Friday, August 31, 2007
Plumbing the depths of our foreign policy mastery in the Middle East
Jon Stewart walks us down memory lane in the Middle East.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Lords of War II - The Contractors
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Lords of War
We watched the "Lord of War" starring Nicholas Cage - hard movie to watch in this day and age. If you haven't seen it, put it on your list. If your curious about the factual basis for it, read on...
More Enemies = Greater Profits
What is the psychology of an administration that creates more enemies? Everybody marvels at how we've somehow created more terrorists out of the Iraqupation yet nobody realizes that may be the truest sign of success for BushCo. Wait, you say- I thought we were supposed to make the US safer and reduce the number of terrorists? Yet we now have a rising number of enemies and are currently firing more than 1 BILLION bullets a year at them. This is actually creating a shortage of ammunition for our own police departments at home. As with any situation, if you follow the money, you get the answers, and the answer is this: the Defense and Munitions industries are making a killing (pun intended) on this war. They have made profits on every war because their greatest customers are enemies. Hence, two important facts: one, the more war and number of enemies, the greater the profits. Two, without war and enemies, there are no profits. Therefore, endless war and increasing enemies because it's all about the bottom line.
We have kept ourselves in military operations since WWII not to make us safer or to bring freedom to the world, but chiefly to keep our Defense and Munitions industries alive and profitable. I'm not saying that there haven't been reasonable and righteous reasons for us to be involved in military conflict at certain times since WWII. But the Iraqupation may be the greatest misuse of our military power in our nations history and contrary to popular belief, it has not backfired, at least not for those making money off it. Aside from Defense and Munitions, don't forget the outsourcing of security to companies like Blackwater, creating a parallel army larger than our official one but without the accountability and honor (lest you think that any Blackwater employee killed will be buried at Arlington with a ceremony and a medal). And do not forget Halliburton and KBR, who have not just made tons of money but have actually managed to lose a bunch of it. They are under investigation for bribery, bid rigging, defrauding the military and illegally profiting in Iran. Their answer? Move their headquarters to the UAE. And did you happen to know that the UAE has no extradition treaty? Check it out. How patriotic of Dick Cheney's favorite nation-building company.
It is too idealistic to hope that the people running the Defense industry would have some sort of act of conscience that would make them more concerned with good policy than with obscene profiteering. And it is also too idealistic to hope that Congress can stop BushCo from this great and treacherous collusion with the Media Industrial Complex. Those of us who voted for Democrats who would put an end to this madness are hugely disappointed that they have been unable to make it happen. Truth is, we need 60 votes for that kind of change and we don't have it. Yet. But more than that, we need outrage from American citizens to build into a roar that our government cannot ignore. And until this government of the people is truly reclaimed, endless war will continue. And enemies will increase in size and animosity towards us.
If you are a Democrat living in a district represented by a Republican still supporting the war, you are in a greater position to make a difference than someone living in a Blue state. Are you mad as hell yet? Get madder. Write, call, petition, canvas and start pushing for the change necessary to make the tide turn. Let your representative know that their next election will depend on their vote in Congress and that as of now, they have failed you, failed America and failed our brave troops fighting overseas for a Defense industry that cares nothing about them. The shame is not on those who want to end this war but on those who sent our men and women into a war that will never be won. It is not just about ending this war but ending the illusion about why we are fighting. And until we care enough to stop this madness, we are all complicit in it's inherent evils.
Please do check out my previous post Enemies and Customers about this issue.
More Enemies = Greater Profits
What is the psychology of an administration that creates more enemies? Everybody marvels at how we've somehow created more terrorists out of the Iraqupation yet nobody realizes that may be the truest sign of success for BushCo. Wait, you say- I thought we were supposed to make the US safer and reduce the number of terrorists? Yet we now have a rising number of enemies and are currently firing more than 1 BILLION bullets a year at them. This is actually creating a shortage of ammunition for our own police departments at home. As with any situation, if you follow the money, you get the answers, and the answer is this: the Defense and Munitions industries are making a killing (pun intended) on this war. They have made profits on every war because their greatest customers are enemies. Hence, two important facts: one, the more war and number of enemies, the greater the profits. Two, without war and enemies, there are no profits. Therefore, endless war and increasing enemies because it's all about the bottom line.
We have kept ourselves in military operations since WWII not to make us safer or to bring freedom to the world, but chiefly to keep our Defense and Munitions industries alive and profitable. I'm not saying that there haven't been reasonable and righteous reasons for us to be involved in military conflict at certain times since WWII. But the Iraqupation may be the greatest misuse of our military power in our nations history and contrary to popular belief, it has not backfired, at least not for those making money off it. Aside from Defense and Munitions, don't forget the outsourcing of security to companies like Blackwater, creating a parallel army larger than our official one but without the accountability and honor (lest you think that any Blackwater employee killed will be buried at Arlington with a ceremony and a medal). And do not forget Halliburton and KBR, who have not just made tons of money but have actually managed to lose a bunch of it. They are under investigation for bribery, bid rigging, defrauding the military and illegally profiting in Iran. Their answer? Move their headquarters to the UAE. And did you happen to know that the UAE has no extradition treaty? Check it out. How patriotic of Dick Cheney's favorite nation-building company.
It is too idealistic to hope that the people running the Defense industry would have some sort of act of conscience that would make them more concerned with good policy than with obscene profiteering. And it is also too idealistic to hope that Congress can stop BushCo from this great and treacherous collusion with the Media Industrial Complex. Those of us who voted for Democrats who would put an end to this madness are hugely disappointed that they have been unable to make it happen. Truth is, we need 60 votes for that kind of change and we don't have it. Yet. But more than that, we need outrage from American citizens to build into a roar that our government cannot ignore. And until this government of the people is truly reclaimed, endless war will continue. And enemies will increase in size and animosity towards us.
If you are a Democrat living in a district represented by a Republican still supporting the war, you are in a greater position to make a difference than someone living in a Blue state. Are you mad as hell yet? Get madder. Write, call, petition, canvas and start pushing for the change necessary to make the tide turn. Let your representative know that their next election will depend on their vote in Congress and that as of now, they have failed you, failed America and failed our brave troops fighting overseas for a Defense industry that cares nothing about them. The shame is not on those who want to end this war but on those who sent our men and women into a war that will never be won. It is not just about ending this war but ending the illusion about why we are fighting. And until we care enough to stop this madness, we are all complicit in it's inherent evils.
Please do check out my previous post Enemies and Customers about this issue.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
I couldn't find a leaf so ....
is it okay if I use your Constitution to wipe my ass?
The WORST ADMINISTRATION EVER got more good news, kicking the lifeless body of Magna Carta, disguised as Jose Padilla.
August 20, 2007
A Grave Blow to the Constitution
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Jose Padilla's conviction on terrorism charges on August 16 was a victory, not for justice, but for the US Justice (sic) Department's theory that a US citizen can be convicted, not because he committed a terrorist act but for allegedly harboring aspirations to commit such an act. By agreeing with the Justice (sic) Department's theory, the incompetent Padilla Jury delivered a deadly blow to the rule of law and opened Pandora's Box.
Anglo-American law is a human achievement 800 years in the making. Over centuries law was transformed from a weapon in the hands of government into a shield of the people from unaccountable power. The Padilla Jury's verdict turned law back into a weapon.
The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, August 17, 2007).
It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors desperate for a conviction for which there was little, if any, supporting evidence. For the jury, patriotism required that they strike a blow for America against terrorism. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off a person who has been portrayed as a terrorist in the US media for five years.
The "evidence" against Padilla consists of three items:
(1) seven intercepted telephone conversations,
(2) a 10-year old non-relevant video of Osama bin Laden, and
(3) an alleged application to a mujahideen (not terrorist) training camp with Padilla's fingerprints. We will examine each in turn.
The International Herald Tribune and Associated Press reported in detail on the telephone intercepts (June 19, 2007): "Accused al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla was never overheard using purported code words for violent jihad in intercepted telephone conversations and spoke often about his difficulties in learning Arabic while studying in Egypt, the lead FBI case agent testified Tuesday. The questioning of FBI Agent James T. Kavanaugh by Padilla's attorney, Michael Caruso, focused on seven intercepted telephone calls on which Padilla's voice is heard mostly talking about his marriage and his studies but never about Islamic extremism. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla ever was heard using what prosecutors say were code words for violent jihad . . . 'No, he does not,' Kavanaugh replied. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla was ever overheard discussing jihad training. 'No jihad training that I've seen,' Kavanaugh said. . . . 'He's not referring to anything here but studying Arabic, correct? Study means study, right?' Caruso asked. 'That's what they're talking about,' Kavanaugh testified."
Despite the FBI's testimony that the intercepted telephone messages contained no incriminating evidence, the "patriotic" jury accepted the federal prosecutor's unsupported accusation that there were hidden code words in the message indicating that Padilla was a terrorist. After all, who but a terrorist would want to learn Arabic?
The video of bin Laden had no relevance whatsoever to the charges in the case. The video is 10 years old and makes no reference to any of the defendants. Moreover, none of the defendants were accused of ever being in contact with bin Laden. The only purpose of the video was to arouse in jurors fear, anger, and disturbing memories associated with September 11, 2001. The fact that the judge let prosecutors sway a fearful and vengeful patriotic jury with emotion and passion rather than evidence is obviously grounds for appeal.
Whoriskey reports that in their closing arguments prosecutors mentioned al-Qaeda more than 100 times and urged jurors to think of al-Qaeda and groups alleged to be affiliated with it as an international murder conspiracy. Padilla "trained to kill,' Assistant US Attorney Brian Frazier misinformed the jury in his closing statement.
Who Padilla wished to kill was never identified, but according to the prosecutors he had been wanting to kill persons unknown since 1998. Padilla was convicted for harboring alleged intentions, not for committing any acts. Indeed, no harmful acts are charged to Padilla. The incompetent jury fell for the prosecutors' wild tale of a murder conspiracy many years old that had no results.
As Andrew Cohen put it, Padilla and the two co-defendants were convicted on the charge of "terrorist-wannabes" on the basis of "evidence that federal authorities did not believe amounted to a crime when it was gathered back before 2001." Cohen concludes: "it's further proof that if you can convince an American jury that a man in the dock had anything to do with al-Qaeda, you can pretty much bank on a conviction no matter how tenuous the evidence" (washingtonpost.com, August 16, 2007).
The training camp application form is as suspect as any evidence can be.
Moreover, the prosecution had no evidence that Padilla actually attended such a camp. Padilla was held illegally for 3.5 years and tortured. At any time during his illegal detention and torture, Padilla could have been handed a form, thus tainting it with his fingerprints.
Amy Goodman, the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty, the Christian Science Monitor and others have described how US interrogators abused Padilla and destroyed his mind. To expect a person as badly tortured and abused as Padilla to retain the wits not to touch a piece of paper handed to him, or forced into his hands, is unreasonable.
When Padilla was arrested five years ago in 2002, the US government charged that he was about to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a US city that would kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans. The story was a total lie, a fabrication designed to keep the fear level high after 9/11 in order to keep support for the Bush regime's wars and domestic police state. None of the charges on which Padilla was illegally held, during those years before the US Supreme Court intervened and ordered the Bush regime to release Padilla or bring him to trial, were part of the charges on which Padilla was tried.
There is little doubt that Padilla's conviction, and probably also the convictions of the two co-defendants, is a terrible injustice. But the damage done goes far beyond the damage to the defendants. What the red, white, and blue "Padilla Jury" has done is to overthrow the US Constitution and give us the rule of men.
The US Constitution and Anglo-American legal tradition prevent indictments, much less convictions, based on a prosecutor's theory that a person wanted to commit a crime in the past or might want to in the future. Padilla has harmed no one. There is no evidence that he made an agreement with any party to harm anyone whether for money or ideology or any reason. The FBI testified that the telephone calls were innocuous. The bin Laden video was evidence of nothing pertaining to the defendants. The piece of paper, alleged to be a personnel form recovered from an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan is nothing but a piece of paper and an assertion.
As Lawrence Stratton and I demonstrated in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), the protective features of law had been seriously eroded prior to the Bush regime's assault on civil liberty in the name of "the war on terror." The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights rest on Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone explained law as the protective principles against tyranny --habeas corpus, due process, attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, no retroactive law, no self-incrimination.
Jeremy Bentham claimed that these protective principles were outmoded in a democracy in which the people controlled the government and no longer had reasons to fear it. The problem with Blackstone's "Rights of Englishmen," Bentham said, is that these civil liberties needlessly limit the government's power and, thus, its ability to protect citizens from crime. Bentham wanted to preempt criminal acts by arresting those likely to commit crimes in advance, before the budding criminals entered into a life of crime. Bentham, like the Bush regime, the "Padilla Jury," and the Republican Federalist Society, did not understand that when law becomes a weapon, liberty dies regardless of the form of government. If they do understand, they prefer unaccountable government power to individual liberty.
The incompetent "Padilla Jury" has done Americans and their liberty far more damage than will ever be done by terrorists, other than those in our criminal justice (sic) system who now wield the powers that Bentham wanted to give them.
The Padilla case was the way the Bush Justice (sic) Department implemented its strategy for taking away the legal principles that protect American citizens. Padilla is an American citizen. He was denied habeas corpus and his rights to an attorney and due process. He was tortured in an attempt to coerce him into self-incrimination. In treating Padilla in these ways, the US Department of Justice (sic) violated both the US Constitution and federal law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Justice (sic) Department committed far more crimes than did Padilla.
By the time the Supreme Court finally intervened, Padilla was universally known as the demonized "dirty bomber," an "enemy combatant" who was arrested before he could set off a radioactive bomb in a US city. The Injustice Department could now simultaneously convict Padilla and enshrine Benthamite law simply by appealing to fear and patriotism. And that is what happened.
Under Benthamite law, the individual has no rights. The new calculus is "the greatest good for the greatest number" as determined by the wielders of power. On the basis of this new law, not written by Congress but invented by the Injustice Department and made precedent by the "Padilla Jury" verdict, the US can lock up people based on the percentage of crime committed by their race, gender, income class, or ethnic group.
Under Benthamite law, people can be arrested and prosecuted for thought crimes. Under Benthamite law, it is the government that protects the people, not the Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect the individual. Benthamite law makes "advocacy speech," for example, a call for the overthrow of the US government, upheld in the 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a serious federal crime.
The "Padilla Jury" has opened Pandora's Box. Unless the conviction is overturned on appeal, American liberty died in the "Padilla Jury's" verdict.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
The WORST ADMINISTRATION EVER got more good news, kicking the lifeless body of Magna Carta, disguised as Jose Padilla.
August 20, 2007
A Grave Blow to the Constitution
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Jose Padilla's conviction on terrorism charges on August 16 was a victory, not for justice, but for the US Justice (sic) Department's theory that a US citizen can be convicted, not because he committed a terrorist act but for allegedly harboring aspirations to commit such an act. By agreeing with the Justice (sic) Department's theory, the incompetent Padilla Jury delivered a deadly blow to the rule of law and opened Pandora's Box.
Anglo-American law is a human achievement 800 years in the making. Over centuries law was transformed from a weapon in the hands of government into a shield of the people from unaccountable power. The Padilla Jury's verdict turned law back into a weapon.
The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, August 17, 2007).
It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors desperate for a conviction for which there was little, if any, supporting evidence. For the jury, patriotism required that they strike a blow for America against terrorism. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off a person who has been portrayed as a terrorist in the US media for five years.
The "evidence" against Padilla consists of three items:
(1) seven intercepted telephone conversations,
(2) a 10-year old non-relevant video of Osama bin Laden, and
(3) an alleged application to a mujahideen (not terrorist) training camp with Padilla's fingerprints. We will examine each in turn.
The International Herald Tribune and Associated Press reported in detail on the telephone intercepts (June 19, 2007): "Accused al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla was never overheard using purported code words for violent jihad in intercepted telephone conversations and spoke often about his difficulties in learning Arabic while studying in Egypt, the lead FBI case agent testified Tuesday. The questioning of FBI Agent James T. Kavanaugh by Padilla's attorney, Michael Caruso, focused on seven intercepted telephone calls on which Padilla's voice is heard mostly talking about his marriage and his studies but never about Islamic extremism. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla ever was heard using what prosecutors say were code words for violent jihad . . . 'No, he does not,' Kavanaugh replied. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla was ever overheard discussing jihad training. 'No jihad training that I've seen,' Kavanaugh said. . . . 'He's not referring to anything here but studying Arabic, correct? Study means study, right?' Caruso asked. 'That's what they're talking about,' Kavanaugh testified."
Despite the FBI's testimony that the intercepted telephone messages contained no incriminating evidence, the "patriotic" jury accepted the federal prosecutor's unsupported accusation that there were hidden code words in the message indicating that Padilla was a terrorist. After all, who but a terrorist would want to learn Arabic?
The video of bin Laden had no relevance whatsoever to the charges in the case. The video is 10 years old and makes no reference to any of the defendants. Moreover, none of the defendants were accused of ever being in contact with bin Laden. The only purpose of the video was to arouse in jurors fear, anger, and disturbing memories associated with September 11, 2001. The fact that the judge let prosecutors sway a fearful and vengeful patriotic jury with emotion and passion rather than evidence is obviously grounds for appeal.
Whoriskey reports that in their closing arguments prosecutors mentioned al-Qaeda more than 100 times and urged jurors to think of al-Qaeda and groups alleged to be affiliated with it as an international murder conspiracy. Padilla "trained to kill,' Assistant US Attorney Brian Frazier misinformed the jury in his closing statement.
Who Padilla wished to kill was never identified, but according to the prosecutors he had been wanting to kill persons unknown since 1998. Padilla was convicted for harboring alleged intentions, not for committing any acts. Indeed, no harmful acts are charged to Padilla. The incompetent jury fell for the prosecutors' wild tale of a murder conspiracy many years old that had no results.
As Andrew Cohen put it, Padilla and the two co-defendants were convicted on the charge of "terrorist-wannabes" on the basis of "evidence that federal authorities did not believe amounted to a crime when it was gathered back before 2001." Cohen concludes: "it's further proof that if you can convince an American jury that a man in the dock had anything to do with al-Qaeda, you can pretty much bank on a conviction no matter how tenuous the evidence" (washingtonpost.com, August 16, 2007).
The training camp application form is as suspect as any evidence can be.
Moreover, the prosecution had no evidence that Padilla actually attended such a camp. Padilla was held illegally for 3.5 years and tortured. At any time during his illegal detention and torture, Padilla could have been handed a form, thus tainting it with his fingerprints.
Amy Goodman, the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty, the Christian Science Monitor and others have described how US interrogators abused Padilla and destroyed his mind. To expect a person as badly tortured and abused as Padilla to retain the wits not to touch a piece of paper handed to him, or forced into his hands, is unreasonable.
When Padilla was arrested five years ago in 2002, the US government charged that he was about to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a US city that would kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans. The story was a total lie, a fabrication designed to keep the fear level high after 9/11 in order to keep support for the Bush regime's wars and domestic police state. None of the charges on which Padilla was illegally held, during those years before the US Supreme Court intervened and ordered the Bush regime to release Padilla or bring him to trial, were part of the charges on which Padilla was tried.
There is little doubt that Padilla's conviction, and probably also the convictions of the two co-defendants, is a terrible injustice. But the damage done goes far beyond the damage to the defendants. What the red, white, and blue "Padilla Jury" has done is to overthrow the US Constitution and give us the rule of men.
The US Constitution and Anglo-American legal tradition prevent indictments, much less convictions, based on a prosecutor's theory that a person wanted to commit a crime in the past or might want to in the future. Padilla has harmed no one. There is no evidence that he made an agreement with any party to harm anyone whether for money or ideology or any reason. The FBI testified that the telephone calls were innocuous. The bin Laden video was evidence of nothing pertaining to the defendants. The piece of paper, alleged to be a personnel form recovered from an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan is nothing but a piece of paper and an assertion.
As Lawrence Stratton and I demonstrated in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), the protective features of law had been seriously eroded prior to the Bush regime's assault on civil liberty in the name of "the war on terror." The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights rest on Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone explained law as the protective principles against tyranny --habeas corpus, due process, attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, no retroactive law, no self-incrimination.
Jeremy Bentham claimed that these protective principles were outmoded in a democracy in which the people controlled the government and no longer had reasons to fear it. The problem with Blackstone's "Rights of Englishmen," Bentham said, is that these civil liberties needlessly limit the government's power and, thus, its ability to protect citizens from crime. Bentham wanted to preempt criminal acts by arresting those likely to commit crimes in advance, before the budding criminals entered into a life of crime. Bentham, like the Bush regime, the "Padilla Jury," and the Republican Federalist Society, did not understand that when law becomes a weapon, liberty dies regardless of the form of government. If they do understand, they prefer unaccountable government power to individual liberty.
The incompetent "Padilla Jury" has done Americans and their liberty far more damage than will ever be done by terrorists, other than those in our criminal justice (sic) system who now wield the powers that Bentham wanted to give them.
The Padilla case was the way the Bush Justice (sic) Department implemented its strategy for taking away the legal principles that protect American citizens. Padilla is an American citizen. He was denied habeas corpus and his rights to an attorney and due process. He was tortured in an attempt to coerce him into self-incrimination. In treating Padilla in these ways, the US Department of Justice (sic) violated both the US Constitution and federal law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Justice (sic) Department committed far more crimes than did Padilla.
By the time the Supreme Court finally intervened, Padilla was universally known as the demonized "dirty bomber," an "enemy combatant" who was arrested before he could set off a radioactive bomb in a US city. The Injustice Department could now simultaneously convict Padilla and enshrine Benthamite law simply by appealing to fear and patriotism. And that is what happened.
Under Benthamite law, the individual has no rights. The new calculus is "the greatest good for the greatest number" as determined by the wielders of power. On the basis of this new law, not written by Congress but invented by the Injustice Department and made precedent by the "Padilla Jury" verdict, the US can lock up people based on the percentage of crime committed by their race, gender, income class, or ethnic group.
Under Benthamite law, people can be arrested and prosecuted for thought crimes. Under Benthamite law, it is the government that protects the people, not the Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect the individual. Benthamite law makes "advocacy speech," for example, a call for the overthrow of the US government, upheld in the 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a serious federal crime.
The "Padilla Jury" has opened Pandora's Box. Unless the conviction is overturned on appeal, American liberty died in the "Padilla Jury's" verdict.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Cracking open the myth of the "greatest generation's" war...
Published on Saturday, August 18, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
‘It Gets Lonely Sometimes’
by Sean Gonsalves
Some readers just don’t want to hear it from me - writing about the myths of World War II.
Maybe they’ll feel better if it’s coming from Edward W. Wood Jr., a guy who was awarded the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star. A retired city planner and author of “Worshipping the Myths of World War II,” Wood is quick to point out: “I was wounded in France, 60 miles east of Verdun…after only a day and a half in combat. I’m no expert on long-term combat experience.” But it’s way more combat experience than any of the leading architects of the war in Iraq.
“I got hit in the head, the small of my back, and pelvis with shrapnel from artillery fire,” he told me last week. “The wound shattered my life. In those days, you couldn’t talk about the emotional impact.”
He’s 82 now and has spent a lifetime trying to understand war and its impact on those involved. “Worshipping the Myths of World War II” is a product of his very personal, honest and courageous exploration.
Some people consider talk about the myths of World War II disparaging to veterans. Why do some equate de-mythologizing with anti-Americanism?
“There’s two kinds of soldiers: those who have been in combat and the guys who haven’t. I think those two groups have vastly different attitudes about war. Another reason people react that way is because people in the United States have absolutely no idea what war entails. I think a lot of very good people believe that these myths really describe what war is. Therefore, to de-mythologize means, for them, putting down people who have been involved.
“But I don’t think we want to look at what our tax dollars are doing. We just don’t want to look at the reality that’s there. None of this is a disparagement to those who’ve really seen combat. I am really anti-war now and yet, in terms of my own personal life, I have no regrets about having been in World War II. I believe in nonviolence. But, I’m in favor of a draft because I think we all would think a lot more carefully about war.”
Why do you think these myths are so persistent?
“These myths are really rooted in our past and go beyond World War II; going back to the King Phillips War. There were Manifest destiny wars with Mexico, Phillipines and the rest. Teddy Roosevelt believed you weren’t really a man unless you served in war. I don’t think we really want to look at that and it’s not taught very much in school It’s a very subtle message. I think that’s why it persists. The myths exist because we don’t look carefully at our history and because it gives people a great glow to wrap themselves in it. But I think it would be healthy to just be open about.”
What criteria do you use to judge artistic interpretations of World War II?
There’s essentially two really important criteria, I use:
1) Does the author or film maker say something about himself that he didn’t want to tell the world? Does it really delve into what combat does in the deepest kind of way? Does it wrestle with the moral dilemma of killing; seeing and watching people get killed. And how is the act of killing treated?
2) Does it reflect the extraordinary complexity of human reaction to death? And modern war is not just about soldiers in combat but also the impact on civilians. If you don’t have that part of the equation, you’re missing at least 50 percent of the story.”
How do you see these myths impacting the way people view the war in Iraq?
“If you look at how we got into the Iraq war, you see the president and his administration using (WWII) as an example for Iraq; comparing Saddam to Hitler and comparing themselves to Churchill and Roosevelt. I don’t think that’s quite appropriate,” he chuckled.
“We appeal to the idea of the ‘Good War” and a war against evil where the enemy is dehumanized into this monstrous evil… But, actually, WWI and WWII were really one war. If you look at it that way, what happens in the 1930s was a function of the Versailles Treaty and the terrible reparations imposed on Germany…So we built up a situation that was going to inevitably lead to another war.”
“Iraq itself was made out of whole cloth in the early 1920s almost by fiat, putting the Kurds, the Shia’s and Sunnis in one country. So, even now, we are dealing with the consequences of WWI.”
Do combat veterans who’ve served in the infantry have a different perception of what war means, compared to soldiers in the Navy or Air Force?
“The guys who flew in WWII I respect beyond measure. The 8th Air Force, for example. But I do think it’s a different experience for soldiers in the Air Force and Navy, compared to soldiers involved in ground combat. It gives you a very different attitude about what war is.”
In the final chapter of your book, you write: “the issue today is not just the simple one - how can we leave Iraq? - but, rather one far more difficult: How can we turn from war as the solution to our international problems?” What do you see as the answer to the important question you raise?
“I don’t have The Answer. But we need to get away from the myths and try to understand what war is really like. In this war, the only ones who pay the price are the soldiers and Iraqi civilians. That’s so terribly unfair. It infuriates me. If we are in a war, the whole country should pay a price for it.”
“I’ve turned against war but if we’re at war, we can’t have a war and all these people making money off it and living normal lives. It hurts me to see people who go about their lives while terrible death and suffering are occurring in Iraq.”
“America is not very good at recognizing who its real enemies are. We get it all confused with this problem of evil. We see it in others but never in us.”
That’s hard for people to even hear, never mind think about.
“I’m running against the grain and it gets lonely sometimes.”
Sean Gonsalves is an assistant news editor for the Cape Cod Times and a syndicated columnist. He can be reached at sgonsalves@capecodonline.com
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/18/3247/
‘It Gets Lonely Sometimes’
by Sean Gonsalves
Some readers just don’t want to hear it from me - writing about the myths of World War II.
Maybe they’ll feel better if it’s coming from Edward W. Wood Jr., a guy who was awarded the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star. A retired city planner and author of “Worshipping the Myths of World War II,” Wood is quick to point out: “I was wounded in France, 60 miles east of Verdun…after only a day and a half in combat. I’m no expert on long-term combat experience.” But it’s way more combat experience than any of the leading architects of the war in Iraq.
“I got hit in the head, the small of my back, and pelvis with shrapnel from artillery fire,” he told me last week. “The wound shattered my life. In those days, you couldn’t talk about the emotional impact.”
He’s 82 now and has spent a lifetime trying to understand war and its impact on those involved. “Worshipping the Myths of World War II” is a product of his very personal, honest and courageous exploration.
Some people consider talk about the myths of World War II disparaging to veterans. Why do some equate de-mythologizing with anti-Americanism?
“There’s two kinds of soldiers: those who have been in combat and the guys who haven’t. I think those two groups have vastly different attitudes about war. Another reason people react that way is because people in the United States have absolutely no idea what war entails. I think a lot of very good people believe that these myths really describe what war is. Therefore, to de-mythologize means, for them, putting down people who have been involved.
“But I don’t think we want to look at what our tax dollars are doing. We just don’t want to look at the reality that’s there. None of this is a disparagement to those who’ve really seen combat. I am really anti-war now and yet, in terms of my own personal life, I have no regrets about having been in World War II. I believe in nonviolence. But, I’m in favor of a draft because I think we all would think a lot more carefully about war.”
Why do you think these myths are so persistent?
“These myths are really rooted in our past and go beyond World War II; going back to the King Phillips War. There were Manifest destiny wars with Mexico, Phillipines and the rest. Teddy Roosevelt believed you weren’t really a man unless you served in war. I don’t think we really want to look at that and it’s not taught very much in school It’s a very subtle message. I think that’s why it persists. The myths exist because we don’t look carefully at our history and because it gives people a great glow to wrap themselves in it. But I think it would be healthy to just be open about.”
What criteria do you use to judge artistic interpretations of World War II?
There’s essentially two really important criteria, I use:
1) Does the author or film maker say something about himself that he didn’t want to tell the world? Does it really delve into what combat does in the deepest kind of way? Does it wrestle with the moral dilemma of killing; seeing and watching people get killed. And how is the act of killing treated?
2) Does it reflect the extraordinary complexity of human reaction to death? And modern war is not just about soldiers in combat but also the impact on civilians. If you don’t have that part of the equation, you’re missing at least 50 percent of the story.”
How do you see these myths impacting the way people view the war in Iraq?
“If you look at how we got into the Iraq war, you see the president and his administration using (WWII) as an example for Iraq; comparing Saddam to Hitler and comparing themselves to Churchill and Roosevelt. I don’t think that’s quite appropriate,” he chuckled.
“We appeal to the idea of the ‘Good War” and a war against evil where the enemy is dehumanized into this monstrous evil… But, actually, WWI and WWII were really one war. If you look at it that way, what happens in the 1930s was a function of the Versailles Treaty and the terrible reparations imposed on Germany…So we built up a situation that was going to inevitably lead to another war.”
“Iraq itself was made out of whole cloth in the early 1920s almost by fiat, putting the Kurds, the Shia’s and Sunnis in one country. So, even now, we are dealing with the consequences of WWI.”
Do combat veterans who’ve served in the infantry have a different perception of what war means, compared to soldiers in the Navy or Air Force?
“The guys who flew in WWII I respect beyond measure. The 8th Air Force, for example. But I do think it’s a different experience for soldiers in the Air Force and Navy, compared to soldiers involved in ground combat. It gives you a very different attitude about what war is.”
In the final chapter of your book, you write: “the issue today is not just the simple one - how can we leave Iraq? - but, rather one far more difficult: How can we turn from war as the solution to our international problems?” What do you see as the answer to the important question you raise?
“I don’t have The Answer. But we need to get away from the myths and try to understand what war is really like. In this war, the only ones who pay the price are the soldiers and Iraqi civilians. That’s so terribly unfair. It infuriates me. If we are in a war, the whole country should pay a price for it.”
“I’ve turned against war but if we’re at war, we can’t have a war and all these people making money off it and living normal lives. It hurts me to see people who go about their lives while terrible death and suffering are occurring in Iraq.”
“America is not very good at recognizing who its real enemies are. We get it all confused with this problem of evil. We see it in others but never in us.”
That’s hard for people to even hear, never mind think about.
“I’m running against the grain and it gets lonely sometimes.”
Sean Gonsalves is an assistant news editor for the Cape Cod Times and a syndicated columnist. He can be reached at sgonsalves@capecodonline.com
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/18/3247/
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)