Valley Forge and Afghanistan

A ragtag army of rebels held itself together over a winter as the enemy wined and dined in a nearby major city.  Guess who won in less than eight years.

The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

Comment posted to “On Afghanistan, There’s No Way Out”, Bret Stephen, New York Times, 2017-08-24.

Trump, Taxes, and military adventures

Mr. Trump has proudly acknowledged that he fights to pay as little tax as possible so that the federal government cannot waste his money.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/democrats-see-opening-in-tax-overhaul-fight-trumps-own-deductions.html

So now he is busy wasting our money with military attacks that didn't do much lasting damage, with increased military spending in a military budget that dwarfs quite a few of the next largest military budgets combined.

Does "Make America Great Again" mean being able to engage in whatever military fiasco Trump wants?  Ah, but he doesn't read history: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria.

And he forgets the American Revolution: a ragtag bunch of locals beat a seasoned army of a superpower of the day.  Ah, they did get some help from an enemy of the superpower, but that superpower was acting under the direction of the American generals.  The American generals were not acting under the direction of the superpower.

The myths of fighting terrorism

President George W. Bush used “War on Terrorism” over and over again, and, like many before and after him, thought that military might from air or ground could stop the terrorism.  But these actions only foment more terrorism.  In fact, these actions in and of themselves are terrorism.

Just what is terrorism?  Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people.  Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda.  Torture by any government is terrorism.  Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism.  Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism.  People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists.  Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.

Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning.  During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.

Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction.  If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.

The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants.  The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial.  Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses.  The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.

The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by  a more just civil society.

Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution.  Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons.  Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”.  For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves.  Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.

Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples.  The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children.  The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma.  Many did not survive the trip.

I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions.  But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.

Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.

The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government.  Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers.  The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance.  One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile.  The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds.  The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left.  But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.

Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait.  As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country.  A big mistake to make.  Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army.  One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places.  George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries.  Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria.  ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.

The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”?  On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks.  Can the jets occupy Tikrit?  I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.

What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq.  Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.

And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.

Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”

Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.

Only the quiet ones have true religion

I am listening to the ecstatic singing of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, the CD is called “Shahen-Shah”.  Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan leads a group of Muslim singers from Pakistan.  The words are in Urdu.

My own meditation as I listen is the variety of beliefs around the world, even within religions considered complete.  For example, the CD would be banned by the Taliban because they don’t like singing.

I would say that the “true believers” are those who hold their religion in their hearts, not those who are willing to kill those who hold different beliefs.  The latter are the insecure ones who can only believe if everybody believes exactly as they do.

Defense and Education - More newspeak

Yet another loose note from the Bush days:

The Dept. of Defense is headed by Terence Bell.  Defense of a nation is the passing of traditions and knowledge from generation to generation.

The Dept. of Education is headed by Casper Weinberger.  The U.S. seems to be trying to educate lots of people that the U.S. government knows best by hitting them over the head with a big stick.

Addendum on 2014-08-21:

Have we learned anything since then?  We still have many who think the U.S. should be responsible for hitting others over the head with a big stick.

Fools rush in where linguists fear to tread

From a very old undated note on my desk:

What is the percentage of those who speak Spanish advising more military aid to El Salvador and of those advising against military aid?

This still holds in so much of what goes on in the world in 2014.  Fools rush in where linguists fear to tread.

Too much money or too few voters?

The best antidote to too much money in politics is larger turnouts.  If you don't show up, you are increasing the power of too much money.  If you don't show up and vote then you are increasing the likelihood you will be next on the list to be disenfranchised.

Remember that the aim of most political attack ads is not to get the viewer to vote for a given candidate but to get the viewer to not show up.

If you want to make a difference, don’t watch TV, always vote, and always vote what you believe.

Also, remember that the turnout in Afghanistan was over 50%.  Many of those people showed up at the risk they might come under a terrorist attack.  Can’t we do much better in the U.S. where our only risk of going to the polls is an auto crash?

Military training from outside

Why is an outside military needed to train a country's military on fighting rebels?  If the rebels are so effective against government troops, could it be that the government troops are either unmotivated or corrupt?  In the case of Afghanistan, why has it taken 12 years to train Afghan troops in counterinsurgency.  Shouldn't those who were trained 12 years ago have enough expertise to train others?  Consider that many of the outside trainers had no military experience at the outset of the war in Afghanistan.

From what I've read, the Afghani soldiers are in it for the money, honest or otherwise, or because they were drafted.  Too many of them have no loyalty to the government.

I think U.S. policy long ago should have been: Karzai! Shape up or we ship out!

See also “Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government”.

Let's you and him fight!

“There are people who would love to see America fight their war for them,” Kerry said. “But that is not their choice.”

– "U.S. coming under fire from Mideast allies, who see retrenchment", Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, 2014-01-24.

Finally, the U.S. is recognizing that it is not the world's policeman and it cannot stop every "bad guy" from harming the "good guys".  Generally when we fight the "bad guys", many of the "good guys" resent the U.S. coming in and disrupting their country.

I often wonder why the U.S. has to "train" a government's soldiers and police in counter-insurgency or whatever.  It seems the ragtag bad guys do quite well with AK-47s and IEDs than the government does with it more powerful weapons.  Could it be that the soldiers and police are in it only because it is a job, they can extort people, and they really don't have much faith in the government?

I often wonder why we don't say to corrupt or ineffective leaders "Shape up or we ship out!"

Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government

Why is it that those seeking to overthrow a government can often do it without outside help other than weapons, but that government forces need outside advisers?

We saw it in Viet Nam where the Viet Cong kept fighting and fighting against both the South Vietnamese government and their U.S. advisers.  It got to the point where the "advisors" were doing more of the fighting than the government forces.

We saw it in Iraq where a large variety of "insurgents" fought against the foreign invaders and then against the Iraqi government as well as each other.  The outside invaders stayed to advise the new government, but that government seems ineffectual against the "insurgents".

We see it in Afghanistan where the Taliban keeps striking at the foreign invaders/advisers and the Afghan government, including local governors as well as the Afghan army and police.

Could the common thread be that all these governments were not only corrupt but not fully supported by the general populations?  Could it be that the only way to put down anti-government forces is to have a strong, dictatorial government or to have wide-spread popular support of a freely elected government?

And a freely elected government cannot really be imposed from outside.

How many people must die before you show up and vote?

Too many times we have had "wars of choice" where we went in with little understanding of the countries we invaded.  We assumed that all our fancy weaponry would overcome "the enemy" with "shock and awe".  We are really dismayed when the people we are "protecting" regard us as the enemy and can fight for years with far less sophisticated weaponry.

We have forgotten our own history.  There was a well-organized army with advanced weaponry and organization "protecting" us.  But many of the people regarded this army as the enemy.  They formed poorly-armed, poorly-organized militias and fought back.  It took eight years for the "super-power" of the time to admit defeat.

Now we are getting ourselves into the same quagmires as that once world-spanning empire got itself into, not once, but many times.  Thousand of our countrymen are killed and even more are permanently maimed.  The casualties of the citizens of the "enemy" country are even greater.

But less than half of us vote into office our governments that beat the war drums.  The opposition party often goes along with or eggs the other party into the conflict.  Too many of those who dislike both parties or for some reason are unhappy with the less aggressive party don't show up.

Now we are seeing a similar situation within our own borders.  Many people were dissatisfied with the party of their choice and stayed home in the 2010 elections.  The more aggressive party "won" the elections in many jurisdictions and is enacting laws that allow citizens to "protect themselves" with impunity against some unspecified "enemy".  If there are no witnesses, these armed citizens can kill somebody "threatening" them and face no consequences.

Thus was set up the situation that many predicted – an armed white man killed an unarmed black teenager!

How many people must die before you show up and vote?

Oil! Republican dependency on fantasy

Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-MN8, claims to be an independent voice for his constituents but he seems to be sticking to the ALEC and Koch brothers line.  ALEC is American Legislative Exchange Council that is an organization of big businesses to write laws in their interests rather than the public interest.

One is his recent republishing in his newsletter of his op-ed article in the Duluth News Tribune, "Reducing regulations, expanding U.S. drilling will lower gas prices".  He also republished it on his Congressional web site!  See http://cravaack.house.gov/in-the-news/reducing-regulations-expanding-us-drilling-will-lower-gas-prices/.  Hm, I'm supposed to give exclusive rights to the News Tribune for my submissions, and so I do not re-post my submissions on my blog.

Back to the subject.

As to be expected in election year, the opposition gets all the blame for any problems.  Cravaack blames Obama for high gas prices, but he ignores the high gas prices during Bush's terms.  In both cases, there are many more factors contributing to gas prices.

How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Not only do these create uncertainty in energy markets, they add enormously to the demand for fuel.  Wouldn't it be grand if all those humvees, fighter jets, and drones could run on the hot air coming out of Congress?

How about the cost of drilling?  As the easily accessible oil is depleted, it cost lots more to get the remainder.  And these costs will go up as the oil becomes even less accessible.  Right now it costs $60 a barrel to extract gulf oil (see "Two dollars a gallon gasoline?  No way!").  But will world markets price oil only a little bit above that?  I doubt it.

Reducing regulations won't really change the price of oil; it might if Congress mandated that no oil could be imported or exported.  Do you think the large oil companies would go for that?  Right now, gasoline is being EXPORTED from the U.S.  Oil and gasoline are world commodities.  If somebody in India, say, is willing to pay $3.28 per gallon (today's NYMEX price, not including shipping) to import a tanker of gasoline, do you think any U.S. gasoline refiner is going to charge less in the United States?

Cravaack points out how the U.S. investment in Solyndra and Fisker automotive went sour.  How many energy investments have done well?  He is silent on oil depletion allowances and other tax breaks the oil industry gets.  He is silent on the huge investment in nuclear energy research made by the U.S. Government.  He is silent on the cost of nuclear waste, most of which will be borne by the U.S. Government.  He is silent on the loan guarantees that have gone to nuclear power plants.  He is silent on the huge cost in health and other externalities of burning fossil fuel.

He faults the secretary of energy, Steven Chu, when asked if his goal was to lower gas prices, he said, “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil.”  Does Cravaack live in a bubble?  How many wars are we going to fight to ensure access to oil?  How much are we going to go into debt to finance these wars?  How many people are going to die for "lower gas prices"?  If we can reduce our dependency on oil faster than India or China can, we will be at a huge economic and foreign policy advantage.

Afghanistan - Cycle of violence continues

When you reach the end of this entry, you may feel that I could have written more.  I agree, but I felt that anything more would dilute the message.

A single U.S. soldier goes on a rampage in Afghanistan killing 16 civilians.  The Taliban vows to avenge the killings.  When the Taliban attacks the U.S. military, more Afghanis will be killed.  The the Taliban seeks vengeance again, and more Afghanis will be killed.  Each act of violence by one side increases the resolve of the other side to continue the fight.  And on and on it goes.

In the land of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, everybody becomes blind and toothless.

A better strategy to get the U.S. out of Afghanistan would for Afghanis to drop off single flowers at every U.S. base in Afghanistan and simply say, "Please go home."  Every time an Afghani sees a U.S. soldier, he or she should say, "Please go home."

What 9/11 should have taught ALL of us

First, before the über patriots criticize me, let me question Al Qaeda.

What do you hope to gain?  You are like flies or mosquitos in a house.  You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful.  Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business.  You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.

If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")?  If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place?  And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?

If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries?  You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?

Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly.  These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it.  Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.

In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history.  They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture.  Have they forgotten their own history?  Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture.  Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language.  Have they forgotten the French Resistance?  At least many of the Germans spoke French.  But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.

The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands.  By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers.  Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.

Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda.  What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation?  Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?

Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.

Libya: Damned if you do and damned if you don't

There are many voices being raised in the U.S. that the U.S. should enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to reduce Gaddafi's advantage over the opposition.

One of these is Nicholas Kristof, "The Case for a No-Fly Zone Over Libya", New York Times, 2011-03-09.

On the other hand, they are those who give many arguments for the long-term consequences of  unilateral action, "Kicking the Intervention Habit", Richard Falk, Al-Jazeera, 2010-03-10.

Count me as one of the sympathizers of a no-fly zone, yet I really hesitate because of the long-term damage to U.S. prestige and influence.  What right does a country thousands of miles away have to determine military action that is not threatening its own shores?  What arrogance to think that the U.S. military is the only one capable of acting?

Wouldn't the European Union be a more appropriate actor than the U.S.?  Don't France, Germany, and the U.K. have sufficient capability to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya?  Even then, it will be interpreted by many in the Arab world as another example of colonialism.

If any no-fly zone were to be enforced, it would have to come from an Arab country.  Is it in the interest of the current governments of Tunisia and Egypt to do so?  They are the ones who had to deal with the thousands of refugees fleeing Libya.  Is not Egypt getting over $50 billion per year in military aid?  Is that going into paper airplanes?

I think the only course of action for the U.S. is to have very private talks with the Egyptians as to what the latter can and should do.

Maybe there is one other thing the U.S. can do.  If the embargo on Libya is rewritten to exempt the opposition government, then by all means ship arms, food, and other supplies into Benghazi and other safe ports.  If the U.S. could supply Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan with disastrous effects on Soviet forces, could and should it supply them to the opposition in Libya, either directly or through a surrogate?

Muslims do speak out against "Islamic" violence

Several letter writers to newspapers have complained that Muslims are silent about the violence of "Islamic" terrorists, but is the whole Muslim world really silent?  I think these critics aren't reading the likes of Al-Jazeera and Dawn, both available in English online.

I found an example of the concern of Muslims about violence by Muslims in an article about the conviction of Aafia Siddiqui in U.S. courts, Dawn Editorial, 2010-09-25.

"Denialism embedded deep in the public psyche has allowed the real threat to the Pakistani state and society, religious extremism, to grow to dangerous proportions. The ‘impossibility’ of a Muslim committing a crime against another Muslim or the sympathy extended towards those who resort to violence against the West as ‘retaliation’ for its crimes against Islam and Muslims serve to obfuscate the campaign by a militant, fringe minority to hijack a religion of peace. The cancer within grows, ironically even as it is occasionally held up as a symbol of heroic resistance. If the government can, it must try and bring Aafia Siddiqui back to Pakistan, given the unsatisfactory conclusion to her trial. But long after the story of Dr Siddiqui will eventually fade, Pakistan will still be faced with an internal enemy it has not even begun to comprehend."

Also see "Siddiqui's 'missing years', Stories differ over the whereabouts of Pakistani scientist between 2002-2008".  This doesn't read like a one-sided headline that Siddiqui must be innocent because a U.S. court said she was guilty.

You can also read a long Wikipedia article about Siddiqui.   It is a complex story.

Whatever the facts in the case, ask yourself how you would feel and act if the Chinese invaded the U.S., if they captured you as a "terrorist", and if they tried you in Beijing.

Ku Klux Klan = Al Qaeda?

Too many people think Islam is a violent religion because of the actions of a few.  But one could think the same of Christianity.  Does the Ku Klux Klan or Torquemada represent Christianity?

The Ku Klux Klan terrorized "uppity niggers" for a long list of imagined crimes and terrorized whites from opposing the Ku Klux Klan.  The Klan used the cross as its symbol and even corrupted it by burning crosses in the yards of those who opposed them.  They purported to be defending Christianity, but it wasn't the religion of Jesus.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban terrorize all those who don't agree with them for a long list of imagined crimes.  They have used the Koran as their symbol, but ignore all those parts that don't fit their rigid view.

The Grand Inquisitor Torquemada tortured many people on real or imagined threats to Catholicism.  Jews, Muslims, and Protestants were tortured to get them to confess to not following the "true belief".  Torquemada worked with the blessing of King Phillip of Spain; religious orthodoxy was a means to quell dissent with his policies.

The Iranian government tortures many on real or imagined threats to Islam or its national security.  But isn't it behaving like King Phillip?  Religious orthodoxy is a means to quell dissent with its policies.

There are far too many historical cases of "bad apples" of any major religion; it makes it very easy to argue that any religion is violent.

What doesn't make the news is the multitude of people of all religious faiths who follow the example of the Good Samaritan, offering help to those in need regardless of differences.  On the one hand we have Afghans offering tea to American soldiers who broke down their doors; on the other hand we have Americans sending money to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for Pakistani flood victims.

Peace quote of the day

"All the work that Beyond the 11th has done in Afghanistan over nine years has cost less than keeping a single American soldier in Afghanistan for eight months."

Beyond the 11th is an organization founded by two 9/11 widows to help women in Afghanistan.  To read the full column, see "The Healers of 9/11", Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 2010-09-08.

Why do we have "out-of-control" government spending?

One reason is our state of permanent war.  Wars as envisioned by the bright minds of the Pentagon bureaucracy and the best Congress money can buy don't come cheap.

In 2009, The Washington Post reported that the war in Afghanistan was costing two billion dollars a month ("Obama Plans More Funding For Afghan War", Karen DeYoung, 2009-03-27http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032602135.html).  Gosh, if Afghanistan has a population of 28.4 million, that means the U.S. could just give every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan $70/month or $840/year.  That's pretty damn good for a country with a gross national per capita income of $250/year (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/afghanistan_statistics.html).

Ironically, many of the deficit hawks are for a "strong defense", but against foreign aid and taxes.

A second reason is that we vote for Congressional candidates who will "bring home the bacon" to our districts.  Alaska is home to a large number of anti-tax people, but Alaskans get more per capita in federal money than in any other state.  Isn't bacon another form of pork?

Or maybe it is that not enough of us vote.  If 25-40% of the registered (or eligible) voters don't bother to show up, we are going to have candidates elected by a plurality rather than a majority.  And we are going to be left with candidates who either want to spend a gazillion on wars and pork or want to spend a gazillion on social programs and pork.

To support the troops, don't support the wars

The Duluth News Tribune, 2010-07-18, had two somewhat opposing views about "Support the Troops".

David McGrath wrote "Empty gestures often equal hollow support".  He is concerned that "Support our troops" is sending a contradictory message to young people "between embracing soldiers and embracing wars."

The Duluth News Tribune disagrees in "Support the troops? Absolutely".  Children can tell the difference between "paying tribute to military members… isn't the same as endorsing war."  But, the writer then qualifies that with "as long as parents and other adults take the time to explain."

Unfortunately, too many adults aren't making the distinction, or at least aren't making it clear, in their own behavior.  When they use phrases such as "defending our freedom" and "serving our country" to describe military members, they shut off any discussion of how our freedom is being defended and what service is really being done for our country.  And this is the discussion that a democracy really needs.

We too often, as citizens and as writers, do not strongly question our leaders' motivations in waging war.  We take without qualification their definition of "the enemy" and "protecting our country".  One of the greatest smoke screens was to rename the Department of War as the Department of Defense.  Have any of the wars waged since World War II really been against an enemy that had any serious chance of invading the United States?  Or have these wars been grand geopolitical games played by "leaders" who really didn't know much about the countries and the people involved?

Coincidently, before I read these articles I had borrowed from the library "The Limits of Power, The End of American Exceptionalism" by Andrew J. Bacevich.  I had only gotten through the first chapter Saturday night, but almost every page had insightful and powerful statements about the American follies and hubris in its recent wars.  After a description of Reinhold Niebuhr's prescience about the current world situation, Bacevich writes, "Realism in this sense implies an obligation to see the world as it actually is, not as we might like it to be.  The enemy of realism is hubris, which in Niebuhr's day, and in our own, finds expression in an outsized confidence in the efficacy of American power as an instrument to reshape the global order." (p. 7)

Before you jump to the conclusion that this is another "liberal rant", the jacket describes Bacevich as a "conservative historian and former military officer".  See Wikipedia for more details.  He also writes for The American Conservative, his latest article being "Will Iraq be forgotten as well?"

I am with McGrath that we should provide veterans with "a good job…, tuition for college, financial credit…, and the very best health care for veterans."