Tuesday, November 06, 2018

"I Got A Name" by Jim Croce





LYRICS:
Like the pine trees lining the winding road
I got a name, I got a name
Like the singing bird and the croaking toad
I got a name, I got a name
And I carry it with me like my daddy did
But I'm living the dream that he kept hid
Moving me down the highway, rolling me down the highway
Moving ahead so life won't pass me by
Like the north wind whistlin' down the sky
I've got a song, I've got a song
Like the whippoorwill and the baby's cry
I've got a song, I've got a song
And I carry it with me and I sing it loud
If it gets me nowhere, I'll go there proud
Moving me down the highway, rolling me down the highway
Moving ahead so life won't pass me by
And I'm gonna go there free
Like the fool I am and I'll always be
I've got a dream, I've got a dream
They can change their minds but they can't change me
I've got a dream, I've got a dream
Oh, I know I could share it if you'd want me to
If you're goin' my way, I'll go with you
Movin' me down the highway, rollin' me down the highway
Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by......

Sunday, November 04, 2018

Veterans Day is a day of lies

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War

Some are inclined to recognize that Trumpies are dwelling in an alternative universe in which neither climate collapse nor nuclear apocalypse is a concern but terrifying wild hoards of Muslim Hondurans are skipping and dancing into the Fatherland armed with gang symbols, deadly rocks, and socialistic tendencies.

Others are alert to the fact that the so-called “mainstream” — the viewpoint of pro-status-quo, anti-improvement institutions — is also fabricated in a wishful dream factory. As exhibit one, I offer: Veterans Day.

A National Museum claiming to tell veterans’ stories and longing to become “the clearinghouse of veteran voices” where “producers or authors or podcasters in the future” come “for authentic from-the-veteran voices,” has just opened in Columbus, Ohio. The $82 million recruitment ad benefits from government funding and raises donations with this language: “Your tax-deductible gift helps to honor, connect, inspire, and educate all on the story of those who bravely served our country.” Not one word about accuracy, thoroughness, diversity of viewpoint, or independence of thought.

“What you are going to see and here are the stories – Why did someone decide to serve? What was it like to take the oath, serve in combat? What was it like to come home?” reports one newspaper. For example? Well: “For example, there’s Deborah Sampson, a Massachusetts woman who disguised herself as a man in order to serve in the Revolutionary War (even pulling musket balls from her own thighs to avoid having to see a doctor, who might discover her true sex). Or Master Sergeant Roy Benavidez, who received the Medal of Honor for saving the lives of at least eight men during the Vietnam War in a six-hour battle, in which he sustained seven gunshot wounds and shrapnel throughout his body.”

Do visitors obtain information, education, challenged assumptions? Maybe, but what one can read about this museum says that one will be “inspired,” like this guy: “For my own part, I find inspiration and opportunities for reflection in the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ exhibit honoring the fallen; in the sound of ‘Taps’ playing on the second floor; in the meal kits and other everyday objects carried during service and the letters sent home; in the windows striped with colors of military service ribbons through history; in the stories of transition to civilian life; in the leafy Memorial Grove outside.”

Arguably honoring is not the same thing as studying. Without question, much participation in the military has involved bravery and much has involved cowardice. A very strong case can be made that militarism has not been a “service” in the sense of serving any useful purpose or benefitting people rather than endangering, killing, traumatizing, and impoverishing them. Indisputably, millions have not “decided” to “serve” at all but have been compelled to participate, and millions more have “chosen” to sign up principally for lack of any better source of income. Of all the veterans I’ve spoken with, those pro- and anti-war, not a one that I recall has ever mentioned the taking of an oath as a major part of the experience of war. The heartwarming stories of a woman sneaking into the military and a soldier saving lives in Vietnam can’t erase the larger story of soldiers having killed millions of people in Vietnam and tens of millions more all over the globe. Do people really “fall” in a “sacrifice,” or are they slaughtered in a stupid heartless machine? Do they “transition” to civilian life, or do they crash into an agonizing obstacle course of injury, guilt, PTSD, and culture shock? Are veterans more often disturbed by apocryphal tales of being spat on, or by naive gratitude for having committed moral atrocities?

A war museum that is also openly a war memorial constructed by a war-making society that has normalize permawar is not going to answer those questions. But they’ve long since been answered by poor people’s museums, also known as books, and there’s a new one of those just out that I’d put up against the toxic offerings of this new museum. The book is Guys Like Me by Michael A. Messner.
This book tells the stories of five veterans of five U.S. wars: WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq Parts I and II. We learn their stories from long before they entered the military through long after they left it. The stories are well-told, with subtlety and complexity, not museum-like propaganda. Patterns become evident without the book becoming repetitious. Each person is unique, but each confronts the same monster.

Recent veterans’ stories alone would not have sufficed in creating this book. The stories of past wars long-since enveloped in mythology are needed if the reader is to begin questioning war itself. Such stories are also more useful as typical stories of the wars they were part of. In more recent wars, the stories of U.S. veterans amount to a tiny percentage of the stories of those impacted by the wars. But older stories alone would not have sufficed either. Recognizing the eternal horror of war in its current guises completes the powerful case presented here. This is a book to give to young people.

The book’s first story is called “There Is No ‘Good War'” and tells the story of World War II veteran Ernie “Indio” Sanchez. Don’t take my assertion above that war involves cowardice as well as bravery from me. Read Sanchez’ story and take it from him. But cowardice was not the horror that lurked in Sanchez’ brain for decades while he kept busy and avoided it until he could avoid it no more. 

Here’s an excerpt: “All of this—the bone-chilling fear, the guilt, the moral shame—hid out in Ernie Sanchez’s body for the remaining seven decades of his life, ambushing him when he least expected it, jabbing him like that piece of shrapnel lodged near his spine. He could never make it go away, not entirely. Eventually he learned that talking about it—testifying to anyone who would listen to his stories of the stupidity of war, the burdens of having fought and killed, and the hope of peace—was the best salve for his wounds.”

This book is not only a model of telling the sorts of stories unwelcome in museums and NPR documentaries and Veterans Day parades, but also a model of writing about the perspective of an organization. Messner found his subjects through Veterans For Peace, on whose advisory board I serve, and accurately captures the wealth of moral and personal motivations behind the work of these veterans to rid the world of the means of creating yet more veterans.

Sanchez’s story begins with a tough, rough, gang and prison life. But that life contains nothing like the horror of war. He recalls:
“In two-and-a-half weeks, they had to pull out the 4th and 28th Infantry Divisions, because they were decimated. In two-and-a-half weeks, that Division lost 9,500 men, either killed or wounded. Two-and-a-half weeks I’m talking about. In this war we’re having [now] in Iraq, we haven’t killed 6,000 people yet. How many years we’ve been over there?”

The author does not step into the story to correct the idea that over a million dead people in Iraq aren’t actually “people,” but it is a way of thinking that many participants in war work to become aware of and overcome. Sanchez, in fact, spent many years telling himself that at least he had not personally killed people because he had shot at the front of trenches so that the “enemies” wouldn’t stick their heads and guns above them. When his life became less busy, he began to think about what he had actually done decades before: “When I didn’t have all these other things I had to think about, they came back to me and then I found out. God, the psychiatrist told me that I killed between fifty and 100 Germans. But I didn’t shoot to kill. I shoot to keep the guys down from shooting back. My job was to shoot right in front of the trench so dust and rocks and everything was right over-head so the Germans [are] not gonna stick out their heads to shoot back. That was my job, to keep them down, and keep ’em from fighting back. That was my mentality. I wasn’t killing anybody. And that’s what I was saying all these years. But the goddamn Iraq War reminded me what a dirty SOB I was.”

The stories get harder, not easier, from there. The story of the war on Korea includes a U.S. veteran apologizing in-person to a woman who was the only survivor in her village of a massacre.

Don’t blame the veterans, we’re often told. But this is a cartoonish morality in which blaming someone bars you from also blaming someone else (such as top government and military officials and weapons makers). The fact is that many veterans blame themselves and would no matter what the rest of us did; and many move toward recovery by facing their guilt and working to balance it with work for peace and justice.

Messner explains his perspective with an account of a conversation with his grandfather, a World War I veteran:
“On the morning of Veterans Day in 1980, Gramps sat with his breakfast—a cup of watery coffee, a piece of burnt toast slathered with marmalade, and a single slice of cool liverwurst. A twenty-eight-year-old graduate student, I’d recently moved in with my grandparents in their Oakland, California, home. I tried to cut through Gramps’s cranky mood by wishing him a happy Veterans Day. Huge Mistake. ‘Veterans Day!’ he barked at me with the gravelly voice of a lifelong smoker. ‘It’s not Veterans Day! It’s Armistice Day. Those gawd . . . damned . . . politicians . . . changed it to Veterans Day. And they keep getting us into more wars.’ My grandfather was hyperventilating now, his liverwurst forgotten. ‘Buncha crooks! They don’t fight the wars, ya know. Guys like me fight the wars. We called it the “War to End All Wars,” and we believed it.’ He closed the conversation with a harrumph: ‘Veterans Day!’

“Armistice Day symbolized to Gramps not just the end of his war, but the end of all war, the dawning of a lasting peace. This was not an idle dream. In fact, a mass movement for peace had pressed the U.S. government, in 1928, to sign the Kellogg-Briand Pact, an international ‘Treaty for the Renunciation of War,’ sponsored by the United States and France and subsequently signed by most nations of the world. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the law changing the name of the holiday to Veterans Day, to include veterans of World War II, it was a slap in the face for my grandfather. Hope evaporated, replaced with the ugly reality that politicians would continue to find reasons to send American boys— ‘guys like me’—to fight and die in wars.”

So they will until we stop them. Guys Like Me is a great tool for that cause — and for the restoration of Armistice Day. One error I hope will be corrected is this statement: “Obama slowed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” President Obama in reality tripled the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and made it by every measure (death, destruction, troop count, dollars) his war more than a war of Bush or Trump or the two of them combined.

Veteran Gregory Ross read one of his poems at the 2016 Veterans For Peace Convention. It is quoted in Guys Like Me:

The Dead
do not require our silence to be honored
do not require our silence to be remembered.
do not accept our silence as remembrance, as honor.
do not expect our silence to end
the carnage of war
the child starved
the woman raped
the virulence of intolerance
the Earth desecrated
It is the living who require our silence
in a lifetime of fear and complicity

The Dead
do require our courage to defy the powerful and the greedy.
do require our lives to be loud, compassionate, courageous.
do require our anger at the continuance of war in their name.
do require our shock at the maiming of the Earth in their name.
do require our outrage to be honored, to be remembered.

The Dead

have no use for our silence

Friday, November 02, 2018

All Wars Are Illegal

ALL WARS ARE ILLEGAL, SO WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?
By Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese, Popular Resistance.

Every war being fought today is illegal. Every action taken to carry out these wars is a war crime.

In 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact or Pact of Paris was signed and ratified by the United States and other major nations that renounced war as a way to resolve conflicts, calling instead for peaceful ways of handling disputes.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was the basis for the Nuremberg Tribunal, in which 24 leaders of the Third Reich were tried and convicted for war crimes, and for the Tokyo Tribunal, in which 28 leaders of the Japanese Empire were tried and convicted for war crimes, following World War II.

Such prosecutions should have prevented further wars, but they have not. David Swanson of World Beyond War argues that a fundamental task of the antiwar movement is to enforce the rule of law. What good are new treaties, he asks, if we can’t uphold the ones that already exist?

The United States is violating international law, and escalating its aggression

All wars and acts of aggression by the United States since 1928 have violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter since it was signed in 1945. The UN Charter states, in Article 2:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Yet, the United States has a long history of threatening aggression and using military force to remove governments it opposed and install friendly ones. Illegal attacks by the US since World War II have resulted in 20 million people being killed in 37 nations. For example, as we outline in “North Korea and the United States: Will the Real Aggressor Please Stand Down,”the United States used violence to install Syngman Rhee in power in the 1940’s and subsequently killed millions of Koreans, in both the South and the North, in the Korean War, which has not ended. Under international law, the “war games” practicing to attack North Korea with conventional and nuclear weapons are illegal threats of military action.

The list of interventions by the United States is too long to list here. Basically, the US has been interfering in and attacking other countries almost continuously since its inception. Currently the US is involved directly in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. The US is threatening Iran and Venezuela with attack.



Wednesday, October 31, 2018

More on NC's role in CIA torture

From an email from NC Commission of Inquiry on Torture:

Report Findings

After 18 months of investigation and research, including two days of public hearings last year, the Commission’s report reveals that:

• The role of Aero Contractors, based at the public Johnston County Airport in Smithfield, was larger than previously understood - during the first, developmental phase of the CIA’s global “black site” or secret prison system, from September 2001 to March 2004, Aero flew over 80% of all identified CIA renditions.

• Rendition was not just transportation to torture – it was an essential part of the CIA’s torture process.  The goal of rendition was to “dehumanize” the individual before interrogation.  The violent nature of renditions themselves, which have never been investigated by a U.S. government entity, amounted to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

• Neglect by North Carolina and Johnston County officials of their duty to investigate credible information on crimes committed using their airports, effectively has made them sponsors of illegal and immoral activity.


• The use of torture has immense costs for our country in national security and intelligence gathering. It undermines the rule of law and erodes our ability to be moral leaders.  Impunity for government torture has negatively shaped public attitudes toward Muslims and made our society more cruel. Torture has stained Johnston County, North Carolina, and our nation. 

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

NC's role in CIA torture program

From an email from NC Commission of Inquiry on Torture:

The North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture 
October 2018

"Citizens’ report shines light on NC role in CIA torture program"

In a powerful column in North Carolina’s News & Observer newspaper, editor Ned Barnett praises the “persistent and uncompromising” North Carolina citizen effort to bring transparency to the CIA torture program. “When the government wouldn’t take action to address its own offenses,” Barnett writes, “these citizens formed their own 10-member investigative panel, the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture.”

The release of the Commission’s ground-breaking report, Torture Flights: North Carolina’s Role in the CIA Rendition and Torture Program, analyzes the ways in which North Carolina was used as a launching pad for torture. It describes the complicity of public officials and the role of private contractors, most notably Aero Contractors, headquartered at the Johnston County Airport.

Under the heading “Grim Account,” Barnett quotes from the report:  “Aero transported at least 49 individuals, who were forcibly seized without any due process, in a manner that itself amounted to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Preparation for ‘rendition’ involved physical and sometimes sexual assault, drugging, and sensory deprivation. Rendition flights were experiences of prolonged pain, dread, and terror.”


Barnett says Johnston County District Attorney Susan Doyle should investigate whether Aero’s activities violated state law.  He calls on State Attorney General Josh Stein and Governor Roy Cooper to “explore the need for a state investigation.” And he criticizes Senator Burr's failure to release the full Senate Intelligence “torture report” as "contrary to what best serves the nation.” 

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Top Public Health Threat

Health Professionals Tackle War
By David Swanson

When I discovered that militarism is one of the top destroyers of the natural environment, I piled that onto my case against war. I did the same when I found out war wasted more money than anything else, was a major promoter of bigotry and racism, was the primary justification for government secrecy and the erosion of civil liberties, was the top barrier to the rule of law and global cooperation, militarized local police, etc., etc. When I came to see how counterproductive war was, increasing the dangers of war for those whose governments wage or prepare to wage wars, I added that to the overwhelming case.

In contrast, when I read about militarism as a top public health threat, a top cause of death and disease, a “completely preventable” epidemic which medical professionals therefore have a responsibility to try to prevent, I’m struck with conflicting responses. First, this is actually why I opposed war in the first place. Second, it’s a bit shocking and wonderful to read doctors, writing like doctors, treating war as a health crisis, almost as if we lived in a sane society in which problems were prioritized for rational reasons.

After all, our culture actively promotes war to little children, just as it does junk food and consumerism.

Preventing War and Promoting Peace: A Guide for Health Professionals is a valuable new book edited by William Wiist and Shelley White. The book is a collection of writings by health professionals and peace professionals. It begins with a section of chapters covering the damage that war does to civilians, to participants, to the natural environment.

Part II looks into causes of war, including war culture, war profiteering, and war academia. Parts III and IV address means of preventing war and promoting peace, and of doing so in the health professions. 


Tuesday, October 16, 2018

David Swanson on Korea

Korea Should Reunify Outside the Empire
By David Swanson

The majority of dictatorships on planet earth — by the U.S. government’s designation of which countries are dictatorships — are sold U.S. weapons. And most of their militaries are trained by the U.S. military.

If I had to pick a dictatorship to object to the U.S. government’s position on, it would be one of these many, and probably it would be Saudi Arabia. But, then, I’m not a Progressive Senator. If I were, then I would object to anything less than complete hostility toward a country that the U.S. has not armed or trained in war, but rather sits on the edge of going to war against — a country that the U.S. president not long ago threatened to drop nuclear bombs on.

Imagine if the United States made peace with North Korea. There are perhaps three ways to do it.
1. The United States deals directly with North Korea and transforms it into another weapons customer, thereby facilitating U.S. weapons sales on both sides of the demilitarized zone. Nobody in Korea is likely to stand for this.

2. The United States allows Korea to reunify, but keeps all the weaponry and troops in Korea that it now has in the South (as required by current U.S. law) and adds some more weaponry and troops to the northern part of the unified country. This will require at least a few days of telling the U.S. public that the only defense against the evil Chinese or Russians is a well-armed unified Korea. That’s perfectly doable.

3. The United States allows Korea to reunify, disarm, and promote peace in the world. This would be something new under the sun. It’s what the people of Korea need and struggle for. The resulting firestorm in the U.S. media would be 10 times worse than Russiagate. Trump would be denounced in exactly the terms he ought to be denounced in for his actual offenses.

For possibility #3 to prevail, millions of people in the United States who are smart enough to oppose lots of horrible things Trump has done would have to strain their brains and find somewhere within them the capacity to make Trump aware that he will receive tons of praise if he does a good thing.



Sunday, October 14, 2018

Wars Kill Children


Photo taken by me at Mother's Day Rally in Asheville 2018. Sign and display by Ellie. 



Friday, October 12, 2018

Article form Consortium News

The New York Times as Judge and Jury

Seeking to maintain its credibility, The New York Times dispenses with the criminal justice system and basic principles of journalism to weigh in again on Russia-gate,
By Joe Lauria

We've seen it before: a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility-which is all journalists have to go on-and the public suffers.

Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media, The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction-the major casus belli for the invasion-dead wrong. But the Times, like the others, continued publishing stories without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war.

The result was a disastrous intervention that led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and continued instability in Iraq, including the formation of the Islamic State.

In a massive Times' article published on Thursday, entitled, "'A Plot to Subvert an Election: Unravelling the Russia Story So Far," it seems that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti have succumbed to the same thinking that doubled down on Iraq.

They claim to have a "mountain of evidence" but what they offer would be invisible on the Great Plains.

With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election-the central Russia-gate charge-the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made-deceptively presented as though it's all been proven.

This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.

The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later:

"What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign.”

But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that "no public evidence has emerged showing that [Trump's] campaign conspired with Russia."

The Times also adds: "There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved.”

This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be "proved or disproved" what is the point of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of this very New York Times article?

Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this piece.


Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Quote from Helen Keller

“So long as I confine my activities to social service and the blind, they compliment me extravagantly, calling me 'arch priestess of the sightless,' 'wonder woman,' and a 'modern miracle.' But when it comes to a discussion of poverty, and I maintain that it is the result of wrong economics—that the industrial system under which we live is at the root of much of the physical deafness and blindness in the world—that is a different matter! It is laudable to give aid to the handicapped. Superficial charities make smooth the way of the prosperous; but to advocate that all human beings should have leisure and comfort, the decencies and refinements of life, is a Utopian dream, and one who seriously contemplates its realization indeed must be deaf, dumb, and blind.” —Helen Keller (letter to Senator Robert La Follette, 1924)

Monday, October 08, 2018

From World Beyond War


“Anyone who thinks must think of the next war as they would of suicide.” 
― Eleanor Roosevelt

Saturday, October 06, 2018

Giving Resistance a Good Name

Giving Resistance a Good Name
By David Swanson

It’s popular to refer to the political line of a major corporate party in the United States as something like “the resistance” when the other of the two parties is on the throne of what both parties have, over many decades, actively converted into an unconstitutional position of something wildly beyond old-fashioned royal powers. Around 2004 the Democratic Party line was to pretend to oppose wars. Around 2018 it wasn’t. So the “resistance” of that party’s followers included war opposition in 2004 but not in 2018. Its essence was and is not resistance at all, but obedience.

When it comes to the general habit of resisting unproven, unworthy, illegitimate, and unpopular authority, the stance promoted by U.S. culture is quite mixed, and virtually everyone in the U.S. government is opposed to resistance as a matter of principle or as a matter of cowardice. For every whistleblower, there are dozens, hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of people who could have exposed the very same abuses and chose not to.

Bruce Levine believes that the anti-authoritarian personality type is beaten down and drugged out of people by U.S. culture, and that we suffer in the United States from excessive apathy and obedience because the activists we need have been diagnosed as ill, drugged into submission, conditioned by schooling, tamed by rewards, hounded out of academe and respectability, imprisoned, and chased out of the country or exiled. Add those factors to long working hours, lack of economic security and healthcare, student debt loads, tons of television viewing, obsessive consumerism, social isolation, bootstraps bullshit, and the mythology that holds that submissive loyalty to the U.S. flag equals a brave stance for liberty, and you’ve got a population primed to put up with more shit than probably any other on earth — and, perhaps not coincidentally, the country producing the most violent destruction around the world and, by some measures — and per capita by virtually every measure — the most destruction of the earth’s environment.


Thursday, October 04, 2018

Trump's Opposition


A new article from the Wall Street Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are now eating leaves to survive.  CIA veteran Bruce Riedel once said that “if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot operate without American and British support.” Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war plutocrats.

If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.


It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And they won’t.


Tuesday, October 02, 2018

Stop the Killing in Afghanistan

Stop Killing and Dying in Afghanistan: Now More Than Ever
By David Swanson

The Richmond (Va.) Times Dispatch recently published an editorial, republished by other papers with the headline: “Remembering why we still fight in Afghanistan.” It’s a rather striking piece of writing, because it does not even attempt to offer a single reason why anyone would “fight” in Afghanistan. The headline, however, suggests that someone is still waging war there because of something they’ve forgotten and can be reminded of. Given that the top killer of U.S. troops who have participated in that war has been suicide, one is tempted to shout “Get on with the reminding already!” But then one has to wonder: reminding of what?

The first few paragraphs of the editorial simply tell us that 17 years have gone by. 

Then we come to this:

“There are still about 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.”

In fact, the U.S. military now has approximately 11,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus 4,000 more that Trump sent plus 7,148 other NATO troops, 1,000 mercenaries, and another 26,000 contractors (of whom about 8,000 are from the United States). That’s 48,000 people engaged in a foreign occupation of a country 17 years after the accomplishment of their stated mission to overthrow the Taliban government.

Next in the editorial comes this:

“Most Americans, however, have little idea what we’re doing there. Many Americans probably do not even realize that there are still Americans deployed there.”

So “we” are both there and unaware of being there, or there and unaware of why. That’s quite a feat for “we.” Imagine rewriting those sentences in ordinary factual language:
Most people in the United States have heard no convincing reason why the U.S. military is in Afghanistan, and many don’t even know it is there.

When you say it like that, so that I am not somehow magically there myself, I feel more open to urging the U.S. military — an entity that exists separately from me — to get out of there.

The editorial continues:

“The Virginia War Memorial hopes to change that. For 20 years, the memorial has produced a series of short documentary films called ‘Virginians at War’ to preserve history and educate future generations. On September 11 this year, the memorial released its newest film, ‘A New Century, A New War,’ focusing on the terrorist attacks and the ensuing wars. The documentary was created in response to requests from Virginia teachers searching for tools to introduce the difficult and important subjects of 9/11 and our long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

If you look up “the Virginia War Memorial,” you find an institution promoting such initiatives as “Little Soldier Saturdays” with pro-war activities for children aged 3-8. But you don’t find any explanation of why wars in general or the war on Afghanistan in particular are justified. Nor have they made their film available; so no readers of this editorial are able to watch it, and the editorial does not convey any explanation of the war that might be found in the film. Instead, the Times Dispatch tells us:

“Twenty interviews were conducted with Virginia veterans and with family members of those lost in the Pentagon attack. From these interviews, a moving and informative film was created that presents vivid memories from 9/11 and shows the personal costs of the wars. ‘A New Century, A New War,’ was created to show how the world changed in one day and how Virginians have lived and served in this new environment. Clay Mountcastle, director of the War Memorial, explains: ‘We wanted a film that would convey the full spectrum of feelings surrounding 9/11, and the weeks and months after, to those too young to have experienced it themselves. We also tried to capture the complex nature of serving in a prolonged war with several lessons and meanings.’ The War Memorial hopes the film will remind Virginians about this critical chapter in history and provide an invaluable reference tool for classrooms. ‘A New Century, A New War’ will soon be available for viewing at the Virginia War Memorial and distributed to teachers across the state. Go see it. It’s well worth the visit and the viewing.”

And that’s it. So, one is left simply to assume that because “9/11” happened, war on Afghanistan is justified until the end of times or until Jesus gets back (has anyone even explained where he went or checked on whether he’s stuck in traffic?). And the “full spectrum of feelings surrounding 9/11” I’m willing to bet you one ten-billionth of a Pentagon budget does not include the feelings of any of the survivors and loved ones who have been pleading for 17 years that their suffering not be turned into propaganda for war.