Monday, May 31, 2010

Thoughts on Memorial Day

Memorial Day apparently has different meanings for different people. Last week, during a press conference in which President Barack Obama was discussing the BP oil catastrophe, long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas went off topic and asked “When are we going to stop murdering people in Afghanistan?” And she didn’t want to hear any lying doubletalk, either. What struck most people in the room, presumably, was the insolent tone of both the question and the manner in which it was delivered in. So Thomas thinks soldiers are out there murdering innocent people. I suppose she would question why we are honoring our war dead when they are nothing but a bunch of paid assassins. Obama’s response should have been a reminder why he is president, and not the hot-tempered and ill-mannered John McCain or Hillary Clinton. He kept his cool, and painstakingly laid-out the rationales and intentions of the war. It would have been perfectly understandable if he had simply ignored the question or her, but he showed Thomas more respect than she deserved by responding as he did. Not that any of this is surprising, since Thomas, for some reason, has been taking shots at Obama ever since he was elected; perhaps she--like Harriet Christian of “inadequate black male” infamy—still fumes over Hillary’s loss in the primaries.

On the other hand, somewhat disingenuous is constant stream of praise for the current breed of soldier as being selfless people filling in the void left open by their less patriotic citizens so everyone can live in peace and freedom (particularly when our military actions tend to make the world even more dangerous). There are, of course, some “gung-ho” types who really do like the “thrill” of shooting people, especially if they can do it legally (that’s why “companies” like Blackwater are full of ex-soldiers, who wish to continue to practice their “profession” for fun and profit). However, few volunteer for service because they want to get shot at or shoot someone; only a fanatical idealist is thinking about protecting someone else’s freedom. In combat, most are just thinking about saving their own freedom to live. That they are obliged to do so for often questionable reasons by armchair warriors who view them as numbers on a map to advance their own self-aggrandizement is the perspective from which praise should be granted. What are soldiers today dying for?

The reality is that for the majority who join, the military life is seen as an alternative just because it just seems, for some people, an easier route to earn a trade or a living, or they are gulled by the “glamorous” globe-trotting advertisements (frankly, I liked Germany—when I wasn’t covered in mud or inch-thick dust “globetrotting” in places like Grafenwoehr and Hohenfels). The Army claimed that it exceeded its recruiting goals last year, which some might interpret as an affect of the down economy. But in fact recruiting decreased by 10,000 from the previous two years, because the Army lowered its recruiting goals, apparently because it didn’t want to lower its recruit standards any further. For those who get in, the pay-off for not having the right to quit your job is free room and board if single, and additional funding if supporting a family—plus plenty of spending money, bonuses, education benefits and free medical. Because single soldiers don’t have to concern themselves with keeping a budget to pay for essentials, one suspects that many who enter the military because they haven’t successfully learned to live on their own are not well-prepared for “real life” when they leave.

In any case, Thomas’ inelegant query could have been simplified to ask “Why are we still in Afghanistan?” The war in Afghanistan was bungled from the start; it was never a priority for the Bush/Cheney administration. 9-11 was a godsend for Bush and Cheney, because it offered the perfect cover for what they always intended to do from day one when they took office: invade Iraq and correct the “mistake” of not completing the conquest of Iraq during the first Gulf War. It was a “stain” on the Bush “family honor,” and that needed to be erased from the history books. After a bombing campaign that sent Al-Qaeda scurrying into hiding, but allowing most to escape into Pakistan because of insufficient boots on the ground, Bush/Cheney invented “evidence” to move into Iraq, as they always intended. The Obama administration’s efforts to correct the oversight may well be prove to be ultimately fruitless. This country already had an opportunity to enter the modern world after its defacto independence from Britain in 1919; its king, Amanullah Khan, was (like Turkey’s post-Ottoman ruler Kemal Ataturk) was impressed by western advances and used his initial popularity to attempt to force modernization on the country (to include compulsory public education for girls as well as boys). But his efforts proved to be unpopular, and shortly after the country was devastated by an anti-modernization rebellion, Amanullah was forced to abdicate in 1929. Little has changed since then.

Democratizing Afghanistan is a shibboleth, so what are we doing there? It doesn’t have oil that is easily accessible, or any other resources of significance we want. I heard a right-wing radio talker claim once that we could wipe out the Taliban tomorrow if we wanted to; funny how it isn’t explained how wiping out the Taliban would be done, since Bush and Cheney couldn’t figure it out. Also seldom mentioned is that the Taliban isn’t the only militant Afghan entity we have to fight; even our “friends” amount to little more than deals with the Devil. Given the corruption of the current Kabul “administration,” why doesn’t the U.S. just make a deal with the Taliban: give-up Osama Bin Laden (if he’s still alive), start negotiations that offers to allow them to participate as a sanctioned political party, and then get the hell out. The alternative is to stay in Afghanistan for years more hoping that the ungovernable regions of the country are eventually “cured” of the Taliban (and Al-Qaeda) virus by the “vaccine” of brute force.

No comments:

Post a Comment