Six years of terror (xpost from GD)

[unhappycamper]

Received via email; I had posted in GD, but it's sinking like a stone.


Two days will mark the sixth anniversary of September 11th, a day on which all our lives, our country, were changed forever. How is it that our President can publicly blame a philosophical affiliation and it's pundit for the attacks, rush off to war against a governing regime that supported this philosophy & teacher, and initiate another front that effectively fuels the spread of this philosophy, yet will not press any formal charges against this teacher/pundit for the attacks that originated it all? (Watch the videos linked at the end of this email for more on this.)

This begs to question the integrity of an administration that has turned the world upside down. In one fail swoop, we have become the greatest threat to, and violator of, world peace on the face of the planet. We have conducted operations on almost every continent, in as many nations, killing and kidnapping more civilians than the collective efforts of all the "terrorists" we are supposedly doing the world a favor by "fighting".

Now, I know I probably lost some of you in the first paragraph when I mentioned a "philosophical affiliation" and its teacher/pundit. Well, that's how I see the so-called, "Al Qaeda". Al Qaeda has become the rallying and identifying cry of all those who oppose Imperialism and the oppression of innocents by military and economic measures. The fact that this "organization" operates as a series of independent cells indicates a decentralized structure that implies that these cells are more a collection of individual "cults" subscribing to a unifying cause than a global "network of terror". Without any direct contact with Bin Laden, anyone who believes in the cause can declare themselves "Al Qaeda" followers.

If freedom of speech and religion are keystones of Democracy, then how can we justify the suppression by force of those who follow any particular philosophy that we may find appalling or inconvenient and then condemn their retaliation? How can we continue to force our will, our beliefs, and our economic benefit on the citizenry of other countries and have the audacity to call it "spreading Democracy"?

Now, for the militant among you, I understand your position too. Yes, there are terrorist training camps that provide the mental, physical, and tactical training for Al Qaeda followers to use against imperialist factions such as the US, Britain, and other "coalition" members. However, if our military is being used to rein terror on and strong-arm other nations into complying with the economic ambitions of our private corporations--the purveyors of Capitalism--can we really consider our Basic Training sites any differently? As our administration speaks out against Al Qaeda and promotes the "Global War on Terror", Bin Laden (if he's still alive) speaks out against Capitalism, its economic exploitation of third-world countries, and it's militant oppression of civilians.

I know this is a very jagged pill to swallow, but in matters of war and humanity, we must know ourselves as well as our enemies. We must be able to understand our enemies enough to know why they are fighting. If their cause is as or more just than ours, and they are more committed to it, then no amount of military might will win our fight. This is not only sound advice from Sun Tzu's The Art of War, but also a matter of logic/reason.

While there are admittedly religious aspects to both sides, they are only superfluous and used as means to manipulate & recruit people to each side. Like it or not, militant Christianity is just as real today as militant Islam. Both use fear to instill hate and consider themselves to be "right". Still, the root of this conflict has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with humanity.

Be honest with yourself now, did you just automatically assume that the US was on the side of humanity in this situation? If so, you should reconsider. In the Unites States, we have been conditioned, from as early as we can rationalize, that Capitalism is the only (or at least the greatest) economic system in the world. We are taught that it is in our best interest to compete against each other for our (economic) survival and to elevate our status. We are taught to accept that some must fall by the wayside that others may rise to the top. How is this in any way demonstrative of humanity? If humanity is illustrated by a sense of community, compassion, and rational behavior, we must cede that Capitalism is devoid of humanity.

Any system that insists that more must suffer so that a few can live extravagantly does not embody the defining traits of humanity. This is directly contrary to the "Lifeboat Theory" of Ethics that suggests it is morally acceptable to sacrifice a few so that the majority can survive. Thereby, when our corporations exploit the resources of third-world countries and empower cooperative regimes that oppress the populations of those countries; when our government sends our troops to secure access to those resources and oppress populations we are absolutely working against the cause of humanity.

On the other side of the equation are those who lack the resources, the equipment, or other means to defend their "unalienable rights"--their "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness". They seek relief from their governments and ours, but to no avail. When they are reduced to Despotism, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government." When they suffer "injuries and usurpations" designed to oppress them in Tyranny, when their "petitions for redress" remain unanswered, they must take action against the tyrannical, oppressive regime over them. (For those who don't recognize the quotes in this paragraph, they are taken directly from our Declaration of Independence.)

Having much less military capability than a powerful oppressive regime, the people must seek alternative methods of fighting the oppressors. Guerrilla tactics and bombings of economic infrastructures and military patrols are the only means by which the underdogs can fight for their liberties, rights, and the sanctity of their homes. Underdogs throughout history have referred to this as "Revolutionary Warfare". Tyrants call it terrorism. Remember, King George III labeled our very own revolutionaries as terrorists!

I recently met a veteran fresh from Iraq. Towards the end of his tour, he had a change in conscience, an awakening, that inspired him to courageously refuse to further participate in combat operations in Iraq. He came to the realization that the US military was conducting operations and treating the Iraqi population in ways that we absolutely would not accept on our own soil. In one precipitous moment, he saw the fear and hatred with which an Iraqi boy, a civilian, came at him. In that instant, he realized that the very people whom he was helping, and those who he had been told wanted to kill him and his military brethren, were all merely acting in fear for their lives from our soldiers. In short, the people he was fighting did not want to kill Americans. They thought all Americans wanted to kill Iraqis. Afterwards, he realized, as many veterans now have, that all the fear induced hate forced on our military and population has been manifested artificially by our own government to facilitate the military's participation in and the public's support of an illegal and unprovoked military invasion/occupation of Iraq.

This epiphany changed his perspective and led him to refuse to participate in combat operations within Iraq for the remaining weeks of his tour. Those weeks he spent under 24 hour guard after being labeled a threat to Operational Security, OPSEC. Why should expression of conscience be viewed as a security threat if our operations are on the side of conscience, humanity, and right? In short, it shouldn't and isn't. . . unless your operational direction has lost track of humanity.

There is nothing humane about war. Consequently, many who go to war end up losing their humanity. The act of taking another life by order--sanctioned murder--is something that cannot be accepted without shutting down one's conscience first, or else constantly struggling therewith. Those who go, fight, come home, then want to go back to fight and kill some more are devoid of conscience. Those who come home changed, distant, detached, angry or depressed, possibly even suicidal, are the ones who will forever struggle with their conscience over what they have seen and/or done in war.

How do you reconcile within your heart the fact that you have directly or indirectly taken another life, an innocent life, and done so without punishment, without retribution to the family of the person you killed? Then how do your reconcile the fact that you took that life under false pretenses, that that person's blood meant more profits for some war-profiteering corporation?

This struggle is likely the basis of much war-time Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Is there any wonder why the government doesn't want to effectively acknowledge or address the issue of PTSD? I know that my own awakening brought about feelings of shame regarding my service in Afghanistan. I am ashamed that I allowed my heart to fill with rage and hate for a people that I had never met, knew nothing about, and had done nothing to hurt me. How could I have allowed that change within me and still remain a good person? How could I feel that way towards others and deserve to walk this world freely? How could I have allowed my service--that I had been so proud of and that I had based so much of my life and my identity on--to be marred in such a way? I was so ashamed, so embarrassed, that I even became sick at times. Like my fellow veterans, I will always deal with that shame. Now it serves as inspiration for my efforts to end our militant foreign policy--US Imperialism.

The bottom line is all the People want peace; want an end to the violence and the US occupation of Iraq--both the Iraqis and Americans. However, we cannot bring a halt to the violence with more violence and a greater, more dispersed, more invasive US military presence there. Our continued military presence cannot bring about stability in Iraq because it is the sole catalyst maintaining the instability. When the very same Iraqis we are training to fight "insurgents" and members of the local population end up participating in the "insurgency", we have worn out our welcome.

The more troops we have in Iraq, the greater our abuses of the Iraqi population and our infringement of their rights and liberties. The more homes we invade; husbands, sons, and brothers we whisk away and torture; the more women we disrespect the more disgruntled Iraqis we create. Our abuses anger and enrage their population until they turn to violent acts against us. Staying the course or even "shifting course" in Iraq will not solve anything. Nothing short of withdrawal--the complete return of our troops--will bring about stability in Iraq. That stability will come on their terms, on their time table, not ours.

Who are we to impose goals and time tables on them? Is this how we formed our nation after winning our independence from England? Would we have accepted a foreign military presence from France after defeating the English? Absolutely not! Did we form our government and ratify our Constitution quickly after the war ended, under external pressure from another country? Again, no. The British Army surrendered at Yorktown in 1781. The Treaty of Paris, granting the US independence from Britain was signed in 1783, and the US Constitution was ratified in 1787. Therefore, from the end of fighting to the ratification of our Constitution was six years without any additional fighting, instability, or insurrection. So, if we couldn't accomplish it in less than six years under ideal conditions, how can we honestly expect the Iraqis to do so under chaotic conditions, external pressures, and foreign meddling in the process?

There is much to consider when analyzing the US occupation of Iraq. But we must first acknowledge, and admit, that it is an occupation and no longer a war. Regardless of intentions, no People can live under the control or authority of a foreign military and consider themselves free. If the Iraqi people are not free while under our control, then how can we consider our operations there as "bringing them Democracy"? By our own standard, enunciated in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, Democracy means government of the people, for the people, and by the people. In this case, that means the Iraqi people.

Anything short of what the Iraqi people want their government to be will not be a Democracy for them. Any government over which we express undue influence will be nothing more than neo-colonial. Is this what America is all about? Is this what our troops should be dying for? I can't speak for all, but as a veteran who walked away from fifteen years of service, I can honestly say that is not what I signed up for. I know I'm not alone.