In his book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq, Michael Scheuer, a gentleman who worked both at the CIA and the Counterterrorism Center, points out that we are harming our military when we demand impossible actions. Our leaders in Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, politicize an organization that should not be politicized. In a fantastic article, The Nation points out the results of this political tight wire the military must perform in the Middle East, and how even those in the know are being used as sound bytes rather than counsel. Granted, the military should not ever act independently- no government entity should. But the military knows its job and understands war like no other. We demand that all wars be like the Gulf War in the 90s. We want phenomenal force, expedited action and virtually no civilian casualties. This is not what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan in most people’s eyes. Reuters reports today that a battle in Afghanistan led to the killing of possibly an entire family of eight. A tragic waste of life, to say the very least.

War is indeed hell. I agree with former President Jimmy Carter when he states that at times war may be necessary but never just. How is this possible? Because a people has the right to protect themselves from harm, and when that happens, there will be casualties. War is war! We have to accept the fact that when we mobilize individuals with guns, tanks, warships and technology to harm and, yes, kill the enemy, killing is what will happen. It is ridiculous to think that people will not be killed. And yes, I thank the heavens that Americans do not have a taste for blood. But we do have a taste for security and we are fighting an enemy that exists to destroy that security. How can we possibly have no harm?

Pundits point to Vietnam as the example of a military exercise gone wrong. Countless civilians were killed. We forget that the same occurred during World War II. Of course, we won WWII. I am fascinated at our hubris. We can ignore, even forgive the killings of WWII, a war where we could claim victory, but not Vietnam, a war we were forced to flee.

This is why we should demand that any military conflict we engage we should be VERY sure of our mission and our goal. Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have little to none of either of these measures. Americans wouldn’t be so polarized if we knew the why so that the military could follow through with the how. If people don’t like civilians being killed, which they shouldn’t, then lets make very sure that our leaders think before they act, gather people around them they trust and our knowledgeable, and most importantly, take counsel from those they disagree with. Putting people in harms way demands we be rational and honest. Our next president ought to be sure of the necessities of war before tying the hands of those who will fight that war.

The New York Times reports today that many of our troops are suffering from unchecked and/or unmonitored Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. While I knew it was a significant problem, I had many questions about the travesty.  Thankfully, the Rand Corporation offers some insight. It seems that the Washington big-wigs, both military and non-military, had many assumptions pre-Iraqi war. Assumptions. Imagine that. According to Rand, the first assumption was that “[m]any senior policymakers in government held a set of fairly optimistic assumptions about the conditions that would emerge after major combat concluded. These assumptions tended to override counterarguments held by officials elsewhere in the government.” Now this actually makes sense, if you have a mentality that conflict with Iraq in the 2000′s would be the same as conflict with Iraq in the 1990′s. That mentality hasn’t panned out too well. Rand furthers that “[s]enior military commanders assumed that civilian authorities would be responsible for the postwar period, a notion that focused the military’s efforts on planning for the invasion and the execution of combat operations.” At this point, it seems to me that squabbling over who is responsible for assisting troops in need is just stupid. People need help. Now.

The BBC published an article in 2005 that discusses, among other aspects of this illness, the need for immediate follow-up after a traumatic experience. In fact, the article specifically points out that victims should receive assistance within one month of such trauma. This is not happening. The New York Times article speaks of veterans who are not receiving assistance of any type, be it by choice or access. As a result, many are turning to alcohol and drugs as a way of making it through the day.  This choice is becoming deadly. A soldier from Ft. Bliss in El Paso, TX, has been indicted for killing a woman will driving under the influence. It is the third such incident in Ft. Bliss in six months. As if this weren’t enough, the Pentagon estimates that as many as 20% of all Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans have problems with alcohol or drugs. The Army reports 115 suicides in its ranks last year alone.  Soldiers need help.  Now.  Why isn’t it happening?

There is something rotten in Washington.

It seems to me that caring for soldiers in need is the just and moral thing to do.  Providing necessary treatment for soldiers whose lives are under constant strain deserve the best our medical field has to offer. Why is this even a question? Yes, it is true that there is need all over the country for mental health services. And yes, access should be easier and more affordable. Soldiers, in my opinion, did not have much say in performing duties and following orders. We can have as many disagreements about the war and foreign policy and violence as we want, and indeed we should have them. But while we are doing so, soldiers need help now, not when we get around to it.  As the NYT points out, we cannot as soldier to be warriors in one minute and ladies and gentlemen the next unless we are willing to help them realize this ridiculous expectation.

It was Virgil who said, “Trust one who has gone through it.” Virgil was ahead of his time. It seems other soldiers who have “been through it” are able to help those who are struggling. American Combat Veterans of War are assisting those in need by doing something that our society does not seem to value as much as it should. How?  By seasoned veterans listening to recent veterans. The Christian Science Monitor points out that “[t]he approach is both simple and profound: Providing a safe, nonjudgmental place where someone who’s ‘been there’ can simply listen.” It seems to be working, and thank god for such support. I hope the rest of us can let those in power know that while we thank those who have gone through it for helping those with similar experiences, it is the ultimate responsibility of the government to help all of those suffering such afflictions. To not do so cheapens our government and dishonors those who value the honor of serving their country.

Africa has experienced so much turmoil. The nations of Africa need and deserve strong leadership. But now another African tyrant has emerged. As if Idi Amin wasn’t enough, now the world has Robert Mugabe. Another African problem. I suppose we can easily say that the problems of Africa should be solved by Africa. This makes a lot of sense. The African Union (AU) should take steps to bring peace to this troubled region. And they are, through mediator and South African President Thabo Mbeki. But Mbeki has been sharply criticized for his constant coddling of Mugabe, and the AU fell short of condemning the actions of this mad man. Botswana seems to be the only country saying what everyone around the world is thinking: Mugabe has to go.

Would the United States be hypocritical in making such a bold statement as this? Perhaps. Political critics could point to US associations with Saudi Arabia, China, and numerous third-world countries as relationships that ignore undemocratic political structures as a way to show such hypocrisy. It isn’t as if Mugabe has just recently become an autocrat. His history of political violence goes back to at least 1976. But US foreign policy is complicated, shifting and problematic. We have not lived in a perfect world for a long time. And as long as Congress and Presidents change, policy will change as well. But we should never stand idly by while people are under attack by their own leaders.

Some say violence is not enough. Well, if we need another reason, how about potential US investment being circumvented... does that give the US the reason it needs to take a stand? What about the fact that Mugabe is destabilizing the entire region? We should act. There is something rotten in Zimbabwe.

An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. A very nice sentiment, almost elementary in its meaning. We need to act sooner rather than later. Zimbabweans are asking for US help, and we should give it. Mugabe is killing and raping his opposition. I suppose one could even say he is Saddam Hussein-ing his country. This is unacceptable.

I do not believe that we should enter into another military conflict- two or three at a time, please. But I believe we should take a stand. I am encouraged by the US introduction of UN sanctions. I hope the world takes notice. And I hope we maintain our resolve.

While numerous pop stars joining together in a remarkable attempt in the 1980s by recording songs to help those in need in Africa was encouraging, such actions today would be ridiculous. While it may have helped for a nano-second, music did not not stop hunger in Ethiopia. Music can only go so far. Perhaps that is why there have been no songs for Darfur, Congo and other troubled spots in Africa… or the world, for that matter. Singing is not enough. Let’s at least take a strong stand and tell the world that we believe Zimbabweans deserve a life free of Mugabe. And then ACT responsibly.

The New York Times posted an article on May 19 of an incident with an American soldier using the holy book of Islam, The Koran, for target practice. Major General Jeffery Hammond in Iraq read from a statement of the unnamed soldier that reads like a student who has plagiarized an essay from the Internet, trying to take credit for words written by others: “I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together,” reads part of the statement.

The statement may be indicative of a continuing problem with Iraq. The excerpt from “Soldier Anonymous” identifies the partnership of “two nations.” The problem is that the incident affects at least three nations; the United States, Iraq and the Islamic nation. Failing to recognize this third nation in a statement of apology simply adds fuel to the fire of disgust Islam fundamentalists have for the US, giving more propaganda for use by those wishing our extermination.

A more fundamental issue, though, is the action itself. The shooting of the Koran is completely against the basic tenets of democracy, a form of government we are attempting to sell in the Middle East as an ideology of tolerance and religious freedom. How can we possibly expect others to embrace what we know to be a great system of government when to others it appears to be a system of laws of convenience? But there is a religious reality we should acknowledge as well.

If someone where to use The Bible for target practice, the uproar in the US would be fanatical. It is difficult to imagine any reason given to the public for such a barbaric act to be acceptable to any Christian or any American. It is an act inherently provocative, meant to incite hate and intolerance, which it surely would do in every corner of America. And it has.

The BBC reported on the same day that the murder of Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho would result in the execution of Ahmed Ali Ahmed. While the severity of the two incidents are vastly different, the targets themselves are too similar to ignore. In no way do I claim that one act lead to another. On the contrary, the fact that the two are quite probably unrelated indicates that religious intolerance is the norm- and the US government is involving itself in the fray.  We praise the death penalty for the murder of a religious leader.  We want criminals held accountable.  But isn’t the act of aggression taken by a US soldier likely to lead to further violence?  Is the soldier going to be held accountable for the actions?  I have no idea. All I know is that the soldier is no longer in Iraq, according to reports.  Probably a smart move.  A move that also may allow the soldier to escape culpability for his or her actions.

The “Koran-as-bullet-repository” incident is an act of aggression against Islam, not against terrorism or fundamentalists or Iraq or even the Middle East. An American used a holy book, a book that praises Jesus Christ, to empty a weapon of war. It is not an act of bad judgment from a soldier- it is an act the screaming hatred.

I find myself at odds with the report, however. As much as I would like, I simply cannot completely blame the soldier. I have no idea what his/her motives were. For that matter, he or she has been fighting in a war under horrific conditions. It is easy to sit in judgment. I refuse to try and convict anyone based only upon one report found on the world-wide-web. It is my right, however, to register my dissatisfaction and disgust with the act.

An American soldier unrelated to the incident apparently kissed a Koran (one that was intact and not riddled with bullet holes and gun powder) and gave it to some local Iraqi “tribal leaders.” I wonder if the leaders find themselves in a moral dilemma: How can we keep a sacred text that has been kissed by the infidels?

Christians in this country should be mortified by the actions of the military. Unfortunately, the ones with the loudest mouths on the tallest self-made pedestals are probably nodding their heads with smiles on their faces thinking of how this latest incident foretells of The Rapture. They don’t realize that as they yell of the second-coming, voices of reason- that same reason taught by Christ- are drowned out. They choose to ignore the fact that when everyone is shouting in the name of God that they are simultaneously choosing to drown out the voice of God.

The only thing this incident should foretell is a need for calmer heads. Democracy is not religious pulpit. This democratic society needs to take a stance and say once and for all that religious intolerance goes against its ideals and it will not take sides in a Christian/Muslim war. The only wars we should be fighting should be those conflicts that threaten our freedoms and the freedoms of others, not the protection of people who insist on a pissing contest where the loser is killed. When that pissing contest mean deficating a religious text, well, what reaction do we think we are going to see? We must stand firm against religious intolerance. Our government should lead the charge. A Democratic people should expect nothing less from its soldiers, leaders and diplomats. I know I expect nothing less.

Of course, that ignores the other lesson history tells us; rarely is anything what it seems. In his book, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization, Nicholson Baker brings the pacifist movement of WWII to life, chronicling the steps of leaders, observers, victims, reporters, war hawks and doves on the road leading to United States entrance of the war. It complicates the collusion of the Allied force’s real desire to enter a larger conflict and personalizes individual hatreds toward others who disagree or are different from power. The book reveals a reality of those who sought peace while bullets and bombs were exploding around them.

These stories are not found in a high school textbook.

The fact that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt had a deep animosity toward Jews is disconcerting to me. Like most Americans, I feel leaders should be above such pettiness and ridiculousness. As a result, I expect my leaders to be more-than-human. This is an unfair expectation, since it is the very humanness of individuals that makes them good leaders. But the dislike of an individual because of their ethnicity is, in a very real sense, immoral. These immoral beliefs are, at least for me, ameliorated by the fact that the United States, along with its allies, stopped the genocide of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and countless others being eliminated by the German war machine. One question remains, however. If Hitler had not threatened our interests, would we have acted?

The bombing of Pearl Harbor is disconcerting. It seems that the only way Roosevelt could have taunted Japan more would have been to stick his tongue out and thumb his nose at them. The tenuous relationship between China and the United States at the time was apparently used to taunt Japan to attack. Constant communications, arms sales and military exercises occurred directly in front of Japan. Journalist Edgar Mowrer learned, in his capacity as a spy, that Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor were well known. This information was handed to the military. Yet still our fleet stayed in Hawaii. Was Japan a threat? Definitely. But to sacrifice people simply so we can “defend” ourselves seems monstrous. But don’t worry… we Americans will not respond with anger. After all, we won the war. All else is theater.

Winston Churchill is a man I have known little about. After reading this book, Churchill is not an individual I want to spend much time learning about. This gnomish, little man may in fact have been gifted at oratory and stirring the masses. His intelligence may have indeed helped to defeat a horrific enemy. But Churchill constantly preached the civilized mentality of the Allies and the barbarism of the Axis. His exploration of using biological and chemical warfare despite the atrocities experienced in the first World War is itself barbaric. Targeting German civilians in order to punish attacks upon the British may have been an effective military strategy, but then again, at what cost? And don’t try to tell me that his actions were based upon humanity, at least other than the humanity of Allies’ civilians. Jews were being deported for years, seeking refuge from strangers. Strangers are all Jews found as they traveled around the world seeking a safe haven, only to be constantly turned away. Blockades that stopped food… and only food… from reaching those who were being savaged and persecuted by the Nazis were maintained with a death-grip by Churchill, despite requests from former president Hoover and countless others to allow the hungry to eat. When Churchill addressed Congress after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, is lessened by hypocrisy. On one hand he tells the American public that

“Twice in a single generation the catastrophe of world war has fallen upon us; twice in our lifetime has the long arm of fate reached across the ocean to bring the United States into the forefront of the battle. If we had kept together after the last War, if we had taken common measures for our safety, this renewal of the curse need never have fallen upon us.”

But when it came to acting in a civilized manner toward innocent civilians, Churchill made this statement after Germany attacked Russia:

“England would, [Churchill] said, bomb Germany by day as well as by night, ‘making the German people taste and gulp each month a sharper dose of the miseries they have showered upon mankind.’” (Baker, 345).

He said “people,” not Nazis. Now, if Hitler really was a tyrant, which he was, how were the people of Germany to fight such power? Many Germans were victims as well, making selfish decisions in order to save themselves as well those they loved. They were manipulated and many made poor, even evil, decisions. But did those same citizens attack Russia? England? Poland? Some say they did so tacitly, by not stopping Hitler and his minions. But do we punish a mother whose son has committed murder? No. If anything, we pity her.

Perhaps Churchill tired of civilization in the name of victory. Perhaps this was the only way to win the war. Indeed Hitler was a tyrant of the highest degree. But today we see that war has not ended, peace has not been achieved, and tolerance has not been embraced. The victory was momentary. Was Churchill more of an opportunist that a statesman? Time, as always, is telling the tale.

I understand that it is easy to judge actions after the fact. I further understand that this book has its own agenda. But the edict of learning from history or being doomed to repeat the same mistakes can only be true if we learn all of history, not just a glossy, well-edited version by the conquerors.

Perhaps Thomas Paine put it best when he said, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” Words to ruminate upon.

In the book “Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War 2, and the End of Civilization” Nicholson Baker gives a pacifist critique on the behavior of our political and social leaders during World War 2. He forces us to examine the whole truth of the war, rather then just the myth of the “god war” that has been sold to the American people. This is not to say that World War 2 was not a necessary war (though Baker may disagree with me), rather that we should remember the whole truth of the war then just the idealized version that is fed to us.

During the run up to war, humans have the unfortunate habit of ignoring any information that does not mesh with their view of the situation. All parties are guilty of this, many pacifists feel that truly threatening characters can be met with open arms, while hawks tend to forget that war should be the option of last resort, used only after all others have been exhausted.

In “Human Smoke” we are given a pacifist’s telling of WW2, and it is a welcome change from the narrative that is so commonly heard. In the common narrative Churchill and Roosevelt are unblemished characters who are responsible for leading the allies to victory against the forces of fascism and tyranny. This view does not do justice to those who did their very best to prevent such a tragic war from occurring. In reality, both Churchill and Roosevelt are guilty of serious crimes against both their own people and many other peoples as well. Of course, even with their many faults, Churchill and Roosevelt remain vastly preferable to the nightmare that was represented by Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. Nicholson rightly refers to World War 2 as the “greatest catastrophe in human history”, however it can be both that and the “good war” that Americans like to remember so fondly.

It is important to remember the events of WW2 in shades of gray, rather then the black and white myth makes such a good story to tell. When we remember events as they actually occur it gives us a defense against reckless militarism. It gives us a defense against fear mongering, it reminds us that war is truly an awful act to inflict against anyone. However, most importantly of all, it reminds us that in extenuating circumstances, it sometimes is necessary to inflict such mass slaughter on our fellow human beings

The purpose is to provide a space for people in a specific place and a specific time that have ideas about subject and writings… by people I mean friends who want to communicate to others in their way in their own time.  Free speech for all.  In this case, more free speech for some of us.

Speecher