Here's to honor.

Honor is a tricky word to define, because it can mean many things depending on the context in which it is used. In the courtroom, the judge is referred to as "Your Honor" out of respect for that position. Sometimes, a cyclist may have "the honor" of riding at the front of the peleton, or at a wedding the bride and bridegroom have the honor of the first dance. For the purposes of this article, a more general definition of honor will suffice, and honor will be used to describe a person who is upright in character, and who has great personal integrity.

Referring to someone as "in the service" is a way of honoring those who would set aside their own affairs for a time while they tend to a greater cause. The greater cause is typically some military action on some corner of the globe requiring that service member to be absent from friends and family. Today, the greater cause is the dual-fronted war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are today's military members in the service of the country? Traditional propaganda would have the American public believing that those people are risking their lives abroad so that Americans at home can sleep soundly under the blanked of freedom they provide. Because, they say, if we didn't take the fight to the enemy, we would have to fight them on our own soil, at great expense of innocent American lives. Instead, it is a greater cause to risk innocent Iraqi lives since somehow they pose a risk to the lives of innocent Americans. This propaganda is alive and well in middle America, and it is a fiction.

Let me take a concrete example of honor and service and see what conclusions can potentially be drawn. On one hand, I will serve as an example, on the other, a good friend of mine. I graduated college and was commissioned an Ensign in the United States Navy. Not long after graduation, I was on watch in the Arabian Gulf aboard a destroyer, ostensibly to enforce sanctions on the state of Iraq imposed by the United Nations. My vessel queried foreign boats, boarded and inspected them, and sometimes detained their crew for violating sanctions. Other times, we would "show the flag" by asserting our nation's right of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, guns at the ready the entire time should the Iranians decide to assert any of their own rights. I did this for 4 years, and what do I or anyone else have to show for it?

My friend, on the other hand, has been a teacher for 30 years. She graduated college and began a career teaching elementary and high-school students. She is by all accounts a model citizen of the United States. She has raised 4 beautiful children who are also model citizens, and throughout her career she has had a positive impact on the lives of thousands of children. Nearly everyone she comes in to contact with is better for having known her. She has been, and still is today along with her husband who has also been teaching for 30 years, in the service of the country. Yet, no one refers to her as such, in fact, some people would disparage her because she chose to attend college instead of "joining the service". She joined the teaching service, and she has served honorably. This children of this nation can attest to her service. Who can attest to mine?

Between myself and my friend, who has served with more honor? Some people would say that the teacher did not risk her life for the nation, so my service was more honorable. Or is it correct to say that I provided her with the opportunity to serve because of my "sacrifice" abroad? I could write such a sentence without cringing if our nation's military had not been co-opted into the aggressive force it has become. When I joined the military, I joined to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, not invade and occupy a nation that took no part in harming the citizens of my own. The United States Military was never intended to be an aggressive force, rather, it was intended to be a defensive militia, capable of defending the shores of this land against those who would do us harm. Instead, I am a member of a imperialist, power-hungry militia, asserting an aggressive agenda on the land of over 200 other countries. I have defended nothing, in fact, quite the opposite, I have unwittingly decreased the security of this nation by unnecessarily angering foreign nations. Which is more honorable: To teach the future of America or to provide freedom to America by "asserting our presence" across the lands of the world?

The military members of the United States are no more in the "service of the country" than any other profession and they aren't defending our nation from any force that can cause us significant harm. Over 150,000 uniformed personnel occupy the nation of Iraq, and in doing so, serve no one but the radical interests of the elite of this nation. They have sacrificed their time and family lives not to defend this country, but to press the aggressive interests of this country on foreign shores, a bastardization of the original intent of the military. Furthermore, the members of the military are a volunteer force, and they are paid well for their efforts. I was paid handsomely for my work overseas, and so are those who are now overseas. Individual persons serving in the military may be considered honorable, but closer scrutiny is required to determine the proper placement of that term. The actions of this nation's military is dishonorable because it has not acted in an upright manner by invading and occupying a foreign nation that caused us no harm. This nation's military lacks personal integrity because it cannot admit the mistake openly and take the necessary actions to right this error. Any military person who understand the proper role of the military as set forth in the Constitution, and continues to remain a part of the military is complicit in the dishonorable actions of this nation, and are themselves dishonorable. It is no longer honorable to be a part of the nation's armed forces.

Forget the propaganda, the songs, the flags, and the sense of security you feel when you consider the U.S. armed forces. It is a ruse, a fiction, and a shameful use of those people who are in the prime of their lives. They are dishonorable, and will continue to be so until they act otherwise. As for honor and service, I salute the teachers of this nation, the businessmen, and the doctors for their continued hard work to make this country the great country that it is.

No Need to Sugarcoat it!

Well, calls for an invasion of Myanmar didn't take too long. According to TIME magazine, it may be time to invade the country formerly known as Burma.

Isn't it funny how the United States' answer to dealing with the death and destruction caused by a natural disaster is to cause more death and destruction by invading a country?

Those Pesky Ron Paul Supporters

Why won't they just conform like the rest of the (mindless) Republicans?

The Boston Globe writes a decent synopsis of Ron Paul's "insurgent" supporters. From Nevada to Minnesota and beyond, Paul's fervent supporters refuse to silently conform to "established" Republican party principles.

It's funny, I have yet to meet someone who identifies himself as a John McCain supporter. Even Jonn, who's really just a bitter old man who's never read a FOX News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, or Weekly Standard comment he didn't agree with, refuses to acknowledge McCain as a "strong" conservative...whatever that term means. I think today's definition of a strong conservative just means a steadfast commitment to American hegemony, and the above publications (as well as Jonn's angry website) serve as the hegemony's soap box.

Still, it's alarming to note the inconsistencies involved in the criticisms leveled at Dr. Paul by "strong" conservatives. On one hand, they like to call Paul a "racist, conspiracy-minded nutcase with no supporters and no real chance of winning" while on the other they fight vehemently to deny any discourse challenging Republican party principles when shutting down state conventions while complaining of a "Paul insurgency." Based on the inconsistencies above, Ron Paul truly has done the remarkable: simultaneously enjoyed no support and enough support to shut down state conventions.

And let's not address the issue of conformity as it pertains to these "strong" conservatives, either. For them, it's almost a unanimous "anybody but [Clinton/Obama]" mantra. The fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil doesn't faze them one bit, because what's important is picking a winner. That kind of rhetoric only adds fuel to the already strong argument against voting at all.

Government In-Fighting Inhibits Rescue Missions

When disaster strikes, America responds by sending in perhaps her only reliable export: the military.

To be sure, the storm that ripped through the Irrawaddy Delta in southern Myanmar on Saturday is a tragedy. Early reports estimate that upwards of 100,000 people could die as a result of going without clean water, medical supplies, and food. Already reports estimate 22,000 people have died in a region that houses around six million people.

This morning I awoke to an angry radio personality (Fred Grandy) excoriating the government of Myanmar for not allowing United Nations officials into the country to distribute supplies. According to a CNN article, The United Nations workers needed permission from Myanmar's Ministry of Social Welfare before distribution could begin. The UN's hand-delivered request was denied.

In response to this denial, the supplies--enough to feed and care for 95,000 people for one day--remain on the tarmac, and the United Nations has halted all future flights bearing supplies to the region. Other governments in the region continue to assemble supplies to funnel into the region, but the geographic challenges of the affected region (a significant portion is underwater) are hampering immediate progress.

On the surface, Grandy probably has a legitimate point: why is Myanmar's government preventing supplies from reaching her people? What kind of government would actively prevent aid from reaching her citizens?

Well, we have our own example in the United States (hurricane Katrina), where the big, lumbering "Department of Homeland Security" failed miserably to provide for our citizens. Instead, as the link shows, private companies--such as big, bad Wal-Mart--did far more, and in a much more efficient manner--than anything Bush, Brownie & Co. could put together. Although utilizing the market in response to tragedies is superior to any government, I'm going to (attempt) to make a different point in this post.

Instead of bitching about the Myanmar government's callousness when it comes to her citizens, why is there no criticism of the UN's decision to cease all flights into the region? Why does the UN insist on having its own troops distribute supplies? It seems the United Nations is doing what disappointed toddlers do when the game doesn't go their way: they take their ball and go home.

And more citizens suffer. It seems the ultimate goal of the UN's relief project has nothing to do with helping people in need, and has everything to do with subverting the authority of a sovereign nation's government. Only from today's hackneyed "The World is Flat" viewpoint can a nation's government be recast as the villain when failing to capitulate to an unelected body's demands.

This is not a defense of Myanmar's government, either. My point is, if I'm a member of Myanmar's government, and an unelected "world body" steps in and demands jurisdiction over my country, I'd be a little hot, too.

And so it goes with America's efforts to alleviate suffering in the region. From the same CNN article linked above, we get this gem:

One senior U.S. military official told CNN that the United States is presenting Myanmar with an aid plan that would minimize the presence of American troops on the ground.

Oh good. I love how that sentence just takes for granted that US troops will be on the ground in Myanmar. The only question that remains unanswered is how large of a footprint the US will demand as part of her "aid" package. How generous of the US--willing to provide aid to a country that they don't even recognize!

Given the US' reputation in the region (and the world), I hope Myanmar refuses US aid, too. But of course that won't happen. If there's one thing the United States is an expert in, it's bullying her way into the internal affairs of another nation, sometimes even when American presence is neither wanted nor needed. Since the United States' two biggest exports are her (worthless) dollar and her (weakened) military, the cyclone that struck Myanmar's coast was, if you'll pardon the pun, the perfect storm for US imperialism in the region.

Imperialism was on Grandy's mind this morning as well. In fact, he went so far as to call for another "coalition of the willing" to band together and oust the government of Myanmar. Yes, even natural disasters are cause to call for regime change in another country, as I'm certain Grandy is not alone in harboring that sentiment. With four US Navy ships converging on the region and negotiations for a US "aid package" underway, it seems Myanmar's fate is already sealed.

Human Smoke Generating Some Buzz

I'm pleased to see a considerable amount of buzz generated on the LRC blog (and elsewhere) for Nicolas Baker's excellent book about WWII, Human Smoke.

Tom DiLorenzo, an economist by trade and part-time historian by hobby, has written an outstanding review of the book. I'd offer my own analysis, but DiLorenzo's review is much better than anything I could put together. Additionally, this comment from LRC blog, particularly the quote within it, is a powerful message to consider. The quote (from Scott L. Field):

I've had interesting reactions from historians, who seem to understand (for the most part) that I'm not trying to write a comprehensive history of the beginnings of the war. I've had some very good reviews and some very bad ones. The bad ones seem to follow the teeter-totter school: that if a dictator and the nation he controls is evil, then the leader of the nation who opposes the evil dictator must be good. Life isn't that way, of course. There is in fact no "moral equivalence" created by examining coterminous violent and repulsive acts. The notion of moral equivalence is a mistake, because it undermines our notions of personal responsibility and law. Each act of killing is its own act, not something to be heaped like produce on a balancing scale. One person, as Roosevelt said, must not be punished for the deed of another--though he didn't follow his own precept.

Indeed, the United States adhered to the idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" during WWII when we allied with the Soviet Union. Ostensibly, the reasoning behind US alliance with the Soviets was to overcome the evils of the Axis Powers and end the war as quickly as possible. Baker shows this to be patently absurd, as FDR--as well as Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, etc.--were interested in war for war's sake.

The larger lesson in the book is succinctly captured in Field's quote above. The phrase "each act of killing is its own act, not something to he heaped on the produce scale" neatly sums up the attitude that (I think) has been missing when considering every post-WWII conflict that the US has been involved in. In a sense, today's "de-personalization" of combat--using cruise missiles, predator drones, and "precision" bombs--alleviates the guilt that would otherwise set in had the soldier witnessed the bombing of a village first hand.

The counter argument to the above is saying that advances in military technology have saved American lives. In my estimation, that is only a half truth because that statement can easily be turned on its head: how many more wars have we entered precisely because fewer Americans would be killed?

The term "fewer" is relative, of course. Why settle for fewer casualties when you can have no casualties? Baker's contention is that world leaders hell-bent on world conflict manipulated their respective populations into war, and that America should have never entered the conflict.

When "No Animal May Sleep in a Bed" becomes "No Animal May Sleep in a Bed With Sheets"

I completely forgot to link to this story yesterday. One of the first things I heard when I woke up was the story about yesterday being the five year anniversary of President George Bush's (in)famous "Mission Accomplished" speech. The morning pundits dangled a quote from White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino, wherein she attempted to tweak, shape, and mold the context of the quote to better fit with today's war environment. Witness:

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific, and said, 'Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission,'" said spokeswoman Dana Perino."

Aside from the blatant exercise in newspeak, I'm curious: what mission? The sailors on this ship on their mission? Aside from that phrase being a horrendously long slogan to place on a banner, the phrase (excuse) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You see, those sailors were on board USS Abraham Lincoln, who was operating off the coast of San Diego at the time.

The only way Perino's cover up makes sense is if the "mission" Bush was referring to was USS Lincoln's successful completion of flight operations, but somehow I doubt that's the case.

Online Battle With a McCainiac (cont.)

I know I'm being childish, and I don't care. I'm thoroughly enjoying the "discussion" on Jonn's blog. Based on the feedback I've received, I'm convinced it is much easier to talk with Democrats than Republicans (in this case, anyway). At least Democrats will listen to what you have to say, and are relatively consistent in their beliefs.

Part I of our discussion is here.

1. PWConservative Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 2:44 am

   As I posted in February at pwconservative.net, Ron Paul supporters are attempting to take over the VA Gop, They overwhelm conventions in areas with few republicans (Alexandria,Arlington) and nominate only their delegate’s,
   Chris Kachouroff attempted this unsuccessfully,
   Amit Singh is case in point, he’s running as an anti-war “Ron Paul” republican against jim moran.

2. 17
   Ray Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 6:32 am

   Wow Eddie,
   
   “You have history exactly wrong”
   
   I guess I never knew the extent of my own ignorance. Just which part of WWII did I get backwards? The parts where Hitler steamrolled over a good chunk of Europe, bombed London and killed a shitload of people in gas chambers? Or the part where the Japanese kicked our ass all over the Pacific for the first year and a half and brutalized a huge chunk of Asia? I know about the screw ups that led to the war… War is almost always caused by SOMEBODY’s screw up. But what are you going to do when it starts? Being unprepared and underdeployed cost the United States quite a beating in the opening of WWII. (and again in Korea). You talk a good game Ed, but how many times have YOU deployed and seen just how complicated it is to move thousands of men and machines to where they need to be, and, oh yeah… be able to fight when they get there? If we subscibed to your utopian plan, the United States would not have intervened in WWII. What exactly do you think would have happened then? Hitler, satisfied with his winnings would just go back and make little Arians with Eva? If there were no US bases around the world, exactly how would you suggest the Military be physically able to fight? Oh… that’s right, we don’t really need to fight wars. We can just smile and trade with people and the world will be a happy peaceful place, full of people singing the Coke “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” song. What you fail to realize is that there are “bad people” out there, who, for whatever reason, want power and want what other people have and like hurting people to get it. They do nasty things like kill millions of Jews and gas the Kurds. Of course you are right… they would never come here and do those things if we took your suggestions, because we would be happy friendly traders who have no deployed military and we pose no threat. Why… I’m sure once they started bombing our cities, we could just “whip up” a military strong enough to kick their asses, but just back accross our own border… (mustn’t go to other countries and be mean.)
   
   Fight the wars and get out… no need to stay. Yeah… that would have worked after WWII. I’m sure the Soviet troops would have just sat back with half of Europe and been happy. Korea? Oh yeah they were happy with half (for a while). Japan? Well… they didn’t get into Japan did they? I wonder why? What mysterious power kept the Soviet Union at bay during the last part of the 20th Century? What magic entity held them from taking over pretty much everything? You think it’s impossible to invade and keep a country because of Afganastan? “Somehow the idea of a successful, prolonged invasion of another sovereign nation seems far-fetched.”
   Riiiiight…Ask Poland, Romania, and East Germany just how easy it was to throw out the Soviets. Ask the Cubans in Miami about how easy it’s been to get rid of Castro. Ask the Mexicans how well they’re doing getting back Texas. Ask the Native Americans how easy it’s been to kick out the roundeyes. Ask Gaul how easy it was to keep the Romans out. You accuse me of ignorance and simply display your own.
   
   You preach how many mistakes we made, fighting wars and deploying overseas. You say “the mighty US military (the world’s only superpower) cannot control more than a sliver of land in Baghdad.” If our military were a occupation force as it is described by the media, Baghdad would be a smoking hole in the ground. No problem. My old boat could have done that, and every other major city in Iraq with one missile. Then, just back up the oil tankers and fill ‘er up. Cheap gas for everyone. The fact that we aren’t invaders come to plunder a country limits our reactions.
   
   Do I think we haven’t made mistakes? Of course not. Only the perfection of hindsight can see all sides of an issue. But history is history. Can’t change what’s happened. The world is as it is. Pulling our head into our shell will just make it certain that we get our asses blown off by someone who wants something. Some of your solutions would work… but most of them are based on the false assumption that everyone WANTS to get along. Ask the muggers, rapists, home invaders, and murderers how much they care if you get hurt while they get what they want. “But you go on and subscribe to the government’s latest boogeyman if you want. PT Barnum was right–there’s a sucker born every minute” Really? Wow… how many years as a globetrotting superman do you have? You sit in your parents basement spouting shit like a Christmas goose. I’ve seen the evil men can do. Some Boogymen DO exist asshole.

3. 18
   EddieWillers Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

   Ray,
   
   I appreciate your passion, but I don’t think have refuted my argument. To re-state it, I asked you whether or not you’ve balanced your research with scholarship that is critical of United States foreign policy, from WWI to our present nightmares in Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on your response, I’m forced to assume the answer is a (resounding) no. Further, you don’t know me–I could be a 30 year veteran of the Marine Corps or Cindy Sheehan’s sister, and in either case that knowledge would be irrelevant to our discussion. Let’s focus on the material and not the person, OK?
   
   I don’t dispute what happened during WWII when it comes to Germany, Japan, and Italy. However, it is impossible to understand *why* people like Hitler and Stalin come to power without discussing the direct involvement of the United States in fomenting European (and Asian) conflict. Do your research. And please spare me the “We were saving the Jews!” argument because that is an exercise in futility. We didn’t fight WWII to liberate the Jews any more than we invaded Iraq to liberate Iraqis.
   
   Moreover, the idea of Soviet Russia invading us during the cold war or anytime thereafter remains as laughable as it is absurd. Ray, how many countries can you name that were conquered by the Soviet Union? I’m not talking about occupation or border disputes amongst her ethnic people, but outright conquest. I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes with zero. That we were able to win the Cold War (against an enemy with an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons) without firing a shot should tell you something about the power of diplomacy and talking with foreign leaders during tense periods. Instead, today, we have taken the opposite approach: we get uptight over the *possibility* that a country like Iran (who has signed the NNPT, something our “staunch” ally Israel has steadfastly refused to do) is enriching uranium…and may have the capability to build a bomb within a few years. Please clarify for me how I’m being ignorant in my desire to adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy?
   
   Declaring illegal war is becoming easier and easier, and the bulk of our population is mindlessly conforming to the whims of an irresponsible government that is drunk on its own power. We started out declaring sovereign nations enemies of the United States, now we’ve resorted to declaring war on non-entities like drugs, poverty, Islamofascism (a hilarious term if ever there was one), and, presently, terror. Where will it end? Our citizens lose every time, through taxation, through inflation, through injury and death, and through the erosion of our sacred liberties. It goes without saying that wars are not fought to conquer, to police, and to bring things back into balance…wars are fought to keep the citizen population under the thumb of an oppressive government.
   
   A while ago John mentioned “Libertarians think we all live in the 19th century in remote agrarian communities isolated from the next country” and accused Ron Paul supporters of being unemployed basement dwellers. You have done much the same, Ray, and I think what both of you are trying to establish by saying that is to label me an isolationist. I’m forced to ask, though: who’s more of an isolationist? Me, who advocates diplomacy, trade, and commerce with all nations (and entangling alliances with none); or you two, who advocate (I’m inferring here, so please correct me if I’m wrong) no interaction with countries like Iran, global military presence overseas, and a continuation of interventionist foreign policy (which has failed miserably)? Between the two arguments, if I had to choose who was unemployed, isolated, and uninformed, I’d choose the group who refused to engage in diplomacy with other countries…but that’s just me.
   
   I’m not pacifist, either, and I acknowledge that evil does exist in this world. Like other Ron Paul supporters, I believe in a strong national defense, but also believe our defense does not extend to cover hundreds of overseas bases. We can’t afford it, and we are less safe for following that path. If the United States determines there is a threat to her well-being as a nation, then we should DECLARE WAR, win it, and then come home. This idea that we can fight wars at the behest of the President or to enforce UN regulations not only undermines the sovereignty of the United States (ironic when you consider we fight these wars supposedly to protect our sovereignty), but grossly violates the Constitution as well.
   
   Further, I have absolutely no problem if you, John, your friends, families, etc. want to sign up and fight for the liberation of Iraqis, Venezuelans, Tibetans, Indians, Sudanese, or any other global hotspot that you deem threatens your sovereignty. By all means, become a mercenary and fight/kill/maim until your heart’s content. There’s nothing stopping you. But what right do you have to interfere with my ability to make a living? You may not see these undeclared wars as preventing Americans from enjoying their lives (you may even subscribe to the propaganda that these wars preserve our freedom) but the evidence surrounding you is impossible to ignore. Inflation, high taxes, erosion of civil liberties, etc. are a reality…and a direct consequence of our failed interventionist foreign policy and reckless government expansion. None of the remaining candidates (save for Ron Paul) will change that reality, either.
   
   I think our biggest disconnect is that we have different answers to the above question, and I’d love to hear the rationale behind your answer.
   
   Jonn wrote: No, our biggest “disconnect” is that you won’t accept answers that prove you to be ill-educated and sworn to an intellectually bankrupt ideology. My concentration of study in history and political science was in US foreign policy - but I suppose that isn’t enough education for you. The Ron Paul supporters are real fond at telling everyone how we won’t listen to people, but the truth is that the Paulians are the most ignorant, ill-read and close-minded creatures involved in our political process. Absolutely everything is the fault of some nebulous corporate conspiracy who is fixated on silencing the negligible 2% of voters who support Ron Paul, apparently.
   
   What did you write in that post that you couldn’t have summarized in a paragraph? My case for calling you a blowhard is made. No one here has the time or inclination to engage in your mental masturbation when you can’t even accept basic math or give the American voter credit for even a tiny bit of thought to the process. Who wants to lay out a case to a snob who pooh-poohs every word? You won’t do any converting here, so please move on.

4. 19
   LT Nixon Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

   Jonn,

   I’ve been trying for months to get a Paultard invasion on my blog and, alas, it has failed. I salute you for accomplishing the feat before I, sir. Although, I have to admit that I am looking into Bob Barr being a decent candidate.

   Jonn wrote: Well, apparently you have to video Ron Paul so that 900,000,000 people view it in the first hour on YouTube, link to your blog from there and then warn about a Ron Paul hissy fit before it happens. It’s just that easy.

5. 20
   Ray Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

   What John said. LOL