A Day That Lives In Infamy
copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org It is the seventh day of the month, a date that now lives in infamy. On this occasion, she passed. She was killed by an attack that was all too sudden. Her physical presence on Earth did not end in the month of December. The year was not 1941. The events at Pearl Harbor did cause my Mom's heart to stop. Indeed, she only ceased to exist in a form that I can see with my eyes or touch with my hand, less than a decade ago. Truly, it feels as if Mommy just took her leave. In every moment, she is still with me. All these years later, I mourn my loss. Oh, if only I could bring her back. She enters into my dreams almost daily. Since childhood, I knew, if she were gone, I might not be able to go on. Today, on the anniversary of her bodily discorporation, I mourn, as I trust she would, the casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Israel, and anywhere that war delays, defers, or denies family time, space, and a proper setting in which to grieve.
This much is clear: violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation,
and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.
~ Robert F. Kennedy
Unlike in my situation, those who loved the dearly departed Iraqis, had no warning. The persons who live to lament were not able to visit their beloved before their final breath. Opportunities to say good-bye were few, if they existed at all. The bombs blasted. The bullets pierced the delicate flesh of the persons now fallen. Survivors were left only with their sorrow. Sadly, some probably regret they could not save a cherished soul. While I might relate to that feeling, at least I know my Mom passed quietly, safely at home, in the company of those nearest and dearest. She went to her rest in peace.
In Afghanistan, the challenges are equal to those in Iraq. Homes sit snugly in a war zone. Soldiers, who are suspicious of Afghani natives, surround local communities. Troops are also found within indigenous societal circles. Weaponry is wielded. No innocent man, woman, or child is out of harm's way. When a friend or family folk is maimed or murdered, neighbors may wish to send condolences, as those close to my Mom did. Colleagues may yearn to congregate around a casket and cry. People may seek closure. Cremations, with a chance to offer ceremonial respects, might be as is customary. Yet, again, since American and allies attacks commenced, citizens of Afghanistan cannot do as my relatives, and I had done when Mommy departed.
No one is certain how many have passed in the roughed terrain of Afghanistan. The Pentagon does not release statistics of the insurgents killed. Nor do they dare calculate the numbers of blameless civilian losses. The United States Armed Services applaud the accuracy of air strikes. American military speaks of the smart strategy.
(F)or all their precision, American bombs sometimes take out the wrong targets. As U.S. air strikes doubled from 2006 to 2007, the number of accidental civilian deaths soared, from 116 to 321, according to Marc Garlasco, a former Pentagon targeting chief who tabulates civilian casualties for Human Rights Watch (HRW), an independent research group. By his count, the death toll among civilians so far this year [September 2008] is approaching 200.
The military dismisses such tallies as exaggerated, and their provenance is often murky. . . .
Whatever the tally, officials both inside and outside the U.S. military say attacks that kill civilians occur with distressing regularity; they generate headlines only when dozens die. Afghans vividly recall the July 2002 bombing of a wedding party--celebratory gunfire led to retaliation by an AC-130--that killed up to 48 civilians and wounded 117 in Oruzgan province; many were women and children.
This past July, 47 people were killed and nine wounded on their way to a wedding in eastern Afghanistan. Among the dead were 39 women and children, including the bride-to-be, Afghan authorities said.
What of the families, and friends, of those who survived? How must they reconcile the loss? Joyous, the beloved went to a celebration. Yet, they never returned. They cease to exist, taken down by a missile. How must the living feel?
For the people who were close to these sweet spirits and lived, July must be as January is for me, a reminder of what was, would have been, and will never be. The difference is, for all the persons, perhaps hundreds or thousands in Afghanistan who were touched by those who perished while at a wedding in 2002 and on their way to nuptials in 2007, they know a life was cut short by unnecessary combat. Beautiful beings were blow into oblivion.
Yet, all the while, people in the States, those who purchased and produced the deadly artillery, pay little attention to what does not affect them personally. Indeed, on this January 7, 2009, the death toll on foreign shores mounts, and many in America think that fine. As long as it is not their Mom, Dad, son, or daughter, citizens in this "civilized" country will continue to plan inaugural parties, propose to escalate combat in the Middle East, and sanction the strikes that ensue in Gaza.
Oh, some may protest. A few will state they cannot endorse the murders. Others; however, will justify the cause for they will speak of Hamas as the enemy, evil, just as they do of those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Justice is served, the American Administration will assuage, as they offer a convenient truth; terrorist must be eliminated.
In truth, as long, those who inhabit the world's superpower do not suffer, do not experience the loss, the United States will do little to interfere, to impede, what through their dollars, and decades of support, they have endorsed.
Perchance, my Mom, today, yesterday, and forever gave me a gift that gives even when she is far away, one I wish every American might receive. Mommy taught me to empathize, to truly place my heart in the being of another. She modeled what most dare not muse.
Mommy, who never wished to hurt any one or another entity, understood how bereavement affected me. She knew; when the soul of someone is lost to this world, I ache. Hence, she stayed on Earth so that I might see her one more time, hold her hand, and say all that we might. When she knew I could, and would not regret, my Mom wished me well. "Have a good trip," the lovely Berenice Barbara said as I left her physical presence. "You too," I replied.
It was January 7th, a day that lives in infamy for me, and one that I trust will be tarnished for those in foreign lands who lost a loved one in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, or anywhere on this globe.
May we all rest in peace.
- More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered. Opinion Research Business. September 2007
- Afghan Civilian Deaths: A Rising Toll. Time. September 4, 2008
- Is the Real Target Hamas Rule?, By Ethan Bronner. The New York Times. January 3, 2009
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 7, 2009 at 06:02 AM in Afghanistan, Iraq War, Israel and Lebanon, Looking at Life, War and Peace, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit] | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
One-On-One With Sarah Palin
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Americans each have an opinion on Sarah Palin. The Alaskan Governor has been the topic of conversation for weeks. The Press pours over her record. Average Americans read. Some say she is sensational. Sarah Palin has sizzle. Many hockey Moms relate to the woman who worked her way up. Governor Palin has cracked the glass ceiling. She has become a celebrity of sorts.
Several scorn the lovely lady. Others imitate the daughter of Eve. No one disputes, Sarah Palin has style. Yet, few have the opportunity to make an informed judgment. Less are able chat one-on-one with the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. Fortunately, two did. First Lady Laura Bush shares her thoughts after a conversation with Palin. ABC News Anchor, Katie Couric offers an objective view. Only a read from interviews with Ms Bush or Ms Couric reveals what each might think. Please peruse the reflections and dear reader, decide for yourself. Who might Sarah Palin be to you.
The First Lady, Laura Bush mused after her meet and greet with the magnificent Sarah Palin. The two talked when each attended the Republican Convention held in Minneapolis-Saint Paul.
The First Lady walked away with an impression of Sarah Palin. Laura Bush observed the Republican Vice Presidential nominee lacks foreign policy experience. The President's partner assured Americans, Sarah Palin is a very quick study. Then, without hesitation Laura Bush reminded the many, fortunately, the maverick, John McCain "does have that sort of experience."
Ms Bush also expressed her extreme admiration for the qualities Sarah Palin possesses. "She's got a lot of really good common sense, and I think that's very important," Laura Bush mused. The woman who has resided in the White House for near a decade avowed, I have "a lot of confidence" in Sarah Palin.
"She also has executive experience from being a governor and a mayor, and I'm thrilled to have the chance to vote for Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket," said the equally lovely Laura Bush.
When reporters inquired, did the first Lady think Palin was being treated unfairly, might her gender play a role in the way people approached the Vice Presidential nominee, the Laura Bush said, "I do think there's a little bit of that going on, and I think it's to be expected."
CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric understands this. She too has been victim to questionable comments. The fact that she is female has left her more vulnerable to scrutiny. Hence, Ms Couric might empathize. She may have another sense of Sarah Palin. However, her assessment is difficult to ascertain with certainty. We can only watch as a tête-à-tête unfolds. Then, we might attempt to determine the actual dynamic.
What any of us can know for sure is the Journalist was among the scant select individuals who had the chance to interview Alaska's Governor.
The two spoke of the Economic crisis. Afghanistan was also a theme for discussion. The Alaskan Chief Executive also spoke of the need to "keep an eye on Russia." Many recall, as mentioned in her earlier conversation with ABC's Charlie Gibson, the Governor does watch, the Asian continent from her home shores.
Sarah Palin also observes how the foreclosures in her neighborhood and perchance communities throughout the country have altered what was an American reality.
Couric: Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?Palin: That's something that John McCain and I have both been discussing - whether that ... is part of the solution or not. You know, it's going to be a multi-faceted solution that has to be found here.
Couric: So you haven't decided whether you'll support it or not?
Palin: I have not.
Couric: What are the pros and cons of it do you think?
Palin: Oh, well, some decisions that have been made poorly should not be rewarded, of course.
Couric: By consumers, you're saying?
Palin: Consumers - and those who were predator lenders also. That's, you know, that has to be considered also. But again, it's got to be a comprehensive, long-term solution found ... for this problem that America is facing today. As I say, we are getting into crisis mode here.
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said, Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.
If we are to trust Laura Bush's evaluation, Sarah Palin will offer the information very soon. Whence we meet again the Governor will provide answers to questions she had not yet studied Please, stay tuned. On-the-job training may be a program worth the watch. Until then, please enjoy your own research. Review, reflect, formulate your own opinion and attempt to be open. Americans can trust, there is more to come. Let us not study too quickly.
Sources for Sarah Palin . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 25, 2008 at 09:00 PM in Afghanistan, Economics, Elections, Political Campaigns, Politics, Presidential Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Cost of War; The Meaning of Memorial Day
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
On Memorial Day, Americans honor the fallen. Soldiers whose faces will never appear before us again are remembered for their service. Only the few, friends and family, will recall the life of those young men and women who passed from this world into another. In a country grateful for the protection troops provide, people will shop on this holy day. A President will place a wreath on the grave of an unknown soldier. Beautiful speeches will be made in the spirit of homage. Americans will bow their heads in respect. Reverence will be offered, and statistics that document the effects of war will not be shared. Yet, the numbers cry out for attention, just as the pained servicemen and women do.
- The suicide rate of veterans is at least three times the national suicide rate. In 2005, the suicide rate for veterans 18- to 24-years-old was three to four times higher than non-veterans.
- About 126 veterans per week commit suicide.
- About 154,000 veterans nationwide are homeless on any given night. One-fourth of the homeless population is veterans.
- There are more homeless Vietnam veterans than the number of soldiers who were killed during that war.
- It takes at least 5.5 years, on average, to resolve a benefit claim with the Veteran's Administration.
- More than 600,000 unresolved claims are backlogged with the Veteran's Administration.
- Approximately 18.5 percent of service members who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq currently have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or depression.
- 19.5 percent of these veterans report experiencing traumatic brain injury.
- Roughly half of those who need treatment seek it, but only slightly more than half of those who receive treatment receive at least minimally adequate care, according to an April 2008 Rand Report.
The research reveals a sorrowful reality. In an affluent nation, too many veterans suffer from more than a physical wound. Yet, citizens act as though they do not care. Undeniably, the American people offer words of support. However, these statements are empty. Expressions of sensitivity do not heal physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual lesions. Congressional Bills may provide some solace, that is if they ever pass. Fearful Americans accept what politicians proclaim, a preference to protect and defend a nation adrift.
The White House and the Pentagon said they feared that the bill would encourage men and women to leave the armed forces and enroll in college with federal aid, at a time when the military already has difficulty retaining troops to fight abroad.
Conservation of the Corps, an accretion in the Armed Forces, this is America's mission. The United States must be prepared to defend its shores. The conventional wisdom reminds us, war will always be with us.. Conflict will continue to exist in perpetuity.
Therefore, greenbacks must be devoted to defense. A soldier's depression or injuries cannot be considered a priority. Servicemen and women are trained to "suck it up," as are the American people.
The public is convinced there is no need to ponder the benefits of peace, for in their minds tranquility will never come . Nor do we reflect on the personal or financial costs of war. Millions spent need not make sense. Military might is marvelous. Memorials are evidence that we are proud.
Many are intent; America must win the fight. Mavericks, such as former prisoner of war and Presidential aspirant John McCain remind us. We must remain stalwart. Victory is at hand.
The battle against a perceived human enemy takes precedence for a pompous public. In the United States. the struggle for sanity amongst those who served, while lost, is of little significance to the individuals safe in their cocooned world of wonderment. Few Americans can count the cents spent on treatment for the troops who return to the homeland with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome or traumatic brain injury. In April 2008, the Rand Corporation, presented the research in a report.
The Rand study estimates the societal costs of PTSD and major depression for two years after deployment range from about $6,000 to more than $25,000 per case. Depending whether the economic cost of suicide is included, the RAND study estimates the total society costs of the conditions for two years range from $4 billion to $6.2 billion.The RAND study also estimates that about 320,000 service members may have experienced a traumatic brain injury during deployment — the term used to describe a range of injuries from mild concussions to severe penetrating head wounds. Just 43 percent reported ever being evaluated by a physician for that injury.
While most civilian traumatic brain injuries are mild and do not lead to long-term impairments, the extent of impairments that service members experience and whether they require treatment is largely unknown, researchers said. In the absence of a medical examination and prognosis, however, service members may believe that their post-deployment difficulties are due to head injuries even when they are not.
One-year estimates of the societal cost associated with treated cases of mild traumatic brain injury range up to $32,000 per case, while estimates for treated moderate to severe cases range from $268,000 to more than $408,000. Estimates of the total one-year societal cost of the roughly 2,700 cases of traumatic brain injury identified to date range from $591 million to $910 million.
Yet, a month after these revelations were released, few Americans mourn the toll war takes on the living. Instead, citizens "celebrate" Memorial Day. Members of Congress muse, and mull over how to best serve those who serve us. Yet, nothing truly changes. Time marches on as do the memories that haunt those who were in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one notices, or at least those in power do not rush to alter reality. Presidential candidates posit in remembrance,
Memorial Day Draws Two Messages on Iraq
By Jeff Zeleny and Michael Falcone
The New York Times
May 26, 2008Las Cruces, N.M. — Senator John McCain stood before hundreds of flag-waving veterans and their families on Monday and vowed not to waver in his support of the Iraq war. “Even,” he said, “if I must stand athwart popular opinion.”
Senator Barack Obama addressed a separate audience of veterans and received vigorous applause when he declared, “As many of you know, my intention is to bring this war in Iraq to a close and to start bringing home our troops in an orderly fashion.”
If Labor Day is the traditional opener to the fall presidential race, this Memorial Day offered at least a preview into the summertime duel between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama . . . .
As Mr. McCain spoke about the costs and sacrifices of the Iraq war at the Veterans Memorial in Albuquerque, Mr. Obama praised the patriotism of America’s soldiers before taking voters’ questions — and hearing their frustrations about Iraq and a host of other concerns . . .
Will the Iraq war and the nation’s security once again be the chief concern to voters in the general election? In a 20-minute speech, with the flags of all branches of the armed forces at his back, Mr. McCain made 14 references to Iraq. Later, he invited Mr. Obama to join him on a tour of Iraq. (Mr. Obama did not immediately say whether he would accept.)
“As long as there is a reasonable prospect for succeeding in this war,” Mr. McCain said, “then we must not choose to lose it.”
Or will economic anxieties at home and a fierce disapproval over the direction of the country be of higher concern to voters?
If the past and the present predict the future, money will matter. Most of the dollars doled out will go to protect and defend, not to save soldiers from the sanctity (insanity) of war.
The public barely ponders the seriousness of what combat causes or effects, that is, unless the conflict pinches the pocketbook. Even then, on this solemn occasion, as on most others, the discussion is purely political. People feel powerless. Perchance that is why Americans avoid the conversation; how might we serve those who serve us.
Wars kill warriors, frequently from the inside out. The few people who care for the troops, provide for those who sacrificed their lives and lived, those who feel the pain of loved ones lost to depression and injury, listen to the rhetoric and ponder. If we are to truly memorialize the fallen, why not venerate veterans who suffer emotionally, just as we do the soldiers who were physically destroyed in battle.
Might we learn what history attempts to teach us. Combat cannot create peace of mind; nor does warfare yield to global harmony. The physical, emotional, and spiritual cost of conflict is too great. If we are to authentically pay tribute to out troops, let us no longer engage violently. Let us discuss the actual tax of war. Might we show our soldiers the highest regard and adequately care for all those maimed and mutilated. Perchance, it is time to redefine the mission and what it means to offer a memorial.
Cut Funds for Combat. Costs are Too High . . .
- On Memorial Day, Broken promises to our veterans. By Michael Blecker. San Francisco Chronicle. Monday, May 26, 2008
- One In Five Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Suffer from PTSD or Major Depression. Rand Corporation. April 17, 2008
- Invisible Wounds of War, Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Edited by Terri Tanielian and Lisa H. Jaycox. Rand Corporation.
- Bush Pays Tribute to Troops at Arlington. Associated Press. The New York Times. May 26, 2008
- Veterans’ Benefits Bill Wins Approval in Senate, By Robert Pear. The New York Times. May 23, 2008
- Cost of War. American Friends Service Committee
- McCain: U.S. can win Iraq war within 4 years, Associated Press. MSNBC. May 15, 2008
David L. Giaimo 24. © copyright 2008 CappyBoy
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM in Active-Duty Troops , Afghanistan, American Patriotism, Iraq War, Memorial Day , Soldiers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Six Months. Six Years. Six Centuries. Perpetual War
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Many Americans may wish to believe that if Arizona Senator John McCain were elected, he would ensure that this nation remains engaged in battle for eons. The conventional wisdom is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will "bring the troops home." Citizens, mostly Independents and Democrats, may blame the Republicans for conflicts that seem endless by design. Of course, when war is in question, countless Americans contemplate the current conflicts. Nearly everyone with some exceptions, places the onus on President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, or any of the other Neoconservatives in the Cabinet. Yet, these individuals and groups are not the only creators of combat. Any man or woman who believes, at times, war is the best, last, or the only option is culpable. Citizens throughout the globe have accepted the notion wars will always be. Hence fighting is, forever.
The Hundred Years War lasted from 1337 through 1453. The Eighty Years War [1588 – 1648] filled most of the next century. The Thirty Year Conflict [1618 – 1648] began before the latter hostilities were resolved. The Crusades [1095 – 1291], a series of related military clashes filled more than another century. The Northern Crusades, also known as the Baltic Battles began in 1193 and remained uninterrupted through the 16th century. Native Americans recognize that in the 19th Century the United States was perpetually at war. History that is more recent is no less explosive.
Since V-J Day 1945 ("Victory over Japan" and the end of World War II), we have been engaged in what the historian Charles A. Beard called "perpetual war for perpetual peace." I [Gore Vidal] have occasionally referred to our "enemy of the month club": each month we are confronted by a new horrendous enemy at whom we must strike before he destroys us. The Federation of American Scientists has catalogued nearly two hundred such military incursions since 1945 initiated by the U.S.
Nonetheless, Americans are repeatedly asked to believe that in six months all will be well. Citizens in this country [and that] have trusted their leaders. We, the less powerful, apathetic, anxious persons, are patient and perhaps hopeful. Populations do not acknowledge, that even when weapons are not wielded, the public is split. Man battles those he perceives as foe.
Political Parties bicker; however, the blood spilled is less visible. The battles are slightly less volatile. Nonetheless, within this nation, just as outside our borders, we are at war. In April 2008, individuals, Independents, persons who identify themselves with the Grand Old Party, and John McCain, may think themselves traditionalists. These persons may accept that often humans to do as was done. Democrats, the self-proclaimed do-gooders, who clamor for change, may tell us when they are in office peace will be restored. Yet, in truth, the plans the Progressives submit are no more tranquil than the ones Conservatives put forth. Troops may be reduced, but . . .
“So, let me be clear,” Clinton said today. “Under my plan, withdrawing from Iraq will not mean retreating from fighting terrorism in Iraq. That’s why I will order small, elite strike forces to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq. This will protect Iraqi citizens, our allies, and our families right here at home.”On a conference call with reporters this afternoon, a Clinton staff member went into further detail on her statement.
“In terms of the exact size of the small force that would be there to deal with these residual missions, that’s something that would really need to be determined at the time on the basis of consultation with the field commanders and the senior military leadership,” said Clinton campaign national security director Lee Feinstein. “In terms of the schedule again, Senator Clinton has talked about a rate of one to two combat brigades a month. She said that she would hope she could have nearly all of our combat troops out within a year’s time.”
When pressed to clarify how small the strike force would be, Feinstein maintained that it would be left to military commanders to decide, but that “small is small.”
When we see our soldiers as only statistics, or civilians affected by combative actions as little more than collateral damage, size is negligible. Four thousand plus American deaths, four million Iraqi refugees, the words do not speak to the scope of death and destruction. Numbers are but a note.
A hundred years is only a century. A brigade is but one. A battalion, comprised of three or more companies, although large might be defined as the same. After all, a division is but a single group. A thousand troops may seem significant; however, if the number is well framed, or hidden in confidential reports the public may accept a continued deployment. While those who want an end to the war in Iraq focus on the future as presented by Presidential aspirant John McCain, we cannot forget the hopeful Commanders, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama.
Is this more proof that no matter who is elected, some troops won't be leaving Iraq anytime soon. The New York Sun: "A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.”“The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In ‘Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,’ Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government ‘the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000–80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground).’”
Might we consider diplomatic dialogues, be they with John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Republicans, or Democrats, based on history, may be no better than they were in the past. It seems for ages humans have been dedicated to deliberate destructive dissensions without end.
Americans who claim to love peace may wish to condemn a Presidential aspirant who admits, we will be at war for six more months, six more years, six more decades, or six centuries. However, Progressives need only look at the past and the pronouncements proposed by Democratic hopefuls. We, the people may wish to realize war will likely remain in the wind regardless of who is in office. Perhaps, if each individual, in every nation decided to reject warfare as an option, we would not battle through eternity.
Living life in peace . . .
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
~ John Lennon [Singer, Songwriter]
Words and War . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 9, 2008 at 11:00 PM in Afghanistan, Bush 43 Administration, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War, Violence, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War, The Last Option | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Vice President Dick Cheney Defines Fallen Soldiers; Volunteers For Death
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
In a "glowing" statement, perhaps meant to glorify the horrific deaths of the soldiers slain in Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney offered, "I think it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have." The man who, in his youth sought five deferments in order to avoid service during the Vietnam War, went on to state, "A lot of men and women sign up because sometimes they will see developments." Richard B. Cheney helps us to recall the terror Americans felt as they witnessed the Twin Towers fall on September 11, 2001. He explains, this event and the thought of a terrorist threat "stimulated a lot of folks to volunteer for the military because they wanted to be involved in defending the country." "The thing that comes through loud and clear is how much they are committed to the cause, to doing what needs to be done to defend the nation," Cheney proclaimed. Yet, citizens cognizant of the reasons for a possible rise in recruitment remember more than a moment that changed the course of life for many young men and women.
Promises made by this Administration were ample. The pledge to protect and defend was the battle cry in the States. Those whose parents sacrificed to secure a life in America believed, to serve in the Armed Forces would be an honor. Jesus Suarez was one of many immigrants who felt a need to fulfill a commitment to his homeland, past and present.
Yo Soy el Army
If you're an immigrant, at least Uncle Sam wants you
By Deborah Davis
Metro Active
September 19, 2007JESUS was an easy mark for the recruiter. He was a boy who fantasized that by joining the powerful, heroic U.S. Marines, he could help his own country fight drug lords. He gave the recruiter his address and phone number in Mexico, and the recruiter called him twice a week for the next two years until he had talked Jesus into convincing his parents to move to California.
Fernando and Rose Suarez sold their home and their laundry business and immigrated with their children. Jesus enrolled at a high school known for academic achievement. But the recruiter wanted him to transfer to a school for problem teenagers, since its requirements for graduation were lower, and Jesus would be able to finish sooner. He was 17 1/2 when he graduated from that school, still too young to enlist on his own, so his father co-signed the enlistment form, as the military requires for underage recruits.
Three years later, at the age of 20, his body was torn apart in Iraq by an American-made fragmentation grenade during the first week of the invasion. In the Pentagon's official Iraq casualty database, his death is number 74. Now Jesus is in a cemetery, and his parents, who blame each other for his death, are painfully and bitterly divorced.
We might inquire, was Jesus a volunteer or a victim of rabid recruiters? Are émigrés dedicated to a cause, devoted to a country, or obligated to enlist. Perhaps, fantasy fashioned Jesus' faith in a military system gone awry.
In the Iraq war, citizenship is being used as a recruiting tool aimed specifically at young immigrants, who are told that by enlisting they will be able to quickly get citizenship for themselves (sometimes true: it depends on what the Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of the Department of Homeland Security finds) and their entire families (not true: each family member has to go through a separate application process). Nevertheless, with the political pressures on Latino families growing daily under this administration, many young Latinos are unable to resist the offer, which immigrants' rights activists see as blatant exploitation of a vulnerable population.
The number of immigrants who fight or fought for personal freedom is high. The statistics suggests those who were not born in this country do battle for the United States. Some are invited to come to the States, as Jesus Suarez was. Others, with Green Card in hand, realize the rights of citizenship are easily acquired if or when an individual joins the Armed Forces.
About 70,000 foreign-born men and women serve in the U.S. armed forces, or about 5 percent of the total active-duty force, according to the Pentagon. Of those, nearly 30,000 -- or about 43 percent -- are not U.S. citizens.
Aware of the toll the war takes on recruitment, many Americans ponder the possibilities. Might the United States government allow persons in America without papers to join? If people will not volunteer, bribe them. Millions in this country and across the borders are victims of need.
The Bush Administration thought an Army of recruited refugees a fine idea. Thus, they encouraged Congress to pass an immigration Bill that would provide citizenship for those in need. The contingency, people without official papers must serve this country in order to receive vital documents.
Immigration bill offers a military path to US dream
By Bryan Bender
Boston Globe Staff
June 16, 2007Washington -- A little-noticed provision in the proposed immigration bill would grant instant legal status and ultimately full citizenship to illegal immigrants if they enlist in the US military, an idea the Pentagon and military analysts say would boost the Pentagon's flagging efforts to find and recruit qualified soldiers.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, is part of the stalled package of proposals that many in Congress are seeking to resurrect. The proposal, applicable to an estimated 750,000 undocumented residents of military age, stipulates that those who arrived in the United States before age 16, graduated from high school, and meet other qualifications could immediately enter the path to citizenship in exchange for at least two years' service in the armed forces.
Though the overall immigration bill was sidetracked earlier this month amid bitter infighting, the prospect of using military service as one pathway to citizenship appeals both to lawmakers who side with immigration rights advocates and those who want tougher immigration laws and tighter borders.
Military service for undocumented did not disturb those in the House or the Senate. Other issues were of great concern. There seems to be agreement; those from abroad could serve this country well. Immigrants want to come to our shores; so let them travel to America, conditionally. If a non-native is killed in battle, so be it. The Administration will say, the fallen foreign-born volunteered. The rationale is all the Armed Forces are free to join, liberated to die. The question is, "Are those who sign up volunteers or people paid to perform at the pleasure of the President and Vice President Cheney?" Immigrants who fight for America may be fatalities of faith.
Children, born and raised in this country, also trust. They are understandably convinced the cost of living in America is great. Education is expensive. Many young lads and lasses are lured by promises of "money for college." In an era when the cost of education accounts for countless debts, any assurance can calm the nerves of those anxious to create a better life for themselves. Consider the plight of the young and poor who know, only a college degree can take them away from a world filled with woe. This was true during the first Persian Gulf War and remains valid today. Many military "sign ups" are casualties of the sum charged to attend college.
GI Blues
Military recruiters promise 'money for college,' but recent veterans find that tuition benefits fall short
By Elizabeth F. Farell
The Chronicle of Higher Education
May 13, 2005Cheyne Worley graduated from high school at age 16 in 1985 and spent about a year and a half pumping gas and bagging groceries before deciding it was time to get on with his life. Signing up for the Army seemed like the best option -- not only would he keep his family's tradition of military service alive (his grandfather, father, and uncle had all served), but a recruiter's promise of money for college made enlistment a no-brainer. . . .
The promise of easing the financial burden of higher education is a recruiter's most effective selling point. According to a 2004 survey conducted by GfK Custom Research, an independent research firm, "money for college" is the leading reason civilians enlist, even as the war in Iraq makes more young people skittish about committing to military service.
The tuition perk offered as part of the Montgomery GI Bill, passed in 1984, has become even more important during the past year, as the military has attempted to reverse declining enlistment numbers by increasing its recruiting staff and its efforts to sign up high-school students. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has also given recruiters more opportunities to reach young people, allowing them access to home phone numbers and addresses of high-school students and the same visiting privileges at secondary schools as college or job recruiters.
And the pitch military representatives make on those campuses sounds good. In exchange for having $1,200 withheld from their first-year military salaries, active-duty soldiers become eligible after completing their enlistment term (three years, on average) for up to $36,144 toward their education expenses. (Those who pay in an additional $600 receive $5,400 more toward their education.)
But the benefit covers only about 60 percent of the average cost of college, according to the College Board's estimates.
If a potential enlistee learns of the promises not kept, there is another appeal to be made. For those adventurous at heart, the military may seem a free ride to travel. The opportunity to flee from a life filled with trouble. For a few, those who volunteer for tour after tour, the trauma evident on the field was not part of their truth initially. When it is, they conclude it is time to return home. Yet, when faced with a reality that is far from the fantasy of wedded bliss, or a better job, they retreat to what is familiar. Please ruminate over the role the military plays in the life of Jake Holland.
Iraq Diary: Why Jake Volunteered for a Third TourSigning back up for Iraq was a way to deal with the boredom, and the pain. Yeah, he had met a woman on Yahoo personals. And things were starting to look serious. But Holland needed to go. “It allowed me to get away from home for a while, kinda wrap my head around sh*t. I know it sounds funny, but that’s the way it was,” he says. “I needed to do this.”
The money was nice, too. “Another factor – I’ m not going to lie to you – as was $50,000 tax-free dollars. Lump sum. Here you go. Have it,” Holland says. For a former Indiana farm boy, whose favorite meal growing up was “fried squirrel and milk gravy,” that was a serious haul. “It took care of all my bills inherited from the divorce. An F-250 pickup, paid for. And quite a bit of savings.”
Plus, a good chunk of Holland’s first tour had been spent behind a desk, playing dispatcher to bomb disposal teams. “I’d take a nine-line [form for describing a bomb site], hand it to the guys, who would go get shot at. That wore on me worse than anything. Worse than going out the gate,” he says, using military slang for the base’s walls.
But there was action waiting for him, back in Baghdad, with the 754th EOD company. Snipers took shots at his head. Bombs went off around his armored vehicle, crushing the windows. One day, he got rid of eight improvised bombs and three unused explosives. On another, a soldier’s head pretty much crumbled in front of him. “They’re blowing stuff up like it’s cool,” he IM’ed me. The worst was the bomb that went off at a West Baghdad power station: a rigged-up dump truck that disintegrated four Humvees, charred the earth, and threw up a blast that could be seen for ten miles around.
It was “overwhelming” enough to make Holland think about giving Iraq a rest.
However, while not committed to the cause Vice President Cheney cited, Jake Holland seems devoted to finding a deliverance from the "evil" that he experiences is his life back home. Holland volunteered to fight for freedom; his own. Jake suffered. Unlike many of the troops who feel the Administration let them down or deceived them, for Jake, a potential peace in his personal life can be more attractive that the supposed tranquility of the streets of America. Jake Holland did not feel a sense of harmony when at home. For him the fight in Iraq was a flight to freedom. In the Armed Forces, he had friends he felt more loyal to than those in the States. Another serviceman may speak for more than the few.
One soldier, speaking under condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said, "I don't think that the American public realizes just how many soldiers and service members in general really do have reservations about what is going on over there … "
Tis true. Those who serve this country have much to say of the realities that threaten their lives. The truth is, in the minds of many a soldier, the Bush Administration may be considered a greater menace than the combatants in the Middle East. Poor plans and promises not kept aside, a total disregard for necessary training endangers the troops more so than an improvised explosive device might. A bomb can only do you in once; the lack of instruction can destroy a military man or woman daily.
Schreck, a soldier from CT, January 23, 2005: "If there is one thing that has always stood out in my head during my deployment it was when we were told 'The Army will never put you in a losing situation.' At this point of my deployment, that statement could not be further from the truth. Not only were our vehicles in an unserviceable condition, we were also putting the unit whom we were escorting at risk."Awbalth, a soldier from CA, October 20, 2004: "The thing we needed most in Iraq wasn't bullets, body armor, cash, air conditioning, hot chow, or armored vehicles, although we were short on all of these things; the thing we really needed the most was training and preparation.
We had no or very little training on urban combat tactics, raids to detain or kill targeted individuals, collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using human intelligence, developing sources of information, using interpreters, bomb/unexploded ordinance detection and disposal, handling of detainees, questioning detainees, use of non-lethal force, cordon and search operations, and riot control. This lack of training has caused the deaths of untold numbers of soldiers and Iraqis."
While some servicemen and women may speak of what they needed publicly, most will not voice their deepest concerns. Soldiers share stresses with each other, and on occasion with family. At times, Mom's and Dad's are the voice of volunteers who are no longer in awe of the Armed Forces they willingly joined. Nancy Lessin addresses concerns common among the troops. She mourns for what her stepson Joe, a Marine, did not realize. Joe was deployed in 2002.
"Our loved ones took an oath to defend this country and our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. But there is a commitment our government makes to our troops in return: that it will not send our young men and women in uniform into reckless misadventures that put them at risk needlessly.This is the part of the bargain that has been broken.
Yes, war is hell; but this is something else, and our loved ones and all our troops have been betrayed. We were all betrayed by this administration when it cited a litany of reasons for invading Iraq that shifted like desert sands and seemed to be based upon quicksand . . .
We were betrayed by a lack of planning—active military and their families are now dealing with back-to-back two-year deployments, announced a few weeks ago. And today National Guard and reservists and their families are reeling from the news about their tours of duty being extended. And yes, there is a problem with troops being short on water, short on food, short on supplies and short on equipment. This morning we received an email from a mother whose son is in Iraq. The email read:
“Our soldiers have been killed because there were not enough Kevlar vests to go around. One of my son’s friends was shot in the back in Fallujah and two of his platoon members were killed in an ambush in May because they only had 30 vests for 120 men. No one at his checkpoint had a vest, thus nine people were injured.”
Sad as all this seems, apparently, what the soldiers and their families experience is nothing in comparison to the weight the President of the United States carries, according to Vice President, Dick Cheney. In the now illustrious interview with Martha Raddatz, Dick Cheney reminded Americans, the truest victim of this fateful war is George W. Bush. The Commander-In-Chief did not volunteer for the onerous path he has been forced to travel.
"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said. "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans. . . ."
One can only wonder, did George W. Bush act voluntarily or was he too, in truth, a victim of circumstances. Did George W. Bush expect to fulfill a fantasy, as Jesus Suarez did. Might the President have presumed war would be the answer to what ailed him? Could the Chief Officer have been bored as Jake Holland was. What drove the man in the Oval Office to make such a seriously flawed determination. Was a need satisfied when the President sent troops to their death, or was fate the cause for his charitable engagement? Pray tell Dick Cheney. Certainly, your worldview is most definitive.
Volunteer Forces and Resources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on March 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM in Active-Duty Troops , Afghanistan, Bush 43 Administration, Immigration Politics, Iraq War, Killing Machines, Military Missions, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , War Crimes, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Human Cost of Occupation; 4000 American Soldiers Fall
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Their names and faces are known. Yet, these servicemen and women remain invisible for most Americans. Their families suffer, and have for years. When the troops were abroad, relatives worried. Now that these four thousand are gone from Earth forever, the persons that love them still wish to bring them back. Semper fidelis, always faithful and forlorn.
They were our soldiers, the American troops that served to protect us. These military men and women took up arms to fight off terrorists. They battled aggressors. They [supposedly] kept us free from another attack. Nevertheless, these persons were powerless against an Administration unbridled with absolute authority.
None of those killed could stop the invasion into Iraq. Upon entrance into the service, soldiers understood war was an option. However, few could have imagined the reality or the risk. Courageous lads and lasses sent to the Persian Gulf feared what could be a certain fate, death. Yet, they marched on. Soldiers true to their country, had a mission. They were intent on the hope of an accomplishment.
One in six were not old enough to legally buy a beer. Nearly two dozen had lived long enough to qualify for an American Association of Retired Persons [AARP] card. Eleven passed as the folks at home in the States sliced a turkey on Thanksgiving Day. An identical number fell while the people celebrated the birth of Christ. Five were slain on the anniversary of their births. The surname Smith belonged to one percent of the dead soldiers.
- Ninety-eight percent were male (compared with 99.9% of those lost in Vietnam). Three-quarters were non-Hispanic white (compared with 86% in Vietnam). The most common age was 21 (20 in Vietnam).
- Nine percent were officers, including 24 lieutenant colonels and six colonels.
- More of the fallen were based at Fort Hood in Texas than at any other military installation.
- New York City, which has lost 62 residents, had more deaths than any other hometown.
- More than half of the nearly 4,000 (52%) were killed by bombs, 16% by enemy gunfire. Five percent died in aircraft crashes. Fifty-five people drowned, and 15 were electrocuted. Almost one in five died from what the military terms "non-hostile" causes.
- Since the war began in March 2003, the Pentagon has reported double-digit U.S. fatalities on 35 days. The bloodiest was Jan. 26, 2005, when a Marine helicopter crashed in a sandstorm, killing all 31 aboard, and six other service members died in combat. The bloodiest month was November 2004, when 137 died; the least bloody was February 2004, when 21 were lost. On 460 days of the war, no service member died.
How many American soldiers were wounded? Can we calculate the ones whose scars cannot be seen? What of the families and friends affected? One heart, mind, body, or soul tortured wounds more than a single individual. Savage combat destroys a society.
~ Thomas Edison [Scientist, Inventor]
As of this evening, five years and four days after the first bomb blast, four thousand American troops have fallen in Iraq. The carnage is incomprehensible. Countless civilians were massacred. War, or mass murder, was waged in the name of the American people, and yet, the people on terra firma sit idly by.
~ Albert Einstein [Physicist]
For month's United States citizens, cozy, and comfortable in America have allowed themselves to be distracted. Combat seemed less crucial than an economic crisis. Presidential politics has entertained the electorate. The situation in Iraq is less sexy than a juicy scandal or a sensational sermon. Tonight as the four thousandth soldier took a last breath might we contemplate the meaning of this milestone.
These numberrs represent only the Americans. What of the innocent Iraqis now perished. If we are to truly tally the losses, we must consider the millions of Iraqi civilians displaced, A year ago, there were four [4] million refugees.
- The wounded figure since March 19, 2003, is now well above 29,000. It is far, far higher than the number killed, and often has a more lasting impact on those who sacrifice as a human tragedy and in terms of costs. If one counts the number of men and women whose lives have been virtually destroyed by critical combat wounds and adds that total to the number killed, we reached 4,000 long ago. Far too much media coverage focuses only on "killed." There needs to be balance in counting all of the wounded, and far more attention paid to the number of critical physical and psychological wounds and disability cases. In many ways, news reporting on the "stats" of the fighting now covers only half the sacrifice of those who serve in uniform. . . .
- No one can really predict at this time whether we will be able to sharply reduce the future rate of casualties during 2009-2010, and move to "strategic overwatch" and reliance on the ISF for almost all the fighting. We could see a failure of political conciliation lead to more intense U.S. fighting and a new rise in casualty rates or even to U.S. withdrawal. The odds of success in Iraq now seem higher than those of defeat, and events seem more likely to steadily reduce U.S. casualties, but there are no certainties.
- As for the present, all the same data that show a major decline in U.S. and Iraqi casualties since last summer also show that the reduction of casualties has now plateaued and may be rising. Al Qaeda and the extreme elements of the JAM have every incentive to find ways to raise the U.S. casualties between now and November, and will be seeking ways to use bombings to raise the rate and number. These attacks may be far more important over the months to come than the 4,000 figure.
- There is a great deal of talk about the ultimate future dollar cost of the war if we stay. Much of this discussion somewhat unrealistically assumes that the dollar cost of fighting and aid remains relatively constant. In practice, success in moving to strategic overwatch and shifting the burden to the ISF and Iraqi government expenditures would actually sharply reduce the out year dollar costs. The same is true of the longer term trends in killing and wounded.
- But, if we are in Iraq through the end of the next administration, the real benchmark may still be more than 5,000 killed and 15,000-20,000 more wounded before the costs in blood are over.
Could we count the Persians and Americans deeply disturbed. As the instigators of battle we, the people of this "peaceful" nation must ponder the thousands, perhaps, millions mentally and emotionally impaired, adults, and the children who will never be the same. The scars are deep; the sorrow deeper. Will we, the American people allow the bloodshed to be our birthright. Are 'lives lost' the legacy we wish to leave our children.
By the time this treatise is read, the totals will probably be incorrect, the data outdated One more life will have been taken. Another will soon depart. Those who live and suffer will not be evaluated, and few will reflect on the sign hung in Albert Einstein's Princeton office.
May we stop for a moment, maybe more. Might we bring the troops home now, before one more body falls. Lets us all rest in peace before we are buried alive by the effects of a wasteful war.
Sources and Scars . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on March 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM in Afghanistan, Exit Iraq Now, Iraq War, Military Missions, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Exit Iraq; Public Opinion Changed. Support for War Sustained
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert
To everything there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones,
and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate;
a time of war, and a time of peace.
~ Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
They say life is cyclical. Peace prospers in a era. Epochs are filled with tales of war. Currently, in the United States, this is the political season. Issues are the topic of import. While at times, it seems rumors rule during the ritual run for the presidency, mostly, people want to speak of what affects their everyday life. Some say, "It is the economy, stu***." Others declare military defense and homeland security are the subjects we must speak about. A few say, we must secure our boarders. This theme ties the two aforementioned together. Jobs and terrorism are the greatest concern. Then there are those who inquire, "What happened to talk of the Iraq war?"
Well you may recall months ago, in a September 2007, Democratic Debate, whilst citizens clamored for an end to American involvement in Iraq, a storm rolled in. A tsunami of sorts washed over the American people, and talk of an exit plan was quelled.
The three top tier Democratic candidates all affirmed that they could not anticipate what they would find when they took office. Each of the so-called "electable" Democratic "hopefuls" declared, they would not commit to end the war in Iraq until after their first term. Perhaps, by 2013 a Democratic President would decide to remove troops from Iraq. Before that, they would likely increase the number of battalions in Afghanistan, at least Hillary Clinton certainly would. After all, Clinton and Barack Obama believed, that is where we "should' have been all along. Senator Obama stated, Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan, were "the right battlefield'' in the war against terrorism."
Once the Democrat hopefuls adopted a strong war stance, the constituency adapted. It was as if summer turned to fall. The leaves fell from the trees, and citizens of the United States settled in for a warm winter nap.
If Progressive leaders believed the war would not end, then perhaps, so too, must the public. The Republican candidates never intended to exit Iraq anytime soon. Each thought that would be unwise. The faithful base was behind them. A few faltered. Those "independents" followed Congressman and Presidential contender Ron Paul down the anti-war path. Perchance these scant few thought they could escape the cold brought on by combat.
However, for the most part, Republicans, even those who questioned the wisdom of the Persian Gulf War, did as the "right" does so well, they fell in line. Conservatives were not ready for change. The cozy comfort felt when the winds at home are calm creates complacency. As long as the battles did not interrupt the lives of those who first endorsed an engagement in Iraq, all was well.
Was that not the umbrella used to protect the policy? "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here at home." John McCain submitted his support for the surge early on. For the Arizona statesman, war is always in season. Residents of Derry, New Hampshire might recall.
The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting.
Some seasons see no end, and perhaps war is one of those. It seems throughout history there has been a battle somewhere on the planet no matter the time or temperature. Senator John McCain recognizes this. He revels in this truth.
Indeed, the Presidential aspirant thought America needed to send in more soldiers to surge in Iraq than the President proposed to do. If we are to reign, then, we must pour on the pressure. The tactic may not bring peace, and to those such as McCain, global harmony may be but a myth, but certainly, more military might, will result in a temporary win, a seasonal success of sorts. That is far better than an admission of defeat.
In a Presidential Debate, June 2007, John McCain may have spoken for all the Republicans aspirants at the time, with the exception of Representative Ron Paul of Texas. When MSNBC moderator Chris Matthews asked "Senator McCain, most of the public pessimism today has to do with Iraq. How -- what would you need, as commander in chief, to win the war in Iraq?" The former prisoner of war responded.
I would need to be able to show them some success in Iraq . . .That strategy can succeed. The young men and women who are serving are the best of America. I believe that if we could bring around -- about stability in the neighborhoods in Iraq . . . you are going to succeed.
Surrender? Defeat?
We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they [the terrorist] will follow us home.
Only two months before John McCain made this statement, in the Spring of the year, the Christian Science Monitor reported US public's support of Iraq war sliding faster now. Those who regretted our decision to attack Iraq outnumbered those who supported the war by 14 percentage points. Republicans were the majority among the forty [40] percent of the Americans who remained stalwart. Thus, the Senator's stance did not shock these traditionalists. Those who advocated a "stay the course" strategy, were, and possibly are, still in awe of what American military might can do. According to the Pew Research Center in Washington, in the early Spring 2007, fifty-four [54] percent of the citizens in the United States objected to the current conflict.
By June, as the Summer sun set on the horizon, only a month after John McCain presented his proclamation, much had changed. The public tired of the protracted war. A win was not in the future. Many Americans concluded they had been lied to. Republicans were as war-weary as the Democrats.
Public support for the war in Iraq has fallen to a new low. Not only that, but Republican support is beginning to waver.Thirty percent of Americans polled say they favor the war, the lowest level of support on record. Two-thirds are opposed.
Anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased with 38 percent of Republicans now saying they oppose the war.
Moreover, 63 percent of Americans are ready to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq. Forty-two percent of Republicans agree.
Fifty-four percent of Americans do not believe U.S. action in Iraq is morally justified.
Now, as Americans look forward to the November election, we rally round rumors. We speak less of peace and more of money. Our leaders have helped us to realize that peace is not a viable prospect.
We have come to accept that another season passed and a newer storm is in view. There was a time when the public realized soldiers were conveniently hidden from view. People acknowledged that the wounded and fallen were flown home, into Dover Air Force base, in the dark of night. Citizens questioned why the troops remained invisible to an American public uninformed or too caught up in apathy to care. Many asked of the injured who were stored like cattle in hospitals such as Walter Reid. People clamored in distress when they read of the awful conditions. However, that moment too has passed.
Citizens of this country now care less that trillions have passed through our fingers. We worry not when we contemplate what was spent on a war we remain mired in; yet, reluctantly, we acknowledge what the powerful told us was true. The combat will continue. We consent to the conflict in Iraq just as we had before.
American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans - a slim majority - now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.
The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today. . . .
Democrats’ resolute support for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces may soon position them at odds with independent voters, in particular, a constituency they need to retake the White House.
Half of self-identified independents polled now believe the United States should “keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized,” according to polling data assembled by Pew at Politico’s request. . . .
The uptick in public support is a promising sign for Republican candidates who have been bludgeoned over the Bush administration’s war policies. But no candidate stands to gain more than McCain.
The forecast for Democrats has changed. The predictions may be grim. Whilst slams and damns were exchanged amongst the Democratic aspirants, no one in the Progressive Party noticed that talk of the war waned. People no longer thought the troops a profound topic. The rain of rumors filled the air, as did what seemed more real and relevant to those here at home. Foreclosures, financial woes, coupled with that early lack of commitment to end the war in Iraq, opened the door to a flood of futility. Hence, the people resigned themselves to an endless war, and those that recall the fallen are left to ask, "Where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing." The answer is blowing in the wind. The troops have gone to graveyards every one. Might we inquire, "When will we ever learn?"
As the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war approaches, let us remember the 4,444 American soldiers who took a last breathe. Lest we forget the more than 29,305 seriously wounded and the near 90,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. Please recall the than 4.2 million innocent Iraqi refugees, who have left their homes "many in dire need of humanitarian care."
Perchance, it is time, the season, to ponder. Would we wish to war for a few more years? Are Americans prepared to eat, drink, be merry, and forget the cost of combat? The answer may be "Yes." While we are currently concerned with the expense of food, fuel, wine, and water, the truth is, as long as citizens in this country do not have to see any of the death and destruction that occurs daily, we can still gossip and elect those who will sustain the slaughter. Americans will not ask . . .
Where Have All the Flowers Gone
words and music by Pete Seeger
performed by Pete Seeger and Tao Rodriguez-SeegerWhere have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone?
Girls have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young girls gone?
Taken husbands every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?Where have all the young men gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young men gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Covered with flowers every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?©1961 (Renewed) Fall River Music Incorporated
All Rights Reserved.
Sources and Support for War . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on March 15, 2008 at 08:00 AM in Afghanistan, Elections, Exit Iraq Now, Iraq War, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, Why War? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
John He Is As Are Americans At War
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It has long been said, "war is the last [best] option." Human beings, in an attempt to appear rational, reason that of course, diplomacy is preferred. Man-kind [sic] says he will do all in his power to pursue peace. Once domestic tranquility is achieved, two-legged mammals will do what they must to preserve harmony. Then this logical creature claims he must defend himself against all enemies. He will fight for what is right. Man forgets; what is ethically essential to gain and retain peace is the principle, "War must never be an option."
John He Is As Are Americans At WarAs long as man muses, "if need be we will go to battle," then combat is not a possibility; it is a probability. Centuries of conflict have proven this theory true. Yet, humans continue to deny the validity of argument.
Mankind massacres; yet, endures. People engage in what they actually believe is inevitable, war. Feuds flourish. The desire to exert power supersedes the serenity people proclaim is their deepest desire.
When Presidential hopeful John McCain states the obvious, self-identified, peaceful Progressives raise their arms in disbelief. Humans willing to endorse a candidate, indeed, two, or three who choose to engage in combat are outraged by the notion that warfare is forever.
Those who lean left forget they follow leaders intent on the kill. Combative campaigners call a vicious act or attack triumphant.
Hillary Clinton told us of her desire. For the former First Lady, who belatedly quarrels with a war in Iraq, more troops must be moved to Afghanistan.
Barack Obama, like Clinton offers a conditional and tepid plan to withdraw soldiers from the land Saddam Hussein once governed. Obama also plans to shift the battle to Afghanistan if he becomes Commander-In-Chief. For each of the potential Presidents, war is absolutely an option. Physical combat is profound and preferred.
American Progressives see and hear John McCain state his belief, war is inevitable. These peaceful persons wince. Another person who promises to lead citizens of the United States as Commander-In-Chief, is perhaps a realist. He reminds "civil" rights advocates of a reality that hurts. Humans are not logical; nor is man-kind [sic] benevolent to all equally. Warm blooded beings languish in the wind of emotional battles, and shall do so through eternity, or so it would seem based on what was, and continues to be the traditional battle cry.
I've got to give you straight talk, my friends. This is a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars, I'm sorry to tell you. There's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.
John McCain presumes what the Democrats propose. The locations may differ. The pronouncement is posed in a less ominous manner; nonetheless, a war is a war, is a war.
"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" . . . "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
Bomb, bomb, bomb, Afghanistan or Iran. Civilian casualties will not be collateral, incidental, or accidental damage. In a skirmish, slaughter is intentional. A Liberal offender is no less liable.
"I am still convinced withdrawal means chaos," he said, "and if you think things are bad now, if we withdraw you ain't seen nothing yet."
Ah, that which humans have never seen is what they dare to imagine, peace. Perhaps, if Americans were to withdraw, harmony will be possible.
The point is it’s American casualties. We’ve go to get American’s off the frontlines, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities, and then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years. What they care about is the sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that's American blood. So what I'm saying is, look, if Americans are there in a support role but they're not taking casualties, that's fine.
"Fine," as defined, is the future for humans who engage in battles. The Arizona Senator, and Republican aspirant, does not actually differ from the Democratic hopefuls. McCain claims what has been true throughout history, and will be accurate forever, if the current crop of candidates, Republican or Democrat, does as declared.
America can endlessly occupy other nations without the loss of a countryman's life and citizens will not complain. For people who reside in the "land of the free and home of the brave" [sic], as long as all within the clan are comfortable, life is good.
McCain says nothing of the fallen foreign born. Nor do the Democrats decree all murders must stop. The Presidential hopefuls need not mention the millions of lives lost among the "adversaries." Self-interest is significant. Empathy is not essential. Indeed, compassion can hinder a being, a leader, and a nation intent on destruction.
It seems obvious, if citizens of the States are not sacrificed, as far as Americans are concerned, war can continue, and it will, perhaps be good for the country, for profiteers who manufacture weaponry, or at least, for John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and all others who allow for this option.
Perchance, it is time for two-legged creatures; particularly those who profess a preference for peace, to assess them selves rather than rant against another perceived enemy. John McCain is but a mirror. He reflects what humans accept. The representation is real. If man-kind [sic] is ever to achieve harmony, if shared serenity is to become standard, every individual must declare, "War will never be an option!"
Promote a Peaceful Progressive Platform . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 12, 2008 at 03:00 PM in Afghanistan, Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Change the World [Within], Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Exit Iraq Now, Hillary Clinton, Humans, Self-Destructive, Iran, Iraq War, Killing Machines, Military Missions, Philosophy, Violence, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Why War? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Less Jobs. More Wars. A Progressive Platform
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Republicans rant. It is our patriotic duty to support the war. Every citizen must fund murderous actions and accept more soldiers, and civilians will fall. Our countrymen need to devote millions, billions, and trillions of dollars to the cause. We, the people have no choice. Our image is at stake. The world's greatest superpower must win! Americans must never say die. We must only discuss victory.
In this nation, might makes right. It is it not this war it will be another. Americans will remind people throughout the globe, we are strong.
Progressives say, we must stop the "Right." With John McCain at the helm, it is certain, military missions will continue. We must remind Republicans of our priorities. Jobs must be the focus. However, might we mention to those labeled Liberal, Democrats, or bleeding hearts, it is essential we not forget a Potential President McCain is not our only concern.
Hillary Clinton wants to send more troops to Afghanistan. Barack Obama, like Clinton offers a conditional and tepid plan to withdraw troops in Iraq. Obama also intends to shift the battle to Afghanistan. John McCain believes war is inevitable, always. The Arizona Senator and Republican aspirant claims the United States can endlessly occupy other nations without the loss of an American life. As long as no citizen of the States is sacrificed, war is unavoidable and perhaps good for the country or at least fine with John McCain.
Democrats, Progressives believe we must fight against a McCain Presidency. This former prisoner of war will sustain a surge. Under the authority of McCain, citizens will continue to die abroad and struggle to survive at home. I inquire; will a President Clinton or a Commander-In-Chief Obama truly end the wars or merely transfer the troops to another battlefield Will jobs here at home be restored or the budget balanced as we continue to engage in hostile entanglements? There are no plans to conclude combat worldwide, not among Progressives or those the Left deems the enemy. Perchance, we must change the Party platform. Fighting against a foe named McCain will not end the skirmishes. A combative Clinton or Obama are of equal concern. War is war. Please let us work towards peace.
Promote a Peaceful Progressive Platform . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 8, 2008 at 08:00 AM in Afghanistan, Elections, Exit Iraq Now, Iran, Iraq War, Labor, Employment, Military Missions, Politics, Powerful Polluters, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Taxi To The Dark Side; Tales of Psychological and Physical Torture
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Americans each have taxied to the dark side in recent years. Vice President Cheney, with the blessings of George W. Bush, was our guide. We were the followers. Citizens of the United States claim to care. Yet, collectively, we allow an Administration to torture detainees in Guantanamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib prison. Our fellow countrymen once honored the Rules of the Geneva Convention. This standards are now thought quaint. Americans no longer subscribe to the theory that intentional physical and psychological torment is a abhorrent. Violations of human dignity are accepted, even endorsed.
Post-September 11, 2001, after the Twin Towers fell, so too did our moral compass. Americans do not believe that Human Rights must be honored. That is unless, the person in question is a United States citizen.
On the afternoon of 9/11 Americans embraced any policy they thought would keep them safe. Congress signed the Patriot Act into law. From then on, people who disagreed with the Bush Administration were watched. Those that had no quarrel with White House policies were jailed. A dark skinned person with an accent unlike the one commonly accepted as native, was thought to be a terrorist. Telephone and wiretaps were considered necessary. Individuals willingly removed their shoes and permitted them selves to be the subject of body searches. Fear flourished and remains intact. For Americans, some shadowy authority will take control and keep us safe. Hope does not remain eternal. It no longer exists.
Citizens in this country cannot see the light. They have slipped into the deepest crevices of cruelty. Even when Americans know they are about to commit a crime against humanity, they do not stop themselves. When in dire straits people perform as directed.
Filmmaker Alex Gibney, whose father, Frank Gibney, an interrogator of Japanese prisoners in World War II helped his son to feel the pain of a person ordered to torture another living being. As the Director's dying-Dad, who asked to be unhooked from his oxygen machine so that he might speak out against the Bush Administration's policies said so forcefully, "It's got to stop!"
The words of an adamant father barely able to breathe, helped to inspire his son's endeavor. As film reviewer, Kenneth Turan, of the Los Angeles Times writes, "[This] significant film shows why he [Alex Gibney] cares so passionately and why we should as well."
I invite you, dear reader to reflect on the situation and read this dynamic review of the movie . . .
'Taxi to the Dark Side'
The new documentary looks at torture's effects on victims and perpetrators.
By Kenneth Turan
Los Angeles Times
January 18, 2008GIVEN its subject matter, and its title, you'd expect Alex Gibney's "Taxi to the Dark Side" to be profoundly disturbing and shocking, and it is. But not always in the ways you'd expect.
A meticulous examination of the Bush administration's embracing of torture as a weapon of choice in the war against terrorism by the director of "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room," "Taxi" is impressive enough to have taken the best documentary prize at the Tribeca Film Festival and to be a likely finalist for the documentary Oscar when the contenders are announced next week.
Because torture is its raison d'être, it's a given that "Taxi" is difficult to take at times. There are pictures from Abu Ghraib too appalling for family newspapers, upsetting videos, and unblinking photographs of men who died in U.S. custody.
Yet, what is most distressing about "Taxi" is not physical acts but psychological ones. What is really appalling is how readily torture was embraced by officials as an absolute necessity and how easy it was for soldiers to, in the words of one, "lose your moral bearings" and become a party to atrocity.
For though the official line out of Washington is still "we do not torture," it's impossible to watch this film -- and hear testimony not just from soldiers but also veteran FBI men and former Bush administration officials -- without coming to understand that torture is exactly what we are engaged in.
"Taxi to the Dark Side's" title has concrete origins. Writer-director Gibney has loosely structured his film around the suspicious death of an Afghani taxi driver named Dilawar. This young man took three passengers on a trip on Dec. 1, 2002, and never returned.
Dilawar ended up at Bagram, a former Soviet air base turned interrogation site for suspected Taliban. Five days after he arrived, he was dead. The press release said it was due to natural causes, but a pair of New York Times reporters, Tim Golden and Carlotta Gall, decided to investigate. What they found out is that the official U.S. death certificate, delivered to Dilawar's parents along with the body, listed the cause of death as "homicide" traceable to beatings he received while in captivity.
Filmmaker Gibney not only talked to the two reporters and Dilawar's family, he also interviewed five clearly haunted soldiers who were put on trial in military court for the man's death. We hear firsthand exactly what they did as well as the circumstances that put unprepared men in interrogation situations with the pressure to produce results but without the written guidelines as to permissible behavior they desperately requested.
Gibney's film is at pains to show where the impetus for this kind of savage behavior began.
Please also ponder a Public Broadcasting Services, Frontline program, The Dark Side. Draw your own conclusions. Consider how humans respond when under stress. Also, contemplate the idea of power, and how, when bestowed upon one titled President or Vice can destroy absolutely.
Search for the Light, Sources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM in Afghanistan, Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, CIA Prisons, Ethics, Human Nature, Iraq War, Lawbreakers, Light. Darkness., Military Missions, Morality in an Immoral War, Policy, President Protects America , Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Terrorism, The Patriot Act , War Crimes, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
