From today’s NYTimes, an article on high-tech war:
Air Force officials acknowledge that more than a third of their unmanned Predator spy planes — which are 27 feet long, powered by a high-performance snowmobile engine, and cost $4.5 million apiece — have crashed, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pilots, who fly them from trailers halfway around the world using joysticks and computer screens, say some of the controls are clunky. For example, the missile-firing button sits dangerously close to the switch that shuts off the plane’s engines. Pilots are also in such short supply that the service recently put out a call for retirees to help.
But military leaders say they can easily live with all that.
***
Sure, we can afford to drop 4.5 million here and 4.5 million there, as long as we are killing an endless succession of terrorists – I say an endless succession, because every time one of our “surgical” strikes kills innocent men, women, and children (more often than not, it seems), we create a fresh batch of terrorists.
How about taking that 4.5 million here and 4.5 million there and using it as economic aid to the Afghan people, to give them some incentive not to turn to the Taliban? But no. As the old saying goes, Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; blow a man to smithereens, and he no longer annoys you
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, February 09, 2009
From today's NYTimes:
Between platters of lamb and rice, Mr. Biden and two other American senators questioned Mr. Karzai about corruption in his government, which, by many estimates, is among the worst in the world. Mr. Karzai assured Mr. Biden and the other senators that there was no corruption at all and that, in any case, it was not his fault.
The senators gaped in astonishment. After 45 minutes, Mr. Biden threw down his napkin and stood up.
"This dinner is over," Mr. Biden announced, according to one of the people in the room at the time. And the three senators walked out, long before the appointed time.
There once was a leader named Karzai
Whom diplomats caught in a fat lie
This ended the feast
All aid quickly ceased
Which led to that poor Afghan's banzai.
Between platters of lamb and rice, Mr. Biden and two other American senators questioned Mr. Karzai about corruption in his government, which, by many estimates, is among the worst in the world. Mr. Karzai assured Mr. Biden and the other senators that there was no corruption at all and that, in any case, it was not his fault.
The senators gaped in astonishment. After 45 minutes, Mr. Biden threw down his napkin and stood up.
"This dinner is over," Mr. Biden announced, according to one of the people in the room at the time. And the three senators walked out, long before the appointed time.
There once was a leader named Karzai
Whom diplomats caught in a fat lie
This ended the feast
All aid quickly ceased
Which led to that poor Afghan's banzai.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
smokescreens about smokescreens
From Haaretz.com:
A medic's imagination is stalked by two things - What you've seen already, and what you hope you never will. What was going through my mind was one thought alone: Let it not be phosphorus. They taught us to dread zarchan [from the Hebrew root to shine or glow]. They taught us, as medics, that if we treated a phosphorous wound, prepare for the worst. It doesn't merely burn, they taught us, it burns first through the skin, then through the soft tissue, until it reaches bone. They taught us to take an instrument, or, in its absence, a stick, to dig out the phosphorus crystals from the flesh, or the burning would go on and on. --Bradley Burston
From today's London Times:
After weeks of denying that it used white phosphorus in the heavily populated Gaza Strip, Israel finally admitted yesterday that the weapon was deployed in its offensive.
The army’s use of white phosphorus – which makes a distinctive shellburst of dozens of smoke trails – was reported first by The Times on January 5, when it was strenuously denied by the army. Now, in the face of mounting evidence and international outcry, Israel has been forced to backtrack on that initial denial. “Yes, phosphorus was used but not in any illegal manner,” Yigal Palmor, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, told The Times. “Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is holding an investigation concerning one specific incident.”
The incident in question is thought to be the firing of phosphorus shells at a UN school in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip on January 17. The weapon is legal if used as a smokescreen in battle but it is banned from deployment in civilian areas. Pictures of the attack show Palestinian medics fleeing as blobs of burning phosphorus rain down on the compound.
So: lie, retreat, qualify, and, as a last resort, self-investigate.
Is Dick Cheney advising the IDF?
A medic's imagination is stalked by two things - What you've seen already, and what you hope you never will. What was going through my mind was one thought alone: Let it not be phosphorus. They taught us to dread zarchan [from the Hebrew root to shine or glow]. They taught us, as medics, that if we treated a phosphorous wound, prepare for the worst. It doesn't merely burn, they taught us, it burns first through the skin, then through the soft tissue, until it reaches bone. They taught us to take an instrument, or, in its absence, a stick, to dig out the phosphorus crystals from the flesh, or the burning would go on and on. --Bradley Burston
From today's London Times:
After weeks of denying that it used white phosphorus in the heavily populated Gaza Strip, Israel finally admitted yesterday that the weapon was deployed in its offensive.
The army’s use of white phosphorus – which makes a distinctive shellburst of dozens of smoke trails – was reported first by The Times on January 5, when it was strenuously denied by the army. Now, in the face of mounting evidence and international outcry, Israel has been forced to backtrack on that initial denial. “Yes, phosphorus was used but not in any illegal manner,” Yigal Palmor, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, told The Times. “Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is holding an investigation concerning one specific incident.”
The incident in question is thought to be the firing of phosphorus shells at a UN school in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip on January 17. The weapon is legal if used as a smokescreen in battle but it is banned from deployment in civilian areas. Pictures of the attack show Palestinian medics fleeing as blobs of burning phosphorus rain down on the compound.
So: lie, retreat, qualify, and, as a last resort, self-investigate.
Is Dick Cheney advising the IDF?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Which will it be, Barack Hussein Obama?
From today's Washington Post:
Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's largest newspaper, published a front-page opinion column Tuesday by senior writer Eitan Haber, in which he reflected the trepidation many Israelis have for Obama. "We, in our little corner here in the Middle East, are anxious to see whether you shall continue the tradition of American presidents in recent generations and view us as an ally, your front-line aircraft carrier in this bloody region of the world," Haber wrote. "Or whether, heaven forbid, you will see us as just one more nation among all the others."
Yes, will you continue to employ us as the bloody truncheon with which you threaten mangy Arab countries into cringing submission (as well as continue to support us in our ongoing pesticide against the Palestinian cockroaches), or will you reject the example set by American presidents in recent generations and, heaven forbid, require that we behave like a civilized nation, abiding by international humanitarian law?
Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's largest newspaper, published a front-page opinion column Tuesday by senior writer Eitan Haber, in which he reflected the trepidation many Israelis have for Obama. "We, in our little corner here in the Middle East, are anxious to see whether you shall continue the tradition of American presidents in recent generations and view us as an ally, your front-line aircraft carrier in this bloody region of the world," Haber wrote. "Or whether, heaven forbid, you will see us as just one more nation among all the others."
Yes, will you continue to employ us as the bloody truncheon with which you threaten mangy Arab countries into cringing submission (as well as continue to support us in our ongoing pesticide against the Palestinian cockroaches), or will you reject the example set by American presidents in recent generations and, heaven forbid, require that we behave like a civilized nation, abiding by international humanitarian law?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Gaza Massacre
Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. . . . And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like "Poo-tee-weet?" -- Kurt Vonnegut
The Gaza Strip is essentially an open-air prison. Twenty-five miles long and seven miles wide, with 1.5 million inhabitants, it is among the most densely-populated areas of the world. Over half of the population is under the age of sixteen. Gaza is also -- as one aid worker put it -- a room full of children.
The Israeli Defense Force pounded Gaza with bombs, rockets, and artillery shells for twenty-two straight days. The result was approximately 1300 dead, half of the dead civilians, and over 400 of those children. It is impossible that the Israeli leaders did not anticipate this result. They must have known that they would be slaughtering children by the score. They didn't care.
"Sad," you say, "but what has this to do with me?" Among the planes that were bombing these children were American-supplied F-16s. The helicopters that were attacking these children were American-supplied Apache helicopters. The bombs and rockets that were blowing these children to shreds were American made and supplied. The Israeli army that invaded Gaza, that prevented ambulances from reaching distressed infants lying for days alongside the dead bodies of their mothers -- that army is bankrolled by America.
During this "war" (better to call it what it was, a massacre), the United States Senate and House of Representatives offered resolutions in support of the Israelis. These resolutions passed unanimously. Your elected representatives rose as one to applaud this pitiless slaughter of innocents. They did so in your name.
History is full of horrible ironies. Here is one: the children and grandchildren of those Israelis who were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Nazis are themselves practicing genocide against the Palestinians. And our government aids and abets this awful crime.
The Gaza Strip is essentially an open-air prison. Twenty-five miles long and seven miles wide, with 1.5 million inhabitants, it is among the most densely-populated areas of the world. Over half of the population is under the age of sixteen. Gaza is also -- as one aid worker put it -- a room full of children.
The Israeli Defense Force pounded Gaza with bombs, rockets, and artillery shells for twenty-two straight days. The result was approximately 1300 dead, half of the dead civilians, and over 400 of those children. It is impossible that the Israeli leaders did not anticipate this result. They must have known that they would be slaughtering children by the score. They didn't care.
"Sad," you say, "but what has this to do with me?" Among the planes that were bombing these children were American-supplied F-16s. The helicopters that were attacking these children were American-supplied Apache helicopters. The bombs and rockets that were blowing these children to shreds were American made and supplied. The Israeli army that invaded Gaza, that prevented ambulances from reaching distressed infants lying for days alongside the dead bodies of their mothers -- that army is bankrolled by America.
During this "war" (better to call it what it was, a massacre), the United States Senate and House of Representatives offered resolutions in support of the Israelis. These resolutions passed unanimously. Your elected representatives rose as one to applaud this pitiless slaughter of innocents. They did so in your name.
History is full of horrible ironies. Here is one: the children and grandchildren of those Israelis who were the victims of genocide at the hands of the Nazis are themselves practicing genocide against the Palestinians. And our government aids and abets this awful crime.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Gaza and Analogy
From today's NYTimes:
The writer A.B. Yehoshua, who opposes Israel’s occupation and promotes a Palestinian state, has been trying to explain the war to foreigners.
“ ‘Imagine,’ I tell a French reporter, ‘that every two days a missile falls in the Champs-Élysées and only the glass windows of the shops break and five people suffer from shock,’ ” Mr. Yehoshua told a reporter from Yediot Aharonot, a Tel Aviv newspaper. “ ‘What would you say? Wouldn’t you be angry? Wouldn’t you send missiles at Belgium if it were responsible for missiles on your grand boulevard?’ ”
Let's try another analogy. Suppose that a large tribe of Native Americans are defeated in battle by the white man and forced onto a tiny reservation. The whites refuse to allow any Native Americans to leave the reservation, and they control all imports, allowing just a trickle of food and other necessities--this to punish the inhabitants for electing as political leaders members of a militant, anti-white group. By way of demonstrating their objection to their permanent incarceration (for that is what it is, essentially), some of the young male Native Americans occasionally shoot flaming arrows across the border -- a few of which actually hit white settlements and do some damage. In retaliation for these arrows, the whites bomb the hell out of the reservation for days, killing hundreds of men, women, and children, and then invade, continuing to kill and destroy as they go. When the world responds with outrage to this genocidal act, the whites reply, "Well, did you expect us to put up with these flaming arrows forever? This is self-defense!"
The writer A.B. Yehoshua, who opposes Israel’s occupation and promotes a Palestinian state, has been trying to explain the war to foreigners.
“ ‘Imagine,’ I tell a French reporter, ‘that every two days a missile falls in the Champs-Élysées and only the glass windows of the shops break and five people suffer from shock,’ ” Mr. Yehoshua told a reporter from Yediot Aharonot, a Tel Aviv newspaper. “ ‘What would you say? Wouldn’t you be angry? Wouldn’t you send missiles at Belgium if it were responsible for missiles on your grand boulevard?’ ”
Let's try another analogy. Suppose that a large tribe of Native Americans are defeated in battle by the white man and forced onto a tiny reservation. The whites refuse to allow any Native Americans to leave the reservation, and they control all imports, allowing just a trickle of food and other necessities--this to punish the inhabitants for electing as political leaders members of a militant, anti-white group. By way of demonstrating their objection to their permanent incarceration (for that is what it is, essentially), some of the young male Native Americans occasionally shoot flaming arrows across the border -- a few of which actually hit white settlements and do some damage. In retaliation for these arrows, the whites bomb the hell out of the reservation for days, killing hundreds of men, women, and children, and then invade, continuing to kill and destroy as they go. When the world responds with outrage to this genocidal act, the whites reply, "Well, did you expect us to put up with these flaming arrows forever? This is self-defense!"
Monday, December 15, 2008
From today's NYTimes:
The Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, an independent Iraqi television station, stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.
Representatives of the International Kennel Club today lodged a protest with the station manager of Al Baghdadia TV. Their complaint: that reporter Muntader al-Zaidi's recent reference to President Bush as a "dog" was an insult to canines the world over. "Dogs may be coprophagic," remarked IKC spokesman Dirk Begalovich, "but there is some shit that dogs should not be made to eat."
The Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, an independent Iraqi television station, stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.
Representatives of the International Kennel Club today lodged a protest with the station manager of Al Baghdadia TV. Their complaint: that reporter Muntader al-Zaidi's recent reference to President Bush as a "dog" was an insult to canines the world over. "Dogs may be coprophagic," remarked IKC spokesman Dirk Begalovich, "but there is some shit that dogs should not be made to eat."
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Walters the Warrior
From today's NYTimes, an article about the massive drug-related violence along the Mexican border:
During his visit to Mexico last week, Mr. Walters [our drug czar] heaped praise on Mr. Calderón for his “courageous leadership” in taking on the cartels. But he also expressed concern about the spillover effects of the drug war on the United States.
“Some of these groups not only engage in crime and violence in Mexico, but they come across, kidnap, murder, carry out assassinations,” he told reporters, noting that the intensity of the violence was still much higher south of the border than north of it.
“Our goal is to reduce the period of suffering as rapidly as possible by bringing these people to justice,” he said. “That’s what this is all about on both sides of the border.”
Mr. Walters, a vehement opponent of drug legalization, backed a proposal by Mr. Calderón not to prosecute people caught carrying relatively small amounts of illegal narcotics, including cocaine and heroin. Under Mr. Calderón’s plan, addicts would be treated differently from traffickers and would avoid jail if they agreed to undergo treatment, not unlike similar programs in some parts of the United States. “I don’t think that’s legalization,” Mr. Walters said.
What hypocrisy. If Walters was really concerned to "reduce the period of suffering" the answer would be simple: legalize pot, coke, and heroin. The Mexican black market, which is built upon demand for drugs in the U.S., would disappear and the violence along with it. Some of the millions we are wasting fighting a futile war on drugs could be directed toward treatment of addicts and education of the public about the dangers of drug abuse. That makes too much sense, apparently.
During his visit to Mexico last week, Mr. Walters [our drug czar] heaped praise on Mr. Calderón for his “courageous leadership” in taking on the cartels. But he also expressed concern about the spillover effects of the drug war on the United States.
“Some of these groups not only engage in crime and violence in Mexico, but they come across, kidnap, murder, carry out assassinations,” he told reporters, noting that the intensity of the violence was still much higher south of the border than north of it.
“Our goal is to reduce the period of suffering as rapidly as possible by bringing these people to justice,” he said. “That’s what this is all about on both sides of the border.”
Mr. Walters, a vehement opponent of drug legalization, backed a proposal by Mr. Calderón not to prosecute people caught carrying relatively small amounts of illegal narcotics, including cocaine and heroin. Under Mr. Calderón’s plan, addicts would be treated differently from traffickers and would avoid jail if they agreed to undergo treatment, not unlike similar programs in some parts of the United States. “I don’t think that’s legalization,” Mr. Walters said.
What hypocrisy. If Walters was really concerned to "reduce the period of suffering" the answer would be simple: legalize pot, coke, and heroin. The Mexican black market, which is built upon demand for drugs in the U.S., would disappear and the violence along with it. Some of the millions we are wasting fighting a futile war on drugs could be directed toward treatment of addicts and education of the public about the dangers of drug abuse. That makes too much sense, apparently.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
smearing all the way
From today's Washington Post, an article on the McCain campaign's ads attacking Obama:
The sex education ad referred to legislation Obama voted for -- but did not sponsor -- in the Illinois Senate that allowed school boards to develop 'age-appropriate' sex education courses at all levels. Kindergarten teachers were given the approval to teach about appropriate and inappropriate touching to combat molestation.
The McCain advertisement calls it 'Obama's one accomplishment' in education: 'legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.'
'Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education, wrong for your family,' the ad concludes.
Does it get any dirtier than this? Obama votes for a bill that is intended to protect children from sexual molestation; what the McCain ad implies is that Obama was voting to encourage sexual precocity in children, to destroy their innocence, to deprave them. Obama as child predator.
And today Obama has to shake hands with McCain at a 9/11 memorial event. I'd wear a rubber glove if I were he.
The sex education ad referred to legislation Obama voted for -- but did not sponsor -- in the Illinois Senate that allowed school boards to develop 'age-appropriate' sex education courses at all levels. Kindergarten teachers were given the approval to teach about appropriate and inappropriate touching to combat molestation.
The McCain advertisement calls it 'Obama's one accomplishment' in education: 'legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.'
'Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education, wrong for your family,' the ad concludes.
Does it get any dirtier than this? Obama votes for a bill that is intended to protect children from sexual molestation; what the McCain ad implies is that Obama was voting to encourage sexual precocity in children, to destroy their innocence, to deprave them. Obama as child predator.
And today Obama has to shake hands with McCain at a 9/11 memorial event. I'd wear a rubber glove if I were he.
Monday, September 01, 2008
fearful symmetry
From today's New York Times, an article about Russia claiming its own sphere of influence:
"Mr. Putin appeared on Russian television on Sunday from the nation’s far east, where he was inspecting progress on a trans-Siberian oil pipeline to China and the Pacific Ocean, a clear warning to Europe that Russia could find alternative customers for its energy exports. He was later shown in a forest, dressed in camouflage and hunting a Siberian tiger with a tranquilizer gun."
Couldn't we just decide this Georgia thing by having Vlad Putin and Dick Cheney square off for a rousing game of laser tag?
"Mr. Putin appeared on Russian television on Sunday from the nation’s far east, where he was inspecting progress on a trans-Siberian oil pipeline to China and the Pacific Ocean, a clear warning to Europe that Russia could find alternative customers for its energy exports. He was later shown in a forest, dressed in camouflage and hunting a Siberian tiger with a tranquilizer gun."
Couldn't we just decide this Georgia thing by having Vlad Putin and Dick Cheney square off for a rousing game of laser tag?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Romancing the President
Recently, while discussing the state of the war in Afghanistan with military personnel, President Bush remarked, "I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger . . . I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. . . . It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."
The president’s use of the term “romantic” is very suggestive. There are essentially two ways of looking at combat: the Romantic and the Realist. The Romantic view represents combat as an opportunity for the soldier to prove and improve his character. Combat, if it does not kill the combatant, will only make him stronger—will lift up and transfigure him. The experience of combat will transform a boy into a man, a man into a Superman.
This Romantic view is given classical expression in Shakespeare’s Henry the Fifth, in the famous speech the king gives to his troops before the battle of Agincourt. Henry tells his men that they should not be downcast because they are outnumbered by the French, as the glory of victory will be all the greater for this: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; / For he to-day that sheds his blood with me / Shall be my brother. . . . And gentlemen in England now abed / Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, / And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks / That fought on Saint Crispin’s day.”
That the Romantic myth of combat is still compelling today, four hundred years after Shakespeare wrote those lines, is evident from how military recruiting ads attempt to borrow the Bard’s rhetorical fire: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” echoes distinctly in “The Few, the Proud, the Marines.” Recruits are encouraged to think that with proper training they can become “an Army of One.” Young men (and now women) are still lured into military service by the promise that combat is a “trial by fire” that will raise them up, transfigure them, turn them into Heroes.
Such is the Romantic viewpoint. There is, however, another view: the Realist. From this perspective combat is seen not as an opportunity but as a disaster. Rather than improving one’s character, the experience of combat is likely to injure it, in many cases ruin it. Exposure to combat is like exposure to a toxin: it does not transfigure so much as disfigure. What does not kill us may leave us wounded, maimed, or wishing we were dead.
It is the Realist view that comes to the fore in discussions of PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This malady has been illuminated by Dr. Jonathan Shay in his groundbreaking Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. In Shay’s view, the veteran with PTSD is unable to “turn off” the survival skills he or she learned in combat, which skills are inappropriate in a civilized context. This contradiction exacerbates a host of problems associated with the original trauma: intrusive thoughts (“flashbacks”), social anxiety, insomnia, depression, violent rages, and substance abuse.
A particularly tragic case of PTSD has been in the news lately: that of former Army medic Joseph Dwyer. Dwyer became famous during the first week of the war when a photo of his rescuing a wounded Iraqi child was published on the cover of USA Today. He was an instant hero. When he returned home, however, he brought the war with him – suffered from paranoid delusions that the enemy was all around him, turned to huffing solvents to find relief from his demons. He died from substance abuse at the age of 31. He left behind a wife and daughter.
A recent study by the RAND Corporation found that approximately one in five of those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan – that’s 300,000 souls -- are suffering from PTSD. Unfortunately, many of these soldiers are doomed to lead lives of quiet desperation, as their Romantic conception of what a warrior should be--that is, tough and uncomplaining--prevents them from seeking psychological treatment.
Given that 1,000 veterans receiving care at the VA try to kill themselves every month, we can begin to see the heavy cost of indulging in Romantic conceptions of warfare (such as that held by our present Commander in Chief). War is not glorious. On the contrary, as General Sherman realistically remarked, “War is all hell,” and for too many of our combat vets, hell is where they’ll live for the rest of their lives. Perhaps we should take this into account when we decide to send idealistic young men and women off to do battle.
The president’s use of the term “romantic” is very suggestive. There are essentially two ways of looking at combat: the Romantic and the Realist. The Romantic view represents combat as an opportunity for the soldier to prove and improve his character. Combat, if it does not kill the combatant, will only make him stronger—will lift up and transfigure him. The experience of combat will transform a boy into a man, a man into a Superman.
This Romantic view is given classical expression in Shakespeare’s Henry the Fifth, in the famous speech the king gives to his troops before the battle of Agincourt. Henry tells his men that they should not be downcast because they are outnumbered by the French, as the glory of victory will be all the greater for this: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; / For he to-day that sheds his blood with me / Shall be my brother. . . . And gentlemen in England now abed / Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, / And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks / That fought on Saint Crispin’s day.”
That the Romantic myth of combat is still compelling today, four hundred years after Shakespeare wrote those lines, is evident from how military recruiting ads attempt to borrow the Bard’s rhetorical fire: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” echoes distinctly in “The Few, the Proud, the Marines.” Recruits are encouraged to think that with proper training they can become “an Army of One.” Young men (and now women) are still lured into military service by the promise that combat is a “trial by fire” that will raise them up, transfigure them, turn them into Heroes.
Such is the Romantic viewpoint. There is, however, another view: the Realist. From this perspective combat is seen not as an opportunity but as a disaster. Rather than improving one’s character, the experience of combat is likely to injure it, in many cases ruin it. Exposure to combat is like exposure to a toxin: it does not transfigure so much as disfigure. What does not kill us may leave us wounded, maimed, or wishing we were dead.
It is the Realist view that comes to the fore in discussions of PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This malady has been illuminated by Dr. Jonathan Shay in his groundbreaking Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. In Shay’s view, the veteran with PTSD is unable to “turn off” the survival skills he or she learned in combat, which skills are inappropriate in a civilized context. This contradiction exacerbates a host of problems associated with the original trauma: intrusive thoughts (“flashbacks”), social anxiety, insomnia, depression, violent rages, and substance abuse.
A particularly tragic case of PTSD has been in the news lately: that of former Army medic Joseph Dwyer. Dwyer became famous during the first week of the war when a photo of his rescuing a wounded Iraqi child was published on the cover of USA Today. He was an instant hero. When he returned home, however, he brought the war with him – suffered from paranoid delusions that the enemy was all around him, turned to huffing solvents to find relief from his demons. He died from substance abuse at the age of 31. He left behind a wife and daughter.
A recent study by the RAND Corporation found that approximately one in five of those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan – that’s 300,000 souls -- are suffering from PTSD. Unfortunately, many of these soldiers are doomed to lead lives of quiet desperation, as their Romantic conception of what a warrior should be--that is, tough and uncomplaining--prevents them from seeking psychological treatment.
Given that 1,000 veterans receiving care at the VA try to kill themselves every month, we can begin to see the heavy cost of indulging in Romantic conceptions of warfare (such as that held by our present Commander in Chief). War is not glorious. On the contrary, as General Sherman realistically remarked, “War is all hell,” and for too many of our combat vets, hell is where they’ll live for the rest of their lives. Perhaps we should take this into account when we decide to send idealistic young men and women off to do battle.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Gitmo strays
"American Progress's Ken Gude has put forth a five-phase plan to close Guantanamo over an 18-month period. The plan includes bringing 'a small number of detainees into the United States to stand trial in regular federal or military courts,' rather than under the flawed Military Commissions. It would create 'a resettlement and rehabilitation program in partnership with allied countries and international organizations to find homes for detainees that can't be returned to their home countries' and transfer the remaining detainees to stand trial in the United States."
This is Ahmed. Ahmed is a Guantanamo detainee. There's not enough evidence to put Ahmed on trial, and his country of origin no longer wants him. Please open your heart and your home to Ahmed or to some other unfortunate detainee. All have been spayed / neutered and given their shots. They are waiting for your love! Call now.
This is Ahmed. Ahmed is a Guantanamo detainee. There's not enough evidence to put Ahmed on trial, and his country of origin no longer wants him. Please open your heart and your home to Ahmed or to some other unfortunate detainee. All have been spayed / neutered and given their shots. They are waiting for your love! Call now.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Antonin "Crazy Tony" Scalia gets even
From today's New York Times, on the Supreme Court decision to allow Guantanamo detainees the right of habeas corpus.
"Of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Antonin Scalia’s was the more apocalyptic, predicting 'devastating' and 'disastrous consequences' from the decision. 'It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,' he said. 'The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.'"
And he went up from thence unto Washington: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth out of the city Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Stevens. And they did mock him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in The Name of The Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare the five of them.
"Of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Antonin Scalia’s was the more apocalyptic, predicting 'devastating' and 'disastrous consequences' from the decision. 'It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,' he said. 'The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.'"
And he went up from thence unto Washington: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth out of the city Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Stevens. And they did mock him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in The Name of The Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare the five of them.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Cheney Commits Suicide
WASHINGTON (AP). The White House has reported that Vice President Dick Cheney has committed suicide, apparently by shooting himself with the same shotgun with which he shot Harry Whittington. Cheney left a short note explaining that he had become so utterly despicable that he could no longer stand himself, and, since impeachment was "off the table," this appeared his only recourse. President Bush, upon hearing the news, turned to his aides and, tossing his hands in the air, exclaimed "What now?"
In a related story, the Wall Street Journal reports that the "undisclosed location" to which the Vice President retreated in the wake of 9/11 has been identified as an apartment complex outside of Toronto, Canada. It appears, therefore, that after 9/11, while not in-country, Mr. Cheney was in-continent.
In a related story, the Wall Street Journal reports that the "undisclosed location" to which the Vice President retreated in the wake of 9/11 has been identified as an apartment complex outside of Toronto, Canada. It appears, therefore, that after 9/11, while not in-country, Mr. Cheney was in-continent.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
I've fallen and I can't get up
From Saturday's Washington Post:
Officials said they do not know the number of service members cremated at the Kent County facility, which is identified on a billboard as Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates found "the site and signage are insensitive and entirely inappropriate for the dignified treatment of our fallen," Morrell said. "The families of the fallen have the secretary's deepest apology," he said.
A grotesque story. But on second thought why not in a pet crematorium? Four thousand of our soldiers have been turned into dogmeat by a war that is absolutely grotesque --unjust and indefensible. Why sublimate these deaths? Let the lamp affix its beam.
The Post article continues,
Military culture instills that showing respect for the fallen is an extremely important and solemn duty. Funerary rituals such as removing flags from military caskets and presenting them to the deceased's family are carried out meticulously, while other demonstrations of respect include personally delivering news of the loss of a loved one to the next of kin.
It is so very easy to be bullied into silence by the cult of the Fallen. "All uncover, please, and cast eyes downward. Now kiss the flag." The same old bullshit, the same old lie.
Look at the way, for example, our government represented Pat Tillman as a figure of romance rather than as a pathetic dupe to romance rhetoric. Let's forget the fact (or suppress it, as our government did) that he got his head blown off by his fellow soldiers in the usual dark comedy of errors that war is. Instead it's "When can [his] glory fade! Honor the charge [he] made!" The Pentagon misrepresenting his death to try to lure in a few more, to collect some more cannon fodder.
Ted Rall was disappeared from the pages of the Washington Post for telling the truth about Tillman in his cartoon strip. Such is the fate of the truthteller in wartime.
Officials said they do not know the number of service members cremated at the Kent County facility, which is identified on a billboard as Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates found "the site and signage are insensitive and entirely inappropriate for the dignified treatment of our fallen," Morrell said. "The families of the fallen have the secretary's deepest apology," he said.
A grotesque story. But on second thought why not in a pet crematorium? Four thousand of our soldiers have been turned into dogmeat by a war that is absolutely grotesque --unjust and indefensible. Why sublimate these deaths? Let the lamp affix its beam.
The Post article continues,
Military culture instills that showing respect for the fallen is an extremely important and solemn duty. Funerary rituals such as removing flags from military caskets and presenting them to the deceased's family are carried out meticulously, while other demonstrations of respect include personally delivering news of the loss of a loved one to the next of kin.
It is so very easy to be bullied into silence by the cult of the Fallen. "All uncover, please, and cast eyes downward. Now kiss the flag." The same old bullshit, the same old lie.
Look at the way, for example, our government represented Pat Tillman as a figure of romance rather than as a pathetic dupe to romance rhetoric. Let's forget the fact (or suppress it, as our government did) that he got his head blown off by his fellow soldiers in the usual dark comedy of errors that war is. Instead it's "When can [his] glory fade! Honor the charge [he] made!" The Pentagon misrepresenting his death to try to lure in a few more, to collect some more cannon fodder.
Ted Rall was disappeared from the pages of the Washington Post for telling the truth about Tillman in his cartoon strip. Such is the fate of the truthteller in wartime.
Friday, May 09, 2008
another modest proposal
It appears the Pentagon is having trouble finding enough bodies to wage our President's glorious War on Terror. Word has it, in fact, that the services have started accepting almost anyone, including convicted felons and near-imbeciles, to fill the ranks.
Here's an idea. Since it is the people who voted Bush into office who are ultimately responsible for this war, why not set up a draft especially for them? I'm thinking in particular of those male retirees who voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. Since they are retired they are nothing but a drain on society anyway, so why not ship them off to Iraq and Afghanistan? They could be blown to smithereens as well as young men and are more easily spared.
I mean, if they are true believers in Bush and his war, why not give them the opportunity to prove it? To put their money where their dentures are? To limp the limp?
Here's an idea. Since it is the people who voted Bush into office who are ultimately responsible for this war, why not set up a draft especially for them? I'm thinking in particular of those male retirees who voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. Since they are retired they are nothing but a drain on society anyway, so why not ship them off to Iraq and Afghanistan? They could be blown to smithereens as well as young men and are more easily spared.
I mean, if they are true believers in Bush and his war, why not give them the opportunity to prove it? To put their money where their dentures are? To limp the limp?
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
searching for a metaphor
"The Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine released their third edition of the Terrorism Index in August 2007. The survey of over 100 national security experts from across the ideological spectrum found that an overwhelming 84 percent disagreed with the statement that 'the United States is winning the war on terror.' The persistent threat of Al Qaeda seven years after 9/11, as shown in the State Department’s report and by other U.S. government professionals, only reinforces these opinions. The Bush administration has failed to advance comprehensive strategies for preserving American power, security, and leadership in the world and eliminating the real terrorist threats we face in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq, and in the broader counterterrorism mission."
A metaphor for our war on terror and its failure: the United States a dog attacked by fleas. The dog's solution is to scratch itself raw, bite at itself until it is exhausted. The fleas are encouraged by the dog's futile efforts, continue to breed and multiply. For every flea killed a half-dozen spring up to take its place. The dog is finally driven mad by the itching, proceeds to eviscerate itself.
Friday, May 02, 2008
On the dotted line
A common argument heard in response to one pointing out the tragedy of our soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq: "Well, they did know when they signed up that going to war was a possibility."
True, our soldiers signed on the dotted line. They did not sign on, however, to be put in harm's way in an unjust and unnecessary war. They signed on to defend their country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. How was the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein a threat to this country? No weapons of mass destruction. No connection to Al Qaeda. Our war in Iraq was and is a war of choice, not of necessity. A sleazy oil war.
Yet to make this argument is to risk being labelled a bore. Those who a few years ago argued vociferously in defense of the war now just roll their eyes and change the subject. And yet the war rages on. And yet our soldiers continue to die. For what? For the dreams of empire dreamt by a handful of greedy old men.
True, our soldiers signed on the dotted line. They did not sign on, however, to be put in harm's way in an unjust and unnecessary war. They signed on to defend their country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. How was the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein a threat to this country? No weapons of mass destruction. No connection to Al Qaeda. Our war in Iraq was and is a war of choice, not of necessity. A sleazy oil war.
Yet to make this argument is to risk being labelled a bore. Those who a few years ago argued vociferously in defense of the war now just roll their eyes and change the subject. And yet the war rages on. And yet our soldiers continue to die. For what? For the dreams of empire dreamt by a handful of greedy old men.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
McCain's support for our troops
Senators James Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) have each sponsored bills to boost veterans' educational assistance to cover the cost of tuition at state universities. This update to the G.I. Bill would cost taxpayers anywhere between two and a half to four billion dollars over ten years -- a drop in the bucket compared to what the war in Iraq is costing us. Most members of Congress think this is a wonderful idea. Isn't it the least we can do to "support our troops"?
Guess who opposes this proposal? Senator John McCain. Why does he oppose it? He fears it will discourage soldiers from re-enlisting, leaving us short of warriors to fight our glorious War on Terror. McCain comments, "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military."
Stop a moment and consider: what does this say about why people join the military in the first place? Could it be that a large number of them are essentially economic refugees -- poor people who could not afford college and figured that it was somewhat less humiliating to don a soldier's uniform than a blue Walmart vest? People who, if given a chance for a good education -- and a good job to follow -- will leave the military in a heartbeat?
Rich man's war, poor man's fight. It was ever thus. Perhaps those who call for a return to the draft have a point. If not just the kids of poor folk but everyone was responsible for fighting this war, maybe the war would be brought to a conclusion a whole lot sooner.
Post-script: Last week a funeral at Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati for Matthew Maupin, whose remains were finally recovered four years after he was kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Iraq. How did he end up in Iraq? He had joined the Army Reserve to make a little extra money for college.
Guess who opposes this proposal? Senator John McCain. Why does he oppose it? He fears it will discourage soldiers from re-enlisting, leaving us short of warriors to fight our glorious War on Terror. McCain comments, "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military."
Stop a moment and consider: what does this say about why people join the military in the first place? Could it be that a large number of them are essentially economic refugees -- poor people who could not afford college and figured that it was somewhat less humiliating to don a soldier's uniform than a blue Walmart vest? People who, if given a chance for a good education -- and a good job to follow -- will leave the military in a heartbeat?
Rich man's war, poor man's fight. It was ever thus. Perhaps those who call for a return to the draft have a point. If not just the kids of poor folk but everyone was responsible for fighting this war, maybe the war would be brought to a conclusion a whole lot sooner.
Post-script: Last week a funeral at Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati for Matthew Maupin, whose remains were finally recovered four years after he was kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Iraq. How did he end up in Iraq? He had joined the Army Reserve to make a little extra money for college.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
McCain's Two Big Ideas
For his campaign John McCain is selling himself as our foreign affairs / security expert, asserting his manifest superiority in this realm over the Democratic candidates. "You wanna talk about war? Well, I know war!" Yet his statements on Iraq seem to suggest the opposite: that, when it comes to what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq, he's pretty much clueless. Take for instance his repeated assertion that Iran is training Al Qaeda terrorists and sending them back into Iraq to kill American soldiers. This is of course impossible. Al Qaeda is Sunni, Iran is Shiite, and never the twain shall meet.
It was almost inevitable, though, that he make this particular mistake. What he did was conflate the two Big Ideas about the war that he is deploying on the campaign trail: (1) that the enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that struck us on 9/11 and that (2) the enemy in Iraq is Iran. Never mind that these two assertions are mutually exclusive. McCain will continue to assert them.
Why? Because the reality on the ground of Iraq is too complicated for public consumption --also too damned hopeless. McCain's big ideas simplify things. According to McCain, the war in Iraq is a proper response to the crime that was committed against us on 9/11 and the enemy in Iraq is a coherent nation state that potentially could be defeated in a war. See? Simple! Wrong on both counts, but simple.
McCain's strategy is borrowed from Bush and his cronies: just keep saying the same thing over and over again, regardless of its relation to the truth (for example, that there is a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein), and perhaps enough people will believe it for it to have a political effect.
It was almost inevitable, though, that he make this particular mistake. What he did was conflate the two Big Ideas about the war that he is deploying on the campaign trail: (1) that the enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that struck us on 9/11 and that (2) the enemy in Iraq is Iran. Never mind that these two assertions are mutually exclusive. McCain will continue to assert them.
Why? Because the reality on the ground of Iraq is too complicated for public consumption --also too damned hopeless. McCain's big ideas simplify things. According to McCain, the war in Iraq is a proper response to the crime that was committed against us on 9/11 and the enemy in Iraq is a coherent nation state that potentially could be defeated in a war. See? Simple! Wrong on both counts, but simple.
McCain's strategy is borrowed from Bush and his cronies: just keep saying the same thing over and over again, regardless of its relation to the truth (for example, that there is a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein), and perhaps enough people will believe it for it to have a political effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)