At long last St. Patrick's Day 2011 has passed and we are no longer subjected to something that should be banned by the Geneva Convention from ever again being used as a fund-raising catalyst on public television: Celtic Thunder. Celtic Thunder is one of the most recent in a long line of performance groups trying to hitch their wagon to the enduring appeal of Riverdance, joining such under-whelming groups as Celtic Woman and The Irish Tenors.
It's not just the obvious lip-synching, it's the ridiculously pathetic choreography, song selection and lack of any real coherent theme in the performances. They're more musical butchers than performers. They mercilessly butcher a wide range of musical selections with some of the most vapid interpretations ever heard by the human ear - despite the shrieking elation of the t.v. audience, who obviously lack any semblance of good taste. For the most honest, objective review of Celtic Thunder I've been able to find (from 2009), click here.
I hope that public television will not subject us to this undercooked pseudo-Irish stew again. I am a long-time fan of The Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem, Boiled in Lead and a host of Irish groups, musicians and writers - including Riverdance in its original permutation - but Celtic Flatulence must be stopped!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Projectile Dysfunction
On May 25, a target rocket that was to follow a designated path so an interceptor rocket could hit it came up short: it failed to reach the area that the interceptor rocket (with a dummy warhead) was to defend, so the interceptor rocket wasn’t launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But wait! This doesn’t go down in the books as a failed test! The Missile Defense Agency considers this a “no test” because no new information was generated. But isn’t this failure new information in its own right? Not to our military. Lt. Gen. Henry Obering III, director of the missile agency overseeing the test, said “We were not able to get the target downrange far enough to present a threat to the system. It fell well short of the intended area. The system never had a chance to recognize it as a threat, and so did not respond to the target.” In other words, unless an intended target follows the designated path, the interceptor system will fail to pick up the missile and destroy it. That’s comforting. Moreover, the system might not even work in poor weather! You cannot make this stuff up.
The Pentagon generally – and with this missile system in particular – has a long history of staged tests. Any successful tests of this system have depended on the interceptor missile and the target rocket being programmed to follow a preordained path to collide with one another. Who out there believes anyone sending a missile our way would provide us with the coordinates so we could shoot it down? The only thing more far-fetched than believing that is the notion that this missile shield is needed at all. It’s a boondoggle.
A whopping $8.9 billion is being requested by the Bush administration for FY2008 towards this system, on top of the several billion already spent. While medal-festooned generals play with their billion dollar toys, our ports and borders are still inadequately defended, military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are underfunded and under-equipped, and returning veterans and their families are subjected to unnerving red tape, inadequate medical and mental care, and tremendously destructive financial burdens. Our national healthcare system teeters on the brink of disaster, our educational system approaches atrophy, our infrastructure is in dire need of refurbishment at the local, state and national levels, and our energy situation remains untenable, but the missile system hawks – obsessed with ‘getting it up’ – will not relent in their goal of fielding this ridiculous “defense system,” regardless of the test results.
And it’s not only we Americans who will bear the burden of this Rube Goldberg system: Europeans will suffer as well, as the Bush administration places either missiles or tracking devices on Russia’s doorstep in Poland and the Czech Republic. Despite the assurances from the Bush administration that Russia has nothing to fear by this “defensive” system, Russia is justifiably annoyed by its proximity. Would we be any less concerned if Russia deployed a “defensive” missile system in, for example, Cuba? Does anyone in the White House recall a little something known as The Cuban Missile Crisis? President Putin has openly stated that deploying this system on the European continent is pushing Europe into a revived Cold War. All the Bush administration can do is offer lukewarm assurances that Russia has nothing to fear, while, from the Russian perspective, deploying a “defensive” system in Europe clearly provides the deploying countries protection for offensive actions. Russia’s concern is reasonable; Bush’s plaintive pleas that President Putin should simply trust him are embarrassing and naïve. The likelihood that Poland and the Czech Republic will vote to have facets of the system deployed on their soil are great, but it remains to be seen if other European countries will act collectively to prevent a ratcheting-up of such Cold War-like gambits.
Based on the most recent tests, however, it doesn’t seem as if the system will be much of threat – or of much use – to anyone. Like Reagan’s “Star Wars” debacle, this missile defense system, too, will fizzle. But not before billions of dollars are lost in the stratosphere and the chill winds of a new Cold War are blowing across Europe.
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally published in Pulse of the Twin Cities weekly, June 2007)
Mute Lute: The Superfluous General
Apparently there is no limit to the number of asinine decisions the Bush administration can make. A recent asinine decision is the appointment of a “War Czar” to oversee the debacle in Iraq, and the increasingly volatile war in Afghanistan.
Several weeks had passed with multiple generals refusing to take on the “War Czar” position before Lt. General Douglas Lute came along. The number of generals who refused is noteworthy, but more noteworthy is the fact that 5 and a half years after the invasion of Afghanistan and more than four years after the American invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration only now decides that they need to appoint a “czar” to coordinate both ventures. What have the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the CIA, the NSA, et al., been doing since 2001?
Does this administration mean to tell us that the Secretary of Defense or his National Security Adviser are not up to this role? Or that the generals on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan or even stateside don’t measure up? They don’t mean to tell us that, but that is the clear message a discerning citizen gets from this move. This administration is absolutely bereft of any ideas on how to extricate themselves from the holes they’ve dug themselves into. Instead of stopping the digging, they simply hand someone else the shovel.
On the day of Lt. Gen. Lute’s appointment, our president stated, “Nothing is more important than getting … American commanders in Afghanistan, and Ambassadors Crocker and Wood what they need, and Douglas Lute can make sure that happens quickly and reliably.” You mean all these years no one thought “getting American commanders what they need” was crucial?
Poor Lute. He’ll be lost in the morass of Bush bureaucracy and backbiting quicker than he can say, “I’m doing it to get that fourth star.” The “War Czar” position is one designed for ineffectiveness and blame catching.
On May 26, 2007, only 12 days after Lt. Gen. Lute’s appointment, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration was considering “concepts” for reducing troops in Iraq by as much as 50 percent in 2008. The “concepts” idea was leaked (anonymously and not for attribution) to reporters David Sanger and David Cloud. Once again The New York Times took the administration’s bait--hook, line & sinker. The administration wanted the paper to report the story it planted--not leaked--so the president, ever mighty, ever brave, could then roundly criticize it immediately thereafter. It was a brilliant propaganda move that would put a grin on Machiavelli’s face: The idea that the Bush administration was considering “concepts” for troop redeployment gives pause to the Democrats pushing for timelines for withdrawal, while Bush’s criticism of those very same administration-originated “concepts” shore up his dwindling right-wing warmonger base.
These “concepts” were being developed without the involvement of Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the ground commanders in Iraq. It was strictly a Washington creation. Any mention of General Lute? Not a one. Any questions about why the Bush administration – which regularly rants against Washington dictating activities to the commanders on the ground in Iraq – is doing exactly that? Not a one.
Any mention of Lt. Gen. Lute’s take on this? No. The War Czar is already being marginalized. No one in their right mind would have taken on such a job, and no one in their right mind did. The War Czar will be as effective in his position as the Drug Czar was at ending drug use and trafficking. So why would Lt. Gen. Lute, a man who earlier was critical of the Bush escalation of troops now underway in Iraq, take this on? Maybe it’s the irresistible desire to add that fourth star to his epaulettes.
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally published in Pulse of the Twin Cities weekly, June 2007)
Ronald Reagan: The Original "Cut & Run" President
Ronald Reagan is the frequent subject of hagiographic works by a range of people. His admirers continue to push for renaming all sorts of buildings, airports, schools and roads with his name. John Kline wants to get Reagan’s face on money, some want his mug on Mt. Rushmore, and the Republicans running for president mention his name more than their own! Where will it end?
Too often they gloss over Reagan’s many shortcomings--especially when it comes to terrorism. This list isn’t exhaustive, but it is illustrative of the many attacks visited upon U.S. citizens and interests during the Reagan years--and his subsequent missteps, mistakes or lack of response. Some will find these facts enlightening if not disconcerting, especially since these same admirers of Reagan claim that under Clinton, terrorists acted with impunity and little fear of retaliation. Those same people conveniently forget that terrorists were extremely active and successful during Reagan’s eight years in office--and Reagan’s administration was ineffective in combating them. He even laid the foundation of something Republicans are loath to admit and hope nobody notices: cutting & running (Beirut, circa 1984). Let’s look at the six years when most of the action took place: 1981, 1983-86, and 1988.
1981
March 7: American Chester Bitterman shot by M-19 terrorists in Bogota, Columbia.
March 10: U.S. Ambassador John Gunther Dean attacked in Beirut.
March 17: Terrorists bomb embassy car containing U.S. Marines in Costa Rica; U.S. embassy in San Salvador attacked by terrorists;
May: After intelligence reports surfaced that Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi had plans to assassinate American diplomats in Rome and Paris, President Reagan expelled all Libyan diplomats from the U.S. and closed Libya's diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C. Three months later, U.S. Navy jets shot down two SU-22 warplanes about 60 miles off the Libyan coast. Critics of the U.S. said Libya was used as a scapegoat and presented an easy target for U.S. forces: It’s about one-fifth the size of the U.S., and had a population of about 3 million at the time. The U.S. government maintained that that Libya posed a credible terrorist threat and had sufficient oil funds to mount a significant attack on U.S. interests.
December 17: Red Brigade takes responsibility for abduction of American General James Dozier, NATO commander, in Verona, Italy. He is subsequently rescued by Italian authorities.
1983
April 18 in Beirut, Lebanon: Seventeen Americans and 46 Lebanese killed when a truck bomb plows into the U.S. embassy in Beirut. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23: A suicide bomber drives a van laden with explosives through the U.S. Marine compound in Beirut, Lebanon. Two hundred forty-one Marines and Sailors die. Twenty-seven French troops die about 20 seconds later in a similar attack.
Dec. 12 in Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked U.S. embassy and other targets, killing five and injuring 80.
1984
March 16 in Beirut: CIA Station Chief William Buckley is kidnapped, tortured and killed. Buckley was the fourth person to be kidnapped by militant Islamic extremists in Lebanon. The first American hostage, American University of Beirut President David Dodge, had been kidnapped in July 1982. Eventually, 30 Westerners would be kidnapped during the 10-year-long Lebanese hostage-taking crisis (1982-1992), which subsequently gave rise to the Iran-Contra scheme.
June 14: During the hijacking of TWA flight 847, Navy diver Robert Stethem beaten to death, then dumped out onto the tarmac of the Beirut airport. The perpetrator, Mohamed Ali Hamadi, a Lebanese held in a German prison for 19 years, was released in December 2005.
Sept. 20 in Beirut: Truck bomb exploded outside U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including two U.S. military.
Dec. 3 in Beirut: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. Two Americans killed.
1985
April 12 in Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 19: Four Marines and two U.S. businessmen are among the 13 people gunned down at a sidewalk restaurant in El Salvador by the FMLN (left-wing guerilla group fighting the Salvadoran government).
October: Cruise ship Achille Lauro hijacked off of Port Said, Egypt, by Palestinian terrorists, who kill invalid Jewish-American passenger Leon Klinghoffer.
Dec. 27: Abu Nidal-connected terrorists attack Rome's Leonardo da Vinci Airport and Vienna's Schwechat Airport with suicide squads and kill 19 people, including five U.S. citizens with suicide squads. Many innocent children are gunned down. Victims include: Natasha Simpson, age 11, daughter of Victor L. Simpson of New York, the Associated Press news editor in Rome.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece: A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing four Americans and injuring nine.
April 5: The La Belle Discotheque in Berlin was bombed, killing two American soldiers and a Turkish woman. There were 229 additional casualties, including 79 Americans, most of them soldiers. Communication intercepts by U.S., British, and German intelligence services confirmed Libyan sponsorship of the bombings. Could this have been fallout from the 1981 confrontation?
April 14: Reagan ordered U.S. Air Force and Navy to attack Libya. He announced hours after the bombing began that the U.S. had launched strikes against the “terrorist facilities” and other “military assets” and headquarters of Qaddafi.
Libya said the raid killed more than 30 people and wounded almost 100. One F-111 crashed during the operation, resulting in two American deaths. The same regime remains in charge in Libya to this day, but their status as terrorists hasn’t prevented the Bush administration and friends from reestablishing business with it.
1988
Dec. 21: Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew and 11 residents of Lockerbie. Could this have been fallout from the 1981 and 1986 confrontations? The Libyan government harbored the two terrorists responsible, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima until they were finally turned over for trial in May 2000. The trial ended on Jan. 31, 2001, with a verdict of guilty for Megrahi and aquittal for Fahima. Megrahi was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years. Fahima returned to Libya. The current Bush administration has welcomed Qaddafi’s Libya back into the community of nations: The scent of freshly-pumped oil proved too much to resist.
Reagan: a president who planned his moves according to an astrologer’s recommendations. A president who often confused fantasy with reality, and reel life with real life. Reagan: as much a product of Hollywood as those who are excoriated by the Religious Right today. A phony warrior ensconced safely in Hollywood making B-grade movies while the nation was at war. And the original cutter and runner: He withdrew the Marines from Beirut (although he couched it in terms of moving to more defensible positions) in February 1984, four months after the barracks bombing. Did any of those terrorists follow us home?
So when Republicans invoke Reagan, let’s applaud them, and ask when they’ll follow in his footsteps and “cut & run” from Iraq or Afghanistan. We’ll even allow them to replace “cut & run” with “deploy to more defensible positions.” Maybe they would like to consult an astrologer first?
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally published in Pulse of the Twin Cities weekly, May 2007)
Too often they gloss over Reagan’s many shortcomings--especially when it comes to terrorism. This list isn’t exhaustive, but it is illustrative of the many attacks visited upon U.S. citizens and interests during the Reagan years--and his subsequent missteps, mistakes or lack of response. Some will find these facts enlightening if not disconcerting, especially since these same admirers of Reagan claim that under Clinton, terrorists acted with impunity and little fear of retaliation. Those same people conveniently forget that terrorists were extremely active and successful during Reagan’s eight years in office--and Reagan’s administration was ineffective in combating them. He even laid the foundation of something Republicans are loath to admit and hope nobody notices: cutting & running (Beirut, circa 1984). Let’s look at the six years when most of the action took place: 1981, 1983-86, and 1988.
1981
March 7: American Chester Bitterman shot by M-19 terrorists in Bogota, Columbia.
March 10: U.S. Ambassador John Gunther Dean attacked in Beirut.
March 17: Terrorists bomb embassy car containing U.S. Marines in Costa Rica; U.S. embassy in San Salvador attacked by terrorists;
May: After intelligence reports surfaced that Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi had plans to assassinate American diplomats in Rome and Paris, President Reagan expelled all Libyan diplomats from the U.S. and closed Libya's diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C. Three months later, U.S. Navy jets shot down two SU-22 warplanes about 60 miles off the Libyan coast. Critics of the U.S. said Libya was used as a scapegoat and presented an easy target for U.S. forces: It’s about one-fifth the size of the U.S., and had a population of about 3 million at the time. The U.S. government maintained that that Libya posed a credible terrorist threat and had sufficient oil funds to mount a significant attack on U.S. interests.
December 17: Red Brigade takes responsibility for abduction of American General James Dozier, NATO commander, in Verona, Italy. He is subsequently rescued by Italian authorities.
1983
April 18 in Beirut, Lebanon: Seventeen Americans and 46 Lebanese killed when a truck bomb plows into the U.S. embassy in Beirut. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23: A suicide bomber drives a van laden with explosives through the U.S. Marine compound in Beirut, Lebanon. Two hundred forty-one Marines and Sailors die. Twenty-seven French troops die about 20 seconds later in a similar attack.
Dec. 12 in Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked U.S. embassy and other targets, killing five and injuring 80.
1984
March 16 in Beirut: CIA Station Chief William Buckley is kidnapped, tortured and killed. Buckley was the fourth person to be kidnapped by militant Islamic extremists in Lebanon. The first American hostage, American University of Beirut President David Dodge, had been kidnapped in July 1982. Eventually, 30 Westerners would be kidnapped during the 10-year-long Lebanese hostage-taking crisis (1982-1992), which subsequently gave rise to the Iran-Contra scheme.
June 14: During the hijacking of TWA flight 847, Navy diver Robert Stethem beaten to death, then dumped out onto the tarmac of the Beirut airport. The perpetrator, Mohamed Ali Hamadi, a Lebanese held in a German prison for 19 years, was released in December 2005.
Sept. 20 in Beirut: Truck bomb exploded outside U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including two U.S. military.
Dec. 3 in Beirut: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. Two Americans killed.
1985
April 12 in Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 19: Four Marines and two U.S. businessmen are among the 13 people gunned down at a sidewalk restaurant in El Salvador by the FMLN (left-wing guerilla group fighting the Salvadoran government).
October: Cruise ship Achille Lauro hijacked off of Port Said, Egypt, by Palestinian terrorists, who kill invalid Jewish-American passenger Leon Klinghoffer.
Dec. 27: Abu Nidal-connected terrorists attack Rome's Leonardo da Vinci Airport and Vienna's Schwechat Airport with suicide squads and kill 19 people, including five U.S. citizens with suicide squads. Many innocent children are gunned down. Victims include: Natasha Simpson, age 11, daughter of Victor L. Simpson of New York, the Associated Press news editor in Rome.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece: A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing four Americans and injuring nine.
April 5: The La Belle Discotheque in Berlin was bombed, killing two American soldiers and a Turkish woman. There were 229 additional casualties, including 79 Americans, most of them soldiers. Communication intercepts by U.S., British, and German intelligence services confirmed Libyan sponsorship of the bombings. Could this have been fallout from the 1981 confrontation?
April 14: Reagan ordered U.S. Air Force and Navy to attack Libya. He announced hours after the bombing began that the U.S. had launched strikes against the “terrorist facilities” and other “military assets” and headquarters of Qaddafi.
Libya said the raid killed more than 30 people and wounded almost 100. One F-111 crashed during the operation, resulting in two American deaths. The same regime remains in charge in Libya to this day, but their status as terrorists hasn’t prevented the Bush administration and friends from reestablishing business with it.
1988
Dec. 21: Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 243 passengers, 16 crew and 11 residents of Lockerbie. Could this have been fallout from the 1981 and 1986 confrontations? The Libyan government harbored the two terrorists responsible, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima until they were finally turned over for trial in May 2000. The trial ended on Jan. 31, 2001, with a verdict of guilty for Megrahi and aquittal for Fahima. Megrahi was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years. Fahima returned to Libya. The current Bush administration has welcomed Qaddafi’s Libya back into the community of nations: The scent of freshly-pumped oil proved too much to resist.
Reagan: a president who planned his moves according to an astrologer’s recommendations. A president who often confused fantasy with reality, and reel life with real life. Reagan: as much a product of Hollywood as those who are excoriated by the Religious Right today. A phony warrior ensconced safely in Hollywood making B-grade movies while the nation was at war. And the original cutter and runner: He withdrew the Marines from Beirut (although he couched it in terms of moving to more defensible positions) in February 1984, four months after the barracks bombing. Did any of those terrorists follow us home?
So when Republicans invoke Reagan, let’s applaud them, and ask when they’ll follow in his footsteps and “cut & run” from Iraq or Afghanistan. We’ll even allow them to replace “cut & run” with “deploy to more defensible positions.” Maybe they would like to consult an astrologer first?
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally published in Pulse of the Twin Cities weekly, May 2007)
One-Two-Three-Four. Who The Hell We Fightin' For? Wealthy Arabs.
The nations of Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates either have land borders with Iraq or are accessible from it via water. Given the proximity of these countries to Iraq, it would seem that they should be doing more to stabilize that country; yet, they have done little more than enjoy the ever-rising oil revenues that the Iraq fiasco has put into their already overflowing coffers. Nearby Syria can’t be expected to put troops into Iraq to aid the U.S.: We’re enemies after all, right? That is, except for the occasional tortured captive exchanges. Even though we share embassies, the Bush administration has handled its foreign policies so ineptly that Syria has little desire to offer any meaningful assistance in Iraq. Turkey wouldn’t be welcome, having occupied Mesopotamia for decades during the Ottoman Empire’s reign. But don’t worry: Turkey will be fighting the Kurds in northern Iraq soon enough.
That leaves us with these petro-dollar soaked “Slippery Seven.” (Jordan, unique among the Arabic-speaking countries mentioned here, lacks oil or other high-value resources) These Slippery Seven should have just as much – if not more – at stake than the United States, and should contribute more in personnel, material and funding toward the stabilization of Iraq. They can certainly afford to do it – in both financial and manpower terms. Take a look at the figures below gathered from the U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants Greenbook (qesdb.usaid.gov/gbk/index.html.)and CIA World Factbook (cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.)
Bahrain: Population: 474,000
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 202,126
females: 125,488
Total military assistance 1996-2005: $315.7 million (in constant U.S. dollars, 2005)
Jordan: Population: 6 million
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 1,348,076
females: 1,158,011
Total military assistance 1996-2005: $2.2 billion
Kuwait: Population: 1.2 million
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 737,292
females: 405,207
Total military assistance 1996-2005: No aid is listed in the Greenbook for this period.
Oman: Population: 2.5 million
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 581,444
females: 435,107
Total military assistance 1996-2005: $168.8 million
Qatar: Population: 907,000
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 238,566
females fit for military service, age 18-49: 116,595
Total military assistance 1996-2005: no military assistance figures listed in the 10-year report in the Greenbook.
Saudi Arabia: Population: 22 million
males, age 18-49, fit for military service: 6,592,709
Females, age 18-49, fit for military service: 4,659,347
Total military assistance 1996-2005: No aid is listed in the Greenbook for this period.
United Arab Emirates: 4.4 million
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 526,671
females: 419,975
Total military assistance 1996-2005: No aid is listed in the Greenbook for this period.
The available figures showing the total military assistance from 1996-2005 are striking enough, and the figures not in the Greenbook for Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also speaks volumes: Does anyone other than the most gullible among us believe those “allies” of ours received no military assistance during that period? If you believe the U.S. has provided no military assistance to those four countries during the period shown, I have some yellowcake uranium I’d like to sell you. It’s absolutely incredulous. Here is what we do know:
Total Population of The Slippery Seven: 37,481,000
Total fit for military service: 17.5 million
Number of troops The Slippery Seven have on the ground in Iraq: Zero.
Out of 17.5 million people fit for military service, The Slippery Seven can’t even muster a couple hundred thousand towards the stabilization of Iraq? Yes they need to protect their borders and ports, but so does the United States. The Slippery Seven count their stacks of money and enjoy the good life while the United States depletes its own military personnel, material and treasury in a fight far beyond its own shores?
Why do American forces fight the battles and pay the bills on behalf of these super-rich petro-states? Because our political leaders say they should. The Slippery Seven know that, regardless of who occupies the White House or who is in charge of Congress, that they can always rely on America to fight and fund their battles.
Proponents of the ongoing occupation of Iraq say that there are a range of cultural factors that prohibit the active involvement of these countries: Sunni-Shiite antagonisms being key among them. But are those cultural factors any less harmful than having what is essentially a Christian army occupying Iraq? And isn’t Saudi Arabia already assisting the Sunni minority in Iraq as a counterweight to the Shiite majority in Iraq to stave off Iranian influence?
The Slippery Seven stay out of the fight because they can, and because they know that the U.S. government will always send its troops to die so their own citizens or family members won’t. The Slippery Seven rely on politicians in Washington and the easily malleable American public to get the U.S. to fight for them – either playing the oil card, or, in the case of Jordan, the regional stability card, while sitting out the fight themselves. If the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal would be as dire to the region as some claim, where are the military forces of The Slippery Seven? Clearly they have the personnel and funds available to ante-up. But they won’t because no one from the U.S. is forcing them to.
There are many reasons the United States should leave Iraq– indeed, should have left long ago. This is another. This is not America’s fight. It never was. And these figures are additional proof that not only is this not America’s fight, we’re paying our so-called Middle Eastern “allies” to stay out of it. These numbers don’t lie. Unless George Tenet put them together.
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally Published in Pulse of the Twin Cities weekly, May 2007)
That leaves us with these petro-dollar soaked “Slippery Seven.” (Jordan, unique among the Arabic-speaking countries mentioned here, lacks oil or other high-value resources) These Slippery Seven should have just as much – if not more – at stake than the United States, and should contribute more in personnel, material and funding toward the stabilization of Iraq. They can certainly afford to do it – in both financial and manpower terms. Take a look at the figures below gathered from the U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants Greenbook (qesdb.usaid.gov/gbk/index.html.)and CIA World Factbook (cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.)
Bahrain: Population: 474,000
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 202,126
females: 125,488
Total military assistance 1996-2005: $315.7 million (in constant U.S. dollars, 2005)
Jordan: Population: 6 million
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 1,348,076
females: 1,158,011
Total military assistance 1996-2005: $2.2 billion
Kuwait: Population: 1.2 million
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 737,292
females: 405,207
Total military assistance 1996-2005: No aid is listed in the Greenbook for this period.
Oman: Population: 2.5 million
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 581,444
females: 435,107
Total military assistance 1996-2005: $168.8 million
Qatar: Population: 907,000
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 238,566
females fit for military service, age 18-49: 116,595
Total military assistance 1996-2005: no military assistance figures listed in the 10-year report in the Greenbook.
Saudi Arabia: Population: 22 million
males, age 18-49, fit for military service: 6,592,709
Females, age 18-49, fit for military service: 4,659,347
Total military assistance 1996-2005: No aid is listed in the Greenbook for this period.
United Arab Emirates: 4.4 million
males fit for military service, age 18-49: 526,671
females: 419,975
Total military assistance 1996-2005: No aid is listed in the Greenbook for this period.
The available figures showing the total military assistance from 1996-2005 are striking enough, and the figures not in the Greenbook for Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also speaks volumes: Does anyone other than the most gullible among us believe those “allies” of ours received no military assistance during that period? If you believe the U.S. has provided no military assistance to those four countries during the period shown, I have some yellowcake uranium I’d like to sell you. It’s absolutely incredulous. Here is what we do know:
Total Population of The Slippery Seven: 37,481,000
Total fit for military service: 17.5 million
Number of troops The Slippery Seven have on the ground in Iraq: Zero.
Out of 17.5 million people fit for military service, The Slippery Seven can’t even muster a couple hundred thousand towards the stabilization of Iraq? Yes they need to protect their borders and ports, but so does the United States. The Slippery Seven count their stacks of money and enjoy the good life while the United States depletes its own military personnel, material and treasury in a fight far beyond its own shores?
Why do American forces fight the battles and pay the bills on behalf of these super-rich petro-states? Because our political leaders say they should. The Slippery Seven know that, regardless of who occupies the White House or who is in charge of Congress, that they can always rely on America to fight and fund their battles.
Proponents of the ongoing occupation of Iraq say that there are a range of cultural factors that prohibit the active involvement of these countries: Sunni-Shiite antagonisms being key among them. But are those cultural factors any less harmful than having what is essentially a Christian army occupying Iraq? And isn’t Saudi Arabia already assisting the Sunni minority in Iraq as a counterweight to the Shiite majority in Iraq to stave off Iranian influence?
The Slippery Seven stay out of the fight because they can, and because they know that the U.S. government will always send its troops to die so their own citizens or family members won’t. The Slippery Seven rely on politicians in Washington and the easily malleable American public to get the U.S. to fight for them – either playing the oil card, or, in the case of Jordan, the regional stability card, while sitting out the fight themselves. If the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal would be as dire to the region as some claim, where are the military forces of The Slippery Seven? Clearly they have the personnel and funds available to ante-up. But they won’t because no one from the U.S. is forcing them to.
There are many reasons the United States should leave Iraq– indeed, should have left long ago. This is another. This is not America’s fight. It never was. And these figures are additional proof that not only is this not America’s fight, we’re paying our so-called Middle Eastern “allies” to stay out of it. These numbers don’t lie. Unless George Tenet put them together.
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally Published in Pulse of the Twin Cities weekly, May 2007)
Minneapolis-St. Paul Media Coverage of Anti-War Protests: Abysmal
Dozens of antiwar activists waving signs, chanting peace slogans, many blocking four lanes of traffic across University Avenue, others staging a sit-in and reading of war deaths in Sen. Coleman's office, ultimately leading to the arrest of 24. Where did the Star Tribune place the story? Deep inside the B section of the April 4 newspaper's Twin Cities' Region section on page 5. The sole image of the protest? An older lady giving a protester in Coleman's office a supportive high-five while an apparently weary (or teary-eyed?) policeman stands in the background.
Photos of the large crowd standing along University Avenue? None. Photos of protesters blocking traffic or being hauled away after arrest? None. The key front-page stories of the Star Tribune's B section? A laudatory story on the St. Paul police department's C.S.I. programs for the 7-to-10 age set, with a large above-the-fold full-color photo of Police Commander Todd Axtell hunched over a table demonstrating the finer points of dusting for finger prints. The A section had an above-the-fold story about the survivor of a dog mauling, more news on 3M's chemicals in our landfills, an article examining mammograms versus MRIs, Gov. Pawlenty's ad denouncing the tax increases on the wealthiest in our state, and another story on the St. Paul police department's pursuit of a man suspected in a recent triple killing.
Surely all these stories are worthy of being reported on. But why do stories of protest get consigned to the deep inner-pages of the paper where their impact is further diminished? Certainly a protest with arrests deserves better coverage, doesn't it? If not, why not?
What makes such demonstrations unworthy of front-page status in either the A section or B section of the Star Tribune? Or of prominent coverage on the local TV news? Why are the voices of the protesters rarely given airtime or print space? Why should a mundane story such as Gov. Pawlenty's radio ad against taxing the rich take precedence over an antiwar demonstration of hundreds of people--young and old, veterans, blue-collar & white-collar workers, students, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters--who have found the courage to leave the comfort of their homes for the whipping wind and pelting rain, risking arrest and verbal--if not physical--assault in the belief that their protests matter?
Why marginalize the peace movement and its actions? That may not be the media's intent, but that is the effect. For better or worse, the Star Tribune is the de facto newspaper of record for our state. It needs to do a much better job in covering the anti-war movement. A much more honest job. The same goes for the TV news.
Tim Sherno from KSTP-TV was there, but not a peep, picture or person was mentioned on the newscast or online when I checked their website on the morning of April 4. Is an anti-war protest too hot of a potato for Channel 5 to handle? Maybe if we offered Stanley Hubbard's news anchors a case of botox we'd get better results.
WCCO had approximately 60 words (no images or footage) regarding the demonstration on their web site posted around 9:30 p.m. on April 3. I didn't see the TV newscast that evening or on the morning of April 4, but it's likely it got little if any airtime. WCCO's online blurb mainly focused on the traffic delaying aspect of the protest, interviewed no one, filmed nothing. On KARE 11's website, no mention of the demonstration, no listing of it in the news section. All those brightly-bleached smiles crowding the news studio, and not a single reporter sent out. I suggest a new award for this preening bunch of empty suits:11 Who Don't KARE.
All these station were trumped by--of all stations--Fox 9 News. Fox sent Ellen Galles to Lakeville South High School to cover the story of a group of peace activists there who came to attend a Town Hall meeting of Republican Rep. John Kline, but I saw no coverage of the University Avenue protest online. Still, the fact that they sent a reporter to Lakeville and posted some great footage of Ms. Galles' interviews and coverage of the event online gives us a glimmer of what thorough coverage might look like.
I saw both the protesters and the police act admirably during the April 3 demonstration--more admirably than many of those caught in traffic who, angry at the unexpected blockade, spouted all sorts of filth: from calling the brave ladies who were leading the demonstration in the middle of traffic "bitches" to calling those gathered in support on the curbside "disloyal fucks." I fell into the latter group.
To paraphrase a French general regarding that country's ill-fated occupation of Algeria: We cannot win in Iraq; we can only choose the magnitude of our humiliation. Leaving Iraq now is better than leaving later. This is what the peace movement is saying. Those who stood behind the traffic barriers and carried the banners--and then were carried off by the police--are the bravest among us.
It takes more courage to demonstrate peacefully than to occupy forcefully. Since 2003 we have seen the magnitude of the damage caused by the invasion and occupation of Iraq only grow. How much more blood has to flow in the streets of Baghdad before our political and military leaders make the tough--but the only--decision that can be made: removing American troops (and mercenary private military contractors) from Iraq? Those groups of activists who have been protesting American militarism and intervention since 2001--and earlier--have been right, and the Right can't deal with being told by this 'rabble' that they've been wrong. Can't the mainstream media deal with this fact either?
Are these protests, in the eyes of the news editors of the so-called mainstream media in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, merely senseless acts of limited heroism? Are they considered mere annoyances? They may be all of these things. But one thing is certain: The mainstream media's penchant for "pooh-poohing" these demonstrations is a disservice to the public's need to know that there is a sizeable--and growing--section of the community that is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally published in Pulse of the Twin Cities Weekly, April 2007)
Photos of the large crowd standing along University Avenue? None. Photos of protesters blocking traffic or being hauled away after arrest? None. The key front-page stories of the Star Tribune's B section? A laudatory story on the St. Paul police department's C.S.I. programs for the 7-to-10 age set, with a large above-the-fold full-color photo of Police Commander Todd Axtell hunched over a table demonstrating the finer points of dusting for finger prints. The A section had an above-the-fold story about the survivor of a dog mauling, more news on 3M's chemicals in our landfills, an article examining mammograms versus MRIs, Gov. Pawlenty's ad denouncing the tax increases on the wealthiest in our state, and another story on the St. Paul police department's pursuit of a man suspected in a recent triple killing.Surely all these stories are worthy of being reported on. But why do stories of protest get consigned to the deep inner-pages of the paper where their impact is further diminished? Certainly a protest with arrests deserves better coverage, doesn't it? If not, why not?
What makes such demonstrations unworthy of front-page status in either the A section or B section of the Star Tribune? Or of prominent coverage on the local TV news? Why are the voices of the protesters rarely given airtime or print space? Why should a mundane story such as Gov. Pawlenty's radio ad against taxing the rich take precedence over an antiwar demonstration of hundreds of people--young and old, veterans, blue-collar & white-collar workers, students, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters--who have found the courage to leave the comfort of their homes for the whipping wind and pelting rain, risking arrest and verbal--if not physical--assault in the belief that their protests matter?
Why marginalize the peace movement and its actions? That may not be the media's intent, but that is the effect. For better or worse, the Star Tribune is the de facto newspaper of record for our state. It needs to do a much better job in covering the anti-war movement. A much more honest job. The same goes for the TV news.
Tim Sherno from KSTP-TV was there, but not a peep, picture or person was mentioned on the newscast or online when I checked their website on the morning of April 4. Is an anti-war protest too hot of a potato for Channel 5 to handle? Maybe if we offered Stanley Hubbard's news anchors a case of botox we'd get better results.
WCCO had approximately 60 words (no images or footage) regarding the demonstration on their web site posted around 9:30 p.m. on April 3. I didn't see the TV newscast that evening or on the morning of April 4, but it's likely it got little if any airtime. WCCO's online blurb mainly focused on the traffic delaying aspect of the protest, interviewed no one, filmed nothing. On KARE 11's website, no mention of the demonstration, no listing of it in the news section. All those brightly-bleached smiles crowding the news studio, and not a single reporter sent out. I suggest a new award for this preening bunch of empty suits:11 Who Don't KARE.
All these station were trumped by--of all stations--Fox 9 News. Fox sent Ellen Galles to Lakeville South High School to cover the story of a group of peace activists there who came to attend a Town Hall meeting of Republican Rep. John Kline, but I saw no coverage of the University Avenue protest online. Still, the fact that they sent a reporter to Lakeville and posted some great footage of Ms. Galles' interviews and coverage of the event online gives us a glimmer of what thorough coverage might look like.
I saw both the protesters and the police act admirably during the April 3 demonstration--more admirably than many of those caught in traffic who, angry at the unexpected blockade, spouted all sorts of filth: from calling the brave ladies who were leading the demonstration in the middle of traffic "bitches" to calling those gathered in support on the curbside "disloyal fucks." I fell into the latter group.
To paraphrase a French general regarding that country's ill-fated occupation of Algeria: We cannot win in Iraq; we can only choose the magnitude of our humiliation. Leaving Iraq now is better than leaving later. This is what the peace movement is saying. Those who stood behind the traffic barriers and carried the banners--and then were carried off by the police--are the bravest among us.
It takes more courage to demonstrate peacefully than to occupy forcefully. Since 2003 we have seen the magnitude of the damage caused by the invasion and occupation of Iraq only grow. How much more blood has to flow in the streets of Baghdad before our political and military leaders make the tough--but the only--decision that can be made: removing American troops (and mercenary private military contractors) from Iraq? Those groups of activists who have been protesting American militarism and intervention since 2001--and earlier--have been right, and the Right can't deal with being told by this 'rabble' that they've been wrong. Can't the mainstream media deal with this fact either?
Are these protests, in the eyes of the news editors of the so-called mainstream media in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, merely senseless acts of limited heroism? Are they considered mere annoyances? They may be all of these things. But one thing is certain: The mainstream media's penchant for "pooh-poohing" these demonstrations is a disservice to the public's need to know that there is a sizeable--and growing--section of the community that is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally published in Pulse of the Twin Cities Weekly, April 2007)
War Is A Racket: Are You A Pawn In This Game?
Like many who joined the all-volunteer military, I was an economic conscript. Though I wouldn't have admitted it when I enlisted, it's clear that that was the case. In my hometown of 700, there was no real opportunity for someone to "make it" without going to college. And that wasn't an option for me at the time.
I was an easy opportunity for my recruiter. The only arms that needed twisting were those of my folks. I thought they'd be glad to get rid of me! Ten kids--who the hell cares about number seven? But they did care, though I didn't recognize it then as anything but an embarrassment in front of my recruiter. I enlisted at 17 in the Delayed Entry Program--a part of recruiting that locks in a youngster before they reach the age of majority (when a contract would be binding) by getting the parents to co-sign the agreement to enlist. Over the next year we "poolies" from the hinterlands were occasionally picked up and brought in for barbeques (and illicit booze consumption) at the Marines recruiting office on Lyndale Avenue in Minneapolis. We were spoiled by the attention--unable to see it for what it was: grooming. But we loved to hang out with the kind of men we hoped to become.
My initial enlistment was for four years, which I later extended for another 18 months to go overseas as a Marine Security Guard, the part of the Marine Corps that guards embassies and consulates. I was 20 and eager for adventure, and I found it.
After three years in Africa, I returned stateside increasingly disenchanted with military life. Through my 24-year-old eyes and experience, I looked back on what I had done and where I had been since 18. I had--and have now--no regrets for joining. Two of my brothers who were also Marines, and another in the Army, may have other opinions. Yet, I can't in good conscience tell others to join today. A person sees through a lot of bullshit after six years of service. I slowly came to this realization: The poor among us--poor in opportunity, poor in money, poor in education--are the fodder for today's enlisted ranks. It has always been this way.
My metamorphosis from a goose-stepping, right-wing, Reagan-loving Republican began in college, where another former Marine, as the chair of the Political Science department, became my academic adviser. Later, I heard Paul Wellstone speak on campus during his first (and I thought Quixotic) run for senator. What passion! I shook his hand and slapped him on the back and wished him luck, and his sincerity and conviction moved me. All these post-Marine Corps experiences coalesced into a sort of epiphany for me. I started questioning things. By the time I found myself among the thousands of pissed-off citizens--including many other veterans--marching against the Iraq invasion in February 2003 on Hennepin Avenue, I had completed a 180-degree ideological turn.
What can I say that hasn't already been said about the situation in which our nation finds itself? Our military teeters on the brink of destruction, while Iraq has long since passed over. Our nation's coffers are empty as we hemorrhage billions yearly in Iraq and Afghanistan, while private military contractors suck savagely from the public teat--all the while bemoaning attempts to rein in their destructive activities. And returning veterans are treated like shit. The once-famous medical facility of Walter Reed is now infamous for its putrid conditions and substandard medical care for a host of wounded veterans. Even the VA hospital in Minneapolis is under renewed scrutiny involving issues of inadequate or substandard care. As always, it is the lower ranks, the enlisted men and women, who bear the brunt of these developments.
Politicians either run for cover or cover their asses by forming yet another bipartisan commission to investigate, but they're pursuing a red herring. The commission that should have been formed long ago is one with the sole purpose of impeaching this president. The words "every life is precious and we mourn every life lost" is a mechanical answer that he and his minions respond with whenever a question regarding casualties is raised. This is just a by-rote reply designed to impede anyone from seeing the bullshit this president and his lackeys continue to shovel into the face of returning veterans and their families.
So, what can I say that hasn't already been said? Perhaps if I can't help current, former and future members of the military from seeing this bullshit, maybe I can help them smell it.
When politicians say "Thank you," they're really saying "Better you than me." It's not them leaving their families, losing jobs, wives and homes--or worse. They may get tears in their eyes, they may get chills down their spine, but they still know the military is for "those others" and not for them. They may say that they themselves are unworthy of such a noble sacrifice, but what they really mean is that such a sacrifice is beneath them. Like Dick Cheney, they have other interests, and swapping the green of money for the brown of desert sand is not one of them.
In boot camp we're taught to venerate many people--ranging from the absurd (John Wayne, who never wore the uniform) to the spectacular, like General Smedley D. Butler. To call this man courageous is a huge understatement: he won two --yes, two--Medals of Honor. More importantly, he lived to tell about how, for decades, he and his fellow Marines were pawns for global imperialism. Destinations may have changed, but American imperialism is still buttressed by boots on the ground. Here is a quote from General Butler:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." (Read the entire essay "War is a Racket.")
The credibility of what I say shouldn't depend on my service in the Marines. I understand that just as I rage against the military machine--the machine, not the malleable young minds that enlist--others will rage for it. But the proof is in front of us day after day: to the rich, to those roaming the corridors of power in the Pentagon, the White House and Congress, our service members are less than pawns. They are expendable. And if you are among the wounded, you are an inconvenience. If you are among those tortured mentally by your experiences in war, pleading for help and relief from the anguish, knowing you are on the edge of a breakdown, you are put on a waiting list. Yet, people will continue to sign on the dotted line and fill the ranks left vacant by the wounded, dead and dying, seduced by the motto "Semper Fidelis," ("Always Faithful") not knowing, or not willing to believe, it will later turn into "Simply Forgot Us."
The oath of enlistment is an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The oath isn't to the president, it isn't to senior ranks: it is to the Constitution. When the leadership of our country has morphed into the enemy, a service member's oath does not bind him to follow; on the contrary, the oath demands the opposite. Those in our military petitioning Congress for redress regarding the Iraq war are a real-time example of this principle.
When Bush leaves office, he will live the good life, content in the knowledge that he knows he did the right thing in Iraq because he only does right things. The thousands of legless, armless and brain-damaged casualties that resulted, the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis who died, the totality of the destruction for which he is responsible, will not haunt his dreams: There are no dreams in an empty head.
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally published in Pulse of the Twin Cities weekly, March 2007)
I was an easy opportunity for my recruiter. The only arms that needed twisting were those of my folks. I thought they'd be glad to get rid of me! Ten kids--who the hell cares about number seven? But they did care, though I didn't recognize it then as anything but an embarrassment in front of my recruiter. I enlisted at 17 in the Delayed Entry Program--a part of recruiting that locks in a youngster before they reach the age of majority (when a contract would be binding) by getting the parents to co-sign the agreement to enlist. Over the next year we "poolies" from the hinterlands were occasionally picked up and brought in for barbeques (and illicit booze consumption) at the Marines recruiting office on Lyndale Avenue in Minneapolis. We were spoiled by the attention--unable to see it for what it was: grooming. But we loved to hang out with the kind of men we hoped to become.
My initial enlistment was for four years, which I later extended for another 18 months to go overseas as a Marine Security Guard, the part of the Marine Corps that guards embassies and consulates. I was 20 and eager for adventure, and I found it.
After three years in Africa, I returned stateside increasingly disenchanted with military life. Through my 24-year-old eyes and experience, I looked back on what I had done and where I had been since 18. I had--and have now--no regrets for joining. Two of my brothers who were also Marines, and another in the Army, may have other opinions. Yet, I can't in good conscience tell others to join today. A person sees through a lot of bullshit after six years of service. I slowly came to this realization: The poor among us--poor in opportunity, poor in money, poor in education--are the fodder for today's enlisted ranks. It has always been this way.
My metamorphosis from a goose-stepping, right-wing, Reagan-loving Republican began in college, where another former Marine, as the chair of the Political Science department, became my academic adviser. Later, I heard Paul Wellstone speak on campus during his first (and I thought Quixotic) run for senator. What passion! I shook his hand and slapped him on the back and wished him luck, and his sincerity and conviction moved me. All these post-Marine Corps experiences coalesced into a sort of epiphany for me. I started questioning things. By the time I found myself among the thousands of pissed-off citizens--including many other veterans--marching against the Iraq invasion in February 2003 on Hennepin Avenue, I had completed a 180-degree ideological turn.
What can I say that hasn't already been said about the situation in which our nation finds itself? Our military teeters on the brink of destruction, while Iraq has long since passed over. Our nation's coffers are empty as we hemorrhage billions yearly in Iraq and Afghanistan, while private military contractors suck savagely from the public teat--all the while bemoaning attempts to rein in their destructive activities. And returning veterans are treated like shit. The once-famous medical facility of Walter Reed is now infamous for its putrid conditions and substandard medical care for a host of wounded veterans. Even the VA hospital in Minneapolis is under renewed scrutiny involving issues of inadequate or substandard care. As always, it is the lower ranks, the enlisted men and women, who bear the brunt of these developments.
Politicians either run for cover or cover their asses by forming yet another bipartisan commission to investigate, but they're pursuing a red herring. The commission that should have been formed long ago is one with the sole purpose of impeaching this president. The words "every life is precious and we mourn every life lost" is a mechanical answer that he and his minions respond with whenever a question regarding casualties is raised. This is just a by-rote reply designed to impede anyone from seeing the bullshit this president and his lackeys continue to shovel into the face of returning veterans and their families.
So, what can I say that hasn't already been said? Perhaps if I can't help current, former and future members of the military from seeing this bullshit, maybe I can help them smell it.
When politicians say "Thank you," they're really saying "Better you than me." It's not them leaving their families, losing jobs, wives and homes--or worse. They may get tears in their eyes, they may get chills down their spine, but they still know the military is for "those others" and not for them. They may say that they themselves are unworthy of such a noble sacrifice, but what they really mean is that such a sacrifice is beneath them. Like Dick Cheney, they have other interests, and swapping the green of money for the brown of desert sand is not one of them.
In boot camp we're taught to venerate many people--ranging from the absurd (John Wayne, who never wore the uniform) to the spectacular, like General Smedley D. Butler. To call this man courageous is a huge understatement: he won two --yes, two--Medals of Honor. More importantly, he lived to tell about how, for decades, he and his fellow Marines were pawns for global imperialism. Destinations may have changed, but American imperialism is still buttressed by boots on the ground. Here is a quote from General Butler:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." (Read the entire essay "War is a Racket.")The credibility of what I say shouldn't depend on my service in the Marines. I understand that just as I rage against the military machine--the machine, not the malleable young minds that enlist--others will rage for it. But the proof is in front of us day after day: to the rich, to those roaming the corridors of power in the Pentagon, the White House and Congress, our service members are less than pawns. They are expendable. And if you are among the wounded, you are an inconvenience. If you are among those tortured mentally by your experiences in war, pleading for help and relief from the anguish, knowing you are on the edge of a breakdown, you are put on a waiting list. Yet, people will continue to sign on the dotted line and fill the ranks left vacant by the wounded, dead and dying, seduced by the motto "Semper Fidelis," ("Always Faithful") not knowing, or not willing to believe, it will later turn into "Simply Forgot Us."
The oath of enlistment is an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The oath isn't to the president, it isn't to senior ranks: it is to the Constitution. When the leadership of our country has morphed into the enemy, a service member's oath does not bind him to follow; on the contrary, the oath demands the opposite. Those in our military petitioning Congress for redress regarding the Iraq war are a real-time example of this principle.
When Bush leaves office, he will live the good life, content in the knowledge that he knows he did the right thing in Iraq because he only does right things. The thousands of legless, armless and brain-damaged casualties that resulted, the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis who died, the totality of the destruction for which he is responsible, will not haunt his dreams: There are no dreams in an empty head.
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally published in Pulse of the Twin Cities weekly, March 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)