User login

Who's online

There are currently 4 users and 55 guests online.

Online users

  • Thad Curtz
  • agathafrye
  • JstPlnOnry
  • Logarithm

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

  • Sara Ballard
  • GooseKaler
  • LongRider
  • non illegitimi ...
  • acreatureapart

    Creative Commons License
 
Submitted by Rick on Fri, 09/01/2006 - 6:32pm.

There is a discussion on this thread about what it means to "support the troops." I have found it to be a challenging conversation, and I'd like to open it up and ask for some help. I guess my question is the following: how does one acknowledge the extreme sacrifice that soldiers (and their families) are making, while at the same time registering disagreement with the war and the way in which it has been prosecuted? Can anyone help me with this?

»

Willingness

I was marching in an anti-war protest here in Olympia, I guess that would have been the first Gulf War. I was also working as a peacekeeper, keeping an eye on things. I noticed two men in fatigues walking alongside us but seperate, keeping space clear between us. Their heads were down, I could tell they weren't happy, so I watched them some more and drifted closer to read the situation.

The next thing I picked up was that they were fine, they weren't going to be trying to disrupt us, and that in fact they were in mourning. They were sober, not angry, maybe not even completely sure why they were walking along with us, but felt that they had to.

So I fit my stride to their own and gently opened a conversation, asked them how they were. They spoke slowly but clearly. They told me that they had recently returned and that they'd heard that a friend of theirs had been killed, they were thinking of him. I expressed honest condolences. We then were able to talk some about how we disagreed about the war, we disagreed about strategies and tactics used, but we agreed with the fact that war is hell and that it was immensely sad that so many people are killed, including their friend.

Then we just kinda hung out together for awhile as the march continued.

What worked is that we did not blame each other, we were not looking for scapegoats. We were being humans in pain, enduring the pain for different reasons, with different explanations, yet we knew as humans we had much in common. We felt safe with each other. I wasn't going to yell at them for being in the military, they weren't going to yell at me for being a peacenik.

So my thought is that both sides need to be willing. We were all willing to have that amazing moment together that bridged an apparent chasm. We really heard each other. And we did not have to fake anything or pretend to be anything different. We all retained our inherent dignity. And we really heard each other. They knew I heard them, I knew they heard me.
»

Let's apply some turnabout...

"how does one acknowledge the extreme sacrifice that soldiers (and their families) are making, while at the same time registering disagreement with the war and the way in which it has been prosecuted? Can anyone help me with this?"

This question is phrased in a way which sounds reasonable, but it has the assumption buried in the premise: that the issue is how we support our troops.

The premise is a false one: a better question is 'how can we keep people out of harms way?' How can we prevent war? How can we protect civilians? How can we have justice, and fairness, and a society which is not built on human misery?

Soldiers are NOT the ones who suffer the most in war. War is almost always (since the late 19th century) directed at human population clusters - cities and towns. And these are not typically full of soldiers, but rather mixed populations of both soldiers and civilians.

So your question is begging some far more important ones; and for that reason I am going to point out that the theme you repeat, the theme of "support our troops" - came from a Psychological Operations Group campaign in Gulf War One. It is literally an echo of a PsyOps propoganda effort. And the question is structured in exactly the way that it cannot be answered without dilluting resistance to the war.

It's like saying we can't arrest the serial murderer because his mom would just die of embarassment, or the murderer was severely traumatized by his victim's cries for mercy. B.S. We have to stop the murderer; without that effort, we don't actually have a society - we only have an economy.

»

The premise that I was thinking of...

...was something more along the lines of: "We're human beings first, and political beings second." Thus, I don't understand why you're having such a hard time recognizing and acknowledging the emotions associated with armywife's present situation. I wish that armywife's husband were a part of a civil service (rebuilding NOLA) instead of a military service (rebuilding Iraq), but I don't hold him necessarily responsible for this error. I hold our administration responsible. The point is, he is in service for our country, however much I believe that his service has been ill-used. Unless you can come to terms with this fact, I'm afraid that you're arguments, which I'm sympathetic to, won't cut much ice with me.
»

Hearing each other

I guess when I really think on this, I personally am not focused on "supporting" the troops. I am focused on hearing people who are also willing to hear me.

Rick didn't use the phrase "support our troops" in the ultimate question. Acknowledging doesn't necessarily mean supporting. It can be as simple as a "I hear you are in pain. I hear you." and if wanted "Can I help you with anything?"......while at the same time there is the even balanced exchange of opinions and observations, if necessary even an agreement to disagree.

I think some of the questions include: How do we treat each other well while disagreeing? How do we handle it when we are feeling cornered? How do we handle it when we feel that we are being manipulated? What do we do if we feel set up, maneuvered to feel that we must walk on proverbial eggshells or suffer being called abusive if we dare disagree on issues? How do we do a graceful "I hear you. But the issue we are talking about is -----."
»

Work to Find Common Ground

Once that is established, then we can start chipping away at our differences, if we even want to. After all, it's the differences that make life interesting.

One problem is that differences can be scary. If we seek to understand each other, we will realize how much we have in common. For example, we all need a certain degree of stability. We all want security, love, to be listened to, to lead meaningful lives.

To support the troops, is to listen to them, to seek to understand their position and situation and to give them the space they need to make the best decisions they can.

It can be tough with all the emotion though.

The troops are really in a tough spot. I honestly believe that by working to end this war, and exposing the lies and myths surrounding it vis a vis WMD and terrorism, I am supporting the troops - no hyperbolae intending. Although, I can see how it would be demoralizing to someone who believes that he or she is doing the right thing by supporting the war effort.

In that case, supporting the troops requires broadening access to a full, accurate and truthful accounting of the war and its impacts - on Iraq (and Iraqis), on the US economy, Gobal economy, foreign policy and international relations, etc...

As always, education is the answer. Not easy. But no one ever said it would be. And talking. I think that we are supporting the troops by talking and having this conversation.

Aldo Leopold: "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."

»

History has been full of

History has been full of wars, the U.S. military has had it's ups and downs and for the most part when you get home most of the country respects you for putting forth the effort and risk. I know I respect a veteran far more than I do someone being arrested down at the port after trying to lock up a fence with a half-assed lock. I support every one of our troops that are over there. I don't like the war, I don't like the administration, but I appreciate our troops and their sacrifice for doing what they are forced to do.
»

a grey area...

There seem to be a lot of reasons I don't feel comfortable throwing out a blanket statement like, "I support the troops," despite my desire for the troops as individuals to neither kill nor be killed (I must be some kind've peace lovin' pinko).  My first problem with such generalized support comes from what I learned in history, people are less than good in times of war (perhaps out of necessity, I don't know).  Insofar as I know, there has yet to be a human war lacking rape, pillage & senseless murdering.  I can't support that.  My second problem is that I've personally known of too many cases wherein a violent individual escapes trial due to being called up for service (in other words, we're sending our problems to other people's land), so if I throw myself into a "I support the troops", I'm also implicitly supporting the behavior of said individuals within the "troops" clumping.  I think, for me, the best choice is to support people on an individual level.   

»

I believe the technical term...

...is "Cheese eating surrender monkey."
»

I like

I like your idea of supporting people on an individual level.
»

how far?

how far does all of this go?  no one calls for support for the nazis that were recently in olympia, even though they must surely make many personal and professional sacrifices based on their status in society.  And why is that?  Because what they are doing is wrong.
I for one do not appreciate what the soldiers are doing for my country because I think it is wrong, and I am also not still somehow enamored with a country that has not proven, for a long time now, that it deserves any respect.
There is a difference between appreciating the life choices that a human being has to make, but still holding them to the consequences, and supporting our troops.  They are not my troops, they are people, and if I saw one on the street, being a civilian, I would not hesistate to show the respect that I give to any human being.  But, while they are soldiers, I cannot support them in any way, unless it is to urge them to mutiny.
»

By "a long time now," how

By "a long time now," how long are we talking?

Because being realistic about the history of our country, is Iraq really that different than anything we else have done?

»

and that is your choice, and

and that is your choice, and I respect that choice. Just realize that there are a few of us that harbor no respect for you, as a person, due to the choice you make.
»

stop using the code

"support the troops" is just republican code for "Support Bush".  I suggest that we have another term for making certain our troops are dealt with fairly and with dignity by our government.  Support our  Troops, let's drop it for something without political meaning.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

Love our troops?

Love our troops?
»

Opens bag of popcorn and

Opens bag of popcorn and watches....
»

Let's take a step back.

Politics are personal, and a person is still a person whether they wear a uniform or not.

In my mind, politics are worthless unless they serve to make us better people living in a better world.  If I can not get along with a soldier because of my politics, then I damn sure need to spend some time thinking about that... because my politics are about reconciliation.

How do we "support our troops"?  Pray for them.  Send them care packages.  Make sure they are able to communicate with their families.  When they are on home soil, walking down the street, smile at them.  Do everything possible to be sure that none of them will ever go hungry or be abandoned to the skid row gutters.

Sometimes learning to hold our tongues is a matter of compassion.  I do think it is necessary to alleviate suffering when we are confronted with it.  I don't think we need necessarily opine about politics every time we come across someone we disagree with.  I've never told the veterans at Bread & Roses that I thought what they did as soldiers was wrong.  To do so would be unnecessarily cruel.

This doesn't mean that we should tolerate the war itself.  But soldiers suffer from war, maybe not as much as the occupied civilians, but the comparisons are really irrelevant.  Bush isn't suffering from this war.  Bush's "War on Terror" is his greatest political tool. 

The moment that we target those who suffer from war (the war victims, the soldiers, the families of soldiers) is the moment that we begin to contribute to the problem itself, by exacerbating the psychological effects of war.

We can target the politicians.  We can refuse to pay war taxes.  We can target the economy, which thrives on war (this might require too much self-sacrifice for many activists... I mean, if we have a general strike how am I going to buy my favorite granola?).  Or we could even go the extra mile and work really hard to create a true global community. We could communicate and share with, and show our concrete and tangible support for, the people who's lives we affect every time we go to the store and every time we cast a vote.

But I gotta say, Drew, to be belligerent and hostile towards the wife of a deployed soldier is cruel, thoughtless, counterproductive, hurtful, and irresponsible.  You owe her an apology.

»

armywife a troll?

Who's to say armywife wasn't a troll.  Seems to be all she did is come to this mostly progressive blog to put in her two cents on the antiwar movement.  Seems to me that she or he just came around when there were protests of the port or to chime in about Lt. Watada and provide the party line.  To me, armywife was a troll, rarely bringing anything to the table but the drivel provided by the conservative overlords, every progressive blog attracts their own version of armywife,  I'd be disinclined to apologize to a troll.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

I admire your compassion, Phil, but disagree about an apology

I think it's really admirable that you respond with compassion to another person's expressions of fear and pain.  But I think you need to subject army wife's actions to a certain degree of healthy suspicion.  I do believe that her current circumstances are difficult for her, and I empathize.  But I didn't like the way she called people names (she wrote to Drew, "YOU HIPPIE LIBERAL SCREW OFF"), she accused them of disrespect if they disagreed with her (I was accused of being "very disrespectful" to her husband because I stated I didn't think the U.S. soldiers were really helping the Iraqi people), she tried to control what other people were allowed to discuss, and when she couldn't, she left in a huff, overdramatizing what had transpired.   She was even vaguely threatening "I hope he never has to protect you because you dont [sic] deserve it." 

Think back to a time when you were going through something upsetting, Phil.  Did you believe it justified name-calling, overboard accusations and threats?  Did you feel you were entitled to demand other people refrain from disagreeing with you or referencing facts that made you uncomfortable?  I am willing to bet you didn't.  I think army wife needs to adhere to a more mature standard of behavior if she wants her opinions to be taken seriously.  I wish her the best, but you won't find me begging her to stick around. 
»

Absolutely.

You should see how hot-tempered I get when people talk about the "bums" downtown, Janet. We all have those touchy points. I'd imagine that if, while debating Plan B, someone told you that you ought to "just keep your legs closed", you'd probably get pretty pissy too.

Armywife's husband's life is at risk.  And he apparently believes that the risk is worth it.  It really takes something profound to be willing to risk life and limb.  I can understand if armywife gets a little touchy on this issue.  I agree that she hasn't really dug into the issues with us, but don't forget that she's also coming onto a blog where the overwhelming majority of people disagree with her.  I do think we could've shown a little more patience, and maybe she would have come around to engage us in some really powerful conversations.  These things take more than openness, they take time.
»

You make some good points...

... but one area of disagreement is what kind of passionate reactions are allowable.  I've actually had some horrible things said to me in the course of the Plan B business.  I've been called a babykiller (using birth control is killing children to some people), I've been accused several times of lying (when I said the pharmacist himself wanted to give it out), and I've endured some really awful things being said about rape victims.  And yes, I've been angry, but I haven't sworn at people, I haven't called them names, I haven't threatened them, and I haven't demanded they not mention things that upset me.  That's what emotion control is for:  controlling your behavior when your emotions are aroused. 

It's undoubtedly true that we might have had some interesting discussions with army wife.  But is it really okay that she says things like "SCREW OFF YOU LIBERAL HIPPIE"?  I don't find that tolerable.  I don't think her emotional state gives her the freedom to treat the rest of us the way she did.  After all, if we reward her for being hysterical, why will she bother to get control of herself and argue like an adult?


»

Oh, so you are saying that

Oh, so you are saying that punishment is better than understanding and rehabilitation?
»

Is this directed at me?

If so, I don't see how I have advocated punishment.  Please enlighten me. 
»

the last sentence of your

the last sentence of your last post just sounded like you were advocating punishment. Perhaps I misread you but it sounded a lot like what a judge might say to a criminal as they are being sentenced.
»

I'm really torn on this.

Being a vet, I know that when in the heat of the moment, there are not a lot of options for you as soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. I don't think it's realistic to ask them to disobey orders.

When I say I don't support the troops it's a broad general statement. I simply do not support what they are being ordered to do. They are used as tools, or puppets or what have you. Military members always have been, that's what they're for. Truthfully, I am tired of this war, all wars really, they are such a drain on us spiritually, economically, politically, physically, etc. I want the troops to come home, as I said before, yesterday. Individually, I have the utmost respect for every brave person who puts on a uniform. Collectively, I wouldn't miss them if they were gone.

»

hhmmm

to those that feel support for the troops is necessary and productive, i wonder if you believe that nazi (soldiers, not the ones that came to olympia) deserve respect for their sacrifice?  if not, why?  if it is because they are not american, i'm appalled at your nationalism.  if it is because they did horrible things, well then you need to examine what good the current american soldiers are achieving. 
i ask again, where does it stop?  are only american soldiers deserving of respect?  because all soldiers make sacrifices.  and, i believe that there are roughly the same amount of "bad apples" in every army, and that is to say a lot of them, but still mostly people who want to do good, protect the country, save the world, etc.
think about the sacrifice that the september 11th al queda operatives made?  not yours, or my, idea of freedom, but it was in the name of freedom, goodness and holiness that they did what they did.  are they deserving of our respect because they were individuals? 
i guess my question is what is it that you respect?  if it is sacrifice in the name of the country, freedom, god, etc. then you should support all troops, not just americans.  or, is this a subtle new form of nationalism that has infected the left as well?
»

swing and a miss

I'm not going to follow you down the path of compare this to that especially when the only example anybody on any side of this debate can do is bring up Nazi's. Let's think about the reality of the situation we're dealing with right now, not waste our time always comparing it to some worst case scenario. I don't deny that things are aweful, and war crimes are being committed, but calling people names doesn't advance us to any sort of solution, it only shores up the barriers between us. These soldiers are our neighbors, and I support them as individuals who are deserving of respect because when they joined they had no idea what they were going to be told to do, and now that they are being told to do these things their choices are: follow orders, or, go to prison. I would love to see a large amount of soldiers protest the war in some way, but I'm not going to criticize them for not doing that. I doubt that a lot of the people who demand that the soldiers disobey orders would actually do it themselves when faced with the reality of the consequences. I'm not willing to make it as simple as "they do bad things, they deserve no support" that's the easy way out.
»

Do I support the soldiers

Do I support the soldiers under hitlers command? Yes, they were soldiers and they had to fight. Do I support hitler and his policies? No. Not unlike GWB and his policies. These are mostly young people either fighting for their country, or believing they are doing such, I cannot fault them for that. I support police, firefighters, nurses etc. I don't always agree with a sheriff, police chief, fire commander, doctors, hospital administrators etc. Everyone talks about disobeying orders as if it's such a nonchalant thing, it can change a persons life. What are their options really?
»

Bush's Policies are Racist and Exploitative

The problem with the war, and with contributing to its effort, whether by fighting in it as a soldier, or in some other capacity, is that Bush's policies are fundamentally and foundationally DEFUNCT.

The errant disregard for the lives of Iraqi civilians, which has been demonstrated by this military repeatedly and in an ongoing manner, with regard to the conflict in Iraq, demonstrates an underlying racism.

Bush is doing Iraq and our country wrong.

Troop support is working to hold Bush and all of the masters of war accountable for their crimes against humanity. Give the Troops the space they need to say no to this nefarious adventure capitalism project... OIF! - give me a break.

»

On Targeting Soldiers

To be honest, I've been struggling with the following questions for quite a long time.  How do we protest the war and support the troops?  If we believe the war is wrong, and the troops are engaging in the war, why shouldn't they be the target of our activism?

I've decided that, with few exceptions, targeting soldiers is out of bounds for activists.  There are a few reasons for this:

1. Soldiers are subject to incredible hardships and dangers in the course of war.  To target them could exacerbate the hardships (think of the impact of "babykiller" accusations by Vietnam war protesters).  For this reason, exceptional circumstances are required, in my opinion, to make soldiers the target of activists.

Possible "exceptional circumstances"-

2.  I do believe that the Iraq war is immoral.  In fact, I believe that all war is immoral.  The fact that I have an opinion on the matter, however, hardly means that the moral issues are not subject to debate.  I find it (morally) difficult to demand self-sacrifice of another person(ie time spent in the brig) over an issue that is flatly debatable.  This does not mean that I should not make personal sacrifices, but it is shaky ground to demand that others do the same.

3.  The Iraq war may be illegal.  If it is, then soldiers actually do have a contractual duty to refuse to fight.  There are plausible constitutional arguments against the war, but they have not been tested in court and they frankly are far from air tight.  Soldiers have a contractual duty to follow all lawful orders and they face consequences, possibly severe consequences, for refusing to follow orders.  It is not for me to demand that soldiers take extraordinary risks on the grounds of my rather shaky arguments on the legality of the war.

It follows, in my mind, that I ought to absolutely support the soldiers who DO refuse to follow orders, but should refrain from demanding these actions.

There is one exceptional example: Ground Zero frequently protests at military bases.  Their issue, however, has to do with nuclear warheads, which pose serious risk of wiping out ALL of humanity.  And they do not rail at nor accuse soldiers.  Their approach is humble and compassionate; they practice self sacrifice via civil disobedience.  In their protests, they willingly and cheerfully submit to arrest, serving as an example to others as opposed to merely voicing strenuous demands.  The extraordinary circumstances of their cause, and the highly respectful tone of their actions, give them credibility in my book.

It is hard for me to find a similar credibility in the behaviors of the Port protesters, or in the statements made in a previous thread that we shouldn't "support" soldiers who won't fulfill their "duty" to refuse to participate in war.  I imagine that there are few people on this blog who would be willing to spend several months in jail for the cause of peace.  It seems absurd to demand soldiers to do so when we are unwilling to do so ourselves.
»

Phil I want to just say that

Phil I want to just say that I was at the Port most days of the protest. About five or six people caused the pepper spraying, a dozen or so were involved in the fence incident. One day, perhaps the last, pepper spray was used, again because of the actions of a few, but there were probably close to 200/250 people total at any one time. I'm not mathery, but 5 out 200 is not any sort of quorum or majority and should not be used as an example of the actions of a whole. The media and others have tried very hard to paint all that were there those days with same brush, and you help them by saying "It is hard for me to find a similar credibility in the behaviors of the Port protesters". I would ask that you simply add "who acted violently" or "who broke the law" or some other qualifier to it. It's important that we don't play the game of lumping everyone together no matter the circumstances.
»

Therein lies the problem,

Therein lies the problem, the protests aren't organized enough to weed out the trouble-makers, the public will ALWAYS paint you all with the same brush. I was there most days and will agree with you, it was a handful of people on the fence, it was a handful of people fighting police, it was a handful of people throwing things over the fence. I know that most folks down there were peaceful and just wanted to be heard, honestly I think that's awesome, but the public will always cluster you together. That's why I was SO glad when the NSM rally/NSM protest went so well, I think that showed the public that Olympia is perfectly capable of disagreeing with folks and letting them know how the feel without getting stupid. Remember though, that all it takes is one or two assholes to change the mood of a protest and make things go badly. How can this be remedied?
»

It can't be fixed. By which

It can't be fixed. By which I mean people are going to behave however people are going to behave. A unified group of protesters (OMJP) could speak out against violence at the protests. The problem that I see is not the behavior of the few, the problem is that the many LET the few define the many. If 200 people spoke out consistantly against violent means of protest it would take all of the power away from those who have something to gain by define all protesters as violent (or whatever other buzzword).
»

You are right, Rob.

I apologize for the sweeping statement and I accept your qualifier. I also agree, though, that the movement could be more vocal about the means of protest. If there were a clear ethic for respectful behavior, and the local peace movement worked hard to maintain this ethic, it would have more credibility. But a lot of the written material I've seen in Works In Progress, on mass emails, and in the letters to the Olympian has tried to defend behaviors that I see as sketchy. The exception to this has been primarily on Olyblog, but we are only one forum.

Port protest aside, what do you think about making political targets of soldiers?
»

Can you imagine being

Can you imagine being sentenced to time in a military prison for disobeying an order? You wouldn't be too popular there.

I hesitate to criticize soldiers on the ground for following orders. I've stated before and I'll say it again, those who would tell our soldiers to resist probably haven't been in that situation before. Imagine looking someone in the eye that you've known and trusted, worked and played, depended on for years, and telling them "No, I won't." Imagine turning your back on someone that is, in that moment, depending on you to do a job, perhaps a job that, if not done right, could put people in danger.

As you've said, Phil, the argument that this war is illegal is shaky and would probably not hold up in court. So demanding that soldiers mutiny for a fuzzy cause is a little overboard. I think we should criticize the military as a whole, and not individual soldiers.

»

War is Illegal

Exactly how is "the argument that this war is illegal...shaky"?

When the president and vice president use deception to convince the congress and nation of the need for a "pre-emptive" strike scenario, it is quite clear that there has been a misappropriation of resources at the very highest level of government.

We now know that there were no W's of M D in Hussein's arsenal to pose a threat, to the USA, to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, or anyone else. Just as Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq said before being evacuated out of Iraq just prior to the invasion.

The argument that the war is illegal shaky? To the contrary, I believe it to be quite solid. But I am interested in hearing how and why you understand it to be shaky.

»

Is anyone being tried and/or

Is anyone being tried and/or punished? If that it has not been brought before a court it is shaky, we would have been there already if it would fly.
»

No court, but

If it was brought before a court, what would be shaky about the case that the war is illegal? I.e. the president et al. committed an act of high treason by leading the nation into a war by means of fraud.

Why the case for the war being illegal hasn't been brought before a court? - Maybe it has something to do with Bush's cronies in congress cooking the books for him, giving him the pass on official investigations...

Folks in the judiciary - and those seeking to go through the judicial branch as a means of resolving this matter - may feel that the precedent in congress is lacking...

Why is congress lacking proper investigations? Is it collusion, or is it legitimate legislative - executive relationships? - I recommend asking John Conyers about that. [edit: also see his report entitled, "Constitution in Crisis"]

What about the case for fraud is shaky?

»

Again

The case: The war was perpetrated and marketed to the congress and American People deceptively. The case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as made by the Bush Administration, was fraudulent.

What about that is shaky?

»

I plead my case, Phil

I plead my case, Phil originally gave the idea, up to him now.
»

The war was perpetrated and

The war was perpetrated and marketed to the congress and American People deceptively.

Do you know it was marketed to Congress and the American people "deceptively?" More importantly, could you prove (using a lot more than circumstance or a hunch) this claim? Unless you have Nixon-esque tapes, it would be next to impossible to prove Iraq was a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people (and even then, simply telling a lie isn't a "high crime or other misdemeanor").

"Fraudulent" would mean there never was a case. Like I said before, Richard Clarke was pretty convinced Iraq was in possession of weapons. What do you think is going to happen when you get a man of his background on the stand? And by leaving the administration as a disgruntled employee, he would make an even better witness when it came to discussing why those in the intelligence community believed Iraq had weapons.

He would certainly make a credible witness.

And then, of course, the standard by which the administration would be judged. What would be the biggest questions in a trial? I think it would be these: Did the administration act outside of the historically established Executive scope of duty? Did he act without the consent of the people?

I would say no, this administration has done nothing outside of the historically established Executive scope of duty. For instance, the creation of the Homeland Security Department. Though it is an enormous waste of money and an attempt by government to give the perception that we are safe, the creation of a federal department is not something that hasn't been done before.

The same with using military resources without getting a Declaration of War from Congress. It is, for better or worse, nothing new. The public has given their consent to this practice for some time now, and thus I would argue that although I don't agree with these Executive powers, they do exist today.

That's what I think would be shaky about trying to get an impeachment.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

»

Legality of the war.

To prove that the Iraq war is illegal, you must prove that it was a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances (Nuremberg Tribunal Principle VI).  Bush argued that the invasion of Iraq was to enforce international laws on Iraq, and that he had permission under the original UN resolution for the first Gulf War.  He also argued that Iraq posed a grave threat to the U.S. (because of illegal WMD's).

Bush's argument for pre-emption has failed to hold ground among the international community, but his argument that UN resolution 678 (linked above) gave permission to invade is challenging to defeat.  A good argument can be found here.  Nonetheless, even this argument admits the ambiguity of the UN resolutions, and is a far cry from an airtight case that the war was illegal.

It could be argued that Bush lied about WMD's; that Iraq was, in fact, in compliance with UN resolutions to disarm, and that Bush willfully manipulated evidence to make the case for war.  If Bush knew there were no WMD's, he could not claim to be enforcing international law.  But it would be very, very difficult to prove he knew there were no WMD's.

This war was a terrible idea.  It was bad strategy, and it IS immoral.  But it may well be legal.  The only way to truly know is to test it in court.
»

Constitution in Crisis

Supporting the troops means making sure that they don't have to serve in an illegal, unjustified war.

These are the opening paragraphs from Congressman John Conyers' (MI) minority report on the Bush administration malfeasance preceding the invasion and occupation of Iraq:

This Minority Report has been produced at the request of Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. He made this request in the wake of the President's failure to respond to a letter submitted by 122 Members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans in July of this year asking him whether the assertions set forth in the Downing Street Minutes were accurate. Mr. Conyers asked staff, by year end 2005, to review the available information concerning possible misconduct by the Bush Administration in the run up to the Iraq War and post-invasion statements and actions, and to develop legal conclusions and make legislative and other recommendations to him.

In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment. As a result, we recommend that Congress establish a select committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war detailed in this Report and report to the Committee on the Judiciary on possible impeachable offenses.

...

This report is readily available from a variety of sources, on the Internet. (A signed copy (by Rep. Conyers) of the report is available also.)
»

Congressional Inquiries Stifled

Did anyone check out this report? It explains why congressional inquiries into Bush Administration malfeasance vis a vis the war have been limited.

By Bush's cronies.

»

Support soldier's resistance

I have also done a lot of thinking about this issue, and this is what I have come to: It is no service to soldiers to lump them together and write them off as "puppets".

True, they are not the orchestrators of this war. But they are the machinery that makes it happen. As we all know, this comes with heavy consequences to themselves, their loved ones, and people in Iraq. Our government happens to be extremely skilled at convincing people in the military that they have no choices anymore, they are nothing more than government property, and that their duty to obey orders is somehow a higher calling than their own inherent human moral sensibility.

Then our government convinces us civilians that our duty to be polite to soldiers is more important than our duty to tell the truth and hold one another accountable.

Bullshit.

You do not lose your identity, your humanity, or your responsibility when you put on a uniform. We are each responsible for every decision we make and its impacts.

We make mistakes. We f*** up.That is the nature of being human. And we get into seemingly hopeless situations where we think there's no way out, and its hard to do the right thing. But no matter how deep we get in, it is our responsibility to follow truth and justice through the messes we have created or fallen into.

I work with people in prison who's situations are horrible. I have met people who were wrongly convicted. I have met people who were sentenced for stealing food for their kids. I have met people who have been using, dealing, and manufacturing drugs since before adolescence and will leave prison to no job opportunities, no money, no support network, and having lost custody of their children. Why the hell do people keep on trying to do good?

I don't know. But I know that many people do. And the really good people that I have met in life are the people that are willing to take responsibility for their own power, no matter how minute it might be. They take their power and choose what they will use it for. That's all we can do.

Its incredible to see someone who you thought was powerless do this, because what you find out is that all of us- no matter how oppressed and marginalized- have an incredible amount of power that touches everything and everyone all around us. Very few of us know how to use it.

The government would have the people in our military believe that they have no power, no freedom, no value except as a duty-bound cog in the war-machine.

Because if the soldiers knew the truth, this war would vaporize in a heartbeat. And so would the profits that the powerful are reaping from it. It takes a tremendous amount of propaganda to keep people from seeing the obvious. The emperor has no clothes. There is no war without soldier's consent.

I will not do the "troops" the disrespect of calling them mindless government property. They have hearts and minds and pumping blood and breath and conscience under those uniforms, and they are duty-bound, as are we all, to use them to do whatever's right, even when it means being scandalized or imprisoned.

I hate that this is what will happen to them. But I still support them in doing it. I don't think it is right for me to avoid confronting wrong-doing because it is painful for the person doing it.I would call on all soldiers to resist this war.

Jade

»

I'm so close to agreeing

I'm so close to agreeing with you. What I can't shake is the feeling that these soldiers are a part of a system that has taught them that they have no say. If you are taught that this is right, and everything else is wrong, then why would you ever question this? I like to think about things in terms of what is going on now. The reality, as I see it, is that soldiers are not empowered to be free thinking, they are empowered to follow orders. How can one reasonably expect a soldier to buck the system if they have no idea the system is buckable?
»

I agree...

Its a tall order. (No pun intended...)

It would seem next to impossible for a soldier to outwit the kind of intense brainwashing that the military bombards them with. Certainly I think talking to soldiers about the war calls for consideration of this fact. Heavy doses of compassion, patience, and tact are in order. For the most part, people in the military are good people because they are driven by a love for their families and homeland, and a deep sense of commitment and courage. However, another part of being a good person is taking responsibility to have complete information about the things you do.

I guess what I am trying to say is that they have been brainwashed into thinking that they have no power or worth, and it makes sense that they believe it based on that experience. But it is not real support to go on bolstering someone in this kind of lie about themselves. I think it is okay to be challenging. Talking to the troops is speaking truth to power. The same way that employees of a company can go on strike, so can soldiers halt the war.

I do not blame soldiers for their predicament so much as I ask them to appreciate their own power and value as people.

As for the system that makes them believe otherwise, it can rot in hell.

Jade

(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)

»

I'll tell you right now: If

I'll tell you right now: If the soldiers were to simply stop fighting tomorrow, I would be scared more than anything.

At that point a coup d'état might not be far off and, to be quite honest, I would rather we stick with Iraq than go through that.

A sudden power struggle in this country would not be a good thing. It's one I, along with many others, would certainly be prepared for, but it's not an event I would look forward to.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

»

You and Rob have absolutely

You and Rob have absolutely no clue, none. There is a reason that only a handful of people "resisting" the war. Take a look at what happens to you in civilian life when you are dishonorably discharged, it's not pretty. What you are suggesting could possibly ruin these soldiers lives in the civilian world.
»

My dear sweet Norm,

When you talk about me like that it makes me feel like you don't respect me, and that hurts.

Having a clue is all about perspective. Your statement about dishonorable discharge is certainly a factor which would keep someone from resisting, but you make it sound like that's the only reason. Case closed. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, perhaps your an ignorant ass who doesn't think before he speaks or types. Either way, it doesn't concern me in the least. I appreciate what you bring to this blog, your point of view is different than mine and hearing it keeps me looking at things from all angles. Please, in the future, respect the fact that I don't appreciate being attacked personally, and let's hash things out not from a place of I'm right and you're wrong or I'm gonna nail you, instead let's combine our collective knowledge and perspective in order to build a better understand of issues, and each other.

»

Personally attacked? Did I

Personally attacked? Did I call you an ass rob? No I said that you have no clue about this. Have you been dishonorably discharged? Have you served in the military? Do you know anyone who's been dishonorably discharged? It's a huge hardship. Obviously I touched a nerve, but I want you to tell me just how much you know about what consequences these soldiers face when not following orders. Tell me all about it because from my point-of-view it's not only not the right thing to do, it's detrimental to them. Oh, and if you are gonna talk about "nail"ing me, have the decency to do it to my face so I can knock that smug sense of satisfaction right off of you.
»

Norm

Time to take a walk, brother. No threats on the blog, ok?
»

It wasn't as much of a

It wasn't as much of a threat as it was a response to a threat. Obviously my definition of "nailing" someone is different than his. I find it funny how I can say something like this and get called on it, yet there are supposed to be no personal attacks and he's not called on it for referring to me as an ass.
»

I didn't call you an ass

I didn't call you an ass Norm. Why are you so angry? You should go outside and rub some sunshine on your face!

I understand that you felt like I don't have a clue about this because you didn't know that I was in the military for four years and am familiar with the consequences of a dishonorable discharge, and yes, I have known people who were dishonorably discharged. Having served for four years I also feel that I have some insight into why soldiers don't resist this war. I think if you go back and read some of my responses you will see that I've defended soldiers who follow orders and have urged people to level their criticism at those who make the big decisions at not at the troops.

"Oh, and if you are gonna talk about "nail"ing me, have the decency to do it to my face so I can knock that smug sense of satisfaction right off of you." I wasn't talking about nailing as in hitting, I was talking about nailing as in Stephen Colbert "I nailed Ya!". Basically trying to zing somebody and prove them wrong, it's an O'Reilly/Olberman tactic that I find kind of pointless.

»

"Perhaps that wasn't your

"Perhaps that wasn't your intention, perhaps your an ignorant ass who" Obviously the ass part was a figment of my imagination. Ass must mean "gentleman" in some other language and I'm unaware of that. I'm not angry, I'm in quite a good mood actually. I spent the morning on my motorcycle and am currently watching cartoons. I don't watch much stephen colbert, and I've only watched O'Reilly once in my life, well besides when he was on that other show. So nailing me, in my mind, is a direct referrence to throwing your fist at me....or having sex with me. Choose either one of them and you can tell why I might react in that manner. Maybe you should choose your wording a little more carefully.
»

my bad

Thanks for explaining. I really wasn't calling you an ass, I was just offering that up as a possibility as to why you would call me clueless. It was not the best choice of words, was reactionary, and you took it at face value, I apologize.

After hearing what you had to say I realized that you just didn't have all of the information about me and my history. We should ask questions like, "were you ever in the military?" before we assume and say that someone is clueless. I definitely don't focus on that as much as I could.

»

Actually if I had slowed

Actually if I had slowed down a bit and thought it through I remember you mentioned your time in the navy. I will admit I have no huge love for the armed forces. I didn't enjoy my time in the military and wouldn't re-enlist unless I were drafted. The few that I know with dishonorable discharges are pretty miserable in their lives at this point. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. Luckily the military has gotten better about who they hand those to and making other types of discharges, but even then anything other than honorable just doesn't sit well with a lot of people. It's not just the soldiers you would have to educate ( I don't think this could ever be asked of them anyway ) but the military, the American society, the veterans, this is a rather large plate and I'm thinking it will be messy before there is ever a good answer.
»

Amen to that Jade

View the soldiers as individuals. Don't compromise their individuality. Give them the space they need to make the best decision for themselves, without the pressure of conformity to the system they are more or less trapped in...

Is being a soldier like being a prisoner? What a world we live in! What a nation!

»

Hmmm...haven't been

Hmmm...haven't been brainwashed here. Pretty bold statements across this thread with no substance to back anything up. Care to enlighten me how soldiers are brainwashed? Cite specific examples if you've been to basic training, or how about orders and clarification of them. Tell me what you know about military culture and life.

A lot of true colors coming out in multiple threads around here.

 

 

»

Try this...

Reply to Constitution in Crisis A congressional report has found evidence to form the basis for investigating the Bush Administration's run up to the war. Preliminary findings show that the lead in to the war was based on fraudulent claims.
»

In the true definitive sense

In the true definitive sense of the word, I think there is some form of brainwashing that goes on when you go through bootcamp. This is not unique to the military. Any training process has an element of this. Whether you are going to work for the military or a corporation, there is a level of loyalty and conformity that is expected of you. In my experience, the military gave me skills that I still use today. I was in Navy, and the Navy promotes in their members, attention to detail, initiative, and leadership, among other things. I look back now at some of the things that I was asked to do. Everyday sort of things that didn't mean anything at the time but now I see that I was part of something that, in hindsight, I don't agree with. One of which was a "humanitarian aid" mission to Indonesia in which I was directly involved in aiding them in continuing a decades long genocide. Politicians in the U.S. made a decision that they needed to support the Indonesian government. I and my shipmates were sent to provide that support. At the time, I knew nothing of the politics or history of Indonesia. It is only in hindsight that I can say that I disagree with what we did. I have similar feelings about my time spent in the Persian Gulf.

The military does not provide a space for members to be fully aware of what they are doing and the ramifications of it. Obviously it wouldn't be in their best interest to do so. This, to me, is the flaw in it all. I now believe that people have the right to be informed before they are asked to follow an order. This is anathema to how the military works.

I struggle with the usage of the term brainwashing. I don't feel I was brainwashed in the sense that my mind was being controlled. I do think that there is a certain amount of mental conditioning that is used by the military to ensure that orders are not questioned.

»

Maybe brainwashing isn't the

Maybe brainwashing isn't the right word- it implies some sort of voodoo mind control or something...

I am referring to the breaking of the individual's will that happens as part of basic training and the notion that you must follow orders no matter how stupid or how dangerous or how wrong they are. This goes against people's nature, so the military has done massive amounts of research on how to effectively train a person to act without independent thought or reason.

There is a lot of propaganda that soldiers get exposed to. Like Rob said, these techniques are not unique to the military, they just happen to be very skilled a using them.

Jade

(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)

»

Peace Activists Under Attack

Why are peace activists under attack for supposedly not supporting the troops? It seems to me that it would be more logical to attack those people who needlessly put the troops in harm's way.

In this line of thinking, it appears that those associated with OSOT are doing less to support the troops, than to support the war - which is actually endangering the well-being of the troops.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at:

Get Firefox!


More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington"

OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington.
free hit counter