Invasion of Iraq

Comment to Sinan Antoon’s New York Times article “Fifteen Years Ago, America Destroyed My Country”, posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-anniversary-.html?comments#permid=26407775.

“The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.”

Over 200 years ago a certain people were very upset that its laws were being made by a distant country.  They rebelled and successfully fought a revolution to govern themselves.

Now many of the political descendants of that people celebrate that revolution but think nothing of dictating the laws and policies of other countries without the consent of the governed.

“The more things change the more they stay the same.”

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.

Citizens or soldiers, which do we want?

Many talk about the National Guard being citizen soldiers.  Unfortunately, many consider those who become soldiers to no longer be citizens.  That is, once a person becomes a soldier that person is to become an automaton, blindly following orders without dissent.

However, if we are to be a democracy, all must question authority, whether in the military or not.

Our history is full of incidents questioning the decisions of those above in the chain of command, from the Revolution to the Philipines takeover to Bradley Manning.  Sometimes it is only because a higher officer has ignored custom; sometimes it is because the generals or the politicians are lying about the purposes or results of a war.

These situations can also show the fallacy of casting issues as conservative or liberal.

See "Revolt in the Ranks: Dissent in the armed forces is a patriotic tradition", Chris Bray, The American Conservative, 2012-06-12, republished in Utne Reader, Nov.-Dec 2012

British refuse to negotiate with American Colonists

September 30, 1781 – The British Prime Minister, Lord North, refused to negotiate with the Continental Army, claiming, "Why should we negotiate with those who are killing our soldiers?" (Made up quote for sake of argument)

October 18, 1781 – After General Cornwallis realized that his situation at Yorktown was hopeless, sent a delegation to negotiate with the American and French.

When Lord North learned of the defeat at Yorktown, he proclaimed, "Oh God, it's all over."

May 26, 2011; Jan 23, 2012; Feb 2, 2012; May 2, 2012; and on many more dates appear variations of "Why should we negotiate with the Taliban who are killing our soldiers?"

In 1781 and in 2012, too many people wanted/want to keep up a foreign invasion because their troops are being killed by people who don't want foreign troops in their country.

When will they ever learn?

Quote of the day - Political optimism

"If the political rulers were men of merit and talent and governed only in the public interest, they would naturally command the affection and respect of the people, and the crises of authority bedeviling American society would end."

Don't you share this wish for today when private interests are corrupting government?

However, this is a summary of the ideas of many of the American politicians of the 18th Century, as written by Gordon S. Woods in "The Radicalism of the American Revolution", copyright 1991.

Unfortunately, the politicians of the 18th Century often did not follow through on ruling only in the public interest. Remember the term Gerrymander. It was a convoluted redistricting plan devised by Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts, and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.

The Occupy movement shares a goal of the American Revolution

The Occupy movement is demonstrating against the power of large corporations that is backed by the power of the state. One of the complaints of the American Revolution was the power of a large corporation, The East India Company, backed by the power of the British state.

See "American Rebellions" by Thom Hartmann and "Boston Tea Party", Wikipedia.

You might say the modern Tea Party has taken on the wrong target, instead of limited government they should be seeking limited limited liability corporations.

Did you celebrate Constitution Day?

"Are you celebrating Constitution Day?" is the title of a Local View that I wrote and was published in the Duluth News Tribune on what else but Constitution Day, September 17. I can't post it here because of the exclusivity agreement the News Tribune requires for submissions, but you can click on the link above.

Because of the mixture of serious thought and flippancy, I thought it might go viral. Well, it has spread a tiny bit, Press Enterprise and Road Runner have linked back to it.

I did have over a dozen people comment on it at church this morning. One friend "complained" to my wife that my writings made her think. I was surprised that there was only one comment on the online version.

That writer stopped reading because he didn't like my introduction and claimed, "The author is completely ignorant of history." His comment received three likes and two dislikes, one of the latter mine.

I tried responding but I couldn't register with Area Voices, the comment service.  I never received the email to complete registration.  I did send a comment to the DNT web staff.

What I tried to respond was:

I read years ago in a biography of Benjamin Franklin that he wrote a letter from Paris to the Continental Congress asking for more money.  Either his letter or the author of the biographry mentioned he needed it to keep his wine cellar well-stocked.  Franklin did do a lot of entertaining (and womanizing).

I took "career politicians" from many sources.  Many members of the Constitutional Convention had been active in the Continental Congress and/or state government.  Also, many continued in politics, including the future presidents George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison.  The authors of the Federalist Papers besides Madison who were members of the Convention were Alexander Hamilton, future Secretary of the Treasury, and John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and then Governor of New York.

I took reasons for the convening of the Constitutional Convention from Gordon S. Wood's "The American Revolution".  I also recommend reading his "The Radicalism of the American Revolution".  I look forward to reading many more of his books on the American Revolution and the early history of the United States.

Is that enough sampling to not be ignorant of history?:)

Legislative tyranny after the American Revolution

When the various American states became independent, the legislatures were freed of the tyranny of the Crown appointed governors.  Despite the high-sounding "civic virtue" that Thomas Jefferson and many of his colleagues thought would come about, special interests often dominated state legislatures, often unicameral legislatures.  If those interests were represented by the majority, those interests would take precedence over the rights of others.  Jefferson wrote, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."

Source: "The American Revolution", Gordon S. Woods

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
- Edmund Burke

Military quote of the day

"The British never clearly understood what they were against–a revolutionary struggle involving widespread support in the population.  Hence they continually underestimated the staying power of the rebels and overestimated the strength of the loyalists.  And in the end, independence came to mean more to the Americans than reconquest did to the English."

- The American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood, p. 78.

How is it that irregular fighters so often beat the regular soldiers?

I posted the following to President-elect Barack Obama's transition website: http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision

The 10,000 Greek soldiers that battled their way through hostile territory after the Persians killed their generals, 4th Century, B.C.

American irregulars against the British Army, 18th Century

French Resistance against Hitler's war machine, 1940's

Viet Cong guerrillas against a super power, the United States, 1960-1970s

Iraqi "insurgents" against the superior firepower of the United States

Afghani fighters against the British, the Russians, and the Americans.

Except for the Greeks, all of these groups were battling on their home turf. The Greeks were trying to return to their home turf.

Except for the Greeks, all of these groups were battling against a foreign power with an accompanying "puppet" government. The Colonial Americans did have an advantage in that many of the politicians were against the occupiers. Even with that advantage, it took six years to get the occupying army to surrender.

Could it be that many of the population have no incentive to support the foreign-supported government? If there is not direct foreign-support, could such support be perceived? If such support is not perceived, could it be that the government is ineffective in providing basic services or is seen as corrupt? If the last, does an ineffective or corrupt government have the resources to buy the loyalty of its own ruthless army.

It is only when all these questions are properly addressed, can anyone, superpower or not, hope to bring peace and stability to countries where neither exists.