Voices of War

The following postings and comments are an attempt to create civil dialogue around America's involvement in the Iraq war and more broadly the war on terror. I'm interested in seeing how a civil dialogue might occur online amongst interested friends. Please respect the groundrules and we will all learn from one another. I appreciate your willingness to participate in this dialogue. I would like to present several broad themes in this blog coming from different participants and then ask you to engage in a dialogue by leaving comments underneath the theme that you'd like to respond to. The blog is a public space but I would also like to try to weave these comments into an article to appear in Creative Loafing in Atlanta and Charlotte or the Weekly Planet in Tampa and Sarasota. Perhaps in a small way, the sharing of ideas amongst friends might help us to understand one another better and demonstrate that talking past one another in slogans and sound bites isn't how our founding fathers thought policy should be deliberated. Please post comments here for thoughts related to civic dialogue.

If you are just joining us on the blog, it may be easiest to read from the bottom up to follow the conversation.

Ben Eason, President and CEO, Creative Loafing - ben.eason@creativeloafing.com

Concerned Because the Future of our Republic is at Stake

Len is a friend of Tom Draude

Ben: For whatever my thoughts are worth. I was very much in support of the Iraq invasion. It seemed like a brilliant strategy, i.e., bring the fight to our enemies back yard and have a strong military presence in the region (to influence political change among the middle east countries). My, and many others I know, are waning in their support for several reasons; among them:

1. The President is a terrible communicator, and hasn't explained the strategy to the American public; as a result, his political enemies have made hay out of what should be a bipartisan foreign policy. The President's advisors must be asleep at the switch for not getting him to speak more and more clearly (best for him from a prepared script).

2. The military did a great job of winning the war, but the Administration messed up the subsequent implementation. Many conservative citizens have become discouraged. People know that the Administration wasn't prepared for what came after the invasion succeeded.

3. The biased and liberal media can't help but have success with John Q Public because their relentless attacks on the Administration are all they hear.

Personally, I become concerned because the future of our Republic is at stake. I absolutely am appalled at the political jockeying over foreign policy, an arena that heretofore has been bipartisan (and should, by necessity and for our survival, be bipartisan). Despite these problems, we need to stay the course in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East. We should also shift focus and resources to alternative energy sources for oil. Such a technological breakthrough would guarantee success in the War on Terror. We should also pay much more attention to the political strategy in the Middle East--we need to stop the training of children to hate the West, and make sure that our so-called allies (read Saudi Arabia) cooperate.I could write a lot more but that is enough for now.

Len WCGINC@aol.com

Shock and Awe

Roy Kaplan is a friend, former Exec Director of the National Conference of Christians and Jews and a professor at USF. He has a nice way of understanding the broader perspectives of different religions, races, and ethnic origins and finding the common ground between people.


Hi Ben. Seems like an interesting project. Here's my three cents:

Although I'm not a veteran, I have lived through a number of wars this country has fought: Korea, Viet Nam, small scale actions like Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Gulf War, and now the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess the question on most peoples' minds (or at least yours) is whether this current conflict is different from the others. That is, is the current conflict in the Middle East different from other conflicts in the motivation for engagement, objectives/outcomes, and effects on society. Concerning the motivation for entering the present conflict, I would have to say that this needs to be discussed on two levels. First, we have the ostensible manifest justification that we were being threatened by WMDs and we were doing the right/just thing by eliminating a dictator and freeing oppressed people. The second, latent justification, and the one that appears to many to be paramount after events have demonstrated the fallacy of the WMD argument, is the strategic interest of Iraq and Afghanistan for the U.S.because of natural resources. I will never forget the day our planes began bombing Iraq (2nd war) in the "Shock and Awe" attempt to convince the American public that this would be over quickly. And I will never forget the comment that one news reporter (I think it was Dan Rather) made shortly after we began the land invasion "The oil fields have been secured." Now there was an honest (perhaps unintentional) assessment of the motivation.

But let's not forget that there's been a tradition of the government concealing true (or latent) motivations from the public. For example, Truman's authorization of dropping nuclear bombs on Japan ostensibly to bring them to surrender was really a strategic move to intimidate the Russians, for the Japanese had already signaled they were ready to quit before Hiroshima. And the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident that led Congress to pass a resolution that culminated in the escalation of the war in Viet Nam was later proven to be bogus.

Let's be honest about the situation. We have less than a sixth of the world's population and consume over 25% of the world's non-replenshible raw materials, including much of the oil. As India, China, and other developing nations expand their economies they will want a larger share of the resource pie. Much of the maneuvering that has taken place for territory and hegemony in the last 60 years has revolved around these geopolitical considerations. What is particularly disturbing is the lack of understanding of the American public (and perhaps some government officials) about the desire of people in developing nations to maintain their cultural/ethnic identity and control over their natural resources in the face of enormous pressures brought by our government and corporations to change them. As we have seen in recent years, some of the information released by our government about our intentions and objectives in this most current conflict has not been accurate.

Furthermore, the general dissatisfaction of the public with the war is increasing the distrust of the government--a situation that was precipated by the sordid escapades of the Watergate Affair. So, on the one hand we have a desire of the public to liberate oppressed peoples around the world and seek revenge for terrorist activities here and elsewhere (World Trade Center), and on the other we also realize that we need the resources of these "oppressed nations" to maintain our materialist lifestyle.

If you want to know what I'm most concerned about in this conflict, it's the horrible loss of life and injuries (physical and psychological) being sustained by all sides. The Administration has never proved that al Quada was a major factor in Iraq or Afghanistan, though they probably have more of a presence there now than prior to our invasion. The second thing I'm concerned about is what this conflict is doing to our society. I fear that the basic fabric of our Constitution is being altered through illegal laws like the Patriot Act that circumscribe individual rights and freedoms--press, assembly, privacy. The scary thing is that many people aren't concerned about the diminution of these freedoms because they have been scared into surrendering these freedoms ostensibly for the sake of maintaining social order. After awhile, our society takes on some of the characteristics of those very groups that previously repulsed us, creating a situation where "We have met the enemy and they are us."

I could ramble on about our "one dimensional" mentality as the philosopher Herbert Marcuse referred to it, or as sociologist Phillip Slater called it our "Pursuit of Loneliness." These are not new ideas. In the ''70s social critic Christopher Lasch railed against our "Culture of Narcissism" with its egocentric, materialistic ethos. And while there have been historical precedents of anarchic terrorism (Symbionese Liberation Army, SDS Weathermen, Bader Meinhof Gang, Black Panthers, etc.), the potential havoc that can be wreaked by a few angry or unbalanced people through chemical/biological, dirty bombs, and other WMDs has exponentially increased the risk to societies around the world. The challenge for democratic societies is to maintain a semblance of control protecting populations from terrorism without letting the threat of terrorism dominate our lives and diminish freedom.

We must remember that there will always be desperate people as long as we have desperate situations. The key to creating a society free from terror/anarchy is respect for individual rights and valuing cultural differences. The United States cannot hope to be the cop on every beat around the world, pursuing "endless enemies." Making the world safe for American ideals must not be confused with or substituted for imposing our political and economic designs on diverse populations with different cultural configurations. I used to think Dwight Eisenhower was stupid. Boy was I wrong.Hope this doesn't muddy the water.

Roy hrkaplan@cas.usf.edu


P.S. I'm sending this to Justis Chotokal, an Anytowner who is in the Marines living and working in the Green Zone. Perhaps he will be able to shed some light on this.

The Growing Case For Calling Global Conflict World War III - Tampa Tribune

Ben - Am hoping you’ve seen today’s editorial in the Tampa Trib. See below. It says succinctly what’s underneath the thoughts I sent you earlier. If there’s a justification for supporting the War in Iraq and on terror in general, it is stated here, i.e., the problem is much bigger than the war in Iraq and those who realize it will favor fighting now for what could become our own survival later. Those who don’t realize it and who continue to question whether we should be in Iraq or supporting Israel or involved in Afghanistan or worried about Somalia and Indonesia are not seeing what’s happening. And for confirmation of what’s happening, see the article after the editorial below. Anyone who reads these two pieces and doesn’t have the hair on the back of their necks standing up is in a very dangerous state of denial.

E. D. "Sonny" Vergara

The Growing Case For Calling Global Conflict World War III Published: Jul 27, 2006 - The Tampa Tribune

The fighting in Lebanon is more than a border skirmish between Israel and Hezbollah. It draws the world's attention and alarm because of its potential to grow into a major war. Some people think it already has. Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, said recently, "We are in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War." His point is that the clash of radical Islam with the democratic world is not being taken seriously enough by most Americans. Gingrich's critics accuse him of trying to scare people into supporting pro-interventionist Republicans. But it's worth putting aside politics and personalities to look at the deteriorating security in many parts of the world. Insurgents, some of them sympathetic to Hezbollah, are killing 100 civilians a day in Baghdad. President Bush says he is sending in more troops. Iran supports Hezbollah, and Iran is friendly with North Korea, an evil remnant of the Stalin era. Both nations will soon have nuclear weapons and long range missiles unless an external force stops them. "We Welcome World War III," says Hezbollah in Iran. In Africa, Ethiopia is sending troops into Somalia to counter the radical Islamic militia that is seizing control. In Sudan, Islamic fighters continue to wipe out remote villages resisting Islamic rule. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, violent Islamists would seize power if an opportunity arose. Russia has been fighting a vicious war against Islamic separatists in Chechnya. The terrorist bombing of a train in India has heightened tensions with Pakistan, whose military leader is losing control of Kashmiri militants and Islamic terrorists. Both Pakistan and India have atomic weapons. In neighboring Afghanistan, the Taliban is stepping up its fight to regain control. As in a global war, nations far away are taking sides. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has declared his nation an ally of Iran. Volunteer fighters from Indonesia, Malaysia and several other nations are reported to be traveling to the Middle East to join the fight against Israel. Spontaneous support for the radical Islamist plan of fascist-style rule has appeared in unlikely places, including Miami and Toronto. A plot was recently uncovered to blow up New York subways. Radical groups were successful in attacking trains in London and Madrid. World War III is an inaccurate label at this point, but the conflict is definitely global and likely to last much longer than either of the world wars. It may have started as early as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Or perhaps it was the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. President Bush was right after the 2001 attacks to make it clear that the United States is not at war with Islam. But it is increasingly clear that Islam is at war with itself. And where terrorists can win elections, democracy is no solution. Leaders throughout the free world would be well-advised to stop trying to gain temporary political advantage and work together on building a stronger defense against this global menace.

Al-Qaida calls for holy war against Israel By WILLA THAYER, Associated Press Writer

Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq." In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, said that al-Qaida now views "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us." The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with "cease-fires or agreements." "It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere." Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims for more than seven centuries until they were driven from power in 1492. He said Arab regimes were accomplices to Israel. "My fellow Muslims, it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit ... and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies ... make yourselves martyrs." He also called for the "downtrodden" throughout the world, not just Muslims, to join the battle against "tyrannical Western civilization and its leader, America." "Stand with Muslims in confronting this unprecedented oppression and tyranny. Stand with us as we stand with you against this injustice that was forbidden by God in his book (the Quran)," al-Zawahri said. Kamal Habib, a former member of Egypt's Islamic Jihad militant group who was jailed from 1981 to 1991 along with al-Zawahri, said the al-Qaida No. 2's outreach to Shiites and non-Muslims was unprecedented and reflected a major change in tactics. "This is a transformation in the vision of al-Qaida and its struggle with the United States. It is now trying to unite Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and calling for non-Muslims to join the fight," he said. Al-Zawahri wore a gray robe and white turban in the video. A picture of the burning World Trade Center was on the wall behind him along with photos of two other militants. One appeared to be a bearded Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks. The other was Mohammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs al-Masri, a former top lieutenant of bin Laden who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan in November 2001. The Arab satellite station did not transmit the entire tape, using instead selected quotes interspersed with commentary from an anchor. An Al-Jazeera official speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters said the full tape was about eight minutes long. The satellite channel aired only about half the message. It would not say how it received the tape. "The shells and rockets ripping apart Muslim bodies in Gaza and Lebanon are not only Israeli (weapons), but are supplied by all the countries of the crusader coalition. Therefore, every participant in the crime will pay the price," al-Zawahri said. "We cannot just watch these shells as they burn our brothers in Gaza and Lebanon and stand by idly, humiliated," he added. The message was al-Zawahri's 10th this year. Bin Laden has issued five messages in a particularly active year of messages from the top al-Qaida leadership. Al-Zawahri last appeared in a video posted on an Islamic Web site on the first anniversary of the train bombings in London. In the July 7 tape, he said two of the four suicide bombers in London had spent time in an al-Qaida training camp, preparing themselves for a suicide mission. The two top al-Qaida leaders also paid tribute in June to the slain leader of their Iraq network, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in separate recordings. Many of their messages this year have dealt with current events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Another new audio or video message from bin Laden had also expected in the past week on the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon, according to IntelCenter, a U.S.-based independent group that provides counterterrorism information to the U.S. government and media. However, no messages have appeared on Islamic Web sites to announce the release. Al-Zawahri said Muslims everywhere must rise up to attack "crusaders and Zionists" and support jihad "until American troops are chased from Afghanistan and Iraq, paralyzed and impotent ... having paid the price for aggression against Muslims and support for Israel." Israel began an offensive on Gaza days after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier on June 25. It opened a second front in Lebanon after Hezbollah guerillas killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two others on July 12.

The Associated Press

A Sense of History is Needed

Robert Black - Blackie to friends - is a good friend of Tom Draude and is no stranger to international relations and America's role overseas.

I certainly agree that, attempting to get enlightened discussion w/o polarization, is indeed a challenge. No matter how broadly knowledgeable or experienced one may be, one's background does bring baggage to any communicating, even when one is disciplined in minimizing the effect of affect. And, in our American 'adversarial system' in which we've all been raised, The Media often doesn't sell w/o polarization... A major reason why many think tank & institute discussions never get beyond those directly involved...

Your comment about the MSM feeding off the polarized debate on issues, whether suitably framed as 'left-right' or otherwise then polling and parroting the results w/inane commentary, is spot on. Unfortunately, few beyond the truly attentive public can read between the lines and get or carry the real message in further local debate w/i community & social groups.

Altho you have a starting point, I'd say you can't strictly limit intended discussion to Iraq & Afghanistan, since they are, simply put, hotter spots in a larger regional situation and a larger world situation. I recall my discussions 2+ decades ago w/Zalmay Khalizad when we shared an office at the Institute on Western Europe (originally Phil Mosely's European Institute) where programs on advanced industrialized societies were 'housed'. We'd ignore our primary research work to talk of his homeland and its context in wider international relations, w/both of us feeling that the Soviets had created their own 'Viet Nam'. (Using 'post VN' starting point seems salient w/regard to Afghanistan...)

Feeling here I'd say was not feelings but rather educated analysis & estimates of what would transpire over time in that situation. Zal's knowledge certainly included the Muslim dimension and, at that time, he estimated that, in the power vacuum that would follow the Soviet withdrawal in tatters, Muslim influence among the elites, in the elites, would shoot up. His feeling was that there would be some significant internal changes. I had no inklings then. The Taliban proved him right. Clearly our administration did one very smart move in making him Ambassador to Afghanistan and now to Iraq. (For once the political appointee is far superior to any among the career ambassadors -- my feeling).

A sense of history about those two hot spots and the wider context in which they are situated is going to be necessary in order to get beyond feelings in the present. I suppose we all vary in both degree & content to some extent, and that presents a challenge in doing things w/o polarization. Anyhow... Just some of my thoughts (JSMT vice JMHO?)... Certainly for all who participate, the discussions will have some meaning... Beyond that???? All the best & much success in the endeavor...

BLACKIE

Robert Black rblack.rbc@carroll.com

"First Casualty of War is Truth"

Mike McGrath is the Editor of the National Civic Review, an excellent publication published by the National Civic League in Denver. For more information on what these guys do, see their website at www.ncl.org Once upon a time, Mike was a journalist for the East Bay Express in Berkeley, CA and the Denver Westword.

Ben, When President Bush decided to overthrow the Taliban I was an enthusiastic supporter. I actually watched the coverage of the Northern Alliance's push to Kabul (and the US air support) with a sense of exhilaration. I'm not a big warmonger, but I am not a pacifist either, and I was angry about 9/11 and disgusted by Al Qaeda's suicide attack on Massoud, the stalwart leader who had fought both the Soviets and the Taliban.

But my feelings about the "war on terror" changed when President Bush decided to overthrow Saddam. Not that he didn't deserve it. What really bothered me was the phony way the administration tried to link Saddam with Al Qaeda. I'm no expert on the Middle East, but I knew enough be skeptical of "intelligence" connecting an old-fashioned, pan-Arab secularist like Saddam with a religious fanatic like Bin Ladin. As the US government was alleging Baathist collusion with Bin Laden in Iraq, our intelligence agencies were getting valuable intelligence on Islamic fundamentalist groups from the Baathist regime in Syria. Go figure.

I think it was Hiram Johnson, the Progressive Era California reformer, who said during World War I that the "first casualty of war is truth." I read a recent poll that said 50 percent of the American people think we found WMDs in Iraq and that 60 percent think there was a strong tie between Saddam and Bin Laden.

War and propaganda go hand in hand, but the level of misinformation and public confusion over the war in Iraq is unprecedented. LBJ lied about the Tonkin Gulf incident, but nobody was confused about the purpose of the war--to prevent South Vietnam from going communist. You could support it or oppose it (which I did), but you knew where things stood.

I believe the popularity of partisan "news" sources like talk radio and FOX News have changed the dynamics of political debate in this country. In the past (during Vietnam, for instance) we disagreed about policies, but the basic underlying verifiable facts were not as much in dispute. It's as if supporters of the war and opponents live in alternative universes with completely different realities. This cognitive polarization raises troubling questions about the future of discourse in this country.

Presidents from both parties have eroded the constitutional power of the Congress to declare (or not declare) war, but this improbably an unavoidable tendency given the nature of modern world threats, and as long as there is a lively (and reasonably well informed) public debate, the damage to democratic self-government is containable. I agree with those who have argued that when this is all over, we may need to have a truth reconciliation commission to bring the American people back into the same dimension of political reality.

I hope this hasn't been too overtly political. I have spent the past few years thinking about political reform and democracy issues, and I have become convinced that the only way out of the culture of political conflict is to go back to the nonpartisan, good government reform tradition of the early 20th Century. The war in Iraq--and the bizarre nature of the public debate over it--make me more convinced than ever.

Mike McGrath - mikem@ncl.org

Media Portrayal of the War

This is from Wil Vaughn, a friend of Gene Schiller and Sonny Vergara. Wil served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I was in major combat operations from January 2003 -January 2004. I am two years removed from that combat arena. I have in Afghanistan this past year. While I was over there my wife told me of how the media was portraying what happened. We even had at times media personnel embedded with our unit. To the media death and carnage is what gets them ratings. It has nothing to do with the powerful message our country might be sending. Yelling, controversy, death, and despair are the elements the media wants to portray of our conflict. I am a part of this new generation of war veterans this is a different war. We have not lost as many soldiers as any preceding war yet there has been extremely the opposite effect on public opinion. The histrionics of people like Cindy Sheehan are admired by the media, when the average military family understands the commitment their sons and daughters have decided to take. Death is not the worst thing that could happen. It is a sad time today when a young man or woman commits to something greater than themselves they are admonished by peers and relatives. My wife constantly heard negative comments while I was gone on both tours. "Are you not scared he will be killed over there?" It is almost impossible to fight a war today and not suffer casualties. We are no longer fighting enemies that respect the laws of war. Back in college I had an associate who use to say if he was in a fight his dad always told him "no fight is a fair fight! Use anything to win." War is ugly and I have experienced this first hand. This is the type of enemy we are dealing with; they are that kid from our youth that would, in a fist fight throw sand in your eyes to gain an advantage. In this case they do not wear uniforms, use less then honorable tactics, use children. America has changed because now we have to talk and try to negotiate.

Americans have a fascination with understanding evil or enemies. We continually attempt to appease people who do not like us. There is a reason why the Taliban had power in Afghanistan as well as Sadaam in Iraq. In that part of the world talk means nothing. What is respected is brut force.

Wil Vaughn - lil3wil@hotmail.com

Terrorism Knows No Limits Now

Dear Ben,

What do I think about when I think about the war in Iraq? Several levels. There’s the political, there’s the danger, and, there’s the personal. A lot are just feelings and hard to express, some are thoughts.

The pictures in the news trigger memories of my own military experience. That’s the personal part.

I can see an H-46 in the news from Iraq and smell the pungent aroma of hydraulic fluid, the blood of the machine that courses throughout its metal which, ironically, is blood red in color. I can smell a squad of recon Marines rushing up the ramp after five days in the jungle as the rotors suck the air from the rear fuselage past our faces and out the open cockpit windows. It’s a grassy, green smell, not body odor at all, that envelops us as they enter. I can hear the crew chief screaming his count over the intercom as each Marine charges up the ramp. If we were extracting an eight-man squad, for example, he would shout his count so the pilot would know exactly when all were aboard and get the hell out of there. I can smell the jet exhaust of the turbine engines and I can hear the crackling of the radios as we monitored sometimes four different frequencies at once. I can hear the short, clipped monotone transmissions of the pilots, clear god-like commands from Landshark, the control center, and the excited pleas of the Marines on the ground coordinating our pickup as rockets and napalm landed sometimes almost at their feet.

“Say your color smoke, Redbud?”

“White! White! You’re 1-8-0 from us!”

“Roger, Redbud. White smoke. We’re inbound.”

I can hear the F-4 pilot key his mike and say calmly over the high-pitched whine of his engines that he’s a flight of two holding on the 2-7-0, Danang tacan, 1-9 miles, at level 1-5, and Landshark say, “Roger, BlueDog, hold your position.”

Over the barking of my own two 50-calibers that shake the aircraft when they fire, I can hear the Huey gunship pilot say, “You’re taking fire, Skyshadow! Tracers, nine o’clock.”

I can feel the rotors loosing grip, slowing, as I yank the nose of the big bird up and pull max power to stop its forward and downward momentum to land in a clearing only a few feet larger than the plane of the spinning blades.

“I got one! I got two! I got three! Four! Five! Six! Seven! I got eight! Go! Go! Goddamnit Go!”

The rockets from the Huey escort explode past us, walking the dog, laying them down on both sides of us, if not killing the enemy maybe scaring the shit out of’em long enough so we can get our turns up and get the hell out of there.

Away from the zone now and climbing, still in one piece, I hear Landshark clear Bluedog in for his run. We look back and see hell descend. Wump. Wump. Wump. The blasts send shocks through the helicopter as we turn for the airfield ten minutes away at Phu Bai, or Khe Sanh, or Dong Ha, or Monkey Mountain … and a San Miguel beer after the day is done.

Pictures bring it back and I remember what we did in Vietnam, over and over again. Sometimes I laugh out loud at what I see. Sometimes I fight tears. Sometimes the grip in my stomach surprises me and makes me flinch.

The political thing about Iraq? Frankly, the more threatening it becomes, the less and less of a rat’s rear I’m caring about the politics. Why? Because they’re out to kill us, and when someone has sworn to kill me, “by God”, I tend to get less concerned about the politics of a matter and more about where I’m going to find a 2X4 big enough to defend myself, including whacking him first before he whacks me.

I believe the whole terrorist thing is truly frightening and a threat to every country that is non-Muslim and some that aren’t. Terrorism and terrorist tactics are being developed to a high art. One does not need to be a citizen of a country to be a terrorist. You only need a cause, some training in explosives, access to explosives (like fertilizer, for Pete’s sake), and, Shazam! You’re a terrorist! I hate the Government so I’ll blow up a government building. I hate American infidels so I’ll blow up myself and a bunch of Marines. I hate the British so I’ll blow up some trains. Since that worked really well and I hate the Spaniards, I’ll blow up some trains there, too. But I really hate the American non-believers who give money to the Israelis so I’ll hi-jack some airliners and drive them into the Twin Towers. And, along the way maybe I’ll hi-jack a cruise ship and toss an elderly, crippled Jew over the side to make my point.

Terrorism knows no limits now. It has been released like a poison gas on the civilized world. It’s the zealots who are willing to blow themselves up to achieve martyrdom that have raised the ante. I can understand how there are militias that operate without allegiance to any government or recognized political boundary who follow only the bidding of the Immans that control them. I can understand how their strength comes from the money and guns of Iran and Syria. I understand how the Immans have strategically allowed the Muslim faith to be hijacked by the fanatics because it gives them, the Immans, more power and I understand how religious faith has become the fuel for the emotional fire that drives the killing and mayhem of terrorism. What I don’t understand is the real reason for the fight. What is their ultimate goal? Is the complete destruction of western society because it is not Muslim their objective? Is it the Immans who see the spread of western values eroding their Muslim traditions and religious and political power over such desert tribes as the Sunnis and Shiites who are keeping the fires lit? I mean is that what it’s all about? Have they become so powerful that they can seriously seek to obtain a nuclear or other mass destruction weapon in order to destroy us across 10,000 miles of earth and ocean? All because they fear losing their own power? Really?

That is what scares the crap out of me. Whatever their reasons for causing the death of civilians and using the innocence of the innocent as weapons of war, they aren’t rational in a civilized world, and not truly understanding the reasons why they’re doing it denies us an effective, rational way to respond to it. Without that understanding, we are left only with direct and forceful defensive action. Whack’em before they whack us.

So, despite my feeling that the closer the danger gets to me and my family the less important the politics are, on to the politics of it. Was the war in Iraq justified? Yes, knowing what I know today and what’s happening in the Arab/Muslim world that is so dangerous to the rest of us. I believe the U.S., if it’s going to be involved effectively at all, and surely it must, had to take a drastic step and Saddam Hussein gave us ample reason to take him out. Weapons of mass destruction? I believe firmly that he had them and was looking to use them. The problem was the lack of backbone and loss of time caused by the patronizing weaknesses of the United Nations which gave him time to secret them out to Syria before we got there. Right or wrong, though, we need to be there and as involved as we are, before those 10,000 miles are eliminated altogether. Yes, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon brought it to us but we will learn as a result, and new barriers will be created and erected to protect us until we truly understand why they’re so angry.

Which brings me to the issue, how is it all affecting America?

First, how do we define “it”? Well, “it” is not the war in Iraq. “It” is the war on terrorism. Were it not for terrorism, I think Iraq would not have been necessary, but the fact is that the DNA of terrorism comes from there, and Beirut, and Iran, and Syria and everywhere the Muslim faith is being morphed into the snake-headed hydra it has become. We needed a foothold without qualifications or limits so we can look Bin Laden and Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr and all the rest directly in the eye and say, “You want us, here we are.” That part of America hasn’t changed. We can be pushed only so far, and 9/11 got us there on that brilliantly-clear-for-all-to-see morning in a digital media second. Once pushed there, we come together. We become one, no matter the color, the credo or the lingo. It is not bravado. It is an appreciation for freedom. That part of America has not changed. If it ever does, we are lost.

That is the fundamental difference with Vietnam. America did not come together there.

The circumstances were different. In Iraq, like I said, it has more to do with our response to terrorism and the horror and fear caused by 9/11 than anything else. Vietnam? The match was lit on a foggy black night in the Bay of Tonkin off the coast of North Vietnam when a U.S. warship fired at a blip on its radar that it later claimed was a gunboat making aggressive maneuvers. Congress really touched off the fire when it passed the Tonkin Bay Resolution authorizing further military action against North Vietnam, a small agrarian nation, fearing that the loss of its southern neighbor, South Vietnam, to communism would be the first of more. The Domino Theory. A major difference between Iraq and Vietnam is simply that the chalice of morality is filled higher for one than the other. Eventually, years and 48,000 American lives later, America did not buy it, did not come together, and we lifted the last of those we could from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon as the North Vietnamese Army took control and fled.

America has and will continue to change as a result of terrorism. Freedom is not free. Our brand of freedom while based upon simple human axioms is a living, complex brand of government that must continue to change in a changing world. Many freedoms taken for granted until now will need to be more particularly defined. Yes, we will always be free to travel any where we wish but now there will be a more refined need to know who is traveling with us and whether or not they have a bomb in their shoe. Yes, we will always be free to say what we wish but now there will be a more refined need to know it isn’t being used to incite zealots to commit suicide against us, or to raise money for those who would a la Sami al-Arian. Yes, we can always buy fertilizer for our fields but there will be a more refined need to know it isn’t going to be used to blow up government buildings instead, or another World Trade Center. Yes, we will always have a right to bear arms but there will be a more refined need to have a reason for owning a scoped rifle and carrying it around when the President’s in town.

America is changing. Its naive trust in the goodness of its people is being eroded by those who would take advantage of its naiveté to destroy it. I believe I have overcome it now but when I first returned from thirteen months in Vietnam, I felt a very strong aversion, i.e., negative emotional reaction, to anyone clearly oriental. I have talked to Marines back from Iraq and they speak of similar feelings toward anyone clearly middle-eastern. Non-specific fear of others will separate us, reform the shape and consistency of the human family we are as a country, and terrorism has the capacity to do this by causing fear when and where none need exist. That aspect of life today alone will transform us as Americans. I am not schooled enough to know the mechanics of it. I just feel it in myself.

Our view of religion is changing. Once religion was simply a personal choice we respected in anyone that, when acknowledged, assured us they could be depended upon to follow a reasonably acceptable code of behavior, certainly a non-threatening one. No more. Now we have learned that belief in God can be used to justify the most horrid of carnage that humans might perpetrate on other humans. How will we now tolerate a belief in God that does not acknowledge our right to exist because our beliefs are different? Has the sanctity of the concept of God been hijacked from our own sense of faith as it has been so certainly hijacked from the Muslims?

Ben, you said you didn’t want a treatise so I’d better quit. Some of these ideas are straight out of my head with little editing so they might not make a lot of sense to you. But here’tis for what it’s worth. I really enjoyed setting it down and appreciate, again, being part of the thing, whatever it becomes.

Sonny - sonnyvergara@bellsouth.net

Speech from Major General Lehnert, USMC

Tom Draude sent me this speech. Tom is a Marine and thought this speech was right to point on how America is reacting to the war. Here it is in its entirety.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen,

Eight days ago, I was present in the audience when Tom Brokaw addressed the 2006 Stanford graduating class. After the initial pleasantries and one-liners, Mr. Brokaw said something unexpected. He told the class that they were the children of privilege, fortunate to be attending one of the finest educational institutions in the country, the anointed because they had both the test scores for admittance and parents who were able to afford their tuition. He noted that they could likely expect rapid advancement in almost any endeavor they choose and that they were destined to lead the most powerful country in the world.

The class was beaming.

And then Brokaw reminded them that the liberties and freedoms they enjoyed were being defended by young people their age that did not have their advantages. That at this time thousands of men and women were fighting, dying and suffering debilitating injury to ensure that the rest of us could live the American dream.

There was an uncomfortable shifting in the seats, followed by slow but growing applause from the audience.

When we sent my son to Stanford four years ago, we filled out a form asking for demographic information. One of the questions for the parents said, what is your profession? After it was a list of about thirty professions including doctor, lawyer, congressman, educator, architect. Military was not listed so I filled in “other”

My son was the only graduate who had a parent serving in the armed forces. As I was introduced to his friends’ parents, it was interesting to watch their reaction. Few had ever spoken to a member of the military. One asked me how my son was able to gain admittance with the disadvantage of having to attend “those DoD schools”. Many voiced support for our military and told me that they’d have served but clearly military service was not for their kind of people.

This year of the so-called elite schools, Princeton led them with nine graduates electing military service. Compare that with 1956 when over 400 of the Princeton graduating class entered the military. Most of the other Ivy League schools had no one entering the military this year.

I wonder how many of you know the young people who are serving today. I won’t embarrass anyone by asking for a show of hands to ask how many really know a young enlisted Marine who has been to war.

I’m going to try to give you a better feel about those who serve our nation.

Our Marines tend to come from working class families. For the most part, they came from homes where high school graduation was important but college was out of their reach. The homes they come from emphasize service. Patriotism isn’t a word that makes them uncomfortable.

The global war on terrorism has been ongoing for nearly five years with Marines deployed in harms way for most of that time. It is a strange war because the sacrifices being levied upon our citizens are not evenly distributed throughout society. In fact, most Americans are only vaguely aware of what is going on.

That isn’t the case aboard the Marine bases in Southern California where we see the sacrifice everyday as we train aboard those open spaces that you covet for other purposes. Many of our Marines are married and 70% of our married Marines live in your communities, not aboard Marine bases. These Marines coach your soccer teams. They attend your places of worship. They send their kids to your schools. However, in many ways they are as different from the rest of the citizens of Southern California as my son was different from the rest of the students at Stanford.

One of the huge differences between the rest of society and our Marine families, is when Marine daddies and mommies go to work, some of them never come home. The kids know that. The spouses know that. Week after week we get reports of another son, father, husband who won’t be coming back. During the past four years, over 460 Marines from Southern California bases have been killed by the enemy. 107 more have died in Iraq and Afghanistan due to accidents. 6500 have been wounded some of them multiple times.

You will never know or meet Brandan Webb age 20 or Christopher White age 23 or Ben Williams age 30. They were all assigned to First Battalion First Marine Regiment, Camp Pendleton, California. They were some of the Marines who died this week out of Marine bases in Southern California.

Last Friday, we hosted a golf tournament at Camp Pendleton to raise money for wounded Marines. There are a lot of expenses that the government cannot legally pay for from appropriated funds. The people who attended the tournament genuinely wanted to help and we invited a couple of dozen wounded Marines to golf with them. As I watched the teams leave for a shotgun start, I saw three Marines sitting by themselves and went over to talk to them. Clearly they’d been told by their chain of command that this was their appointed place of duty. They were sitting in the sun chatting, probably not unhappy with the duty but mildly uncertain as to why they were there. I asked them why they weren’t golfing and they said that they’d never learned. No one in their families ever played golf and that this was the first time they’d ever been on a golf course. I asked them how many times they’d deployed. One of the young men had just returned from his third deployment and had been wounded every time. The others teased him for being a bullet magnet. I asked him if he was going to stay in and he thought for a moment what to say to a general and he said, “I think I’d like to try college. No one in my family has ever gone.”

I asked these Marines if I could buy them a beer. They looked at me and smiled. One of them said, “We can’t ask you to break the rules sir. None of us are 21 yet.”

They seemed much older. As I left them I wondered about a policy that gives a young man the power of deciding who will live and who will die but won’t let him drink a beer. I thought about these young Americans who had never shot golf but had shot and killed other men in order to carry out foreign policy.

On the 10th of August we will open a wounded warrior barracks at Camp Pendleton. Few taxpayers’ dollars were used. We were able to raise the money through the Semper Fidelis fund to house those Marines who no longer need to be hospitalized but who suffer debilitating injuries and need follow-on care. Heretofore, when regiments left for the war, they left their non-deployables behind. These Marines often had to live in WWII era barracks with open squad bays and gang heads down the hallway. Those having limited mobility found it difficult and uncomfortable. It was no way to treat our wounded warriors. We’re fixing it.

Now let me introduce you to another enlisted Marine. His name is Brendan Duffy. Brendan was an infantry Marine. Like so many others, Brendan had dreams of going to college but no means to do so. While he was in the Corps, he immediately began using his Montgomery GI bill benefits by enrolling in Mira Costa College. Though deployed soon after signing up for college, he took his textbooks to war. Last month he received Mira Costa’s highest award for academic excellence, the Medal of Honor for Academic Excellence. Brendan described studying pre-calculus while fragments from explosions struck the sandbag shelter he was in.

Brendan left the Corps this week and has been accepted to the University of California Los Angeles to study math and economics.

Later this morning I’ll be meeting with educators across the California University system. We are trying to make California more veteran friendly. California hosts 40% of the combat power of the Marine Corps and 40% of the Marine veterans who leave the Corps do so out of Southern California bases. 96% have participated in the Montgomery GI Bill and are eligible for benefits but only a small number enter the California University system. That’s because California, unlike other states did not provide any veterans preference or even reach out to veterans. These combat veterans score in the top 50% of their age group, are drug free and morally straight but are lost to California and return to other states that aggressively work to attract them.

Several months ago, I along with senior leadership of all the Services, met with Governor Schwarzenegger and told him that California was not an education friendly state for military veterans. To his credit, he is trying to change that and this meeting today is a natural outgrowth of his support.

In Iraq, the media talks about the casualties. They seldom report the successes. I don’t think that this is intentional. It is just more difficult to quantify progress and reduce it to a sound bite.

Some of you may recall almost exactly two years ago when a four man sniper team from 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines was killed on a rooftop in Ramadi. It made news because sniper teams aren’t supposed to get ambushed and because an M40A1 sniper rifle was now in the hands of the enemy.

Over the next two years, that rifle was used against Americans and we wanted it back. Last week, a 21 year old Marine sniper from 3rd Battalion, Fifth Marines out of Camp Pendleton observed a military aged male videotaping a passing patrol of amphibious assault vehicles near Camp Habbaniya. After radioing the patrol and telling them to stay low, the Marine watched the man aiming a sniper rifle that looked remarkably like his own.

He killed the enemy sniper with one round to the head. Seconds later, another insurgent entered on the passenger side and was surprised to see his partner dead. That hesitation was enough time to allow Sgt Kevin Homestead age 26 to kill the insurgent before he could drive off.

When the Marines went down to inspect the scene, they saw that the sniper rifle was one of their own. It was the same M-40A1 sniper rifle looted from the 2/4 sniper team exactly two years earlier.

We are making progress in Iraq. The Iraqi Army is more capable each month. In the Anbar province we have brought the 1st Iraqi Division - the most capable of the Iraqi formations - to the former British RAF base of Habbaniyah - between Fallujah and Ramadi. We are standing up the 7th Division. In Baghdad, Iraqi brigades own parts of the city and are reporting directly to the US Army Division commander as component units.

The Iraqi Police are the essential element - and the most difficult challenge. In any insurrection, the insurgent specifically targets the local security elements of the government - because they are essential to maintaining control via interaction with the community, intelligence gathering, and law enforcement against petty and organized crime, traffic control. These police units are having good success in places like Fallujah. Ramadi is a different kettle of fish. Some of the police departments haven’t been paid in months and the intimidation campaign is in full force.

My Chief of Staff, Colonel Stu Navarre formerly the Commander of the 5th Marine Regiments told me this story. One day in December, the Ramadi Police Dept Operations Officer (#3 in the pecking order) did not come to work. When we inquired, he told us that the day before his 10 year old son had been kidnapped after school and transported to the north side of Ramadi. He was called by the kidnappers and advised of his son's location. When the Operations Officer arrived at the location, he found his son alive, with a note pinned to his shirt, "If you go to work tomorrow, you will never see your son again. We know where you live." I wonder how many of us would show up for work with that kind of intimidation.

Your fellow Americans in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a superb job in the most dangerous places on earth. They believe in what they are doing. The majority of the sergeants, corporals, and privates enlisted after 9-11. They knew what they were signing up for. They want to deploy in defense of the nation. We are sending best leadership to the combat zone. Service in Iraq/Afghanistan has become the norm for our Marine and Army leaders, and an essential part of their experience/qualifications for advancement. Finally, the American people have continued to demonstrate an unprecedented level of support for their fellow Americans in uniform - as well as the understanding that these young men and women are executing the policies of their elected representatives.

Reconstructing an entire nation takes time. Think about our own experience during the American Revolution. Despite having a homogeneous nation with no incipient insurgency, it was thirteen years from the Revolution to the ratification of the Constitution. We seem to have forgotten that it takes time to build institutions.

Introduction of a stable, representative form of government in Iraq is revolutionary in its impacts on the region and the world. Iraq is at the center of the Mid-East, the Arab world, and Shia Islam. Iraq has been, and will continue to be a major producer of natural resources - especially oil. It is at the center of the chess board. Iraq separates two sponsors of terrorism - Iran and Syria - and with Afghanistan - isolates Iran. It is no coincidence that Muammar Qadaffi has sensed the change in the wind and sought to distance himself from terrorism and WMD and become a legitimate player in world politics.

The Iraqis are capable of running Iraq. Today, thousands of young Iraqis are lining up to become soldiers and policemen - despite constant, highly lethal attacks on recruiting stations, police stations, and army checkpoints. Concurrently, there is no more dangerous job than being a candidate for office or an elected official in Iraq. We should not underestimate the absolute danger to any Iraqi that steps up to plate for law, order, and progress. The enemy is absolutely committed to winning. For him, there is really no other option. He also understands that the center of gravity is the commitment of the American people.

One of my major concerns is quality of life issues for our Marines, Sailors and their families. We are making significant progress but we have a long way to go.

We are building 1600 more homes at Miramar to give our Marines and Sailors decent places to live. California is a beautiful State. It is also extraordinarily expensive and we are the gypsies in your castle often driving 50 or 60 miles one way to because those are the only places that our junior Marines can afford to live.

We are replacing worn out World War II vintage barracks that we make our single Marines live in. When I took over, I visited some of the open squad bay barracks at Camp Horno in Pendleton. A young Marine corporal and veteran of the fighting in Iraq looked at me and said, “Sir, I lived better in Fallujah.” That hurt but he was right. A couple of weeks later I had a chance to talk to the Commandant and tell him the same story. I told him that at the rate we were replacing barracks, we wouldn’t have decent enlisted quarters until 2036. To his credit, he listened and we now plan to have them replaced by 2013. This won’t come without a cost because the Marine Corps doesn’t get more money to build barracks, we have to realign our priorities and not buy other things that we need. It was a significant decision by our senior leadership but the right thing to do.

With our Navy partners we are going after Pay Day Lenders. Pay Day Lenders are the parasites found outside of our military bases in Southern California who pray on young Marines and Sailors because the lenders know they are uninformed consumers. Pay day lenders take advantage that California has some of the weakest laws in the country. In North Carolina, pay day lenders are limited to 36% annual percentage rates of interest. Here in San Diego we regularly see rates of 460% and I have seen rates as high as 920% being charged legally against our service members. Service members go into a cycle of debt. Ultimately because we expect our Marines to be financially responsible, their ability to reenlist, compete for good jobs and keep a security clearance is effected.

Let me be clear. Pay day lenders are not providing our Marines with a service. They are parasites, bottom feeders and scumbags. One of them sent me a note recently telling me that he was a member of an honorable profession and that I should back off. He told me that a pay day lending institution had been found in the ruins of Pompey after Mount Vesuvius erupted. I responded to him that archeologists also found a whore house and that antiquity did not bequeath virtue. It is a shameful practice.

We also recognize that military leaders have a responsibility to educate our service members and their families about sound money management. We are doing that. We are using our base papers, information campaigns and personal intervention to tell them that there are alternatives to the pay day lending institutions.

Both the State and Federal legislatures have heard our message as well and there are bills making their way through the process to significantly curtail the excesses of payday lenders.

I know that many of you came here today to find out what I would say about the airport situation at Miramar.

So as not to disappoint you, let me be clear. The Marines came to Miramar ten years ago as a result of a BRAC decision and four subsequent BRAC rounds determined that the interrelationship of the Marine and Navy bases in Southern California provided a capability that was unmatched anywhere in the country.

The Marine Corps uses its bases as a projection platform for combat power. 25,000 Marines from California bases are presently deployed in harms way and over 3,000 of them are from Miramar.

Through the years, we have accommodated our neighbors development needs. Often we allowed infrastructure that was unpopular elsewhere but vital to the community. San Diego’s primary landfill is located at Miramar. A nuclear generation facility sits aboard Marine Corps property at Camp Pendleton and powers 2.2 million Southern California homes. We want to be good neighbors and work hard at it.

We examined the proposal for joint use of Miramar carefully, provided all data requested and saw that data ignored. Joint use does not work at Miramar. Thus the real issue is whether you want a civilian airport at Miramar or Marines.

If you want us to leave, you should say so. However you must understand that no matter what names are used to describe us in the Union Tribune, the decision whether or not to leave do not rest with the military leadership in Southern California. It rests with your elected leaders and most of them have clearly put defense needs above local requirements and said no to Miramar. The decision rests with the appointed civilian leadership in the department of defense. They’ve said no as well.

Sadly this controversy has effected local civil military relations. There is no way you can sugar coat it or pretend otherwise. But we are here. If our leadership tells us to leave we will. We will take our Marines, our families, our wounded and if necessary we will dig up our dead. However right now our leadership says we stay. And whether or not we remain in San Diego, the Marine Corps is committed to protecting your liberties and your freedoms.

We know that this is a difficult issue. We know that we have many friends in San Diego but we also know that we have others who see the economic potential of development of the military installations. They say that they love the military but would rather love them somewhere else than in their backyard.

If you take nothing away from this talk, I’d hope you understand and appreciate what a remarkable group of young people currently serve in your Armed Forces today. Want to know what Marine Generals talk about when we are together? We talk about what a remarkable privilege it is to lead these extraordinary Americans.

I started by mentioning Tom Brokaw. His book coined the phrase, The Greatest Generation” and our nation responded in kind. Twenty years from now we may recognize that this young generation currently serving has the same qualities of greatness.

On the battlefield today are future CEO’s of corporations, university presidents, congressmen, state governors, Supreme Court justices and perhaps a future president of the United States.

Take the time to meet one of these young people. You won’t be disappointed.

OK,

I’ve talked long enough. I’d be happy to take your questions.

We Didn't Have the Opportunity to Decide as a Country(?)

Matt Leighninger is a friend who has dedicated his career to enriching civic dialogue. A plug - Matt just finished his first book - The Next Form of Democracy. available on www.vanderbiltuniversitypress.com

Hi Ben - When I first looked at your questions about the war, some obvious answers leapt to mind: 1) What unites us that we empathize with our servicemen and servicewomen overseas, and 2) What divides us is that we don't agree on whether our troops should be there in the first place.

But as I thought about it, I realized that those answers may not be as simple or obvious as I thought. Yes, we are united by the fact that we feel solidarity with the people over there, and with their families. Beyond that, we recognize that they are making a sacrifice for us - whether or not we see it as wise or worthwhile doesn't diminish the depth of that sacrifice. Also, many of us feel united because we simply don't like to do something badly - we want our troops to succeed in creating a peaceful Iraq, even if we doubt it can be done.

It may be that our differences in opinion aren't actually the main thing dividing us. Perhaps it is the fact that we didn't have the opportunity to decide, collectively, whether going to war was the right thing to do. If we felt like our opinions had been heard and were part of the process, we would probably be less upset about the final decision.

The more I think about what unites and divides us, the more I feel like we are (still, despite everything) thinking as a collective entity, as a polity, as a country. If we didn't feel like Americans, we wouldn't empathize with our troops, we wouldn't care so much that other Americans disagreed with us, and we wouldn't be upset that our opinions hadn't been heard. So that's a little bit reassuring, anyway.

Matt

Matt Leighninger
Democracy Workshop
Senior Associate
Study Circles Resource Center

A House Divided Cannot Stand

Dick is a friend of Gene Schiller's

On Afghanistan, I think of my time there in the late 70s when the US Ambassador, Spike Dubbs was assassinated in front of the Embassy by the KBG using Afghans. He was a brilliant and good guy and how shocked I was when his death and funeral was hardly covered by the press. The Soviet invasion followed and then the use of Arab Freedom fighters using our money in Charlie Wilson’s war to get the Soviets out. I remember us giving the Taliban the country even though we knew they were crazy and then sending a Tomahawk missile into an empty camp in retaliation for the many attacks on our country. So when I read the paper today, I feel much better about what we are doing in Afghanistan. On Iraq, I think about how we stood on the sidelines in the 80s during the Iran Iraq war while an Atlanta Bank was laundering our AID money for Saddam or the 90s when our Embassy misread Saddam’s intention to attack Kuwait and then after beating him, let him slaughter the Kurds and Shia then steal the food from his people while we debated what to do and even after 9/11 debate as to if we could trust them to have WMDs, I feel better that we confronted the threat and are trying to bring democracy to that part of the world and hope from our disappointments with the results we are learning how to cope with the culture that believes it is only a matter of time when ours will cave. America unfortunately is becoming divided and you know what Lincoln said about a house divided.

Dick Hailer rhailer@comcast.net

Common Deception Between Vietnam and now Iraq/Afghanistan

Friends – This posting is from my friend John Burciaga who is a Unitarian Minister in Boston. Some of you may remember John as the minister of the Unitarian Church in Clearwater. John was very active in the civil rights movement in the 1960s when he lived in Atlanta and was very much a part of the debates over the Vietnam war that became a dominant discussion in the Unitarian churches at the time. John echoes similar themes to Tom’s note about the war’s effects being confined to a small number of people and perhaps gets at some of the questions Tom raises. - Ben


I'm struck by the common deception that occurred with Vietnam and now with Iraq/Afghanistan. I see no other connection betwen the two wars than our government's, in both cases, having misrepresented its motives and the country's interests. During the early years of the Vietnam conflict, I was a "hawk" and believed the stated reasons for our involvement. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was the ruin of my trust and belief--a resolution already prepared ahead of the bogus "attack" incident in that gulf. Once Vietnam was behind us, I carried no baggage into the merits of Iraq/Afghanistan, but soon recognized old forces and deceptions at play, this time not by a Democratic president (LBJ) but a Republican (GWBush). I never fail to read stories of GIs lives in our current war effort, and am humbled by their bravery and willing sacrifice--all of which is too precious to be wasted without the best of reasons. Their lives and valor are sacred but are misplaced by government policy. This is the "soul" of America that I see being corrupted, not to mention those at home, some of who, like me, see what we feel is an extreme of deception at work. Persistent U.S. policy makes us all responsible, and guilty, for what is happening. Our ways of protest ultimately are unproductive and weak because our convictions are treated as unpatriotic and treasonous. Just by paying taxes, we are complicit in what seems to us to be governmental madness. Now the newly ordained notion of "pre-emptive strikes" in our so-called "best interests" means that there could be no end to American military adventurism.

The only people being "brought together" are those of same mind--For and Against. Certainly we are not brought together as Americans in support of a common cause. I share one contributor's concern that unlike prior wars (pre-Vietnam and Korea), sacrifices are made only on the battlefields and in the hearts and souls of those families who have loved ones there. Everyone else at home pursues life and living as if no conflict were engaged, creating a surrealist vision of the world.

I am lucky to have been in direct communication with various people who differ from my viewpoint and, as in this online discussion, give me opportunity to hear their minds and hearts while constantly examining my own. If such opportunities grow, they may be the saving grace of our divided nation. Certainly the screaming matches on radio and TV are no redemptive process.

Thanks, all, for hearing me out.

John Burciaga JEBurciaga@comcast.net

Are We Really At War?

I’ll try to give you guys a little introduction to one another so you have a feel for each other’s background and experience. I’m honored to know Tom from his days here in Tampa running the Southeast Region of USAA Insurance. Tom now runs the US Marine Corps University Foundation in Quantico, Virginia and is a retired USMC General. Tom is also a big Shakespeare fan and read the St. Crispin’s Day speech (Henry V) to the troops leading into battle during the first Gulf war that will put hair on your chest. - Ben


Ben and Bill,

Thanks for the chance to share.

I spoke to the graduates of the Marine Corps Basic School about our Foundation last week and how we can serve them and their Marines when help is needed--but funds are not available. I finished by telling them how much I admired them and the challenges and sacrifices they have chosen. I told them this was a different war from mine. Although I served three times in Vietnam and fought some very good soldiers (NVA and Viet Cong), there was never the fear that they would attack my family back in the U.S. This enemy has done so and would seize the chance to do so again. This is an enemy that hates us more than they love life.

I did not tell them but it still disturbs me: Are we really at war? We say we are, but other than the 3/4 of 1% of our population in uniform and their families, who is sacrificing? Other than the hassle of airport security, how have our lives changed since we "went to war"? My son Ryan received his MBA from Georgetown a few weeks ago and the graduation speaker was the Secretary of Commerce. His speech was about immigration--not a stretch since he came from Cuba and worked his way up the line at Kellogg's. But two things struck me: Georgetown is a Catholic University (and I know not all the students are Catholic, Christian, or practicing any religion.) Nevertheless, there was no mention of God until the almost obligatory "God Bless America" at the end...and there was not ONE WORD about the war! Can you imagine any member of a WW II Cabinet who would not mention the war? Just a word about the sacrifices being made at that hour by men and women who are trying to keep our Nation safe while MBA's are being earned--not a word!

So Ben and Bill, please forgive the rantings of an old guy. If any of this helps, I'd be honored.

Please stay in touch.

Semper Fidelis,

Tom

Origins of the Dialogue

Sonny Vergara is a friend who lives in Brooksville, Florida, just outside Tampa. Sonny and I converse from time to time about civic issues and I wasthe recipient of one of his e-mails about impressions of the Iraq war. His note was a response to his sister about a website related to war issues. I've had many conversations in passing with people about the topic and asked Sonny if this was something he'd be willing to share as the basis of a conversation. Sonny is in the land development business, was the Executive Director of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and is a Vietnam Vet. He's also a Leadership Florida graduate. Here's his e-mail and our correspondence:

--------
Cindy,

I think a lot about the soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everywhere that our men and women in uniform are in danger on behalf of what this country stands for. I know that while it is different from my own experience in Vietnam, some aspects will always be the same in war, i.e., the feeling that every day you’re alive is a good day, handed to you more by fate than good sense; the ache inside the fear, wondering if you’re being thought of by your loved ones as they carry out their routine, stateside lives going to jobs, paying bills, sleeping in comfortable beds, waking to a secure world every day; … feeling like your own life has been suspended for reasons you’re not sure you completely understand or agree with but you endure because of a larger belief that, right or wrong, if not you, who?

The poignant pictures found seemingly everywhere on the internet these days often bring tears to my eyes. I worry that my sensitivity might be noticed by those near me so I hide it, not wanting my friends and family to think there’s something left over in me from my own experiences … I don’t know why … a soldier sitting, staring into space, holding a letter from home; a soldier with his arms around his buddies laughing, in a bunker, dirty, seemingly oblivious to the danger outside, mistakenly understood by those who haven’t been there as “courage.” I saw one the other day of two women soldiers asleep in the sand, one resting her head on a hard metal box in the shade of an armored vehicle, the other with her head resting on her comrades thigh, both obviously bone tired, not ready to go back to their sleeping area before getting up and doing again whatever it was that was so needed by their fellow soldiers. I reacted, I guess, because of the exposed innocence it portrayed on the violent edge of war that is in all young soldiers. It’s called allegiance to duty, unquestioned loyalty, camaraderie, passing of childhood, unwitting participant in history, sensing change in one’s self as one never thought possible …and more, so much more. I guess I hide my emotions because I don’t want to appear sappy about what is so common “there.” Maybe I shouldn’t.

Satellite phones and e-mail may have changed it all now. I don’t know. I’m sure it’s different … but in many ways, it’ll always be the same.

Tell Geoff, we think about him … every minute, every day.
----------

Sonny - I just left you a voice mail message on this. I was thinking about trying to solicit a few of the Vietnam vets around the Tampa Bay area and get some thoughts on the war from a more non-political basis and see if I can weave this into a well framed blog or into a cover story package. I'm interested in how the war is tugging at the soul of America and in how as a Vietnam Vet and a Baby Boomer, you are thinking about things. Can I use this e-mail in something? Any other folks you're corresponding with that might contribute a few thoughts? This doesn't need to be polished - just real and from the heart. Think this would work? Ben

Sonny
Hi, Ben, Certainly, you can use the email. I guess that’s why I sent it, thinking there may be a use higher than simply a message between two people. Can’t find your voicemail. It’s not on my home or cell phone so it must be at “work.” Sorry. Your idea is very interesting. The “war” is, in fact, tugging more and more at America’s heart. The fear of another “Vietnam” continues to occupy the large, dark, closed compartments of our collective national conscience, and is growing behind every new call for larger commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world situation has put us in a double bind. On the one hand, terrorism is a real and valid threat we have to deal with until the reasons for it have been resolved, so most will acknowledge that it needs to met head-on aggressively and successfully if we are to preserve the democratic, freedom-of-choice society we’ve come to cherish. On the other, we’re losing the connection between why we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan and the absolute need to win over terrorism. America does not want another Vietnam and is losing its appetite for loss of more American blood in the Muslim sands of the Sahara, but it sees the need to fight terrorism and rogue, terrorist-harboring governments that could cause the known world to wobble on its axle if allowed to run amok. The dilemma, therefore, is how do we fight terrorism successfully and are our current strategies involving a full-force military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan meeting the definition of success? I believe there is another very interesting aspect of this mess that needs to be acknowledged and which is affecting our ability to effectively defend ourselves, however, and it has to do with a concept we, as a society, have engendered as the world’s purveyor of righteousness. We are trying to fight a moral war. Those who have been in war will tell you in the time it takes an M-16 bullet to go from muzzle to muscle that war is innately immoral. The killing of innocent civilians, as sort of by-catch victims, collateral damage, as it were, comes part and parcel with the process. It was never such a societal issue as it has become, beginning first with Vietnam and the emerging electronic information era that brought the inevitable atrocities into our living rooms, today when knowledge of the death and destruction of war is not only instantaneous but very personal. The juxtaposition aside, see the two attached video clips. Our national conscience cannot reconcile the inevitability of the accidental death of innocents with a strategy that demands it to happen if we are to be successful in a pitched battle against extremists who do not hesitate to use the innocence of innocents as a weapon. Well, I could go on. Said enough for the moment, probably. Will the idea work? Don’t know, but it sure would be an interesting exercise. I’d love to help.

E. D. "Sonny" Vergara sonny@mailmt.com

Opening Statement

The following postings and comments are an attempt to create civil dialogue around America's involvement in the Iraq war and more broadly the war on terror. This is an issue that is causing all of us to struggle with its meaning. I'm interested in seeing how a civil dialogue might occur online amongst interested friends. I'll do my best with these new tools to help participants understand the contributor's background so the words can have greater context. My sense is that we can have a richer discussion with a diverse set of people but I would ask that anyone posting a comment do so as if they were face to face with the person they are responding to with all the requisite courtesies. The topic of the Iraq war and people's perspectives is fraught with political passions and the middle east conflict has become so heated that it is very difficult to find a place where common ground can be explored. Please respect the groundrules and we will all learn from one another. I appreciate your willingness to participate in this dialogue.

The template of the blog typically allows for a single narrative to occur from the author and for participants to comment on these narratives. I would like to present several broad themes in this blog coming from different participants and then ask you to engage in a dialogue by leaving comments underneath the theme that you'd like to respond to. The blog is a public space but I would also like to try to weave these comments into an article to appear in Creative Loafing in Atlanta and Charlotte or the Weekly Planet in Tampa and Sarasota. If the conversation is rich enough we may be able to broaden the dialogue through publishing in our 300,000 circulation across these 4 markets. Additionally, if we've exhausted the issue in our dialogue, I'd like to try to summarize the common ground we've come to and to draft a letter to our elected officials - Senators in Florida, Georgia and North Carolina, our local congressmen in our markets as well as to the President. Perhaps in a small way, the sharing of ideas amongst friends might help us to understand one another better and demonstrate that talking past one another in slogans and sound bites isn't how our founding fathers thought policy should be deliberated.

Please post comments here for thoughts related to civic dialogue.

Ben Eason - ben.eason@creativeloafing.com