THE DEADLIEST CONFLICT SINCE WORLD WAR II
At the end, I include actions you can take about this issue.
From: The BBC
DR Congo: Africa's worst war
The four-and-a-half year conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC] has been described as the worst since World War II.
An estimated 3.3 million people have died as a result of the war making it the "tragedy of modern times", according to a report issued by the International Rescue Committee aid agency.
The IRC said that only about 10% of the victims died violently, with the vast majority dying from starvation and disease due to the activities of the various armed groups operating in the country.
"This is a humanitarian catastrophe of horrid and shocking proportions... Yet, the crisis has received scant attention from international donors and the media," says IRC President George Rupp.
Africa's worst ever war began following the invasion of the north and east of the country by Rwanda and Uganda, to, as they said, prevent armed groups attacking them from Congo's territory.
This brought in armies, which have now left, from other countries to fight on the side of the Congolese Government.
However, ethnic clashes between the Hema and Lendu in the troubled north-eastern province of Ituri remain a potential stumbling block to peace.
Condemnation
The IRC's report was released as the United States and Britain condemned a massacre of some 1,000 villagers in Ituri province.
The reported massacre near Bunia last Thursday, came just a day after a peace agreement was signed in South Africa marking the end of 19 months of talks between the government, opposition parties, civil groups, militia and rebels.
The US has called on Uganda to exercise its responsibility to protect civilians in Ituri where the killings occurred and to ensure that no violations of human rights or atrocities are committed.
On Monday, a Ugandan army spokesman denied any involvement in the massacre, saying his troops had been at least 15 km away.
Both US and UK have also called on all parties in the conflict to cease hostilities immediately and support a committee set up to end the fighting and make the area safe.
The committee resumed talks on Monday, despite the massacre.
On Monday, President Kabila was sworn-in as a transitional head of state for a period of two years before elections.
A new transitional government should be formed soon, including representatives of rebel groups who control eastern DR Congo but they were not present at Monday's ceremony in the capital, Kinshasa.
On Tuesday, Reuters news agency reported that people in Ituri were fearful of reprisal attacks.
"This is really hell. We are not secure, even here . Anything could happen," Emmanuel Ralonji said in Bunia, not far from the scene of the massacres.
[end of quoted article]
What can you do?
LEARN MORE
-One World, an excellent humanitarian non-governmental organization (NGO) website
-MONURC, the UN mission in the DRC.
SUPPORT HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATIONS DOING WORK IN THE DR CONGO
-IRC, the International Rescue Committee, author of the report in question.
-ICRC, the International Committees of the Red Cross.
-MSF, aka Doctors Without Borders.
SPREAD THE WORD
To whomever you think might be interested in this. As I've said before, you can't be form an opinion or act about something if you don't know it's happening. Obviously, the American corporate media isn't covering much else besides Iraq and when they do, it's on critical issues like Michael Jackson and American Idol. So if you want to inform people about this, word of mouth and the Internet are the way to go.
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
Monday, April 07, 2003
FIRST STOP: IRAQ
Letter sent by my father to TIME magazine in regards to an article entitled 'First stop Iraq.' (See: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html)
To the Editor:
I have been asking myself and others who support this war, "What gives the United States the right to effect 'regime change' in other countries?" Your article, First Stop, Iraq, answered that question very chillingly.
If one thought underscores the thinking of President Bush's advisors, it has to be this one: "The U.S., neo-conservatives believe, is unique in its power and its principles. It cannot allow its mission to be tied down by international agreements that diminish its freedom of action." [citing part of TIME's article]
This thinking might explain why the U.S. is reluctant to sign on to international agreements like the Kyotoa accords or the International Criminal Court or the International Land Mine Treaty.
Yes, the U.S. has the power. Yes, the principles we try to operate under are worth emulating all over the world. Looking back at the "regime changes" and attempted "regime changes" the U.S. has been involved in over the last 50 years, there is a chasm between the promise and performance of our actions.
But the statement in the story also begs another question. What happens to accountability? Who or What can hold a great power accountable when it screws up?? Looks like no one. I find that scary.
Sincerely,
[Popeye's Dad]
Letter sent by my father to TIME magazine in regards to an article entitled 'First stop Iraq.' (See: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html)
To the Editor:
I have been asking myself and others who support this war, "What gives the United States the right to effect 'regime change' in other countries?" Your article, First Stop, Iraq, answered that question very chillingly.
If one thought underscores the thinking of President Bush's advisors, it has to be this one: "The U.S., neo-conservatives believe, is unique in its power and its principles. It cannot allow its mission to be tied down by international agreements that diminish its freedom of action." [citing part of TIME's article]
This thinking might explain why the U.S. is reluctant to sign on to international agreements like the Kyotoa accords or the International Criminal Court or the International Land Mine Treaty.
Yes, the U.S. has the power. Yes, the principles we try to operate under are worth emulating all over the world. Looking back at the "regime changes" and attempted "regime changes" the U.S. has been involved in over the last 50 years, there is a chasm between the promise and performance of our actions.
But the statement in the story also begs another question. What happens to accountability? Who or What can hold a great power accountable when it screws up?? Looks like no one. I find that scary.
Sincerely,
[Popeye's Dad]
WEST AFRICA'S SADDAM
Part of this blog's mission is to give out information about and comment on stuff that is happening is regions of the world poorly covered (or not at all) by the North American and European medias. Places that are off the beaten path, if you will. It's based on the premise that you can't form an opinion about something that you don't even know is occurring.
In that spirit, below is an article about the destabilizing activities of Liberian warlord/dictator Charles Taylor by the British non-governmental organization (NGO) Global Witness.
This is a sensitive subject to me because one of the countries Taylor wishes to destabilize is the Republic of Guinea, a place where I lived for two years as a Peace Corps volunteer. I lived there during the worst period of Liberia's own civil war, a war where Taylor's troops (many of them child soldiers) committed most of the worst atrocities. He's already supported the limb-hacking Revolutionary United Front rebels which destroyed Sierra Leone and he's accused of back the rebels now in control of much of Ivory Coast. He's already destabilized two of Liberia's three neighbors. Guinea's next on the list.
Here's hoping the Hague can make room in Milosevic's cell for Taylor.
Source: UN Integrated Regional Information Network via AllAfrica.com
Global Witness Accuses Liberia of Destabilising Neighbours
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
NEWS
April 1, 2003
Posted to the web April 1, 2003
Abidjan
An international non-governmental organisation (NGO) has accused Liberia's government of destabilising West Africa by supporting and arming rebels in Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone. In a report issued on Monday, Global Witness also accused the government of Liberian President Charles Taylor of regularly importing weapons in violation of UN sanctions.
The report, titled: 'The Usual Suspects: Liberia's Weapons and Mercenaries in Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone' charges that Liberia's government has been backing two rebel groups that operate in the west of Cote d'Ivoire since late November 2002: the Popular Movement of the Ivorian Great West (MPIGO) and the Movement for Justice and Peace (MJP). Liberia, it added, planned to use mercenaries to destabilise Sierra Leone.
Global Witness urged the UN Security Council to renew existing sanctions against Liberia - which cover the sale of weapons to Monrovia and trade in its diamonds - and to extend them to include Liberian timber. The timber industry, it said, continued to be the Liberian government's primary source of financial and logistical access to international markets for weapons and mercenaries.
"We have uncovered information showing the Liberian government is still actively involved in the illegal arms trade, and is the driving force behind the training, arming and deployment of the Ivorian rebel groups MPIGO and MJP, with Liberian President Charles Taylor calling the shots from Monrovia," said Alice Blondel, a Global Witness campaigner. "The 'usual suspects', including President Charles Taylor and former RUF commander Sam 'Maskita' Bockarie, who have been involved in previous regional insecurities, are now involved in the Cote d'Ivoire crisis and are planning to undermine the fragile peace in Sierra Leone".
According to the report, the Liberian timber industry provided the government with the means necessary to maintain its supplies of fighting forces and illegal arms, which, Global Witness said, it receives from eastern Europe via France, Libya and Nigeria.
Cote d'Ivoire's MPIGO and MJP rebels, the NGO said, were made up mainly of Liberian and Sierra Leonean mercenaries. It added that the MPIGO and MJP fighters were organised in Liberia before deployment into Cote d'Ivoire, and were commanded by close associates of Taylor.
And in Sierra Leone, Liberia's government is now implementing a destabilisation strategy so as to disrupt the operations of the Special Court, "by which President Charles Taylor and other key figures in Liberia expect to be indicted for war crimes committed during Sierra Leone's civil war", the NGO said.
Global Witness is an NGO that works to expose the link between natural resource exploitation and human rights abuses. It operates in areas where environmentally destructive trade is funding conflict or human rights violations.
[The report can be found at http://www.globalwitness.org/reports ]
Part of this blog's mission is to give out information about and comment on stuff that is happening is regions of the world poorly covered (or not at all) by the North American and European medias. Places that are off the beaten path, if you will. It's based on the premise that you can't form an opinion about something that you don't even know is occurring.
In that spirit, below is an article about the destabilizing activities of Liberian warlord/dictator Charles Taylor by the British non-governmental organization (NGO) Global Witness.
This is a sensitive subject to me because one of the countries Taylor wishes to destabilize is the Republic of Guinea, a place where I lived for two years as a Peace Corps volunteer. I lived there during the worst period of Liberia's own civil war, a war where Taylor's troops (many of them child soldiers) committed most of the worst atrocities. He's already supported the limb-hacking Revolutionary United Front rebels which destroyed Sierra Leone and he's accused of back the rebels now in control of much of Ivory Coast. He's already destabilized two of Liberia's three neighbors. Guinea's next on the list.
Here's hoping the Hague can make room in Milosevic's cell for Taylor.
Source: UN Integrated Regional Information Network via AllAfrica.com
Global Witness Accuses Liberia of Destabilising Neighbours
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
NEWS
April 1, 2003
Posted to the web April 1, 2003
Abidjan
An international non-governmental organisation (NGO) has accused Liberia's government of destabilising West Africa by supporting and arming rebels in Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone. In a report issued on Monday, Global Witness also accused the government of Liberian President Charles Taylor of regularly importing weapons in violation of UN sanctions.
The report, titled: 'The Usual Suspects: Liberia's Weapons and Mercenaries in Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone' charges that Liberia's government has been backing two rebel groups that operate in the west of Cote d'Ivoire since late November 2002: the Popular Movement of the Ivorian Great West (MPIGO) and the Movement for Justice and Peace (MJP). Liberia, it added, planned to use mercenaries to destabilise Sierra Leone.
Global Witness urged the UN Security Council to renew existing sanctions against Liberia - which cover the sale of weapons to Monrovia and trade in its diamonds - and to extend them to include Liberian timber. The timber industry, it said, continued to be the Liberian government's primary source of financial and logistical access to international markets for weapons and mercenaries.
"We have uncovered information showing the Liberian government is still actively involved in the illegal arms trade, and is the driving force behind the training, arming and deployment of the Ivorian rebel groups MPIGO and MJP, with Liberian President Charles Taylor calling the shots from Monrovia," said Alice Blondel, a Global Witness campaigner. "The 'usual suspects', including President Charles Taylor and former RUF commander Sam 'Maskita' Bockarie, who have been involved in previous regional insecurities, are now involved in the Cote d'Ivoire crisis and are planning to undermine the fragile peace in Sierra Leone".
According to the report, the Liberian timber industry provided the government with the means necessary to maintain its supplies of fighting forces and illegal arms, which, Global Witness said, it receives from eastern Europe via France, Libya and Nigeria.
Cote d'Ivoire's MPIGO and MJP rebels, the NGO said, were made up mainly of Liberian and Sierra Leonean mercenaries. It added that the MPIGO and MJP fighters were organised in Liberia before deployment into Cote d'Ivoire, and were commanded by close associates of Taylor.
And in Sierra Leone, Liberia's government is now implementing a destabilisation strategy so as to disrupt the operations of the Special Court, "by which President Charles Taylor and other key figures in Liberia expect to be indicted for war crimes committed during Sierra Leone's civil war", the NGO said.
Global Witness is an NGO that works to expose the link between natural resource exploitation and human rights abuses. It operates in areas where environmentally destructive trade is funding conflict or human rights violations.
[The report can be found at http://www.globalwitness.org/reports ]
TEN SECONDS FOR A PEACE ACCORD
It's not just the American media who cover the news of some regions of the world poorly or not at all. Last week, the factions of the war, often known as Africa's First World War, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC] signed a peace accord in South Africa. The accord called for the implementation of a national unity government, future elections and, of course, an end to hostilities.
According to the Belgium paper La Libre Belgique, "The RBTF [Belgian state television] only required a few seconds to report on the accord signed on April 1 in Sun City, South Africa, between the Kabila government and the rebel factions. A brief report. In the guise of images, a map of the region. As if to say that the event wasn't worth sending a journalist to the area or even an after-the-fact analysis. But even if weapons are still heard in the east of the Congo, in Ituri province, this accord is a strong symbolic gesture for the population who has continued to pay a high price in tribute to the different warlords in that region of central Africa."
One is wise to be skeptical of this 1000th peace accord. However, this episode demonstrates clearly the power of imagery. It's almost impossible to send cameramen to the isolated and distant jungles of eastern Congo. Much easier to send reporters to follow in the footsteps of wherever western troops are located. The European and North American publics are thus much more informed about the problems of Iraq or Kosovo or Bosnia, but hardly at all about the estimated 2 million deaths attributable (directly and indirectly) to the war in the DRC since the beginning of the conflict 5 years ago.
You often hear the rationalization that the western public isn't interested in foreign news except when their country's nationals are somehow involved. How can the public be interested or disinterested in something it doesn't even know is in the process of consuming an entire region? It's impossible to get indignant about something you don't even know is occurring!
The full text of the article in question (in French) can be found by clicking here.
It's not just the American media who cover the news of some regions of the world poorly or not at all. Last week, the factions of the war, often known as Africa's First World War, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC] signed a peace accord in South Africa. The accord called for the implementation of a national unity government, future elections and, of course, an end to hostilities.
According to the Belgium paper La Libre Belgique, "The RBTF [Belgian state television] only required a few seconds to report on the accord signed on April 1 in Sun City, South Africa, between the Kabila government and the rebel factions. A brief report. In the guise of images, a map of the region. As if to say that the event wasn't worth sending a journalist to the area or even an after-the-fact analysis. But even if weapons are still heard in the east of the Congo, in Ituri province, this accord is a strong symbolic gesture for the population who has continued to pay a high price in tribute to the different warlords in that region of central Africa."
One is wise to be skeptical of this 1000th peace accord. However, this episode demonstrates clearly the power of imagery. It's almost impossible to send cameramen to the isolated and distant jungles of eastern Congo. Much easier to send reporters to follow in the footsteps of wherever western troops are located. The European and North American publics are thus much more informed about the problems of Iraq or Kosovo or Bosnia, but hardly at all about the estimated 2 million deaths attributable (directly and indirectly) to the war in the DRC since the beginning of the conflict 5 years ago.
You often hear the rationalization that the western public isn't interested in foreign news except when their country's nationals are somehow involved. How can the public be interested or disinterested in something it doesn't even know is in the process of consuming an entire region? It's impossible to get indignant about something you don't even know is occurring!
The full text of the article in question (in French) can be found by clicking here.
RWANDA REMEMBERED
Today is the 9th anniversary of the beginning of the Rwandan genocide, which started on April 7, 1994. It is estimated that between 800,000 and 1 million people were killed in massacres that lasted approximately 100 days. There was a large push, particularly by neighboring states, for internationally sanctioned intervention to stop the slaughter (as provided for in the anti-genocide treaty). However, such intervention was blocked by France, Belgium and the United States, each for differing reasons.
This despite the fact that all were signatories of the anti-genocide convention. This despite the fact that it was East African nations themselves who were going to volunteer their own troops to do the actual intervention (they just wanted to LEASE EQUIPMENT from the US, but Washington refused). The only intervention was done by France, in an operation whose primary, if unstated, goal was to allow officials from the genocidal regime (threatened by a rebellion) to flee the country into the eastern Congo (then Zaire). This is because the genocidal regime had long been friendly with France and was one of its "client-states."
The genocide started less than a year after the dedication of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. A ceremony in which speaker after speaker, including then Pres. Bill Clinton, solemnly declared 'never again.'
For an excellent article on the topic, read Bystanders to genocide, which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in September 2001 (a month when the massacre of 3000 people was decried as an atrocious crime against humanity; imagine one of those every 10 hours). The author of the article was Samantha Power, whose most recent, excellent, book is entitled A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.
Today is the 9th anniversary of the beginning of the Rwandan genocide, which started on April 7, 1994. It is estimated that between 800,000 and 1 million people were killed in massacres that lasted approximately 100 days. There was a large push, particularly by neighboring states, for internationally sanctioned intervention to stop the slaughter (as provided for in the anti-genocide treaty). However, such intervention was blocked by France, Belgium and the United States, each for differing reasons.
This despite the fact that all were signatories of the anti-genocide convention. This despite the fact that it was East African nations themselves who were going to volunteer their own troops to do the actual intervention (they just wanted to LEASE EQUIPMENT from the US, but Washington refused). The only intervention was done by France, in an operation whose primary, if unstated, goal was to allow officials from the genocidal regime (threatened by a rebellion) to flee the country into the eastern Congo (then Zaire). This is because the genocidal regime had long been friendly with France and was one of its "client-states."
The genocide started less than a year after the dedication of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. A ceremony in which speaker after speaker, including then Pres. Bill Clinton, solemnly declared 'never again.'
For an excellent article on the topic, read Bystanders to genocide, which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in September 2001 (a month when the massacre of 3000 people was decried as an atrocious crime against humanity; imagine one of those every 10 hours). The author of the article was Samantha Power, whose most recent, excellent, book is entitled A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
LONG HAIRED FREAKY PEOPLE VS HYPER PATRIOTS
I guess the local peace rally on Saturday was pretty interesting. Apparently, there was no police officer. Bad idea!
The protests occur at a five way intersection in my town. The anti-war people stand on one corner. The pro-war people stand on the corner across the street from them. It's been pretty much the understanding. Every so often, a pro-warrior will come over and exchange words (sometimes unpleasantries) with the anti-war crowd or vice versa, but usually they stay away from each other. Wisely, if you ask me.
Apparently without a police officer, such restraint went out the window last weekend. Although there was no violence, there were reportedly threats. One of the people from our group (Adirondack Greens) was accosted by two pro-war people for having an upside down flag. An upside down flag is a sign of distress, if I remember well. He was told that it was a desecration. Ok, fine.
Then, it seems to have esclated. One of the pro-warriors challenged the guy from our group to "go out behind [the adjoining] Burger King" and have a fight. The other pro-warrior threatened to "immolate" (burn alive) the guy from our group.
Personally, I think the guy from our group should have pressed charges for the threats of physical violence.
Frankly, this is why I don't go to these rallies. I went to one because I was specifically invited by the organizer, who's a friend of mine. But these protests shed heat, not light, as evidenced by the incident I just recounted. I am interested in having a rational, intelligent debate; this doesn't exclude passion, so long as reason and facts and demesure are not excluded. Shouting and screaming and name-calling doesn't do anything for me. I went to one because I was requested and because I wanted to express my opinion in public once, for the record, so to speak. I did it once. I don't regret it. I'm not doing it again, for reasons which I've alluded to in other essays (published elsewhere).
It's impossible to having a rational debate in that context. I didn't have a sign because I couldn't think of a curt little slogan. "Support the troops: bring 'em home" is the best I could come up with but I didn't bother. I've spent countless essays, numerous emails and thousands of words trying to hash out my views. Trying to condense that into one simplistic little phrase? I won't do myself that injustice.
But I hope this little nugget reminds you that there are extremists on all sides of this question, not just among the "long-haired freaky people." (A few of the guy in my group were called fags because they have long hair. That was the level of the discourse)
And don't offer any rationalizations for those twits who threatened the guy from my group. You can't even rationalize that they were veterans indignant at this "disrespect" because there were very young and there was nothing to indicate they were veterans. Furthermore, most veterans I know conduct themselves with a little more dignity and self-respect.
A final irony. One of the guys who complained about the 'desecration' of the upside down flag was wearing an American flag bandana and an American flag pair of pants. This guy was letting the stars and stripes absorb his sweat and rub up against his genitals and butt crack. Is he really in any position to lecture about how to properly treat the flag?
I guess the local peace rally on Saturday was pretty interesting. Apparently, there was no police officer. Bad idea!
The protests occur at a five way intersection in my town. The anti-war people stand on one corner. The pro-war people stand on the corner across the street from them. It's been pretty much the understanding. Every so often, a pro-warrior will come over and exchange words (sometimes unpleasantries) with the anti-war crowd or vice versa, but usually they stay away from each other. Wisely, if you ask me.
Apparently without a police officer, such restraint went out the window last weekend. Although there was no violence, there were reportedly threats. One of the people from our group (Adirondack Greens) was accosted by two pro-war people for having an upside down flag. An upside down flag is a sign of distress, if I remember well. He was told that it was a desecration. Ok, fine.
Then, it seems to have esclated. One of the pro-warriors challenged the guy from our group to "go out behind [the adjoining] Burger King" and have a fight. The other pro-warrior threatened to "immolate" (burn alive) the guy from our group.
Personally, I think the guy from our group should have pressed charges for the threats of physical violence.
Frankly, this is why I don't go to these rallies. I went to one because I was specifically invited by the organizer, who's a friend of mine. But these protests shed heat, not light, as evidenced by the incident I just recounted. I am interested in having a rational, intelligent debate; this doesn't exclude passion, so long as reason and facts and demesure are not excluded. Shouting and screaming and name-calling doesn't do anything for me. I went to one because I was requested and because I wanted to express my opinion in public once, for the record, so to speak. I did it once. I don't regret it. I'm not doing it again, for reasons which I've alluded to in other essays (published elsewhere).
It's impossible to having a rational debate in that context. I didn't have a sign because I couldn't think of a curt little slogan. "Support the troops: bring 'em home" is the best I could come up with but I didn't bother. I've spent countless essays, numerous emails and thousands of words trying to hash out my views. Trying to condense that into one simplistic little phrase? I won't do myself that injustice.
But I hope this little nugget reminds you that there are extremists on all sides of this question, not just among the "long-haired freaky people." (A few of the guy in my group were called fags because they have long hair. That was the level of the discourse)
And don't offer any rationalizations for those twits who threatened the guy from my group. You can't even rationalize that they were veterans indignant at this "disrespect" because there were very young and there was nothing to indicate they were veterans. Furthermore, most veterans I know conduct themselves with a little more dignity and self-respect.
A final irony. One of the guys who complained about the 'desecration' of the upside down flag was wearing an American flag bandana and an American flag pair of pants. This guy was letting the stars and stripes absorb his sweat and rub up against his genitals and butt crack. Is he really in any position to lecture about how to properly treat the flag?
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
I read yet another letter in the paper last week from someone who said we need to support our troops and that when Saddam sees protesters, it's like giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Ugh! More warspeak.
First off, let me address one myth. Does any serious person believe that anti-war protests make Saddam feel warm and fuzzy? I can imagine it now. Saddam's in his bunker dodging Patriot Missles and MOABs, but then he flicks on CNN and sees protesters in Manhattan and goes, "Ah, it makes it all worthwhile." How ludicrous.
And if it does, so what? Any democracy is going to have disagreement; any democracy MUST have disagreement to function properly. If you don't like this fact, move to Syria or Saudi Arabia or some other dictatorship. They don't have to worry about such a pesky thing like dissent. That's the biggest single differences between a "shining beacon on a hill" like the United States and a butchery like Iraq. We don't have to toe the line for fear of being labelled a traitor. Or at least we shouldn't. That's the difference between us righteous crusaders and them evil doers. According to these people, it seems we should suspend freedom while our troops are fighting for freedom.
But the other question is about this supporting the troops thing. It's kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance or the Our Father in Church. It's one of those things that most people mouth without really thinking about it. So my question is this: when you say support the troops, what does it mean?
I'm know that most people would agree that we shouldn't personalize anything against the troops. Even those against the war realize it's the politicians filled with religious fervor (and other questionable motives) that are ordering this tragic policy. It's not the troops who have decided to unilaterally discard centuries of established international relations. It's not the troops who are trying to annihilate 55 years of attempts to patiently construct a sane, legality-based international order to replace it with an old, thorougly discredited way of doing things.
So if the troops aren't the problem, if we acknowledge that they're mostly decent guys handed a deplorable task that even opponents recognize is not of their own creation, if this is the consensus, then what more does support the troops mean? We all want as many of the troops to come home safely as possible and even the most chest-beating war gorillas would prefer few civilian casualties, so how else can we support the troops? If everyone agrees with this, then why must this mantra have to be repeatedly so incessantly?
Unfortunately, to many people, support the troops is warspeak for shut the close your mouth and toe the line. It means does as you're told, follow orders and be a good lemming.
Some people do remember with disgust how Vietnam Vets (many of whom were forcibly drafted) were spat upon and treated with contempt upon their return. For a lot of these people, support the troops really does mean just that, nothing more sinister. They don't want a repeat of these shameful actions. And I agree whole-heartedly.
But for others, support the troops just means shut the heck up. When you're told that by opposing a disastrous policy, you're costing lives of our troops, is it any wonder such virulence helps radicalize some in the anti-war movement? When you're told that it's unpatriotic to try to prevent your country from imposing a world order that will ultimately end being self-destructive, it blows your mind. It's unpatriotic to stop your country from doing something self-destructive? Was Orwell prescient or is human nature that predictable? Based on the nature and history of great powers, my guess is the latter.
When some people say our troops are fighting for our freedoms... except for the freedom to peacibly protest, is it any wonder some people question the real motives? Our troops are fighting supposedly for the rights of Iraqis to disagree with their government... a right some seem to want to deny to Americans themselves? Is it any wonder some in the anti-war movement overreact?
I know three people who have people they know well in harm's way over in the Middle East. My brother, my sister and a friend/ex-colleague. I was relieved to learn that my friend in the Army is still in Missouri undergoing deployment training; he won't be sent over to the Middle East until mid-May, by which time the worst of the crap will hopefully be over. While I realize that my tiny little world is hardly a scientific cross-section of American society, I can't help but noticing that all four of those people (me, my brother, my sister and my ex-colleague) are all against Bush's war. I feel bad for my friend in Missouri; he signed up to defend our country, not to participate in an unprovoked attack on a country that's never done anything to us nor is any kind of serious, immediate threat to us. It's angers you to be told that you hate the troops when you know a soldier in harm's war. Perhaps when one of your relatives or good friends is in or will be in harm's way, you require a slightly higher standard of proof than, "Saddam's a bad guy, he might be a threat to us in 1 or 5 or 100 years, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11."
When those people scream that anti-war people are responsible for our troops' being killed, I wonder how my ex-colleague feels. His brother is in Kuwait... or possibly by now, in Iraq. I'm not sure he appreciates this vile slander. When it's your friend or relative who could be sacrificed for the imperial crusade, maybe it makes you a little less cavalier and a little more circumspect about the whole thing.
I read yet another letter in the paper last week from someone who said we need to support our troops and that when Saddam sees protesters, it's like giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Ugh! More warspeak.
First off, let me address one myth. Does any serious person believe that anti-war protests make Saddam feel warm and fuzzy? I can imagine it now. Saddam's in his bunker dodging Patriot Missles and MOABs, but then he flicks on CNN and sees protesters in Manhattan and goes, "Ah, it makes it all worthwhile." How ludicrous.
And if it does, so what? Any democracy is going to have disagreement; any democracy MUST have disagreement to function properly. If you don't like this fact, move to Syria or Saudi Arabia or some other dictatorship. They don't have to worry about such a pesky thing like dissent. That's the biggest single differences between a "shining beacon on a hill" like the United States and a butchery like Iraq. We don't have to toe the line for fear of being labelled a traitor. Or at least we shouldn't. That's the difference between us righteous crusaders and them evil doers. According to these people, it seems we should suspend freedom while our troops are fighting for freedom.
But the other question is about this supporting the troops thing. It's kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance or the Our Father in Church. It's one of those things that most people mouth without really thinking about it. So my question is this: when you say support the troops, what does it mean?
I'm know that most people would agree that we shouldn't personalize anything against the troops. Even those against the war realize it's the politicians filled with religious fervor (and other questionable motives) that are ordering this tragic policy. It's not the troops who have decided to unilaterally discard centuries of established international relations. It's not the troops who are trying to annihilate 55 years of attempts to patiently construct a sane, legality-based international order to replace it with an old, thorougly discredited way of doing things.
So if the troops aren't the problem, if we acknowledge that they're mostly decent guys handed a deplorable task that even opponents recognize is not of their own creation, if this is the consensus, then what more does support the troops mean? We all want as many of the troops to come home safely as possible and even the most chest-beating war gorillas would prefer few civilian casualties, so how else can we support the troops? If everyone agrees with this, then why must this mantra have to be repeatedly so incessantly?
Unfortunately, to many people, support the troops is warspeak for shut the close your mouth and toe the line. It means does as you're told, follow orders and be a good lemming.
Some people do remember with disgust how Vietnam Vets (many of whom were forcibly drafted) were spat upon and treated with contempt upon their return. For a lot of these people, support the troops really does mean just that, nothing more sinister. They don't want a repeat of these shameful actions. And I agree whole-heartedly.
But for others, support the troops just means shut the heck up. When you're told that by opposing a disastrous policy, you're costing lives of our troops, is it any wonder such virulence helps radicalize some in the anti-war movement? When you're told that it's unpatriotic to try to prevent your country from imposing a world order that will ultimately end being self-destructive, it blows your mind. It's unpatriotic to stop your country from doing something self-destructive? Was Orwell prescient or is human nature that predictable? Based on the nature and history of great powers, my guess is the latter.
When some people say our troops are fighting for our freedoms... except for the freedom to peacibly protest, is it any wonder some people question the real motives? Our troops are fighting supposedly for the rights of Iraqis to disagree with their government... a right some seem to want to deny to Americans themselves? Is it any wonder some in the anti-war movement overreact?
I know three people who have people they know well in harm's way over in the Middle East. My brother, my sister and a friend/ex-colleague. I was relieved to learn that my friend in the Army is still in Missouri undergoing deployment training; he won't be sent over to the Middle East until mid-May, by which time the worst of the crap will hopefully be over. While I realize that my tiny little world is hardly a scientific cross-section of American society, I can't help but noticing that all four of those people (me, my brother, my sister and my ex-colleague) are all against Bush's war. I feel bad for my friend in Missouri; he signed up to defend our country, not to participate in an unprovoked attack on a country that's never done anything to us nor is any kind of serious, immediate threat to us. It's angers you to be told that you hate the troops when you know a soldier in harm's war. Perhaps when one of your relatives or good friends is in or will be in harm's way, you require a slightly higher standard of proof than, "Saddam's a bad guy, he might be a threat to us in 1 or 5 or 100 years, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11."
When those people scream that anti-war people are responsible for our troops' being killed, I wonder how my ex-colleague feels. His brother is in Kuwait... or possibly by now, in Iraq. I'm not sure he appreciates this vile slander. When it's your friend or relative who could be sacrificed for the imperial crusade, maybe it makes you a little less cavalier and a little more circumspect about the whole thing.
JUDGE AT YOUR OWN RISK
I'm often ask what I am politically. I often hesitate to answer because the one insignificant little label will cause people to automatically assume your stances and rationales on all kinds of positions. You know the old saying about what happens when you assume...
Anyway, there are lots of labels. Liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, radical, etc. Yes, there is probably one to which I identify with more than the others, but I often finding myself at odds with them. If not on the actual position, then on the often flabby rationale that accompanies (and in my mind weakens) that argument.
So I value critical thought. Rigor. Nuance. Being strident and screechy will get you nowhere. As Billy Joel once sang, "The only people I fear are those who never have doubts." I believe those unwilling to challenge their own opinions are not only ignorant but inevitably among the most dangerous people in any society.
I welcome intelligent, reasoned feedback, even if it's critical. My email is listed in the previous entry. Flames will be ignored.
The first entry in such a journal is always odd because some will jump to assume all kinds of things. Remember, it's only one particular opinion on one particular issue. In that spirit, read away!
I'm often ask what I am politically. I often hesitate to answer because the one insignificant little label will cause people to automatically assume your stances and rationales on all kinds of positions. You know the old saying about what happens when you assume...
Anyway, there are lots of labels. Liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, radical, etc. Yes, there is probably one to which I identify with more than the others, but I often finding myself at odds with them. If not on the actual position, then on the often flabby rationale that accompanies (and in my mind weakens) that argument.
So I value critical thought. Rigor. Nuance. Being strident and screechy will get you nowhere. As Billy Joel once sang, "The only people I fear are those who never have doubts." I believe those unwilling to challenge their own opinions are not only ignorant but inevitably among the most dangerous people in any society.
I welcome intelligent, reasoned feedback, even if it's critical. My email is listed in the previous entry. Flames will be ignored.
The first entry in such a journal is always odd because some will jump to assume all kinds of things. Remember, it's only one particular opinion on one particular issue. In that spirit, read away!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)