This recurring nightmare
We need to rethink our deployments and the purposes for which we send out our troops to risk their lives. We need to rethink what we ask them to die for.
I’d hate to awaken one night and find that this recurring nightmare, with its promise of death and destruction, had come true, as it has already for far too many Americans.
By Stacey Warde
I have this recurring nightmare. It’s come and gone for years, since getting out of the Army in 1979.
It’s nothing like what vets of the Iraq war must experience in their many dark nights, but still, it’s annoying, if not frightening.
The dream usually goes like this: I’m years past my date of departure from military service. Yet, there I am, wearing a uniform, quite older than most of the younger troops, and beginning to wonder: “What the hell am I doing here?”
A buzz of activity stirs in the barracks. Soldiers retrieve their weapons, gather their combat gear and pack their belongings. Officers enclose themselves in their offices, the senior noncoms and first sergeant bark instructions, and occasionally top disappears into the company commander’s office for updates on the status of our mobilization.
“Sir, first platoon’s packed and ready to go. Weapons platoon’s still short a mortar. Full gear formation at 0330, sir.”
At the nearby airfield, the planes warm their engines, waiting for the troops to arrive, loaded down with weapons, ammo, radios and enough face camouflage to hide a football field.
I never saw action, but experienced plenty of mobilizations in the Army’s determined attempts at readiness. Trips to Europe, Panama, and Canada kept us alerted and edgy enough to take on all aggressors—Idi Amin, Ayatolla Khomenei and the soon-to-be-extinct Soviet Threat. Like any well-trained troop, I was always ready, if not eager, for action.
The buzz in my nightmare goes on, word spreads that we’re mobilizing for Iraq. Images of fanatic jihadists jumping out of the shadows passes through my mind—murderous, suicidal bastards with no regard for life shooting at me from every direction. They’re trying to kill me; and I’m just as eager to kill them.
Frankly, I’d rather not kill anyone. I’d rather not fight the jihadists. I search for top to tell him I should have processed out of the unit years ago. I don’t know why I didn’t leave here way back then, but now’s as good a time as any. He’ll understand, I reason, if I just take my orders and go home.
But in this most recent dream, two childhood friends, twin brothers I’ve known for nearly 40 years, solid men who love their mother and support their families, are gearing up for war too. We’re in the same unit. I look at them and realize that I can’t bail now. I have to go with them.
It’s silly and sentimental, except for the fact that when I awakened, my nightmare was still with me. My two childhood friends really are gearing up for war.
The brothers have orders to ship out for their third and fourth tours. Both have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I fear for their lives. But there’s nothing I can do for them.
Except, maybe, pray. And trust that because they are the best soldiers this country could ever hope for, they’ll find their way back home, unharmed. Yet, I know life doesn’t work that way. The best don’t always come back home.
George Carlin recently told an audience that he couldn’t feel sorry for someone who was dumb enough to sign up for military service while the United States was engaged in one of the most corrupt and misguided wars ever to be waged.
Oddly, when I first heard him say it, I laughed and agreed with him. How could anyone be so dumb to think this was the right war? That Iraq had anything to do with terrorism? That George W. Bush was a worthy commander-in-chief?
And then there’s my friend with three healthy, virile young sons, two old enough to become soldiers, who argues, “They can take my sons over my dead body…. War is a racket.”
He’s also right. Except for one thing.
The jihadists really do want to kill us. They hate us enough to wrap themselves in explosives and drive bomb-laden vehicles into our paths. And leaving them alone to kill themselves off in Iraq won’t put an end to their desire and determination to kill us. Too many Americans—sadly, liberals seem to be the majority here—fail to realize this.
So, while I agree with Carlin that stupidity got and keeps us in Iraq, and with my friend about rackets and war profiteering, it’s right that we maintain our readiness to defend ourselves—and to help others.
My friend with the three sons says he can take care of himself. He doesn’t need the government to protect him. I feel the same way. I don’t want the government placing children or my friends in harm’s way on my account. I’d rather take care of myself than have my childhood friends returning to the battlefield for another tour.
Our government fails to understand that our needs for survival, and the security of our future, are greater here at home than they are in adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We can maintain our readiness to defend against our enemies while pouring more of our national treasury into building our neighborhoods instead of wasting it on no-bid contracts with questionable bidders.
It’s been suggested, to the scorn of “realists,” that an army would be more effective and welcomed if it took pains to prevent war by building rather than destroying communities.
My friends, as much as they love their country and their jobs as soldiers, I know, would much rather create community than keep it at bay at the point of a rifle or cannon. We need to rethink our deployments and the purposes for which we send out our troops to risk their lives. We need to rethink what we ask them to die for. I’d hate to awaken one night and find that this recurring nightmare, with its promise of death and destruction, had come true, as it has already for far too many Americans. §
Stacey Warde served three years in the U.S. Army, and was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger unit at Ft. Lewis, Wash. He is editor of the monthly literary journal, The Rogue Voice.
posted by The Rogue Voice @ 11:30 AM
15 Comments:
What exactly makes someone a "jihadist"? Because he is determined to kill you? If you also want to kill them, why are you not a jihadist? Give the jihadist some tanks and F-16's and Stealth Bombers and cluster bombs and I'm betting he won't be so eager to blow himself up, because he won't need to. Take away your tanks and F-16's and Stealth Bombers and cluster bombs at the same time and I'm betting you or some of your friends will be ready to blow themselves up for their government sponsored cause.
Isn't this the same sort of villification we heard about the Koreans and Vietnamese? The same rationalizations we used for wiping out their villages and women and children?
You may want to dig a little deeper and research the differences between "jihadists" and U.S. military personnel—the differences are huge, despite the often shrill and sadly uninformed liberal bias against our military.
While some of our soldiers have indeed committed crimes, they remain in the minority and certainly they're not cutting people's heads off to make a point.
Another fact that liberals tend to ignore is the very real threat that Islamic fundamentalists pose to the liberal and Western ideal of a culture governed by reason and openness.
Just look at some the Islamic states around the globe, particularly in Indonesia where sharia law governs all aspects of society, and includes public stonings, canings and other brutalities that would never be tolerated in an "enlightened" culture as ours.
Finally, if you read through to the end of my essay, you'll note that the argument isn't to vindicate brutality but to suggest re-visioning our military goals and to commit our troops more constructive purposes.
Feel free to define jihadists. American soldiers drop large bombs on villages, and have killed possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq to date. Is that because they are evil? No, they just follow the orders of their leaders, who use patriotic propaganda to get the soldiers to do what they want. The "liberal bias against our military" is a straw man. It is the right wing that has tried to blame the individual soldiers for the various abuses that have occurred in Iraq. Most liberals pin the blame squarely where it belongs: George W Bush and his administration.
By the way, are we "enlightened" because we execute people by electric chair? Because we stick them in prison for life for drug charges? I'd prefer a good caning. Societies act largely as a product of their circumstances. There would be no more than a few "jihadists" if we stopped bombing their countries. We are the ones creating these people.
There is no shortage of dictatorships in the world and plenty of them are not Muslim (and are supported by the U.S.).
Our military needs to stop fiddling around in the Middle East where there just happens to be a large supply of oil. "Fighting terrorism" or jihadists or whomever else is just a rationalization for putting our military in the middle of the world's largest oil reserves.
I define jihadists as those who wish to establish Islamic law to guide and govern all decisions, personal, family, religious, civil—you name it—through any and all means, violent or otherwise.
Jihadists will go about their business regardless of how the United States conducts itself.
That’s a major point in my essay. You assume, without evidence, that violent Islamists, whose goal is to make the world in their image, will cease their brutal beheadings and suicide missions once we leave them alone.
The evidence suggests otherwise, as witnessed in countries where shariah law, with religious nuts as the supreme authority, governs the land and not only includes canings, which you prefer to imprisonment, but also public beheadings of women who break laws that in our country wouldn’t even be considered a crime.
The argument that jihadists are driven by the United States’ hegemony and lust for empire is only partially true. Paul Berman addresses this very important point in his fine book, “Terror and Liberalism,” and makes the case convincingly that violent Islamists will likely continue their campaign to convert or destroy infidels like you and me, whether or not the United States continues to meddle in the Middle East.
He also argues convincingly that Islamic states, as being played out before our eyes, are another form of fascism, with morality cops everywhere sticking their noses in your personal business and bringing you before the magistrate to be publicly humiliated and beaten, if not put to death, for crimes we consider misdemeanors. He draws some interesting parallels between those who think the violence will stop once we’re out of the picture with those (like the French Socialists, among others) who tried to turn askance to the fascism spreading across Europe more than 60 years ago.
***
By “enlightened,” I mean a society that cultivates the arts and its sensibilities rather than rules with a religious iron fist and goes around the countryside destroying the legacy of an ancient temple or statue of Buddha, for example. No, we’re not perfect but I’d prefer the “enlightened” possibility of Western culture to the stoneage yearnings of Islamists like the Taliban.
Again, as far as the military goes, I’ve stated clearly in my essay that we would do better by building rather than destroying communities, and putting the bulk of our national treasury into something more worthwhile like healthcare, education, the arts, sustainable energy—whatever. We’ve wasted enough of our precious resources on foolish and costly military campaigns. Nonetheless, I do believe it’s right to maintain a standing army capable of putting up a first line of defense in the event of an emergency or of another attack from jihadists who would love nothing better than to see you and me dead.
I think you are signing on with the neocons about 5 years too late. Paul Berman's book, written in 2003 - 2004, appears to be a rationalization for our going to war in Iraq, a war he avidly supported. Therefore, he has no real credibility on the subject. Have we killed off all the "jihadists" in Iraq, or made a lot more of them? I think the answer to that is obvious.
The basic point of books like Berman's (and, hell no, I haven't read it), is to explain why the "enemy" is a special brand of evil, far more nefarious/cunning/manipulative than other enemies of the past. It is the same kind of propaganda that examined the mind of the Vietnamese (or "gook"), the Jew in Nazi Germany, the Japanese when we put them in internment camps, etc.
As I understand it, Berman also supported the non-Muslim wars in Central America during the Reagan Administration and will no doubt support a war with Iran in the future. I wouldn't walk ten feet to read his book, hear him speak or even discuss the merits, biases or inconsistencies in his fearmongering arguments. I will cite one example: Comparing Islamic governments to fascists. This is absurd. Whatever you think of these governments, they have nothing to do with fascism as conceived by Mussolini and Hitler. That is just a talking point of the Bush Administration, the idea being that you can then compare them to the Nazis and justify preemptively attacking them.
By the way, a recent Pentagon study of the U.S. military showed (among many other things) that 40% of our troops support torture. So much for the great enlightenment.
I don't read Stacey's essay as evidence of his having "signed on with the neocons." Far from it.
That Paul Berman supported war with Iraq and Steve didn't doesn't mean Berman has no credibility, either, because Stacey only invoked Berman as an authority on the motivations for jihadists (which he is, quite apart from whether you agree with his policy choices).
Don't like Paul Berman, Steve? Read Robert Spencer. And FWIW, the U.S. hasn't used the electric chair for capital punishment in years. Even when we did, the accused had (and has) a right to something we like to call "due process," which is unknown to sharia law.
"We" don't create jihadists, because we don't run madrassas in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (neither does Israel, FWIW, so don't go there).
Finally and philosohically, evil is inherently banal, not special. If you don't see the fascist roots of the jihadist ideology, you need to read more history, and you might also want to see EriK Von Kuehneldt-Leddihn's book, "Leftism Revisited."
Patrick,
We drop cluster bombs on civilians and we don't give due process to an awful lot of people of late. There are tens of thousands dead in Iraq and I'm supposed to be in tither over "sharia law" and "jihadists."
By the way, you seem to be admitting that Berman was wrong about the war, but right about jihadists. I'm glad we can at least agree that the war was a mistake. Berman's rationalization for the war was, at least in part, to get the jihadists. It didn't work, did it? So if the guy is wrong about the major foreign policy issue of this era, it's time to move on. Credibility is not earned by writing jingoist books.
I would also suggest that you read about the roots of fascism. You could just as easily call Stalin fascist or King George. Sure, you can invent similarities between any dictatorships or totalitarian governments, but the reason fascism is brought up for comparison in this case is to make the Muslim=Jihadist=Sharia=Fascism=Nazis=Okay to blow up argument. It's propaganda, plain and simple.
By the way, are you in favor of preemptively attacking Iran?
Steve,
You're mixing apples and oranges. Let's go by the numbers through your rebuttal:
1. Dropping cluster bombs on civilians? Says who? Got any evidence to back up this accusation of systemic war crimes committed by U.S. forces? Or would these be "civilians" only in the sense that they don't have uniforms to go with their AK-47s?
2. Due process is a safeguard in the legal system, not a summary of wartime rules of engagement. My point, that you don't find that in sharia law, still stands.
3. The war in Iraq is the jihadist equivalent of the Super Bowl. You really think it hasn't "gotten" the jihadists? That'd be news to Iraqis and Iranians both.
4. No, I'm not in favor of a pre-emptive strike on Iran. But if the mad mullahs try to nuke Israel, then their conduct isn't a matter for debate among members of the U.N. Security Council.
5. There ARE striking similarities between Fascism and Communism-- that's precisely the point of the book, "Leftism Revisited" that I cited earlier. Look again at the Nazi party-- they called themselves National Socialists for a reason.
6. As to the relationship between jihadist ideology and fascism, that's not propaganda, it's documented fact. I'm not painting with the moral equivalence brush here. See, for example, this article about jihadi theorist Sayid Qutb from The Smithsonian (hardly a right-wing rag).
Patrick,
1. Need I go further than point 1? You want the pictures of three year old girls (not in uniform, nor carrying AK-47's)? Are you claiming that the U.S. hasn't dropped cluster bombs? Or are you saying that they were precision cluster bombs? I assume you know what cluster bombs are. In fact, you don't even seem to admit that any civilians have been killed by the U.S. There have been many thousands. Really, there is not even an argument, frankly. I won't waste another minute on it.
2. Do we agree that the U.S. is not using due process in Guantanamo? Is our "law" there better than sharia law? Do you need eyewitness accounts of our torture and Kafka-esque criminal proceedings there?
3. The War in Iraq is a disaster and a farce. Moreover, we have lost the war in Iraq. So if it's the Superbowl, then are you hoping for a rematch?
4.Mad mullahs? Are you saying that they are insane? Because I am hearing a lot of mad Americans talk about nuking the Middle East. Are they insane, too?
5. Yes there are striking similarities between Mussolini's fascism and U.S. capitalism, too. There are a lot of striking similarities between a lot of things. My point is that the reason the "Islamic Fascism" talking point is being used by the Bush Administration is that they want to make the "jihadists" seem like the Nazis to create a good villain to attack.
6. Whether you are painting a moral equivalence or not is not the point. The Bush Administration most certainly is when they use the term "Islamic Fascism." It is propaganda. Propaganda usually starts with something that has a grain of truth to it and expands, distorts and exaggerates the idea in a way that suits their (usually) military agenda. We all know what that agenda is, or at least was. They wanted to take out Iran and Syria after they finished with Iraq, so that they would have control of the Middle East. Problem is they got their asses kicked in Iraq. These were a bunch of idealogues (like Paul Berman) who know nothing about military issues, nothing really about the cultures of the Middle East other than what they want to believe, and they don't care. They are fine with sending other people's kids over to fight their little game of Risk. These people are cowards - high paid, well educated, powerful cowards, true, but cowards.
Steve, I do not dispute that many Iraqi civilians have been killed by U.S. and coalition forces. What I'm saying is that we have not engaged in this kind of terror as a matter of policy.
I would also question your assertion that detainees in Guantanamo Bay have been denied due process. That's true in the narrow sense of saying they haven't been tried by a jury of their peers, but it again conflates ciminal justice terminology with war-fighting. The vast majority of detainees, remember, were picked up in battlefield sweeps-- these are not people rousted from their bedrooms at gunpoint before dawn. So far as I know, detention for the duration of hostilities is allowed even under the Geneva Convention(s). Whether and to what extent detainees have been tortured, I wouldn't know, and I fault the U.S. government for its evasiveness on that issue, even as I marvel at accommodations that have been made for the prisoners (such as making signs that face Mecca so its easier for devout Muslims to pray in the proper orientation).
I know what propaganda is. But it is no less propagandistic to whitewash the well-documented aims of militant Islamists than to pretend that Sunni and Shia are the same, or that the U.S. is always virtuous. As to victory or defeat, the war in Iraq was won long ago. It's the occupation that remains dicey.
If you plan to attack a country and part of your arsenal are large, indiscriminant bombs that you know will kill many civilians, then it is a matter of policy that you are going to kill civilians if you decide to use those bombs (and the U.S. did).
The assertion that individuals at Guantanamo were picked up largely in "battlefield sweeps" cannot be determined. In fact, most of those released say that was not the case at all (for them and most others still there). Most of the individuals held there have no charges against them, have no trial, have no access to the evidence against them. They have been systematically tortured, which is why the Bush Administration has said repeatedly that THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THEM.
Your narrow definition of victory in Iraq is really a semantic argument. I suppose we were also victorious in Vietnam by that logic. Since we were victorious in Iraq, though, I assume we no longer need to worry about the "well documented aims" of the "jihadists." Maybe one more war in Iran should do the trick? Syria? Saudi Arabia?
Steve, I'm not sure how you can dispute the well-documented claims of Islamic jihadists who seek to establish shariah law without examining the evidence.
As Patrick points out, Sayid Qutb left an enormous impact on the current aims of jihadists around the world. Again, Paul Berman, whose character you impugn without even considering his work, and particularly his book, "Terror and Liberalism," does a credible job of showing the similarities between fascism and states governed by Islamic law.
Your response to this theory, without regard for the actual evidence, pointing instead to the Bush administration's attempt to propagandize, misses the point entirely.
And this in fact is a huge part of Paul Berman's argument: that liberalism tends to underestimate, if not fail outright to effectively address, actual threats to our security. You can poo-poo the argument all you want but until you've examined the evidence, your own argument is misinformed and misleading.
Stacey,
Have you read the book Mussolini, by Jasper Ridley to understand the origins of fascism? I'm guessing you haven't. Should I say then that you are uninformed about fascism because you didn't read that book? There are thousands of books out there. You think I haven't heard about jihadists after trolling right-wing websites for the past 5 years? Do you think that I'm going to pick up Paul Berman's fascinating rationale for why it was wise to attack Iraq and suddenly see the jihadist light? It literally makes me sick to my stomach to read that neocon trash. What the hell is "liberalism" by the way? You can't see that the very word is being used pejoratively? He is setting up a liberal hippy straw man who he can then chop down. Look, the "liberals" were right in every respect concerning Iraq and Bush. "Conservatism" would be a better concept to study. The absolute denial of reality regarding the war in Iraq will be studied for decades to come.
You haven't made a single point about "jihadists" except that they are evil and dangerous and totally fascist (read Nazi). I'm not interested. There are plenty of evil people in the world. There are plenty of nasty dictators.
The fact of the matter is that Paul Berman was wrong. That has been proven in practice, unless you agree with Patrick's "we won the war in Iraq" treatise. Karl Marx was wrong. George Bush was wrong. Benito Mussolini was wrong. Dick Cheney was wrong. Make some actual point about "jihadists". What exactly do you propose to do about these jihadists? Let's say they are the most evil monsters on the face of the earth. What are you saying we should do? Because Paul Berman said we should attack Iraq (and no doubt Iran and Syria after that big success). Was he right? That's a yes or no question. What's your answer? Should we attack Iran? What's your answer? Take a stand if you are so afraid of jihadists. Tell us what you think we should do about them. Frankly, I've heard it all before, and I'm sure I'll hear it all again.
Meanwhile, you are not even addressing the fact that we are torturing innocent people, bombing innocent people, we are still fighting a war we lost at least 3 years ago and these lunatics are hoping to fight another war (and let's not forget the war we are starting lose in Afghanistan). No, let's just keep talking about jihadists. It keeps dinner on the table for Paul Berman after all. And it keeps your old army buddies over in the Middle East.
I made my point in my essay, "This recurring nightmare."
The jihadists want you and me and any Westerner who doesn't subscribe to Islamism the way they view it dead. Pure and simple. That's a fact, one which you continue to dispute against the best evidence.
The end they seek can be observed in states where shariah law exists and governs society. A police state whose supreme authority rests in religious texts and leaders. Call it what you want, but the similarity of this style of government with fascism is uncanny.
To deny the possibility says more about your personal bias, or your unwillingness to consider the facts, than it does of an informed opinion. Look at the evidence. Just because George Bush may be using the term as a ruse doesn't make it any less true. You keep bringing the discussion back to U.S. wrongdoings, which I don't dispute.
But your resistance to the possibility of fascist elements of Islamic states like Iran proves the point Berman makes in his book: That liberalism often fails to confront the very real dangers of socio-political movements such as fascism or radical Islamism.
This is not a put-down as you imagine but a weakness inherent in the liberal ideals of openness and dialog and diplomacy. Radical elements, whether they be of the George W. Bush or Iranian President Ahmadinejad variety, don't subscribe to these ideals. They don't believe in dialog, or diplomacy, but in violence and social upheaval. History proves the point. How do we stop it?
Again, my suggestion is that we maintain a strong line of defense and readiness, that we desist from campaigns that hurt rather than help our standing in the world as a beacon of democracy. What do we do about the jihadists? Stay alert and always be prepared against their attacks against the liberal ideals and institutions of an open society governed by reason and intelligence.
You tell me, how do we confront an enemy that doesn't believe in diplomacy but only in establishing Islamic states through violence and bloodshed?
Stacey,
Give me some examples of the religious fervor of Mussolini. I'm pretty sure the guy was an atheist. There is nothing "uncanny" or even that similar between his fascism and sharia law. Hitler used some religious imagery, but it was hardly predominant in his version of fascism. Have you ever read the book "They Thought they Were Free," by Mayer? Read that and tell me whether adherents to sharia law or the United States most resembles German fascism.
"Always be vigilant is a non-answer." Should we have attacked Iraq? Yes or no? Should we attack Iran? Yes or no? Is there some other country we should attack?
Define "vigilance." It's sounds to me like your definition is being prepared for another war. As Albert Einstein, that naive liberalist, said, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." Or as liberal Dwight Eisenhower said: "Beware the Military-Industrial Complex."
When is the last time you read George Orwell's 1984? I'm trying to remember if "Always be vigilant" was a slogan of Big Brother. I believe there was something similar.
For the record, "liberals" were fighting fascism in Spain several years before World War II started (including George Orwell, by the way). After the war, they were called "premature anti-fascists."
With today's level of weaponry, the only alternative to openness and diplomacy is nihilisim. That should be obvious. One could take the cynical view that there is no hope, and frankly after seeing how easily Americans were manipulated into going to war in Iraq, it's hard not to take the cynical view.
I'm off to Italy, by the way, so arrivederci. A side note: There have been protests by hundreds of thousands of Italians over a U.S. military base being planned for the town of Vicenza. Interestingly, I don't think I've seen it mentioned once in any American news media. I guess it's all part of our "vigilance" strategy. You'll be happy to know that Paris Hilton is trying to get a pardon from Arnold Schwarzennegger. Who won American Idol?
Post a Comment
<< Home