(Dis)Respecting the Troops

Are the Troops Beyond Criticism?

The issue of respect for American troops, as well as what exactly constitutes "supporting" them, has long been the subject of debate between opponents and supporters of the war in Iraq. Generally, those on the right (and some leftist hawks) claim that one must support the war itself in order to "support the troops," since the troops are defined by their involvement in the war. On the other hand, opponents of the war claim that one can "support the troops" as individuals and wish for their well-being without approving of the policies which they are forced to carry out.

While the majority of the anti-Iraq-war crowd insists that they support the troops, Washington Post writer William Arkin has, in the eyes of many, crossed the line in his blog posting The Troops Also Need to Support the American People. In the post, Arkin objects to the expression by numerous servicemen that they disapprove of those in the civilian population who oppose the war:

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don't see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

The response to Arkin's post in the conservative blogosphere has been very strong, with "Uncle Jimbo" of Blackfive (a military blog) contributing a post entitled "A Hearty F*** You To William Arkin." Those who support the war generally objected to Arkin's references to Abu Ghraib and Haditha, and pointed out that the troops enjoy the protections of the First Amendment, just as civilians do (except where restricted by their contractual obligations as soldiers). Referencing a meme that has become very popular in conservative circles, a number of bloggers said that those in the military are the only ones who have truly "earned" their right to free speech.

While Arkin went too far in his blanket criticism of the troops, his post could open a valuable debate on exactly how much Americans are obligated (culturally and politically) to uncritically support the military. Politicians in both major parties have carefully avoided any criticism of the troops, and have been sure that any criticisms of the war are leveled against political leaders (in the Pentagon and White House) or at least high-level military commanders, rather than the rank and file. When John Kerry accidentally appeared to speak ill of the troops in a "botched joke" meant to criticize the president a few months ago, the widespread backlash reinforced the perception that servicemen should stand beyond criticism.

As the war in Iraq becomes more unpopular and more Americans look upon the operations in Iraq with a critical eye, it is possible that the troops could suddenly find themselves a legitimate subject of criticism, especially if abuses similar to those at Abu Ghraib or Haditha were to surface once again.

The Evolution of a Political 'Fishing Story'

In a related event, there has been a minor uproar among conservatives regarding an altercation between antiwar protesters and conservative counter-protesters from the FreeRepublic.com community. Following a period in which the two sides exchanged insults and slogans, when the antiwar protesters moved past the counter-protesters en route to another location, the two sides were only separated by a few feet and tensions apparently escalated. While further insults and even threats were exchanged, it is alleged that an antiwar protester spat in the direction of Iraq war veteran and amputee Joshua Sparling. The original report of the incident in the New York Times is as follows:

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

This relatively minor incident, in which it is unclear whether offense was even intended (since the protester spat "at the ground near Mr. Sparling"), took on an entirely new significance as it made its way through the conservative blogosphere. From the original, balanced description in the NYTimes, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin posted on her blog with the incendiary title "Spitting at a War Hero," also saying "Shame on the spitter. May you rot in hell."

This, however, was far from the end of the evolution of this story. In the aforementioned article at Blackfive, "Uncle Jimbo" claimed that "Joshua Sparling got a bit of lefty love via a wad of spit." Finally, the process of exaggeration and increasingly incendiary language was completed when the widely-read site FreeRepublic.com reported on the incident with the title "Wounded Iraq Vet Threatened, Spat on by 'Antiwar' Protesters." (my emphasis) Commenters at FreeRepublic then went on to point out that spitting on someone can be categorized as assault. Even more telling, none of the 50 comments by readers pointed out the inaccuracy of the title.

This story, in which a possibly-innocuous incident of "spitting on the ground near" someone gradually evolved into a malicious assault on a "wounded war hero," points out exactly how quickly and easily the right-wing spin machine can distort even the most basic facts in order to smear opponents of the war (variously called "traitors," "idiots," and "semi-humans" by those at FreeRepublic). Those who so obviously thrive on hatred of their political opponents saw no need to check the facts themselves or correct the obvious exaggeration that was occurring.

It is disturbing -- though not entirely surprising -- that these people would so uncritically swallow these lies, just as many of them accepted (and somehow continue to hold on to) the lies leading in to the war in Iraq and the new incendiary claims of the Bush administration regarding Iran, Syria, and numerous other alleged "threats" to America.

War Powers and the Constitution

In an unexpected turn in the political maneuvering surrounding the war in Iraq, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has started hearings inquiring into the possibility of Congress forcing an end to the war in Iraq. Feingold has begun to investigate whether Congress has the constitutional authority to amend the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF -- the bill that granted President Bush the authority to invade Iraq -- in order to force withdrawal of U.S. forces.

This assertion of Congressional power over the Executive is sure to run afoul of the President's carefully constructed theory of the "plenary" powers of the presidency, which claims literally unlimited authority for the President in matters of national security. Even if such a Congressional assertion of power could gain enough votes to pass (which is unlikely in our closely divided Congress), whether or not it would withstand scrutiny by the courts is unclear.

Despite my desire to see the war in Iraq over as soon as possible and my general tendency to dislike executive power, my initial reaction to Feingold's plan was that it would probably be unconstitutional, and would almost certainly be too politically divisive to actually become law. While I still think that such a bill is unlikely to be passed, an interesting point by Glenn Greenwald has changed my impression of the constitutionality of such a bill. Greenwald pointed out that during the American engagement in Somalia during the Clinton administration, numerous Republican senators and representatives pushed for a congressionally-mandated withdrawal. Most interestingly, they actually succeeded in their efforts.

It is truly amazing how shamelessly hypocritical and dishonest a number of Republicans have been in loudly calling Feingold's proposition unconstitutional -- many of the loudest voices (such as John McCain) were the strongest supporters of an almost identical plan during the conflict in Somalia. While this hypocrisy is certainly interesting, what is much more important is that since the amendment of an AUMF to force withdrawal has already been successfully done by the Republicans, there is a very solid precedent which makes Feingold's plan much more politically feasible.

If the plan actually gains popularity and can attract enough votes, it will almost certainly spark a serious confrontation between Congress and the Executive regarding the constitutional powers of each branch. The seemingly limitless assertions of power by the President (which have thus far not been squarely challenged) are certain to lead to a less-than-friendly Executive response should Congress assert this power. It is hard to predict how serious such a conflict could become, but it is certain to be a clash unlike anything today's Americans have seen before.

For Those Who Say I'm a Pessimist...

As I'm aware that much of what I write here is not exactly positive (although positive things come of pointing out the need to change negative things), today I bring you two stories I ran into that made me grin from ear to ear.

First, at the "anti-Davos" World Social Forum being staged parallel to the World Economic Forum, hungry Kenyan children stormed a hotel and ate the expensive foods being provided for those attending the WSF. USA Today reports:

"...at the anti-Davos World Social Forum when hungry street children swept into a tent at a posh hotel and ate plates of food for sale to forum participants, the BBC reports. Some participants complained that the food was too expensive. The meals were being sold for $7; per-capita income in Kenya is $2."

It's about time that the starving and dying people in the world stopped begging and started taking what they need, especially from those who claim to be working in their interests while flaunting their wealth in front of starving children. While I have nothing against the goals of the WSF, and think it is important to provide alternative ideas to those represented at the WEF, I think this kind of commonsense lawlessness is just what the world needs. Maybe this will act as a wakeup call for those who content themselves with empty Marxist rhetoric and endless blather about "solidarity" -- a wakeup call that the only way to make life better for the oppressed is for the oppressed to take matters into their own hands.

The second item that brought a smile to my face was in Mississippi, where 71 year old former sheriff's deputy, Klansman and all-around disgusting pig James Seale was finally indicted for his role in the kidnapping and murder of two black teenagers in 1964. Seale had flaunted the law, and "scoffed at the notion he'd ever be arrested." It's about time someone taught this piece of trash a lesson, and we can be glad that might finally happen.

The piece also notes that Seale is the 28th person arrested in the past 20 years for civil-rights era crimes. While this is certainly an improvement, there are doubtless many others who were never held accountable for their horrific crimes in the profoundly racist atmosphere of the civil rights era South. We can continue to push for justice for all those who fell victim to hatred and ignorance.

The lack of justice in this case up until now is reminiscent of the murder of Malcolm X's father, Earl Little, a Baptist preacher, who was struck repeatedly in the head with a blunt object and then run over by a train, The racist government ruled that the death had been a suicide, never explaining how a man could bludgeon himself nearly to death and then throw himself in front of an oncoming train.

Sadly, there are countless other similar atrocities against America's black population stretching from before the birth of the nation. These killings continue to this day, although in somewhat different form: the most recent such killing was the murder by several NYPD officers (who fired almost 100 shots at the unarmed man) of Sean Bell in New York City the night before his wedding. Other recent cases include Amadou Diallo, Ousmane Zongo, Brian Allen, and many others.

Ok, well I guess all this wasn't totally positive, but there were some good parts. I'll work on the whole optimism thing, although the world and the news make it hard sometimes. For now, and until more starving children storm expensive hotels, I remain a realist.

The Unfathomable Depths of Government Imcompetence

The next time you find yourself wondering how the foreign policy of the U.S. has become so destructive and detached from reality, the next time you consider the disaster in Iraq, it helps to remember one simple fact: the people in charge of our government are profoundly, strikingly ignorant and incompetent. While examples abound of government waste and folly, perhaps the most disturbing show of ignorance has come from the countless government officials -- those in all branches of government entrusted with unimaginable power and authority over America's military expeditions and foreign policy -- who have plainly demonstrated their total ignorance of the most basic realities of the world.

Of course there was the catastrophic failure of virtually every official in the Bush administration -- who foolishly and ridiculously predicted that the war would be short and cheap, and that U.S. troops would be "greeted as liberators" -- to anticipate the bloody realities that would result from a war in Iraq. More recently, a number of congressional leaders publicly embarrassed themselves with their total ignorance of basic facts regarding the "War on Terror" and the war in Iraq. In an article by Jeff Stein that would be funny if it were not so tragic, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, demonstrated total ignorance of the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, and incorrectly identified al Qaeda as a mixed but predominantly Shiite organization. One could go on and on about the absolute idiocy of America's political "leaders" -- in fact I plan on doing so in a longer piece in the near future -- however for now it should suffice to read Stein's article and reflect on the inevitability of the bloodshed, chaos and failure that surround such an incompetent organization as the U.S. government.

Why War?

Since the end of the Cold War and the end of the USSR as a global threat, there has been a constant push for continued and escalated war by certain elements both within the government and in influential think tanks and lobbying groups. Even in peacetime, interests tied to military contractors, weapons manufacturers and various other beneficiaries of military growth have exercised striking influence over the determination of American foreign policy.

The presidency of Bill Clinton marked a low point in the business of war, as the military was cut back to pre-Cold War levels and industries throughout the nation lost their largest client in the U.S. military. Despite the American involvement in the Balkans, military industries were left without vital business and saw a sharp decline in profits. With the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and the demand for military action that followed the attacks of September 11, these interests -- well represented in the Bush administration through numerous government officials' ties to military industries -- were blessed with not only a justification for substantial increases in military spending, but also a friendly administration more than willing to send business their way.

The most common mistake among average Americans in analyzing the policies of the government is the failure to recognize the vast influence wielded by large industries and well-connected individuals. The assumption that policies are drawn up and decided upon based solely on the perceived interests of the nation or the beliefs of government officials ignores the great importance of lobbyists and the wealthy, powerful interests that back them.

Most people's conception of lobbyists involves humble requests by companies to a hugely more powerful government, however the truth is that these private interests command substantial resources, and are taken very seriously by all branches of government. Those who hold the reigns of America's largest commercial giants and provide the tools of military power function as a virtually equal branch of government.

The constant exchange of ideas, favors and people between military industries on the one hand and Congress and the upper levels of the executive branch on the other make the two entities inseparable -- "civil servants" often pass back and forth between government posts and private-sector positions in what has been called a "revolving door" by Washington insiders. In return for the hugely profitable business provided by military growth, the commanders of military industry provide sizeable campaign contributions that help keep friendly officials in power.

The result of this is a melding of interests such that the policies of the government mirror the profit-driven interests of corporations. This is not to say that decisions are made solely according to the interests of these businesses, or that American foreign policy is not for the most part determined by government officials. The Bush administration, like past administrations who emphasized military power, sees military growth and war as essential to maintaining American power in the world, and shapes policy according to this belief. Military contractors and industries, however, do influence these policies insofar as they hold sway over high-level officials due to mutually beneficial arrangements, close personal ties or past business relationships.

The benefits derived from this close relationship are the expression of a naturally emerging symbiotic militarism -- government officials need to remain in power, and to have the tools of war in order to carry out their policies, while military industry needs increasing profits driven by constantly growing government contracts. The danger inherent in this relationship, which President Eisenhower warned of in his famous speech regarding the "military-industrial complex," is that the "tail" will begin to "wag the dog." It is when military might and war become separated from any reasonable policy determination and are pursued for their own sake -- as a catch-all solution to world problems and as an endless supply of profits -- that the relationship becomes unimaginably dangerous.

We have seen an apparently baseless determination to start war with Iraq, constant demand for escalation in Iraq and widening of the war throughout the Middle East, increasing hostility toward Iran, talk of an "Axis of Evil" and pre-emptive war, and an open declaration of intent to initiate war against any nation deemed to be insufficiently combating terrorist entities in their territory. This almost unbelievable pursuit of constant war leaves us no choice but to question just how far this "military-industrial complex" has devolved into an uncontrollable and irrational force.

It is impossible to determine the motives of the architects of this new hyper-militarism, however it is clear that their wars are giving us only instability and a progressively more threatening world. One need not be a pacifist to realize that the answer to terrorism given by the Bush administration was incorrect; that their foolish expectations and faith in war have failed utterly to bring about positive change.

In the face of uncontrollable chaos in Iraq and resurgent violence in an ungovernable Afghanistan, it is hard to imagine any reasoning that could lead to more war as an answer, yet the same voices who called for war with Iraq (and who promised quick victory, growing regional democracy and lasting peace) are busy agitating for escalation, expansion, and the inclusion of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others in a new World War of choice. It is hard to come to any conclusion other than that the highest levels of power -- both private and governmental -- have lost themselves in their dreams of power and wealth, leaving the hard, bloody realities of a world on fire far behind.

The Insane Push for War with Iran

It is becoming an increasingly popular theory among hardline Republicans and in the wider conservative milieu -- especially in neoconservative groups -- that the U.S. not only should start a war with Iran because of their extremist government and nuclear programs, but also because Iranian meddling in Iraq is making stabilization impossible for U.S. forces. The recent capture of two Iranian agents in Iraq, and the recovery of material stating that Iran is working closely with both Shiite militias and Sunni terrorist groups (including al Qaeda) in Iraq, has served to reinforce the determination of many hawks to initiate hostilities against Iran.

A typical perspective on the issue is the post on Captain's Quarters blog titled "The Push In The New Direction," which discusses an article by prominent neoconservative Michael Ledeen in the neoconservative New York Sun. The article argues that the efforts of the U.S. in Iraq will inevitably fail if the U.S. does not broaden the war in Iraq to include both Syria and Iran. As both of these countries are seen as both hostile to U.S. interests and as feeding the growing chaos in Iraq, the neoconservatives reason that the only solution is to escalate and enlarge the war to eliminate these "enemies." The following excerpt from Ledeen's article is quoted in the Captain's Quarters post:

I am told that this information has reached the president, and that it is part of the body of information he is digesting in order to formulate his strategy for Iraq. If he sees clearly what is going on, he must realize that there can be no winning strategy for Iraq alone, since a lot of ‘Iraqi’ activity—not just lethal materiel such as the latest generation of explosive devices, now powerful enough to penetrate the armor of most of our vehicles—is actually Iranian in origin. We cannot ‘solve’ the Iraqi problem without regime change in Iran.

Those of you who have borne with me for the last few years will not be surprised to hear this; what’s new is the apparently irrefutable evidence that has now providentially fallen into our hands. The policy makers will not like
this evidence, because it drives them in a direction they do not wish to go. I am told that, at first, there was a concerted effort, primarily but by no means exclusively from the intel crowd, to sit on the evidence, to prevent it from reaching the highest levels. But the information was too explosive, and it is now circulating throughout the bureaucracy.

I have little sympathy for those who have avoided the obvious necessity of confronting Iran, however I do understand the concerns of military leaders, such as General Abizaid, who are
doing everything in their considerable power to avoid a two-front war. But I do not think we need massive military power to bring down the mullahs, and in any event we now have a three-front war: within Iraq, and with both Iran and Syria. So General Abizaid’s objection is beside the point. We are in a big war, and we cannot fight it by playing defense in Iraq. That is a sucker’s game. And I hope the president realizes this at last, and that he finds himself some generals who also realize it, and finally demands a strategy for victory.

In their zealous desire to transform the horrific situation in Iraq into a U.S. victory, Ledeen (and many other conservative writers) are looking more and more beyond the borders of Iraq. It is unthinkable for these true believers that the situation could be truly beyond repair as a result of the countless mistakes and bad turns that have plagued the nation since the start of the war. In keeping with the long tradition of starry-eyed conservative militarism, these writers seek to employ the all-powerful, undefeatable military to make these serious problems go away.

Is it not astonishing that with the ever-worsening situations in Afghanistan (where the U.S.-installed government barely controls anything outside the capitol) and Iraq, there are still numerous writers who think that if we would only start another war everything would get better. In their frantic fear of defeat and unrealistic faith in war-as-cure-all, they are blinded to the madness of such an expansion and escalation. Assuming the U.S. could even turn out enough troops to start a war against Iran and/or Syria without a draft (which would be politically impossible), there would be the immediate problems of American troops in Iraq being vulnerable to Iranian missiles, the inevitable drastic worsening of the chaos in Iraq, and outrage throughout the world that would likely cost America most of its few remaining allies. Even if an invasion of Iran could affect regime change, it is certain that the Mullahs would not pass quietly into the night, and that the U.S. would suffer the brunt of their departing gestures.

In addition to these enormous problems and many other similar difficulties, there is the glaring question of how exactly having American troops in 3 or 4 Middle Eastern nations instead of 2 is supposed to make it easier to turn the situation in Iraq into a victory. Even if the U.S. managed to eliminate Iranian and Syrian support of Iraqi insurgents, there would be more territory to control and more borders (with Pakistan, Lebanon, and all the terrorist networks therein) to protect and a still-horrible situation in Iraq.

Ledeen's claim that "we now have a three-front war: within Iraq, and with both Iran and Syria," is shown as patently ridiculous when one merely imagines the actual horrors that would befall America and its forces if open hostilities were begun. The commentary offered at Captain's Quarters on Ledeen's article includes the following: "We have to face the fact that we are already in a big war, a World War of its own kind." It seems more dangerously likely every day that the characterization of the current conflict as a "World War" may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hawkish conservatives are notorious for their penchant for laughable exaggeration and alarmism, but when claims that we are already at war with Iran are used as a justification for a suicidal policy of war-against-all, their frothing extremism becomes less entertaining and more horrifying.

Even if it is impossible to understand the twisted logic that leads some to advocate such dangerously absurd policies, it is important to remember that a number of policymakers and influential thinkers somehow take these ideas seriously. As Bush and his neoconservative advisors become more desperate to salvage the burning rubble that is Iraq, and as they come face to face with their greatest fear -- defeat -- the nation must be more vigilant and clear than ever in saying no to any further bloody adventurism. These nightmares that seem unthinkable to those not enamored with militarism -- like the idea that the U.S. should depose Saddam Hussein and liberate a grateful, cheering Iraqi public -- have a way of becoming reality.

"National Security" as an Excuse for Islamophobia

In a new National Review article, Andrew C. McCarthy expresses his outrage at a new program which educates Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials, FBI agents, and police regarding the Muslim tradition of hajj, or pilgrimmage to Mecca. The program, which outlined the practice as well as items that are taken on the trip and common prayers, was administered by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in order to facilitate understanding and prevent unnecessary intrusions on the rights of American Muslims.

To McCarthy and doubtless many other Islamophobic conservatives, this perfectly reasonable and helpful program constitutes a grave threat to airline security. McCarthy describes "aghast" as being a proper response to the existence of this program, and repeatedly implies that the program all but gives the controls of a plane to terrorists:

Americans will no doubt be thrilled to learn, through TSA’s good offices, about CAIR’s delight that our travel-safety agency “has provided special training about Islamic traditions related to the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, to some 45,000 airport security officers[,]” and that this “cultural sensitivity training includes details about the timing of Hajj travel, about items pilgrims may be carrying and about Islamic prayers that may be observed by security personnel.”

Most striking is McCarthy's response to the TSA's statement that, "This proactive effort on the part of the Transportation Security Administration demonstrates that there is no contradiction between the need to maintain airline safety and security and the duty to protect the religious and civil rights of airline passengers." To this McCarthy responds with an incredulity that betrays his belief that violating the civil liberties of American Muslims is not only a necessary measure, but also a desirable one: "Oh, really?" This support for measures that violate the civil rights of Muslims is further reflected in his condemnation of CAIR for their opposition to the Patriot Act and to "all sensible national-security measures," although McCarthy would doubtless regard the Patriot Act as not going far enough in its violation of civil rights.

McCarthy also falsely implies that the program will result in the compromising of airline security measures: "Why shouldn’t it spend your tax dollars to school agents on what “pilgrims” may be toting along for Hajj travel at a time when you’re forbidden from carrying a four-ounce bottle of shampoo through airport security?" In fact, the education programs did not attempt in any way to replace or repeal existant airline regulations -- everyone will still be subject to the same security measures as always. McCarthy's distain for Muslims is betrayed most obviously by the subtle degradations of Islam and Muslims that permeate the article -- constant implications that Muslims are dangerous and unAmerican, as well as the unnecessary and degrading placing of the word 'pilgrims' in quotes when talking of those undertaking the hajj.

McCarthy proceeds to repeatedly attack CAIR, alleging numerous (indirect) ties to Hamas and charities that have funded what McCarthy sees as "Islamic extremism." While it is far from clear whether or not any of these allegations have any basis in reality, many of the alleged "connections" with terrorist groups are hardly connections at all, but rather indirect ties over numerous degrees of separation. Furthermore, it is hardly believable that connections as obvious as those alleged by McCarthy would go unnoticed by the numerous government agencies responsible for detecting and shutting down groups who provide even indirect support to terrorism. These things considered, McCarthy's extensive attempt to smear CAIR and associate it with terrorists only succeeds at further revealing his deep-seated prejudice against Muslims. It is hard to understand why someone would go to such lengths to discredit a peaceful, pro-American Muslim group like CAIR unless motivated by anti-Muslim beliefs.

In an atmosphere of growing Islamophobia and increasingly intolerant rhetoric, it is more and more important that the ridiculousness of such thinly veiled bigotry be openly declared. In conservative Bush-supporting circles it has become increasingly common and acceptable to lace one's writing with attacks on Islam and Muslims and to make illogical, hateful statements about all Muslim people, so long as these attacks are minimally concealed behind claims of concern with "security" and opposition to "Islamofascism." These attacks are far from subtle; it does not take much sensitivity to realize the real message being sent by these writers. Reasonable, tolerant people on the left and right should come together in condemning this growing intolerance, just as they condemn anti-Semitism and racism and prejudice of every other kind.