That Took a Bit Longer then We Expected

Today Germany paid the last payment related to the reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles and thus closing and balancing the books on World War 1. Ninety seven years after the war started, the lamps are coming back on all across Europe.

The costs of the war include 9 million soldiers, sailors, and airmen killed and 6 million civilians killed during Europe's four years of murderous insanity. The fighting cost the combatant nations about $180,000,000,000 in 1918 money. The Ottoman and Austrian-Hungarian empires disappeared forever, and the Russian empire was replaced by the Communist Soviet Union.

While today marks an ending, of sorts, of World War 1, we do well to remember how the war began. Capt. Edmund Blackadder explains the origins of the war in this clip from Blackadder Goes Forth(yes, that is Hugh Laurie).

An End in Iraq

The war in Iraq is just about over. At least that is what we are often told as the last "combat" troops leave the country; conveniently forgetting that there are still 50,00 U.S. soldiers still in Iraq.

Nevertheless this is something of a milestone and there have been no shortage of people talking about what this milestone means. President Obama gave a speech from the Oval Office while others have offered various explanations and justifications for what has gone on in Iraq since 2003.

Looking at all these justifications for Iraq I think all for should take heed of Frederick Ebright's admonition to advertisers making money of World War 2 and realize "There is dignity in silence."

Cover It Up

Two news stories about our country's wars in the Middle East have garnered a lot of attention. The first story involves wikileaks, a website that publishes confidential government information, releasing a video that shows U.S. military helicopter crew members killing civilians; including a reporter from Rueters. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the exact nature of the video and the context around which the helicopter attack occurred. The U.S. military initially claimed that all the civilians were insurgents but now there a lot people are alleging cover-up.

Which brings us to the second story. General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, admitted that U.S. soldiers have killed :an amazing number of people who were not threats." A soldier under his command asked Gen. McChrystal a question about problems with escalations of force and the general responded,

"I do want to say something that everyone understands. We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."

There is, I believe, a conspiracy and General McChrystal gets at the reason for it in his reply. The U.S., and other western nations, put in a lot of effort to give the impression that there are rules and order to what happens in war. The reality is quite different and the conspiracy is the effort to hide that reality. You cannot make orderly what is by definition disorderly, chaotic, brutal and inhumane. The conspiracy is in place so that people who don't know better, and quite a few that do, will continue to support the war effort thinking that the means and the ends are more nobler than they really are.

The Nobel Prize for War and Peace

President Obama accomplished the rare feat of accepting the the Nobel Peace Prize while in the process of escalating a war. The President used this occasion to articulate his particular interpretation of the "just war" theory.

He starts by acknowledging his debt to Martin Luther King but also says that as President he can't "be guided by their [King's and Ghandi's] example alone." Fair enough. However, I wonder if King's words about his country being the largest purveyor of violence in the world makes any impact on Obama's view point. Obama is right is that there is nothing naive or passive in King's methods but I wish Obama also recognized that King was spot-on in his view of the U.S. It appears that Obama's position limits his ability to see.

To defend the idea of 'just war," Obama states "a non violent movement cold not have stopped Hitler's armies." Pulling out the Hitler card is a cheap sot by the President; especially by cherry picking the date. A non-violent movement could not have stopped Hitler on September 1, 1939 or on June 6, 1944. However, Hitler did not come from out of nowhere. Hitler had been a force since the early 1930's and a non-violent movement might well have stopped at an earlier date.

Obama's big idea is that it is possible to fight a war on humanitarian grounds. I believe the President is sadly mistaken. First, when a country decides to go to war it makes a decision to commit resources that would be allocated in a different manner towards the war. The New Deal died at the hands of World War 2; President Franklin Roosevelt admitted as much when he had Dr. New Deal give way to Dr. Win the War. President Johnson's Great Society died at the hands of the Vietnam War. With a military budget of nearly 670 billion dollars, it is worth asking what kind of humanitarian projects at home are being starved at the expense of our war machine. What kind of humanitarian action continue to allow millions of people to go without health insurance or only sluggishly attempts to address the fact that 1o% of Americans are unemployed.

During his speech, Obama continually cites the war in Afghanistan as an example of the kind of war the fits into his paradigm. It's hard to see how that can be the case. Obama calls the war in Afrghanistan a "war we did not seek." This is a limited view of what precipitated the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. There is nothing in the 9/11 attacks that made a military response inevitable or necessary. the attacks on Pearl Harbor, which are the closest cousin to 9/11, were a strictly military attack. The Japanese Navy attacked U.S. military installations in the Hawaii. The surprise and shock of the attack does not diminish the military nature of December 7, 1941. 9/11 was not a military attack and should be viewed as a crime against humanity. Nothing suggests that a military response was required. Instead an international law enforcement effort could have accomplished much of the same thing. When the use of Guantanamo, black sites, and the Prison at Bagram are factored in it is impossible to see the military solution as being in any way "humanitarian."

Obama does touch on some meaningful goals. He continues to tout the idea of complete nuclear disarmament and the idea of diplomacy with unfriendly nations. However, I find myself disapointed with Obama's address. He speaks to having to dal with the world the way it is and I understand that. However, part of engaging and changing the world is changing the tools we use to engage the world. President Obama inherited a way of engaging the world that was strongly biased toward the military. Instead of siezing the opportunity to change out direction, Obama chose to embrace and defend it.

I Will Send Them 15,000 by 15,000

President Obama decided this week to send an additional 30,00 troops to Afghanistan. I oppose this move because I think it prolongs the attempt at a military solution where there is no military solution to be found. The position which John Kerry took in the 2004 election is I believe the right one; Terrorism is a law enforcement issue much more than a military one.

The correct way to defeat international terrorism is to increase use of law enforcement methods, and that includes the use of civilian Federal Court system. Increased international cooperation among police and intelligence agencies are also important tools in the arsenal against international terrorism. The best way to combat international terrorism is to invest in resources for 1st responders and capabilities to rebuild, increase the use of law enforcement and criminal justice resources, and reduce the use of the military. It would also be very beneficial to stop taking actions (like invading countries for no reason) that increase the risk of terrorism.

I remember when the purpose of going into Afghanistan was to capture Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive." Somehow that has turned into a long term effort to stabilize Afghanistan. I am afraid that this mission creep will cause the Obama administration to lose sight of the goal, which as far as I am concerned as been to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. The hijackers can not be brought to justice because they died in the attacks, and the alleged mastermind will brought to trial in a New York courtroom. That leaves only bin Laden as the last real Al Qaeda leader remaining. Since the safe house for the planning of the 9/11 attacks was in Hamburg, Germany, occupying various Afghan provinces does not really make us safer and it might be harmful if this "surge" keeps the government's focus away from Al Qaeda.

I do not feel betrayed by Obama because this is what he said he was going to do. However, I do feel like a moment that could have been used to reorient our policy had been lost. President Obama could have moved towards a more law enforcement approach. Instead he continue the imperial project and increased our military presence, and I do feel very dispaointed about the opportunity missed.

On Armistice Day

Today is Veteran's Day is the U.S. but originally today was called Armistice Day. Today commemorates the signing of the armistice that ended World War I. Over time, the day has morphed into Veteran's day and I feel like that is unfortunate.

Veteran's Day has turned into a celebration of all things military instead of the somber remembrance of war that it should be. War is always industrialized mass murder and a military is the organization dedicated to carrying out industrialized mass murder.

Armistice Day began as a way to remember those who died in the calamity of World War I. When President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill creating Armistice Day into law he said the purpose of the day was to "be dedicated to the cause of world peace."

I wish that instead of a day glorifying the military we could actually work on the original cause for the day. One way we could do this we be to look at just what a calamity war really is. We could perhaps reflect on the fact that there were nearly 11,000 casualties on the last day of World War I that occurred after the Armistice was signed but before it could take effect.

We could look to World War II, which as we all know was an unambiguous "good war." The war started when Hitler's Germany invaded Poland and when the war ended Stalin's Soviet Union occupied Poland.

Perhaps instead of taking pride in our immense military might we think about what it actually gets us. War is more destructive then we ever imagine and as we enter into our eighth year in Afghanistan with the capture of Bin Laden looking less and less likely it should be clear that we are not going to get out of the war in Afghanistan what we put in.

Perhaps if we reflected on these things then we would see war as the stupid and sadistic state of affairs that it really is then we might come closer to the original intent of the day.

A Small Crack in the Wall

Today, the Senate inflicted a defeat of the military-industrial complex when it voted 58-40 to strip funding for F-22 warplane.  According to the Washington Post, the F-22 is a plane that requires 30 hours of ground maintenance for every hour in the air and is "vulnerable to rain."  Both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, who are both Bush appointies, favored this move and so did Sen. John McCain(R-AZ). The major reason that 40 Senators voted for such a clusterf**ck is the military-industrial complex ensures that military projects are built in as many congressional districts as possible.

It is only a small victory but it is nice to see that some in Washington realize that defense dollars are real dollars that when spent on wasteful weapons programs it means that those dollars can't be used on more deserving projects.  Perhaps we can one day divert all the money we spend on killing foreigners on things like health care for all people.  I can dream can't I.