Sleepycatz

The Grand Diversion

The United States Senate, the most deliberative body in the world, this week affirmed,in a bold move, by a vote of 72 to 25 that

A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

Just to be clear, the advertisement did not suggest that Gen. Petraeus received his bronze star under false pretenses or behaved questionably under fire; yet, these assertions were made quite regularly against a decorated officer by those now rushing to defend the honor of the military. Additionally, the doggerel presented in the MoveOn ad did not go so far as to suggest that Gen. Petraeus is an enemy of the United States, as so many others have suggested, using a similar lyrical device, of a sitting United States Senator. There is an inherent hypocrisy in the Republican discourse being foisted on America. Under the rules of this discourse proponents of the administration are always presenting logical facts while those who question the administration are always ‘playing politics’ or worse, unpatriotic cowards. The fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate failed to vote against the measure only reinforces how successful this hypocrisy has become.

Meanwhile, on the same day that the US Senate voted to condemn the uncouth folks at MoveOn.org, three American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq. That’s three Americans who will never see their family or loved ones again; three Americans who cannot pursue their dreams and hopes; three Americans who cannot participate in debate over Iraq.

Of course, unsatisfied with the bloodshed in Iraq, on the same day the condemnation of political speech was approved by the Senate another was introduced by supporters of Gen. Petraeus, one which would allow the President open authority to extend his war to Iran. And it can be guaranteed that anyone questioning the need to offer up more human suffering in sacrifice for the honor of of military will be dismissed as unamerican or defeatist.

Badges? We Don’t Have No Stinking Badges

The Iraqi government said today that it would revoke the license of the private security firm BlackwaterUSA, due to the reckless actions of its employees. Blackwater is is best known for supplying the contractors who were killed in Fallujah — an event which sparked a major siege of the city costing thousands of lives. Lesser known, of course, is their construction of private military bases in California and Illinois for training, and their deployment to New Orleans shortly after Katrina. The problem with the Iraqi government announcement is that Blackwater does not currently have a license to operate in Iraq to revoke. According PSCAI, Blackwater started the certification process, but hasn’t completed it. Blackwater operates in Iraq under contracts provided by the State Department and CIA, and it can be guaranteed that neither one of those organization is going to take its queues from the government of Iraq. So what’s all the hubbub about then? The news may suggest that the Iraqi government is getting tired of the wild west antics of private security contractors, or it may suggest that the Iraqi government is trying to show they are not the obedient puppies of American corporate interests. Nonetheless, very little, if anything will change with the Iraqi government’s announcement. If nothing else it is simply a diversion to suggest a more just reality where none really exists; for — you would imagine — in a just world a government would be able to expel a private foreign army from its soil. But not in Iraq.

WTF

I just watched President Dopey deliver his latest missive on why we need to stay in Iraq. The entire logic of his speech was that since the military is fighting in Iraq; we need to stay in Iraq. All of a sudden it seems that our military is running US foreign policy. I got this same feeling watching Gen Petraeus testify to congress. Even Mike Huckabee, on MSNBC, made the same argument: we cannot leave Iraq because this would adversely effect the military. Where in our Constitution does it give any power to the Armed Forces to run foreign policy? When did President Bush decide that he runs foreign policy simply because he commands the armed forces?  The only honest moment in this speech occurred when the President alluded to the ‘changing mission’ of our troops. In essence, he was saying that America will never leave Iraq. That our presence there is permanent. Once again, we are being led — unwillingly — into becoming an empire.

Quick Thoughts

I have been fighting a nasty cold for the past few days, so I have been a bit out of it. Anyway, while working today I made the mistake of listening to Gen. Petraeus’ testimony before the House. I was struck by the blatant duplicity and obfuscation of the report he offered. His, and his supporters, constant over-hyping of the al-Anbar lie and ‘massaging’ of data was just appalling. Watching Petraeus on c-spann gave me flashbacks to my youth when I saw Gen. Westmoreland peddle his spin before congress nearly forty years ago. I have written before that I do not believe this administration will ever leave Iraq for geo-political reasons, but their need to keep up this facade that ‘we are making progress’ or that ‘we are fighting al-Qaeda’ is just infuriating. The entire purpose of todays farce was to create enough confusion to maintain the political bickering, ensuring that congress will be too befuddled or afraid to act.

I am also aware that today is the day before the anniversary of the events of September 11th, 2001. Six years later my heart remains saddened and troubled for those who lost loved ones and who continue to suffer in the aftermath. But I also find myself dreading the exploitation of anniversary. I fully expect the President and his supporters to again make use of this tragedy to aggrandize themselves and their disastrous policies. To watch these men exploit their own incompetence to seize more power and sacrifice more soldiers and waste more money is just galling. If these people ever had any sense of decency or respect they would just keep quiet this anniversary and let it pass without trying to exploit the fear or jingoism they have mired themselves  in for the past six year. But I doubt they have they have the humanity to keep their mouths shut.

Why America Will Not Leave Iraq

I don’t usually write about the situation in Iraq primarily because I feel that there are so many others who express my own feelings more eloquently then I seem capable of. Also, my views on the situation are a bit more pessimistic than those of most activists and pundits, and I have been told that it’s not helpful to voice such views to the public. Recently, however, there has been a lot of consternation about Gen. Petreaus’ upcoming report to congress and the question of will American forces stay in Iraq or leave. To understand the answer to this question — and US-Iraq policy in general — we have to look back nearly five years ago to the surge to war and understand the reasons and hopes surrounding the initiation of the invasion and the political philosophy which made it a necessity for this administration.

When the Bush administration came to power it had a single foreign policy goal: to establish America as the dominant world power of the 21st century. Seeing the only threat to this goal as the world’s lesser superpowers (Russia and China) the administration focused heavily in its first year on the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system (aka SDI) and on excising itself from the 1972 ABM Treaty. A deployed anti-missile system, they believed, would have given America a strategic advantage in pressing its will throughout the world for years to come. Then came September 11th, 2001.

When the administration states that 9/11 changed everything, for them, it is no hyperbole. Their notions of projecting a strong, nearly invincible, America on the world were called into question that day. The way the administration viewed it, America’s allies and enemies had seen a small, disorganized, group of fanatics cause massive damage to America’s infrastructure and economy with little money or effort.

The administration responded first by inflating the perpetrators of the attacks. For instance: as Jason Burke has pointed out, prior to 2001 al-Qaeda was a loose association of violent jihadi who received much of their funding from a Saudi businessman named Osama bin-Laden, and who rarely, if ever, used the name al-Qaeda to identify themselves. The administration, however, quickly elevated the perception of al-Qaeda as a powerful leading Islamist terrorist organization. A definition al-Qaeda was egotistically eager to adopt.

The administration’s next responded by prioritizing its original goal of a world dominated by America; however, direct action was now necessary in addition to simple coercion. In 2003 during an interview with Charlie Rose, columnist Thomas Friedman said:

I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.
We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.

Despite Friedman’s lack of eloquence, his viewpoint was shared by most Americans, but particularly so by those who believed in the one-world, one-superpower philosophy of the administration. In order to save-face and press America’s will around the world a strategic invasion was needed. Afghanistan provided little global strategic value, but Iraq was the goldmine. The perfect choice to begin a Pax-Americana.

Read the rest of this entry »

Army of God

Among conservative evangelicals there has often been a subtle argument that in order to defeat Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, Americans must adopt the same religious fervor seen in our enemies. The most overt display of this philosophy was seen recently in Jesus Camp, where children’s minister Becky Fischer remarked: “I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam. I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan. . .”

Fischer is not alone in her desire to bring religious zeal to our conflicts. For some time there has been an on going effort to evangelize those in our armed forces. Now comes Operation Stand Up (OSU). OSU is an evangelical group focused on providing entertainment and morale to US soldiers serving in Iraq. As they say on their site:

We perform these shows specifically for military soldiers. Our shows are specifically geared to be intriguing to the hard core soldier. Spouses and children are welcome but we make no bones about the fact that we are speaking directly to the soldiers of the greatest fighting force of in the world. No “mamsie pamsie” stuff here! Even our ventriloquist is rated one of the top 5 in the world and has soldiers busting a gut with laughter.

If all OSU was offering our soldiers is a Sargent Slaughter ventriloquist act one could hardly object, except perhaps on grounds of comedic taste. But speaking of their upcoming tour to Iraq the founder & CEO of OSU stated:

We are most excited about this crusade and yes we are willing to go to the front lines with a very encouraging word straight from God, to our troops. We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region.

This statement coupled with the fact that OSU is sending copies of the video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces in care packages to troops certainly suggests that they are attempting to theocrotize both the military and its operations. For those unfamiliar with Eternal Forces, the game play consists primarily of converting or killing non-Christians.

The fact that the Pentagon is both supporting and endorsing OSU should make us all a little queasy. Do we as a nation want our military to become a group of Christian Crusaders? At what point does personnel religious belief become the policy of of military — and what will happen to the people who that military is suppose to protect who don’t live up to that religious belief?

Jonathan Hutson has a good look at OSU at TalktoAction — wherein he examines the homoerotic merchandise offered on their website — the hyper-masculinity is very similar to that seen in illustrations by Tom of Finland.

h/t: Liz

Continuous Tragedy

Twenty five years ago, growing up in a dying industrial city of the Midwest, I found myself involved with a group of homeless veterans, most of whom had served in Viet Nam. I cannot say that I befriended any of these soldiers - as they didn’t make friends, and barely tolerated one another at times. But they relied upon each other for some understanding, protection, and some level of compassion. In the 80’s these men reminded people of an unsuccessful war which had divided our nation. There was no sunshine for them from Regan’s ‘morning in America’. Many of them had been forced from VA homes and hospitals as federal funding was cut. They panhandled during the day to scrape up enough to medicate themselves at night. Even drunk and doped many of them would jump and roll with amazing agility at the sound of an unfamiliar footstep in the park where we would meet. Late at night they would wake up screaming or sit up and simply stare intently into space. For these men the war never ended. They were still soldiers — fighting the same war; the same battles. They could never come home.

Last month the Pentagon issued a report analyzing the state of mental health among our soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to that report

Based on data in their 2004 study, Hoge and colleagues estimated that, using strict screening criteria, 17 percent of soldiers from brigade combat teams would be at risk for developing clinically significant symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, or anxiety after deployment, and that an even higher percentage (28%) would experience symptoms if broader screening criteria were used (Hoge, Castro, Messer, McGurck, Cotting & Koffman, 2004). The prevalence of PTSD within a year of combat deployment was estimated to range from 10 to 25 percent (Hoge et al., 2004). More recent data from the Post-Deployment Health Re-Assessment (PDHRA), which is administered to service members 90 to 120 days after returning from deployment, indicate that 38 percent of Soldiers and 31 percent of Marines report psychological symptoms. Among members of the National Guard, the figure rises to 49 percent (U.S. Air Force, 2007; U.S. Army, 2007; U.S. Navy, 2007). Psychological concerns are also significantly higher among those with repeated deployments, a rapidly growing cohort. Psychological concerns among family members of deployed and returning Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans, while yet to be fully quantified, are also an issue of concern. Further, hundreds of thousands of U.S. children have experienced the deployment of a parent. Clearly, the challenges are enormous and the consequences of non-performance are significant.

Despite its own findings, the Pentagon and the Veteran’s Administration have been unable, or unwilling, to provide the post-war care these soldiers require. This week veterans’ groups sued the VA in order to get the basic health care that was promised — and owed to these men and women. Veterans themselves were too afraid of reprisals to take action against their own government that umbrella organizations had to initiate action for them. Unfortunately, this illustrates but a tiny sliver of the problem. Those involved in the suit have already left the military service and have been handed to the VA; there are over 100,000 who have not yet completed their service and have seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a young man, I opposed the Viet Nam conflict; as a middle aged man, I opposed the invasion of Iraq. They were and remain pointless conflicts based more on hubris then on national security. The men and women who serve(d) in these conflicts served our nation - regarless of how one feels about the conflict or the soldiers - and they require our respect and aid. Long after our soldiers leave Iraq, after the protest banners are thrown into the basement, and after the magnetic ribbons are removed from vehicles, many of the soldiers who served will be suffering the effects of this war. When those days come — and they are coming soon — when thousands of veterans seek medical care, housing, food, or simply hit you up for a buck on the street, then the phrase “support the troops” will have real meaning. It will demand money, compassion, and empathy. We should all begin offering those things today with the knowledge that more will be required of us tomorrow.