Words keep losing their meaning.
One of my grandmother’s favorite descriptors was “gay”. By that she meant someone, male or female, who was happy and carefree, light-hearted and friendly. I do not begrudge the GLBT community the use of the word, but I do miss, just a little, my grandmother’s felicitous use of the word also.
“Hero” was a word, used universally, and somewhat in awe, to describe valorous action, so remarkably beyond normal human character as to be elevated and admired. I do begrudge the loose application of such a wonderful word to just anyone in uniform.
“Freedom” meant not license, but individual sovereignty in all thought and in all actions except where societal sovereignty superseded, and that only when agreed to in common understanding. I hate the use of “freedom “ to mean subordination of others to my country’s world view.
“Intelligence” used to mean the unbiased product of the processing of the best information available, coupled with the best understanding of the total environment and the specific problem. It did not mean finding information that proves someone’s point.
“Truth” meant simply both “not false” and “complete”, as in “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Truth did not mean “my extremely heartfelt and/or faith-inspired opinion”.
Faced with these and other important words that have slipped away from us, along with their attendant concepts, I want to defend one word in particular, that holds such importance for serving military and veterans. That word is “trust”.
Trust is what holds military service together, and it is not a simple concept.
Civilians often cite “camaraderie” as a defining characteristic of those groups of usually underpaid public servants who band together and swear an oath of public duty such as soldiers, firemen, and police. But that is a weak concept for the glue that binds them together. Football teams have camaraderie as do social clubs and others. Camaraderie isn’t deep enough a concept to fully embody trust.
“Friendship” is a wonderful concept but it is insufficient to describe soldiers’ feeling of trust for each other. They can trust each other without even truly being friends.
Trust is both broad and deep. Trust involves an extraordinary level of confidence that those above you, next to you, and below you will keep foremost in their minds the safety and well-being of the group, which means your safety too.
Trust is an expectation that your superiors will do everything possible to train you well, to equip you with the best that is available, and will never send you into an impossible situation; not because they might fail, but because you might be harmed without reason.
Trust is a belief that when the going gets tough, everyone around you will strive with you to get through it. Trust is a conviction that if the going gets impossible, your leaders will reinforce you to a level where the mission is achievable, or will honestly, and without fear for their personal reputation, declare the situation untenable and will pull you out, perhaps to fight another day.
Trust is a reliance, not on some “system”, but on the real people around you every day. In battle that focuses mostly on the people in your fire team, your platoon, your company. It this trust that lets soldiers obey orders that they might not always understand completely.
Most of all, soldiers have to trust that they will be sent into danger only if it is absolutely necessary. They trust that their leaders will make every effort short of war to avoid war, and that when war comes, they trust that it is truly the only choice. If they come to think otherwise, trust starts to crumble.
Both before and after the battle that reliance expands broadly to include not just your boss’s bosses, but everyone responsible including the nation as a whole. After the battle, soldiers who have depended only on the guys close around them transfer that dependence to you and me.
Soldiers trust that the nation and its leaders will prepare them, will share completely in their sacrifice, and will provide whatever it takes to make them whole upon their return to society.
We don’t send them enough help, or equip them with the best equipment, then let contracts to commercial firms to put others next to them who are paid a great deal more, get better treatment, get the best of weapons, and who never have to make a moral decision. If soldiers fail we court martial them, fine them, imprison them, and disgrace them for life. If the mercenaries we send in place of real reinforcements commit the same or worse crimes, we spirit them out of the battle zone – no fault, no foul – and give them a bonus to boot. The inequity causes trust to tremble.
They know that their buddies will never leave them on the battlefield, but they have to trust that we will not leave them on the post-conflict, everyday battlefield.
Unfortunately, that is what is happening, and trust is getting very shaky.
If they are hurt in body we patch them up and try to get them back into the battle. If they can’t get back in we try to cover up their wounds, hiding them in substandard conditions in out of the way places. We don’t even count them as wounded if we can find a way around it. Trust fragments.
If they are killed, we hide them from their nation, and dishonor their families by refusing them the public honors they deserve. Trust disintegrates further.
If they are hurt in mind we try to ignore it; if we can’t ignore it we try to deny it; and if we can’t do that, we blame them for it. We cut them off without benefits, claiming their deep wounds are the product of a “preexisting condition”, blaming their genetics or their upbringing. Trust shatters.
If they try to re-start their lives, we quibble with them over what they are owed in education and other benefits. We use technicalities to deny them what we have promised them, and excuse ourselves for what we characterize as their failure to prove their case.
When they seek help we tell them “get in line”, and we make the line impossibly long. If we have managed to get them to agree with our diagnosis of a “preexisting condition” there is no place in line for them at all. Trust is gone forever.
We have not yet completely lost the meaning of the word “trust”.
If you want to know, ask a soldier – but ask him or her very soon.
True trust may not last much longer.
[Sandy Cook.]
“For it is mutual trust, even more than mutual interest that holds human associations together. Our friends seldom profit us but they make us feel safe.”
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
All the Protection that the Law Allows
In 1994 the Congress passed the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA); it was updated in 1996 and 1998. The purpose of the act is:
Ҥ 4301. Purposes; sense of Congress
(a) The purposes of this chapter are--
(1) to encourage noncareer service in the uniformed services by eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and employment which can result from such service;
(2) to minimize the disruption to the lives of persons performing service in the uniformed services as well as to their employers, their fellow employees, and their communities, by providing for the prompt reemployment of such persons upon their completion of such service; and
(3) to prohibit discrimination against persons because of their service in the uniformed services.“
In 2003 Congress passed the “Servicemembers Civil Relief Act” (SSCRA), a restatement and updating of the old Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act”. The intent of Congress is stated in Section 2:
‘‘(1) to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense through protection extended by this Act to servicemembers of the United States to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation; and
‘‘(2) to provide for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers during their military service.”
Good, brief explanations of the details are available for USERRA and SSCRA. In the broadest sense:
· USERRA protects your employment and protects you from discrimination because you are in the service – any component
· SSCRA makes it possible for you to serve without ;losing leases, eases the burden of installment contacts, and can even, in some cases, give relief from judicial proceedings.
So why aren’t these laws working for many veterans (see related stories later in this issue)?
A law does not work if it cannot work on a human scale. Years of waiting for resolution doesn’t help if you need a paycheck this Friday.
Statistics are not people. The government touting reduced response time (whether true or false) by 10% doesn’t help the veteran who is at the wrong end of the distribution. People are not “means and medians”.
No matter how much a free-marketer you are, business concerns must not trump human concerns, and the law should apply equally to all.
Finally – the veteran does deserve special treatment. By virtue of his or her honorable service, his or her needs are more important than the needs of those who stayed home and sacrificed nothing.
Unfortunately, neither the Department of Labor nor the Department of Justice see it that way. They give more credence to an employer’s unsupported claim of irreparable harm to his business than they do to the veteran’s legitimate claim under the law.
Back from Iraq? Want your job back? The USERRA protects you, doesn’t it?
Wait just one minute, buster! That law apparently only applies to you if your former employer says that it does.
Don’t worry. We have set up appropriate alternatives. You lost your job as a $25/hour tradesman because your former employer didn’t want to give it back? We have a job for you providing in-home care of the elderly at $9/hour. Or another as a management trainee at McDonalds.
Don’t like that? Then appeal to the Department of Labor. Oh, wait a minute. Sorry. Your former employer sent in a fax saying that rehiring you would destroy his business (Did he prove it? He isn’t required to.) Since he sent us the fax we have to turn this over to the Department of Justice. They’ll get back to you in 30 months.
And don’t forget, that relief of your mortgage and your credit debt under the SSCRA while you were activated has expired, so pay that mortgage you qualified for under your previous employment or we’ll take your house; you don’t expect us to let a mortgage company lose money do you? What kind of an American are you?
So, thanks for your service, and have a nice day.
Ҥ 4301. Purposes; sense of Congress
(a) The purposes of this chapter are--
(1) to encourage noncareer service in the uniformed services by eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and employment which can result from such service;
(2) to minimize the disruption to the lives of persons performing service in the uniformed services as well as to their employers, their fellow employees, and their communities, by providing for the prompt reemployment of such persons upon their completion of such service; and
(3) to prohibit discrimination against persons because of their service in the uniformed services.“
In 2003 Congress passed the “Servicemembers Civil Relief Act” (SSCRA), a restatement and updating of the old Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act”. The intent of Congress is stated in Section 2:
‘‘(1) to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense through protection extended by this Act to servicemembers of the United States to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation; and
‘‘(2) to provide for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers during their military service.”
Good, brief explanations of the details are available for USERRA and SSCRA. In the broadest sense:
· USERRA protects your employment and protects you from discrimination because you are in the service – any component
· SSCRA makes it possible for you to serve without ;losing leases, eases the burden of installment contacts, and can even, in some cases, give relief from judicial proceedings.
So why aren’t these laws working for many veterans (see related stories later in this issue)?
A law does not work if it cannot work on a human scale. Years of waiting for resolution doesn’t help if you need a paycheck this Friday.
Statistics are not people. The government touting reduced response time (whether true or false) by 10% doesn’t help the veteran who is at the wrong end of the distribution. People are not “means and medians”.
No matter how much a free-marketer you are, business concerns must not trump human concerns, and the law should apply equally to all.
Finally – the veteran does deserve special treatment. By virtue of his or her honorable service, his or her needs are more important than the needs of those who stayed home and sacrificed nothing.
Unfortunately, neither the Department of Labor nor the Department of Justice see it that way. They give more credence to an employer’s unsupported claim of irreparable harm to his business than they do to the veteran’s legitimate claim under the law.
Back from Iraq? Want your job back? The USERRA protects you, doesn’t it?
Wait just one minute, buster! That law apparently only applies to you if your former employer says that it does.
Don’t worry. We have set up appropriate alternatives. You lost your job as a $25/hour tradesman because your former employer didn’t want to give it back? We have a job for you providing in-home care of the elderly at $9/hour. Or another as a management trainee at McDonalds.
Don’t like that? Then appeal to the Department of Labor. Oh, wait a minute. Sorry. Your former employer sent in a fax saying that rehiring you would destroy his business (Did he prove it? He isn’t required to.) Since he sent us the fax we have to turn this over to the Department of Justice. They’ll get back to you in 30 months.
And don’t forget, that relief of your mortgage and your credit debt under the SSCRA while you were activated has expired, so pay that mortgage you qualified for under your previous employment or we’ll take your house; you don’t expect us to let a mortgage company lose money do you? What kind of an American are you?
So, thanks for your service, and have a nice day.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Cosmic Crimes
I¹ve been thinking a lot lately about crimes for which there is no parallel,
and thereby no adequate punishment. How do you punish someone for genocide?
What is the punishment to fit the crime of the Holocaust?
But in truth, the punishment was really only an afterthought. What I¹m
stewing over is the cosmic nature of our current crimes themselves. I¹ll
address only three: the crime of governments that refuse to properly address
global warming; the crime of George W. Bush in invading a country, Iraq,
which had done nothing to the U.S.; and the crime of U.S. agribusiness in
not just poisoning the soil, but also in imposing its several other
practices which assault the very basis of life.
Let¹s look at agribusiness first. Since roughly the end of World War II,
chemical companies have promoted industrial-scale farming with horrific
consequences for the food supply, and for the topsoil upon which all life
depends. Huge machinery that requires special breeds of vegetables (like
tomatoes with hard skins and delayed ripening schedules) that can survive
the assault of automatic picking machines is only the beginning. Allied
with these monsters are the pesticides that have been piled in increasing
tonnages onto crops to combat the ever-evolving bugs and molds and fungi
that feed upon them (about 400 gallons of gasoline per year per citizen--17%
of our national energy use‹goes to agriculture, with more than 1/4 of all
farming energy going into synthetic fertilizers [see Barbara Kingsolver,
Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, p. 5]) The problem is that these poisons are
lethal not just to the bugs, but to us as well. And though the chemical
companies and our FDA have assured us that these poisons are benign, the
truth is that our rivers, our groundwater, our oceans, and our soil are all
becoming more and more lethal to life. The worst part may be the latest
chapter in this war. Now, seed companies like Monsanto and DuPont have
produced genetically modified varieties of crops whose chief advantage
inheres in a gene that makes them "Roundup-ready." Corn, soybeans and canola
with the new gene implanted can withstand what would otherwise be lethal
doses of the pesticide Roundup. Mostly hybrids, these plants do not
reproduce from their own seed. And so dependent upon pesticides have farmers
become that most cannot survive without buying new GM seed each year from
Monsanto (those who try to use seed from Monsanto crops are sued).
Manipulating life in this way, making seed a patented commodity rather
than the basic mechanism of life itself (six companies now control 98% of
all seeds), is a cosmic crime. Alarmingly, it is matched in the farm-animal
world as well. Farm animals no longer reproduce on their own. Artificial
insemination does the job. As Barbara Kingsolver points out in Animal,
Vegetable, Miracle, the ability to reproduce has been bred out of most farm
animals, particularly fowl. So, when she tried to get even her
heritage-breed turkey hens to lay eggs, and then sit on them to incubate
them, the hens were mystified and had no idea what to do. "Normal" turkeys,
of course, never even get the chance to breed; for one thing, they¹re so
top-heavy from big-breast genes that they can hardly stand up. Kingsolver
sums it up this way:
"The longer I think about a food industry organized around an animal that
cannot reproduce itself without technical assistance, the more I mistrust
it." (p. 322)
To my mind, this is putting it mildly. The corporate way of breeding farm
animals‹the cruelty involved in raising chickens, cattle, and other animals,
the arrogance involved in seizing animal reproduction and molding it to the
lust for profit‹amounts to a cosmic crime. In a real way, this arrogance
regarding the most fundamental acts of any form of life, eating and
reproducing, leads inevitably to all other cosmic crimes.
The next crime is easily stated. The nation of Iraq had nothing whatever
to do with the assault on the Twin Towers on 9/11. No Iraqis were among the
hijackers. No link between the hijackers and Iraq has ever been found. And
yet, the Bush administration consistently tries to link Iraq with this event
in order to justify its war of aggression. Attacking a defenseless nation is
an international crime, but it¹s not quite cosmic. What makes the fiasco in
Iraq cosmic in its criminality are the catastrophic impacts upon the Iraqi
people. Even before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, Iraq was a nation
reeling from a dozen years of brutal sanctions that even Madelyn Albright,
the U.S. Secretary of State under Clinton, admitted had resulted in the
deaths of upwards of 500,000 Iraqi children. These child deaths directly
followed the embargo on hospital equipment and all other materials that
would allow Iraq to repair its infrastructure devastated by American bombing
in 1992. Water treatment plants could not be repaired. The result, in a
country that prior to 1992 had boasted of the highest standard of living and
education levels in all the Middle East, was a reversion to Stone-Age
conditions. Then in 2003 the U.S. invaded again. The death toll since then
has been estimated at upwards of 600,000 Iraqis, with over 2 million Iraqis
fleeing their country and another 2 to 3 million displaced within the
country. This in a population of only 26 million. To call this anything but
a war crime is pure propaganda. Add to it the devastation that will follow
forever from the uranium-tipped munitions our forces have spread throughout
that sorry country, not to mention the destruction of a wealth of art and
artifacts testifying to the very birth of civilization, and you have a
cosmic crime. It should be borne in mind, incidentally, that the United
States is the only nation ever to drop a nuclear weapon on civilians, its
sanctimonious hectoring of nations like Iran and Iraq for even considering
the development of such weapons notwithstanding. U.S. hypocrisy is itself
cosmic.
Cosmic crime number three: global warming. It has taken me a long time
to view Al Gore¹s An Inconvenient Truth. Even after all that has been
written and said about it, however, its effect is still shattering. While
the whole world and each one of us shares responsibility for the carbon
released into the atmosphere, the criminality enters only when a nation not
only refuses to do anything about it, but works night and day to confuse the
public by ridiculing and undermining the scientific evidence. What more
needs to be said? The Bush Administration chiefly, but every single member
of the U.S. Congress which collectively colluded in refusing to sign the
Kyoto Treaty as well, is guilty of a cosmic crime. This is not simply a
crime against an individual committed by a criminal looking to feed a drug
habit. This is not "mere" murder, or even the murder of 3,000 innocent
civilians in the 9/11 attack. This is the murder of an entire planet, of
that planet¹s life-support system. The data visually attested to by Gore¹s
film was shocking, infuriating, conclusive. The planet¹s ice is melting. The
water upon which billions depend is in jeopardy. The climate upon which life
itself depends is changing, has changed in clearly measurable ways. To
fiddle while the planet burns is a crime. It is the ultimate cosmic crime.
And yet. We tolerate an administration which concerns itself more with
the sex habits of teenagers than with the melting of the planet. We tolerate
an administration which the record shows has consistently lied about this
issue, has consistently suppressed and distorted the information upon which
the public depends to make a decision. We tolerate world leaders who refuse
to address the greatest challenge to life humans have ever faced. The cosmic
crime is theirs. But, in the end, it is also ours. For we sit in our
comfortable living rooms allowing ourselves to be "entertained" by cosmic
crap on our flat-screen TVs, our ever more powerful
music-and-video-downloading computers, our Ipod-delivered "personal" music,
rather than attend to the crisis threatening our very existence as a
species.
How else to describe such crimes other than to say they are cosmic, they
are terminal, and as such may be the last ones we will ever be allowed to
commit.
Lawrence DiStasi
and thereby no adequate punishment. How do you punish someone for genocide?
What is the punishment to fit the crime of the Holocaust?
But in truth, the punishment was really only an afterthought. What I¹m
stewing over is the cosmic nature of our current crimes themselves. I¹ll
address only three: the crime of governments that refuse to properly address
global warming; the crime of George W. Bush in invading a country, Iraq,
which had done nothing to the U.S.; and the crime of U.S. agribusiness in
not just poisoning the soil, but also in imposing its several other
practices which assault the very basis of life.
Let¹s look at agribusiness first. Since roughly the end of World War II,
chemical companies have promoted industrial-scale farming with horrific
consequences for the food supply, and for the topsoil upon which all life
depends. Huge machinery that requires special breeds of vegetables (like
tomatoes with hard skins and delayed ripening schedules) that can survive
the assault of automatic picking machines is only the beginning. Allied
with these monsters are the pesticides that have been piled in increasing
tonnages onto crops to combat the ever-evolving bugs and molds and fungi
that feed upon them (about 400 gallons of gasoline per year per citizen--17%
of our national energy use‹goes to agriculture, with more than 1/4 of all
farming energy going into synthetic fertilizers [see Barbara Kingsolver,
Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, p. 5]) The problem is that these poisons are
lethal not just to the bugs, but to us as well. And though the chemical
companies and our FDA have assured us that these poisons are benign, the
truth is that our rivers, our groundwater, our oceans, and our soil are all
becoming more and more lethal to life. The worst part may be the latest
chapter in this war. Now, seed companies like Monsanto and DuPont have
produced genetically modified varieties of crops whose chief advantage
inheres in a gene that makes them "Roundup-ready." Corn, soybeans and canola
with the new gene implanted can withstand what would otherwise be lethal
doses of the pesticide Roundup. Mostly hybrids, these plants do not
reproduce from their own seed. And so dependent upon pesticides have farmers
become that most cannot survive without buying new GM seed each year from
Monsanto (those who try to use seed from Monsanto crops are sued).
Manipulating life in this way, making seed a patented commodity rather
than the basic mechanism of life itself (six companies now control 98% of
all seeds), is a cosmic crime. Alarmingly, it is matched in the farm-animal
world as well. Farm animals no longer reproduce on their own. Artificial
insemination does the job. As Barbara Kingsolver points out in Animal,
Vegetable, Miracle, the ability to reproduce has been bred out of most farm
animals, particularly fowl. So, when she tried to get even her
heritage-breed turkey hens to lay eggs, and then sit on them to incubate
them, the hens were mystified and had no idea what to do. "Normal" turkeys,
of course, never even get the chance to breed; for one thing, they¹re so
top-heavy from big-breast genes that they can hardly stand up. Kingsolver
sums it up this way:
"The longer I think about a food industry organized around an animal that
cannot reproduce itself without technical assistance, the more I mistrust
it." (p. 322)
To my mind, this is putting it mildly. The corporate way of breeding farm
animals‹the cruelty involved in raising chickens, cattle, and other animals,
the arrogance involved in seizing animal reproduction and molding it to the
lust for profit‹amounts to a cosmic crime. In a real way, this arrogance
regarding the most fundamental acts of any form of life, eating and
reproducing, leads inevitably to all other cosmic crimes.
The next crime is easily stated. The nation of Iraq had nothing whatever
to do with the assault on the Twin Towers on 9/11. No Iraqis were among the
hijackers. No link between the hijackers and Iraq has ever been found. And
yet, the Bush administration consistently tries to link Iraq with this event
in order to justify its war of aggression. Attacking a defenseless nation is
an international crime, but it¹s not quite cosmic. What makes the fiasco in
Iraq cosmic in its criminality are the catastrophic impacts upon the Iraqi
people. Even before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, Iraq was a nation
reeling from a dozen years of brutal sanctions that even Madelyn Albright,
the U.S. Secretary of State under Clinton, admitted had resulted in the
deaths of upwards of 500,000 Iraqi children. These child deaths directly
followed the embargo on hospital equipment and all other materials that
would allow Iraq to repair its infrastructure devastated by American bombing
in 1992. Water treatment plants could not be repaired. The result, in a
country that prior to 1992 had boasted of the highest standard of living and
education levels in all the Middle East, was a reversion to Stone-Age
conditions. Then in 2003 the U.S. invaded again. The death toll since then
has been estimated at upwards of 600,000 Iraqis, with over 2 million Iraqis
fleeing their country and another 2 to 3 million displaced within the
country. This in a population of only 26 million. To call this anything but
a war crime is pure propaganda. Add to it the devastation that will follow
forever from the uranium-tipped munitions our forces have spread throughout
that sorry country, not to mention the destruction of a wealth of art and
artifacts testifying to the very birth of civilization, and you have a
cosmic crime. It should be borne in mind, incidentally, that the United
States is the only nation ever to drop a nuclear weapon on civilians, its
sanctimonious hectoring of nations like Iran and Iraq for even considering
the development of such weapons notwithstanding. U.S. hypocrisy is itself
cosmic.
Cosmic crime number three: global warming. It has taken me a long time
to view Al Gore¹s An Inconvenient Truth. Even after all that has been
written and said about it, however, its effect is still shattering. While
the whole world and each one of us shares responsibility for the carbon
released into the atmosphere, the criminality enters only when a nation not
only refuses to do anything about it, but works night and day to confuse the
public by ridiculing and undermining the scientific evidence. What more
needs to be said? The Bush Administration chiefly, but every single member
of the U.S. Congress which collectively colluded in refusing to sign the
Kyoto Treaty as well, is guilty of a cosmic crime. This is not simply a
crime against an individual committed by a criminal looking to feed a drug
habit. This is not "mere" murder, or even the murder of 3,000 innocent
civilians in the 9/11 attack. This is the murder of an entire planet, of
that planet¹s life-support system. The data visually attested to by Gore¹s
film was shocking, infuriating, conclusive. The planet¹s ice is melting. The
water upon which billions depend is in jeopardy. The climate upon which life
itself depends is changing, has changed in clearly measurable ways. To
fiddle while the planet burns is a crime. It is the ultimate cosmic crime.
And yet. We tolerate an administration which concerns itself more with
the sex habits of teenagers than with the melting of the planet. We tolerate
an administration which the record shows has consistently lied about this
issue, has consistently suppressed and distorted the information upon which
the public depends to make a decision. We tolerate world leaders who refuse
to address the greatest challenge to life humans have ever faced. The cosmic
crime is theirs. But, in the end, it is also ours. For we sit in our
comfortable living rooms allowing ourselves to be "entertained" by cosmic
crap on our flat-screen TVs, our ever more powerful
music-and-video-downloading computers, our Ipod-delivered "personal" music,
rather than attend to the crisis threatening our very existence as a
species.
How else to describe such crimes other than to say they are cosmic, they
are terminal, and as such may be the last ones we will ever be allowed to
commit.
Lawrence DiStasi
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Your Choice: Sex or Sense
Men’s room tapping action
A curious distraction
From the bloody war
That eats away our core
We know sex will sell
But who will end this hell?
Senator Larry Craig of Idaho is only the most recent of a long series of conservative “family values” Republicans to titillate the nation over the past two years. Why is it that we can’t look away from a train wreck like Duke Cunningham or Mark Foley but we cannot focus of a war that has challenged our core values as Americans? We have stood fascinated by the parade of Senator David Vitter, Senator Ted Stevens, Scooter Libby, Jeff Gannon (male prostitute and frequent White House guest), evangelist Ted Haggard, Jack Abramoff and Democrat “cold cash” Jefferson, but we have looked away from the flag draped coffins of our returning soldiers. I don’t mean to make light of the crimes or even the hypocrisy they uncovered, but is it right to dwell on the speck in the nation’s eye or the log of a pointless war and its impact on our people?
As Americans, we consider ourselves guardians of liberty and yet we have watched President Bush wiretap without court orders and state “The Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper.” We have heard the nation’s former top cop AG Alberto Gonzales call the Geneva Conventions “quaint.” We have long considered ourselves leaders in fair play, but don’t have to go back to the Sacco Venzetti case to find grossly unfair legal prosecution. Although torture policy was pushed from the very highest levels of the administration, nobody above the grade of Lieutenant Colonel has been tried for crimes up to and including murder of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. We prosecuted the little people and then collectively washed our hands. Have we forgotten our pivotal role in the war crimes trials at Nuremberg? How can we hold other nations to a standard that we are not meeting? What would happen if our leaders were led to war crime trials by some other nation? Perhaps a better question is: do we have the courage to do it ourselves?
I am suggesting that we have created a double standard where we preach the ideals of the far right, but allow unlawful official action by our elected government and the far right. We are fascinated with the ideals of our nation and with sex. We simply do not associate our departure from our ideals with the reality of crime and, yes, sin executed in our name as a nation. We appear to have bought into the notion that the president can do no wrong. We are endorsing the “unitary executive” and all the baggage that goes with it. Conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh described the sexual aberrations at Abu Ghraib as college fraternity pranks. They were crimes and spinning them as trivial is a serious injustice to the victims and to us as Americans. We “code-word” an unnecessary war in Iraq as “protecting democracy and our way of life,” while simultaneously removing our own cherished rights such as the 1st and 4th Amendments by executive fiat. Where is the courage of the right or of the left to challenge this perversion of our rightful national image? The left has decried the hypocrisy of the right and the right retorts that Clinton did it first. We all get distracted and the war bleeds on. Soldiers bleed on. Our nation bleeds on.
Our response must be to stop the bleeding, just as we would in performing first aid. The argument that we cannot remove our troops from Iraq because chaos will result is irrelevant because we are only timing our withdrawal so that we minimize our participation in the chaos. In the past year, the number of Iraqi civilians being killed has doubled. Shiites are killing Shiites and Sunnis are killing Sunnis. Local Muslims killed over 500 Yazidis in Kurdish Iraq only a few weeks ago. They are all killing each other and our soldiers. And at least 95% are Iraqi killers, not outsiders. If we leave tomorrow there will be chaos. If we leave next year, there will be chaos. If we leave next decade, there will be chaos. The only significant variable is whether we permit slaughter of Americans to continue. Iraq was a horrible mistake, but there are mistakes that cannot be undone and Iraq is one. As I write this, the president is out selling more death and is searching for a way to whitewash the dreadful lack of political progress despite the GAO report that Iraq has met only 3 of 18 political goals. The Petreaus Report is now the Bush report. Bush of the “You’re doing a heck of a job Brownie” fame. Bush of “Mission Accomplished” fame. Bush of the “one last chance surge” fame. Withdraw from bases now, one by one, before we need the troops for another Katrina or, worse yet, a 21st Century Pearl Harbor beyond the Twin Towers of 2001.
Unfortunately, the current political progress in Washington is not much better than that in Baghdad. A razor thin plurality in the House and essentially parity in the Senate guarantees that the war will continue because most Republican politicians support it and most Democrats are afraid of being called soft if they bring it to the people. Democrats do not have the votes to do this unilaterally and Republicans do not have the desire to fight the White House. We need to encourage Republicans on the floors of Congress, not in the closet or from the closet.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
29 August 2007
A curious distraction
From the bloody war
That eats away our core
We know sex will sell
But who will end this hell?
Senator Larry Craig of Idaho is only the most recent of a long series of conservative “family values” Republicans to titillate the nation over the past two years. Why is it that we can’t look away from a train wreck like Duke Cunningham or Mark Foley but we cannot focus of a war that has challenged our core values as Americans? We have stood fascinated by the parade of Senator David Vitter, Senator Ted Stevens, Scooter Libby, Jeff Gannon (male prostitute and frequent White House guest), evangelist Ted Haggard, Jack Abramoff and Democrat “cold cash” Jefferson, but we have looked away from the flag draped coffins of our returning soldiers. I don’t mean to make light of the crimes or even the hypocrisy they uncovered, but is it right to dwell on the speck in the nation’s eye or the log of a pointless war and its impact on our people?
As Americans, we consider ourselves guardians of liberty and yet we have watched President Bush wiretap without court orders and state “The Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper.” We have heard the nation’s former top cop AG Alberto Gonzales call the Geneva Conventions “quaint.” We have long considered ourselves leaders in fair play, but don’t have to go back to the Sacco Venzetti case to find grossly unfair legal prosecution. Although torture policy was pushed from the very highest levels of the administration, nobody above the grade of Lieutenant Colonel has been tried for crimes up to and including murder of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. We prosecuted the little people and then collectively washed our hands. Have we forgotten our pivotal role in the war crimes trials at Nuremberg? How can we hold other nations to a standard that we are not meeting? What would happen if our leaders were led to war crime trials by some other nation? Perhaps a better question is: do we have the courage to do it ourselves?
I am suggesting that we have created a double standard where we preach the ideals of the far right, but allow unlawful official action by our elected government and the far right. We are fascinated with the ideals of our nation and with sex. We simply do not associate our departure from our ideals with the reality of crime and, yes, sin executed in our name as a nation. We appear to have bought into the notion that the president can do no wrong. We are endorsing the “unitary executive” and all the baggage that goes with it. Conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh described the sexual aberrations at Abu Ghraib as college fraternity pranks. They were crimes and spinning them as trivial is a serious injustice to the victims and to us as Americans. We “code-word” an unnecessary war in Iraq as “protecting democracy and our way of life,” while simultaneously removing our own cherished rights such as the 1st and 4th Amendments by executive fiat. Where is the courage of the right or of the left to challenge this perversion of our rightful national image? The left has decried the hypocrisy of the right and the right retorts that Clinton did it first. We all get distracted and the war bleeds on. Soldiers bleed on. Our nation bleeds on.
Our response must be to stop the bleeding, just as we would in performing first aid. The argument that we cannot remove our troops from Iraq because chaos will result is irrelevant because we are only timing our withdrawal so that we minimize our participation in the chaos. In the past year, the number of Iraqi civilians being killed has doubled. Shiites are killing Shiites and Sunnis are killing Sunnis. Local Muslims killed over 500 Yazidis in Kurdish Iraq only a few weeks ago. They are all killing each other and our soldiers. And at least 95% are Iraqi killers, not outsiders. If we leave tomorrow there will be chaos. If we leave next year, there will be chaos. If we leave next decade, there will be chaos. The only significant variable is whether we permit slaughter of Americans to continue. Iraq was a horrible mistake, but there are mistakes that cannot be undone and Iraq is one. As I write this, the president is out selling more death and is searching for a way to whitewash the dreadful lack of political progress despite the GAO report that Iraq has met only 3 of 18 political goals. The Petreaus Report is now the Bush report. Bush of the “You’re doing a heck of a job Brownie” fame. Bush of “Mission Accomplished” fame. Bush of the “one last chance surge” fame. Withdraw from bases now, one by one, before we need the troops for another Katrina or, worse yet, a 21st Century Pearl Harbor beyond the Twin Towers of 2001.
Unfortunately, the current political progress in Washington is not much better than that in Baghdad. A razor thin plurality in the House and essentially parity in the Senate guarantees that the war will continue because most Republican politicians support it and most Democrats are afraid of being called soft if they bring it to the people. Democrats do not have the votes to do this unilaterally and Republicans do not have the desire to fight the White House. We need to encourage Republicans on the floors of Congress, not in the closet or from the closet.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
29 August 2007
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Motivation: The Bottom Line
Life is so uncertain
Except for Halliburton
With top notch contacts
And cost-plus contracts
Where losing pays better than winning
And CEOs keep grinning
T. Christian Miller wrote an insightful article on the 4th of July that outlines a major obstacle for leaving Iraq. Miller, a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times, obtained recent data through the Freedom of Information Act that demonstrates that our outsourcing policies have resulted in the build up of contractor numbers “fighting” the war to the point where contractors exceed the military. Those of you with good memories recall that I have written about this in prior essays that covered outsourcing and the panoply of costs that include dollars, control of human resources, corporatism, corruption and the myth that Congress controls the purse strings.
According to Miller, the US Military has contracted for about 130,000 that support the military directly and approximately 53,000 for the Agency for International Development (USAID). The State Department has likely hired a few thousand and is unable or unwilling to break down the numbers. For those of you who might think that this policy is a good thing, let me review the hazards. First, in the area of command and control, the contract is not an effective instrument to provide immediate response or ultimate responsibility. If KBR does not want to deliver food or munitions to the troops corporations, a contract review or lawsuit is not a good way to get the stuff where it is needed when it is needed. If Blackwater commits an illegal act such as murder in support of operations (even as some unnamed contractor may have at Abu Ghraib), there is no system of accountability. Worse yet, the cost-plus contract virtually ensures that you will pay the highest price possible so that even from the standpoint of cost effectiveness, the joke is on the taxpayer. By the way, we exempt these corporations from most taxes for earnings in Iraq, so there is not even the redemption value for the bottles after the corporations have drunk the money down. Robert Greenwald's documentary, "Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers" illustrated how contractors burned trucks with flat tires and replaced the trucks rather than the tires to maximize profits. As a guess, I would suggest that it would take less time to retrieve a truck and replace a tire than replace a truck, but why worry when there is a war on? Most nations would find that unacceptable. We call it “supporting the troops.” As recent reports and investigations suggest, we not only have paid too much, but we have gotten too little in return. The Parsons Project (forgive me, record artists) resulted in Iraqi police barracks that were uninhabitable and worse, were a health hazard due to plumbing that leaked onto living areas. That Parsons firm (Pasadena) has not given back the millions it received, and the job had to be redone completely after the barracks had to be destroyed. I suggest that the Corps of Engineers would have done a better job with uniformed soldiers rather than a contract.
I trust that Miller wrote the truth and did so in a way that is not attempting to deceive us. The administration, on the other hand, has continued to justify the augmentation and replacement of uniformed soldiers and has implied that it is cheaper and more effective when clearly, it has been more expensive and less effective than advertised. I mention all this, incidentally, because there has been such a focus on numbers. Recall that Secretary Rumsfeld said that we had enough troops. If we did, then why hire all these contractors? Could Rummy be part of the “corporate outsourcing” or was he not telling us the truth? The outcome will not change with the answer, but I am curious, aren’t you? More about lies in a moment, but first I want to get to the core problem for fighting the war in Iraq with contractors. They are less visible than the military and we all know how hard the administration has been working to hide the coffins of our brave military. That provides the administration with an active shroud of ignorance that takes a lot of work to penetrate. More important, there is no reason for contractors to blow up the gravy train. What right thinking CEO would countenance ending the war and cost-plus contracts? “I have a responsibility to my stockholders, and reducing our support is unthinkable!” “Management bonuses are pretty good, too.”
There is no motivation to end the war by the corporations contributing the greatest numbers and making the most money. Remember that when you listen to all the rhetoric about the money we save by outsourcing. The money is a myth but the blood is real.
Re: using truth in very small pieces: Alberto VO 5 used to be well known in hair products, but it now relates to Veritas Obscurata by the Attorney General at 5 or so hearings. Alberto may not be not lying, but parsing the truth. The FBI Director has contradicted the AG except in the eyes of Tony Snow who is the Tooth Fairy Princess urging us to suspend disbelief. Yes, truth has become stranger than fiction.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
29 July 2007
Except for Halliburton
With top notch contacts
And cost-plus contracts
Where losing pays better than winning
And CEOs keep grinning
T. Christian Miller wrote an insightful article on the 4th of July that outlines a major obstacle for leaving Iraq. Miller, a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times, obtained recent data through the Freedom of Information Act that demonstrates that our outsourcing policies have resulted in the build up of contractor numbers “fighting” the war to the point where contractors exceed the military. Those of you with good memories recall that I have written about this in prior essays that covered outsourcing and the panoply of costs that include dollars, control of human resources, corporatism, corruption and the myth that Congress controls the purse strings.
According to Miller, the US Military has contracted for about 130,000 that support the military directly and approximately 53,000 for the Agency for International Development (USAID). The State Department has likely hired a few thousand and is unable or unwilling to break down the numbers. For those of you who might think that this policy is a good thing, let me review the hazards. First, in the area of command and control, the contract is not an effective instrument to provide immediate response or ultimate responsibility. If KBR does not want to deliver food or munitions to the troops corporations, a contract review or lawsuit is not a good way to get the stuff where it is needed when it is needed. If Blackwater commits an illegal act such as murder in support of operations (even as some unnamed contractor may have at Abu Ghraib), there is no system of accountability. Worse yet, the cost-plus contract virtually ensures that you will pay the highest price possible so that even from the standpoint of cost effectiveness, the joke is on the taxpayer. By the way, we exempt these corporations from most taxes for earnings in Iraq, so there is not even the redemption value for the bottles after the corporations have drunk the money down. Robert Greenwald's documentary, "Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers" illustrated how contractors burned trucks with flat tires and replaced the trucks rather than the tires to maximize profits. As a guess, I would suggest that it would take less time to retrieve a truck and replace a tire than replace a truck, but why worry when there is a war on? Most nations would find that unacceptable. We call it “supporting the troops.” As recent reports and investigations suggest, we not only have paid too much, but we have gotten too little in return. The Parsons Project (forgive me, record artists) resulted in Iraqi police barracks that were uninhabitable and worse, were a health hazard due to plumbing that leaked onto living areas. That Parsons firm (Pasadena) has not given back the millions it received, and the job had to be redone completely after the barracks had to be destroyed. I suggest that the Corps of Engineers would have done a better job with uniformed soldiers rather than a contract.
I trust that Miller wrote the truth and did so in a way that is not attempting to deceive us. The administration, on the other hand, has continued to justify the augmentation and replacement of uniformed soldiers and has implied that it is cheaper and more effective when clearly, it has been more expensive and less effective than advertised. I mention all this, incidentally, because there has been such a focus on numbers. Recall that Secretary Rumsfeld said that we had enough troops. If we did, then why hire all these contractors? Could Rummy be part of the “corporate outsourcing” or was he not telling us the truth? The outcome will not change with the answer, but I am curious, aren’t you? More about lies in a moment, but first I want to get to the core problem for fighting the war in Iraq with contractors. They are less visible than the military and we all know how hard the administration has been working to hide the coffins of our brave military. That provides the administration with an active shroud of ignorance that takes a lot of work to penetrate. More important, there is no reason for contractors to blow up the gravy train. What right thinking CEO would countenance ending the war and cost-plus contracts? “I have a responsibility to my stockholders, and reducing our support is unthinkable!” “Management bonuses are pretty good, too.”
There is no motivation to end the war by the corporations contributing the greatest numbers and making the most money. Remember that when you listen to all the rhetoric about the money we save by outsourcing. The money is a myth but the blood is real.
Re: using truth in very small pieces: Alberto VO 5 used to be well known in hair products, but it now relates to Veritas Obscurata by the Attorney General at 5 or so hearings. Alberto may not be not lying, but parsing the truth. The FBI Director has contradicted the AG except in the eyes of Tony Snow who is the Tooth Fairy Princess urging us to suspend disbelief. Yes, truth has become stranger than fiction.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
29 July 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Baghdad or Stalingrad
Stalin had his purges
And Bush has his surges
As the Unitary Exec
Strutting on deck
What matters the losses
They know who the boss is
Again we are stunned at the sheer incompetence matched only by the arrogance of this administration. They cannot get it right whether it is the Katrina recovery or the war in Iraq. As the losses mount in Iraq, our unitary executive has changed the strategy from maneuvers we do best to filling up Baghdad with US forces. If he had had the courage to go to war or the energy and intelligence to at least learn how to fight a war, Bush might have discovered that we have become the easy targets. We have canalized our forces into a hot Baghdad instead of a cold Stalingrad. Military strategists aim at making the enemy become canalized to lead to a “battle of annihilation.” We speak of Cannae in ancient times, or perhaps Tannenburg in WWI. We whisper “Iraq” today.
In this era, indirect fire weapons are plentiful and the perfect weapons to attack the “Green Zone.” We have canalized ourselves willingly if not eagerly. Puppet generals pretend that this can result in victory. Rockets and mortars are the new weapon of choice for the enemy and who could have thought? Well, just about everybody experienced in the military on both sides, that’s who. Well maybe not the ideologues. Ideologues find intrinsic rewards in the “good fight;” in the crusade and some banner under heaven. Now if they actually committed their bodies to battle, we could give them high grades for courage if not wisdom. In truth, they have neither. The Vice President (newly estranged from the Executive Branch of government to some tree of his own) sought and acquired five deferments from Vietnam service because he “had better things to do.” Worse yet, we are building Bush’s Baghdad Palace in the 104-acre embassy that has already cost in excess of $1 Billion and is not complete. I hope that it has lots of helicopter landing pads. Recall the last helicopter from Saigon? You don’t have to wait for the helicopter to know the White House East is a target and disaster in process. We have spawned an un-Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower could not have imagined. We have no industry, just consultants and cheap imported labor.
We have been embarrassed by a new low in world opinion of our wonderful United States based on repeated evidence of torture and “extraordinary rendition.” We see Guantanamo as a national black eye that is so offensive that even the most conservative Supreme Court in history is unable to justify or support it. We see an Attorney General that has soiled the merit system for appointment of federal attorneys and have witnessed, in our lifetime, the unwillingness of politicians of the ruling party to avert the takeover of our nation and the timidity of the opposing party to do any more than whisper about the Mad King George. In the sixties, we had people in the streets and politicians understood that, but today, the demonstrations are tame and ineffectual. We have seen our government abandon our soldiers and their families. There should be no need for Fisher House or the Soldiers Project, but we need them and others because our administration has “other priorities” just as Cheney in the sixties. The president recently even had the gall to reduce a military raise from 3.5% to 3% despite the fact that approximately 20% of soldiers qualify for food stamps. He does not support the troops. He screws the troops while saying that he supports them.
Awake from your sleep and rise up in anger. Don’t take to the gun, but take to the pen and the electrons and join up virtually if not on the streets. We need to stop the insanity and to tell our hired hands (elected leaders) where we need to go. Stalingrad and or Baghdad are not where we need to be. Halliburton may be making a killing, but so is a determined and newly enabled enemy at the Green Door. There is no princess behind that door in the Green Zone, but more death and destruction of our American families and the growth and prosperity for our politically connected corporations. Again, it is time to cherish people over corporations, and it must stay that way until corporations undergo anusectomies without anesthesia.
If you were still stewing about the comparison of Baghdad to Stalingrad, perhaps you would like Dien Bien Phu a little better.
.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
27 June 2007
And Bush has his surges
As the Unitary Exec
Strutting on deck
What matters the losses
They know who the boss is
Again we are stunned at the sheer incompetence matched only by the arrogance of this administration. They cannot get it right whether it is the Katrina recovery or the war in Iraq. As the losses mount in Iraq, our unitary executive has changed the strategy from maneuvers we do best to filling up Baghdad with US forces. If he had had the courage to go to war or the energy and intelligence to at least learn how to fight a war, Bush might have discovered that we have become the easy targets. We have canalized our forces into a hot Baghdad instead of a cold Stalingrad. Military strategists aim at making the enemy become canalized to lead to a “battle of annihilation.” We speak of Cannae in ancient times, or perhaps Tannenburg in WWI. We whisper “Iraq” today.
In this era, indirect fire weapons are plentiful and the perfect weapons to attack the “Green Zone.” We have canalized ourselves willingly if not eagerly. Puppet generals pretend that this can result in victory. Rockets and mortars are the new weapon of choice for the enemy and who could have thought? Well, just about everybody experienced in the military on both sides, that’s who. Well maybe not the ideologues. Ideologues find intrinsic rewards in the “good fight;” in the crusade and some banner under heaven. Now if they actually committed their bodies to battle, we could give them high grades for courage if not wisdom. In truth, they have neither. The Vice President (newly estranged from the Executive Branch of government to some tree of his own) sought and acquired five deferments from Vietnam service because he “had better things to do.” Worse yet, we are building Bush’s Baghdad Palace in the 104-acre embassy that has already cost in excess of $1 Billion and is not complete. I hope that it has lots of helicopter landing pads. Recall the last helicopter from Saigon? You don’t have to wait for the helicopter to know the White House East is a target and disaster in process. We have spawned an un-Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower could not have imagined. We have no industry, just consultants and cheap imported labor.
We have been embarrassed by a new low in world opinion of our wonderful United States based on repeated evidence of torture and “extraordinary rendition.” We see Guantanamo as a national black eye that is so offensive that even the most conservative Supreme Court in history is unable to justify or support it. We see an Attorney General that has soiled the merit system for appointment of federal attorneys and have witnessed, in our lifetime, the unwillingness of politicians of the ruling party to avert the takeover of our nation and the timidity of the opposing party to do any more than whisper about the Mad King George. In the sixties, we had people in the streets and politicians understood that, but today, the demonstrations are tame and ineffectual. We have seen our government abandon our soldiers and their families. There should be no need for Fisher House or the Soldiers Project, but we need them and others because our administration has “other priorities” just as Cheney in the sixties. The president recently even had the gall to reduce a military raise from 3.5% to 3% despite the fact that approximately 20% of soldiers qualify for food stamps. He does not support the troops. He screws the troops while saying that he supports them.
Awake from your sleep and rise up in anger. Don’t take to the gun, but take to the pen and the electrons and join up virtually if not on the streets. We need to stop the insanity and to tell our hired hands (elected leaders) where we need to go. Stalingrad and or Baghdad are not where we need to be. Halliburton may be making a killing, but so is a determined and newly enabled enemy at the Green Door. There is no princess behind that door in the Green Zone, but more death and destruction of our American families and the growth and prosperity for our politically connected corporations. Again, it is time to cherish people over corporations, and it must stay that way until corporations undergo anusectomies without anesthesia.
If you were still stewing about the comparison of Baghdad to Stalingrad, perhaps you would like Dien Bien Phu a little better.
.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
27 June 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
While You Were Sleeping
“Don’t Worry – We’ll Take Care of You and Your Family”
Am I a traitor to say that there are times when I am ashamed to be an American? Does it make me less of a patriot to believe that both as individuals and as a nation we must keep our promises?
Am I a terrorist to believe that some of what we do as a nation can be classified as terrorism against our own? Am I a “commie” to believe that we have to take care of not only those who serve, but those who wait for them to come home?
If all of these things are true about me, then I accept them, because when I read some of the headlines lately I am ashamed, and I want us to do a lot more; to keep our promises – all of them.
Here are a few of those headlines almost at random from the last two weeks. There are more, and we’ll talk a little bit about these and the others throughout this issue.
1. “Camp Pendleton: Rats Invade Base Housing”
2. “Camp LeJeune: Marine Families Tie Tainted Water to Illnesses”
3. “Boston: Missing Soldier’s Wife May be Deported”
4. “Pentagon Rules Will Leave Military Families Unprotected”
5. “Veteran Homelessness on the Rise”
6. “Insurance cuts, red tape thwart soldiers who need therapy”
7. “Government Struggles to Cope With Wounded GIs”
How can we let our soldiers, marines and their families drink contaminated water FOR THIRTY YEARS without doing anything about it? Now we can do something, since a group of them have sued the Marine corps for $4Billion. Couldn’t we have solved that problem for less than $4B? Shouldn’t we have done so?
How can we let marine families live in rat-infested quarters, force them to go to the media for relief, and then condemn them for “not using the system”, the same system THAT LET IT HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE AND GAVE THEM NO REDRESS.
How can we be so insensitive that we would allow anyone to threaten the wife of a soldier, let alone a missing soldier, with deportation? Why doesn’t the service take care of it? Why did two Senators have to weigh in to get it stopped?
Why does the five-sided-funny-house believe that it is most important for them to protect predatory lenders at the expense of under-paid and under-appreciated service members?
Why do we let veterans live under bridges and behind dumpsters?
Why do we allow bureaucrats to administer programs “by the book” when the book is wrong and our veterans suffer as a consequence?
Why - in a country that can pay CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars in one year, and can pay outrageous subsidies to farmers and oilmen - why do we allow the military and VA medical systems to fail because of insufficient funding? Our priorities are only too obvious.
Why do we reelect people who believe that the way they should support the troops is to introduce (but not yet pass) H. Res. 189? What is H. Res. 189? It is not even an act rather it is a resolution ”Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a "Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day" should be established.” Good for you! Hello! WE CAME HOME 35 YEARS AGO!
But we shouldn’t be too hard on our representatives, after all, almost none of them have any idea what the troops are going through today. Fewer than 20 of 535 are combat veterans. Of course, that doesn’t stop most of them from pontificating about the need to “stay the course” and to “fight them over there instead of over here”. If “they” came over here, these guys would find a job in Europe, keeping them as close to the results of their inaction as they are today.
A neighbor thinks that there is too much coverage of the war. Others wish that there would be none so that their children wouldn’t have to see those disturbing photographs. One fellow in the next town thinks that, “All this PTSD stuff is crap. They are just a new kind of welfare cheat.” Guess which war he or his son served in? NOT!
These same folks believe that our soldiers are not doing anything wrong when they commit the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere – “After all they cut off heads over there, so making them stand on a box for a while is nothing.” I guess neither is forced buggery, or electric shock, or prolonged sleep deprivation. After all, we pride ourselves not being quite as bad as the other guy, don’t we? We are comfortable with letting the worst define our moral character, I guess.
Meanwhile we let our soldier’s families live in squalor while we make sure that Burger King and KFC get their fair share of the soldier’s pay in the combat zone. We rush supplies to our allies in Israel and “examine the supply situation in search of a good solution” for our own in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We used to be proud to stand tall – to set the example – even to “be all that you can be”. We believed in the right and the good, instead of just the toughest and the baddest. We soldiers were supposed to be reluctant warriors, not members of a warrior caste. We were not cowards! We knew that being the good guy, even in combat, entailed risks, but risks that were worth it if we were to retain our humanity.
I don’t know when the United States changed, but I am pretty sure that it happened when I wasn’t looking – and shame on me.
How could we have let this happen? How could we have let the cowardice of inaction, the soul-debilitating meanness of torture, the lying masked as valid reporting, the spinning of inconsequence to make it appear meaningful, the deprivation of real benefits; the theft of national treasure, all of the products of this current time – How could we have let all this occur?
Sandy
Am I a traitor to say that there are times when I am ashamed to be an American? Does it make me less of a patriot to believe that both as individuals and as a nation we must keep our promises?
Am I a terrorist to believe that some of what we do as a nation can be classified as terrorism against our own? Am I a “commie” to believe that we have to take care of not only those who serve, but those who wait for them to come home?
If all of these things are true about me, then I accept them, because when I read some of the headlines lately I am ashamed, and I want us to do a lot more; to keep our promises – all of them.
Here are a few of those headlines almost at random from the last two weeks. There are more, and we’ll talk a little bit about these and the others throughout this issue.
1. “Camp Pendleton: Rats Invade Base Housing”
2. “Camp LeJeune: Marine Families Tie Tainted Water to Illnesses”
3. “Boston: Missing Soldier’s Wife May be Deported”
4. “Pentagon Rules Will Leave Military Families Unprotected”
5. “Veteran Homelessness on the Rise”
6. “Insurance cuts, red tape thwart soldiers who need therapy”
7. “Government Struggles to Cope With Wounded GIs”
How can we let our soldiers, marines and their families drink contaminated water FOR THIRTY YEARS without doing anything about it? Now we can do something, since a group of them have sued the Marine corps for $4Billion. Couldn’t we have solved that problem for less than $4B? Shouldn’t we have done so?
How can we let marine families live in rat-infested quarters, force them to go to the media for relief, and then condemn them for “not using the system”, the same system THAT LET IT HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE AND GAVE THEM NO REDRESS.
How can we be so insensitive that we would allow anyone to threaten the wife of a soldier, let alone a missing soldier, with deportation? Why doesn’t the service take care of it? Why did two Senators have to weigh in to get it stopped?
Why does the five-sided-funny-house believe that it is most important for them to protect predatory lenders at the expense of under-paid and under-appreciated service members?
Why do we let veterans live under bridges and behind dumpsters?
Why do we allow bureaucrats to administer programs “by the book” when the book is wrong and our veterans suffer as a consequence?
Why - in a country that can pay CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars in one year, and can pay outrageous subsidies to farmers and oilmen - why do we allow the military and VA medical systems to fail because of insufficient funding? Our priorities are only too obvious.
Why do we reelect people who believe that the way they should support the troops is to introduce (but not yet pass) H. Res. 189? What is H. Res. 189? It is not even an act rather it is a resolution ”Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a "Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day" should be established.” Good for you! Hello! WE CAME HOME 35 YEARS AGO!
But we shouldn’t be too hard on our representatives, after all, almost none of them have any idea what the troops are going through today. Fewer than 20 of 535 are combat veterans. Of course, that doesn’t stop most of them from pontificating about the need to “stay the course” and to “fight them over there instead of over here”. If “they” came over here, these guys would find a job in Europe, keeping them as close to the results of their inaction as they are today.
A neighbor thinks that there is too much coverage of the war. Others wish that there would be none so that their children wouldn’t have to see those disturbing photographs. One fellow in the next town thinks that, “All this PTSD stuff is crap. They are just a new kind of welfare cheat.” Guess which war he or his son served in? NOT!
These same folks believe that our soldiers are not doing anything wrong when they commit the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere – “After all they cut off heads over there, so making them stand on a box for a while is nothing.” I guess neither is forced buggery, or electric shock, or prolonged sleep deprivation. After all, we pride ourselves not being quite as bad as the other guy, don’t we? We are comfortable with letting the worst define our moral character, I guess.
Meanwhile we let our soldier’s families live in squalor while we make sure that Burger King and KFC get their fair share of the soldier’s pay in the combat zone. We rush supplies to our allies in Israel and “examine the supply situation in search of a good solution” for our own in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We used to be proud to stand tall – to set the example – even to “be all that you can be”. We believed in the right and the good, instead of just the toughest and the baddest. We soldiers were supposed to be reluctant warriors, not members of a warrior caste. We were not cowards! We knew that being the good guy, even in combat, entailed risks, but risks that were worth it if we were to retain our humanity.
I don’t know when the United States changed, but I am pretty sure that it happened when I wasn’t looking – and shame on me.
How could we have let this happen? How could we have let the cowardice of inaction, the soul-debilitating meanness of torture, the lying masked as valid reporting, the spinning of inconsequence to make it appear meaningful, the deprivation of real benefits; the theft of national treasure, all of the products of this current time – How could we have let all this occur?
Sandy
Friday, May 18, 2007
Your Lyin' Eyes
Splinters
In this strange new land of OZ
The image is the cause
Reality is equated to a story
While myth becomes the glory
Trust ME and not your lying eyes
Enjoy the dark behind the curtain
Where truth is twisted into lies
And lies are all that’s certain
If Animal Farm were written today, it would appear to be a documentary of the Bush Administration instead of allegory. In our last installment, we outlined some of the lies proffered by Paul Wolfowitz to explain away his unethical behavior at the World Bank. He claimed innocence because “everybody” knew about his decision to hire his “domestic partner.” Further, he stated that he was advised that the hiring was legitimate. Robert Danino, the World Bank General Counsel disputed that, saying that he personally advised Wolfowitz not to hire Riza for obvious ethical reasons and prohibitive rules. Wolfowitz countered that a man and wife both worked at the bank. Rules permitted nepotism through marriage but not through a demon domestic partnership. Xavier Coll, VP for human resources, testified that Wolfowitz asked him (Coll) to keep the hiring secret from Danino. That was uncovered as a double lie by the overpaid and oversexed Wolfowitz who then had the temerity to demand that his resignation be accompanied by “everybody made mistakes” and “I achieved great things as World Bank President.” I hope the bank issued barf bags at that press conference.
We knew Wolfowitz as the Iraqi War architect that sketched out the neocon “strategy” that depended on the Iraqis to greet us as liberators instead of invaders. His lies, leading up to and after the war began, are legend, but they are beginning to pale compared to the whoppers being told by Alberto Gonzales in recent weeks. The video clips of the AG’s testimony before Congress are astounding. Three weeks ago, he specifically exempted his deputy McNulty from knowledge of who made the decision to fire the eight (or is it 26?) federal attorneys. On 17 May, a day after McNulty resigned, Alberto suddenly recalled that it must have been McNulty since only McNulty had the intimate knowledge required. McNulty tried to protect the administration by claiming that he needed to resign in order to afford college tuition for his kids. As Jon Stewart noted: that is what each of us would do…quit a job when the kids need tuition.
I will concede that the obvious lies by the nation’s top law enforcement officer are disturbing, but they are less disturbing than the Gonzales assault on the Constitution on the night that he attempted to get John Ashcroft to sign a document to authorize domestic eavesdropping despite the Constitutional restriction to the same without court authority. That was doubly disturbing, because James Comey was acting AG and Ashcroft was in a serious postoperative and drugged condition in an ICU. This was at about the time that GW Bush made a Buffalo, NY presentation on 20 April 2004. “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, Constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” At that time, GW Bush had already authorized illegal wiretaps in flagrant violation of the Constitution that he swore to defend. Bush’s bosom buddy Gonzales was desperately trying to retro some authority as though that would preserve the Constitution. This was a clear attempt by Bush to deceive and a shameful attempt by Gonzales to cover GW’s tracks. I wonder why Bush named Gonzales as the replacement for Ashcorft? Could it be their shared deep disregard for the Constitution? Perhaps it was their shared love for the “unitary executive?”
Bush talks as the champion of the Constitution but walks as the guardian of secrecy. According to Henry Waxman “The records at issue have covered a vast array of topics, ranging from simple census data and routine agency correspondence to presidential and vice presidential records. Among the documents that the administration has refused to release to the public and members of Congress are (1) the contacts between energy companies and the Vice President’s energy task force, (2) the communications between the Defense Department and the Vice President’s office regarding contracts awarded to Halliburton, (3) documents describing the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, (4) memoranda revealing what the White House knew about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and (5) the cost estimates of the Medicare prescription drug legislation withheld from Congress.” Make no mistake. Bush has an image generator that is essentially a smoke screen to cover up the reality of the hidden images. He has prohibited disclosure of even the most ordinary information not only now, but long after his death. Even his library will contain only the puff pieces and “breaking news” from FOX.
The problem with this arrangement is that we may never live long enough to know the truth. If the truth shall make us free, and we may never learn the truth, then we may never be free. Even this week, Bush rejected a pay raise for soldiers and recommended a lesser one; increased individual medical payments by the soldier and otherwise made a mockery of “supporting the troops.” Twenty percent of enlisted qualify for food stamps, but the pay raise was too high for George W., the compassionate fraud. Don’t peek behind the curtain. I think that Cheney is there and I don’t want to shatter the illusion.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
19 May 2007
In this strange new land of OZ
The image is the cause
Reality is equated to a story
While myth becomes the glory
Trust ME and not your lying eyes
Enjoy the dark behind the curtain
Where truth is twisted into lies
And lies are all that’s certain
If Animal Farm were written today, it would appear to be a documentary of the Bush Administration instead of allegory. In our last installment, we outlined some of the lies proffered by Paul Wolfowitz to explain away his unethical behavior at the World Bank. He claimed innocence because “everybody” knew about his decision to hire his “domestic partner.” Further, he stated that he was advised that the hiring was legitimate. Robert Danino, the World Bank General Counsel disputed that, saying that he personally advised Wolfowitz not to hire Riza for obvious ethical reasons and prohibitive rules. Wolfowitz countered that a man and wife both worked at the bank. Rules permitted nepotism through marriage but not through a demon domestic partnership. Xavier Coll, VP for human resources, testified that Wolfowitz asked him (Coll) to keep the hiring secret from Danino. That was uncovered as a double lie by the overpaid and oversexed Wolfowitz who then had the temerity to demand that his resignation be accompanied by “everybody made mistakes” and “I achieved great things as World Bank President.” I hope the bank issued barf bags at that press conference.
We knew Wolfowitz as the Iraqi War architect that sketched out the neocon “strategy” that depended on the Iraqis to greet us as liberators instead of invaders. His lies, leading up to and after the war began, are legend, but they are beginning to pale compared to the whoppers being told by Alberto Gonzales in recent weeks. The video clips of the AG’s testimony before Congress are astounding. Three weeks ago, he specifically exempted his deputy McNulty from knowledge of who made the decision to fire the eight (or is it 26?) federal attorneys. On 17 May, a day after McNulty resigned, Alberto suddenly recalled that it must have been McNulty since only McNulty had the intimate knowledge required. McNulty tried to protect the administration by claiming that he needed to resign in order to afford college tuition for his kids. As Jon Stewart noted: that is what each of us would do…quit a job when the kids need tuition.
I will concede that the obvious lies by the nation’s top law enforcement officer are disturbing, but they are less disturbing than the Gonzales assault on the Constitution on the night that he attempted to get John Ashcroft to sign a document to authorize domestic eavesdropping despite the Constitutional restriction to the same without court authority. That was doubly disturbing, because James Comey was acting AG and Ashcroft was in a serious postoperative and drugged condition in an ICU. This was at about the time that GW Bush made a Buffalo, NY presentation on 20 April 2004. “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, Constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” At that time, GW Bush had already authorized illegal wiretaps in flagrant violation of the Constitution that he swore to defend. Bush’s bosom buddy Gonzales was desperately trying to retro some authority as though that would preserve the Constitution. This was a clear attempt by Bush to deceive and a shameful attempt by Gonzales to cover GW’s tracks. I wonder why Bush named Gonzales as the replacement for Ashcorft? Could it be their shared deep disregard for the Constitution? Perhaps it was their shared love for the “unitary executive?”
Bush talks as the champion of the Constitution but walks as the guardian of secrecy. According to Henry Waxman “The records at issue have covered a vast array of topics, ranging from simple census data and routine agency correspondence to presidential and vice presidential records. Among the documents that the administration has refused to release to the public and members of Congress are (1) the contacts between energy companies and the Vice President’s energy task force, (2) the communications between the Defense Department and the Vice President’s office regarding contracts awarded to Halliburton, (3) documents describing the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, (4) memoranda revealing what the White House knew about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and (5) the cost estimates of the Medicare prescription drug legislation withheld from Congress.” Make no mistake. Bush has an image generator that is essentially a smoke screen to cover up the reality of the hidden images. He has prohibited disclosure of even the most ordinary information not only now, but long after his death. Even his library will contain only the puff pieces and “breaking news” from FOX.
The problem with this arrangement is that we may never live long enough to know the truth. If the truth shall make us free, and we may never learn the truth, then we may never be free. Even this week, Bush rejected a pay raise for soldiers and recommended a lesser one; increased individual medical payments by the soldier and otherwise made a mockery of “supporting the troops.” Twenty percent of enlisted qualify for food stamps, but the pay raise was too high for George W., the compassionate fraud. Don’t peek behind the curtain. I think that Cheney is there and I don’t want to shatter the illusion.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
19 May 2007
Saturday, May 05, 2007
American Mercenaries
The word “mercenary” evokes unsavory images—first of individuals who care only about money—as much money as they can wheedle out of whatever job they perform, no matter how repulsive; second of hired guns—professional killers who do the lethal work of soldiering not out of patriotism or honor, but, again, for the greenbacks. No wonder, then, that the Bush Administration and its Pentagon have been so careful to describe the current incarnation of the type as “contractors.” The implication then becomes: Iraq needs American know-how, and our 130,000 “contractors” are doing the necessary and dangerous work of nation-and-infrastructure building.
Trouble is, it’s all a sham, a cover story we wouldn’t know much about were it not for Jeremy Scahill’s recent book, Blackwater. Blackwater is a name familiar to many Americans, but again, with connotations of innocent Americans, “contractors,” four of whom were viciously attacked, killed, mutilated, and strung up from a bridge in Fallujah. This outrage became an instant cause celebre, an act for which the whole city was righteously punished, destroyed by righteously vengeful American marines. Yea for our side! Only that Jeremy Scahill explains that the cruelty and disproportionality of that response really marked the beginning of the full-scale insurgency that has turned Iraq into a graveyard of American hopes. In doing so, he portrays a reality that most Americans would rather deny.
America is, after all, the good guy nation fielding not just a good guy military, but one so lean and efficient and high-tech that it can conquer an entire country with only 140,000 troops, all volunteers, not a draftee among them, hence no need for complainers, no need for big mouth, pampered, college-educated draft dodgers with pampered parents and friends to demonstrate against the good and just wars that must be fought.
Except that, once again, the “good boy lean mean military” sham fails. It fails because there’s Blackwater, Scahill tells us, one of more than 100 private “security forces” operating in Iraq. And these are decidedly not volunteers, or patriots. These are mercenaries—paid thugs, as many as 100,000 of them, who do the sensitive jobs the military either cannot or will not do. Guarding the VIPs who come to see Iraq’s progress themselves. Guarding, when he was our bumbling pro-Consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer. Guarding, even today, the Commanding General in charge of the surge, General Petraeus.
Wait? Is this a joke? The head of our vaunted military, the putatively most powerful military machine ever assembled, being guarded by private mercenaries?
That’s right. The land of the free, the land of the liberty-loving patriot willing to die for his country, the land distinguished by a military which is, because of its control by civilians and its corps of citizen-soldiers, the fairest and most intelligent and inventive armed force in the world—that land has become the land of the mercenary. Where once our revolutionary founders condemned the nations of Europe as despotisms headed by cruel monarchs who led their huddled masses into war and death for their own profit and glory, now our putative leaders betray that tradition by “privatizing” their vicious little wars for profit and glory. And they privatize for the same reasons monarchs once did: citizens soon grow sick of dying for the exclusive benefit of their rulers. Only by paying their troops can kings and emperors maintain their military machines. Hence the term, “mercenary.” It was, and is a term of opprobrium, a term that conjures up images of cold-hearted killers engaging in slaughter purely for the money.
So we have Blackwater. An army for hire. An army of ex-special forces, green beret, navy seal rejects who now command salaries many times that of a poor volunteer in our all-volunteer army. And they have roamed free of oversight and accountability not only in Iraq, though that is their defining mission. They also showed up on the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, strutting their stuff as self-defined protectors of property allegedly endangered by the riff-raff rendered homeless and desperate. According to Scahill, these Blackwater guards were making $350 a day, while their blackguard company was picking up $950 a day from the United States Government for their services.
A nice little windfall for their founder and CEO, Erik Prince—as well as for George W. Bush, one of Prince’s major beneficiaries, along with the Christian Right’s Gary Bauer and James Dobson. All of which makes for a nice circular windfall. Because it’s not only that our American empire now hires mercenaries to bilk the public into thinking its military’s losses are less than they are, its footprint smaller than it is, its war expenses orders of magnitude less than they really are. It’s that the circle of nepotism and collusion and privatization and political payoffs runs deep into the heart of the entire crooked, putrefying enterprise. Including the fact, Mr. and Mrs. America, that this private mercenary army includes not just the profiteers siphoned from our own military, but also gangs of imported killers trained by our infamous allies in places like Colombia and Chile. Chile, which refused to participate in our disastrous venture into Iraq, but whose support is secured through the back door by the now-rejected military spawn of Disgusto Pinochet—all hired and cozy with Blackwater.
So beware. When a republic is transformed from a citizen army to an army of mercenaries—as Rome was late in the days of its rotting empire—the end is near.
PS: a late news story on Friday April 27 in the McClatchy newspapers reported that “House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri and Rep. David Price of North Carolina, both Democrats, asked the Government Accountability Office to provide details on the use of private security contractors in Iraq,” this because Congress has literally no idea what these people are doing.
Background Notes:
Both foreign and domestic—New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Protect Gen. Petraeus and Nancy Pelosi.
Bertelli, hired by Schwarzenegger.
130 K private contractors in Iraq and CA. 48,000 armed. 100 private armies.
Eric Prince head of it Christian fundamentalist. Father funded Bauer, Dobson.
CA $4 billion spent on these guys so far.
In New Orleans, paid $350/day, but govt paying Blackwater $950/day.
Fallujah—4 blackwater guys killed and strung up—Marine response, 2nd, which devastated the city, effectively started the insurgency.
Have hired Chileans (Pinochet killers) and Colombians (right wingers) as well. Chile especially refused to support Bush in Iraq (90% opposed), and so this gets around that inconvenience.
Just launched new private intelligence company, Private Intelligence Solutions.
Questions: no accountability. Can’t be tried by military courts. No civilian control either.
Main: can pretend to have this small military force. Contractors do all the things that in previous wars were done by GIs like cooking , laundry, cleaning barracks, and god knows what else, which is why so many were required.
Compare to pinkertons.
From Wikipedia:
Pinkerton guards escort strikebreakers in Buchtel, Ohio, 1884
The Pinkerton National Detective Agency was a private U.S. security guard and detective agency established by Allan Pinkerton in 1850. Pinkerton had become famous when he foiled a plot to assassinate President-Elect Abraham Lincoln. Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guards to private military contracting work. During its height, the Pinkerton Detective Agency employed more agents than the standing army of the United States of America, causing the state of Ohio to outlaw the agency due to fears it could be hired out as a private army or militia.
During the labor unrest of the late 19th century, businessmen hired Pinkerton agents to infiltrate unions, and guards to keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories. The most notorious example was the Homestead Strike of 1892, when Pinkerton agents killed several people in a battle with strikers, who also injured several agents, while enforcing the strikebreaking measures of Henry Clay Frick, acting on behalf of Andrew Carnegie, who was abroad. The agency's logo, an eye embellished with the words "We Never Sleep" inspired the term "private eye." The "Pinkertons" were also used as guards in coal, iron and lumber disputes in Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania, as well as the railroad strikes of 1877.
Formed mainly in response to businessmen trying to control employees.
In the 1870s, Franklin B. Gowen, then president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad hired the agency to investigate the labor unions in the company's mines. A Pinkerton agent, James McParlan, infiltrated the Molly Maguires using the alias James McKenna, leading to the downfall of this secret organization.
In July 2003, Pinkerton's was acquired along with longtime rival, the William J. Burns Detective Agency (founded in 1910), by Securitas AB to create Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., one of the largest security companies in the world.
Trouble is, it’s all a sham, a cover story we wouldn’t know much about were it not for Jeremy Scahill’s recent book, Blackwater. Blackwater is a name familiar to many Americans, but again, with connotations of innocent Americans, “contractors,” four of whom were viciously attacked, killed, mutilated, and strung up from a bridge in Fallujah. This outrage became an instant cause celebre, an act for which the whole city was righteously punished, destroyed by righteously vengeful American marines. Yea for our side! Only that Jeremy Scahill explains that the cruelty and disproportionality of that response really marked the beginning of the full-scale insurgency that has turned Iraq into a graveyard of American hopes. In doing so, he portrays a reality that most Americans would rather deny.
America is, after all, the good guy nation fielding not just a good guy military, but one so lean and efficient and high-tech that it can conquer an entire country with only 140,000 troops, all volunteers, not a draftee among them, hence no need for complainers, no need for big mouth, pampered, college-educated draft dodgers with pampered parents and friends to demonstrate against the good and just wars that must be fought.
Except that, once again, the “good boy lean mean military” sham fails. It fails because there’s Blackwater, Scahill tells us, one of more than 100 private “security forces” operating in Iraq. And these are decidedly not volunteers, or patriots. These are mercenaries—paid thugs, as many as 100,000 of them, who do the sensitive jobs the military either cannot or will not do. Guarding the VIPs who come to see Iraq’s progress themselves. Guarding, when he was our bumbling pro-Consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer. Guarding, even today, the Commanding General in charge of the surge, General Petraeus.
Wait? Is this a joke? The head of our vaunted military, the putatively most powerful military machine ever assembled, being guarded by private mercenaries?
That’s right. The land of the free, the land of the liberty-loving patriot willing to die for his country, the land distinguished by a military which is, because of its control by civilians and its corps of citizen-soldiers, the fairest and most intelligent and inventive armed force in the world—that land has become the land of the mercenary. Where once our revolutionary founders condemned the nations of Europe as despotisms headed by cruel monarchs who led their huddled masses into war and death for their own profit and glory, now our putative leaders betray that tradition by “privatizing” their vicious little wars for profit and glory. And they privatize for the same reasons monarchs once did: citizens soon grow sick of dying for the exclusive benefit of their rulers. Only by paying their troops can kings and emperors maintain their military machines. Hence the term, “mercenary.” It was, and is a term of opprobrium, a term that conjures up images of cold-hearted killers engaging in slaughter purely for the money.
So we have Blackwater. An army for hire. An army of ex-special forces, green beret, navy seal rejects who now command salaries many times that of a poor volunteer in our all-volunteer army. And they have roamed free of oversight and accountability not only in Iraq, though that is their defining mission. They also showed up on the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, strutting their stuff as self-defined protectors of property allegedly endangered by the riff-raff rendered homeless and desperate. According to Scahill, these Blackwater guards were making $350 a day, while their blackguard company was picking up $950 a day from the United States Government for their services.
A nice little windfall for their founder and CEO, Erik Prince—as well as for George W. Bush, one of Prince’s major beneficiaries, along with the Christian Right’s Gary Bauer and James Dobson. All of which makes for a nice circular windfall. Because it’s not only that our American empire now hires mercenaries to bilk the public into thinking its military’s losses are less than they are, its footprint smaller than it is, its war expenses orders of magnitude less than they really are. It’s that the circle of nepotism and collusion and privatization and political payoffs runs deep into the heart of the entire crooked, putrefying enterprise. Including the fact, Mr. and Mrs. America, that this private mercenary army includes not just the profiteers siphoned from our own military, but also gangs of imported killers trained by our infamous allies in places like Colombia and Chile. Chile, which refused to participate in our disastrous venture into Iraq, but whose support is secured through the back door by the now-rejected military spawn of Disgusto Pinochet—all hired and cozy with Blackwater.
So beware. When a republic is transformed from a citizen army to an army of mercenaries—as Rome was late in the days of its rotting empire—the end is near.
PS: a late news story on Friday April 27 in the McClatchy newspapers reported that “House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri and Rep. David Price of North Carolina, both Democrats, asked the Government Accountability Office to provide details on the use of private security contractors in Iraq,” this because Congress has literally no idea what these people are doing.
Background Notes:
Both foreign and domestic—New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Protect Gen. Petraeus and Nancy Pelosi.
Bertelli, hired by Schwarzenegger.
130 K private contractors in Iraq and CA. 48,000 armed. 100 private armies.
Eric Prince head of it Christian fundamentalist. Father funded Bauer, Dobson.
CA $4 billion spent on these guys so far.
In New Orleans, paid $350/day, but govt paying Blackwater $950/day.
Fallujah—4 blackwater guys killed and strung up—Marine response, 2nd, which devastated the city, effectively started the insurgency.
Have hired Chileans (Pinochet killers) and Colombians (right wingers) as well. Chile especially refused to support Bush in Iraq (90% opposed), and so this gets around that inconvenience.
Just launched new private intelligence company, Private Intelligence Solutions.
Questions: no accountability. Can’t be tried by military courts. No civilian control either.
Main: can pretend to have this small military force. Contractors do all the things that in previous wars were done by GIs like cooking , laundry, cleaning barracks, and god knows what else, which is why so many were required.
Compare to pinkertons.
From Wikipedia:
Pinkerton guards escort strikebreakers in Buchtel, Ohio, 1884
The Pinkerton National Detective Agency was a private U.S. security guard and detective agency established by Allan Pinkerton in 1850. Pinkerton had become famous when he foiled a plot to assassinate President-Elect Abraham Lincoln. Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guards to private military contracting work. During its height, the Pinkerton Detective Agency employed more agents than the standing army of the United States of America, causing the state of Ohio to outlaw the agency due to fears it could be hired out as a private army or militia.
During the labor unrest of the late 19th century, businessmen hired Pinkerton agents to infiltrate unions, and guards to keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories. The most notorious example was the Homestead Strike of 1892, when Pinkerton agents killed several people in a battle with strikers, who also injured several agents, while enforcing the strikebreaking measures of Henry Clay Frick, acting on behalf of Andrew Carnegie, who was abroad. The agency's logo, an eye embellished with the words "We Never Sleep" inspired the term "private eye." The "Pinkertons" were also used as guards in coal, iron and lumber disputes in Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania, as well as the railroad strikes of 1877.
Formed mainly in response to businessmen trying to control employees.
In the 1870s, Franklin B. Gowen, then president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad hired the agency to investigate the labor unions in the company's mines. A Pinkerton agent, James McParlan, infiltrated the Molly Maguires using the alias James McKenna, leading to the downfall of this secret organization.
In July 2003, Pinkerton's was acquired along with longtime rival, the William J. Burns Detective Agency (founded in 1910), by Securitas AB to create Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., one of the largest security companies in the world.
Lawrence DiStasi
Friday, April 27, 2007
War Between the Sexes
Last week's news reported that the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin,upheld the so-called "Partial Birth Abortion Law." Though anti-abortion advocates like to pretend that this law is meant to preserve "life," in fact, it and the decision just announced represent new attacks by male-dominated institutions (both the Supreme Court majority and the Congress that passed the law are male preserves) in the continuing war between the sexes. "War" in this context may seem a bit old-fashioned, but consider some of the scientific evidence in Robert Sapolsky's book, Monkeyluv. First, fruit flies exemplify one of the most extreme forms of this war, a war that turns on the knotty fact that the genetic interest of males in reproduction differs from that of females. Fruit flies, that is, mate serially and with multiple partners. This being the case, males have no interest in the well-being of the female fruit fly, except to get their genes passed on to her offspring. Thus, male fruit flies deposit their semen in the female, and fly off. This might be fine, except for the fact that the male fruit fly has a ruthless way of protecting his investment: his semen contains a component that is toxic to the sperm of any other fruit fly. So when another fruit fly tries to mate with the same female, its sperm is killed, allowing the first male's sperm to bear fruit. Not a bad system if you're male. The problem is that the toxic element in male semen is also eventually toxic to the female,and she will die from it. As Sapolsky wryly comments at his conclusion:"Caveat emptor, baby."
Of course, one might take comfort from the fact that insects are, thankfully, not mammals, except for the fact that mammals, specifically humans, have evolved a somewhat comparable system. It concerns the placenta. Scientists now understand that the placenta is only partly related to the mother, that, indeed, it can be seen as on some level "invading" her bodylike an octopus. It actually dispatches tentacles to the mother¹s bloodvessels so that they can divert nutrients from her body to her growing fetus. More than that, the placenta is described as the locus of a battle between paternal genes, driving it to invade more thoroughly, and maternal genes attempting to inhibit placental development. In fact, in abnormal cases where paternal genes are absent, female genes inhibit placental growth so much that the fetus cannot grow. Contrarily, where maternal genes are absent, the paternal genes create such exuberant placental growth that they result in a cancer called choriocarcinoma. The point here, again, is that males have an interest in a larger, healthier fetus, even at the expense of the mother, whereas females necessarily are keen to keep fetus size down, and their own bodies healthy. It would seem, then, that women in our time should recognize that beneath the rhetoric and religious pretense, the abortion battle is simply another instance of the continuing genetic war between the sexes. Men(at least those in fundamentalist communities) can be seen as having an interest in continuing high rates of birth. Nations run by men have an interest in keeping the birth rate high, both to provide boys for armies, and to keep replenishing the ranks of workers, consumers, and so on. Hence, the male-sponsored laws to outlaw or regulate abortion. Females, contrarily, seek to maintain control over their bodies, both to maintain bodily health, and to increase their life choices beyond the restrictive one of bearing children. Hence, the freer use of abortion as a method of control would be of greater moment to women. Whether most members of the opposing sexes are aware of these biological battles taking place at the genetic level is not the issue. The issue is realizing that the battles are real, they are serious, and women, especially, need to become educated about the critical and life-threateningdynamics that are in play.
Lawrence DiStasi
Of course, one might take comfort from the fact that insects are, thankfully, not mammals, except for the fact that mammals, specifically humans, have evolved a somewhat comparable system. It concerns the placenta. Scientists now understand that the placenta is only partly related to the mother, that, indeed, it can be seen as on some level "invading" her bodylike an octopus. It actually dispatches tentacles to the mother¹s bloodvessels so that they can divert nutrients from her body to her growing fetus. More than that, the placenta is described as the locus of a battle between paternal genes, driving it to invade more thoroughly, and maternal genes attempting to inhibit placental development. In fact, in abnormal cases where paternal genes are absent, female genes inhibit placental growth so much that the fetus cannot grow. Contrarily, where maternal genes are absent, the paternal genes create such exuberant placental growth that they result in a cancer called choriocarcinoma. The point here, again, is that males have an interest in a larger, healthier fetus, even at the expense of the mother, whereas females necessarily are keen to keep fetus size down, and their own bodies healthy. It would seem, then, that women in our time should recognize that beneath the rhetoric and religious pretense, the abortion battle is simply another instance of the continuing genetic war between the sexes. Men(at least those in fundamentalist communities) can be seen as having an interest in continuing high rates of birth. Nations run by men have an interest in keeping the birth rate high, both to provide boys for armies, and to keep replenishing the ranks of workers, consumers, and so on. Hence, the male-sponsored laws to outlaw or regulate abortion. Females, contrarily, seek to maintain control over their bodies, both to maintain bodily health, and to increase their life choices beyond the restrictive one of bearing children. Hence, the freer use of abortion as a method of control would be of greater moment to women. Whether most members of the opposing sexes are aware of these biological battles taking place at the genetic level is not the issue. The issue is realizing that the battles are real, they are serious, and women, especially, need to become educated about the critical and life-threateningdynamics that are in play.
Lawrence DiStasi
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Sex and the Single Neocon
Leaders lost in Lust
Give us all some fits
But if it is war
Followed by sex
It must be Wolfowitz
Nobody has more ownership for the failed Iraq concept and the failed policies that were executed than comb licking Paul himself. He was then rewarded for the disaster that is Iraq and promoted by Bush to self-service pimp for the World Bank where he assiduously pursued tough love on corruption and simultaneously corrupted the personnel system to reward his girlfriend (Shaha Ali Riza) by doubling the maximum salary increase allowed and pushing her off to the State Department. Is this woman a whore or a spy or both? How does this man maintain a security clearance? How can this man push anti-corruption policies in his rhetoric while simultaneously corrupting the system? Has he no shame or no brains? The woman wanted to stay at the World Bank, so his bribe or fee for services is insufficient to quiet her. We cannot even give Paul credit for satisfying the “victim.” I will grant that even Paul Wolfowitz may have passion, but should taxpayers pay for it?
Lest you think that Mr. Wolfowitz corrupted the system only this once, there is an earlier example that demonstrates that this was more than a temporary lapse in judgment. In 2003, Paul managed to get his squeeze a no-bid consulting contract in Iraq. The World Bank Policy at the time forbid outside consulting, but not to worry, Retired General Jay Garner has stated that he never saw her in Iraq when she supposedly was there. Perhaps she avoided the conflict of interest by merely taking the money and not consulting. Who helped in this “shake and bake” episode of tax dipping? Answer: None other than Dougie Feith, another Neo-Con with special emphasis on Con. There was no shame in the inner circles of the war planners, and not much planning either.
There is some humor in all this, however. The World Bank has labeled Ms. Riza a “domestic partner” which has a familiar ring to it, especially as a right wing pejorative for living in sin. The hypocrisy extends beyond the rhetoric. World Bank senior officials are concerned over the incompetence of Paul Wolfowitz as well as his ability to project credibility while mired in personal corruption. The top 24 leaders have decried the strain that the Wolfowitz affair has put on the entire World Bank staff. If the Wolfowitz domestic partner pulls in $200,000 with her next pay raise, does the World Bank take on the burden of pay equity for the rest of the staff? Riza was shipped off to the US State Department over her objection. What kind of employee does that provide for the State Department? Even if you are not a Condi Rice fan, should Paul’s paramour make more than Condi? How can we keep her in Prada if she is relegated to Secretary of State but could make more sleeping with Paul?
Incidentally, this brilliant analyst that had the Iraqi invasion figured out to the detail of every minor political and economic facet, promised in a letter dated 25 May, 2005 that due to his pre-existing relationship with Riza that he would recuse himself from her personnel actions. Did he lie or does he know what recuse means? Perhaps that was too fine a detail.
Thank goodness that he has received the full support and confidence of GW Bush. Now we can feel vindicated that the world is better off with Wolfowitz in the World Bank. George’s judgment in selections has been perfect…or at least perfectly consistent. Loyalty uber alles. We do have precedent in the Bush White House with the more than 80 visits of Jeff Gannon (James Dale Guckert, male prostitute). At least Jeff advertised on line as a male escort and not as an investment analyst. But then, just who did Jeff visit there? I just hope that it was not Wolfowitz. That would add more complexity than I can handle as a God-fearing conservative and taxpayer.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
25 April 2007
Give us all some fits
But if it is war
Followed by sex
It must be Wolfowitz
Nobody has more ownership for the failed Iraq concept and the failed policies that were executed than comb licking Paul himself. He was then rewarded for the disaster that is Iraq and promoted by Bush to self-service pimp for the World Bank where he assiduously pursued tough love on corruption and simultaneously corrupted the personnel system to reward his girlfriend (Shaha Ali Riza) by doubling the maximum salary increase allowed and pushing her off to the State Department. Is this woman a whore or a spy or both? How does this man maintain a security clearance? How can this man push anti-corruption policies in his rhetoric while simultaneously corrupting the system? Has he no shame or no brains? The woman wanted to stay at the World Bank, so his bribe or fee for services is insufficient to quiet her. We cannot even give Paul credit for satisfying the “victim.” I will grant that even Paul Wolfowitz may have passion, but should taxpayers pay for it?
Lest you think that Mr. Wolfowitz corrupted the system only this once, there is an earlier example that demonstrates that this was more than a temporary lapse in judgment. In 2003, Paul managed to get his squeeze a no-bid consulting contract in Iraq. The World Bank Policy at the time forbid outside consulting, but not to worry, Retired General Jay Garner has stated that he never saw her in Iraq when she supposedly was there. Perhaps she avoided the conflict of interest by merely taking the money and not consulting. Who helped in this “shake and bake” episode of tax dipping? Answer: None other than Dougie Feith, another Neo-Con with special emphasis on Con. There was no shame in the inner circles of the war planners, and not much planning either.
There is some humor in all this, however. The World Bank has labeled Ms. Riza a “domestic partner” which has a familiar ring to it, especially as a right wing pejorative for living in sin. The hypocrisy extends beyond the rhetoric. World Bank senior officials are concerned over the incompetence of Paul Wolfowitz as well as his ability to project credibility while mired in personal corruption. The top 24 leaders have decried the strain that the Wolfowitz affair has put on the entire World Bank staff. If the Wolfowitz domestic partner pulls in $200,000 with her next pay raise, does the World Bank take on the burden of pay equity for the rest of the staff? Riza was shipped off to the US State Department over her objection. What kind of employee does that provide for the State Department? Even if you are not a Condi Rice fan, should Paul’s paramour make more than Condi? How can we keep her in Prada if she is relegated to Secretary of State but could make more sleeping with Paul?
Incidentally, this brilliant analyst that had the Iraqi invasion figured out to the detail of every minor political and economic facet, promised in a letter dated 25 May, 2005 that due to his pre-existing relationship with Riza that he would recuse himself from her personnel actions. Did he lie or does he know what recuse means? Perhaps that was too fine a detail.
Thank goodness that he has received the full support and confidence of GW Bush. Now we can feel vindicated that the world is better off with Wolfowitz in the World Bank. George’s judgment in selections has been perfect…or at least perfectly consistent. Loyalty uber alles. We do have precedent in the Bush White House with the more than 80 visits of Jeff Gannon (James Dale Guckert, male prostitute). At least Jeff advertised on line as a male escort and not as an investment analyst. But then, just who did Jeff visit there? I just hope that it was not Wolfowitz. That would add more complexity than I can handle as a God-fearing conservative and taxpayer.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
25 April 2007
The costs of War Part 3
Human loss and “humanity” loss ~ they both countSandy Cook – 3/25/07 ~ Part 3 of 3 parts
In the first two parts we discussed the quantifiable losses in the war, open and hidden.In this final part we examine the qualitative costs of the war to all of us.
Beyond the “Human” cost of war is the broader “Humanity” cost of war. Those costs, tangible or intangible, that affect our way of life, our relationships with each other, and our place in the world.
We are losing the strongest elements of our history.
· Our American republic is being replaced by a moneyed aristocracy.
· The doctrine of separation of powers is being replaced by a “unitary executive” that brooks no checks or balances.
· The fundamental doctrine of habeas corpus is being replaced by “secret rendition.”
· The Constitutional provision that treaties are the law of the land is being replaced by the view that they are “quaint.”
· Thus, the Geneva and Hague conventions are now being replaced with “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
· The United Nations which we started and which we need is being replaced by a policy of “full spectrum dominance.”
Civilian control of an apolitical military is being replaced by militaristic civilian leadership of a politicized military.
Defense as a foreign policy imperative is being replaced by preventive war
Shared sacrifice has been replaced by shared greed and shared entertainment.
Space neutrality is being replaced by armed space weapons.
These are frightening losses, nor do I believe that the list is in any way complete. Mischief is afoot and more losses occur almost every day. Our founders believed that sovereignty rested with the people, and that a representative democracy was the practical way to exercise that sovereignty. They believed that the sovereign people’s representatives were first in the hierarchy of Government, thus their position in Article I. They knew that the representatives would need someone to run the place day-by-day, but not a king, thus the President with defined powers in Article II. And, they knew that no one could be trusted who did not have to submit his actions to review, and that the people needed protection from the powerful, thus the independent courts in Article III. They left us a clear message – let each part keep watch over the other parts – oversight, as we would call it today – and it has all but disappeared.
The three things our founders spent the most time cautioning each other on were that: treaties honored were the key to the new nation’s place in the world; massively inherited wealth would lead to a new aristocracy; and, a standing Army would present the temptation to use it.
What can I say about Geneva, The Hague and the use of torture? It appalls me as an American and as a soldier that torture is not only permitted, but in some circles it is lauded. This is a monumental loss for America from which we may never recover.
We built the United Nations, then we undermined it, and now we excoriate it. What we forget is that we need it.
In my experience we have had the least “militaristic” military in the developed world. “Militarism” in a republic most often comes from the power-mad civilian controllers, and they use the military to implement it. It is usually not the generals who want war, but the politicians.
George Marshall, general and statesman, taught us that in a republic there was a “ military ethic”, and that was, “A hatred of war and an avoidance of politics”. That view may be lost.
Surprising to some, “preemptive war” is a well-established principle in international law. Had the Polish Cavalry charged across the German border on 31 August 1939, they would have been conducting preemptive war in the face of an overwhelming and looming threat – a threat that manifested itself on 1 September when the Germans invaded. What is illegal is “preventive war.” Preventive war is the product of a policy best expressed by the Romans after their defeat by the Carthaginians early in the second Punic War, when they announced that no nation or tribe would ever be allowed to compete with Rome for supremacy. Because of that policy, the universal hatred of all people for Rome eventually brought it down. Our current government, unwilling to study history, has adopted the same policy for the United States. Calling “preventive war” “preemptive war” doesn’t change it’s nature any more than my calling you a genius or an idiot makes you one. The fact remains that “preventive war” is illegal.
Sadly, the idea of shared sacrifice has disappeared. We now believe that just thinking about the war, or ranting about it, or grieving over it is somehow sharing. I won’t remark on yellow ribbons other than to say that I never knew that patriotism and brotherhood sold for $2.95.
We are losing the present.
Nothing works better in recruiting opposition, particularly in the Middle East, than kicking down front doors and shaming the head of the family. It is almost as good at recruiting as the second best thing that we do which is to kill the innocent and call it “collateral damage.” We have destabilized the Middle East.
We have lost a sense of fiscal responsibility to our nation and to each other. We have a rigged economy based on the defense industry and foreign borrowing, that favors those who live on unearned income over those who work for a living.
We are losing a free and independent press. We are losing our right to privacy. We are equal before the courts only if we can afford high-ticket representation.
The opportunity costs are staggering. Public education, infrastructure repair, environmental conservation, research in alternative fuels, medical research, libraries, aid to the poor and indigent, and on, and on. Other present losses include 60,000 new military divorces, thousands of lost jobs and businesses, and increased industrial and political corruption.
We are losing the meaning of fundamental concepts such as truth, justice, democracy. In fact, it is our hypocrisy that taints the message of democracy.
The possible losses for the future are almost too frightening and too sad to contemplate.
The loss of manufacturing capability has weakened us strategically. The good “surge” of industrial output that let us win World War II could not be generated today. We would have to conquer or at least negotiate with other countries to regain the manufacturing capability that we have given away.
We are in danger of establishing for all time a government of authoritarian rule, with its associated destruction of civil rights. Along with that may well go our academic and religious freedoms, and freedom to travel.
We can expect increased world and national poverty as “corporatism” (Mussolini’s term for fascism) takes over.
Global warming approaches the tipping point from which mankind may not recover, and because of which world health may crash as tropical diseases invade temperate zones.
We are destroying trust among nations, and engendering international contempt for the rule of law. We are embarking on a period of permanent war – a bellum Americanum – with its accompanying perpetual arms race.
The dollar is sliding, and the international debt is climbing and we are headed for a financial meltdown.
It is hard to admit that I may well be leaving a world to my eleven grandchildren that is worse than the world my father gave me.
The remaining question of course is: did these young Americans in Iraq die in vain? Knowing that I will be attacked by some for saying it, yet I must say that the answer is “YES!”
Those who defend this war would have us believe that they only die in vain if we fail to send more to die after them, and if we do not achieve “Victory” – in whatever definition of “Victory” is in favor today. The President said in a White House news release in October of last year that, “"[r]etreating from Iraq would dishonor the men and women who have given their lives in that country, and mean their sacrifice has been in vain." I say rather that they can only die in vain if they are SENT in vain. Our history and even our political rhetoric supports that definition. And for those serving in Iraq, they have been sent in vain. Because of that, I believe that we can only honor those who have died by not letting their comrades also die. I am confident that that is what those who have died would want.
We have been warned.
"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence...”
Daniel Webster: June 1, 1837
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become victims of the darkness.”
Justice William O. Douglas
Recently in The Guardian Rebecca Solnit gave us all something to ponder. Ask yourself where you sit on this simple scale.
“There is resistance. But if it were enough, the crimes would have stopped, the war would have ended. When it does and they do, some will have been heroes, some will have been honorable but moderate, in times that did not call for moderation, and some will have consented, through inaction, to crimes against humanity.”
Rebecca Solnit: 03/14/07
If you are not yet a hero, begin working on it today.
In the first two parts we discussed the quantifiable losses in the war, open and hidden.In this final part we examine the qualitative costs of the war to all of us.
Beyond the “Human” cost of war is the broader “Humanity” cost of war. Those costs, tangible or intangible, that affect our way of life, our relationships with each other, and our place in the world.
We are losing the strongest elements of our history.
· Our American republic is being replaced by a moneyed aristocracy.
· The doctrine of separation of powers is being replaced by a “unitary executive” that brooks no checks or balances.
· The fundamental doctrine of habeas corpus is being replaced by “secret rendition.”
· The Constitutional provision that treaties are the law of the land is being replaced by the view that they are “quaint.”
· Thus, the Geneva and Hague conventions are now being replaced with “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
· The United Nations which we started and which we need is being replaced by a policy of “full spectrum dominance.”
Civilian control of an apolitical military is being replaced by militaristic civilian leadership of a politicized military.
Defense as a foreign policy imperative is being replaced by preventive war
Shared sacrifice has been replaced by shared greed and shared entertainment.
Space neutrality is being replaced by armed space weapons.
These are frightening losses, nor do I believe that the list is in any way complete. Mischief is afoot and more losses occur almost every day. Our founders believed that sovereignty rested with the people, and that a representative democracy was the practical way to exercise that sovereignty. They believed that the sovereign people’s representatives were first in the hierarchy of Government, thus their position in Article I. They knew that the representatives would need someone to run the place day-by-day, but not a king, thus the President with defined powers in Article II. And, they knew that no one could be trusted who did not have to submit his actions to review, and that the people needed protection from the powerful, thus the independent courts in Article III. They left us a clear message – let each part keep watch over the other parts – oversight, as we would call it today – and it has all but disappeared.
The three things our founders spent the most time cautioning each other on were that: treaties honored were the key to the new nation’s place in the world; massively inherited wealth would lead to a new aristocracy; and, a standing Army would present the temptation to use it.
What can I say about Geneva, The Hague and the use of torture? It appalls me as an American and as a soldier that torture is not only permitted, but in some circles it is lauded. This is a monumental loss for America from which we may never recover.
We built the United Nations, then we undermined it, and now we excoriate it. What we forget is that we need it.
In my experience we have had the least “militaristic” military in the developed world. “Militarism” in a republic most often comes from the power-mad civilian controllers, and they use the military to implement it. It is usually not the generals who want war, but the politicians.
George Marshall, general and statesman, taught us that in a republic there was a “ military ethic”, and that was, “A hatred of war and an avoidance of politics”. That view may be lost.
Surprising to some, “preemptive war” is a well-established principle in international law. Had the Polish Cavalry charged across the German border on 31 August 1939, they would have been conducting preemptive war in the face of an overwhelming and looming threat – a threat that manifested itself on 1 September when the Germans invaded. What is illegal is “preventive war.” Preventive war is the product of a policy best expressed by the Romans after their defeat by the Carthaginians early in the second Punic War, when they announced that no nation or tribe would ever be allowed to compete with Rome for supremacy. Because of that policy, the universal hatred of all people for Rome eventually brought it down. Our current government, unwilling to study history, has adopted the same policy for the United States. Calling “preventive war” “preemptive war” doesn’t change it’s nature any more than my calling you a genius or an idiot makes you one. The fact remains that “preventive war” is illegal.
Sadly, the idea of shared sacrifice has disappeared. We now believe that just thinking about the war, or ranting about it, or grieving over it is somehow sharing. I won’t remark on yellow ribbons other than to say that I never knew that patriotism and brotherhood sold for $2.95.
We are losing the present.
Nothing works better in recruiting opposition, particularly in the Middle East, than kicking down front doors and shaming the head of the family. It is almost as good at recruiting as the second best thing that we do which is to kill the innocent and call it “collateral damage.” We have destabilized the Middle East.
We have lost a sense of fiscal responsibility to our nation and to each other. We have a rigged economy based on the defense industry and foreign borrowing, that favors those who live on unearned income over those who work for a living.
We are losing a free and independent press. We are losing our right to privacy. We are equal before the courts only if we can afford high-ticket representation.
The opportunity costs are staggering. Public education, infrastructure repair, environmental conservation, research in alternative fuels, medical research, libraries, aid to the poor and indigent, and on, and on. Other present losses include 60,000 new military divorces, thousands of lost jobs and businesses, and increased industrial and political corruption.
We are losing the meaning of fundamental concepts such as truth, justice, democracy. In fact, it is our hypocrisy that taints the message of democracy.
The possible losses for the future are almost too frightening and too sad to contemplate.
The loss of manufacturing capability has weakened us strategically. The good “surge” of industrial output that let us win World War II could not be generated today. We would have to conquer or at least negotiate with other countries to regain the manufacturing capability that we have given away.
We are in danger of establishing for all time a government of authoritarian rule, with its associated destruction of civil rights. Along with that may well go our academic and religious freedoms, and freedom to travel.
We can expect increased world and national poverty as “corporatism” (Mussolini’s term for fascism) takes over.
Global warming approaches the tipping point from which mankind may not recover, and because of which world health may crash as tropical diseases invade temperate zones.
We are destroying trust among nations, and engendering international contempt for the rule of law. We are embarking on a period of permanent war – a bellum Americanum – with its accompanying perpetual arms race.
The dollar is sliding, and the international debt is climbing and we are headed for a financial meltdown.
It is hard to admit that I may well be leaving a world to my eleven grandchildren that is worse than the world my father gave me.
The remaining question of course is: did these young Americans in Iraq die in vain? Knowing that I will be attacked by some for saying it, yet I must say that the answer is “YES!”
Those who defend this war would have us believe that they only die in vain if we fail to send more to die after them, and if we do not achieve “Victory” – in whatever definition of “Victory” is in favor today. The President said in a White House news release in October of last year that, “"[r]etreating from Iraq would dishonor the men and women who have given their lives in that country, and mean their sacrifice has been in vain." I say rather that they can only die in vain if they are SENT in vain. Our history and even our political rhetoric supports that definition. And for those serving in Iraq, they have been sent in vain. Because of that, I believe that we can only honor those who have died by not letting their comrades also die. I am confident that that is what those who have died would want.
We have been warned.
"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence...”
Daniel Webster: June 1, 1837
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become victims of the darkness.”
Justice William O. Douglas
Recently in The Guardian Rebecca Solnit gave us all something to ponder. Ask yourself where you sit on this simple scale.
“There is resistance. But if it were enough, the crimes would have stopped, the war would have ended. When it does and they do, some will have been heroes, some will have been honorable but moderate, in times that did not call for moderation, and some will have consented, through inaction, to crimes against humanity.”
Rebecca Solnit: 03/14/07
If you are not yet a hero, begin working on it today.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Human Loss...Part 2
Human loss and “humanity” loss ~ they both countSandy Cook – 3/25/07 ~ Part 2 of 3 parts
Part 1 talked about the quantitative costs of war in bodies and bucks; here we continue the conversation about the hidden costs of the war.
The Army and the Marine Corps are worn out. Their equipment has been ground up by the desert conditions and 72% of army brigades have served multiple tours of duty, some as many as four tours. 84,000 National Guard and Reserves have done multiple tours. Combat stress casualties increase 50% among those on their second or subsequent tour. Two thirds of the active Army regiments are rated “not ready”, and 90% of the Army National Guard units are likewise “not ready”.
Enlistment figures can only be maintained by lowering quotas and soliciting enlistments from sub-standard recruits ~ felons and those with a low IQ. While US unemployment is reported at 4.5%. the unemployment rate for veterans in the 20-24 year age range is over 15%. Is it any wonder that the re-enlistment quotas are being made every quarter? There are no jobs!
In Iraq and Afghanistan mortality rates are up and life expectancy is down. There is no way to know for sure but the estimate of refugees who have left Iraq and Afghanistan are 1.4 million and 2 million, respectively. Internally displaced refugees number at least twice as many, particularly since ethnic and doctrinal cleansing have escalated in Iraq, even if we call it “sectarian violence”.
There is one specific hidden cost that will return to haunt us, just as Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome are now raising the cost of previous wars, even though to date the department of Defense is denying the effects of Depleted Uranium (DU).
DU is a serious internal hazard. Inhalation, ingestion, and wound contamination pose significant and unacceptable health risks due to direct cell damage from alpha and beta particle and gamma ray emissions. Spent penetrators, DU fragments, and contaminated shrapnel can not be touched or picked up without protection. DU is 99.8% by mass U-238, which is made from the by-product of the uranium enrichment process. The United States munitions industry produces the DU munitions in many calibers and for many weapons types. Each time those weapons are fired DU is deposited across the battlefield. For example, one 10-second burst of the GAU-12 Gatling Gun on an AC-130 aircraft deposits 132 lbs of U-238 across a wide area.
In addition, DU weapons have contributed to pollution of Iraq’s land and water, with inevitable spillover effects in other countries. The heavily polluted Tigris River, for example, flows through Iraq, Iran and Kuwait. DU poisoning is producing deformed babies not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in the United States in the families of veterans of this war and of the Gulf War before it.
We have over 800 bases and stations in other countries, and are building more. We are building four “super bases” in Iraq, as well as “Fortress Baghdad”, the billion dollar embassy in the Green Zone of Baghdad which is scheduled to have a staff of 5,000. We are funding “cooperative security locations” – secret prisons to the plain-language addicted. And then there are those “black” operations and installations which are hinted at around the globe.
The greatest hidden cost, both now and in the future, may well be the cost of welfare to include homelessness, although with homelessness we begin to approach those other costs that go beyond dollars and cents. We know that almost 10% of the 22.5 million current veterans are homeless. The reasons for homelessness among veterans vary, matching the broad range of reasons among the general homeless population. The Veterans Administration cites their own figures of soldiers enrolled in their programs to say that homelessness is not as bad from this war as it used to be in previous wars such as Vietnam. Of course the figures they are using don’t include the 400,000-person backlog, so they might be just a tad suspicious.
One contributing cause to homelessness and to PTSD among veterans is that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA) of 1995 is being circumvented regularly and many veterans are not getting their jobs back. Using small-print provisions in the law, many employers are refusing to give back jobs because re-hiring the veteran will “endanger the viability of the business”. Ignoring the provisions of many equal opportunity laws and labor regulations, hiring officials are setting aside and ignoring applications for new hires of those who retain a Guard or Reserve obligation. The result of this “Support the Troops” activity by business is that many veterans are losing their homes and their cars and are ending up on the street. At least 1,000 veterans from this war are believed to be on the street already, perhaps more.
Continued in Part 3 with the qualitative costs of the war.
Part 1 talked about the quantitative costs of war in bodies and bucks; here we continue the conversation about the hidden costs of the war.
The Army and the Marine Corps are worn out. Their equipment has been ground up by the desert conditions and 72% of army brigades have served multiple tours of duty, some as many as four tours. 84,000 National Guard and Reserves have done multiple tours. Combat stress casualties increase 50% among those on their second or subsequent tour. Two thirds of the active Army regiments are rated “not ready”, and 90% of the Army National Guard units are likewise “not ready”.
Enlistment figures can only be maintained by lowering quotas and soliciting enlistments from sub-standard recruits ~ felons and those with a low IQ. While US unemployment is reported at 4.5%. the unemployment rate for veterans in the 20-24 year age range is over 15%. Is it any wonder that the re-enlistment quotas are being made every quarter? There are no jobs!
In Iraq and Afghanistan mortality rates are up and life expectancy is down. There is no way to know for sure but the estimate of refugees who have left Iraq and Afghanistan are 1.4 million and 2 million, respectively. Internally displaced refugees number at least twice as many, particularly since ethnic and doctrinal cleansing have escalated in Iraq, even if we call it “sectarian violence”.
There is one specific hidden cost that will return to haunt us, just as Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome are now raising the cost of previous wars, even though to date the department of Defense is denying the effects of Depleted Uranium (DU).
DU is a serious internal hazard. Inhalation, ingestion, and wound contamination pose significant and unacceptable health risks due to direct cell damage from alpha and beta particle and gamma ray emissions. Spent penetrators, DU fragments, and contaminated shrapnel can not be touched or picked up without protection. DU is 99.8% by mass U-238, which is made from the by-product of the uranium enrichment process. The United States munitions industry produces the DU munitions in many calibers and for many weapons types. Each time those weapons are fired DU is deposited across the battlefield. For example, one 10-second burst of the GAU-12 Gatling Gun on an AC-130 aircraft deposits 132 lbs of U-238 across a wide area.
In addition, DU weapons have contributed to pollution of Iraq’s land and water, with inevitable spillover effects in other countries. The heavily polluted Tigris River, for example, flows through Iraq, Iran and Kuwait. DU poisoning is producing deformed babies not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in the United States in the families of veterans of this war and of the Gulf War before it.
We have over 800 bases and stations in other countries, and are building more. We are building four “super bases” in Iraq, as well as “Fortress Baghdad”, the billion dollar embassy in the Green Zone of Baghdad which is scheduled to have a staff of 5,000. We are funding “cooperative security locations” – secret prisons to the plain-language addicted. And then there are those “black” operations and installations which are hinted at around the globe.
The greatest hidden cost, both now and in the future, may well be the cost of welfare to include homelessness, although with homelessness we begin to approach those other costs that go beyond dollars and cents. We know that almost 10% of the 22.5 million current veterans are homeless. The reasons for homelessness among veterans vary, matching the broad range of reasons among the general homeless population. The Veterans Administration cites their own figures of soldiers enrolled in their programs to say that homelessness is not as bad from this war as it used to be in previous wars such as Vietnam. Of course the figures they are using don’t include the 400,000-person backlog, so they might be just a tad suspicious.
One contributing cause to homelessness and to PTSD among veterans is that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA) of 1995 is being circumvented regularly and many veterans are not getting their jobs back. Using small-print provisions in the law, many employers are refusing to give back jobs because re-hiring the veteran will “endanger the viability of the business”. Ignoring the provisions of many equal opportunity laws and labor regulations, hiring officials are setting aside and ignoring applications for new hires of those who retain a Guard or Reserve obligation. The result of this “Support the Troops” activity by business is that many veterans are losing their homes and their cars and are ending up on the street. At least 1,000 veterans from this war are believed to be on the street already, perhaps more.
Continued in Part 3 with the qualitative costs of the war.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Maybe Bush Disagrees with God
Hail the Kennebunkport Texan
The nation’s ultimate fraud
Who listens to no one
And talks only to God
Somehow I miss the days of yore when presidential scandals were so infrequent that we were able to spend months if not years digesting them. Even Nixon and Watergate, although based on the paranoid weakness of a human in over his emotional head, was a single string of sin wrapped around the fear that if Nixon did not cheat, he could not defeat the Democrats. This single scandal lasted for months in the second term of a brittle president. The plumbers’ revelations dripped slowly into the public view and eventually uncovered a small and venal man who used dirty tricks to feed his fears. He kept an “enemies” list. He was a pathetic and whimpering figure on the American stage from the early days of “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore,” to his exit stage right at his resignation. Nixon never held the nation hostage nor did he threaten the lives of millions across the sea. He may even have meant well, except on a personal level to those whom he saw as competitors for citizen love and respect. Nixon had both grandiosity and littleness simultaneously.
G. W. Bush, on the other hand, has made a career out of demanding personal loyalty resembling worship in order that nobody should ever mistake his authority. He is the first and only president to abolish the military titles for area commanders such as CINCPAC (Commander-in-Chief, Pacific), or CINCSOUTHCOM, etc. His explanation was: “There is only one Commander-in-Chief and that’s me.” In that way, he has outdone Nixon’s paranoia. More, he has virtually made a career out of appearance over substance, perhaps to protect that fragile self. His belief in image is so strong that he has actually hired a PR firm to convince the Iraqis that things are improving there. Loyalty, Extreme Edition then has become his road to the throne and the trail of tears for his minions and eventually for himself. His selection of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld showed both a strength and a weakness in the sense that loyalty was extended to Donald far beyond the time when the rest of the world knew that Rumsfeld was a failure. George wanted the war in Iraq but Donald planned it badly and brow beat the generals that he did not fire. The result was that Bush got his way, but got it badly.
Competence was not in the formula for planning the war or executing the peace. When General Garner began to rebuild Iraq using Iraqis, Rumsfeld and Bush were appalled and demanded the firing of Arabic speaking diplomats and administrators who had decided to limit removal of only the top 3 levels of Baathists. Soon, they replaced Garner with Bremer and enforced a no-Baathist policy that instantaneously placed Iraqi Army colonels on down into the ranks of the unemployed. Thus was born the insurgency that they both denied existed. The error was firing low level Baathists, but the punishment was to disloyal political and military officials who dared to use the word “insurgency.” The criteria for administrators sent to function for the Bush Administration in Iraq were essentially loyalty tests in order to be assigned. The most famous was Jay Hallen, a 24-year-old evangelist college graduate who was given the responsibility to set up the Iraqi stock exchange. He had zero experience or schooling in preparation for the assignment. O’Beirne was Bush’s pick for staffing the recovery program for Iraq and his staff looked for deep Republican roots to make their selections. The candidates were asked questions re their position on Roe v. Wade and how they voted in the 2000 election, but relevant competence was not a priority. As we flooded Iraq with the loyal and incompetent, the constant anthem was to support George Bush’s “vision for Iraq.” They wore Bush-Cheney 2004 T-shirts and swore allegiance to the Mad King George.
Katrina was the pinnacle of loyalty uber alles. We all remember, “You are doing a heck of a job, Brownie!” Since then, we have seen the mysterious disappearance of 364 tons of hundred dollar bills in Iraq, torture scandals beyond Abu Ghraib, Canary Cunningham, Abramoff does DC, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, Pat Tillman mythology, outing of a secret agent, criminal neglect at Walter Reed, firing of US Attorneys and Attorney General Gonzales is changing stories like diapers with similar smells and reasons. Surrounded by both loyalty and incompetence, just who does Bush talk to? It is obvious that he does not listen to anybody having contrary ideas, even if it is the American electorate. Could he be talking to God and not listening when God talks to him? Could it also be that God has a contrary opinion?
Peace,
George Giacoppe
31 March 2007
The nation’s ultimate fraud
Who listens to no one
And talks only to God
Somehow I miss the days of yore when presidential scandals were so infrequent that we were able to spend months if not years digesting them. Even Nixon and Watergate, although based on the paranoid weakness of a human in over his emotional head, was a single string of sin wrapped around the fear that if Nixon did not cheat, he could not defeat the Democrats. This single scandal lasted for months in the second term of a brittle president. The plumbers’ revelations dripped slowly into the public view and eventually uncovered a small and venal man who used dirty tricks to feed his fears. He kept an “enemies” list. He was a pathetic and whimpering figure on the American stage from the early days of “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore,” to his exit stage right at his resignation. Nixon never held the nation hostage nor did he threaten the lives of millions across the sea. He may even have meant well, except on a personal level to those whom he saw as competitors for citizen love and respect. Nixon had both grandiosity and littleness simultaneously.
G. W. Bush, on the other hand, has made a career out of demanding personal loyalty resembling worship in order that nobody should ever mistake his authority. He is the first and only president to abolish the military titles for area commanders such as CINCPAC (Commander-in-Chief, Pacific), or CINCSOUTHCOM, etc. His explanation was: “There is only one Commander-in-Chief and that’s me.” In that way, he has outdone Nixon’s paranoia. More, he has virtually made a career out of appearance over substance, perhaps to protect that fragile self. His belief in image is so strong that he has actually hired a PR firm to convince the Iraqis that things are improving there. Loyalty, Extreme Edition then has become his road to the throne and the trail of tears for his minions and eventually for himself. His selection of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld showed both a strength and a weakness in the sense that loyalty was extended to Donald far beyond the time when the rest of the world knew that Rumsfeld was a failure. George wanted the war in Iraq but Donald planned it badly and brow beat the generals that he did not fire. The result was that Bush got his way, but got it badly.
Competence was not in the formula for planning the war or executing the peace. When General Garner began to rebuild Iraq using Iraqis, Rumsfeld and Bush were appalled and demanded the firing of Arabic speaking diplomats and administrators who had decided to limit removal of only the top 3 levels of Baathists. Soon, they replaced Garner with Bremer and enforced a no-Baathist policy that instantaneously placed Iraqi Army colonels on down into the ranks of the unemployed. Thus was born the insurgency that they both denied existed. The error was firing low level Baathists, but the punishment was to disloyal political and military officials who dared to use the word “insurgency.” The criteria for administrators sent to function for the Bush Administration in Iraq were essentially loyalty tests in order to be assigned. The most famous was Jay Hallen, a 24-year-old evangelist college graduate who was given the responsibility to set up the Iraqi stock exchange. He had zero experience or schooling in preparation for the assignment. O’Beirne was Bush’s pick for staffing the recovery program for Iraq and his staff looked for deep Republican roots to make their selections. The candidates were asked questions re their position on Roe v. Wade and how they voted in the 2000 election, but relevant competence was not a priority. As we flooded Iraq with the loyal and incompetent, the constant anthem was to support George Bush’s “vision for Iraq.” They wore Bush-Cheney 2004 T-shirts and swore allegiance to the Mad King George.
Katrina was the pinnacle of loyalty uber alles. We all remember, “You are doing a heck of a job, Brownie!” Since then, we have seen the mysterious disappearance of 364 tons of hundred dollar bills in Iraq, torture scandals beyond Abu Ghraib, Canary Cunningham, Abramoff does DC, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, Pat Tillman mythology, outing of a secret agent, criminal neglect at Walter Reed, firing of US Attorneys and Attorney General Gonzales is changing stories like diapers with similar smells and reasons. Surrounded by both loyalty and incompetence, just who does Bush talk to? It is obvious that he does not listen to anybody having contrary ideas, even if it is the American electorate. Could he be talking to God and not listening when God talks to him? Could it also be that God has a contrary opinion?
Peace,
George Giacoppe
31 March 2007
Human loss and “humanity” loss ~ they both count
Sandy Cook – 3/25/07 ~ Part 1 of 3 parts
Recently I was asked to talk to a local group about the human cost of war. When first asked, the temptation was to stand up and say, “The total human cost is incalculable” and then sit down. That five seconds would have been more time spent on the subject than most Americans spend on it each week. The statement would also have been true, but just sitting down would have sacrificed an opportunity to contemplate the overwhelming impact of the current war.
There are the quantitative costs in dollars and lives. Those are the easy costs to understand – those figures are limited only by the accuracy or the truth of the reporting.
But there are also qualitative losses – losses to us and the world of large parts of our history, our present condition, and our possible future. These tangible and intangible losses are imaginable, but they are not yet calculable. These are the “humanity” costs of war, and may, in the end, be the most serious. In short, what is the total cost to the individuals fighting the war, to the government that has sent them, to the citizenry who supports them, and to the rest of the world outside the conflict?
Both the loss of life and the loss of the tangible and intangible benefits of our history and our society are truly veterans’ issues in that they reflect not just the fight, but what we fight for.
We need to talk about all of these costs, both “human” and “humanity,” because Congress isn’t. Instead, they and the administration have cut critical social budgets right and left but have been careful to fund the Sparta, NC Teapot Museum, the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative, and the Blue Springs, MO campaign to fight “Goth” culture.
The numbers remain important. These are the best figures that I can find of those killed and wounded – priceless lives, whether they are Americans, Iraqis, or Afghanis:
Americans/Coalition – 66,000; Iraqis –1 ½ million; Afghanis – ¾ million; Journalists – 300; Contractors – 2,600.
As Bob Woodruff, the recently returned and sorely wounded reporter has told us, as of 6 February officially there were 23,417 wounded. Actually – those who have left DoD care and are in the care of VA = 200,000 – almost 34,000 PTSD; over 73,000 injuries; over 21,000 infections and parasitic Disease; and, almost 68,000 “undefined” illnesses.
Also officially as of 28 February there were 1,835 Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) cases. Better sources estimate “closed head injuries” as at least 10% of the 1.5M who have served, or 150,000.
The number of contractors killed is 280 higher than the official number, and has been confirmed by their employers. There is an added tragedy in the number of correspondents who have lost their lives, some at the hands of our forces, and some murdered at the hands of the opposition.
Using a “best-guess,” and “so-far” estimate, we and our partners have spent half a trillion dollars in Iraq,. Including at least 21 billion dollars that has just “disappeared”. We know that there has been more money spent than we can account for, and that the government is spending hidden – “off-the-books” – money.
In any event, and using rough numbers, had we given the head of each Iraqi family $100,000 contingent on their overthrowing Saddam Hussein, they would have a thriving economy, a still cohesive nation, the dead would be alive, AND WE WOULD HAVE SPENT EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT.
There are massive hidden costs, as well.
Although the VA knew in 2003 that hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be deployed to Iraq, no medical or claims-processing staff was added to handle the inevitable influx of wounded soldiers. That staff now has to be found. Thousands of wounded vets have been forced to wait years to receive rehabilitation and mental-health counseling. The VA has a backlog of at least 400,000 disability claims, and with budgets strained, officials have been turning many down. The number of soldiers approved for permanent disability payments fell by two-thirds from 2001 to 2005 in real numbers, even though the number of seriously injured soldiers soared with the Iraq war. Many of those claims will be revisited
In 2005 the hospital commander of Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany reported that 8%-10% of soldiers from the war treated there, had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues”, and so far there is no provision to cover those ultimate costs which may not surface for years.
Continued in Part 2 with more on the hidden costs.
Modified from an editorial in SOUND OFF!, the bi-monthly newsletter of Veterans United For Truth, Inc., www.vuft.org, a veterans’ support charity off which the author is the Vice Chair and the editor of the newsletter. Note: Sandy is a Vietnam era veteran who is devoting time to direct support of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan through Veterans United for Truth..
Recently I was asked to talk to a local group about the human cost of war. When first asked, the temptation was to stand up and say, “The total human cost is incalculable” and then sit down. That five seconds would have been more time spent on the subject than most Americans spend on it each week. The statement would also have been true, but just sitting down would have sacrificed an opportunity to contemplate the overwhelming impact of the current war.
There are the quantitative costs in dollars and lives. Those are the easy costs to understand – those figures are limited only by the accuracy or the truth of the reporting.
But there are also qualitative losses – losses to us and the world of large parts of our history, our present condition, and our possible future. These tangible and intangible losses are imaginable, but they are not yet calculable. These are the “humanity” costs of war, and may, in the end, be the most serious. In short, what is the total cost to the individuals fighting the war, to the government that has sent them, to the citizenry who supports them, and to the rest of the world outside the conflict?
Both the loss of life and the loss of the tangible and intangible benefits of our history and our society are truly veterans’ issues in that they reflect not just the fight, but what we fight for.
We need to talk about all of these costs, both “human” and “humanity,” because Congress isn’t. Instead, they and the administration have cut critical social budgets right and left but have been careful to fund the Sparta, NC Teapot Museum, the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative, and the Blue Springs, MO campaign to fight “Goth” culture.
The numbers remain important. These are the best figures that I can find of those killed and wounded – priceless lives, whether they are Americans, Iraqis, or Afghanis:
Americans/Coalition – 66,000; Iraqis –1 ½ million; Afghanis – ¾ million; Journalists – 300; Contractors – 2,600.
As Bob Woodruff, the recently returned and sorely wounded reporter has told us, as of 6 February officially there were 23,417 wounded. Actually – those who have left DoD care and are in the care of VA = 200,000 – almost 34,000 PTSD; over 73,000 injuries; over 21,000 infections and parasitic Disease; and, almost 68,000 “undefined” illnesses.
Also officially as of 28 February there were 1,835 Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) cases. Better sources estimate “closed head injuries” as at least 10% of the 1.5M who have served, or 150,000.
The number of contractors killed is 280 higher than the official number, and has been confirmed by their employers. There is an added tragedy in the number of correspondents who have lost their lives, some at the hands of our forces, and some murdered at the hands of the opposition.
Using a “best-guess,” and “so-far” estimate, we and our partners have spent half a trillion dollars in Iraq,. Including at least 21 billion dollars that has just “disappeared”. We know that there has been more money spent than we can account for, and that the government is spending hidden – “off-the-books” – money.
In any event, and using rough numbers, had we given the head of each Iraqi family $100,000 contingent on their overthrowing Saddam Hussein, they would have a thriving economy, a still cohesive nation, the dead would be alive, AND WE WOULD HAVE SPENT EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT.
There are massive hidden costs, as well.
Although the VA knew in 2003 that hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be deployed to Iraq, no medical or claims-processing staff was added to handle the inevitable influx of wounded soldiers. That staff now has to be found. Thousands of wounded vets have been forced to wait years to receive rehabilitation and mental-health counseling. The VA has a backlog of at least 400,000 disability claims, and with budgets strained, officials have been turning many down. The number of soldiers approved for permanent disability payments fell by two-thirds from 2001 to 2005 in real numbers, even though the number of seriously injured soldiers soared with the Iraq war. Many of those claims will be revisited
In 2005 the hospital commander of Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany reported that 8%-10% of soldiers from the war treated there, had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues”, and so far there is no provision to cover those ultimate costs which may not surface for years.
Continued in Part 2 with more on the hidden costs.
Modified from an editorial in SOUND OFF!, the bi-monthly newsletter of Veterans United For Truth, Inc., www.vuft.org, a veterans’ support charity off which the author is the Vice Chair and the editor of the newsletter. Note: Sandy is a Vietnam era veteran who is devoting time to direct support of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan through Veterans United for Truth..
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Daylight Scam Time
I don't know about you but I'm having more than a little trouble withthis new three-week-early shift to Daylight Savings Time (DST). My atomic clock hasn't changed automatically, as it should. My computer hasn't changed either, having been programmed in the days when DST occurred three weeks later into the Spring. And I know that if I change my computer clockmanually, it will only advance automatically in three weeks, and I'll be off by an hour again. So far, I'm leaving things be. Unfortunately, those who govern us can't, or won't let things be.
The U.S. Congress in its infinite wisdom decided two years ago that giving us commoners more daylight to play in would be a wonderful gift: not only would we be able to stay out later at night, but the increased hours of daylight would save energy. There would be, experts assured us, less need for electricity in the evening hours. Those in attendance no doubt applauded, congratulating themselves, and America itself, for its practical genius.
Now, however, we learn the real facts behind this tinkering. It turns out that Australia has already tried this for a year or so, and experts there have found that the savings in energy are all smoke and mirrors. In fact, though there is some small reduction in electricity use because of the increased daylight in the evening, there is a corresponding increase in electricity usage in the morning hours, when people must rise in more darkness. Further, due to the increased light in the evening, people are out and about more, and hence use more fuel in their cars to get around. So the energy savings are really a cover story for the real scam. That scam involves commerce. Shopping malls and other retail businesses have long been eager to increase the duration of DST because when there's more light after work, Americans are more likely to stop and shop on their way home.Three weeks at either end may mean billions in increased sales for the useless products retail businesses thrive on. Even more nefarious, among the biggest lobbies pushing for the new bill to increase DST were candy manufacturers. Why? Because the new DST hours will now encompass Halloween!This means that American Mommies will now be able to keep their little darlings out later in the increased light, which in turn will mean that homes will have to buy more candy to accommodate the increased number of trick-or-treaters coming to beg. Candy manufacturers stand to make a killing. And the fact that more candy in little hands will cause more sugar problems in a nation already reeling from epidemic sugar diabetes among children is, of course, beside the point. Concern for the health of Americans seems to be beside the point for the U.S. Congress as well. In fact, this yielding by lawmakers to pressure from business lobbies, in defiance of any concerns about the health or well-being of their constituents, perfectly represents the sickness at the heart of American politics. Instead of casting votes based on what is good or healthy for the people they are paid to represent, American legislators increasingly vote on behalf of those with the money to finance their continuing election. In this case, the money lay in the hands of candy manufacturers and Chamber of Commerce types who represent shopping malls.
In far too many other cases,the money sits in the hands of arms manufacturers and others in the military-industrial complex, or in the hands of polluters like coal-powered energy plants, massive oil companies, and their ilk. The result in almost all cases is a stench of self-serving and wealth-serving corruption emanating from the halls of Congress that now threatens to overwhelm even the sugared justifications of our well-fed lawmakers. Of course, such a revolt would depend on a citizenry with a healthy nose for the stench of excrement, and in America, where the suppression and repression of odors has become an almost religious duty, any hope for therevival of such olfactory acuity might already be drowned...beneath the sickly sweet smell of candy.
Lawrence DiStasi
The U.S. Congress in its infinite wisdom decided two years ago that giving us commoners more daylight to play in would be a wonderful gift: not only would we be able to stay out later at night, but the increased hours of daylight would save energy. There would be, experts assured us, less need for electricity in the evening hours. Those in attendance no doubt applauded, congratulating themselves, and America itself, for its practical genius.
Now, however, we learn the real facts behind this tinkering. It turns out that Australia has already tried this for a year or so, and experts there have found that the savings in energy are all smoke and mirrors. In fact, though there is some small reduction in electricity use because of the increased daylight in the evening, there is a corresponding increase in electricity usage in the morning hours, when people must rise in more darkness. Further, due to the increased light in the evening, people are out and about more, and hence use more fuel in their cars to get around. So the energy savings are really a cover story for the real scam. That scam involves commerce. Shopping malls and other retail businesses have long been eager to increase the duration of DST because when there's more light after work, Americans are more likely to stop and shop on their way home.Three weeks at either end may mean billions in increased sales for the useless products retail businesses thrive on. Even more nefarious, among the biggest lobbies pushing for the new bill to increase DST were candy manufacturers. Why? Because the new DST hours will now encompass Halloween!This means that American Mommies will now be able to keep their little darlings out later in the increased light, which in turn will mean that homes will have to buy more candy to accommodate the increased number of trick-or-treaters coming to beg. Candy manufacturers stand to make a killing. And the fact that more candy in little hands will cause more sugar problems in a nation already reeling from epidemic sugar diabetes among children is, of course, beside the point. Concern for the health of Americans seems to be beside the point for the U.S. Congress as well. In fact, this yielding by lawmakers to pressure from business lobbies, in defiance of any concerns about the health or well-being of their constituents, perfectly represents the sickness at the heart of American politics. Instead of casting votes based on what is good or healthy for the people they are paid to represent, American legislators increasingly vote on behalf of those with the money to finance their continuing election. In this case, the money lay in the hands of candy manufacturers and Chamber of Commerce types who represent shopping malls.
In far too many other cases,the money sits in the hands of arms manufacturers and others in the military-industrial complex, or in the hands of polluters like coal-powered energy plants, massive oil companies, and their ilk. The result in almost all cases is a stench of self-serving and wealth-serving corruption emanating from the halls of Congress that now threatens to overwhelm even the sugared justifications of our well-fed lawmakers. Of course, such a revolt would depend on a citizenry with a healthy nose for the stench of excrement, and in America, where the suppression and repression of odors has become an almost religious duty, any hope for therevival of such olfactory acuity might already be drowned...beneath the sickly sweet smell of candy.
Lawrence DiStasi
Sunday, February 25, 2007
You Can’t Have it Both Ways
George Washington said, “When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.” But the differences between a professional military and a citizen’s army are profound, and each makes its own demands on the nation.
The professional military requires the commitment by the soldier of a significant part of a lifetime to the study of arms, and to the pursuit, at all costs, of national purpose when arms are called upon to effect that purpose. Having a professional military demands of the taxpayers that they pay for the services – all of them – that their hired professionals require.
The citizens’ army counts on a small cadre of professionals to maintain the training and leadership base, and requires of all citizens a commitment to some small portion of their lives to service. Through both taxes and through voluntary associations, they bear the burden of the survivors.
The suspension of the draft in 1973 defined the armed forces pretty much for all time. The American people did not want a citizens’ army – they wanted a professional army, calling it “All-Volunteer” so that it didn’t sound so “professional.”
All administrations have left much of the long-term help for the wounded and disabled soldiers to volunteers. By doing so, they have it both ways. They get the professional army they want and they don’t have to pay full price. They go so far as to re-direct veterans to voluntary organizations for assistance instead of expanding the formal organizations such as the VA to handle the cost. They short-change the formal organizations, and appeal to the patriotism of the citizenry to support the veterans. Instead of buying the wheelchair or the prosthetic, they praise the volunteers who sacrifice to do the government’s job and then take credit for inspiring that volunteerism to cover their own failures.
Those volunteers are disappearing. The large organizations peopled by WW II, Korea and Vietnam War veterans are getting smaller and smaller as fewer people join. Smaller, community-based organizations seem to thrive only when local personnel serve: without that involvement, they tend to die out.
As the true citizen army moves further into the past, so does the willingness of ordinary citizens to volunteer to help the veteran. Citizens who had already served felt a camaraderie for those who also served. Very few citizens serve these days; very few are capable of understanding exactly what price the veteran pays.
With a professional army, the moment that a soldier takes the oath, the government must be committed to continuing care for a lifetime. The professional soldier gives up almost all other possibilities for personal advancement and most possibilities for personal wealth. They also give up some of their rights as citizens. In exchange, they should receive good pay, full medical benefits for life and a respectable pension.
Maybe we should collect a separate sum from each taxpayer that is their portion of the costs of both war and the maintenance of a professional war-making force. The current war is costing $250 M a day; each taxpayer could receive a separate bill for war expenses of $300 per family member. The taxpayer could then receive another separate bill for the maintenance of the armed force. At $481 B for 2008 that would be $1,600 more for each family member as a continuing cost. The bill could be delivered by a disabled veteran.
There are not enough volunteers to handle the problems we are growing daily, and veterans are falling farther behind on the scale of interest of the American people. As an example, at justgive.org. that advertises itself as a gateway to one million charities, there isn’t even a category for veterans.
We need to get things back on track. We need to tell everyone that they cannot have it both ways. If you want a professional force, pay the price. If you don’t want to pay the price, restart the draft.
It is past time for America to pay the complete price for having the military force it wants.
It is also well past time to decide what sort of foreign policy we will have and what the size scope and mission of the force that is called for in that policy will be.
But that is another story.
Sandy Cook
25 Feb 2007
The professional military requires the commitment by the soldier of a significant part of a lifetime to the study of arms, and to the pursuit, at all costs, of national purpose when arms are called upon to effect that purpose. Having a professional military demands of the taxpayers that they pay for the services – all of them – that their hired professionals require.
The citizens’ army counts on a small cadre of professionals to maintain the training and leadership base, and requires of all citizens a commitment to some small portion of their lives to service. Through both taxes and through voluntary associations, they bear the burden of the survivors.
The suspension of the draft in 1973 defined the armed forces pretty much for all time. The American people did not want a citizens’ army – they wanted a professional army, calling it “All-Volunteer” so that it didn’t sound so “professional.”
All administrations have left much of the long-term help for the wounded and disabled soldiers to volunteers. By doing so, they have it both ways. They get the professional army they want and they don’t have to pay full price. They go so far as to re-direct veterans to voluntary organizations for assistance instead of expanding the formal organizations such as the VA to handle the cost. They short-change the formal organizations, and appeal to the patriotism of the citizenry to support the veterans. Instead of buying the wheelchair or the prosthetic, they praise the volunteers who sacrifice to do the government’s job and then take credit for inspiring that volunteerism to cover their own failures.
Those volunteers are disappearing. The large organizations peopled by WW II, Korea and Vietnam War veterans are getting smaller and smaller as fewer people join. Smaller, community-based organizations seem to thrive only when local personnel serve: without that involvement, they tend to die out.
As the true citizen army moves further into the past, so does the willingness of ordinary citizens to volunteer to help the veteran. Citizens who had already served felt a camaraderie for those who also served. Very few citizens serve these days; very few are capable of understanding exactly what price the veteran pays.
With a professional army, the moment that a soldier takes the oath, the government must be committed to continuing care for a lifetime. The professional soldier gives up almost all other possibilities for personal advancement and most possibilities for personal wealth. They also give up some of their rights as citizens. In exchange, they should receive good pay, full medical benefits for life and a respectable pension.
Maybe we should collect a separate sum from each taxpayer that is their portion of the costs of both war and the maintenance of a professional war-making force. The current war is costing $250 M a day; each taxpayer could receive a separate bill for war expenses of $300 per family member. The taxpayer could then receive another separate bill for the maintenance of the armed force. At $481 B for 2008 that would be $1,600 more for each family member as a continuing cost. The bill could be delivered by a disabled veteran.
There are not enough volunteers to handle the problems we are growing daily, and veterans are falling farther behind on the scale of interest of the American people. As an example, at justgive.org. that advertises itself as a gateway to one million charities, there isn’t even a category for veterans.
We need to get things back on track. We need to tell everyone that they cannot have it both ways. If you want a professional force, pay the price. If you don’t want to pay the price, restart the draft.
It is past time for America to pay the complete price for having the military force it wants.
It is also well past time to decide what sort of foreign policy we will have and what the size scope and mission of the force that is called for in that policy will be.
But that is another story.
Sandy Cook
25 Feb 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Money Trumps Peace, Sometimes
Money trumps peace, sometimes
Especially in desert climes
Where the produce is oil
Deep under the soil
And it takes no persuasion
To mount an invasion
And roust out the locals
Except for the moguls
Who help in our desire
To create a new quagmire
Timing is everything in life. George W. Bush chose Valentine’s Day to tell us at a news conference “Money trumps peace, sometimes.” He did this in the context of complaining that Iran was somehow responsible for selling weapons to Iraqis and that they probably did so through Europeans. The implication is that Iran did this for money. What Bush failed to say was that the United States had only stopped selling F-14 repair parts to Iran on 23 January, about 3 weeks earlier, for money. Our Congress found out and stopped the Pentagon practice of selling surplus spares to Iran. This Bush rant is by the same team that years earlier brought us Iran Contra under Reagan’s leadership when we sold weapons to Iran to finance an illegal war in Central America. I sometimes feel that it is disingenuous to complain about Europeans arming a potential enemy when we have been doing it for decades. It is hypocritical to condemn our European friends when the receipts are hardly dry on our own invoices. We are now losing helicopters to MANPADS (shoulder fired anti- aircraft missiles). I have no evidence that these missiles were part of the Ollie North deals with Iran, but since money trumps peace, any sale should be suspect, including those by Rumsfeld and Cheney back in the eighties as well as the ones by Ollie and the more recent ones by the Bush Administration.
Bush dropped a further hint that Iranian Shiites were responsible for soldiers killed in Iraq. These are the sect members that we have supported in the current civil war, incidentally, and they probably are responsible for up to 8% of those killed. Again, what Bush failed to say was that the higher percentage (92%) of our combat fatalities have been caused by Sunnis who are supported by Saudis and even by Jordanians. Why is there no outrage against Saudis to match the rhetoric against Iran? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iranian? How many were Saudi? Oh, there were no Iranians? All but two were Saudi? Maybe that is why Bush would rather glide over that bump. It would appear that Bush is spoiling for a fight again.
Now if Bush had been successful in Afghanistan where our enemy was linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban or in Iraq where neither had prior residence, I could explain this behavior against Iran as immoral but likely to result in a military victory. Unfortunately, there is no rational explanation. This is irrational behavior. Or is it? You and I and millions of hard working, dedicated and patriotic people see this behavior as irrational because it means that we will likely enter another war that we cannot win. You and I have made an unspoken discussion that War is a means to an end. We are fond of quoting Clausewitz and seeing War as an extension of foreign policy where there was a triangular arrangement of nation-states (sovereignties), soldiers and common subjects to the crown (the governed). Governments wage wars using soldiers and the governed have no say in the process. What if Bush could create a sovereignty where the governed have no say in the government? This is where Congress becomes irrelevant and the common people lose power at the fundamental process of a democracy of governing the government. Who needs the FISA courts with the Unitary Executive? The Judiciary becomes irrelevant.
Let me ask just one more very scary question. What if War is not the means to an end, but the end itself? What if winning or losing is less important than selling goods and services to the system of wars? What if Corporatism supporting Halliburton and Parsons is the real reason for war? What if Eisenhower underestimated the Military-Industrial-Complex? Forgive me. I have exceeded my question quota. As others have noted, we should only extend personhood to a corporation on its first colonoscopy. Later we will consider why Ollie North called John McCain and Joe Lieberman liars for stating that the troops support the surge. Somehow those two and colonoscopy go together.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
18 February 2007
Especially in desert climes
Where the produce is oil
Deep under the soil
And it takes no persuasion
To mount an invasion
And roust out the locals
Except for the moguls
Who help in our desire
To create a new quagmire
Timing is everything in life. George W. Bush chose Valentine’s Day to tell us at a news conference “Money trumps peace, sometimes.” He did this in the context of complaining that Iran was somehow responsible for selling weapons to Iraqis and that they probably did so through Europeans. The implication is that Iran did this for money. What Bush failed to say was that the United States had only stopped selling F-14 repair parts to Iran on 23 January, about 3 weeks earlier, for money. Our Congress found out and stopped the Pentagon practice of selling surplus spares to Iran. This Bush rant is by the same team that years earlier brought us Iran Contra under Reagan’s leadership when we sold weapons to Iran to finance an illegal war in Central America. I sometimes feel that it is disingenuous to complain about Europeans arming a potential enemy when we have been doing it for decades. It is hypocritical to condemn our European friends when the receipts are hardly dry on our own invoices. We are now losing helicopters to MANPADS (shoulder fired anti- aircraft missiles). I have no evidence that these missiles were part of the Ollie North deals with Iran, but since money trumps peace, any sale should be suspect, including those by Rumsfeld and Cheney back in the eighties as well as the ones by Ollie and the more recent ones by the Bush Administration.
Bush dropped a further hint that Iranian Shiites were responsible for soldiers killed in Iraq. These are the sect members that we have supported in the current civil war, incidentally, and they probably are responsible for up to 8% of those killed. Again, what Bush failed to say was that the higher percentage (92%) of our combat fatalities have been caused by Sunnis who are supported by Saudis and even by Jordanians. Why is there no outrage against Saudis to match the rhetoric against Iran? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iranian? How many were Saudi? Oh, there were no Iranians? All but two were Saudi? Maybe that is why Bush would rather glide over that bump. It would appear that Bush is spoiling for a fight again.
Now if Bush had been successful in Afghanistan where our enemy was linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban or in Iraq where neither had prior residence, I could explain this behavior against Iran as immoral but likely to result in a military victory. Unfortunately, there is no rational explanation. This is irrational behavior. Or is it? You and I and millions of hard working, dedicated and patriotic people see this behavior as irrational because it means that we will likely enter another war that we cannot win. You and I have made an unspoken discussion that War is a means to an end. We are fond of quoting Clausewitz and seeing War as an extension of foreign policy where there was a triangular arrangement of nation-states (sovereignties), soldiers and common subjects to the crown (the governed). Governments wage wars using soldiers and the governed have no say in the process. What if Bush could create a sovereignty where the governed have no say in the government? This is where Congress becomes irrelevant and the common people lose power at the fundamental process of a democracy of governing the government. Who needs the FISA courts with the Unitary Executive? The Judiciary becomes irrelevant.
Let me ask just one more very scary question. What if War is not the means to an end, but the end itself? What if winning or losing is less important than selling goods and services to the system of wars? What if Corporatism supporting Halliburton and Parsons is the real reason for war? What if Eisenhower underestimated the Military-Industrial-Complex? Forgive me. I have exceeded my question quota. As others have noted, we should only extend personhood to a corporation on its first colonoscopy. Later we will consider why Ollie North called John McCain and Joe Lieberman liars for stating that the troops support the surge. Somehow those two and colonoscopy go together.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
18 February 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)