Lately, there is a lot of talk about an attack on Iran to stop their nuclear program, and their work on nuclear weapons (never mind that the administration has chosen to ignore the NIE which says that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons, and has not been for some time - they choose to believe Israeli "intelligence" or their own, which says that Tehran is only a few years from the bomb).
Hmmmm. Where have we been burned by bad, fabricated intelligence before?
The talk of late has been about Israel attacking Iran (although it is known that US decision makers are dabbling in the idea despite their weak protestations. Most certainly, we will be drawn in anyway, giving us the excuse of having to "defend ourselves"). Most believe that an Israeli attack would not stop the Iranian nuclear program in any way, shape or form - at the very best case, it would only delay it a few years. Most believe that it would be devastating to the world economy.
Where there is great difference is what an attack on Iran would mean, and what would the response be.
Many of those advocating an attack have written that Iran doesn't have the ability to mount any kind of resistance, and the attack would be met with very little resistance. They want you to believe that it would be a "cakewalk".
What amazes me is that people continue to pay any attention to Kristol, Bolton, etc. They have been so wrong, for so long on virtually everything they've said on Afghanistan, Iraq. Why any American would believe them now is as mystifying as anything has ever been to me.
Let's review a little history.
A quick "victory" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is what the administration touted. Others said that the Taliban was only stopping the war for a season. Regrouping. Many felt that they would defend Afghanistan, and that Afghanistan was very important psychologically.
Afghanistan is psychologically important because of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Well, a few years have gone by and Afghanistan is as hot as ever (not to mention being a major source for the flow of illegal drugs into the United States) - casualties even eclipsing the casualties in Iraq.
After the quick "defeat" of the Taliban. The Administration moved on to Iraq (never mind that they quit looking for Osama bin Laden, the guy who actually attacked us on 9/11. Never mind that they again left Afghanistan in the lurch as they had done 20 years before when the Soviets left, creating the climate of civil war and anarchy that enabled the Taliban to come to power).
The things they were wrong about in Iraq have been well documented. A few worth remembering is their prediction of the shortness of the war, the President declaring Mission Accomplished, no weapons of mass destruction or any evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program, an insurgency that was unexpected (although it was expected by some. The rag tag insurgencies both in Afghanistan and Iraq have fought the worlds finest Army, essentially to a draw - and the question is really pondered, what could the Iranians do?). The list literally goes on and on.
What's interesting is that after it all, they try to go back and rewrite history - like they expected it all to go down the way it did. Unfortunately, there is that pesky historical record of what they said and how they voted.
So now we come to Iran. The NIE says no nuclear program. Well, the administration of course knows better. They have their own "intelligence". There IS a nuclear program. And the Iranians ARE building a bomb. It exists because we say it exists. Like connecting Saddam to 9/11 and continually saying he had weapons of mass destruction (despite inspection evidence to the contrary), they seem to think if you say it enough it becomes truth.
Then there is the speculation on the Iranian response to an attack. Bill Lind (every American should read Bill Lind www.d-n-i.net) has said that an attack on Iran could literally lead to the loss of the Army in Iraq. How that could happen is well explained by Mr. Lind in his "On War" columns.
Today, the US Navy said that no matter what, the Persian Gulf would be kept open. Of course a lot of Americans believe that the Navy is entirely capable of this. What could a bunch of Iranians in little speed boats do to us (sort of along the same lines as what could 19 guys with box cutters do to the mighty US of A). Americans should read about a man named General Van Riper and a war game called Millennium Challenge 2002. This is certainly one avenue available to the Iranians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
All of the other empires in history (and yes, I know. We are not an "empire". Right) have had these cataclysmic, empire changing, or ending events. Usually this occurs when the hubris and arrogance has gotten to the point where the empire thinks itself completely invincible.
I see signs in the government, in the media and in the people, that we are there, or getting close.
Up till now, our entanglements in the war on terror have been much worse than predicted (but apparently not bad enough to give most Americans pause and question what is being done in their name). 4000+ dead Americans (and an untold number of Iraqi's) tells us this is true.
We haven't yet had that cataclysmic, empire changing (or ending) event. But, just because it hasn't happened to us, doesn't mean that it isn't possible. It could happen with any foreign policy misadventure the administration decides to take.
I PERSONALLY believe that an attack on Iran will happen. I have believed it for a long time (just as I have always believe that Saddam's fate was sealed on 9/12/01 if not sooner, despite the Administration's claims they wanted to solve the Iraq problem diplomatically - DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR??????) I also believe that no amount of debate or protest will stop it. The media and Congress are compliant co-conspirators in any attack on Iran because they have FAILED to critically ask the questions (and in certain cases they have voted on bills to make it easier to justify an attack). Just like most of them FAILED to ask the questions in the run up to the Iraq war (not that it would have made a difference there either).
What can you do. You just pray, write, talk about peace and hope for the best. You hope you are being paranoid about the things that the Bill Lind's and the General Van Riper's are saying (although you suspect that at some point, our luck is REALLY going to run out).
This gang is going to do what they want to do regardless of the will of the people.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Freedom from fear, aversion to war - 6 points
These are some things I've been thinking about over the past few weeks.
I realize that those who are convinced there are terrorists behind every mail box, and every Muslim is out to kill us and take away our way of life will think me terribly naive, and out of touch with reality. Like I care. We are continually told that "everything changed on 9/11". Some things did change. What changed is that Americans were willing to trust the government, and to trade freedom and liberty for "security" (and in the process got less of both). What changed is that a lot of Americans started to believe that it didn't matter what happened to anyone else in the world, as long as we were safe, fat, dumb and happy here in America, everything was OK. What changed is that we were willing to let go of some of our deepest values, the rule of law, the fact that we don't do empire, and the fact that we don't torture.
1. I will not call anyone my enemy just because my government tells me to. This includes Iranians, Iraqi's, Afghani's, Pakistani's, or any other country who happens to take a turn in the Administration's "Axis of Evil"
2. I will not be afraid because my government tells me to. Some Americans are terrified that they are going to be killed by terrorists. The Administration has done a GREAT job of stoking that fear. The media has been a willing co-conspirator. I have never been afraid of terrorists. I have a better chance of an unlicensed, uninsured, AMERICAN drunk driver plowing into me and killing me on any weekend night than to be killed by a member of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
3. I will not give my government a pass on killings or torture just because they say they were "terrorists". There has been a lot of coverage on the killings in Haditha. All of the Marines involved have been let off the hook in one way or another. The people on the right have been crowing that this "proves" that they did the right thing. But, the fact is that 24 people, most of them women and children are still just as dead. There has also been a lot of coverage on torture, our use of secret prisons, Guantanamo Bay, etc. Some of the stories sound more like they should have come from Soviet Russia, or other ruthless dictatorships. Certainly NOT America.
4. I will keep myself informed. There is nothing more valuable to the current Administration than uninformed Americans. Uninformed Americans enabled the Administration to be able to convince that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and there were WMD's in Iraq. The Administration is going down the same road with regard to Iran - there are a few more people this time who are questioning it - this, I know must really irk the Administration - the script is not working as well this time. Unfortunately though, no matter how much questioning goes on, they will decide to go to war, and then it won't matter much.
5. I will study, pray for, talk about, write about peace. As I wrote about a quote from an Iraqi Doctor in a previous blog, dropping bombs (or torturing, or occupying a country) signals a loss of imagination. Too many Americans cannot imagine their country ever being able to be at peace with the world. It is not because it is not possible - it is because we do not have enough imagination. It is also because a lot of Americans, in reality simply do not want to live at peace with the rest of the world. I am absolutely convinced that we are on a path to war with Iran. The signs are all there. The Administration weakly bleats that they are trying for "diplomacy" but that "all options are on the table". It simply amazes me that Americans do not remember that this was almost the exact same script used for the run-up to the war in Iraq. It also amazes me that virtually every thing they said about the war in Iraq (we'd be greeted as liberators, the war would be over quickly, it would be paid for with Iraqi oil money) was dead WRONG. Why any American would trust ANYTHING they'd have to say regarding Iran is beyond me.
6. I will try not to lose hope. This is the hardest thing of all. The economy is tanking here at home. Americans continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as Iraqi's and Afghani's). If we attack Iran, my belief is that the world's economy will crash in a huge way, and we will see misery worldwide that we cannot even imagine at this point. How can I not lose hope with all of those things? I don't know. But I'll try.
I realize that those who are convinced there are terrorists behind every mail box, and every Muslim is out to kill us and take away our way of life will think me terribly naive, and out of touch with reality. Like I care. We are continually told that "everything changed on 9/11". Some things did change. What changed is that Americans were willing to trust the government, and to trade freedom and liberty for "security" (and in the process got less of both). What changed is that a lot of Americans started to believe that it didn't matter what happened to anyone else in the world, as long as we were safe, fat, dumb and happy here in America, everything was OK. What changed is that we were willing to let go of some of our deepest values, the rule of law, the fact that we don't do empire, and the fact that we don't torture.
1. I will not call anyone my enemy just because my government tells me to. This includes Iranians, Iraqi's, Afghani's, Pakistani's, or any other country who happens to take a turn in the Administration's "Axis of Evil"
2. I will not be afraid because my government tells me to. Some Americans are terrified that they are going to be killed by terrorists. The Administration has done a GREAT job of stoking that fear. The media has been a willing co-conspirator. I have never been afraid of terrorists. I have a better chance of an unlicensed, uninsured, AMERICAN drunk driver plowing into me and killing me on any weekend night than to be killed by a member of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
3. I will not give my government a pass on killings or torture just because they say they were "terrorists". There has been a lot of coverage on the killings in Haditha. All of the Marines involved have been let off the hook in one way or another. The people on the right have been crowing that this "proves" that they did the right thing. But, the fact is that 24 people, most of them women and children are still just as dead. There has also been a lot of coverage on torture, our use of secret prisons, Guantanamo Bay, etc. Some of the stories sound more like they should have come from Soviet Russia, or other ruthless dictatorships. Certainly NOT America.
4. I will keep myself informed. There is nothing more valuable to the current Administration than uninformed Americans. Uninformed Americans enabled the Administration to be able to convince that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and there were WMD's in Iraq. The Administration is going down the same road with regard to Iran - there are a few more people this time who are questioning it - this, I know must really irk the Administration - the script is not working as well this time. Unfortunately though, no matter how much questioning goes on, they will decide to go to war, and then it won't matter much.
5. I will study, pray for, talk about, write about peace. As I wrote about a quote from an Iraqi Doctor in a previous blog, dropping bombs (or torturing, or occupying a country) signals a loss of imagination. Too many Americans cannot imagine their country ever being able to be at peace with the world. It is not because it is not possible - it is because we do not have enough imagination. It is also because a lot of Americans, in reality simply do not want to live at peace with the rest of the world. I am absolutely convinced that we are on a path to war with Iran. The signs are all there. The Administration weakly bleats that they are trying for "diplomacy" but that "all options are on the table". It simply amazes me that Americans do not remember that this was almost the exact same script used for the run-up to the war in Iraq. It also amazes me that virtually every thing they said about the war in Iraq (we'd be greeted as liberators, the war would be over quickly, it would be paid for with Iraqi oil money) was dead WRONG. Why any American would trust ANYTHING they'd have to say regarding Iran is beyond me.
6. I will try not to lose hope. This is the hardest thing of all. The economy is tanking here at home. Americans continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as Iraqi's and Afghani's). If we attack Iran, my belief is that the world's economy will crash in a huge way, and we will see misery worldwide that we cannot even imagine at this point. How can I not lose hope with all of those things? I don't know. But I'll try.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
The Irresistible Revolution
Just finished reading Irresistible Revolution, Living as an Ordinary Radical by Shane Claiborne
(http://www.amazon.com/Irresistible-Revolution-Living-Ordinary-Radical/dp/0310266300/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212883338&sr=1-1)
I read this book when it first came out. Normally, I do not read books more than one time, but Shane's book is definitely worth more than one read.
Re-reading Shane's book reminded me of things I had been thinking about and pondering. Mostly I have been very troubled and convicted by the implications of the last verses of Matthew 25 (Sheep and Goats).
Shane is kind of a frightening looking guy, at least to some "respectable Christian folk" (certainly not me). He has dreadlocks, a scraggly beard, weird looking glasses, and he makes his own clothes. Definitely not your typical preacher in a slick $1000 dollar suit.
He is part of a seemingly new, encouraging breed of evangelicals (this group includes Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis as well). These are Christians who are encouraging a more full living of the gospel message (i.e. working for peace, working on Social Justice and environmental issues, feeding the poor, taking care of each other), and not just a few narrow morality issues or evangelizing to get people "saved" and into heaven (certainly that is important, but it can become too narrow a focus, leaving a lot of pain and suffering for those who have to live here till it's time to go to heaven).
Shane lives in a community in Philadelphia called The Simple Way. The book talks a lot about his work on Peace and Social Justice issues. Shane talks about his staying with Mother Teresa in Calcutta (I love that he calls her Momma T).
Shane also talks of his time spent in Iraq early on in the US invasion and occupation. I love the quote from one of the doctors in Iraq that he talks to:
"Violence is for those who have lost their imagination. Has your country lost its imagination?"
I think this line speaks volumes. And it speaks volumes for our dealings with other countries such as Iran. To drop bombs and initiate wars means you have FAILED in diplomacy. I would go one further and say that in the case of Iraq, that diplomacy was not tried at all - only as a means to buy time (and to give the look of legitimacy - as they said "we tried hard, we tried diplomacy, but it didn't "work" so now we have to go to war") to get ready for the invasion which had already been decided on.
In the case of Iran, the signs look eerily similar.
A lot of bad things happened this past Friday with the economy. 5.5% unemployment. Barrels of Oil going up $11 in one day. The stock market crashing. Americans are worried. A lot of people are losing their jobs, losing their homes. Some are on the brink. Everywhere you look there seems to be gloom and doom. Comparisons are made to the time of the Great Depression (and the economy looks bad now, but if you read about the economy then - there is no comparison - the Great Depression dwarfed this economic trouble in terms of scope. That is not to say that the economy might not get worse before it is all over).
And there is a lot of pain both here and in other countries. But, we ALWAYS claim to be a Christian nation. And in the Bible there are answers to these questions on how to survive these times. How we should be taking care of one another. How we should be sharing. How we should be living out community. How we can live alternatively to the "systems" of the world. Shane's book gives great "real world" application of that.
Too often though, Christianity is not real to us. I am not so simplistic as to say that all we have to do is just read the Bible and all will be well (I struggle with the worry and the fear myself, but take great comfort in Matthew 6:28-34). I also do not say that just because you read the Bible or are a Christian you won't lose your job or your house.
What I'm saying is that I think we have lost the sense of community which says that we are to take care of each other (See Acts 2:42-47, Matthew 25:31-46). Since I read the book the first time, I had done a lot of study on the Catholic Worker Movement and the lives of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin (Shane mentions them several times in the book). I think their work also shows what true community is, and what taking care of each other really means.
As G. K. Chesterton said:
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."
Shane's book shows us a little bit about how we can translate these biblical ideas into real world application.
(http://www.amazon.com/Irresistible-Revolution-Living-Ordinary-Radical/dp/0310266300/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212883338&sr=1-1)
I read this book when it first came out. Normally, I do not read books more than one time, but Shane's book is definitely worth more than one read.
Re-reading Shane's book reminded me of things I had been thinking about and pondering. Mostly I have been very troubled and convicted by the implications of the last verses of Matthew 25 (Sheep and Goats).
Shane is kind of a frightening looking guy, at least to some "respectable Christian folk" (certainly not me). He has dreadlocks, a scraggly beard, weird looking glasses, and he makes his own clothes. Definitely not your typical preacher in a slick $1000 dollar suit.
He is part of a seemingly new, encouraging breed of evangelicals (this group includes Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis as well). These are Christians who are encouraging a more full living of the gospel message (i.e. working for peace, working on Social Justice and environmental issues, feeding the poor, taking care of each other), and not just a few narrow morality issues or evangelizing to get people "saved" and into heaven (certainly that is important, but it can become too narrow a focus, leaving a lot of pain and suffering for those who have to live here till it's time to go to heaven).
Shane lives in a community in Philadelphia called The Simple Way. The book talks a lot about his work on Peace and Social Justice issues. Shane talks about his staying with Mother Teresa in Calcutta (I love that he calls her Momma T).
Shane also talks of his time spent in Iraq early on in the US invasion and occupation. I love the quote from one of the doctors in Iraq that he talks to:
"Violence is for those who have lost their imagination. Has your country lost its imagination?"
I think this line speaks volumes. And it speaks volumes for our dealings with other countries such as Iran. To drop bombs and initiate wars means you have FAILED in diplomacy. I would go one further and say that in the case of Iraq, that diplomacy was not tried at all - only as a means to buy time (and to give the look of legitimacy - as they said "we tried hard, we tried diplomacy, but it didn't "work" so now we have to go to war") to get ready for the invasion which had already been decided on.
In the case of Iran, the signs look eerily similar.
A lot of bad things happened this past Friday with the economy. 5.5% unemployment. Barrels of Oil going up $11 in one day. The stock market crashing. Americans are worried. A lot of people are losing their jobs, losing their homes. Some are on the brink. Everywhere you look there seems to be gloom and doom. Comparisons are made to the time of the Great Depression (and the economy looks bad now, but if you read about the economy then - there is no comparison - the Great Depression dwarfed this economic trouble in terms of scope. That is not to say that the economy might not get worse before it is all over).
And there is a lot of pain both here and in other countries. But, we ALWAYS claim to be a Christian nation. And in the Bible there are answers to these questions on how to survive these times. How we should be taking care of one another. How we should be sharing. How we should be living out community. How we can live alternatively to the "systems" of the world. Shane's book gives great "real world" application of that.
Too often though, Christianity is not real to us. I am not so simplistic as to say that all we have to do is just read the Bible and all will be well (I struggle with the worry and the fear myself, but take great comfort in Matthew 6:28-34). I also do not say that just because you read the Bible or are a Christian you won't lose your job or your house.
What I'm saying is that I think we have lost the sense of community which says that we are to take care of each other (See Acts 2:42-47, Matthew 25:31-46). Since I read the book the first time, I had done a lot of study on the Catholic Worker Movement and the lives of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin (Shane mentions them several times in the book). I think their work also shows what true community is, and what taking care of each other really means.
As G. K. Chesterton said:
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."
Shane's book shows us a little bit about how we can translate these biblical ideas into real world application.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
What if they gave a war......
....and nobody came?
This is a pretty interesting piece written by a guy named Colby Buzzell. He wrote a book based on his experiences in Iraq and he also blogs (his blog link is at the end of the link below). I confess, I have never read his book or his blog. I picked it up in the library and looked at it though. The point of the piece is that now he is being "invited" by the Army to go back to Iraq for a second time.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/07/ED3J10IGLO.DTL
I'm convinced in reading this, that he is using this forum to do some pretty serious soul searching. You can tell that he obviously doesn't really want to go back (and possibly end up being a newspaper cliche - "he died on his second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) tour in Iraq), but grudgingly says that he probably will. Who would want to go back? Especially after starting to try to "normalize" your life again.
He also spends a lot of time saying he was glad that he did it the first time, and he'd tell others to do it (so they could go in his place).
But then he gets into the crux of the matter. That the US is making him go because they have access to him, and not any "fresh meat" (those who won't enlist).
This points up the ridiculous assertion the government keeps making that we still have "the worlds finest all volunteer military". Stop loss is on the rise, and they are doing this kind of recall of those who've done their time (and some more than their time) all the time.
What we have is a weird rickety hybrid military draft, held together with bailing wire and duct tape.
But why wouldn't kids want to join to be sent to Iraq for the glory of it? Why wouldn't they want to expose themselves to death or possible permanent dismemberment? Why wouldn't they, IF they were lucky to get home in one piece want to live through the horrors of PTSD? Who wouldn't want to do that for the glory of "fighting for ones country"?
I feel bad that this guy is having to go back to war again. I don't share his assessment that it is the fault of those who are NOT enlisting. It is the fault of those who sent us to war without an accurate understanding of the country they were invading and subsequently occupying. It is the fault of those who sent too few troops into Iraq, despite being told by the likes of General Shinseki that it would take several hundred thousand troops to pacify Iraq (comments which the delusional Paul Wolfowitz called "wildly off the mark").
It is the fault of those who keep this country at perpetual war despite the massive costs to our economy and the day to day, month to month grinding down of our military - spouting the mindless platitudes of "we must win" and "we must not cut and run" and "we are fighting them there so we don't fight them here" - without ever giving any idea of what "winning" in Iraq REALLY means.
Very few ask the questions - what does "winning" mean - they probably don't do it because they get more mindless platitudes and Republican "talking points" (and for a great example of that see Chris Matthews versus radio moron Kevin James). And they also get told that they are traitors, and "appeasers" and un-American. Pretty soon, they just grow despondent, clam up, and go along to get along.
They rationalize it away by saying "well, those guys in Washington and on TV are a lot smarter than me". What can one person do?
They cannot MAKE anyone go to war. THAT is a fact. That is not to say that there won't be consequences (prison, being ostracized, etc), but no one can be MADE to go to war.
From Mr. Buzzell's piece: "What if there were a war and none of the veterans who were called up showed up?" Indeed. What if?
We say that we are a peace loving country and only fight when we have to. Our actions say differently. How many more of these guys are going to have to keep going back? The more times you are in harms way, the more chances there are for something bad to happen.
Like Bob Dylan says "how many deaths will it take till we see, that too many people have died". The answer, according the the administration is not "Blowin' in the wind". The answer is, we'll be at war till we say we're damned good and ready to not be at war (which won't ever happen), and not a moment sooner. And if you don't like it, "So?"
Good luck and God Bless Colby.
This is a pretty interesting piece written by a guy named Colby Buzzell. He wrote a book based on his experiences in Iraq and he also blogs (his blog link is at the end of the link below). I confess, I have never read his book or his blog. I picked it up in the library and looked at it though. The point of the piece is that now he is being "invited" by the Army to go back to Iraq for a second time.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/07/ED3J10IGLO.DTL
I'm convinced in reading this, that he is using this forum to do some pretty serious soul searching. You can tell that he obviously doesn't really want to go back (and possibly end up being a newspaper cliche - "he died on his second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) tour in Iraq), but grudgingly says that he probably will. Who would want to go back? Especially after starting to try to "normalize" your life again.
He also spends a lot of time saying he was glad that he did it the first time, and he'd tell others to do it (so they could go in his place).
But then he gets into the crux of the matter. That the US is making him go because they have access to him, and not any "fresh meat" (those who won't enlist).
This points up the ridiculous assertion the government keeps making that we still have "the worlds finest all volunteer military". Stop loss is on the rise, and they are doing this kind of recall of those who've done their time (and some more than their time) all the time.
What we have is a weird rickety hybrid military draft, held together with bailing wire and duct tape.
But why wouldn't kids want to join to be sent to Iraq for the glory of it? Why wouldn't they want to expose themselves to death or possible permanent dismemberment? Why wouldn't they, IF they were lucky to get home in one piece want to live through the horrors of PTSD? Who wouldn't want to do that for the glory of "fighting for ones country"?
I feel bad that this guy is having to go back to war again. I don't share his assessment that it is the fault of those who are NOT enlisting. It is the fault of those who sent us to war without an accurate understanding of the country they were invading and subsequently occupying. It is the fault of those who sent too few troops into Iraq, despite being told by the likes of General Shinseki that it would take several hundred thousand troops to pacify Iraq (comments which the delusional Paul Wolfowitz called "wildly off the mark").
It is the fault of those who keep this country at perpetual war despite the massive costs to our economy and the day to day, month to month grinding down of our military - spouting the mindless platitudes of "we must win" and "we must not cut and run" and "we are fighting them there so we don't fight them here" - without ever giving any idea of what "winning" in Iraq REALLY means.
Very few ask the questions - what does "winning" mean - they probably don't do it because they get more mindless platitudes and Republican "talking points" (and for a great example of that see Chris Matthews versus radio moron Kevin James). And they also get told that they are traitors, and "appeasers" and un-American. Pretty soon, they just grow despondent, clam up, and go along to get along.
They rationalize it away by saying "well, those guys in Washington and on TV are a lot smarter than me". What can one person do?
They cannot MAKE anyone go to war. THAT is a fact. That is not to say that there won't be consequences (prison, being ostracized, etc), but no one can be MADE to go to war.
From Mr. Buzzell's piece: "What if there were a war and none of the veterans who were called up showed up?" Indeed. What if?
We say that we are a peace loving country and only fight when we have to. Our actions say differently. How many more of these guys are going to have to keep going back? The more times you are in harms way, the more chances there are for something bad to happen.
Like Bob Dylan says "how many deaths will it take till we see, that too many people have died". The answer, according the the administration is not "Blowin' in the wind". The answer is, we'll be at war till we say we're damned good and ready to not be at war (which won't ever happen), and not a moment sooner. And if you don't like it, "So?"
Good luck and God Bless Colby.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
A Picture
I was having a discussion with someone close to me the other day. That particular individual said, why do you talk about the war all the time, why are you so disgusted by it, you know there is nothing you can do about it, so why do you talk about it?
Indeed.
So, maybe I am wasting my time here. Maybe I have wasted a few minutes every ten or fifteen days writing this blog for the past year or so to send to four or five people who may or may not even read it.
In this blog, I've written about the war, the plight of our veterans, a possible new war with Iran, economic and ecological issues and some other things. When I go back and look, a lot of the predictions I've made and the things I've said have held up pretty well. This blog certainly has helped me to flesh out my positions and ideas.
Over the past few days I've been looking at a picture that has deeply troubled me. It is a picture of a young boy, killed in Iraq, when US bombs leveled his house.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/04/29/PH2008042903586.html).
Helen Thomas wrote a piece about the picture (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/09/8843/) that said generally we Americans can handle the truth about war (I'm not so sure about that - war is ugly, horrible, putrid, sick, demented, twisted - but a lot of the people in the US keep trying to portray it as glorious).
I'm reminded of an episode of MASH, where a shot down pilot wanders into the 4077th. He is talking about how great the war is for him - leaves his wife in the morning, drops his bombs, and is home at night for cocktails at the officers club with his wife. Hawkeye makes him help hauling around bodies. The pilot then sees a little girl of eight or nine who has been hurt by bombs.
He asks, whose were they, ours or theirs? They tell him it doesn't matter. He says it does matter, they say, "not to her".
Later in the episode, Hawkeye is telling the guy that he did what he did on purpose (exposing him to the reality of the war) because he seemed like too decent of a guy to pretend that it was all OK.
Do we believe this little guy's life matters? Or is he just the cost of "keeping us safe here in America" - to use the euphemism "collateral damage"? Are the people in his family likely to support the Iraqi government after this? Are the people in his family likely to look with favor on their occupiers? Are we likely to have won the hearts and minds of his family? Their neighbors? Other Iraqi's who see this picture?
It is amazing that we are so insulated. The Pentagon and the government in general learned their lessons VERY well from Vietnam, all the while telling the lie that we would have won THAT war if the media and others at home would have just minded their own business and let the Pentagon and Washington fight the war the way it should have been fought.
We don't get to see the coffins coming back from the war zone. We don't get to see a lot of the harsh realities of the war on the news. Casualty numbers and Iraq war coverage is downplayed.
They've borrowed most all of the money so we haven't had to feel the pain financially (although we are going to feel it, and feel it hard at some point). There is no military draft, the military is "all volunteer" (unless of course you've been "stop-lossed"). The people performing a lot of the logistics are not drafted either. They are in essence mercenaries - but, hey, they're getting paid for it and paid well.
All of that helps to insulate us from the war. UNTIL we see the picture of this young man. He was not a militia man, nor was he a terrorist. He was a two year old boy killed, in the middle of what is in essence, two groups of Shiites fighting like vultures over control of the carcass of Iraq. A fight which we chose sides in, and a fight which we are now heavily involved in.
In this fight, we are backing what we call the "legitimate government" of Iraq. They are fighting against "criminal militias", "militants" and "terrorists". Is the "government" we are backing and supporting with air strikes and troops viewed as the legitimate government throughout Iraq? The middle east? The world? Chances are, since it's backed by the US, the answer would be no.
Never mind that the government, still after 5+ years cannot provide the most basic services for her citizens.
But, we press on. American soldiers and Iraqi citizens continue to die. No one, including the President or the crop of Presidential candidates can articulate a clear picture of what it means to "win" in Iraq - although they keep saying that's what needs to happen.
Congress, the media, and others don't ask the question - why are we still there? Who gets to decide when we've "won"? What are we really doing in Iraq?
How many more are going to have to die? Unfortunately, probably a lot.
Indeed.
So, maybe I am wasting my time here. Maybe I have wasted a few minutes every ten or fifteen days writing this blog for the past year or so to send to four or five people who may or may not even read it.
In this blog, I've written about the war, the plight of our veterans, a possible new war with Iran, economic and ecological issues and some other things. When I go back and look, a lot of the predictions I've made and the things I've said have held up pretty well. This blog certainly has helped me to flesh out my positions and ideas.
Over the past few days I've been looking at a picture that has deeply troubled me. It is a picture of a young boy, killed in Iraq, when US bombs leveled his house.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/04/29/PH2008042903586.html).
Helen Thomas wrote a piece about the picture (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/09/8843/) that said generally we Americans can handle the truth about war (I'm not so sure about that - war is ugly, horrible, putrid, sick, demented, twisted - but a lot of the people in the US keep trying to portray it as glorious).
I'm reminded of an episode of MASH, where a shot down pilot wanders into the 4077th. He is talking about how great the war is for him - leaves his wife in the morning, drops his bombs, and is home at night for cocktails at the officers club with his wife. Hawkeye makes him help hauling around bodies. The pilot then sees a little girl of eight or nine who has been hurt by bombs.
He asks, whose were they, ours or theirs? They tell him it doesn't matter. He says it does matter, they say, "not to her".
Later in the episode, Hawkeye is telling the guy that he did what he did on purpose (exposing him to the reality of the war) because he seemed like too decent of a guy to pretend that it was all OK.
Do we believe this little guy's life matters? Or is he just the cost of "keeping us safe here in America" - to use the euphemism "collateral damage"? Are the people in his family likely to support the Iraqi government after this? Are the people in his family likely to look with favor on their occupiers? Are we likely to have won the hearts and minds of his family? Their neighbors? Other Iraqi's who see this picture?
It is amazing that we are so insulated. The Pentagon and the government in general learned their lessons VERY well from Vietnam, all the while telling the lie that we would have won THAT war if the media and others at home would have just minded their own business and let the Pentagon and Washington fight the war the way it should have been fought.
We don't get to see the coffins coming back from the war zone. We don't get to see a lot of the harsh realities of the war on the news. Casualty numbers and Iraq war coverage is downplayed.
They've borrowed most all of the money so we haven't had to feel the pain financially (although we are going to feel it, and feel it hard at some point). There is no military draft, the military is "all volunteer" (unless of course you've been "stop-lossed"). The people performing a lot of the logistics are not drafted either. They are in essence mercenaries - but, hey, they're getting paid for it and paid well.
All of that helps to insulate us from the war. UNTIL we see the picture of this young man. He was not a militia man, nor was he a terrorist. He was a two year old boy killed, in the middle of what is in essence, two groups of Shiites fighting like vultures over control of the carcass of Iraq. A fight which we chose sides in, and a fight which we are now heavily involved in.
In this fight, we are backing what we call the "legitimate government" of Iraq. They are fighting against "criminal militias", "militants" and "terrorists". Is the "government" we are backing and supporting with air strikes and troops viewed as the legitimate government throughout Iraq? The middle east? The world? Chances are, since it's backed by the US, the answer would be no.
Never mind that the government, still after 5+ years cannot provide the most basic services for her citizens.
But, we press on. American soldiers and Iraqi citizens continue to die. No one, including the President or the crop of Presidential candidates can articulate a clear picture of what it means to "win" in Iraq - although they keep saying that's what needs to happen.
Congress, the media, and others don't ask the question - why are we still there? Who gets to decide when we've "won"? What are we really doing in Iraq?
How many more are going to have to die? Unfortunately, probably a lot.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Food
There is a lot in the news about food lately. Food riots, food shortages, food costs rising, etc.
We even hear about food "shortages" here in the good old United States, breadbasket to the world. These are mostly currently centered on rice, and when you get down to the bottom of it, you find that, yes, it is a shortage, but a shortage of CERTAIN kinds of rice. The people most likely to eat that kind of rice would not be likely to eat any other kind. Many articles have mentioned that rice is a highly segmented market. I don't know if I totally buy into that completely, or they are just saying that to avoid panic. Only time will tell.
Here is just one example - people fleeing Haiti to get away from grinding, horrible poverty.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24272407/
This is heartbreaking for sure, but disgustingly enough, this is nothing new for this nation. This has been going on for years and years and years. In 1988, I was on Coast Guard ships that were doing the same things for the same reason. The time that has gone by with nothing changing is enough to make you want to cry.
A lot of these famines and food shortages are sometimes driven by corrupt, ineffective governments, lousy infrastructure, poor agricultural planning (sometimes a lot of it centralized in capital cities by the corrupt ineffective governments cited above).
A lot of these "crises" are part of a news cycle, then they go away, and the people forget. Remember Somalia in the 1990's (astonishingly THAT country is in no better shape today either)? We sent troops there just to move the food, and then got involved instead in an ugly little war.
There are a lot of reasons being tossed around for this latest round of food insecurity. Higher fuel prices. Changing diets in India and China (more meat eaten, causing more grain to be used to raise that meat). Commodities markets out of control. Globalization. Overpopulation (although I believe a country like Haiti would struggle to feed her people with even a quarter of their population).
I waiver between believing some of these reasons and not believing some of them. I also waiver between believing this is just more of the same, or crisis of a differing, more permanent quality.
In the final analysis, I believe that at the bottom, this is not necessarily a food "shortage" (although there might be shortages of specific food stuff items), but a recurring system wide distribution problem.
I have read a lot about this over the past few weeks. A lot of the experts (in governments, NGO's, the UN, academia, etc) say that if you take the amount of food produced in the world and divide it between the world's peoples equitably, there is enough.
It should be noted that the UN is asking for more MONEY to distribute the food. There is a HUGE distinction between saying that there is a food crisis and needing more money and a food shortage where no amount of money will do the trick.
I'm not smart enough to know how to solve the problem permanently. I do know that the richer countries will have to get serious, and more importantly REMAIN serious (not just throwing money at the problem when a crisis situation erupts and then forgetting about it after the crisis passes) if we are to eradicate world hunger. I do believe that what is going on now is certainly a setback to progress that might have been made so far.
We like to claim we are a Christian nation. A lot of us tend to balk at the foreign aid that goes to feed a lot of the worlds peoples (although very few Christians seem to have any problem with the spending of billions of dollars in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).
Why is it my problem if Haiti (or any other country) can't feed her own people because of their own mismanagement?
Recall Jesus' words in Matthew 25 (from the New International Version, not my favorite translation, where he talks about at the final judgement, separating sheep into goats):
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give your something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
The King will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."
It goes on at length about them not doing these things for Christ (feeding, clothing, etc), and they want to know when they saw Christ in all of these situations. Christ finishes with:
"He will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you DID NOT DO (emphasis mine) for one of the least of these, you DID NOT DO (emphasis mine) for me.
Who would be considered the "least" right now? Haitians, Africans, Asians, Central and South Americans, and the poorest in this country.
If we are the Christian nation we claim to be, we simply have to be an integral part of the solution to this problem.
We even hear about food "shortages" here in the good old United States, breadbasket to the world. These are mostly currently centered on rice, and when you get down to the bottom of it, you find that, yes, it is a shortage, but a shortage of CERTAIN kinds of rice. The people most likely to eat that kind of rice would not be likely to eat any other kind. Many articles have mentioned that rice is a highly segmented market. I don't know if I totally buy into that completely, or they are just saying that to avoid panic. Only time will tell.
Here is just one example - people fleeing Haiti to get away from grinding, horrible poverty.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24272407/
This is heartbreaking for sure, but disgustingly enough, this is nothing new for this nation. This has been going on for years and years and years. In 1988, I was on Coast Guard ships that were doing the same things for the same reason. The time that has gone by with nothing changing is enough to make you want to cry.
A lot of these famines and food shortages are sometimes driven by corrupt, ineffective governments, lousy infrastructure, poor agricultural planning (sometimes a lot of it centralized in capital cities by the corrupt ineffective governments cited above).
A lot of these "crises" are part of a news cycle, then they go away, and the people forget. Remember Somalia in the 1990's (astonishingly THAT country is in no better shape today either)? We sent troops there just to move the food, and then got involved instead in an ugly little war.
There are a lot of reasons being tossed around for this latest round of food insecurity. Higher fuel prices. Changing diets in India and China (more meat eaten, causing more grain to be used to raise that meat). Commodities markets out of control. Globalization. Overpopulation (although I believe a country like Haiti would struggle to feed her people with even a quarter of their population).
I waiver between believing some of these reasons and not believing some of them. I also waiver between believing this is just more of the same, or crisis of a differing, more permanent quality.
In the final analysis, I believe that at the bottom, this is not necessarily a food "shortage" (although there might be shortages of specific food stuff items), but a recurring system wide distribution problem.
I have read a lot about this over the past few weeks. A lot of the experts (in governments, NGO's, the UN, academia, etc) say that if you take the amount of food produced in the world and divide it between the world's peoples equitably, there is enough.
It should be noted that the UN is asking for more MONEY to distribute the food. There is a HUGE distinction between saying that there is a food crisis and needing more money and a food shortage where no amount of money will do the trick.
I'm not smart enough to know how to solve the problem permanently. I do know that the richer countries will have to get serious, and more importantly REMAIN serious (not just throwing money at the problem when a crisis situation erupts and then forgetting about it after the crisis passes) if we are to eradicate world hunger. I do believe that what is going on now is certainly a setback to progress that might have been made so far.
We like to claim we are a Christian nation. A lot of us tend to balk at the foreign aid that goes to feed a lot of the worlds peoples (although very few Christians seem to have any problem with the spending of billions of dollars in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).
Why is it my problem if Haiti (or any other country) can't feed her own people because of their own mismanagement?
Recall Jesus' words in Matthew 25 (from the New International Version, not my favorite translation, where he talks about at the final judgement, separating sheep into goats):
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give your something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
The King will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."
It goes on at length about them not doing these things for Christ (feeding, clothing, etc), and they want to know when they saw Christ in all of these situations. Christ finishes with:
"He will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you DID NOT DO (emphasis mine) for one of the least of these, you DID NOT DO (emphasis mine) for me.
Who would be considered the "least" right now? Haitians, Africans, Asians, Central and South Americans, and the poorest in this country.
If we are the Christian nation we claim to be, we simply have to be an integral part of the solution to this problem.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Way Out West
Just finished a week in Las Vegas.
I spent an entire week, and did not check e-mail once. I did not read really anything news wise on the internet that I normally read daily (the person we stayed with had no internet access). I didn't really watch the news at all only in bits and pieces (I did see enough to see that Barack Obama made a MAJOR misstep in Pennsylvania and left the door open for the Clintons).
NOT HAVING ACCESS TO THOSE THINGS WAS GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The thing that strikes me about Las Vegas both this time and when I went two years ago is that Las Vegas seems entirely unsustainable as a community in the long term.
There are people on top of people (and the automobile traffic is horrendous creating a lot of haze), huge hotels, swimming pools in almost every yard (you can see it when you fly in - and oh, by the way, Phoenix the same thing (we had a short layover in Phoenix on the way back).
There are also a lot of homeless people wandering around (great place for it - good warm weather all year round). Of course they were not on the strip where all the tourists are (they are sent away from there - who wants to pay several hundred dollars to stay in a huge opulent hotel and meet homeless people when you walk out the door), but are all around the city on the fringes.
When you go to Hoover Dam and see how low the lake is after a seven year drought cycle, you understand that at some point there are going to be pretty serious water issues (and there are already water issues). This small water source called Lake Mead is the water source for several million people, and billions of dollars of agriculture over several western states. And there is not much to it, and it's getting smaller every year.
To top it all off, they are building several MORE mega-hotels on the strip. They are building these hotels 24 hours a day - we watched them working at 10:30 at night one night.
I had a great time, and there are a lot of neat things to see (and one of my favorite sights is the Conservatory in the Bellagio), but Las Vegas, at some point will be gone. All those people cannot continue to live there without something giving.
One other thing. People are always walking around like zombies on the strip day and night. One flight attendant I talked to said she HATES flying out of Vegas - people come out of there having not slept in days, consumed massive amounts of alcohol, are dehydrated and have usually lost a good sum of money (probably money they can in no way afford to spend - NOBODY wins in Las Vegas, especially with all the machines now being digital and electronic). In short, they are damned cranky.
It is a place that I think capsulizes most Americans desire for instant gratification and consumption. The amount of food eaten and wasted and the opulence of the hotels borders on the obscene.
I'm not moralizing or sermonizing or saying that people who go there are bad or anything, those are just my observations.
We took a side trip to the Grand Canyon (South Rim). Now, we didn't do any burro riding or white water rafting or flights over the canyon, or hiking. We went to it in a speeding car, spent a few hours there, and then went home in a speeding car. Even seen that way, it is something that every human being should see at least once in their lives. It is simply awe inspiring.
I spent an entire week, and did not check e-mail once. I did not read really anything news wise on the internet that I normally read daily (the person we stayed with had no internet access). I didn't really watch the news at all only in bits and pieces (I did see enough to see that Barack Obama made a MAJOR misstep in Pennsylvania and left the door open for the Clintons).
NOT HAVING ACCESS TO THOSE THINGS WAS GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The thing that strikes me about Las Vegas both this time and when I went two years ago is that Las Vegas seems entirely unsustainable as a community in the long term.
There are people on top of people (and the automobile traffic is horrendous creating a lot of haze), huge hotels, swimming pools in almost every yard (you can see it when you fly in - and oh, by the way, Phoenix the same thing (we had a short layover in Phoenix on the way back).
There are also a lot of homeless people wandering around (great place for it - good warm weather all year round). Of course they were not on the strip where all the tourists are (they are sent away from there - who wants to pay several hundred dollars to stay in a huge opulent hotel and meet homeless people when you walk out the door), but are all around the city on the fringes.
When you go to Hoover Dam and see how low the lake is after a seven year drought cycle, you understand that at some point there are going to be pretty serious water issues (and there are already water issues). This small water source called Lake Mead is the water source for several million people, and billions of dollars of agriculture over several western states. And there is not much to it, and it's getting smaller every year.
To top it all off, they are building several MORE mega-hotels on the strip. They are building these hotels 24 hours a day - we watched them working at 10:30 at night one night.
I had a great time, and there are a lot of neat things to see (and one of my favorite sights is the Conservatory in the Bellagio), but Las Vegas, at some point will be gone. All those people cannot continue to live there without something giving.
One other thing. People are always walking around like zombies on the strip day and night. One flight attendant I talked to said she HATES flying out of Vegas - people come out of there having not slept in days, consumed massive amounts of alcohol, are dehydrated and have usually lost a good sum of money (probably money they can in no way afford to spend - NOBODY wins in Las Vegas, especially with all the machines now being digital and electronic). In short, they are damned cranky.
It is a place that I think capsulizes most Americans desire for instant gratification and consumption. The amount of food eaten and wasted and the opulence of the hotels borders on the obscene.
I'm not moralizing or sermonizing or saying that people who go there are bad or anything, those are just my observations.
We took a side trip to the Grand Canyon (South Rim). Now, we didn't do any burro riding or white water rafting or flights over the canyon, or hiking. We went to it in a speeding car, spent a few hours there, and then went home in a speeding car. Even seen that way, it is something that every human being should see at least once in their lives. It is simply awe inspiring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)