The Soul Killer

The living would come to envy the dead.

Most supporters of the Iraq War continue to believe it was justified, despite the problems it has caused and the lies that were used to support a pre-emptive attack and invasion. The threat posed by Saddam was not imminent, there were no WMDs, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, there is no credible evidence that Saddam was allied with al Qaeda, this did not turn into a “self-funding” war, it has not reduced global terrorism, and the “mission” is not “accomplished” — and all of that has been borne out by all available evidence. The real question in Iraq is not whether the Bush administration has told any lies, but rather whether it has told any meaningful truths.

The idea that democracy-building in Iraq was not only going to be possible but that it was going to be a lengthy, difficult, bloody process — with the Iraqi population very likely to view the Americans as occupiers, not liberators — has been pretty much borne out with regard to all of the reports by our own government agencies as well as international news media. Quite apart from that, this is also borne out by polls showing that a majority of Iraqis would like the United States to leave. And lastly, the Muslim world does perceive a U.S.-led intervention lacking the explicit blessing of the United Nations as illegitimate — and it has incited even greater anger towards America. Hostility toward America and distrust of our nation’s intentions have, not surprisingly, reached shocking levels.

From the tenor of the discussions, in Washington and the hinterlands (also known as The Rest of the World), one might think that the U.S. never fully understood the Islamic social, religious, and political milieu in which our forces are operating. Certainly with regards to the disdain for international law and the Geneva conventions, which led to the systematic and wide-spread abuse and torture of detainees, and all that that implies, one would be correct in that assessment. Occupation, even under the best of intentions, is impossible when popular sentiments have turned against the occupier — and they have, not only in Iraq, but also in the rest of the Muslim world. We have become mired in a vicious circle in which increasingly violent acts against the occupier are met with an increasingly harsh response — a cycle that inevitably sours local people against the occupation and turns them into the insurgents, making them our enemy.

The dangers of underestimating the force of Arab nationalism, and the prevalence of violence in a country that had never known democracy, were simply not a part of this Administration’s “plan” for post-invasion Iraq. Bush expected post-war armed resistance from elements connected to Saddam’s Baathist regime, but he and his Administration apparently thought it unlikely that the population as a whole would come to see the U.S. as occupiers. The utopian idea that regime change in Iraq could spur a democratic transformation of the authoritarian political culture of the entire Arab Middle East is ideological at best, and at the very least belongs in the category of untested hypothesis.

It is safe to assume that all soldiers are impacted by their experiences in war. Participation in war can also be traumatizing, spiritually and morally devastating, and transformative in potentially damaging ways, the impact of which can manifest across their lifespan. Young men go off to fight in wars for many reasons, but primarily they are moved to enlist because of idealistic moral beliefs, which they often hold with intense passion. War, and I’m thinking here of not only Iraq or Vietnam (*) but every war the U.S. has engaged in, does more than make young men lose those beliefs, it makes them lose their belief in beliefs.

I have never been in combat, but I was born into the military, and later served and incurred a disability in the Cold War, and it seems, my whole life I have been surrounded by, spoken to, and listened to the stories of fellow veterans. At the end of the day, the most important initial needs of returning combat veterans are to be recognized for what they have been through, to be listened to, understood, validated, and comforted in a way that is highly individual and personal. Direct combat exposure is not the only source of severe stress in a war-zone, such as Iraq, and it impacts not only returning veterans but also their friends and families.

It is also apparent from our past experiences with war — and international interference in others’ governments — that many, many returning veterans will suffer (emotionally and physically) in silence, and many may feel a great need not to show any vulnerability by venting about their feelings and their experiences because of what others may think of them, or because of their own sense of anger or shame. And so, they will bottle those feelings and experiences up for years, and there on the inside it will fester. As a result, an uncounted and unknown number of veterans of the Iraq War may be plagued with stress-induced severe mental illness (* .pdf file).

As tragic as the stories of many of the Vietnam and Gulf War/Desert Storm veterans are, we are in for much more tragedy where Iraq War veterans, their families, and their friends are concerned. Indeed, the Iraqi and Afghani people are also dealing with significant tragedy which often goes unreported in American media. In order to understand this on more than a cursory level, it is necessary to look in the mirror and examine ourselves and our country, and how we treat people — not only our veterans, their families, and American citizens, but all people throughout the world — and the effects of international violence and conflict. The aftermath of a ‘conventional’ war may include civil war, famine and epidemics, refugees and displaced people, catastrophic effects on children’s health and development, and irreversible damage to the environment due to the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions.

But the most worrying effect of the use of force in Iraq and internationally is in its role as an escalator of collective violence, terrorism, and a sense that pre-emptive attack is permissible. The United States typically sees itself in the role of the “American Exception,” the role model of democracy and human rights; indeed, there are some Americans who think we are the sole example of democracy in the world, completely dismissive of European democracies as socialism and not “true democracies” according to American ideals. America sees itself as distinct and able to play by its own rules on the world stage, but refuses to be judged by the same standards used to judge other countries, their leaders, and their governments.

The mask of betrayal has been ripped off their faces.

“Our story begins, perhaps, in 1948. Fresh off victory in World War II, America emerged as the pre-eminent superpower. With only the USSR to challenge our supremacy, foreign policy would have to take on a new and aggressive posture. George Kennan, a prominent State Department official, offered this (now oft-quoted) top-secret memo to the policy makers of the day:

“The US has about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans the better.”

“Kennan was referring specifically to the US role in East Asia, but it spoke to a larger scheme, and would apply to any region where America had interests. There has been nothing in the record of American foreign policy since then to indicate that policy makers didn’t take Kennan’s advice. Intervention in Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Greece, Cyprus, Chile, El Salvador, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Panama, Columbia, Iraq, Iran and more have played out with exactly these sentiments in mind.” (*)

American national interests have caused more wars, more deaths, more suffering, and more destruction than any nation I can think of, and those interests are heralding extremely dark forebodings of things to come. There are some, like Oliver North, who dismiss out of hand anything that occurred prior to 1990 as irrelevant. Such strategy is to disassociate the present from the past for a new generation such that the “behind the scenes players” may continue business as usual. Many people could justifiably condemn North’s actions in the whole Iran-Contra episode as subversive of constitutional checks and balances, as well as how his actions impacted American foreign policy then and now. [It is common knowledge that Oliver North, a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, was convicted in federal court for, among other things, lying to Congress (the three felony convictions were thrown out on “technicalities” related to immunity for testifying before Congress). He now commands large fees at speaking engagements across the country, is a syndicated columnist, and host of “War Stories” on Fox News Channel. (*)] However, as convenient as it may be for some in American leadership positions, we cannot make a fair assessment of how the U.S. treats human beings if we confine our looking in a vacuum, as if effects happen without causes. For decades, democracy and freedom have not been what America has been exporting.

America, with all the sanctimoniousness trumpeting about human rights, democracy, justice, freedom, and the rule of law, has often ignored these same principals, the Constitution, and our own judicial system to conspire with, support, train and provide a safe haven to terrorists and tyrants. The United States of America is also not above carrying out odd acts of terrorism itself through its security agencies, the CIA, Special Forces, the Secret Services, the FBI, and many other secret operations the public knows nothing about, yet people like Oliver North or George W. Bush would have you believe that it’s only terrorism when terrorist acts are committed by anyone other than the United States. You couldn’t ask for a better definition of hypocrisy, there is a whole timeline of hypocrisy there for anyone who is willing to see.

This Administration is not above victimising human beings, but is wrapping itself in the mantle of the flag and nationalism amid the lofty, often arrogant rhetoric about freedom, God, democracy, and human rights, while denying human rights to those captured in this so-called ‘war against terrorism’ in Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly elsewhere. As a nation, the U.S. has acted with breathtaking arrogance in its treatment of detainees, and these were not isolated incidents nor, if international reports are to be believed, has the brutality ended. There is ample photographic and documentary evidence of that. Correct or not in it’s views, America’s claim to moral authority to criticise human rights abuses around the globe has been and continues to be systematically devalued by the Bush administration’s failure to guarantee the human rights of foreigners detained, and the civil rights of American citizens within our own borders. Indeed, the U.N. Human Rights report card used to judge other nations on their human rights record is not used to judge the actions of the United States.

Historically, it seems that the U.S., and the Bush Administration in particular, has unilaterally decided to dictate its own definitions of justice, law, democracy, freedom, and human and civil rights, although it is apparent that in pursuing this ‘war on terrorism’ it has already violated the Geneva Convention’s minimum acceptable conduct in warfare, as well as ignored even the most minimally acceptable definitions of universal human rights. We must now begin to wonder just how far this Administration is prepared to go in pursuit of it’s own interests? The precedent has been set for others who may one day fight the United States, and allow them to treat American “unlawful combatants” in the same way as America treats them now.

Effects do not happen without Causes. If we are to be honest with, at minimum ourselves, and for those who are believers, our Creator, we must face the fact that there were ’causes’ of the terror now permeating around the world and centered in the Middle East. Terrorist acts are symbollic statements made by desperate people in the only language the American administration understands. They are acts committed by people with no other alternative. To fail to see that and to fail to ameliorate the causes of such desperation is to be blind to the solutions to those problems, and leads to an increase in the threats that must be faced. We must be willing to boldly and objectively look at what has been done over decades in our names and hold the country’s leadership accountable and responsible for their actions.

I’m not suggesting that this is a time to cuddle up to those who use terrorism to get their message across, not by a long shot, but we must also not be afraid to look in the mirror and recognize that we, too, are not above reproach, else we continue to risk becoming the victims of retribution and revenge. Our long-standing policy of supporting Israel on the one hand, whilst also helping maintain Arab authoritarianism (Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait) is, at the very least, hypocritical. Terrorism is a political act, a response to U.S. foreign policy. It is an act of war waged by people too weak to have a conventional army or one large enough to take on the United States in conventional warfare.

“Those who have no sense of right, reason or religion, have a natural propensity to make use of their strength to the destruction of such as are weaker than they.” - Thomas Jefferson

By describing Americans as having been “called by God,” Bush and other U.S. officials have defined their foreign policy framework in explicitly religious terms — terms that other religious people of other cultures probably view as offensive and threatening to their way of life — which is in complete opposition to what the U.S. has actually done in terms of our history of installing brutal dictatorial regimes in other countries. Bush’s foreign policy is a strategy based on what his supporters call a “unipolar” vision of the world, but let’s face it, the world is just not that simple and clear-cut. This “unipolar” vision can also be at odds with the empirical method that goes into appraising reality, based on a determination of causes and effects leading to means and ends. In making foreign policy, a task that requires an empirical assessment of means and ends, this kind of vision colors the way in which Bush views reality — pretty consistently to the detriment of U.S. policy in how we treat people, both at home and abroad.

Constant corporate-controlled media propaganda has also instilled a culture of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and nurtured divisiveness, suspicion, racism, fear, intolerance, homophobia, and hatred — here and around the world. Television viewers may think that the interests of the people, as well as the nation’s domestic problems are being taken care of, yet the situation within the U.S. is dire for millions of Americans. It is no exaggeration to say that the world watches America on television; in essence pre-”programming” people to accept particular images of American society and reinforcing what corporate media believes are “attractive” stereotypes.

The truth is far less pretty.

Many Americans, including military families, live on wages that cannot sustain a reasonable standard of living in a country where costs continue to go up, they have no retirement plans, no savings, they lack health insurance or the money to pay for medical care, and are racking up enormous credit card debt trying to keep their heads above water. Yet the rampant poverty is virtually unreported and the myth of American affluence and the American Dream is encouraged and propagandized on television screens around the world. The issue of poverty is one of priorities. As retired Oregon senator Mark Hatfield said (1984):

“We stand by as children starve by the millions because we lack the will to eliminate hunger. Yet we have found the will to develop missiles capable of flying over the polar cap and landing within a few hundred feet of their target. This is not innovation. It is a profound distortion of humanity’s purpose on earth.”

On this, the 30th Anniversary of the Vietnam-American War, I ask all Americans, of whatever political or religious persuasion, to spend the day thinking about that.