welcome
|
||||||||||||
______WAR______ These 127 essays, although organized under seven headings, have one underlying theme: opposition
to the warfare state that robs us of our liberty, our money, and in some cases our life. Conservatives who decry
the welfare state while supporting the warfare state are terribly inconsistent. The two are inseparable.
Libertarians who are opposed to war on principle, but support the state’s bogus “war on terrorism,” even as they
remain silent about the U.S. global empire, are likewise contradictory. In chapter 1, “War and Peace,” the evils of war and warmongers and the benefits of peace are examined. In chapter 2, “The Military,” the evils of standing armies and militarism are discussed, including a critical look at the U.S. military. In chapter 3, “The War in Iraq,” the wickedness of the Iraq War is exposed. In chapter 4, “World War II,” the “good war” is shown to be not so good after all. In chapter 5, “Other Wars,” the evils of war and the warfare state are chronicled in specific wars: the Crimean War (1854–1856), the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), World War I (1914–1918), the Persian Gulf War (1990–1991), and the war in Afghanistan (2001–). In chapter 6, “The U.S. Global Empire,” the beginnings, growth, extent, nature, and consequences of the U.S. empire of bases and troops are revealed and critiqued. In chapter 7, “U.S. Foreign Policy,” the belligerence, recklessness, and follies of U.S. foreign policy are laid bare. Chapter One - War and Peace ______[p1]
Listen to "Christianity and WAR" on Spreaker.
WAR Rush Is Wrong
“The intent of the committee is to neuter the United States of America. They’ve done it by rewarding a pacifist.” ~ Rush Limbaugh In addition to being a Nobel laureate, Barack Obama is many things. After his election, I wrote in Liberty of his radical associations, his life spent in the service of racial preference, his aberrant Christianity, and his plan to further redistribute the wealth of taxpayers to taxeaters. I haven’t changed my mind. The black conservative Alan Keyes simply calls him “a radical communist.” Obama may personify the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, but a pacifist he is not. Just days after taking office, Obama killed his first victims in Pakistan via predator drone. Over 120,000 U.S. troops are still in Iraq. And not only has Obama already escalated the war in Afghanistan, he is contemplating an additional troop surge. The United States still maintains an empire of troops and bases around the world. Obama has threatened to take military action against Iran. Although conservatives have bemoaned Obama’s plan to decrease defense spending ever since he took office, it turns out that defense spending is up for fiscal year 2010, which began October 1. Back on May 7, Obama sent to Congress his proposed defense budget. He requested a base of $533.8 billion and an additional $130 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to a Department of Defense press release: “The base budget represents an increase of $20.5 billion over the $513.3 billion enacted for fiscal 2009” (Bush’s last defense budget). And according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: “This budget provides the balance necessary to institutionalize and finance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies.” Obama’s first defense budget (FY 2010) is almost as much as the rest of the world’s defense spending combined. The U.S. Navy’s battle fleet is larger than the next 13 foreign navies combined. So much for Obama “destroying your country as a superpower” and “emasculating this country,” as Rush Limbaugh also intoned. The Senate just passed by a vote of 93—7 a $636 billion appropriations bill (H.R. 3326) for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010. This bill previously passed the House by a vote of 400—30. This means that 34 out of 40 Republicans in the Senate and 170 out of 178 Republicans in the House agreed with the president on the defense budget. What a bunch of pacifists. Thanks to the work of economist Robert Higgs, we know that the real U.S. defense budget is really over a trillion dollars, and has been for several years. There are 120 U.S. soldiers who have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom since Obama became president. I’ll bet these soldiers who died for a lie wish Obama were a pacifist. In Afghanistan, there are 231 soldiers who have been killed in Operation Enduring Freedom since Obama became president. Of the 872 U.S. soldiers who have died in Afghanistan, over one fourth of them (231) died during the short time that Obama has been in office. I’m sure that these soldiers likewise wish Obama were a pacifist. And if it were possible to ask them now and they said otherwise because they swallowed the line that they died “defending our freedoms,” there is probably someone in their family who would rather Obama were a pacifist so their son, grandson, father, brother, cousin, or nephew would still here. But if not, then there are millions of Americans like me who don’t think anything in Iraq or Afghanistan is worth one drop of American blood. Yet, we are the ones who are considered by conservative warmongers to be traitors and America haters. Since Obama took office earlier this year conservatives and Republicans have shown the world that there is something they love more than their movement or their party — war. Leading the way are Republican politicians (McCain, Gingrich, Huckabee), conservative pundits (Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Scarborough, Kristol, Coulter), conservative intellectuals (Kagan, Hanson, Boot), conservative organizations (Heritage, AEI, FOX), and conservative publications (Weekly Standard, WSJ, National Review). Reagan misspoke when he said: “The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” The very heart and soul of conservatism is war. Patriotism, Americanism, and being a real conservative are now equated with support for war, torture, and militarism. Although conservatism today is generally defined by opposition to Obama, the president can count on conservatives and Republicans to support any further military actions he undertakes. Rush is wrong. Obama is no pacifist. And too bad. Just think of all the Americans that would not have been killed in senseless foreign wars if McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Bush had been pacifists.
Military Doublespeak
In George Orwell’s novel , the government had three slogans emblazoned on The Ministry of Truth building: war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. True, the dystopian society depicted by Orwell existed only in his mind. Yet, the doublespeak that existed in that made-up society has increasingly been adopted by governments — our government. It is a tragic thing that the U.S. government employs doublespeak to deceive the American people; it is even more tragic that most Americans accept government doublespeak as the gospel truth. There is no greater instance of government doublespeak than when it comes to the military. Here are some examples:
I’m sure there are other words and terms that have been or will be devised or brought to bear to justify the actions of the U.S. military. Reject them, and denounce them for what they are: military doublespeak.
Do Antiwar Libertarians Hate the
Military?
Americans love the U.S. military — and especially American conservatives. Even among those who treasure the Constitution, oppose an interventionist foreign policy, and no longer support the war in Iraq, the U.S. military is still held in high esteem. Support for the military among conservative Christians is just as bad — and perhaps even worse. Many Christians have a military fetish. Support for the military has been elevated to an article of faith by many evangelicals. It doesn’t seem to matter where U.S. troops go, why they go, how long they stay, how much it costs to keep them there, how many foreigners die at their hands, and what they do when they are there — stanch support for the military is inherent in any conservative platform, secular or religious. Conservatives get indignant when you question the institution of the military. To question the military in any way means that one is unpatriotic, unappreciative, and un-American. I have written about these things many times over the years. So then, why another article on the U.S. military? On Saturday, December 12, I posted the following picture on the LRC blog with the comment: “Hey Marines, how about some toys for this tot in Afghanistan.” The picture of this Afghan child was taken at the International Red Cross Orthopedic rehabilitation center on December 10 in Herat, Afghanistan. According to the UN mine information network, an average of sixty-two people are killed or injured by mines each month in Afghanistan. Well, the “Conservative, Pro-military” blogger at politicalbyline.com went ballistic. In a post titled: “ Why I left the libertarian ranks: Exhibit A — Hatred of the United States Military,” Patrick (he doesn’t give his last name), who blogs from “the southern suburbs of Detroit,” opines: I present this as “Exhibit A”, to the fact that the libertarian movement has been infiltrated by Anti-War leftists who hate America, our Military and why they should be stripped of their citizenship and deported out of our fine Country and into another country; like say, North Korea, Venezuela or maybe even Communist China. Not to be rude about this, but it just so happens, that if that dumb kids fellow Countrymen had not giving refuge and comfort to those who would seek to destroy America — Namely Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda; the damned kid would still possibly have his damned leg. Not to mention the fact that on September 11, 2001, our Country was attacked by Islamic terrorists who did more than just destroy a leg. It killed 2,996 of our people. However, of course, you cannot tell this to the likes of Lew Rockwell and his bastard gang of leftists who hate this damn Country; they still believe that George W. Bush ordered those planes into the trade center towers. What really troubles me, is that the author of this posting is none other than Dr. Lawrence Vance, who is supposedly a Born-Again Christian. How anyone can harbor such hatred for this Country and our Nation’s Military and still claim to be ANY kind of a Christian is beyond me. In an update, Patrick adds that “libertarian leftists, their Paleo-Conservative counterparts, and their cousins the Anti-War socialist left” are all in bed together because of their views on foreign policy and their “inbred hatred of war and of anything military.” I normally don’t pay too much attention to gnats, and especially when they take the form of bloggers that no one has ever heard of. My interest in this “Conservative, Pro-military” blogger lies solely in the fact that he is not alone. There are millions of disciples of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and O’Reilly who feel the same way he does. I would therefore like to reply to his post, clarify some things, and make some recommendations. In addition to the incorrect spelling of my name, there are a number of fallacies evident in the screed by Patrick the “Conservative, Pro-military” blogger. First and foremost is the claim that antiwar libertarians hate the military. I don’t recall ever writing anywhere that I hated the military. And neither do I remember reading where some other antiwar libertarian said that he hated the military. I hate many things that the military does, and think I have good reasons for doing so, as I mention below. I certainly don’t hate any individual members of the military or any other organization. I can’t speak for all antiwar libertarians, but here are some things I hate about the military:
(To their credit, some members of the military don’t practice these last two points. They know they enlisted because they needed a job or wanted money for college. They are not stupid enough to think that they are defending anyone’s freedom to do anything. Oftentimes, it is chickenhawks and armchair warriors who talk the loudest about the troops defending our freedoms.) I would love it if the functions of the U.S. military were limited to defending the United States, securing U.S. borders, guarding U.S. shores, patrolling U.S. coasts, and enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies instead of serving as the president’s personal attack force to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary. I would be thrilled to death if all the troops stationed overseas came home, all foreign bases were closed, and no more American soldiers died fighting foreign wars. In addition to his statements about the military, Patrick the “Conservative, Pro-military” blogger is guilty of the following. He equates the U.S. government and military with the country. If one disapproves of the warfare state then he must hate America. But why is it that a conservative can disapprove of the welfare state and not be considered anti-American? What is so sacrosanct about the military? He refers to Lew Rockwell and myself and other antiwar libertarians as leftists when we are anti-leftists who despise FDR and his New Deal, LBJ and his Great Society, and every other liberal program and left-wing income redistribution scheme. He thinks that to be antiwar is to be left wing. This is absurd. See the article by Gary Benoit of the John Birch Society (certainly not a leftist organization) titled: “Anti-war Stance Is Right, Not Left.” He sees everything in terms of a left/right paradigm. I recommend that he read Murray Rothbard’s “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty” and Lew Rockwell’s . He refers to the anti-war socialist left like it is alive and well when the reality is that it is hardly in existence anymore since the inauguration of their leader to the presidency and his escalation of the war in Afghanistan. He makes the ridiculous statement that we believe Bush ordered the planes into the trade center towers. I think Bush was too stupid to know what was happening on September 11. And if he is subtly implying that I am a 9/11 Truther, then he is mistaken, although I don’t believe much of what the government says about what happened on 9/11 — or any other day for that matter. He wonders how anyone can be a Christian and harbor such hate for the country and its military. Here he is ascribing things to me that are simply not true, as I explain above. Actually, the wonder of wonders is how Christians can be so enamored with the military. See my Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and my LRC article archive for the articles I have written since the publication of the book. The most disturbing statement by Patrick the “Conservative, Pro-military” blogger is that antiwar libertarians should be “stripped of their citizenship and deported out of our fine Country and into another country; like say, North Korea, Venezuela or maybe even Communist China.” This exposes him as the red-state fascist that he is. As bad as genuine leftists are, I don’t recall any of them ever calling for conservatives or libertarians to be stripped of their citizenship and deported. But apparently our blogger doesn’t think that deportation is punishment enough. In a note to someone in the military who wrote to him in defense of my “Toys for Tots” post, Patrick says: “Pat Tillman, another Anti-War twirp [twerp] that got what was coming to him.” I took a lot of heat for this statement I made in a recent article: “The very heart and soul of conservatism is war. Patriotism, Americanism, and being a real conservative are now equated with support for war, torture, and militarism.” Patrick, the “Conservative, Pro-military” blogger at politicalbyline.com, is exhibit A of why this is true.
Should the U.S. Military Go to
Haiti?
There is no doubt that the death toll from the earthquake in Haiti will be horrendous. There is no disagreement
about the destruction from the earthquake being catastrophic. There is also no disputing that the situation in
Haiti is very grave. One thing that must, however, be challenged is the notion that the U.S. military should go to
Haiti. A military assessment team has already landed in Haiti from the U.S. Southern Command. The Secretary of
Defense has made it clear that “he will help provide ‘anything and everything’ the military command needs
to aid the mission.” But should the U.S. military go to Haiti? The short answer is simply: of course not. The long
answer is what follows. If the U.S. military goes to Haiti it would not be the first time. The American military
occupied the country from 1915—1934 and intervened in Haitian affairs other times before and since this occupation.
The most recent intervention was in 2004 after a coup ousted the president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. But,
it is argued, U.S. military intervention in Haiti this time would be for purely humanitarian reasons. I agree.
However, I still believe the U.S. military has no business going to Haiti. The main reason the U.S. military has no
business going to Haiti is simply that the purpose of the military should be to defend the United States against
attack or invasion. Nothing more (like invading other countries), and nothing less (like failing to defend its own
headquarters on 9/11). Using the military to establish democracy, spread goodwill, change regimes, train foreign
armies, open foreign markets, enforce no-fly zones, protect U.S. commercial interests, serve as peacekeepers,
furnish security in other countries, contain communism, and provide disaster relief and humanitarian aid perverts
the purpose of the military. There are some other reasons as well for the U.S. military not going to Haiti. First,
private U.S. and international relief agencies exist for things like this. It is a myth that nothing will be done
soon enough and good enough without the help of the U.S. military. An even greater myth is that without the help of
governments there would not be enough money, supplies, and personnel to help the people in areas hit by natural
disasters. The American people especially are a generous people. They donate millions of dollars for relief efforts
whenever and wherever a disaster strikes and would probably give even more if they knew their government was not
getting involved. Second, disaster relief and humanitarian aid, whether provided by the state department or the
defense department, is still a form of foreign aid. This is funded by taking money out of the pockets of American
taxpayers and giving it to countries that most Americans can’t locate on map. How many Americans have any idea that
the country of Haiti shares the island of Hispaniola with the country of the Dominican Republic? No American should
be forced to “contribute” to the aid of another country. If foreign aid is wrong in principle then foreign aid is
still wrong when a country is hit by a famine, a flood, a cyclone, a tsunami, or an earthquake. So, just like the
United States shouldn’t have given foreign aid to Myanmar under the
guise of disaster relief, so the United States shouldn’t give foreign aid to Haiti.
The Few, the Proud, the High School
Students
Thank you George Bush and the 186 Republicans in the House and 43 Republicans in the Senate who passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. Buried in Title IX — General Provisions, Part E — Uniform Provisions, Subpart 2 — Other Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act in Section 9528 — Armed Forces Recruiter Access to Students and Student Recruiting Information, is the following provision relating to military recruiters and high school students: (a) POLICY — (1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION — Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings. (2) CONSENT — A secondary school student or the parent of the student may request that the student’s name, address, and telephone listing described in paragraph (1) not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request. (3) SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS — Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to post secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students. (b) NOTIFICATION — The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, notify principals, school administrators, and other educators about the requirements of this section. (c) EXCEPTION — The requirements of this section do not apply to a private secondary school that maintains a religious objection to service in the Armed Forces if the objection is verifiable through the corporate or other organizational documents or materials of that school. (d) SPECIAL RULE — A local educational agency prohibited by Connecticut State law (either explicitly by statute or through statutory interpretation by the State Supreme Court or State Attorney General) from providing military recruiters with information or access as required by this section shall have until May 31, 2002, to comply with that requirement. Since I never filled out an opt out form, my son received a small packet in the mail with the following note from the Marine Corps Recruiting Command: Dear High School Student, When our nation was founded, Marines were there to secure freedom. Today, it is up to young men and women like you to continue defending our way of life. Training will offer demanding challenges, but it will also give you the skill and courage to fight for what’s right. You will earn the title Marine and take your place among 234 years of honor. It will be up to you to uphold the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for future generations. PRESERVE THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. Complete and mail in the enclosed card today. We will send you an information kit and your choice of free Marine Corps dog tags, duffle bag or skullcap. You can get more information right now at MARINES.COM/GOAL or contact us at 1-8-MARINES and give code “GOAL.” Semper Fidelis, Fenton Reese Sergeant Major, United States Marine Corps Sergeant Major, Marine Corps Recruiting Command P.S. Show your Marine Corps pride — hang the enclosed poster in your school locker or bedroom. Included in the packet was a card to fill out with pictures at the top of the dog tags, duffle bag, and skullcap mentioned in the note. An extra card was also included to “have a friend join you.” The card requests not only one’s name and address, but also one’s e-mail address, phone number, cell number, date of birth, school name, and last grade completed. The poster mentioned in the note has two sides. The first side contains the image of a sword with “United States Marines” on it. The other side contains images of thirty-two different Marine Corps recruiting posters, some apparently from World War I. First of all, why would any young woman want to join the Marines? Among other reasons, several of which I discussed in “No, You Can’t Have My Daughter,” there is the risk of death or sexual assault. Since the beginning of the so-called war on terror, there have been over 100 U.S. female military personnel killed in Iraq and 20 in Afghanistan. Of all the places for a young American woman to die, a war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan shouldn’t be one of them. And of all the ways for a young American woman to die, getting blown up by an IED shouldn’t be one of them. Sexual assaults in the military are on the increase — as acknowledged by the Defense Department. And second, why would any young man want to join the Marines? Just look at all the lies in the brief note from the Marine Corps Recruiting Command.
The unvarnished truth is that Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan are not currently defending our way of life, they are not currently fighting for what is right, they are not currently worthy of honor, and they are not currently upholding any freedoms for future generations. If you doubt the truth of what I’m saying, then I refer you to not just my book and my article archive, but to ex-Marine James Glaser, ex-Army Michael Gaddy, ex-Air Force Mike Reith, and the veterans who signed my “Letter to a Christian Young Man Regarding Joining the Military.” By the way, my son will not be sending in the reply card — or getting the dog tags, duffle bag or skullcap.
There They Crucified Him
“And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.” ~ Luke 23:33 They didn’t just crucify him; they scourged him, stripped him, put a purple robe on him, put a crown of thorns on his head, mocked him, smote him with their hands, spit on him, cast lots for his garments, smote him on the head, feigned worship to him, and nailed him to a cross. Crucifixion was an ancient, brutal, gruesome, painful, humiliating, and public method of execution. The “him” referenced above who was crucified is, of course, Jesus Christ. He was crucified even though he was declared to be without fault, not worthy of death, and a just person. Who in the world would do such a thing? Who would nail the Son of God to a cross and crucify him? Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. (John 19:23) Of all the horrible things that soldiers have done throughout history, this is certainly the most reprehensible. Oh, but they were just following orders. Apologists for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most people who are indifferent to these wars, and even many of those who oppose them all generally agree on one thing: We should never condemn the soldiers; they are just following orders. I have often been chastised, even by those who condemn the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, denounce the abuses of the U.S. government, and oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, because I have criticized the institution of the military and the soldiers who mete out death and destruction on its behalf: Soldiers, I am told:
I agree completely. The problem here is two fold: These things are true and the people who recite them the most don’t actually believe them. It is because these things are true of soldiers that no American should enlist in the military and fight for what Will Grigg calls “the world’s most powerful terrorist syndicate, the United States Government.” When someone joins the military of a country like the United States with such an interventionist foreign policy and an empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe, he will be expected to not only uphold and maintain the policy and the empire, but carry it out and expand it by military force. When someone works for the policeman, fireman, bully, busybody, and social worker of the world — the U.S. military — he will be expected to participate in acts of military intervention. But, some will reply in retreat, there are some things that soldiers shouldn’t do when ordered to do them by their superiors — like commit war crimes. My point exactly. But if that is so then soldiers would not be doing what they are trained to do, would not be following the orders of their superiors, would not be never questioning the orders they are given, and would not be maintaining discipline and effectiveness. You can’t have it both ways. And what are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway but crimes against not only the Iraqi and Afghan peoples, but also the thousands of U.S. soldiers who gave their lives in vain and for a lie. In spite of the blame game that is played when it comes to soldiers being culpable for their actions, they are responsible and will have to answer to a higher power than their commanding officers. That higher power may be their religion, philosophy, moral code, or conscience, but unless they have made a god out of the military, it will be something. Christ forgave those who crucified him; millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Iraqis, and Afghans killed by the U.S. military are not only not so forgiving, they never even had the chance.
The Marines Are Looking for a Few Good High School
Students
The theme this time is defense. And this time, along with the About the Corps “opportunity book,” it is a choice between folding speakers, a T-shirt, or a wristband instead of dog tags, a duffle bag, or a skullcap. The Marine Corps recruiting literature that came in the mail to my son this time, thanks once again to the No Child Left Behind Act, contained no poster to show Marine Corps pride and no note from the Sergeant Major at the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, just a simple fold-out brochure. I wrote about the packet with the poster and the note in “The Few, the Proud, the High School Students.” On the cover of the brochure is a picture of a child with the caption: “THE ONES YOU DEFEND.” When you open to the first page you see four Marines with rifles walking through a forest — no doubt in some foreign backwater that most Americans would have a hard time finding on a map — with the caption: “THE ONES WHO DEFEND YOU.” Page 2 contains two short paragraphs: You choose to become a Marine to defend the people at home and the American way of life. As you earn this coveted title, you build an unbreakable bond with the men and women who earn it alongside of you. You learn that by protecting each other, you serve all of your families, friends and neighbors at home. You join a proud tradition of warriors who have defended our country this way for 234 years. To find out how you can become part of the Corps, return the enclosed card. We’ll send you more information and your choice of Marine Corps folding speakers, T-shirt or wristband. Or learn more today: Call us a 1-800-MARINES and give code “BOND” or visit MARINES.COM/BOND. The back page has pictures of the folding speakers, T-shirt, and wristband under a large headline that reads: “DEFEND THE PEOPLE YOU CARE ABOUT.” Attached to the brochure (not enclosed) are two reply cards — one for the high school student that reads: “WILL YOU DEFEND THE ONES YOU LOVE?” and one for a friend that reads: “KNOW A FRIEND WHO WILL DEFEND YOU?” New to these reply cards is a question at the bottom: “How likely is it that you will be serving in the military in the next four years?” The choices are definitely, probably, probably not, and definitely not. The theme of defense shows up on all four pages of the recruiting brochure plus the two reply cards. But how much of what the U.S. military does is actually related to defense? What do the following practices of the military have to do with the defense of the United States?
All the while, of course, perpetuating the myth that the military is defending our freedoms. The Department of Defense couldn’t even defend its own headquarters on September 11th. It was too busy occupying, defending, and building golf courses in other countries. Most of the defense services that are actually provided today by the U.S. military are done in other countries. Although World War II ended in 1945, the United States still has tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in Germany, Italy, and Japan. I recently documented that the U.S. military has over 700 foreign military bases with troops stationed in 148 countries and 11 territories in every corner of the globe. The U.S. military should be limited to defending the United States, securing U.S. borders, guarding U.S. shores, patrolling U.S. coasts, and enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies instead of defending, securing, guarding, patrolling, and enforcing in other countries. The U.S. military should be engaged exclusively in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not attacking, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States perverts the purpose of the military. The Marines may be looking for a few good high school students, but my son is not available. Is yours? Do you want your son to be a bomber pilot for Obama? Aside from the military’s lack of actually providing defense services, I have given other reasons for people not to join the military here, here, here, here, and here. By the way, my son will not be sending in the reply card this time either — or getting the folding speakers, T-shirt, or wristband.
Things the Marine Corps Forgot to
Mention
The Marine Corps recruiting literature sent to high school students is a little different each time. The first time I saw it the theme was preserving the American way of life. The student who sent in the reply card was entitled to receive dog tags, a duffle bag or a skullcap. I wrote about this in “The Few, the Proud, the High School Students.” The theme the second time I saw it was defense. Offered this time was a choice between folding speakers, a T-shirt, or a wristband. I wrote about this in “The Marines Are Looking for a Few Good High School Students.” Although it has been said that the third time’s the charm, I’m afraid the Marine Corps has failed once again to ensnare my son. The recruiting literature that arrived in the mail this time, thanks yet again to the No Child Left Behind Act, consisted of an envelope with a short note and two reply cards — all of which have pictures of the free Marine Corps gear being offered this time: a duffle bag, sunglasses, or a watch. The note says that in order to become a Marine you have to want certain things:
With the exception of the lie that is the second item listed above — the thousands of Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing nothing of the kind — these things are true. The problem is what the Marine Corps forgot to mention. What is not mentioned is that in order to become a Marine you also have to want certain other things:
If a high school student doesn’t want to do any of these things, then he has no business joining the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps is not preserving the American way of life, defending anyone’s freedoms, or protecting every state in the nation. Parents, do you want your children to do these things? Pastors, do you want your young adults to do these things? Teachers, do you want your students to do these things? Brothers and sisters, do you want your siblings to do these things? Grandparents, do you want your grandchildren to do these things? Friends, do you want your friends to do these things? Friends don’t let friends join the military — and neither do parents, pastors, teachers, brothers, sisters, and grandparents if they actually take the time to do a little research about the military. I recommend they start with DOD 101. If my arguments don’t carry any weight because I never “served” in the military, then consider the words of U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler (1881—1940) — a Congressional Medal of Honor winner who could never be accused of being a pacifist and the author of : War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force — the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. Butler also recognized the mental effect of military service: Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. Three mailings of Marine Corps recruiting literature this semester are enough. It is time to submit an opt-out form. A sample one is available here. Oh, and in case you were wondering, my son will yet again not be sending in the reply card — or getting the duffle bag, sunglasses, or watch.
U.S. Presidents and Those Who Kill for
Them
“The Czar can send any of his officials to Siberia, but he cannot rule without them, or against their will.” ~ John Stuart Mill What kind of a man would kill someone he didn’t know for someone else he didn’t know? I suppose our opinion of such an individual would depend on the circumstances. Most people would condemn a hit man for hire even as they would praise a man who came to the defense of a little old lady in a parking lot who was being attacked with deadly force by a gang of thugs. But what kind of a man would kill someone he didn’t know, who had never harmed or threatened him, his family, his friends, or anyone he knew for someone he didn’t know, who didn’t know him, and had never been harmed or threatened by the person he wanted killed? And even worse, who would do such a thing at a moment’s notice, without giving it a second thought, laugh while he did it, brag about it afterward, and then expect to be lauded as a hero? It pains me to say that the answer is a soldier in the U.S. military. Since World War II, the nature and role of the U.S. military has drastically changed. Now, although I believe World War II to be neither necessary (see Pat Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War) nor good (see my Rethinking the Good War), and although I realize that U.S. troops, especially since the time of Theodore Roosevelt, have often been sent to countries the United States was not at war with, World War II is still a notable turning point. It marks the end of congressional declarations of war and the permanent establishment of the military as the president’s personal army instead of the defender of the country against attack or invasion. On five different occasions, the United States has declared war on other countries a total of eleven times. The first was Great Britain in 1812 (the War of 1812). The second was Mexico in 1848 (the Mexican War). The third was Spain in 1898 (the Spanish-American War). The fourth was Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1917 (World War I). The fifth was Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941 (World War II) and Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania in 1942 (World War II). That Congress issued these declarations of war doesn’t mean that they should have been issued. It just means that it was recognized that a major military engagement called for a real declaration of war by the Congress according to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. The Founders were united on keeping the power to instigate war out of the hands of the executive. I have given Jefferson’s thoughts on the matter here. The reason for this limitation can be seen in a letter from Madison to Jefferson: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.” The executive power of the king of Great Britain to wage war at the time of the American Revolution should be contrasted with the limitation of the U.S. president’s power under the Constitution. As relayed by constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira, Sir William Blackstone explained in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that the English king was “the generalissimo, or the first in military command within the kingdom” and exercised “the sole prerogative of making war and peace,” “the sole power of raising and regulating fleets and armies,” and “the sole supreme government and command of the militia.” In the Constitution, the powers the king could exercise were assigned to Congress. As found in Article I, Section 8, the Congress has the power
The president is merely the commander in chief, subject to the power of Congress to do all of the above. Even
that great advocate of presidential power, Alexander Hamilton, acknowledged in Federalist no. 69
that the president’s authority as commander in chief, although “nominally the same with that of the King of Great
Britain,” was “in substance much inferior to it.” The danger of giving the president war powers was recognized by
none other than Abraham Lincoln. He wrote in an 1848 letter on the Mexican War to his law partner William Herndon:
“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and
you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to
make war at pleasure.” Too bad Honest Abe didn’t heed his own advice in 1861. Since World War II, the U.S. military
has been exclusively used by the president for purposes other than the actual defense of the country: providing
disaster relief, containing communism, invading countries, occupying countries, enforcing UN resolutions, nation
building, etc. The fact that some of these actions were termed defense doesn’t make them so. It all began with
Korean “police action.” Korea was divided at the 38th parallel after World War II. U.S. forces withdrew from Korea
in 1949, as Soviet forces had done the previous year. After North Korea invaded the South in June of 1950,
President Truman ordered American troops into combat in Korea to contain communism and save the United Nations.
Said Truman: “Here was history repeating itself. Here was another probing action, another testing action. If we let
the Republic of Korea go under, some other country would be next, and then another. . . . And the United Nations
would go the way of the League of Nations.” There was not the slightest pretense of consulting Congress. The
president informed the leaders of both parties only a few moments before he issued a statement to the press. The
Democratic majority in Congress closed ranks behind the president. Only a few Republican senators demurred, most
notably Senator Robert Taft: “The President is usurping his powers as Commander in Chief. There is no legal
authority for what he has done. If the President can intervene in Korea without congressional approval, he can go
to war in Malaya or Indonesia or Iran or South America.” Over 36,000 American soldiers suffered and bled and died
for their president to confirm the division of Korea. Believing that Truman had made a tactical blunder in
committing U.S. troops without consulting Congress, President Eisenhower in 1955 sought a congressional resolution
authorizing the employment of American forces in any manner necessary to defend Formosa [Taiwan]. It passed both
houses of Congress almost unanimously. Representative Eugene Siler (R-KY) voted against the blank-check resolution
because he had promised his constituents that he would never help to “engage their boys in war on foreign soil.”
Eisenhower sought another resolution in 1957 in response to perceived Soviet expansionism and instability in the
Middle East. This time, instead of rallying around a Republican president, some Democrats in Congress resisted. In
the end, 19 senators and 61 representatives voted against what has been called the Eisenhower Doctrine. John F.
Kennedy likewise sought two congressional resolutions during his presidency, both in 1962. The first was in
response to the threat of Cuban communism in the western hemisphere; the second was in response to a crisis in
Berlin in which Khrushchev challenged the right of the United States to maintain troops in West Berlin. These
resolutions left it to the president to determine how and when the terms of the resolutions would be applied. Next
came the infamous Tonkin Gulf Resolution sought by President Johnson in 1964. Although the United States had
already been providing military aid to South Vietnam, supporting a puppet regime, undertaking reconnaissance
missions and naval sabotage operations against North Vietnam, and supplying thousands of military advisors, it was
this resolution that gave President Johnson a blank check to send U.S. ground troops to Vietnam at his command.
Johnson provoked a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin and then falsely claimed that North
Vietnam had launched a second attack. Johnson ordered retaliatory air strikes against the phantom attack and
announced on national television that the U.S. response would be “limited and fitting.” After the election in which
Johnson held himself out as the peace candidate, he sent thousands of U.S. troops to die in the jungles of Vietnam.
There were no dissenting votes in the House. Only two senators opposed this blank-check delegation of power.
Senator Gruening (D-AK) objected to “sending our American boys into combat in a war in which we have no business,
which is not our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated.” Senator Wayne
Morse (D-OR) remarked: “I believe that history will record that we have made a great mistake in subverting and
circumventing the Constitution of the United States, article 1, section 8 thereof by means of this resolution.”
Johnson himself recognized that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave him the power to do whatever he wanted in Vietnam.
“The sky’s the limit,” he said. The War Powers Act, passed over Nixon’s veto in 1973, was an attempt by Congress to
limit the power of the president to conduct military actions. In actuality, however, it ceded powers to the
president not authorized by the Constitution. It gives the president a free hand to engage U.S. troops in offensive
military actions without the prior consent of Congress. In 1991, George H. W. Bush went to war in Iraq the first
time to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. This was after April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, told Saddam Hussein:
“We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me
to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with
America.” This was also after John Kelly, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to
Congress that the “United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait
if it is attacked by Iraq.” Yet, soon after Iraq invaded that bastion of democracy known as Kuwait, Bush the elder
sent 500,000 U.S. troops without the Persian Gulf region. Then, in January of 1991, Congress issued a resolution
authorizing the president to use military force against Iraq. The actual title was “Joint Resolution to Authorize
the Use of United States Armed Forces Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.” This was “in
order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674,
and 677.” Only two Republicans in the Senate and three in the House voted against the resolution. Passed soon after
the attacks of September 11, 2001, the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against
Those Responsible for the Recent Attacks Launched Against the United States” has resulted in the quagmire known as
the war in Afghanistan. This resolution authorized the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to
prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or
persons.” The problem with this blank check is that the president cashed it and invaded a country with a long
history of religious, ethnic, and factional squabbling that was not home to any of the 9/11 hijackers, was no
threat to the United States, and had never harmed any Americans. We now know that Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA)
was right about this resolution: “It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September
11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and
national security interests, and without time limit.” In 2002, Congress presented President George W. Bush with the
“Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” This gave him a blank check go to war in
Iraq the second time because of 9/11 because of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction because Iraq was a threat to the
United States because Iraq had bought uranium from Africa because Saddam Hussein was connected with al Qaeda
because Saddam Hussein tried to kill his dad because he made the decision at the first meeting of his National
Security Council ten days into his presidency (a student at the University of Illinois once documented 27 reasons put forth by the Bush
administration or war hawks in Congress before the war began). Only one Republican in the Senate and six in the
House voted against this resolution. In addition to these eight congressional resolutions authorizing the president
to initiate military action, there were other occasions besides the Korean conflict in which the president sent
U.S. troops abroad. Eisenhower sent Marines to Lebanon in 1958, Johnson sent Marines to the Dominican Republic in
1965, Nixon invaded Cambodia in 1970 and did not withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam until March of 1973 even
though the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was repealed in January of 1971, Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983, Bush invaded
Panama in 1989, and Clinton sent troops to Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999. As usual, much of the opposition to
presidential warmongering was merely political. According to Representative John Duncan (R-TN), a rare Republican
opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning, “Eighty percent of House Republicans voted against the bombings in the
former Yugoslavia under President Clinton. I am convinced that at least the same percentage would have opposed the
war in Iraq if it had been started by a Democratic president.” And now, in addition to traditional military
conflicts, Robert Gates, the secretary
of defense under the current and former president, envisions new roles for the military: Army soldiers can expect
to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure and promoting good governance. All these
so-called nontraditional capabilities have moved into the mainstream of military thinking, planning, and strategy —
where they must stay. A military not strictly for defense of U.S. borders, shores, coasts, and skies is nothing
more than the president’s personal attack force staffed by mercenaries willing to obey his latest command to bomb,
invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary. As the Future of
Freedom Foundation’s Jacob
Hornberger has so courageously pointed out, U.S. troops serve not as a defender of our freedoms but
instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his
commands. It is an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to deploy to any country in the world for
any reason he deems fit and attack, kill, and maim any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S. invasion of his own
country. It is also an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to take into custody any American whom
the commander in chief deems a “terrorist” and to punish him accordingly. Just listen to President Obama: I — like
any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Still, we are at war,
and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill,
and some will be killed. And now Obama, like Bush before him, claims the power to order the assassination of anyone —
including American citizens — anywhere in the world, via sharpshooter or Predator drone, based only on the
suspicion that they are somehow associated with terrorism. That is assassination without charge, without evidence,
without witnesses, without trial. Although God only knows the extent of what the U.S. military at the president’s
behest is now doing in Yemen, we know what has been happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, trigger-happy U.S.
Army helicopter pilots and U.S. Special Forces slaughtered civilians and then covered up their crimes until a video
was leaked exposing their collateral murder. In Afghanistan, the DOD
has finally admitted that U.S. Special Forces killed two pregnant Afghan women and a girl earlier this year.
American troops recently shot up a large passenger bus, killing and wounding civilians. Of the more than thirty
people who have been killed and the eighty who have been wounded in convoy and checkpoint shootings in Afghanistan
since last summer, not one was found to have been a threat. “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my
knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. And then there
are prisoner
executions. These and other crimes in Afghanistan — like eradicating wedding parties — have been chronicled by
Tom Engelhardt here. Yet, despite 4,409 American
soldiers who have died for a lie in Iraq and
1,144 American soldiers who have died in vain in
Afghanistan, Americans continue to foolishly rally around their commander in chief and his army instead of showing
contempt for him and it. In Donald Rayfield’s chilling book Stalin and His Hangmen: The
Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him (Random House, 2004), he recounts the destruction of the Soviet Union
under Stalin: From January 1928 Stalin gathered the power, as well as the will, to destroy the lives not only of
Lenin’s Politburo, but of millions of peasants, intellectuals, and workers. Stalin, the party, and OGPU were not
worried. Apparently, putting a dozen foreign technologists on trial hurt Soviet prestige, but enslaving and
exterminating millions of Russian and Ukrainian peasants did not. Stalin’s expedition to Siberia in 1928 was a
trial run for a crime against humanity. In the next two years, requisition and dispossession under the names of
collectivization and “dekulakization” would lay waste virtually all the arable lands of the USSR. Arrests,
deportations, and killings escalated, probably beyond what even Stalin and Menzhinsky had anticipated, into a
holocaust unmatched in Europe between the Thirty Years’ War of the seventeenth century and Hitler. Stalin’s attack
on the peasantry ravaged Russian agriculture and the Russian peasant to such an extent that for perhaps a century
Russia would be incapable of feeding itself. It introduced irrational and unquestioned rule by fear and turned
people back into beasts of burden. Stalin was now using OGPU to repress not counterrevolutionaries but a peaceful
population. Arrests and executions carried out by OGPU soared: 162,726 persons were arrested in 1929, mostly for
“counterrevolutionary activity,” 2,109 were shot, some 25,000 were sent to camps and as many again into exile. In
1930 arrests doubled to a third of a million and executions increased tenfold to 20,000. The camps received over
100,000. By 1934 there would be half a million slave laborers. Allowing for famine, violence, hypothermia, and
epidemics caused by the disruption, the number of excess deaths between 1930 and 1933 attributable to
collectivization lies between a conservative 7.2 and a plausible 10.8 million. As Stalin was condemning the last of
the old Bolshevik guard to death, he was also preparing his own remedy for dissidence and free thought in the
general population. The ensuing “Great Terror” raged across the Soviet Union from spring 1937 to autumn 1938 and
resulted in around 750,000 executions and twice as many sentences to lingering death in the camps. In 1937, some
time before Hitler, Stalin’s NKVD hit on gassing as a means of mass execution. Trucks advertising bread drove
around the Urals, pumping exhaust gases into the rear compartment where naked prisoners lay roped together in
stacks, until their loads were ready for the burial pits. In 1937 Stalin authorized the use of active physical
torture and the horrors at the Lubianka were replicated in dozens of provincial centers. In southern Russia and the
Caucasus, even before Stalin authorized torture, the sadism was such that the living envied the dead; few of those
tortured were fit for the GULAG. The camps could not keep up with the mass arrests; those detained in grotesquely
overcrowded prisons often died of typhus, dysentery, heart, malnutrition, or torture before they could be executed.
Collectivization had brutalized victims and perpetrators to such a degree that civilized society no longer existed
in the USSR. The cruelty and passivity it induced in Soviet citizens made it possible for Stalin and his hangmen to
proceed to an even more violent campaign in the party and among the urban population. Although Stalin himself was a
notorious liar, forger, robber, sadist, adulterer, pervert, terrorist, revolutionary, and murderer who once seduced
a thirteen-year-old girl, provoked his son to shoot himself, and whose own wife had ten abortions before she killed
herself, this well-read seminarian turned murderer didn’t kill millions of people by himself. Stalin and his
hangmen were peas in the same pod: Iagoda brought to Stalin his grimmest associates. Stanislaw Messing, Gleb Bokii,
and Efim Evdokimov, who had personally tortured, executed, and raped. Most NKVD men, like Ezhov, drowned fear for
their own fates in alcohol and sadism: they hated the innocents who were slow to confess, for the interrogator who
failed to secure a statement might follow his prisoner to the executioner. Ezhov sent those he spared the bullet
into the GULAG, which he expanded into a hitherto unimaginable inferno. When Iagoda fell, over 800,000 slaves were
working in the GULAG, while NKVD prisons held another quarter of a million and many hundreds of thousands of exiles
working in conditions indistinguishable from slavery. Ezhov’s last competent agent was Sergei Shpigelglas, who
specialized in liquidating defectors and émigrés. Shpigelglas’s final action was to murder Trotsky’s son, Lev
Sedov, as the latter convalesced from an appendectomy. . . . Shpigelglas also left such a blatant trail of blood
that he damaged Franco-Soviet and Swiss-Soviet relations. Sometimes, in a cruel twist of fate, Stalin’s hangmen
were on the receiving end of other hangmen: Ezhov was taken to the secret prison of Sukhanovka outside Moscow,
which he himself had had converted from a monastery and in which the church had been converted to an execution
chamber with an oil-fired crematorium where the altar had been. Ezhov had hysterics; he was beaten. Ezhov was taken
in the dead of night to a slaughterhouse he himself had built near the Lubianka. Dragged screaming to a special
room with a sloping cement floor and a log-lined wall, he was shot by the NKVD’s chief executioner.
Thank a Vet?
We’ve all seen the bumper stickers: “My son is in the Air Force,” “If You Can Read This in English, Thank a Marine,” “Proud Vietnam Veteran,” “Fly Navy,” and of course, “Thank a Vet.” Why should we? Why should we call them heroes, give them military discounts, grant them veterans preference, express our support for them with ribbons on our cars, honor them with a holiday, hold military appreciation church services for them, and thank them for their “service”? Veterans Day began as Armistice Day to commemorate the signing of the armistice that ended World War I. It had nothing to do with honoring current and former members of the military like Veterans Day is celebrated today. And if the sole purpose of Armistice Day was to honor World War I veterans, it should never have been celebrated since no American soldier did anything honorable by intervening in a European foreign war. And it doesn’t matter if he was drafted or not. Britain’s last World War I combat veteran, Harry Patch, died last year at the age of 111. He boasted that he hadn’t killed anyone in combat. “War isn’t worth one life,” Patch said, it is “calculated and condoned slaughter of human beings.” In his autobiography , Patch wrote that “politicians who took us to war should have been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves, instead of organising nothing better than legalised mass murder.” In the last years of his life, Patch warned some young naval recruits that they shouldn’t join. Frank Buckles, age 109, is the only American veteran of World War I still living. When asked while being honored for his service at a 2007 Veterans Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery what he thought about being there while the United States was at war, he replied: “I’m no authority, but I’m not in favor of war unless it’s an emergency.” I think that Buckles is more of an authority on the horrors of war and the folly and wickedness of war than the current members of the Joint Chiefs. It is only because World War I did not turn out to be the “war to end all wars” that the holiday was changed to Veterans Day as a tribute to all soldiers who fought for their country. Although I believe World War II to be neither necessary nor good, I come not on this Veterans Day to criticize the “greatest generation,” who, it turns out, were also great at pillaging and carousing. For reasons I explained in “U.S. Presidents and Those Who Kill for Them,” World War II marks the permanent establishment of the American military as the president’s personal attack force to kill by his decree Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Grenadians, Panamanians, Yugoslavs, Serbians, Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, Yemenis, and Pakistanis. Next on the list is Iranians. Sometimes these presidential decrees are rubberstamped by a congressional authorization to use force, but they are always preceded by presidential lies and warmonger propaganda. So why should a Vietnam veteran be proud? He was typically young, ignorant, deceived, and drafted. He may have fought obediently, valiantly, selflessly, and fearlessly, but since he had no business fighting in Vietnam in the first place, I have nothing to thank him for. And I certainly can’t thank him for preventing the Viet Cong from turning America into a socialist republic. Besides, LBJ beat Ho Chi Minh to that anyway. Many Vietnam veterans have written me and expressed shame, remorse, anger, and resentment — not pride — for having been duped into going thousands of miles away from American soil to intervene in another country’s civil war. In fact, I have found that it is those who are not Vietnam veterans who are the most vociferous defenders of the war in Vietnam. The most undeserved and oftentimes disgusting outpouring of thankfulness I have ever seen is over those who have fought or are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The praise and adoration of those fighting in “the front lines in the war on terror” reaches its apex on Veterans Day, which has become a day to defend U.S. wars and recognize all things military. These soldiers certainly have done nothing worthy of thanks. Sure, they have rebuilt infrastructure — after bombing it to smithereens. They no doubt removed a brutal dictator — and unleashed American brutality in the process. And yes, they have rescued orphan children — after blowing their parents and brothers and sisters to kingdom come. What is there to thank our soldiers for? They are not defending our freedoms. They are not keeping us safe from our enemies. They are not protecting us from terrorists. They are not guaranteeing our First Amendment rights. They are not defending U.S. borders. They are not guarding U.S. shores. They are not patrolling U.S. coasts. They are not enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies. They are not fighting “over there” so we don’t have to fight “over here.” They are not avenging 9/11. They are not safeguarding the American way of life. Oh, and they are not ensuring that I have the liberty to write what I do about the military. What, then, should we thank our soldiers for? Should we thank them for fighting an unconstitutional war, an unscriptural war, an immoral war, an offensive war, an unjust war, or a senseless war? Should we thank our veterans for helping to carry out an aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and interventionist foreign policy? Should we thank the military for sucking $1 trillion out of the federal budget? But, some will say, these soldiers are just doing their jobs. They can’t help it if the U.S. military sends them to fight in an unjust war in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are just following orders. They didn’t enlist in the military to kill people. What would any sane man think about a doctor who takes a job at a hospital knowing that the hospital instructs its doctors to euthanize old and sickly patients — and then says he was just doing his job, following orders, and didn’t take the job to kill people? Why are soldiers treated so differently? Why do they get a pass on committing or supporting those who commit murder and mayhem? But, someone else says, the military has lowered its recruiting standards and is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Many soldiers are ignorant about the true nature of the military and U.S. foreign policy. Why should we fault them for their ignorance? Why should they be criticized for unjustly killing Iraqis or Afghans or Pakistanis? They are just following orders. Let’s go back to the doctor I mentioned. Suppose that after he takes a job in ignorance at what he thinks is a reputable hospital he is instructed to euthanize old and sickly patients? What should he do? I don’t know of anyone who would say anything else but that he should quit his job or at least refuse to euthanize anyone. Again, why are soldiers treated so differently? Why do they get a pass on committing or supporting those who commit murder and mayhem? But, comes another reply, soldiers have a term of enlistment. They can’t just quit their jobs. Doctors can walk away from their jobs at any time. Then I guess it all comes down to morality: Be a mercenary and kill for the state or refuse to do so and suffer the consequences of dishonorable discharge and/or imprisonment. It is high time that Americans stop holding veterans and current members of the military in such high esteem. It is scientists, engineers, inventors, businessmen, industrialists, software developers, and entrepreneurs that made America great — not veterans of foreign wars. It is doctors, iron workers, taxi drivers, bricklayers, writers, electricians, and cooks that positively contribute to society — not soldiers. I would like to be able to thank a vet — on Veterans Day and every other day of the year — but I’m still searching for a reason.
Should Gays and Lesbians Serve in the
Military?
With the vote in Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” some conservative Christians are upset that gays and lesbians will be able to serve openly in their beloved institution. “Will the last masculine institution fall?” asked Dave Welch of the U.S. Pastor Council back in December, although I don’t know how masculine an institution the military is when there are 200,000 women serving in it. Well, apparently it will fall, but only sixty days after the secretary of defense “has received DOD’s comprehensive review on the implementation of such repeal, and the President, Secretary, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) certify to the congressional defense committees
These Christians may have a point; and then again they may not. What I find strange is that few of the Christians objecting to gays and lesbians serving openly in the military have a problem with anything the military does. They never question the military launching preemptive strikes in foreign countries, invading foreign countries, occupying foreign countries, fighting wars in foreign countries, assassinating people in foreign countries, changing regimes in foreign countries, spreading democracy at the point of a gun in foreign countries, enforcing no-fly zones in foreign countries, intervening in the affairs of foreign countries, stationing troops in over 150 foreign countries, and maintaining over 1,000 bases in foreign countries. Should gays and lesbians serve in the military? Once in the military, they will be expected to blindly follow the orders of their superiors and not exercise independent thought. They will often times not be in a position to know whether an order is in fact dubious or immoral. They will be expected to, without reservation, drop that bomb, fire that weapon, launch that missile, and throw that grenade, as well as directly kill people and destroy their property. Should gays and lesbians serve in the military? Once in the military, there is no guarantee that they will be in a non-combat role, regardless of what the lying military recruiters say. There is a chance they could be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, or covertly to Yemen or Pakistan, where they could die in vain and for a lie. They might be put into a position where they will have to kill or be killed. They might come home from Iraq with limbs amputated, like hundreds already have. They might come home from Afghanistan with serious brain injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and thoughts of suicide, unable to ever again hold down a job. Should gays and lesbians serve in the military? Once in the military, they will not be defending our freedoms, protecting us from terrorists, fighting for what is right, or guaranteeing our way of life. Their work will not be limited to the defense of U.S. borders, shores, coasts, and skies. They will instead be expected to serve as the president’s personal attack force to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary and that may never have attacked or threatened the United States. And then they will be expected to kill foreigners that resist being bombed, invaded, and occupied. Should gays and lesbians serve in the military? Once in the military, they will be helping to carry out a reckless and belligerent foreign policy that stirs up hatred against the United States and creates terrorists. They will be expected to carry out a foreign policy that perverts the use of the military and is contrary to the Founding Fathers’ policy of nonintervention in the affairs of other countries. Should gays and lesbians serve in the military? Perhaps some more pressing questions are should heterosexuals serve in the military? Should Christians serve in the military? Should atheists serve in the military? Should anyone serve in the military?
Our men and women in uniform have stood in the forefront of the war on terror since soon after 9/11. Our men and women in uniform are our first line of defense against terrorists. Our men and women in uniform keep us safe from Muslim extremists. Our men and women in uniform are heroes. Our men and women in uniform are true public servants. Our men and women serve voluntarily so we don’t have to. Our men and women in uniform should not have to suffer abuse while they try to do their jobs. Our men and women in uniform did not ask to perform their job as they do. Our men and women in uniform are just following orders. Our men and women must follow the chain of command. Our men and women in uniform have families that must endure their unusual schedules. Our men and women in uniform should be thanked when we see them in airports. Our men and women in uniform help defend our freedoms. Our men and women in uniform help ensure that we remain the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” Our men and women in uniform should be supported with our prayers. Our men and women in uniform seek to harm no one. Our men and women in uniform work in a very stressful environment. Our men and women in uniform should not be criticized; all criticism of their actions should be directed at the government. Our men and women in uniform are not directly responsible for any harm they might cause; it is the politicians that are ultimately responsible. Our men and women in uniform deserve the support of all Americans regardless of political party or philosophy. Support our men and women in uniform – support your local TSA agent. N.B.: Although I don’t believe a line of what I wrote, this is more than just an April Fool’s joke. My purpose is simply to show how utterly ridiculous it is to support the troops while criticizing the TSA.
Thank You for What
Service?
Veterans Day should be renamed. It happened once before. Veterans Day was originally termed Armistice Day. It commemorated the signing of the armistice on November 11 that ended fighting on the Western Front in World War I. But because the “war to end all wars” didn’t, Armistice Day was renamed Veterans Day after World War II. President Eisenhower signed the legislation making the change on June 1, 1954. Since the first U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1991, and especially since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, Veterans Day has taken on a new meaning: Military Appreciation Day. Although there are other national holidays (Memorial Day and the Fourth of July) that have degenerated into Military Appreciation Days, Veterans Day is the ultimate day to celebrate all things military. On Veterans Day, veterans and active duty military personnel can take advantage of special discounts at many places of business and free meals at restaurants. Many cities have parades in honor of the military. Both public and private schools have programs featuring local veterans and military personnel. Churches have “patriotic” services on the Sunday before Veterans Day where veterans and active duty military are encouraged to wear their uniforms to church, military anthems are played, the names of veterans are listed in the church bulletin, veterans are recognized and applauded during the Sunday morning church service, the church sign has the Scripture on it replaced with something about the military, and more prayers than usual are offered for “the troops.” Some churches show a video tribute to the troops, have a military color guard march down the main aisle to open the service, or have a military chaplain as the guest preacher. But above all, everyone in the country is bombarded with exhortations to find a veteran and say: “Thank you for your service.” Service in the military is called being in the service. But what “service” are we supposed to thank a veteran for? How did a veteran serve me or any other American by being in the military? I can see the point of thanking a waiter or waitress for their service because they actually served me, but the same is not true of a veteran of the U.S. military. Those in the military do many things, but serving me or any other American is not one of them. How were Americans served when veterans fought unjust and unnecessary wars? How were Americans served when veterans went to countries they had no business going? How were Americans served when veterans obeyed immoral orders? How were Americans served when veterans fought wars that were not constitutionally declared? How were Americans served when veterans maimed and killed foreigners who had never threatened any American? How were Americans served when veterans fought senseless and immoral wars? How were Americans served when veterans bombed foreign countries? How were Americans served when veterans unleashed sectarian violence? How were Americans served when veterans destroyed foreign industry, infrastructure, and culture? How were Americans served when veterans bombed, invaded, and occupied countries that posed no threat to the United States? How were Americans served when veterans carried out a flawed, reckless, and belligerent U.S. foreign policy? How were Americans served when veterans killed civilians in error (or on purpose) and dismissed it as collateral damage? How were Americans served when veterans made widows and orphans? How were Americans served when veterans carried out inaccurate drone strikes? How were Americans served when veterans fought wars of offense not defense? How were Americans served when veterans took sides in civil wars? How were Americans served when veterans acted as the world’s policemen? How were Americans served when veterans acted as a global force for evil? How were Americans served when veterans acted as the president’s personal attack force? How were Americans served when veterans traveled the world, met interesting people, and then killed them? The answer is: I wasn’t, and neither was any other American. However, there are people and organizations that veterans have served. Presidents have reason to say to veterans, “Thank you for your service.” Secretaries of Defense have reason to say to veterans, “Thank you for your service.” Army generals have reason to say to veterans, “Thank you for your service.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff have reason to say to veterans, “Thank you for your service.” Navy captains have reason to say to veterans, “Thank you for your service.” Air Force commanders have reason to say to veterans, “Thank you for your service.” The military-industrial complex has reason to say to veterans, “Thank you for your service.” Defense contractors have reason to say to veterans, “Thank you for your service.” Most Americans don’t belong to any of the above groups. Why, then, should they thank veterans for their service?
Cursed Be Unconditional
Obedience
“Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.” ~ Major General Smedley Butler “If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army.” ~ Frederick the Great “I find in existence a . . . dangerous concept that the members of the armed forces owe their primary allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the executive branch of the Government, rather than to the country and its Constitution they are sworn to defend. No proposition could be more dangerous.” ~ General Douglas MacArthur “There is one thing in the world more wicked than the desire to command, and that is the will to obey.” ~ W. K. Clifford, mathematician and philosopher After almost ten years of fighting in Afghanistan, the deadliest day for U.S. forces was just a few weeks ago on Saturday, August 6. On that day thirty U.S. military personnel were killed when their helicopter was shot down. The majority of those killed were said to be elite Navy Seals from the same unit that killed Osama bin Laden. The question that was never asked about this event by any major news media outlet is a question that I (and a few others) have been asking since the war in Afghanistan began: What is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan? The ones who bear the most responsibility for the 9/11 attacks are the pilots who flew the planes, none of whom were from Afghanistan. No American was ever harmed by anyone in Afghanistan until the U.S. military invaded and occupied that country. The United States even supported the Muslim insurgents and Afghan militants when they were freedom-fighting Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of Afghans are now dead who had never threatened America and had nothing to do with 9/11. Over 1,700 American soldiers are also dead, and many thousands more have life-altering injuries. So, what is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan? The purpose of the U.S. military should be limited to
defending the United States, securing its borders, guarding its shores, patrolling its coasts, and enforcing a
no-fly zone over its skies. Period. To do otherwise is to pervert the purpose of the military. This means the
purpose of the U.S. military should never be to defend other countries, secure their borders, guard their shores,
patrol their coasts, and enforce no-fly zones over their skies. This also means that the purpose of the U.S.
military should never be to provide disaster relief, dispense humanitarian aid, supply peacekeepers, enforce UN
resolutions, spread goodwill, rebuild infrastructure, establish democracy, nation build, change regimes, eradicate
drugs, contain communism, open markets, keep oil pipelines flowing, revive public services, build schools, or train
armies in any foreign country. This also means that the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to remedy
oppression, human rights violations, sectarian violence, ill treatment of women, forced labor, child labor,
religious or political persecution, poverty, genocide, famine, or injustice in any foreign country. The only answer is unconditional obedience. Although some U.S. soldiers, because of misguided zeal, may have wanted to go to Afghanistan after 9/11, few would choose to go now if it were their decision to make. But soldiers were told to go and they went, and soldiers are still being told to go. They didn’t consider the history of Afghanistan. They didn’t consider the purpose of the military. They didn’t consider U.S. foreign policy. They didn’t consider Chalmers Johnson. They didn’t consider the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. They didn’t consider the Constitution. They didn’t consider the Soviet Union’s failed attempt to subdue Afghanistan. They didn’t consider their families. They didn’t consider the cost to U.S. taxpayers. They didn’t consider their own mental and physical health. They didn’t consider the thousands of dead or maimed Afghan civilians. Even worse, those that did consider some or all of these things went to Afghanistan anyway. They may not have even bought in the baloney about fighting for our freedoms or fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here,” but they went anyway. Unconditional obedience. If you want to see a perfect example of unconditional obedience on display, then just look at the recent interview on the Diane Rehm show about “Navy Seals and U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan.” After announcing that U.S. forces were continuing their investigation into the shooting down of the helicopter in Afghanistan, Diane introduced her guests in the studio, Thom Shanker, the Pentagon correspondent for the New York Times and Paul Pillar of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, and by phone from Plymouth, Massachusetts, former Navy SEAL lieutenant commander Anthony O’Brien. Joining the panel later by phone was Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. The second caller to the show was someone named Don, who made this comment: I just wanted to comment real quick. Any time you have generals on the air and they’re pressured to give some reasons why we’re in this war in Afghanistan, they always fall back to a main reason being women’s rights, so girls can go to school, you know, for all the Taliban oppression. And I was just wondering if your panelists thought that that was really a legitimate reason, that we should have our military spending billions of dollars a year in this country to fight for women’s rights. Diane referred the caller to Anthony O’Brien, who gave this reply: I agree with the caller’s premise. The primary reason why you engage the military at the strategic level is for the national security interest of the United States of America. And as much as I’m a fighter for the rights of women, it is – it’s not our duty in the military, primarily, to protect the women or stop drug trades, et cetera. However, the president is the boss, and he calls the shots. And if – whether it be President Bush or President Obama, when they tell us where to go and when, we give a snappy salute, and we do what we’re told. Diane then sought a comment from Thom Shanker. Well, I just want to give Anthony a snappy salute ’cause his answer is perfect. I mean, we hear so often these conversations among civilians: why are we there, I don’t want us there or the opposite, we should be there. The military does not assign itself these missions. They follow the orders of the elected civilian leadership who are representing, Diane, your caller and everybody else. So that is where the responsibility for these decisions resides at the end of the day. My only comment is simply this: Only God deserves unconditional obedience. Unconditional obedience is why Nazis killed Jews in concentration camps, Japanese pilots bombed Pearl Harbor, East German border guards killed their fellow citizens fleeing over the Berlin Wall to the West, and Soviet soldiers invaded Afghanistan before U.S. soldiers did. Cursed be unconditional obedience.
Freedoms I Wish the Military Were
Defending
“Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended.” ~ George W. Bush, September 11, 2001 We have heard it repeated loudly and continuously since 9/11 – the troops are defending our freedoms. This claim is made so often and by so many different segments of society that it has become another meaningless national dictum – like “God Bless America” or “In God We Trust.” This cliché is actually quite insidious. It is used as a mantra to justify or excuse anything the U.S. military does. U.S. troops are engaged in unconstitutional, undeclared wars – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. drone strikes killed civilians in Pakistan – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. bombs landed on a wedding party in Afghanistan – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. soldiers murdered Afghan civilians and kept some of their body parts – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. helicopter pilots gunned down Iraqi civilians – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. soldiers killed civilians for sport – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. troops carelessly killed civilians and then covered it up – but the troops are defending our freedoms. But as I have pointed out many times in my articles on the military, and others like Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation have been arguing for years (see here and here), the troops are doing everything but defending our freedoms. In fact, the more the troops defend our freedoms by bombing, invading, and occupying other countries, the more enemies they make of the United States and the more our freedoms get taken away in the name of “fighting terrorism” or “national security.” Not in any particular order, and in varying degrees of significance, here are some freedoms I wish the military were defending:
Certainly there are hundreds of things that could be added. We no longer live in a free country. We are increasingly living in a police state, a warfare state, and a national security state. Our freedom is not absolute. The only reason the United States is still considered “the land of the free and the home of the brave” is because we are relatively free, with the degree of freedom varying depending on which country America is compared to. Would I rather live somewhere else? No, I wouldn’t, but that is a ridiculous question. First of all, if the typical German, Italian, Swede, Korean, Australian, or Spaniard were asked if he would rather live somewhere else you would probably get the same answer. And second, although a prisoner would rather live in a clean prison than a dirty prison and a safe prison rather than a violent prison, he would prefer to not be a prisoner in the first place. I conclude with three brief thoughts. One, I want the military to defend our freedoms. But fighting foreign wars only reduces our freedoms. After all, it is still true that war is the health of the state. Two, if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them. And three, the greatest threat to our freedoms is the U.S. government, not the governments of China, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, or Iran.
How to Reduce Military
Suicides
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I have been quite vocal in my opposition to most of what is done by the U.S. military in the name of defending our freedoms and other nonsense. Because of this I have been accused over the years of not appreciating and not supporting the troops (I plead guilty) and indifference to and wishing harm to the troops (I plead not guilty). However, on this latter point it needs to be said that it is only natural to expect that foreigners on the receiving end of U.S. military invasions, occupations, bombings, and killings would retaliate against U.S. troops. Just think of what Americans would do if these things were done to them. So, on the one hand, as Herbert Spencer wrote over a hundred years ago in his essay on patriotism: “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.” But on the other hand, as an American, I don’t want to see any American soldiers harmed, and especially those that were duped into fighting some unnecessary and senseless foreign war. The solution to the dilemma is to not send American soldiers overseas to fight foreign wars, which are inherently unjust. This keeps foreigners from having to shoot invading American soldiers and American soldiers from having to shoot resisting foreigners. The difference between a warmongering Republican or conservative (like every major conservative talk show host and every major Republican presidential candidate except Ron Paul) and yours truly is that I don’t want anyone on either side to die. One way that American soldiers are increasingly dying is at their own hands. More U.S. military personnel have died because they committed suicide than from suicide bombers detonating explosive devices near U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to see military suicides reduced. According to a new policy brief titled “Losing the Battle: The Challenge of Military Suicide,” published by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), from 2005-2010, “service members took their own lives at a rate of approximately one every 36 hours.” The Army had a record number of thirty-three suicides in July of 2010. That is eight times more soldiers dead by suicide than were killed in Iraq that month. That is over half the number of soldiers killed in the much-more-dangerous occupation of Afghanistan that month. The report also says that the Veterans Administration estimates “that a veteran dies by suicide every 80 minutes.” Although only 1 percent of Americans have served in the military, veterans account for 20 percent of all suicides. According to the report:
The report also noted that military hazing caused some of the suicides and that excess prescription medication in the military community was also a problem. At an event launching the CNAS report, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Peter Chiarelli said that trying to reduce the number of suicides in the Army has been “the most difficult challenge” in his forty years in the military. One of the authors of the report, Dr. Margaret Harrell said that the battle against suicide was being lost “multiple times a day.” According to the Department of Defense Suicide Event Report (DoDSER) for calendar year 2010, 295 service members died by suicide in 2010 (Air Force – 59, Army – 160, Marine Corps – 37, Navy – 39). There were 863 known suicide attempts. The suicide rate for divorced service members was 55 percent higher than the suicide rate for married service members. Most of those who successfully committed suicide were white, male, and under 25 years old. The number of suicides in 2009 was 309; the number in 2008 was 268. According to the Final Report of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide by Members of the Armed Forces, in the nine-year period from 2001 to 2009, more than 1,900 members of the military took their own lives. This is more soldiers than have died fighting in Afghanistan since the war on terror was launched. Although I am not a physician, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, or a mental health or suicide prevention counselor, I can think of four things that would reduce military suicides. And not only that, these things would also save the taxpayers money, improve America’s image in the world, keep us safer, and make it honorable to serve in the military. One, stop fighting foreign wars. When soldiers are sent to fight unnecessary, unjust foreign wars (is there any other kind?), there will always be questions in their minds about why they are fighting in a place they couldn’t locate without a map and against a people that never harmed an American until Americans first stuck their noses in their business. And we wonder why soldiers get depressed and suicidal? The aforementioned CNAS report found a direct connection between deployment and suicide. Some soldiers don’t even wait until they get home to suffer chronic pain, PTSD, depression, and unemployment – they kill themselves in Iraq or Afghanistan. The fewer foreign wars our soldiers are told to fight (the ones who have to do the actual fighting are never asked for their opinion), the fewer cases of traumatic brain injury, loss of limbs, depression, PTSD, anxiety, substance abuse, and chronic pain our soldiers will needlessly have to suffer with. I just can’t see U.S. soldiers getting depressed and suicidal or suffering PTSD and sleep loss over having to kill enemy soldiers who actually tried to attack the United States. Two, end the empire. Why does the United States still have tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea? Why does the United States have any troops at all in Djibouti, Australia, and Argentina? Why does the United States have 250,000 troops in foreign countries? Why does the United States have troops in 160 countries and territories? Why is it now so commonly accepted that someone in the military is being deployed to Germany or Japan? Military life is destructive to children, families – and service members. The strain of separation or relationship breakups, or the guilt over temptations succumbed to, can certainly lead to suicide. Sailors on Navy ships in Jacksonville should sail down around the Florida Keys and up through the Gulf of Mexico to Texas and then turn around and go back and see their families. No landing in Mexico, the Caribbean, or South America – for any reason. That will do more to keep America safe than sailing in the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Tonkin. And it will certainly do more for morale and military families than overseas deployments. Three, end most roles for women in the military. “Your mother wears army boots” used to be a derogatory remark. Now it is true for 207,308 women in the U.S. military. This is about 15 percent of the 1,425,115 total members of the military. (All figures are as of September 30, 2011.) And these numbers don’t include the Coast Guard. Women comprise an even higher percentage in the Guard and Reserve. Over 200,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been 111 female U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. There have been 30 female U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan, the most recent one being Sarina Butcher, aged 19, who died on November 1, 2011. It is a terrible tragedy that we send young men to die in senseless foreign wars; it is a horrendous evil that we send young women. Call me a sexist, a chauvinist, and a misogynist all you want, but no woman has any business flying a helicopter in Iraq, like twenty-seven-year old Army captain Kimberly Hampton, who died when the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter she was piloting was shot down. (No man does either, but that is not my point here.) According to Allan Carlson, the U.S. Department of Defense is the nation’s largest child-care system. Up to 40 percent of military pregnancies occur among unmarried military personnel. The 10 percent of military personnel who are “service couples,” with both husband and wife in uniform, are 64 percent more likely to be divorced by age 24 than comparable civilian couples. Carlson made the case many years ago for the “Bachelor Army” in Policy Review (the Fall 1993 issue in which it appeared is apparently not online). Things will only get worse since the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago, recommended that the Pentagon do away with the policy that bans women from serving in combat units. According to the previously mentioned DoDSER, one fourth of attempted suicides in the military are by women. Relationship issues are a factor in both male and female military suicides. Four, stop perverting the purpose of the military. As I have said in one form or another on many occasions: The U.S. military should be limited to defending the United States, securing U.S. borders, guarding U.S. shores, patrolling U.S. coasts, and enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies instead of defending, securing, guarding, patrolling, and enforcing in other countries. The U.S. military should be engaged exclusively in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not attacking, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States perverts the purpose of the military. Soldiers should know without a doubt that what they are doing is moral, just, and right. Limiting the military to actually protecting the United States is the surest way to do this. This means no more offensive wars. No more nation building. No more spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun. No more policing the world. No more providing disaster relief. No more dispensing humanitarian aid. No more preemptive strikes. No more bombing. No more extraordinary renditions. No more enhanced interrogation techniques. No more peacekeeping operations. No more enforcing UN resolutions. No more regime changes. No more assassinations. No more overseas deployments. No more foreign military bases. No more containing communism. No more opening markets. No more enforcing no-fly zones. No more training foreign police and armies. No more invasions. No more occupations. No more foreign wars. I support the troops. I support the troops not being put into positions where they face unnecessary danger. I support the troops not fighting senseless foreign wars. I support the troops not being separated from their families. I support the troops not being sent to kill foreigners. I support the troops not being stationed on overseas bases. I support the troops not being misused by presidents, politicians, and military brass. I support the troops not being killed as invaders and occupiers. And I support the troops not killing themselves.
Blue Angels Budget Blues
by December 13, 2011
The Navy’s Blue Angels flight-demonstration team is in trouble. And not because their commander resigned earlier this year after flying his F/A-18 Hornet below minimum altitude at an air show in Virginia and causing a month-long safety stand-down. Headquartered at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, the Blue Angels have been flying and thrilling audiences for more than 60 years. The team began after World War zII with the desire of Adm.Chester Nimitz to maintain peacetime support for naval aviation and highlight the Navy and Marines, from which the Blue Angels gets its pilots, for potential recruits who didn’t live near a Naval base. The Air Force has a similar demonstration team called the Thunderbird’s, while the Army has the Golden Knights parachute team. The Blues, as the Blue Angels squadron is known, made 70 performances at 35 locations around the United States in 2011 during a show season that runs from March through November. More than 100,000 people attended the recent Blue Angels end-of-season show at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The Navy says that about 11million people each year watch the Blue Angels six blue and gold jets twist, turn, drop, and climb in perfect formation for a carefully choreographed 45-minute show. As one who lived for many years in Pensacola, I can testify that seeing the Blue Angels fly is impressive. However, all of this comes at a price. There have been 26 Blue Angels pilots who have been killed in air-show or training accidents, most recently in 2007 when a pilot lost control of his plane and crashed during an air show in South Carolina. The other cost is that borne by American taxpayers. The Pentagons budget for the Blue Angels is $37million. But the mission of the Blue Angels is purely promoting naval aviation and recruiting instead of actually contributing to national defense, so some have begun to call for the squadrons elimination because of the budget deficit and potential cuts in military spending. Laura Peterson, a spokeswoman for Taxpayers for Common Sense, says the money could be better spent on other programs. Some readers of the Air Force Times newspaper, obviously read mainly by current and former members of the Air Force, recently listed eliminating the Blue Angels and similar programs as one way to cut defense spending. Others intimately connected with the Navy naturally disagree. Capt.Greg McWherter, the Blue Angels commander, claims that the Blues fill a vital national security role by improving morale, helping with recruiting and presenting a public face for the nations 500,000 sailors and Marines. He sees Blue Angels performances as inspiring young people to join the military and thus ensuring that the Navy and the Marine Corps is strong 10 to 15 years from now. Ray Davis, the U.S. Navy secretary, says the Blue Angels are important because they showcase the incredible skill level of U.S. military. The Blues are ambassadors for not just the Navy but for [sic] the entire American military across this country and around the world. Rep.Jeff Miller, whose district includes the Pensacola Naval Air Station and who is on the House Armed Services Committee, points to the popularity of the Blue Angels as proof that the program will be kept alive: You can ask the hundreds of thousands of people who come out each weekend and see them fly and know they aren’t going anywhere. The potential cuts to the defense budget are due to sequestration because the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the so-called Supercommittee) failed to come to an agreement on how to reduce the federal budget deficit by $1.5trillion over ten years. That is only $150billion a year, split between security and nonsecurity programs, but exempting the Cerberus of the welfare state: Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. The Budget Control Act of 2011 mandates that if the Supercommittee fails to specify spending cuts, then a cut of $1.2trillion over ten years will automatically take place. That is $120billion a year. Any idiot except a member of Congress could cut $120billion a year in federal spending for ten years without thinking about it for more than ten minutes. By anyone’s estimate, the U.S. government is spending more than $10billion a month on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is your $120billion a year. How hard was that? But it turns out that the cuts to the defense budget are not real cuts at all; they are reductions in the rate of spending increases. Federal spending and federal debt are both still forecast to grow at a rate faster than the U.S. economy. As the freshman, junior senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, recently explained,
His father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), has long called for real cuts not in defense spending, but in offense spending, which is what the budget of the Department of Defense is mostly spent on. The war party, that is, the Republican Party, is livid over the proposed cuts to the Pentagons budget. Mitt Romney says the cuts are undermining troop capacity, delaying the building of aircraft carriers and cutting the capacity of the U.S. to defend itself. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee maintain that the cuts represent a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and cannot be allowed to occur. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), insisted that he would not be the armed services chairman who presides over crippling our military. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) a member of the Supercommittee wants to reconfigure the automatic spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act to prevent cuts to the defense budget. But we have been this way before. Earlier this year it was reported by Defense News that Barack Obama wanted to cut defense spending by $400 billion by 2023. The aforementioned Buck McKeon whose district includes Edwards Air Force Base and whose top two donors were Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman expressed his opposition then as well: I have grave concerns about the White House announcing a $400 billion cut to national security spending while our troops are fighting in three different theaters. I guess ending senseless foreign wars never occurred to him. But as it turns out, the $400billion cut was a reduction only in the rate of growth: The goal will be to hold growth in the defense base budget below inflation, which would save $400billion by 2023, said the White House. And what is this nonsense about cutting spending by $1.2trillion over ten years or $400billion by 2023? Politicians always talk in terms of other years after the next fiscal year because they want to make their numbers look bigger. But it is ludicrous to talk about anything that will happen in ten years, in the year 2023, or in any other year after the next fiscal year. The present Congress cannot bind any future Congress to do anything. A politician might as well say that he plans to cut $100trillion from the federal budget by 2095. The very heart and soul of conservatism is not libertarianism, as Ronald Reagan once claimed it was; the very heart and soul of conservatism is war and militarism. The Blue Angels have no need to worry as long as Republicans continue to equate reductions in the rate of increases in the defense budget with cuts that threaten national security.
Madeleine McAulay is, by her own admission, a one-of-a-kind, politics-obsessed teenager, a teenage political maverick, a common-sense conservative, and a supporter of Sarah Palin. But she is also a budding red-state fascist. Madeleine blogs at Faith Hope & Politics. Her upcoming book, The Makings of a Political Maverick, is “a key into the intriguing mind of a teenage, Conservative.” It is “a reflection of a young life that is so engulfed in politics.” I hate to pick on a sixteen-year-old girl. She is clearly far superior in intelligence than most of the kids her age that I had the misfortune of “teaching” when I taught high school. I would never have noticed her website had not a reader of my recent Veteran’s Day article directed me to her “tribute to American Soldiers, past and present, in honor of Veteran’s Day on 11/11/11” called “Thank You Soldiers, Past and Present,” as well as an earlier post of hers called “Dear American Soldiers.” Poor Madeleine didn’t have a chance. In introducing her Veteran’s Day tribute she says: “Thank you to all of those who have served. I would like to especially thank, my Mom’s Parents, my Dad’s Dad, my Dad, and my Uncle Jerry for their service.” No wonder she is a budding red-state fascist. In the middle of her “Dear American Soldiers” post, Madeleine quotes this poem from the site Military-Money-Matters.com: It Is the Soldier It is the Soldier, not the minister Who has given us freedom of religion. It is the Soldier, not the reporter Who has given us freedom of the press. It is the Soldier, not the poet Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer Who has given us freedom to protest. It is the Soldier, not the lawyer Who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the Soldier, not the politician Who has given us the right to vote. It is the Soldier who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protester to burn the flag. This is too much for even the editor of Military-Money-Matters.com, who comments at the beginning of his explanation of the poem’s authorship: There are blogs and comments across the internet debating the content of the poem, some picking it apart by attempting to apply the words literally. Sadly, those who do so will never understand the true meaning of the poem – that without our military members willing to defend them, those freedoms we cherish would quickly disappear. So, while technically soldiers do not “give” us those freedoms, they do guarantee them. Those types of people just will never “get it,” at least not until it’s too late, and then they’ll wonder what happened, and why the military didn’t stop it. But do U.S. soldiers even guarantee these things? Of course they don’t. No U.S. soldier stationed in Germany, Japan, or South Korea is defending or guaranteeing our freedoms. No U.S. soldier fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan is protecting or guaranteeing our rights. Since U.S. soldiers have begun fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, our freedoms have been eviscerated. First it was the Patriot Act and the TSA. And now the U.S. government claims the power and the right to intern indefinitely anyone – including American citizens – anywhere in the world, including on American soil and to kill anyone – including American citizens – anywhere in the world, including on American soil. Just ask José Padilla. Just ask Anwar al-Awlaki. Oh, never mind, he’s dead. He was killed, along with his sixteen-year-old son, by Predator drone strike. Is there anyone in Iraq who wanted to take away our freedom of religion? Is there anyone in Afghanistan who wanted to take away our freedom of the press? Is there anyone in Pakistan who wanted to take away our freedom of speech? Is there anyone in Yemen who wanted to take away our freedom to protest? Is there anyone in Iran who wants to take away our right to a fair trial? Is there anyone anywhere who wants to take away our right to vote? According to then CIA director and now Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, there may be fewer than 50 al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. Suppose they all hated our freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom to protest. Suppose they also hated our rights to a fair trial and to vote. Is that worth 1,800 more dead U.S. soldiers? Why am I, who supposedly hates all things military, the one who is concerned about the senseless deaths of American troops? It is the U.S. government that we need to be more concerned about taking away our freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to protest, right to a fair trial, and right to vote than the government or the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen, Syria, or North Korea. James Madison was right: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” What really gets me upset at those adults who have influenced Madeleine are her remarks about Ron Paul that she made in commenting on the CNN Republican debate: “Ron Paul had a decent debate. He made great points regarding health care and economic prosperity, but when it came to Foreign Policy I couldn’t disagree more.” This reminds me of a comment I saw at the end of an article recently. Someone had posted that their ideal candiate would have the foreign policy views of Newt Gringrich and the views of Ron Paul on everything else. Sorry Madeleine, but militarism, imperialism, and foreign wars are inimical to liberty on the domestic front and foster American fascism.
by December 20, 2011
There didn’t seem to be a lot of outrage last month when it was reported by the Washington Post that the Dover Air Force Base mortuary had for years been disposing of the unidentified remains of U.S. soldiers by cremating them and then dumping the ashes in a landfill in King George County, Virginia. The Dover mortuary receives the remains of all U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other overseas locations. More than 6,000 U.S. soldiers have died in foreign wars since 2001. The mortuary engaged in the landfill disposal practice from 2003 to 2008. Relatives of the dead soldiers were not informed about the method of disposal. Since June 2008, the Navy has disposed of cremated remains at sea. Waste Management, the owner of the landfill, said it was not informed about the origin of the ashes it disposed of. The disclosure by the Washington Post came after several federal investigations documenting gross mismanagement at Dover Air Force Base. The Air Force has admitted that its mortuary lost an ankle, improperly stored and tracked other remains, and sawed off a dead Marines arm to fit his body into a casket. Three mortuary supervisors were disciplined, but not fired, after an 18-month investigation. Now the Air Force has said that it dumped more human remains in the Virginia landfill than it previously acknowledged. It turns out that the cremated, incinerated partial remains consisting of 976 fragments from 274 identified American soldiers and 1,762 pieces of unidentified remains were deposited in the landfill. The Air Force had previously maintained that it could not estimate how many troops might have had their remains sent to a landfill. The Air Force has decided not to notify the relatives of the 274 soldiers because each of the families signed forms stipulating that they did not wish to be notified if additional remains were subsequently recovered or identified. Only if family members come forward and request the information will the Air Force disclose it. Naturally, the military regrets any additional grief to families that past practices may have caused. Family members of the fallen are, of course, outraged. But they are not alone. Joe Davis, of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), said, The latest reports suggest the military hasnt been transparent. He further explained that these kids are being put in body bags with all the parts that can possibly be retrieved, and then a month, two months later, somebody might be patrolling down that same alley way and find a finger. Consulting the families is the thing to do. The top Democrat and Republican on the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating the Dover Air Force Base mortuary, said they found the most recent Washington Post revelations appalling. The committee is now going to broaden its probe to include all military burial practices over the past decade. It is not really comforting to know that all the pieces of your loved one are buried in a coffin instead of being dumped in a landfill. The pieces that could be found, that is. No, the outrage over the disposal of body parts of U.S. war dead is misdirected. Where is the outrage of family members who have lost loved ones against George W. Bush for lying Americans into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and against Barack Obama for escalating the Afghan War and expanding the bogus war on terror to other countries? The United States has lost almost 5,000 soldiers in Iraq and more than 1,800 in Afghanistan. That translates into many thousands of grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins who have lost family members in foreign wars, and for no good reason. There are some notable mothers such as Cindy Sheehan and fathers Andrew Bacevich who have spoken out. But for the most part, relatives of the fallen are content to perpetuate the myth that their loved ones died fighting for their freedoms. Where is the outrage of the VFW over the thousands of U.S. soldiers who have died while becoming veterans of a foreign war? There are U.S. troops stationed in more than 150 countries and territories doing everything but actually defending the land, coasts, borders, and skies of the United States. Vietnam veteran and peace advocate James Glaser has documented the 65 official foreign military actions since World War II that have been approved by Congress to qualify the combatants for membership in the VFW and that was before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Better that the VFW loose all of its membership than that more American soldiers die in vain and for a lie in foreign wars. Where is the outrage of members of Congress over the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on foreign wars? Why aren’t Bush and Dick Cheney being investigated along with the Dover Air Force Base mortuary? But that’s not all. Where is the outrage of Democrats over the silence of most in their party (with the notable exception of Dennis Kucinich) regarding not only the failure of their president to end Bush’s wars, but regarding his drone attacks and extra-judicial murder? Where is the outrage of liberals over the dearth of criticism from progressives (with the notable exception of Glenn Greenwald) of Obama’s dictatorial view of presidential power and murderous foreign policy? Where is the outrage of Republicans over all of the major Republican presidential candidates (except Ron Paul) who want the United States to stay in Iraq, continue fighting in Afghanistan, expand the war on terror, and provoke Iran? Where is the outrage of conservatives over the leading conservative talk-show hosts (Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Bill OReilly) who want the United States to continue its reckless foreign policy of policing the world at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, and soldiers and their families? Regardless of whom U.S. military personnel are fighting, how they die, and where they are fighting, the Pentagon owes it to the families of the fallen to do all that it can to ensure that the remains of military personnel are handled, accounted for, and buried properly. But an even greater responsibility of the Pentagon is to actually defend the country and not engage in senseless and unjust foreign wars that needlessly sacrifice U.S. troops.
The Real Problem with the National Defense Authorization
Act
For each of the past forty-eight years, Congress has passed the misnamed National Defense Authorization Act to set forth the budget of the Defense Department. President Obama just signed into law the latest version of the NDAA, but not without some controversy. The House originally passed this 1145-page bill (H.R.1540) back on May 26 by a vote of 322-96. Only six Republicans voted against the bill (Justin Amash, John Campbell, Jason Chaffetz, John Duncan, Tom McClintock, & Ron Paul). The 926-page Senate version of the bill (S.1867) was passed on December 1 by a vote of 93-7. Only three Republicans voted against the bill (Tom Coburn, Mike Lee, & Rand Paul). The Senate then incorporated the measure in a now 908-page H.R.1540 as an amendment. The original House bill contained an affirmation in section 1034 that the president has “the authority to detain belligerents,” until “the termination of hostilities,” including persons who “(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A).” But it is the Senate version that, as amended in two ways, raised such a firestorm of controversy. Conservative, religious, and animal-rights groups were upset with a provision in the Senate bill seen as legalizing sodomy and bestiality in the military. The Senate bill simply says, buried in division A – DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS, title V – MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY, subtitle E – Military Justice and Legal Matters Generally, section 551 – REFORM OF OFFENSES RELATING TO RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND OTHER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, (d) REPEAL OF SODOMY ARTICLE, that “Section 925 of such title (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is repealed.” This is a reference to title 10, subtitle A, part II, chapter 47, subchapter 10, section 925 of U.S. Code, which states: (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct. Section 125 of the UCMJ adds this explanation: It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal. The Senate bill also directed that the two other mentions of sodomy in U.S. Code title 10, subtitle A, part II, chapter 47, subchapter 8, section 843, and subchapter 10, section 918, be excised. Civil libertarians of all stripes were upset with a provision in the Senate bill that would codify the power of the president to use the military to indefinitely intern anyone, without charges or trial, anywhere in the world – including American citizens on U.S. soil. The most worrisome sections of the bill are found in division A, title X, subtitle D, sections 1031 and 1032. I give here the sections in their entirety because we will return to them later. SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) IN GENERAL. – Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS. – A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. – The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION. – Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) AUTHORITIES. – Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. (f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS. – The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be u2018u2018covered persons” for purposes of subsection (b)(2). SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. – (1) IN GENERAL. – Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. (2) COVERED PERSONS. – The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined – (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. – For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033. (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. – The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS. – (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS. – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. (c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES. – (1) IN GENERAL. – Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section. (2) ELEMENTS. – The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows: (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made. (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States. (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session. (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country. (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished. (d) EFFECTIVE DATE. – This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date. FBI Director Robert Mueller, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have all publicly opposed the bill. All three wrote letters to Congress on the matter. Mueller wrote that the “presumption of military detention” would “inhibit our ability to convince arrestees to cooperate.” Panetta warned that the bill “imposes a whole new restraint on the flexibility we need to pursue our counterterrorism efforts.” A group of twenty-six retired generals and admirals wrote to senators that the new provisions in the NDAA would “do more harm than good.” Thirty-two Democratic members of Congress sent their own letter to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders in protest of these provisions, saying: The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military. One signer of the letter, Rep. Martin Heinrich, stated: “These provisions are deeply concerning and would risk putting American citizens in military detention, indefinitely. In short, this authority is at complete odds with the United States Constitution.” The ACLU urged the president to veto the bill. The New York Times editorialized against the bill. A contributor to Forbes maintained that the NDAA is “the greatest threat to civil liberties Americans face.” Republican representative Justin Amash termed the bill “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation in our lifetime.” Republican senator Rand Paul said: “If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game.” Paul, as mentioned, was one of only three Republican senators to vote against the bill. The other warmongering, police statist Senate Republicans are typified by Lindsey Graham, who stated: “It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, u2018I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, u2018Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.'” The version of the NDAA just signed into law by President Obama is a result of a conference committee between the House and the Senate to work out a compromise on their version of H.R.1540. The House passed the final measure on December 14 by a vote of 283-136. The Republican vote was 190-43. The Senate approved the final measure on December 15 by a vote of 86-13. But this time Republican senators Coburn, Lee, and Paul were joined by senators Mike Crapo, Jim DeMint, and James Risch. So, what became of the sodomy and indefinite detention provisions? The Senate attempt to strip the sodomy language out of the UCMJ was turned back by the House. According to the conference report (H.REPT. 112–329): The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 551) that would amend section 920 of title 10, United States Code (Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), to separate Article 120, UCMJ, into three separate articles applying to the offenses of rape and sexual assault, sexual offenses against children; and other non-consensual sexual misconduct offenses. The provision would also repeal section 125 of title 10, United States Code (Article 125 of the UCMJ), the offense of sodomy. The House bill contained no similar provision. The House recedes with an amendment that would delete the repeal of section 125 of title 10, United States Code (Article 125 of the UCMJ). But regarding the dangerous provisions in sections 1031 and 1032, the Senate bill won out. According to the conference report: The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1034) that would affirm that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1031) that would affirm the authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain certain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40). The provision would not affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. The House recedes. The original language in S.1867 is thus retained verbatim in the new version of the NDAA. And regarding section 1032, the conference report says: The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1032) that would require military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40), subject to a national security waiver. Under the provision, the President would have broad authority to issue implementation procedures, including but not limited to deciding who makes a determination of coverage, how the determination is made, and when it is made. The House bill contained no similar provision. The House recedes with an amendment providing that nothing in this provision shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody. The law enforcement and national security tools that would not be affected in any way by this provision include, but would not be limited to, Grand Jury subpoenas, national security letters, and actions pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Public Law 95–511). The amendment would also authorize the President, rather than the Secretary of Defense, to waive the requirements of the provision. The conferees note that while section 1021 of this bill would apply to “al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,” this section would apply to “al Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al Qaeda.” The conferees agree that while the Taliban is covered by section 1021, it is not covered by this section. (It should be noted that the original sections 1031 and 1032 are numbered 1021 and 1022 in the new bill.) So, the main thing that is different about the new version of the NDAA is the insertion of the following paragraph between “Implementation Procedures” and “Effective Date” (d) AUTHORITIES. – Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody. There are only two other changes. Under (a)(4) “Waiver for National Security,” instead of the secretary of defense submitting a wavier to Congress it is the president. And under (c)(2)(C), there is an inconsequential change in wording. An “interrogation session” is now called just an “interrogation.” I rarely agree with Democratic members of the House of Representatives, but Rep. Alcee Hastings from my state of Florida, during debate in the House over the conference report, gets it right it: This legislation establishes an authority for open-ended war anywhere in the world and against anyone. It commits us to seeing a “terrorist” in anyone who ever criticizes the United States in any country, including this one. The lack of definitions as to what constitutes “substantial support” and “associated forces” of al Qaeda and the Taliban mean that anyone could be accused of terrorism. While this measure includes an exemption for United States citizens, it does not protect them from indefinite detention. In one fell swoop, we have set up a situation where American citizens could have their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights violated on mere suspicions. We won’t defeat terrorism by using the military to lock up innocent people for the rest of their lives on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. We will not defeat terrorism by claiming the entire world as a battlefield. And we will not defeat terrorism by replacing our rule of law with reckless, uncontrolled, and unaccountable powers. Likewise, here are the comments of consistent war opponent Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the President unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. This legislation authorizes the military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial, including the detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. In short, what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution and gives enormous power to the government or the State. In his article, “Three Myths about the Detention Bill,” civil libertarian par excellence Glenn Greenwald concludes: In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled – that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected – and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detention even U.S. citizens without a trial. But as correct and necessary as they are, the objections of civil libertarians regarding the indefinite detention of American citizens that the NDAA codifies, are not the real problem with the bill. Much more insidious is the bill itself and the $669 billion it allocates for “defense” spending. In the “ Constitutional Authority Statement” that accompanies H.R.1540, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon (R-CA), has the audacity to say: Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is the power of Congress to “provide for the common defense,” “raise and support armies,” and “provide and maintain a navy,” as enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The U.S. military is used to provide disaster relief, dispense humanitarian aid, supply peacekeepers, enforce UN resolutions, launch preemptive strikes, nation build, spread goodwill, change regimes, eradicate drugs, rebuild infrastructure, contain communism, open markets, keep oil pipelines flowing, revive public services, establish schools, train foreign armies, invade foreign countries, occupy foreign countries, spread democracy, kill tens of thousands of people that were no threat to the United States, and secure the borders, guard the shores, patrol the coasts, enforce no-fly zones in the skies, and otherwise defend other countries. I doubt that the Framers of the Constitution envisioned any of these things when they said: “provide for the common defense,” “raise and support armies,” and “provide and maintain a navy.” The purpose of the military has been perverted beyond all recognition. Because the military spends more for offense than defense, that the defense budget is actually for defense is clearly a myth. Another myth is that defense spending keeps us safe. The United States spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. It maintains an empire of over 1,000 foreign military bases and hundreds of thousands of troops in 150 countries and territories around the globe. The United States is the policeman, fireman, social worker, security guard, mediator, and babysitter of the world. It has “entangling alliances” with many countries that require it to go to war and expend blood and treasure in defense of other nations. But as Congressman Ron Paul, speaking recently on Face the Nation, maintained: “Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it’s a danger to national defense, and we can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense.” Yet another myth about the defense budget is that it is the only thing spent on defense. As economic historian Robert Higgs has shown, real defense spending is actually about $1 trillion. Still another myth is that the defense budget includes spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is a list of U.S. spending on these foreign wars through fiscal year 2010 that was in addition to the defense budget:
The most insidious myth about the defense budget is that it is tool of congressmen to enhance their chances for reelection while lining the pockets of defense contractors. In his book Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War, retired U.S. Army colonel Andrew Bacevich explains: Each year the Pentagon expends hundreds of billions of dollars to raise and support U.S. military forces. This money lubricates American politics, filling campaign coffers and providing a source of largesse – jobs and contracts – for distribution to constituents. It provides lucrative “second careers” for retired U.S. military officers hired by weapons manufacturers or by consulting firms appropriately known as “Beltway Bandits” (p. 228). Two of Old Right journalist John T. Flynn’s eight points he considers to be the main marks of the fascist State are:
The U.S. economic system is not based on free market capitalism; it is based on that most insidious form of crony capitalism known as military fascism. The NDAA, sans indefinite detention, or in whatever form it is found, is a bill for continued militarism, imperialism, and empire, and a terrible waste of the taxpayers’ money.
About Laurence M. Vance:
Laurence M. Vance is an author, a publisher, a lecturer, a freelance writer, the editor of the Classic Reprints series, and the director of the Francis Wayland Institute. He holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics. The author of twenty-seven books, he has contributed over 900 articles and book reviews to both secular and religious periodicals. Vance's writings have appeared in a diverse group of publications including the Ancient Baptist Journal, Bible Editions & Versions, Campaign for Liberty, LewRockwell.com, the Independent Review, the Free Market, Liberty, Chronicles, the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, the Review of Biblical Literature, Freedom Daily, and the New American. His writing interests include economics, taxation, politics, government spending and corruption, theology, English Bible history, Greek grammar, and the folly of war. He is a regular columnist, blogger, and book reviewer for LewRockwell.com, and also writes a column for the Future of Freedom Foundation. Vance is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Grace Evangelical Society, and the International Society of Bible Collectors, and is a policy adviser of the Future of Freedom Foundation and an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. See here for some articles by Laurence M. Vance that provide an overview of his worldview and philosophy. Independent Baptist Churches can contact Laurence M. Vance about hosting a King James Bible Conference. Laurence M. Vance: "Champion of liberty and peace"--Lew Rockwell, chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute Laurence M. Vance: "The gold standard in understanding war and peace"—Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst
Buy Laurence M. Vance Books
Here: War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy http://www.vancepublications.com/wem.htm
War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism http://www.vancepublications.com/wcs.htm
Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State (2nd. ed.) http://www.vancepublications.com/cw2.htm
Laurence M. Vance Books: http://vancepublications.com/books%20by%20lmv.htm
Laurence M. Vance Website:
Things the Marine Corps Forgot to
Mention (Excerpt) U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler (1881—1940) — a Congressional Medal of Honor winner who could never be accused of being a pacifist and the author of : War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force — the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. Butler also recognized the mental effect of military service: Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
The Corbett Report First published at 13:16 UTC on January 22nd, 2020 SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=34783 Have you heard of Major General Smedley Butler? If not, you might want to ask yourself why that is. As one of the most highly decorated Marines in the history of the US Marine Corps and as a passionate and eloquent speaker about the racket that is war, Smedley Butler deserves to be a household name. Find out more in today's edition of Questions For Corbett.
Waging Peace in Vietnam: Columbia SIPA | Oct 25, 2019 The Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies presents the panel "Waging Peace in Vietnam: U.S. Soldiers and Veterans who Opposed the War" on Friday, October 18, 2019. Learn more: https://events.columbia.edu/cal/event...
SIR! NO SIR!
In the 1960’s an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course of history. This movement didn’t take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on aircraft carriers. It flourished in army stockades, navy brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite military colleges like West Point. And it spread throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one expected, least of all those in it. Hundreds went to prison and thousands into exile. And by 1971 it had, in the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the GI movement against the war in Vietnam. http://www.sirnosir.com/the_film/synopsis.html
LINKS: [ AL-QAEDA EXPOSED!! ] , SYRIA , YEMEN , RAND Corporation , Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing
No war on Iran: The Grayzone | Jan 7, 2020 Red Lines host Anya Parampil speaks with Ben Becker, an organizer with the ANSWER coalition, to discuss the growing anti-war movement in the US. Over the weekend, thousands of US citizens took to the streets in up to 90 cities in order to voice their opposition to the Trump Administration's push to war with Iran. Ben and Anya talk about the struggles faced by the anti-war movement over the years what makes organizing massive resistance to war policy possible.
-----------------------------------------
...Or, They Can Continue To Be Pawns.
"Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger -
“If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would
remain in the army.”
Christian,
| ||||||||||||
And third, U.S. military relief efforts in Haiti are a PR bonanza for the military. It is certain
to counter, at least for a few weeks, the fact that we are engaged in two unpopular wars. And it certainly
will help to quash 
Particularly notable, and particularly evil, among Stalin’s hangmen was the sadistic killer and
sexual degenerate Lavrenti Beria: Beria had proved himself as the Stalin of the Caucasus, murdering and
terrorizing like Ezhov and Stalin combined. Nobody in Stalin’s circle was so fastidious as to object to
working with such a murderous, devious, ambitious, and utterly unscrupulous lecher. Beria’s rise was speeded
by sudden deaths among his colleagues, and he acquired a reputation for murder and falsification. Lakoba’s
mother was bludgeoned to death by Beria’s hangman Razhden Gangia. Beria slaughtered almost the entire Lakoba
clan, keeping the children in prison until they were old enough to execute. Like Ezhov, Beria seduced or raped
women by first arresting their husbands, lovers, or fathers. Unlike Ezhov, he made his sexual predilections
public. Beria curb-crawled Tbilisi, abducting schoolgirls. Beria inspired loathing among his party colleagues,
many as murderous as he, largely because of his predilection for their wives, mistresses, and daughters.
Stalin wanted a more pliable, not a more humane, NKVD, and on occasion gave Beria orders to kill without
arrest, let alone trial. Worse were the massacres perpetrated on Beria’s orders in the newly acquired Western
Ukraine: perhaps 100,000 civilian prisoners were shot in Lwow as the Red Army retreated. Other deaths were
ordered from Moscow: in November 1941, in eight days, 4,905 persons were shot on Beria’s orders. As for
Beria’s legendary sexual proclivities, he was certainly guilty of many rapes — usually by blackmail rather
than force — and of violating young girls. It was Beria who recommended to Stalin on March 5, 1940, that the
Polish officers be shot in what is known as the 
| << Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 ...9 Next >> |
