Monday, September 17, 2007
Overheard at the hookah bar
The hookah bar I went to, the Sahara cafe, had an interesting conversation happening in the booth behind mine. A marine that was stationed in Al Anbar province was home visiting friends and family. He talked to the owner, an former Iraqi that's apparently a doctor in the area. I don't know this gentleman's history, but the two discussed the war. Its funny how the "grunt" admits that he doesn't know why they're over there. And that what we're trying to accomplish militarily is impossible. And that his 15 buddies died over there in senseless ambushes. And how the civilian death toll there is untold, and very, very unfortunate. The Doctor, who again is apparently an Iraqi who spent some time in Jordan (or the other way around) says that the deaths on both sides are tragic and unfortunate. He doesn't want American troops to die. He just also wants them out of Iraq. The marine agreed.
Its funny how "the right thing to do" or dare I say "the smart thing to do" is glaringly obvious even to grunts in the field -- the very people in harm's way. I think that needs to be said that the people who didn't get a chance to finish college because they had to answer the call to serve seem to actually KNOW MORE about what's going on in the world today than our countries leaders if the last presidential address and 'loyal opposition' response are any indicator.
We're past the John Kerry Vietnam testimony moment in Iraq -- How do you ask another person to die for something you know to be a mistake?
This "peace with honor" smokescreen that's being trotted out by GOP candidates was tried in Vietnam. We didn't save face there. People still try and argue that we could've won there when we easily killed over 2 million civilians (and that's a guess -- in that war, like in this one, we don't do body counts) and we dropped more bombs in that country than we did world wide in WWII. The people that make this "we could've won" argument are missing the point. You cannot military intervene for the better in a culture unless it wants you to. Or you just want to end that culture. And if its a foreign culture (e.g. a non-western background, and you're a western culture) you will be met with hostility.
This is basic stuff you're not supposed to need a history book for, but we're inundated with what's called "American Exceptionalism" -- the idea that historical trends do no apply to the United States. Our leaders will have no waterloo. Our empire will not fail, falter, or decay.
I don't know why I'm putting this out there. I guess its because two perfect strangers were talking about geopolitical events and I happen to share their thoughts, and its easier for me to quote them anon then state the same idea myself. But silence equals consent, and I do not consent to what's going on in "our" names. And I really don't care if a boss from 10 years from now googles my name and find this post. I was against the war before it started. I was against the war while it happened. I'll be against the war when its architects try to shift the blame to someone else. And I have this feeling this isn't going to be an opinion thats frowned upon 10 years from now. I have a feeling that 20 years from now when people are explaining what they did during the Iraq war, everyone's going to have a case of "I was on the right side of history -- I was against the war" story to tell their kids (and conveniently forget about all their yellow bumper magnets). And I believe this because my parents were active in the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement in Vietnam, and they found it funny how many people who did nothing and never spoke out took the "victor" side when all was said and done.
But then again, History doesn't apply to this country -- we are the exception, right?
Its funny how "the right thing to do" or dare I say "the smart thing to do" is glaringly obvious even to grunts in the field -- the very people in harm's way. I think that needs to be said that the people who didn't get a chance to finish college because they had to answer the call to serve seem to actually KNOW MORE about what's going on in the world today than our countries leaders if the last presidential address and 'loyal opposition' response are any indicator.
We're past the John Kerry Vietnam testimony moment in Iraq -- How do you ask another person to die for something you know to be a mistake?
This "peace with honor" smokescreen that's being trotted out by GOP candidates was tried in Vietnam. We didn't save face there. People still try and argue that we could've won there when we easily killed over 2 million civilians (and that's a guess -- in that war, like in this one, we don't do body counts) and we dropped more bombs in that country than we did world wide in WWII. The people that make this "we could've won" argument are missing the point. You cannot military intervene for the better in a culture unless it wants you to. Or you just want to end that culture. And if its a foreign culture (e.g. a non-western background, and you're a western culture) you will be met with hostility.
This is basic stuff you're not supposed to need a history book for, but we're inundated with what's called "American Exceptionalism" -- the idea that historical trends do no apply to the United States. Our leaders will have no waterloo. Our empire will not fail, falter, or decay.
I don't know why I'm putting this out there. I guess its because two perfect strangers were talking about geopolitical events and I happen to share their thoughts, and its easier for me to quote them anon then state the same idea myself. But silence equals consent, and I do not consent to what's going on in "our" names. And I really don't care if a boss from 10 years from now googles my name and find this post. I was against the war before it started. I was against the war while it happened. I'll be against the war when its architects try to shift the blame to someone else. And I have this feeling this isn't going to be an opinion thats frowned upon 10 years from now. I have a feeling that 20 years from now when people are explaining what they did during the Iraq war, everyone's going to have a case of "I was on the right side of history -- I was against the war" story to tell their kids (and conveniently forget about all their yellow bumper magnets). And I believe this because my parents were active in the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement in Vietnam, and they found it funny how many people who did nothing and never spoke out took the "victor" side when all was said and done.
But then again, History doesn't apply to this country -- we are the exception, right?
Labels: 2007 Predictions, anti-war, free expression is vital to the growth of every human being, late night thoughts, politics, pop culture, ramblings
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Vigil To End The War
I attended a vigil against the war in Iran (and the coming one with Iran) this past week. It was my first act of political free speech and assembly since I applied for my Security Clearance. I'm not saying I got my clearance. I'm not stupid enough to talk about that on my blog. I'm just saying I went to an anti-war protest. And it was decidedly anti-war. It was not "Anti-War, but a bunch of pro-impeachment people showed up and took over. Or, Anti-War, but a bunch of Universal Health Care people came and took over." Just anti-war folk.
A Gulf War Vet spoke. Beforehand we were bullshitting about what candidates we like. Its funny because all of the candidates that receive media play like Hillary, Edwards, Ron Paul, etc, are pretty much either completely unelectable (e.g. they're populists, but aren't considered 'serious' candidates by the MSM) or they're more of the same (Hilldog, Obama, Guiliani). This election feels like we're just going to swish the same shitty taste from the right cheek to the left, and I'm left with the feeling that nothing is going to change.
They've been trying for Universal Health Care for almost 20 years. Nixon didn't like it. And now the health care lobby has more than 600 lobbyists under its employ. That's more than 1 lobbyist per elected representative in both House and Senate combined. Big money triumphs over little people. Our system is built upon the two words: Money Talks.
So yeah, I'm a little cynical, and I probably wasn't the best person to be giving 18 year olds who're going to be voting on their first presidential election in 08 voting advice.
We did one thing at the Vigil that I both liked and disliked. We read the casualty timeline. It read like, "On such and such a day, 4 US soldiers were killed. They were from Anchorage, AK, Someplace, PA, such and such, KY, bumblescum, SC." It was kinda long and tedious, and felt a little past the line where I wanted to go in terms of political expression. However, at the same time, I felt it was necessary. The war has been out sourced to a professional class that middle america has almost no contact with, and middle america has no real stake in this war. Most of us just want to "win" for some unfounded reason like like it would be better for the iraqi people (unlikely) or to prevent America from dealing with the same shame it felt after losing Vietnam.
(Just listen to anyone running their mouth about how we could've won that conflict. We dropped more bombs than we did in WWII. We were there for 16 years. Our best estimates put the civilian dead at 2.5 million. Its nothing but a lie born of revisionism -- brought on by the shame that military might cannot and willnot end cultural differences of a foreign culture.)
So we read the timeline. It omits the names of the fallen, so that their names aren't used in any political purpose. (As opposed to their deaths, which at this point I think it is nakedly obvious is for nothing but a political purpose.)
One army guy was 'disgusted' by what we were doing. It was a waste of time to tell him that we were not his enemy. Trying to educate those who don't really think/feel/care about the war is one thing, but those that have a personal stake in it, those that believe in it, and that could be going into a shooting war in the next 6 months, the truth is those are the ones that you feel the worst for -- they're already gone.
Anyway, it was decent.
A Gulf War Vet spoke. Beforehand we were bullshitting about what candidates we like. Its funny because all of the candidates that receive media play like Hillary, Edwards, Ron Paul, etc, are pretty much either completely unelectable (e.g. they're populists, but aren't considered 'serious' candidates by the MSM) or they're more of the same (Hilldog, Obama, Guiliani). This election feels like we're just going to swish the same shitty taste from the right cheek to the left, and I'm left with the feeling that nothing is going to change.
They've been trying for Universal Health Care for almost 20 years. Nixon didn't like it. And now the health care lobby has more than 600 lobbyists under its employ. That's more than 1 lobbyist per elected representative in both House and Senate combined. Big money triumphs over little people. Our system is built upon the two words: Money Talks.
So yeah, I'm a little cynical, and I probably wasn't the best person to be giving 18 year olds who're going to be voting on their first presidential election in 08 voting advice.
We did one thing at the Vigil that I both liked and disliked. We read the casualty timeline. It read like, "On such and such a day, 4 US soldiers were killed. They were from Anchorage, AK, Someplace, PA, such and such, KY, bumblescum, SC." It was kinda long and tedious, and felt a little past the line where I wanted to go in terms of political expression. However, at the same time, I felt it was necessary. The war has been out sourced to a professional class that middle america has almost no contact with, and middle america has no real stake in this war. Most of us just want to "win" for some unfounded reason like like it would be better for the iraqi people (unlikely) or to prevent America from dealing with the same shame it felt after losing Vietnam.
(Just listen to anyone running their mouth about how we could've won that conflict. We dropped more bombs than we did in WWII. We were there for 16 years. Our best estimates put the civilian dead at 2.5 million. Its nothing but a lie born of revisionism -- brought on by the shame that military might cannot and willnot end cultural differences of a foreign culture.)
So we read the timeline. It omits the names of the fallen, so that their names aren't used in any political purpose. (As opposed to their deaths, which at this point I think it is nakedly obvious is for nothing but a political purpose.)
One army guy was 'disgusted' by what we were doing. It was a waste of time to tell him that we were not his enemy. Trying to educate those who don't really think/feel/care about the war is one thing, but those that have a personal stake in it, those that believe in it, and that could be going into a shooting war in the next 6 months, the truth is those are the ones that you feel the worst for -- they're already gone.
Anyway, it was decent.
