who don’t particularly like or admire our nation, our cultural
traditions, our way of life, or our reasons for being in their
country. (Why should we expect them to think well of the US? Our
nation invaded theirs for its own reasons, not their reasons.
Further, what we want is not what they want, right or wrong. Also,
even if American troops stay in Afghanistan for decades–a neocon
defense contractor’s wet dream–by the historical measure of things,
we will have been there for an eyeblink, and Afghani lifeways will
remain largely untouched by US lifeways.)
***
> For all of my cynicism toward the men and women who run
> this country, from Washington to Wall Street, I still
> believe in America . Don’t get me wrong, I don’t
> believe in an America that bullies others and isn’t a
> good neighbor. I believe in an America that really
> does stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness, and just for me and mine but for all
> people. That includes the right to go in peace and
> follow a different path – what else could liberty mean?
***
I’m not sure what “believing in America” has to do with supporting the
present military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m not sure what the
phrase “believe in America” here means. Does it mean one believes in the
existence of America? Does it mean believe in the original ideals of the
founders as articulated in the Constitution? Does it mean belief in what
history shows mainstream American culture did with those ideals? Your
subsequent comments seem to suggest that you, personally, believe in the
ideal of individual human liberty. This certainly is praiseworthy, but
I’m not sure what that has to do with debating the pros and cons of a
particularly troublesome policy.
Note that I take pains to emphasize this point perhaps beyond what is
quite necessary. I do that because the implication (and often the outright
assertion) is often made that to question these (or any chosen) military
action is to somehow “hate America” or perform some other (presumably
base) act of anti-patriotism.
Do you have any idea how tired, tired, tired, I am of prominent names on
the right–who by their every demonstrative act and decision show how
little they believe in the ideals which inspired and began the United
State of America–incessantly wrapping themselves in the flag when
questioned by those who don’t agree with their agenda, suggesting that to
not agree is to not “believe in America”?
***
> I am not in the position to debate tactical or
> strategic perspectives on the ground in Afghanistan .
> This may all be an oil war or some other kind of war.
> None of that would surprise me. What I see as an
> interested bystander is charge and counter-charge,
> divide and conquer, squabbles over power, and the world
> marching ever toward more bullshit. The people we have
> elected threw us into the middle of a war. We elected
> them, and we are as responsible for the prosecution of
> that war and the outcome of that war as they are.
> Crying about how we are going to lose, like Russia or
> Alexander doesn’t help and it may be harmful. When
> engaged in a fight, you figure out how to win or how
> not to lose; you don’t whine about defeat.
***
I do not agree that because we elected (given the events in Florida and
Washington DC in 2000, even that is in question) a particularly bad
administration, who made particularly bad and corrupt decisions, that we
are therefore forced to stick with these decisions long past any point
where the utility of these decisions is clearly shown to be nil. Our
current efforts in the Middle East continue to run counter to our best
interests. We are NOT succeeding in Afghanistan, and our present
“success” in Iraq can be only defined so, as a success, by comparing the
situation now, with the mess we created in the dark years of 2006 and
2007. Some promise that with more troops in Afghanistan we will be able
to “defeat” our “enemy” and likewise create a “success”. Often, these
same folks suggest it will take a ten or twenty year US deployment to
accomplish this. This is nonsense, even criminal nonsense.
***
> Furthermore, if you have been in the shit, you know
> that what is going on is never like what is being
> explained to information consumers. Hell, the
> perspectives of the people on the ground changes
> depending on the theater of operation, the particular
> shit hole valley they happen to be fighting in,
> individual experience, and perhaps on whether or not
> the person on the ground got their mail call that day
> or not.
***
Have you read of the morale by US troops on Afghanistan? It isn’t good.
They don’t believe in the mission, either. It would seem only those in
government who don’t want to lose face, senior military officers always
conscious of career opportunities, defense contractors who stand to gain,
and the chickenhawk pundits at Faux News are the only ardent believers in
the Afghanistan adventure that remain. Nearly everyone else is either
tepidly in support (because they are told to be over and over again in the
media), or are actively against continuing the adventure. The polls don’t
show strong support, and often show a majority against. As I said, the
troops, particularly the combat troops, think the mission is
ill-conceived. Most Americans, if they stop shopping or watching football
long enough to answer the question, don’t shout a ringing endorsement.
Couple this with the fact that the Taliban aren’t going to vanish even
if we manage to (temporarily) “defeat” them–they are a social-religious
movement, for chrissake!–it is hard to see any reason for not simply
bringing the troops home, now. The Taliban will likely take back a part
of the nation, perhaps all of it. THAT IS NOT OUR AFFAIR. Even if we
want it to be, it is not our affair.
If we are afraid of what they might do to us–though it is hard to see
how–we are in a much better position to protect ourselves against covert
terrorist attack over here, than over there.
(Really, though, this misses the entire point–the best strategy to take.
I’ll get to that.)
***
> All the information that you and I have is second,
> third, or fourth hand – and properly filtered and
> dispensed through news media for safe consumption.
> Then you give it the meaning you give it, based upon
> what is important to you and I give it the meaning that
> I give it, based upon what is important to me. And,
> neither of us will be entirely right or entirely
> wrong. Or, more precisely, we will probably both be
> wrong, since we are making conclusions based on
> inaccurate information and/or disinformation.
***
Think: This is as strong an argument for leaving as it is for staying. If
everything we know is false or lies, one would have to ask “why”? Who
would stand to gain, who to lose, by dunning us with disinformation? Why
is so much of the message machine dedicated to keeping the US “in the
fight”? Again, who stands to gain, and who to lose? Please note that
questioning or dissenting information about these conflicts is much harder
to come by than information in support.
Further, it’s a bit specious to suddenly suggest, once a critic of a
policy starts making cogent points, that the information about the
situation is faulty. Up to the moment before the suggestion that all was
not well with the plan, everything seemed fine with the information. Why
the sudden doubt of it all?
Undoubtedly, there are details about being in Afghanistan that we don’t
know, just as there are details about living here on the edge of Bush
Alaska you don’t know about, or details about living in Anchorage I don’t
know about. (This principle applies to nearly every example a person could
pick.) Still, we are able agree in the main, unless we have a hidden agenda
(such as corrupt contracts or the like) which tells us we can’t afford to
do so, based upon the things we DO know about, as to the big picture of
what can and cannot work in solving key problems. As ever, the “fly in the
ointment,” here and there, is the hidden agenda, is the secret plan, is
double dealing careerism and the like.
***
> One of the things that I do with my spare time is teach
> self-defense. I’m not just talking about karate at the
> local strip mall, but practical self-defense. In my
> world view there is really no need for violence in most
> all cases. Violence is a tool of last resort. There
> are so many things that one can and should do to
> prevent violence. Don’t show up where the violence is
> or is likely to be. Don’t insult people. Don’t steal
> their belongings. Don’t threaten people. If someone
> engages you in violence, do whatever can be reasonably
> done to de-escalate and/or run away. Be strong, and
> don’t look like a victim. That is what I teach, and
> that is the way I live. I’ve successfully gone through
> my entire life (since I left the Marine Corps 30 years
> ago) without being in a violent confrontation. So, I
> have been personally successful at peace. I also know
> that on occasion, situations arise where all of the
> things that one can do to avoid a violent confrontation
> fail. There are situations where violence is the only
> answer. So, I have trained myself to do that well,
> although in my civilian life I have never been violent
> even once.
> However, if you find yourself in a violent
> confrontation (whether or not you did everything in
> your power to avoid it or not), the fact remains that
> you are in a violent confrontation. You don’t have to
> like it, and nobody does. You can have philosophical
> and moral ideals that tell you that violence is bad –
> most of us hold those types of beliefs. It doesn’t
> matter, you are in the shit and you can survive or you
> can die. It is perfectly acceptable not to fight back
> and hope to survive. It is also acceptable to do
> whatever is necessary to defend yourself and survive
> the confrontation—and you can still die. Any choice is
> viable; the best choice (from my perspective) is the one
> that ensures the survival of the most people – including
> those who are perpetrating the violent confrontation.
> The legal and moral choice is to do the least amount of
> damage required to defend yourself or your loved ones.
>I don’t think the current situation is much different.
***
As laudable as I find your sentiment and your practice, I must hasten to
point out that personal self-defense and the reasons to lead a nation to
war (or, in these instances, project violent power in presidential
executive-branch military adventurism), ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An
analogy between the two–from the personal to the national–leads one
astray. We are not talking about being attacked a single force, here or a
nation state. We aren’t talking about a military attack at all. We are
talking about an egregious act, possible under highly specialized
circumstances (some might suggest, suspiciously specialized
circumstances), of very public vandalism using airplanes against
skyscrapers. The violence authorized under the circumstances–the
“violence” which is “the only answer” isn’t one of military action, but of
criminal policing–investigation, forensics, “most wanted” lists, rewards
for “information leading to…”, etc. Admittedly, aggressive, tireless,
world-wide, international policing can sometimes become very violent–but
policing is what is called for, just the same, followed by apprehension of
the suspected criminals, and public trial by just due process.
I suggest that the best way of all in confronting the kind of act we saw
on 11 September 2001–”the best choice… that ensures the survival of
most people…” is NOT military action which empowers the very causes and
forces we wish to weaken or destroy, and NOT military action which itself
shamefully kills many more innocents than died in the initial 11 September
attacks, but tireless enforcement of the law which at the same time
endorses and strengthens the idea behind and practice of international law
and justice.
(From my point of view, a strong tradition of international
cooperation led by the US over the past 8 years would have readied
the US to lead the world in confronting the very real danger of
runaway global warming–which will happen if the mean global
temperature rises above 2 degrees Celsius over historical mean
temperatures–at a time when we’ve already heated things up by
almost a degree. Nearly everything our species, and the nations of
the world, have confronted up to now is “small potatoes” compared to
facing the changes and challenges we must make to avoid a likely
runaway-warming human-extinction event. Wouldn’t it have been nice
if the US had enjoyed an 8-year record of leading a strong
international coalition of nations confronting an international
problem, instead of what we have instead, a disgraced nation,
accurately portrayed in the eyes of so many of its fellow nations as
a hypocritical torturer, political jailer and blundering, arrogant
confederacy of dunces, known best for “going it alone” and/or
pressuring “the willing” to go along when it doesn’t like what it
hears from its peers?)
***
> I suspect that your desire for a peaceful world that is
> safe for people to live in is similar to my desire for a
> peaceful world. For instance, I recognize that peaceful
> resistance is brave indeed. And, there are no few who
> stand by that with courage, even in the face of
> tremendous horror. History has shown that it works
> pretty well when dealing with people who are able to
> see you and I as real persons with rights. I commend
> it, want to nurture it, want to see it grow, and want
> to protect it.
***
Actually, my desire in this particular instance–of US policy in the
Middle East–is for it not to be so stupidly shallow, short-sighted and
ultimately destructive. In the larger sense, yes, I am deeply committed to
peace (even if my particular version of it is fierce), but for now I’d
settle simply for A LOT LESS WAR.
***
> I say protect, because I am too cynical to believe that
> peaceful resistance will work against an enemy who
> refuses to see you and I as real persons with rights.
> I doubt people like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao would have
> been slowed down for a second, or would have lost a
> moments sleep over slaughtering a few million pacifists
> if they got in the way of their plans. And, there are
> evil fuckers in the world today just like them. Some
> of them have power, they live in boardrooms and caves,
> or they run governments around the world (including
> ours I am afraid), and some of them flew airplanes in
> the world trade center and killed 3000 of our neighbors.
***
We will always have criminals and bullies as part of our story. What we do
is confront them, say no to them, stop them, and isolate them. What we
wisely DON’T do in the name of stopping such people is become like them,
only worse. In so many instances (even in some of those you invoke above)
the early success of a bully has been because we’ve given the bully our
early support.
Again, though, returning to the particular issue in question here, the
Afghan adventure, there is no bully. There is a loose coalition of
independently working, and sometimes covertly funded groups willing to
work under the umbrella of a name invented for them and given to them by
CIA analysts (for that is where “Al Qaida” comes from). There is the
ghostly Osama, who is known to have helped to fund the planning and
execution of certain terrorist actions. In other words, we have criminals,
the naively frustrated who are capable of exploitation, and the righteously
angry who don’t care what they do.
What we DON’T have is an enemy in any meaningful military sense of the
word. We aren’t confronted by a single, motivated force. Those arrayed
“against” us are not unified, and much of their anger arises directly
from our present misunderstanding (if misunderstanding it be, rather
than much darker exploitation) of what we are facing and our actions
confronting it.
The proper model for confronting the international terrorism problem is
the criminal law enforcement model, and NOT military action. (Of course,
law enforcement sells many, many fewer big military contracts to the war
profiteers.)
***
> It is not that I am a war monger or a greedy old man who
> is willing to send children to die for my want. I am
> also a father and a grand father. I don’t want to see
> anybody’s child die for stupid reasons, and I sure do
> not want to see my children die either.
>
> That said, I am a realist that recognizes that there
> are people in the world who don’t care about peace,
> don’t care about our children, and will use the desire
> for peace as a tool to weaken those they want to steal
> from, control, or kill. How do I know that? Because,
> that is precisely what I would do.
***
Please explain to me what is “being realistic” in doing something stupid
over and over and over again, even as it continues not to work? I don’t
get that part. Maybe you can help me.
Might I suggest that the hallmark of a fool is to refuse to be instructed
by experience?
I’m not standing up here for doing nothing. I’m standing up for doing
the right thing, the correct thing, and that which will actually
confront and defeat the problem. (And, I am standing up for confronting
those who would profit mightily from the present course of action.)
***
> Our cultures have been in one clash after another since
> the Greeks defeated the Persians 2500 years ago. Even
> the Crusades are recent to middling history. Do you
> really believe for a moment that if we simply brought
> our soldiers, sailors, and marines home that that would
> be the end of it?
***
This “clash of cultures” argument is another of the war party’s favorites.
There is so much that can be said in criticism of it. Much of this has been
said better than I can do, and in significant detail. The arguments can be
easily found in the journals and on the web, by those who want to find
them (in other words, those interested in reading views that don’t
precisely mirror their own). I need not duplicate them here.
All I will ask is this: We confront many cultures around the world who
don’t agree with us, who don’t like us, and with which we are able to
find various was of establishing a modus vivendi. Why do we only see the
clash with this culture at this time? Could it be they have something we
want, we have made ourselves need? Could that thing be found in the
acronym for the original proposed name for the Bush-sponsored invasion
of Iraq, namely, Operation Iraqi Liberation? (Don’t forget the
possibility of a pipeline across a pacified Afghanistan! We might be
approaching or past Global Peak Oil, but that doesn’t mean we can’t
fight over the remaining stocks.)
***
> Finally, just because I have reached different
> conclusions than you, does not mean I haven’t thought
> about it as thoroughly as you. May I suggest you not
> fall into the fundamentalist trap of believing that
> everyone who thinks differently than you is a dolt,
> immoral, or somehow lacking. That is the beginning of
> a slippery slope. Its also annoying.
***
I am a practical man. For me the essence of a thing is in what
happens–what is seen, heard, thought of, said. It isn’t the different
conclusions drawn by the supporters of the Afghan (and Iraq) adventures
that I dismiss, it is their shaky foundations, the results we are able to
readily observe, and the creepy justification for about any institutional
evil in the name of the War on Terror.
If I am annoying, it is because after 8 years of this crap, I am more
than annoyed. Eight years ought to be enough time to show someone that
something is not working. As we divert our attention, deplete our
treasure, bleed our own people and bleed the innocent people of other
nations, the world gets dangerously hotter and hotter, threatening to
destroy the lives of everyone’s grandchildren. If I’m a bit testy about
this, as a veteran, grownup human and parent myself, I think I’ve earned
the right.
There is this, too: I believe that the rules of speaking out in a public
forum say that anything a person says is fair game. I expect people
reading my words (at, for example, http://strike2012.wordpress.com, or
http://stayinginalaska.blogspot.com, or
http://byhanddelivered.blogspot.com) to hold my feet to the fire even as I
do the same to them.
Annoying or not, my motto is: If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the
kitchen.
Again, I say, though, that I hardly know you. I do think the arguments for
these “wars” (war-like actions) are doltish. That isn’t to say I think you
are a dolt. I don’t know you. You may be, you may not be.
