Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PM
Number of posts: 6,108
Number of posts: 6,108
- 2015 (52)
- 2014 (130)
- 2013 (172)
- 2012 (102)
- 2011 (8)
- December (8)
- Older Archives
I just heard from two friends on Facebook who have had posts concerning Prescott Bush's connections with the Nazis taken down by Facebook. In response, I posted a 2004 Guardian investigative piece on the subject, "How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power." So far, my post is still up.
Has anyone else here encountered this? If so, Facebook needs to be called out in a very public way for it. In the meantime, I would urge those who have Facebook accounts to post this or other articles on this topic. Facebook should not be permitted to scrub clean the Bush family's troublesome past!
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Feb 19, 2015, 03:35 PM (20 replies)
Democrat Says Obama Administration Dodging Request To Read Trade Deals Without Restrictions
WASHINGTON -- A Democratic congressman has accused the Obama administration of dodging his request for "unimpeded" access to two controversial trade agreements -- reigniting a dispute over transparency as the president presses legislators for so-called "fast-track" authority, which would block members of Congress from offering amendments to either deal.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, wants to view an unredacted copy of the proposed text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). He wants to bring his chief of staff, who has a top security clearance, and he wants to be able to take notes privately. He also wants to review documents that show the position of each country participating in the agreements, as well how the U.S. position has changed over the course of the negotiations.
In a letter this week, Doggett accused Michael Froman, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), of avoiding his requests since January. "USTR has provided no legal justification for denying such Member and staff review," wrote Doggett.
The text of TPP is treated as a state secret -- to a degree. Access to TPP texts is limited to members of Congress and staffers on the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee who have an official security clearance. Hundreds of corporate lobbyists and executives are also given access, along with dozens of representatives of labor unions, nonprofits and other consumer groups.
< . . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:05 PM (11 replies)
FBI DIrector James Comey, in his widely acclaimed speech a couple of days ago that essentially boiled down to an apologia for police bias and abuse couched in nice-sounding language, said he wanted to talk about some "hard truths." Well, I had a few "hard truths" for Director Comey, which I posted as a comment to a New York Times article.
Some more "hard truths" for Mr. Comey to consider::
Ill say this much for Comey though: he does earnest really well.
Posted by markpkessinger | Fri Feb 13, 2015, 04:33 PM (0 replies)
I posted this in a thread on Facebook about the moratorium declared on the death penalty by PA Gov. Wolf, and thought I would share it here as well.
Mark Kessinger - Steve, I realize not everyone agrees with this. I have been unequivocally opposed to capital punishment for the whole of my adult life. Like Gov. Wolf, my opposition is not grounded in some misplaced sympathy for murderers. To be perfectly honest, there have certainly been cases involving particularly brutal murderers in which I didn't lose a great deal of sleep over their particular executions. But I think we need to look at the entire picture, not just some individual cases considered in isolation from all the others. There are many reasons I am opposed to it. Among them (and in no particular order)::
(1) The most oft-cited rationale for the death penalty is that it is necessary as a deterrent to other would-be murderers. The problem is that there has never been any evidence to support that idea. And in fact, there has been some evidence that suggests that maybe the opposite is true. The website deathpenaltyinfo.org has analyzed crime and death penalty statistics provided by the FBI. They have found that in every year since 1991 when such statistics began to be collected, the average per capita murder rate for every single year has been higher across states that use the death penalty versus the states which do not (see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without... ).
(2) Capital punishment is unfairly imposed along racial lines -- and not just in terms of the race of the murderer, but just as importantly, according to the race of the victim. Amnesty International has pointed out that while whites comprise 75% of the U.S. population, and blacks 7.5^, the number of murder victims i the U.S. is roughly the same for each. Yet 80% of the cases in which a murdere has been sentenced to die have been cases in which the victims were white. A 2007 Yale study found that in cases where the victims are white, African American defendants receive the death penalty at THREE TIMES the rate of white defendants,. The racial bias is indisputable.
(3) Our criminal justice system is far too prone to both error and corruption to be handing out irrevocable, unreversible sentences. District Attorneys are politicians who must run for office to get, and keep, their jobs. They build political campaigns based on their prosecution stats. Thus there is far too great an incentive for DA's to overcharge defendants, to prosecute defendants who may, in fact, not be guilty, and to push for the harshest possible sentences in every case. We know for a fact that innocent people are sometimes convicted of crimes. We also know for a fact that innocent people have been put to death for crimes they did not commit. Since our justice system does, in fact, make serious mistakes sometimes, and since no justice system is ever perfect, I believe no justice system has any business meting out ultimate sentences for which there is no possibility of correcting should the convictions later prove to have been wrong.
(4) Related to #3 above, there is a long-standing principle that has informed Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence, as well as Western, and specifically Judeo-Christian, notions of justice. It is sometimes referred to as Blackstone's Formulation. In 1769, William Blackstone wrote: "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." The 15th century English Chief Justice, Sir John Fortescue, wrote in 1470: "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally." During the Salem witch trials, Increase Mather adapted Fortescue's statement when he wrote: "It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that one Innocent Person should be Condemned." And the 12th century Sephardic Jewish philosopher and legal scholar Maimonides argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would progressively lead to convictions merely "according to the judge's caprice. Hence the Exalted One has shut this door" against the use of presumptive evidence, for "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."
(5) When all of the arguments made by death penalty supporters have been refuted, supporters typically fall back onto some theory of "retributive justice." But I have yet to hear an argument that credibly explain how 'retributive justice" differs (except in being called by a fancier name) than plain old vengeance and bloodlust, neither of which, in my view, has any place in a civilized society.
Posted by markpkessinger | Fri Feb 13, 2015, 03:32 PM (4 replies)
The article is titled, "Surprising Speech by F.B.I. Chief Focuses on Police and Race." Comey said some good things in his speech, but I found myself more troubled by what he didn't say than what he did. Here was the comment I posted:
It is worth noting that Mr. Comey heads an agency that found its agents 100% faultless and totally justified in 150 out of 150 shootings of suspects -- 70 of them fatally -- from 1993 to 2011. Likewise, under Mr. Comey, the FBI exonerated itself for the highly questionable killing of Ibragim Todashev --a friend and associate of the Tsarnaev brothers -- during questioning by FBI agents after the Boston Marathon bombings. Simply based on the law of averages, a finding that shootings were justified 100% of the time is highly suspect. Thus, while I respect the eloquence and erudition of Mr. Comey's speaking and writing, I remain very skeptical that he is in any position to present the "hard truths" he purports to present in an objective way.
Nowhere in Mr. Comey's speech -- and yes, I read the full text -- did he address himself to the problems in American police culture. The old "blue wall of silence" seems to have changed little since the days Frank Serpico walked a beat. Sure, there are many cops who do not themselves engage in wrongful conduct. But officers good and bad are nearly universal in honoring that code of silence with respect to the wrongdoing of their colleagues (the occasional Frank Serpico or Adrian Schoolcraft notwithstanding). This turning of a blind eye towards wrongdoing within their ranks stands in direct conflict with Comey's assertion that police officers are "overwhelmingly doing the right thing for the right reasons."
Below is a video clip of the speech, and here is a link to the full text of it.
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Feb 12, 2015, 09:30 PM (3 replies)
(NOTE: AFTER I POSTED THIS, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE OP IN ANOTHER THREAD WHICH i REFER TO HERE WAS NOT, IN FACT AIMED AT PRESIDENT OBAMA, BUT AT A POST BY ANOTHER DU-ER (WHO HAD POSTED A COMMENT THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID, AND FOR WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PILLORIED BY RIGHT-WING MEDIA. FOR THAT ERROR, I APOLOGIZE. HOWEVER, IF THE ACCUSATION THAT HE WAS "TRYING TO CONDONE THE BURNING TO DEATH OF A MAN IN A CAGE" WAS WRONG AS APPLIED TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID (AS I BELIEVED WHEN I WROTE THIS PIECE), THEN IT IS WRONG WHEN APPLIED TO ANOTHER DU-ER WHO SAID SUBSTANTIVELY THE SAME THING. THUS, I STAND FIRMLY BEHIND THE RATIONALE LAID OUT BELOW AS TO WHY SUCH AN ACCUSATION IS SUCH A SCURRILOUS THING TO LEVEL AGAINST ANYONE (BASED ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND OUR FELLOW DU-ER SAID), IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO THE INTENDED TARGET OF THAT ACCUSATION ACTUALLY WAS.)
The outrage over the President's remarks earlier this week at a National Paryer Breakfast on Fox and other right-wing outlets was predictable enough. Surely, by now, we must all expect as much from that bunch, in reaction anything the President says about, well, anything at all. Perpetual outrage is the right's emotional currency, so irrespective of what it might be in response to, it is never a surprise, and much of the time doesn't even merit being accorded the dignity of a response.
But I am surprised -- no, shocked -- to see that same outrage mirrored here on DU, accusing the President of "rying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage." I am even more shocked to see such a post receive (as of this writing) 84 "likes" with remarkably little by way of push back The most generous thing I can say about Trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage."Trying to condone the burning to death of a man in a cage."|that OP] is that it is a grossly dishonest characterization of what the President said and of what he intended to say in his remarks. Look, I am not exactly this President's biggest fan. I have never refrained, and never will, from expressing substantive criticism of this or any President when I have believed his policies or statements have been misguided. (I have never been big on the idea of politics-as-team-sport.) Indeed, I have been sharply critical of this President on many fronts: his drone campaign, his failure to go after Wall Street criminals, his coddling of the NSA's and CIA's illegal activities, his indefensible, aggressive prosecutions of whistleblowers, the expanded powers he has claimed under the NDAA, to name just a few. On my best days, I count myself among those who have been deeply disappointed by what I see as the lost promise of his Presidency; on my less sangjine days, I see his Presidency as one giant, corporatist Trojan horse. But I believe -- and strongly -- that if criticism is to be responsible, it must in the first place be honest and substantive, and proceed from premises that are also, at least arguably, honest and substantive. None of the criticism over this issue, either from those on the right or in the OP to which I refer, is either of those.
The President was no delivering a speech about ISIL/ISIL or about any of its specific horrors, much less condoning, downplaying or invoking false equivalencies concerning any of it. The real meat of the President's speech, following some introductory comments, begins as follows:
Now, over the last few months, we’ve seen a number of challenges -- certainly over the last six years. But part of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil.
As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife. We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done. We see faith driving us to do right.
But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.
We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.
So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?
That was the set-up for the remarks that followed. It was a speech by a man of faith, to an audience of persons of faith (primarily Christians), about how conscientious persons of faith come to grips with the fact that some -- in every age and in every religion -- pervert the tenets of the very faith they profess as a means of justifying unjustifiable acts of evil. And it was a discussion about the perils of religious intolerance. This is the context in which the President's remarks must be understood. Indeed, it is the very next paragraph that the President makes the statements that are being so loudly criticized. The President continues:
Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.
So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try. And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.
There is absolutely nothing in the President's speech, either in the portions I have quoted above or in the remainder of the speech, that any honest person could, in good conscience, construe as condoning the horrific actions of ISIL/ISIS or of drawing any false equivalency thereto. The fact is that far too many Christians -- and American Christians in particular -- are prone fo falling into a belief in self-superiority, and of believing themselves to be somehow immune to the corruptions of heart and mind that have, at one point or another, afflicted every religion (as well as every political system) in human history. The President went on to speak at length about the need for a certain humility that is incumbent upon conscientious persons of faith with respect to any truth they may believe themselves to be in possession of, and in recognition that others, of other faiths and non-faiths, also have truths we need to hear. And I speak as a Christian when I say that Christians -- and again, American Christians in particular -- need to be reminded of this . . . often and repeatedly. History tells us that when Christians -- or indeed, persons of any faith or non-faith -- believe themselves to be the sole possessors of truth and the sole exemplars of goodness or righteousness or justice, bad things happen. Very bad things. And I find it unconscionable that any person of conscience, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other faith, or atheist, much less those on a liberal or left-leaning site, could possibly find fault in the President or anybody else stating such a reminder.
For those who "liked" the other OP, I would urge you to either read the transcript of the speech, or watch the video below, for yourself, and then reconsider whether you still think the President was, any way, condoning the "burning to death of a man i a cage."
Posted by markpkessinger | Sat Feb 7, 2015, 08:14 PM (91 replies)
Published on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 by Common Dreams
Unbroken, CIA Torture Whistleblower Kiriakou To Finish Sentence Home with Family
In final Letter from Loretto Prison, John Kiriakou writes: 'By the time you read this, I’ll be home'
by Lauren McCauley, staff writer
John Kiriakou, the CIA agent who was jailed for blowing the whistle on the United States' torture program, was released from Loretto Prison in Pennsylvania on Tuesday under orders to finish the remainder of his 30-month sentence at home.
Though glad the whistleblower was finally able to return to his wife and five children, supporters said the development was bittersweet considering that Kiriakou has thus far been the only government official to be punished for U.S. torture.
< . . . . >
"Considering that the last three heads of the CIA engaged in leaks of classified information without being charged under the Espionage Act and that no CIA official who ordered or participated in torture has been criminally punished," (Jesselyn) Radack (Kirakou's attorney) continued, "it is a welcome development that Kiriakou can serve the rest of his sentence at home with his family."
Kiriakou was prosecuted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act for allegedly revealing classified information about the Bush government's torture program to a reporter. After agreeing to a plea deal in October 2012, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He has 86 days left to serve under house arrest.
< . . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Wed Feb 4, 2015, 09:33 PM (15 replies)
. . . I offer this:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable
Posted by markpkessinger | Tue Feb 3, 2015, 06:55 PM (3 replies)
Jesus effing Christ!
Posted by markpkessinger | Tue Feb 3, 2015, 04:54 PM (0 replies)
I posted this just now on Facebook. I watched American Sniper online, and wrote this as I watched.
So, I saw that American Sniper is available for viewing on Putlocker. Since I have been critical of the film's premise, I figured I have a responsibility to at least see it (although Ill be damned if I will enrich Clint Eastwood by paying for the privilege!). So, this post is a kind of live blog of my reactions as I watch it.
- Opening sequence. Chris Kyle in Iraq, lying prone, staring through his rifle's scope, his sights trained on a particular house, while engaging in banter with a fellow soldier. First, he sees a "military age" man talking on a cell phone. Then a woman and a boy of maybe 10-12 emerge from the house. The woman hands the boy something that looks like an IED. Kyle's fellow soldier reminds him, as he focuses on the boy, that if he is wrong about what the boy is carrying, hell be headed to a stint at Leavenworth prison (my reaction: as if). Boy starts running in the direction of American solders on the street. Kyle trains his sights on the boy -- just at he fires the shot, the film cuts to Kyle, as a boy, hunting with his father, and the shot takes down a deer. (So we don't (yet?) know whether he actually shot the boy, or what the boy was actually carrying.) As Kyle runs to check out the deer he has killed, he briefly puts his rifle down on the ground. His father then scolds him: "Chris! Don't ever leave your rifle lying int he dirt!" (I guess that's like desecrating the flag, or a holy relic, or something . . . ) His father then adds, proudly, "That was a heckava good shot, son!"
Okay, so I'm not exactly sure what the point is here. Is he suggesting that taking out a 12-year-old boy is no different from hunting?
-- Next sequence -- Kyle, still as a boy, sitting in church with his family, at the end of a sermon in which the preacher is invoking the actions of the apostle Paul as recorded in the book of ACts to extol the virtues of "standing up" for what one believes is right. Kyle picks up a pocket-size bible from the pew rack and begins leafing through it. His mother silently scolds him for doing so. He stops, but then surreptitiously stuffs the bible into his pants pocket. (I guess pilfering the bible from the church is okay.) Cut to a long shot of the same bible, lying atop a dresser in what is presumably the boy's bedroom. (I guess it's saying that what follows in the film is about the bible, or God, or something . . . .)
-- Cut to the family's Sunday dinner table. Kyle's father is lecturing his two sons about the "three types of people" in the world (nothing like a limited set of options, eh?): 'sheep' (those who don't believe evil exists in the world, and are thus clueless as to how to respond), 'wolves' (those who prey on the weak, helpless sheep), and 'sheep dogs' (those who are "blessed with the gift of aggression" (omg-did he REALLY just say that?) and who live to confront the wolf).l His father continues, "We ain't raisin' no sheep in this family." Then, removing his belt and violently slamming it on the table, adds, "And Ill whup your ass if either of you becomes a wolf!" Then we see the two boys seated at the dinner table, Chris's younger brother has a black eye. Chris interjects, "But the guy was picking on Jeff! (his brother). "Is that true?" asks his father. The younger brother nods. The father then asks Chris, "And did you finish it?" Chris nods. "Good," says the father, "you know who you are, you know your purpose."
(Okay, so the impression Im getting is that he had a father who was an extremely violent man who raised his sons to be just as violent, while rationalizing that violence so he could claim not to be a "wolf." Yet I get the impression that Eastwood somehow thinks he is presenting a model upbringing here. Strange. The way I see it, if that's how Kyle was raised, he was damaged goods long before he got to Iraq!)/
I won't go into quite so much detail from here on -- it will take all day to get through the film if I do that. But these opening scenes seemed to be portentous as to what is to come (as opening sequences tend to be).
A few other scenes from Chris's life prior to Iraq, then we see him watching news coverage of the '93 bombing of the World Trade Center. Chris's face registers some sort of inchoate distress. Cut immediately to Chris signing up at his local navy recruiter's office. Then we see Chris enduring the rigors and sadisms of SEALS training, meeting his future wife, sniper training. (Gee, that wasnt AT ALL predictable, was it?)
Then we see Chris and his fiance watching news coverage of 9-11. Chris gets married, and then we're back in Iraq, in the opening scene, where Chris has just killed the boy. The boy's mother runs and retrieves the IED from the boy's body, then hurls it towards a group of American soldiers, where it explodes. ("See? Killing the boy was justified!" -- so the film seems to scream.)
Before long, Kyle is shown in a military briefing about Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and a discussion of al-Zarqawi, one of its leaders. Note that there is no mention that there would never have been an "Al Qaeda in Iraq" but for the American invasion. Note also that the film has not even mentioned the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and that the sequence of events in the film implies it did.
The film goes on to show scenes from all four of Kyle's deployments, while his own mental health deteriorates and his marriage nearly falls apart. Seems he had a bit of a habit of telephoning his wife -- while in the midst of firefights. Each time, his wife is traumatized whenever he goes silent, as he must, to focus on the battle at hand. Between his 3rd and 4th deployments,. his wife has had just about all she can take, and warns him that if he goes again, she wouldn't guarantee that she and the kids would be waiting for him when he got home. And one can hardly blame her.
Kyle finally calls it quits in Iraq, when -- once again in the midst of battle -- he telephones his wife. Only this time hes at his breaking point, and tells her he is ready to come home. Once home, there are numerous scenes of Kyle having difficulty readjusting to ordinary family life -- at one point nearly killing the family dog as the dog and his daughter engage in a little horseplay. In a scene with his therapist -- one is relieved at this point in the film that he is actually getting help -- his therapist, having been informed by Kyle's wife about the incident involving the dog, asks him if perhaps there were things that happened in Iraq, things he might have done or participated in, that he regretted. "No sir," Kyle answers, "that's not me -- I'm ready to meet my maker.and to answer for every shot I took." (At that point, I was practically yelling at the therapist on my screen to probe that more deeply, and not to just let it lie. But, according to the film, there was no further probing. The therapist instead, mentioning Hyle's professed desire to "protect his own," introduces him to a support group of returning Iraq/Afghanistan vets.
Near the end of the film, Kyle is seen doing much better, continuing to work with returning veterans, his marriage and family life back in order. One day he decides to take one of the veterans he has been helping to a shooting range, where that veteran kills him. I found it interesting that this film, which does not hesitate to show dead and mutilated Iraqi men, women and children, chose not to depict this part of Kyle's story, but simply to display a caption against a black screen explaining what happened. (I have to say I am farily astounded that anybody would think that taking a veteran suffering from PTSD to a shooting range was a good idea, or that anything good would come of it! That decision, I think, reflects Kyle's own dysfunctional understanding of violence, which, if the film is accurate, was inculcated very early in Kyle's life.) I saw that choice (of merely captioning the circumstances of Kyle's deawth) as partaking of a subtle message that underlay the entire film: that only American lives count. The reality of the war in Iraq is that there was nothing "apolitical" about it -- from the planning of it, which was in the works even before Bush took office, to the decision to use 9-11 as a pretext for an invasion, to the refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to complete their work before invading, to the largely uncritical and unquestioning support for the war initially by Congress and most of the American public.
One argument I've seen in defense of the film is that the film was about a guy's commitment to doing an impossibly difficult job right, of doing the best possible job a human being could do in impossible circumstances. A similar argument is made regarding certain events in Vietnam. But I think there's a profound difference. In Vietnam, most of the soldiers were not there by choice == they were drafted into service. Thus, there is a solid argument to be made that the brutality of that war arose from soldiers who themselves were brutalized -- often unwillingly -- by that war. But the war in Iraq was fought by our 'all volunteer military' (with no small halp from highly paid mercenaries). Those who fought in Iraq were there of their own volition. In choosing to enlist in the military at the time they did, they chose to participate in the enterprise of war generally, and of the war in Iraq specifically, and thus bear a share of moral complicity for that participation, and for all that attended it, in a way that most Vietnam veterans do not.
Having watched the film -- and I found it difficult to sit through -- my earlier criticisms are only reinforced. The film's repeated references to "those savages" grated on my nerves. We had no right to be there in the first place, and to call people "savages" who were defending against an unjust invasion and occupation by a foreign government is a moral outrage in itself. And I dare say that if America ever found itself the target of such an invasion and occupation, Americans would resist just as savagely, and would be within their rights to do so.
I have a theory about why this film is so popular. Granted, it is a compelling story (at least if one divorces oneself from the realities of the Iraq war), is very well-acted and well-directed. But I think part of what is driving the popularity of this film is the fact that most Americans now understand that all of the justifications given for the war in Iraq have now been conclusively proven to have been false. There thus remains a conflict in the consciousness of those who reflexively and uncritically supported that war. But to confront that conflict would require scrutinizing many of America's long-held and deeply cherished national myths -- myths we have been indoctrinated to accept from a very early age -- about the nature of America's actions in the world. The fact of the matter is that we only ever fought ONE defensive war in our history, and that was the war of 1812 (and that war, ironically, barely merits a footnote in most of our history books). (Sure, one can argue that WWII was defensive following Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor, but it is highly doubtful Japan was seeking to conquer the U.S. Rather, it was seeking dominance of the Pacific's trad routes, and to attain that dominance, it needed to take out the U.S. naval fleet in the Pacific -- which it damn near succeeded in doing.) The uncomfortable truth is that all of the rest have been wars of empire. Americans don't want to confront that reality, but they still are left with this crisis of conscience over recent wars for which the usual justification narratives are inadequate. And so, they focus on the plight of the soldier in the midst of battle, in complete and total isolation from the true circumstances that placed that soldier there. We want our consciences to be cleared, but without having to experience any of the prior remorse necessary in order to be able to forgive ourselves. The problem is that this is a pursuit of absolution without penitence -- a pursuit that always was, is, and always will be morally hollow.
Posted by markpkessinger | Sun Feb 1, 2015, 08:53 PM (16 replies)