What a surprise. Will the day ever come when Iraq isn’t the most pressing story on the front page? We can only hope, but there are some hopeful signs.
I heard yesterday about a group of Army sergeants who are publicly speaking out against the abuses our war policies have heaped upon them. I wrote not long ago about the Pentagon brass who have threatened to refuse orders if escalation continues.
One of today’s headlines is: Secretary of Army Won’t Extend Tours. The gist is that the Secretary recognizes that the recent hike of tour time from 12 months to 15 months has stretched our troops too far making it not feasible to consider extending their tours to even greater lengths.
A companion story discusses the National Intelligence Estimate that Congress forced out of our spy agencies. Interestingly, the headline touts the report as bolstering Bush’s surge strategy, but a close read reveals at least six very pessimistic points like increasing violence, Al-Qaida’s ability to conduct high-profile attacks, increasing insurgency, lack of Sunni support for the Iraq government, inadequacy of Iraqi forces to hold back insurgency on their own, and an increasingly precarious Iraqi government unlikely to gain popular support. Bush’s strategy, though, is supported by only one point that being that “recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against Al-Qaida, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization would place security improvements at risk.” – very diplomatic language.
The first sentence of that supportive paragraph seems to contradict the earlier statement about Al-Qaida’s ability to conduct attacks, but let’s not quibble over details. Let’s just hit the high point. Within the only supportive statement given lies a question to which I’d like to hear a straight answer. What that last bit in quotations says to me is that if we pulled troops out, we might lose “security improvements” gained from the surge. What the entire body of the report said to me is that the “security improvements” we have gained from our entire experience in Iraq have been negative and those gained from the surge have been insufficient to make us expect that we can attain stability there. All we can expect, this report says to me, is to maintain the status quo as it has existed since the surge began. That is not enough to justify any further loss of American lives.
At best the surge moved the bulk of insurgent action out of Baghdad and into other cities and even the countryside. Al-Qaida is still strong there even though it wasn’t even present in Iraq until we generated the insurgency. For God’s sake -- Saddam Hussein governed over a country much safer and quieter than the one we created by unseating him.
Get our troops out and make available to the Iraqi government one-half of the dollars we have committed to war for their rebuilding efforts. Let them then either fight over who gets access to that money, in which case we don’t release any to them, or put together a coalition capable of governing over the expenditure of those funds to rebuild their own country in their own way.
As to the extension of our troops’ tours of duty in Iraq – cut them back to 12 months and reinstitute the draft. Do that and you’ll begin to get the active participation of the majority of American citizens who will surely be outraged by the government’s attempt to force their sons and daughters to put their lives on the line for this neo-con war.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
P.S. I will not be writing for the next week. I will instead be enjoying the peace and quiet our neighbors to the north enjoy every day. I also expect to catch a fish or two! While I’m gone, please go ahead and solve the mess BushCo has made of things. I’d sure like to come back to the country I love instead of the one that makes me ashamed.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Schools and the Military
Last year the Peace Network of the Ozarks approached the Springfield school board to point out that their process for allowing students to opt out of military recruitment efforts in the schools posed at least two problems. First it punished students who opted out by removing their names from all external contact lists so that if they elected not to have their personal information given to military recruiters, they would also be excluded from the yearbook, the school directory, colleges and universities, employers, etc. Secondly, it was obviously not in accord with the law in that the law allows students to opt out of military contact alone by submitting any form to that effect to the school administration. But the school insisted that students must use the school’s form which forced them out of all contact and not just contact with military recruiters.
This year the school board published their “revised” policy. Now students who opt out get to chose what they are excluded from, but still can’t be excluded only from military recruitment. Instead, they can choose not to be included in “District Purposes” like the yearbook, school directory, athletic programs, etc. or “Non-District Purposes” including commercial interests, businesses, employers, military recruiters and others. (i.e. colleges and universities, etc.) Or they can opt out of both categories.
I want this to be perfectly clear: PNO never argued that military recruiters should not be allowed in schools or that students who want to talk to recruiters should be prevented from doing so. We understand that the military is necessary. We understand that it offers career opportunities as well as opportunities for service to country.
Our position is simply that because the law (not the Sunshine Act which has nothing at all to do with this even though the school board cites it in their opt-out form, but the education funding bill which forced schools to accept recruiters if they want to receive federal funds.) clearly states that students may opt out of military recruitment efforts by submitting any statement to that effect. Why does the school board insist on lumping military recruitment with other contacts that are likely to be seen as desirable by all students instead of simply complying with the law without penalizing those who elect to act in accord with it by opting out of recruitment efforts? The result of their approach is forced exposure to military recruitment instead of willing participation, and that is the basis of our objection to the “new” policy. It is far too little, far too late.
Speaking of military and schools, a new twist is schools partially funded by the Department of Homeland Security. Joppatowne High School is the first school in the country to offer a curriculum titled Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness in a magnet program. Way to go BushCo; got to protect der Fadderland. My only hope is that if they make them wear uniforms they won’t include brown shirts.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
This year the school board published their “revised” policy. Now students who opt out get to chose what they are excluded from, but still can’t be excluded only from military recruitment. Instead, they can choose not to be included in “District Purposes” like the yearbook, school directory, athletic programs, etc. or “Non-District Purposes” including commercial interests, businesses, employers, military recruiters and others. (i.e. colleges and universities, etc.) Or they can opt out of both categories.
I want this to be perfectly clear: PNO never argued that military recruiters should not be allowed in schools or that students who want to talk to recruiters should be prevented from doing so. We understand that the military is necessary. We understand that it offers career opportunities as well as opportunities for service to country.
Our position is simply that because the law (not the Sunshine Act which has nothing at all to do with this even though the school board cites it in their opt-out form, but the education funding bill which forced schools to accept recruiters if they want to receive federal funds.) clearly states that students may opt out of military recruitment efforts by submitting any statement to that effect. Why does the school board insist on lumping military recruitment with other contacts that are likely to be seen as desirable by all students instead of simply complying with the law without penalizing those who elect to act in accord with it by opting out of recruitment efforts? The result of their approach is forced exposure to military recruitment instead of willing participation, and that is the basis of our objection to the “new” policy. It is far too little, far too late.
Speaking of military and schools, a new twist is schools partially funded by the Department of Homeland Security. Joppatowne High School is the first school in the country to offer a curriculum titled Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness in a magnet program. Way to go BushCo; got to protect der Fadderland. My only hope is that if they make them wear uniforms they won’t include brown shirts.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Weapon of Math Deduction
My wife – decidedly not me - is the mathematician in the family, but even I could see the beauty in this one from the September/October issue of Mother Jones magazine. If you are a statistics wonk, you might really get off on this.
Following a great article detailing how incompetence within the Bush administration is rewarded by promotion cleverly titled, “heckuva job”, was this little blurb by Jen Phillips, (Mother Jones, September/October, 2007, p.22. reprinted here without permission):
************************************************************************
Weapon of Math Deduction
It’s not the size of the Army; it’s how you use it. That’s the conclusion of a recent study by Patricia Sullivan, a professor at the University of Georgia, who has devised a simple yet effective statistical formula that correctly predicts the outcome of 78% of the conflicts plugged into it.
Pr = probablility that an intervening nation will achieve its goals
x, y = variables
ß = magnitudes and direction of variables’ effects
i = intervention in question
Sullivan’s formula has several variables, including war aims, troop levels, alliances, and length of conflict. She found that as troop levels increase, the probability of successfully achieving political aims through force decreases.
Sullivan tracked 122 military interventions involving the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the U.K. between 1945 and 2003. Overthrowing governments is easy, but using military intervention to get nations to do what you want has only a 17% chance of success. Propping up foreign regimes works just 40% of the time.
***********************************************************************************
I’m sure I haven’t said this more than two million times, but isn’t it time we figured out a better way?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Following a great article detailing how incompetence within the Bush administration is rewarded by promotion cleverly titled, “heckuva job”, was this little blurb by Jen Phillips, (Mother Jones, September/October, 2007, p.22. reprinted here without permission):
************************************************************************
Weapon of Math Deduction
It’s not the size of the Army; it’s how you use it. That’s the conclusion of a recent study by Patricia Sullivan, a professor at the University of Georgia, who has devised a simple yet effective statistical formula that correctly predicts the outcome of 78% of the conflicts plugged into it.
Pr = probablility that an intervening nation will achieve its goals
x, y = variables
ß = magnitudes and direction of variables’ effects
i = intervention in question
Sullivan’s formula has several variables, including war aims, troop levels, alliances, and length of conflict. She found that as troop levels increase, the probability of successfully achieving political aims through force decreases.
Sullivan tracked 122 military interventions involving the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the U.K. between 1945 and 2003. Overthrowing governments is easy, but using military intervention to get nations to do what you want has only a 17% chance of success. Propping up foreign regimes works just 40% of the time.
***********************************************************************************
I’m sure I haven’t said this more than two million times, but isn’t it time we figured out a better way?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The War on Terror is a Total Loss
The War on Terror is a Total Loss
Several interesting stories have emerged lately dealing with the effectiveness or lack of same with BushCo’s “surge” in Iraq ranging from yesterday’s News-Leader headline “Higher Troop Levels Sap Army” through all the buzz about whether or not Congress should wait for General Patraeus’ report from Iraq before taking action to cut support for the war.
NPR’s Morning Edition today reported on a survey that sheds a lot of light on the subject. In the most extensive poll of “experts” yet, over 100 members of the foreign policy establishment including liberals, conservatives, ambassadors, past presidential advisors, etc. were polled to determine their feelings about the effectiveness of our present efforts in the “War on Terror”. The result:
84% say the U.S is not winning war on terror
91% believe Americans are in greater danger now than before we invaded Iraq
53% believe that events on the ground in Iraq are the primary problem with our efforts against terrorism
66% of the conservatives polled believe that our policies are ineffective against terrorism
The conclusion was that the surge is having a negative impact on the war on terror. As we have known all along, the experts now proclaim that the war on terror is a total loss. Asked whether we should invade Iran 80% said no. They believe that Pakistan is the most likely source of nuclear weaponry for terrorists – not Iran.
So why has Bush been so vocal about Iran? Simply because it fits more neatly into BushCo’s idea of how to control the Middle East. Confronting Pakistan with the reality of the threat their possession of nuclear arms and technology poses to the world would be diplomatically difficult. They are considered an ally, but their weapons capabilities combined with their loosey-goosey government make them a potential provider of arms to undesirables and they certainly are providing a haven for them right now - clearly a situation beyond the skills of the meat-ax diplomatic approach BushCo wields. It is much simpler to point at a loose cannon, though relatively powerless, leader in Iran and convince people that Iran is the big threat. Besides, controlling Pakistan would provide no leverage on behalf of Israel. Nor would it add to our control of the region’s oil.
Never mind the real terrorist threat. That has never been BushCo’s real focus. If an option doesn’t show a way to produce some income for the BushCo buddies but does propose a very difficult problem solving situation, you can bet that this administration will ignore it no matter how valuable it might be in the long run.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Several interesting stories have emerged lately dealing with the effectiveness or lack of same with BushCo’s “surge” in Iraq ranging from yesterday’s News-Leader headline “Higher Troop Levels Sap Army” through all the buzz about whether or not Congress should wait for General Patraeus’ report from Iraq before taking action to cut support for the war.
NPR’s Morning Edition today reported on a survey that sheds a lot of light on the subject. In the most extensive poll of “experts” yet, over 100 members of the foreign policy establishment including liberals, conservatives, ambassadors, past presidential advisors, etc. were polled to determine their feelings about the effectiveness of our present efforts in the “War on Terror”. The result:
84% say the U.S is not winning war on terror
91% believe Americans are in greater danger now than before we invaded Iraq
53% believe that events on the ground in Iraq are the primary problem with our efforts against terrorism
66% of the conservatives polled believe that our policies are ineffective against terrorism
The conclusion was that the surge is having a negative impact on the war on terror. As we have known all along, the experts now proclaim that the war on terror is a total loss. Asked whether we should invade Iran 80% said no. They believe that Pakistan is the most likely source of nuclear weaponry for terrorists – not Iran.
So why has Bush been so vocal about Iran? Simply because it fits more neatly into BushCo’s idea of how to control the Middle East. Confronting Pakistan with the reality of the threat their possession of nuclear arms and technology poses to the world would be diplomatically difficult. They are considered an ally, but their weapons capabilities combined with their loosey-goosey government make them a potential provider of arms to undesirables and they certainly are providing a haven for them right now - clearly a situation beyond the skills of the meat-ax diplomatic approach BushCo wields. It is much simpler to point at a loose cannon, though relatively powerless, leader in Iran and convince people that Iran is the big threat. Besides, controlling Pakistan would provide no leverage on behalf of Israel. Nor would it add to our control of the region’s oil.
Never mind the real terrorist threat. That has never been BushCo’s real focus. If an option doesn’t show a way to produce some income for the BushCo buddies but does propose a very difficult problem solving situation, you can bet that this administration will ignore it no matter how valuable it might be in the long run.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Monday, August 20, 2007
Why Do I Do This?
I try to write something for this blog every weekday, but many days I ask myself why. It’s a bit of a hassle, you know. My anger at BushCo fuels me with a new affront at least twice a week, but even that gets thin. I feel like I’m repeating myself because they keep doing the same stupid, greedy, arrogant things time and time again. Disgust is another motivator because so much is going on that no one, including our elected representatives seems to recognize what’s happening as the anti-constitutional struggle that I believe it is.
Frustration is another because, living here in the heart of Repulsican territory, I see so many people who are daily being ripped off by the system who violently and volubly support it, and I find that hard to understand. Fear drives me sometimes, too. Not fear for my personal well-being, but fear for the loss of the honor and freedom that this country enjoyed for most of my lifetime.
As has become too frequent an occurrence for me, Friday night offered too many hours and too little sleep. After a wonderful evening spent at a dinner party with six of the finest people I know, I did not sleep well for some unknown reason. One thing I’ve learned from insomnia is that the very early morning hours often provide the best movie watching TV has to offer. So . . . 4:00 am found me watching Charles Lawton in a superb old movie called “This Land is Mine” in which he played an outwardly cowardly school teacher who knowingly sacrifices his life under the Nazis by publicly espousing the rights of man and exposing the tyranny supported by his neighbors who are quietly going along with it – people like the butcher who was enriching himself by selling black market meat to the upper class while aware that others in the community were starving and the mayor who collaborated with Hitler’s henchmen in return for the power they granted him.
The speech with which he condemned himself eloquently pointed out that each of us is at least two people. He classified himself as brave on the inside – fantasizing about things he knew he could never really do – and cowardly on the outside – acting more often out of timidity than personal strength. Ultimately, he made his community aware that by becoming saboteurs - sabotage being the means by which just people fight against tyranny - by making the point that not fighting against tyrants was to support them, and that to profit by their tyranny was not only to support it, but to add to the suffering of ones fellow man. Any occupier, he said, must maintain control, either by allowing local authorities to appear to exercise power or by force.
When he spoke of the Nazi method of allowing local “authority” to appear powerful, I couldn’t avoid the parallel to our current insistence that we cannot continue to support Iraq’s new government unless they sign away the rights to their oil futures. When he spoke of saboteurs, I couldn’t help but draw the conclusion that what the Nazis called saboteurs, we call terrorists. When a country is occupied the way Germany occupied many countries and as we have occupied Iraq, the citizenry is forced to choose between supporting the occupiers and fighting the occupation.
When a democratic government is being taken over from the inside, citizens must also choose between supporting and fighting the take over. My perception of BushCo’s efforts to destroy the balance of power created by our Constitution, is that it is ultimately a coup. If all power is invested in the executive branch as they have so fervently sought to do; if all power is held by one political party as they have so fervently sought to do; if all criticism is portrayed as unpatriotic as they have so effectively done time and time again; if, in America, political dissent is treated as treason, then democracy is in grave danger of being replaced by tyranny.
Ultimately, that is what keeps me at this keyboard. Please understand that I have no delusions of grandeur. I don’t think that my writing is going to be significantly instrumental in combating the BushCo tyranny. I recognize that it is more of a personal catharsis for me than anything else.
At the same time, though, there is a tiny kernel of hope that someone among those who read these words might be more eloquent and less of an outward coward than I; someone who will spread our convictions further than I am able to do; someone who might ultimately stand before one of our tanks and talk the patriotic soldier driving it into recognizing that his or her support for this administration’s methods is not patriotic at all and stepping down; someone who might, through personal strength and convictions truly change the world.
Could that be you?
(BTW, one of Friday’s dinner guests whose daughter is in the military reported that a great many (she thought a majority) of the soldiers in her daughter’s unit are aware of how viciously they are being used and are in favor of impeachment. The Peace Network of the Ozarks will hold a demonstration on Wednesday, August 22 called “Honk for Justice: Impeach Bush-Cheney”. They will be at the corner of Battlefield and Glenstone from 5 to 6 pm. If you are in the area, please let the courage of your convictions lead you there. Afterward, thanks to the work of Sharon Ash, there will be a meeting to generate action for the establishment of a cabinet level Department of Peace at 7:00 at the Library Center on S. Camplbell.)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Frustration is another because, living here in the heart of Repulsican territory, I see so many people who are daily being ripped off by the system who violently and volubly support it, and I find that hard to understand. Fear drives me sometimes, too. Not fear for my personal well-being, but fear for the loss of the honor and freedom that this country enjoyed for most of my lifetime.
As has become too frequent an occurrence for me, Friday night offered too many hours and too little sleep. After a wonderful evening spent at a dinner party with six of the finest people I know, I did not sleep well for some unknown reason. One thing I’ve learned from insomnia is that the very early morning hours often provide the best movie watching TV has to offer. So . . . 4:00 am found me watching Charles Lawton in a superb old movie called “This Land is Mine” in which he played an outwardly cowardly school teacher who knowingly sacrifices his life under the Nazis by publicly espousing the rights of man and exposing the tyranny supported by his neighbors who are quietly going along with it – people like the butcher who was enriching himself by selling black market meat to the upper class while aware that others in the community were starving and the mayor who collaborated with Hitler’s henchmen in return for the power they granted him.
The speech with which he condemned himself eloquently pointed out that each of us is at least two people. He classified himself as brave on the inside – fantasizing about things he knew he could never really do – and cowardly on the outside – acting more often out of timidity than personal strength. Ultimately, he made his community aware that by becoming saboteurs - sabotage being the means by which just people fight against tyranny - by making the point that not fighting against tyrants was to support them, and that to profit by their tyranny was not only to support it, but to add to the suffering of ones fellow man. Any occupier, he said, must maintain control, either by allowing local authorities to appear to exercise power or by force.
When he spoke of the Nazi method of allowing local “authority” to appear powerful, I couldn’t avoid the parallel to our current insistence that we cannot continue to support Iraq’s new government unless they sign away the rights to their oil futures. When he spoke of saboteurs, I couldn’t help but draw the conclusion that what the Nazis called saboteurs, we call terrorists. When a country is occupied the way Germany occupied many countries and as we have occupied Iraq, the citizenry is forced to choose between supporting the occupiers and fighting the occupation.
When a democratic government is being taken over from the inside, citizens must also choose between supporting and fighting the take over. My perception of BushCo’s efforts to destroy the balance of power created by our Constitution, is that it is ultimately a coup. If all power is invested in the executive branch as they have so fervently sought to do; if all power is held by one political party as they have so fervently sought to do; if all criticism is portrayed as unpatriotic as they have so effectively done time and time again; if, in America, political dissent is treated as treason, then democracy is in grave danger of being replaced by tyranny.
Ultimately, that is what keeps me at this keyboard. Please understand that I have no delusions of grandeur. I don’t think that my writing is going to be significantly instrumental in combating the BushCo tyranny. I recognize that it is more of a personal catharsis for me than anything else.
At the same time, though, there is a tiny kernel of hope that someone among those who read these words might be more eloquent and less of an outward coward than I; someone who will spread our convictions further than I am able to do; someone who might ultimately stand before one of our tanks and talk the patriotic soldier driving it into recognizing that his or her support for this administration’s methods is not patriotic at all and stepping down; someone who might, through personal strength and convictions truly change the world.
Could that be you?
(BTW, one of Friday’s dinner guests whose daughter is in the military reported that a great many (she thought a majority) of the soldiers in her daughter’s unit are aware of how viciously they are being used and are in favor of impeachment. The Peace Network of the Ozarks will hold a demonstration on Wednesday, August 22 called “Honk for Justice: Impeach Bush-Cheney”. They will be at the corner of Battlefield and Glenstone from 5 to 6 pm. If you are in the area, please let the courage of your convictions lead you there. Afterward, thanks to the work of Sharon Ash, there will be a meeting to generate action for the establishment of a cabinet level Department of Peace at 7:00 at the Library Center on S. Camplbell.)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Friday, August 17, 2007
Put Away the Flags
Put Away the Flags
I’ve written several blogs on my belief that nationalism is as dead a concept as nation-states. Today offers just a bit more on the theme, thanks to Howard Zinn
Last July, my blog on the Wiphala I flew on the front porch in place of the flag on the 4th caused a bit of a stir when the local paper decided to publish it. The flap hit home when my electrician, one of my favorite people, told me that his wife was offended by my statement that I was embarrassed by our flag. Of course, the paper printed only a couple of paragraphs of a much longer blog, so I tell myself that she wouldn’t be as upset with me if she had read the whole thing.
At any rate, today I offer the little essay below. Written by Howard Zinn, a historian with a bent toward accuracy rather than the victor’s revisionism, I hope this piece will go further to explain why I feel as I do.
Put Away the Flags
http://www.progressive.org/media_mpzinn070106
By Howard Zinn
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to
war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-selling "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
I’ve written several blogs on my belief that nationalism is as dead a concept as nation-states. Today offers just a bit more on the theme, thanks to Howard Zinn
Last July, my blog on the Wiphala I flew on the front porch in place of the flag on the 4th caused a bit of a stir when the local paper decided to publish it. The flap hit home when my electrician, one of my favorite people, told me that his wife was offended by my statement that I was embarrassed by our flag. Of course, the paper printed only a couple of paragraphs of a much longer blog, so I tell myself that she wouldn’t be as upset with me if she had read the whole thing.
At any rate, today I offer the little essay below. Written by Howard Zinn, a historian with a bent toward accuracy rather than the victor’s revisionism, I hope this piece will go further to explain why I feel as I do.
Put Away the Flags
http://www.progressive.org/media_mpzinn070106
By Howard Zinn
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to
war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-selling "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Thursday, August 16, 2007
HUGO CHAVEZ, VENEZUELA AND AMERICAN IMPERIALISM
For years I have marveled at how easily our government is able to influence the thinking of its citizenry. I fell for it as a kid to the extent that it led me willingly into the service during the Vietnam debacle. It was toward the end of my service in the Army, though, that I began to see through it.
Everyone has epiphanies. My most important came in a mess hall on Fort Ord one morning as I sat sipping coffee with a couple of other non-coms. A radio was on. I hadn’t paid much attention to it but then Simon and Garfunkel came on with “Seven O’Clock News”, and I suddenly saw through the smoke and mirrors to the clarity of understanding that my peers were offering themselves up for nothing.
That began a long and still continuing effort to see through the official lines at least enough to understand their duplicity if not always to deduce the true motives behind those mirrors.
One of the simplest techniques our government uses is to begin denouncing the leader of another government or the complete government through occasional articles about how vile they are. By the time the public reads four or five such articles, the seed is firmly planted, so the government can more openly condemn the perceived “enemy” and even gain public support to attack them.
(BTW, the same tactic is used to promote political candidates in this country. Back when W was governor of Texas, I remember seeing a very small article in the paper that said little more than that there was a rising political star of great promise named George W. Bush and that savvy wonks expected he might be president one day. It was a Karl Rove trial balloon that led to our present miserable state.)
This link http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17706.htm will take you to an article that sheds a great deal of light on the subject, and reveals quite a lot about the U.S.’s current target - Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
If you read everything you can about this man, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything that casts him as dangerous. He is not militarily oriented. He has not built a massive army or sought nuclear weapons. He has armed his military, but I believe that to be defensive rather than offensive. He has not threatened to invade any other country. He has not offered to support terrorism in any way outside of supporting the civil war that has been raging in class-divided Colombia since the 50s. Yet, as I pointed out in another blog recently, his country is listed along with North Korea, Iran, and Cuba as the top American enemies.
(To get see on of the government’s propaganda sheets on this, follow this link: http://www.homelandsecurityus.net/countries/venezuela/venezuela%20n%20korea.htm.)
What, since the “Cuban Missile Crisis” has Cuba ever done to endanger the U.S.? What, beyond the “link” the homeland security paper tries to establish between Chavez and North Korea, has Chavez or the Venezuelan government ever done to endanger the U.S.? The answer is very simple and the same in both cases. Venezuela and Cuba are both opposed to American control of their economies. Chavez and Castro have both striven to use the wealth of their nations (precious little in Cuba’s case thanks to American embargos preventing their profiting from the tourist and international sugar and tobacco trades) for the good of their people instead of for the benefit of U.S. corporations. In the eyes of the American government there can be no greater sin.
The whole foofarah is always about the same thing. Communism was globally unacceptable – though never really practiced – because it wouldn’t mesh with free wheeling capitalism. Socialism is among our dirty words because it ideally focuses on the little guy instead of the big guy.
We are supposed to hate Hugo Chavez because he has used his nation’s oil wealth to raise the standard of living for the poorest of his people. The homeland security article referenced here talks about the dissatisfaction of the Venezuelan people with Chavez’ government as evidenced by his being ousted after rioting broke out in the streets. The fact is that the “riots” were financed and orchestrated by the U.S. and big money Venezuelans seeking to regain control of Venezuelan oil. The “ouster” was immediately reversed because the people of Venezuela wanted Chavez back. He is a democratically elected leader who enjoys at least a 60% satisfaction level among the people of his country.
His desire to control all of South America as portrayed in this article is, in truth, an effort to form an alliance among South American countries to maintain local control of their resources rather than sign them away to American and Western European corporations. He has not actually shown any sign of wanting to take over his neighbors as this article purports. His opposition has been to NAFTA and CAFTA and other attempts to coerce S. American governments into submission to our idea of a free market– opposition I share.
Tactics like the article cited here have been used by our government to unseat many elected leaders in Central and South America throughout our history. (Cuba in 1898 and the 1950s– yes, we actually started the chain reaction that led to Castro, Nicaragua in 1909, Honduras in 1911, etc. etc. Read “Overthrow” by Stephen Kinzer for a complete list.) Let’s not let them get away with it this time.
If you aren’t already, become informed on this stuff. Check Chavez out. If you can find a real reason to fear him, I’d like to hear about it, but I’m betting you won’t. If you can’t find a reason to fear him, fear for him and do what you can to spread the word that he is being slammed into oblivion by our government for political and economic reasons. In my view the world needs a lot more Jimmy Carters and Hugo Chavezes and a lot less George Bushes.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Everyone has epiphanies. My most important came in a mess hall on Fort Ord one morning as I sat sipping coffee with a couple of other non-coms. A radio was on. I hadn’t paid much attention to it but then Simon and Garfunkel came on with “Seven O’Clock News”, and I suddenly saw through the smoke and mirrors to the clarity of understanding that my peers were offering themselves up for nothing.
That began a long and still continuing effort to see through the official lines at least enough to understand their duplicity if not always to deduce the true motives behind those mirrors.
One of the simplest techniques our government uses is to begin denouncing the leader of another government or the complete government through occasional articles about how vile they are. By the time the public reads four or five such articles, the seed is firmly planted, so the government can more openly condemn the perceived “enemy” and even gain public support to attack them.
(BTW, the same tactic is used to promote political candidates in this country. Back when W was governor of Texas, I remember seeing a very small article in the paper that said little more than that there was a rising political star of great promise named George W. Bush and that savvy wonks expected he might be president one day. It was a Karl Rove trial balloon that led to our present miserable state.)
This link http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17706.htm will take you to an article that sheds a great deal of light on the subject, and reveals quite a lot about the U.S.’s current target - Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
If you read everything you can about this man, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything that casts him as dangerous. He is not militarily oriented. He has not built a massive army or sought nuclear weapons. He has armed his military, but I believe that to be defensive rather than offensive. He has not threatened to invade any other country. He has not offered to support terrorism in any way outside of supporting the civil war that has been raging in class-divided Colombia since the 50s. Yet, as I pointed out in another blog recently, his country is listed along with North Korea, Iran, and Cuba as the top American enemies.
(To get see on of the government’s propaganda sheets on this, follow this link: http://www.homelandsecurityus.net/countries/venezuela/venezuela%20n%20korea.htm.)
What, since the “Cuban Missile Crisis” has Cuba ever done to endanger the U.S.? What, beyond the “link” the homeland security paper tries to establish between Chavez and North Korea, has Chavez or the Venezuelan government ever done to endanger the U.S.? The answer is very simple and the same in both cases. Venezuela and Cuba are both opposed to American control of their economies. Chavez and Castro have both striven to use the wealth of their nations (precious little in Cuba’s case thanks to American embargos preventing their profiting from the tourist and international sugar and tobacco trades) for the good of their people instead of for the benefit of U.S. corporations. In the eyes of the American government there can be no greater sin.
The whole foofarah is always about the same thing. Communism was globally unacceptable – though never really practiced – because it wouldn’t mesh with free wheeling capitalism. Socialism is among our dirty words because it ideally focuses on the little guy instead of the big guy.
We are supposed to hate Hugo Chavez because he has used his nation’s oil wealth to raise the standard of living for the poorest of his people. The homeland security article referenced here talks about the dissatisfaction of the Venezuelan people with Chavez’ government as evidenced by his being ousted after rioting broke out in the streets. The fact is that the “riots” were financed and orchestrated by the U.S. and big money Venezuelans seeking to regain control of Venezuelan oil. The “ouster” was immediately reversed because the people of Venezuela wanted Chavez back. He is a democratically elected leader who enjoys at least a 60% satisfaction level among the people of his country.
His desire to control all of South America as portrayed in this article is, in truth, an effort to form an alliance among South American countries to maintain local control of their resources rather than sign them away to American and Western European corporations. He has not actually shown any sign of wanting to take over his neighbors as this article purports. His opposition has been to NAFTA and CAFTA and other attempts to coerce S. American governments into submission to our idea of a free market– opposition I share.
Tactics like the article cited here have been used by our government to unseat many elected leaders in Central and South America throughout our history. (Cuba in 1898 and the 1950s– yes, we actually started the chain reaction that led to Castro, Nicaragua in 1909, Honduras in 1911, etc. etc. Read “Overthrow” by Stephen Kinzer for a complete list.) Let’s not let them get away with it this time.
If you aren’t already, become informed on this stuff. Check Chavez out. If you can find a real reason to fear him, I’d like to hear about it, but I’m betting you won’t. If you can’t find a reason to fear him, fear for him and do what you can to spread the word that he is being slammed into oblivion by our government for political and economic reasons. In my view the world needs a lot more Jimmy Carters and Hugo Chavezes and a lot less George Bushes.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
