Memorial Day Question: Why do we need to honor 6,440 U.S. soldiers who died in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Answer: Because they were asked to go there.
To put this day into perspective, I've re-published this image by "ARG" at Pixwit (with permission of the artist):
Additional note from the artist:
Chicken Heart Winner (Five-deferment Dick)
November 17, 2005: As Vice President Dick Cheney attacks the Democrats for questioning the honesty of the president's warmaking, Congressman John Murtha, himself a decorated Korean War and Vietnam War combat veteran and a staunch warhawk, announces it's time to bring the troops home. Concerning Mr. Cheney's ranting, Murtha resorted to uncharacteristic sarcasm: "I like guys who got five deferments and have never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done." Concerning Cheney's lack of military service, he's on record: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
What would you think about someone who started shooting a gun from the top of the Empire State Building in order to kill "bad people" walking on the sidewalks below? Assume that he could tell very little, if anything, about the people he was killing. Also assume that when we asked him to justify how he knew he was shooting "bad people" he asked us to trust him and questioned our loyalty to the United States to the extent we doubted him. Now consider America's largely indiscriminate killings using its huge fleet of drones. Glenn Greenwald puts it in perspective:
After I linked to [a New York Times] Op-Ed yesterday on Twitter — by writing that “every American who cheers for drone strikes should confront the victims of their aggression” — I was predictably deluged with responses justifying Obama’s drone attacks on the ground that they are necessary to kill The Terrorists. Reading the responses, I could clearly discern the mentality driving them: I have never heard of 99% of the people my government kills with drones, nor have I ever seen any evidence about them, but I am sure they are Terrorists. That is the drone mentality in both senses of the word; it’s that combination of pure ignorance and blind faith in government authorities that you will inevitably hear from anyone defending President Obama’s militarism . . . . As it turns out, it isn’t only the President’s drone-cheering supporters who have no idea who is being killed by the program they support; neither does the CIA itself. A Wall Street Journal article yesterday described internal dissension in the administration to Obama’s broad standards for when drone strikes are permitted, and noted that the “bulk” of the drone attacks — the bulk of them – “target groups of men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren’t always known.” As Spencer Ackerman put it: “The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups.”
Take a look at Greenwald's article to get a feel for what it is like for innocent families to live in terror of attack by drones. I wrote on this topic recently, actually twice, and I find it profoundly disturbing that this sort of sky-adjudication and killing is being done in my name by our large staff of predator pilots.
The way we are fighting our ongoing drone "war" appears incompatible with a genuine attempt to seek lasting peace. We don't have any confidence that we are killing people who threaten the United States. Shame on us.
President Barack Obama recently suggested that America's wars had cost $1 trillion. Reuters suggested that Obama is not being forthright:
Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday. The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion
The study referred to is this one, by Costs of War. Unlike your local newspaper or your local TV news, this is website that pulls no punches. Here are some of the findings:
While we know how many US soldiers have died in the wars (just over 6000), what is startling is what we don’t know about the levels of injury and illness in those who have returned from the wars. New disability claims continue to pour into the VA, with 550,000 just through last fall. Many deaths and injuries among US contractors have not been identified.
At least 137,000 civilians have died and more will die in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan as a result of the fighting at the hands of all parties to the conflict.
The armed conflict in Pakistan, which the U.S. helps the Pakistani military fight by funding, equipping and training them, has taken as many lives as the conflict in neighboring Afghanistan.
Putting together the conservative numbers of war dead, in uniform and out, brings the total to 225,000.
Millions of people have been displaced indefinitely and are living in grossly inadequate conditions. The current number of war refugees and displaced persons -- 7,800,000 -- is equivalent to all of the people of Connecticut and Kentucky fleeing their homes.
How disproportionate has been America's response to the 9/11 attacks? Reuters offers this:
What followed were three wars in which $50 billion amounts to a rounding error. For every person killed on September 11, another 73 have been killed since.
This presentation by Andrew Napolitano sums it up for me. Shame on the Obama Administration, for carrying on (and furthering) the policies of the Bush Administration. At the minimum, our government should level with us instead of giving us a constant stream of lies and squandering massive amounts of tax dollars that we could be using for energy independence.
If the occupation of Afghanistan is such a great idea, let those who support the aggression pay for it. Let them go door to door and beg for the money. Even if every American citizen paid an equal share of this year's $30 Billion funding for the "war" in Afghanistan, every one of America's 300,000,000 citizens would pay $100. Let them go door to door and try to convince Americans to each fork over $100 for this years' Afghanistan war effort. Maybe then the citizens would demand to see progress and to be informed of the alleged objectives of this "war."
Actually, if the citizens were told the truth, they'd be told that this war only benefits America's military-industrial complex, and that it's driven by the cognitive fallacy of sunk costs.
The war, supported by a steadily declining minority of Americans, has no chance of regaining public favor unless President Obama can explain why American blood and treasure should be at the mercy of this napping Afghan president. Karzai stole an election, can’t provide a government in or out of a box, and has in recent months threatened to defect to the Taliban and accused American forces of staging rocket attacks on his national peace conference. Until last week, Obama’s only real ally in making his case was public apathy. Next to unemployment and the oil spill, Karzai and Afghanistan were but ticks on our body politic, even as the casualty toll passed 1,000. As a senior McChrystal adviser presciently told Hastings, “If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.”
So make no mistake: We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban’s momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.
Apply pressure on al Qaeda? Give me a break. According to the CIA, there are fewer than 50 al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
As far as "breaking the momentum" of the Taliban, consider this retort by Jon Stewart, beginning at minute 4:
Top officials in President Hamid Karzai's government have repeatedly derailed corruption investigations of politically connected Afghans, according to U.S. officials who have provided Afghanistan's authorities with wiretapping technology and other assistance in efforts to crack down on endemic graft.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
Additional note from the artist: