skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It should come as no surprise that the American armed forces are stretched pretty thin as a result of the Iraq war. That’s simply one of the drawbacks to having a volunteer army.
So the army provides enlistment bonuses to encourage young men and women to sign up, knowing they might wind up in combat zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. In some cases the enlistment bonus might be as high as $30,000; an incentive for putting their ass on the line in the service of their country.
But what happens when a serviceman doesn’t fulfill his commitment and winds up being discharged early? Well, they have to pay back a part of their enlistment bonus. That’s fair, isn’t it?
Or is it?
The U.S. military has been, apparently, demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back all or part of their signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments. Soldiers who have been seriously wounded and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
Jordan Fox, for example, was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and he lost all vision in his right eye. He was sent home, his injuries preventing him from completing the remaining three months of his commitment to the military. The Military demanded that he repay $3,000 of his enlistment bonus.
But, injuries sustained in combat aren’t the only reason for demanding repayment of enlistment bonuses.
Army Spc. Jason Hubbard became a casualty of the military’s sole survivor policy last October. Following the death of his younger brother late last year, Hubbard was sent home; the last of three brothers; the other two killed in Iraq. The Military thanked him for his service by cutting off his family's transitional health care benefits, stopping his G.I. educational subsidies and demanding that he repay $6,000 of his enlistment bonus.
There are efforts underway in the US Congress to remedy the situation. By most accounts, the treatment of wounded US veterans returning from combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq leaves a whole lot to be desired. They deserve a damn sight better.
And, just where is the Texas tyrant while all this is going on?
Last week I watched a rerun of a 1984 movie called ‘Red Dawn’. Starring in this “patriotic” little movie were such notables as Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, Lea Thompson, Powers Boothe and Harry Dean Stanton. It was a fairly decent little time waster with a good cast.
The plot line centers on the invasion and occupation of the American mid-west by Cuban and Soviet troops. A small group of teenagers flee to the foothills of the Rockies and take up arms against the occupying forces, to defend their town and their country. This small band of “partisans” ambushes Soviet convoys, conducts raids against their oppressors and generally make life miserable for the foreign invaders.
These insurgents also kill and main a fair share of the enemy. And, it is not just the enemy who suffers from the actions of the “Wolverines” as they call themselves. Their families and friends are targeted by soldiers of the invading army, hoping to stem the tide of the insurrection. Townspeople are detained without reason, and even executed by the invaders.
Some townspeople collaborate with the enemy, in an effort to make their lives a little bit better. These people are depicted as the “bad guys”, willing to sacrifice truth, justice and the American way, to escape the hardship of the occupation. There’s even a scene where the character played by Patrick Swayze executes a captured Russian soldier but can’t bring himself to shoot a childhood friend who the Wolverines find to be a collaborator. So someone else in the group does it for him.
In the United States, the movie is seen as the triumph of the American will to fight off foreign armies who wish to impose a foreign culture and a foreign form of government on the people of the United States.
Unless you’ve been in hibernation or a state of suspended animation for the past five years, you already know where I’m going with this.
About five years ago, the Bush administration twisted and distorted the facts to justify the US invasion of Iraq. They lied about weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi links with al Queda, Iraqi participation in the attacks of 911 and most of the other reasons they gave for invading a sovereign nation.
When their reasons for invasion were shown to be lies, they pointed to the fact that Saddam Hussein and his regime had been toppled and asked, “Aren’t Iraqis better off now than they were under Saddam?” A good many people would be likely to respond in the negative, given the current situation in Iraq.
And, just like the perpetual war in Orwell’s “1984”, the enemy keeps changing. A few years back, the US was supporting Saddam, providing arms and ammunition, including biological weapons, to kill Iranians. Then Bush decided that Iraq needed a “regime change”. The Sunni were the enemy at the start of the war, now they’re being paid $10.00 a day by the US to kill al Queda. The terrorist group Al Queda didn’t exist in Iraq prior to the US invasion.
And, the beat goes on; first the insurgents were Saddam loyalists, then Sunni tribesmen, then Al Queda, then Shia militias and now Iranian sympathizers. Never are the “insurgents” simply Iraqi.
Why is it that Americans did not foresee Iraqi resistance to the invasion and occupation of their homeland? Was it really so hard to accept the fact that some Iraqis might love their country as much as Americans love theirs? Did they honestly believe that Iraqis lacked the courage or will to fight an invading army in defense of their country?
In the movie version of Red Dawn, the insurgents were portrayed as good guys; clean cut American youths, prepared to die for their country. In the Iraqi version of Red Dawn, the insurgents are the bad guys; ungrateful, anti-American fanatics, obstinately objecting to America’s “war of liberation”. Uh-huh.
New word for the day: hyp·o·crite (hip-o-krit) n.
To play a part, pretend
A person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.
If you were to go to the website of Blackwater, often referred to as the world’s largest mercenary army, you would find the following:
Innovation Begins with Experience
Blackwater Worldwide efficiently and effectively integrates a wide range of resources and core competencies to provide unique and timely solutions that exceed our customers’ stated needs and expectations.
We are guided by integrity, innovation, and a desire for a safer world. Blackwater Worldwide professionals leverage state-of-the-art training facilities, professional program management teams, and innovative manufacturing and production capabilities to deliver world-class, customer-driven solutions.
Our corporate leadership and dedicated family of exceptional employees adhere to essential core values - chief among these are integrity, innovation, excellence, respect, accountability, and teamwork.
Huh. Just who in the hell are these guys again.
Oh, yes. They’re mercenaries who provide “security” services to anyone with the money to pay them. Their biggest customer these days is the US State Department. So why the double-speak from their website? Could it be that they’re a little bit embarrassed by the way their “professional program management teams” are conducting business in Iraq these days?
According to an unidentified spokesperson, “Blackwater guards (a dedicated family of exceptional employees?) reacted lawfully to an attack on one of its convoys.” The spokesperson was commenting on an August 16, 2007 incident in which, according to initial reports, eleven Iraqi civilians were killed and fifteen others wounded. The latest news reports put the death toll at seventeen, with twenty-three others wounded when a Blackwater security detail opened fire in Nisoor Square in Baghdad.
One might reasonably ask whose law they were acting lawfully under. Back in 2004, the US State Department granted Blackwater (as well as other private security contractors) immunity from prosecution under not only Iraqi law, but under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice. Nor does this private contractor have to worry about following the Geneva Conventions.
It is also unlikely Blackwater employees can be tried in the United States for crimes outside that jurisdiction, which means that Blackwater is accountable to no one. (A US rights group announced it was filing a petition to have the courts decide if they can be tried in a civil proceeding on behalf of a survivor and the families of three victims.)
The shooting prompted a wave of outrage in Iraq about the activities of private US security firms protecting diplomats and foreign workers, and calls for those responsible for the deaths to be tried in Iraqi courts.
An official Iraqi investigation, ordered by Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, claims guards from the US security firm had not been shot at before they opened fire on Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. This contention is supported by accounts from the first (legitimate) US soldiers to arrive on the scene, who claimed no evidence was found to support Blackwater contentions that they had come under fire.
According to a US congressional report released a month or so ago, Blackwater has been involved in 195 shooting incidents in Iraq since 2005. In 84% of those cases, the report claims, Blackwater personnel were the first to open fire.
And, apparently, it’s not just the shootings of innocent civilians by private contractors in Iraq that has Washington concerned. Federal prosecutors are investigating allegations that employees of Blackwater smuggled weapons into Iraq that may have ended up in the hands of a designated terrorist organization, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party).
The Raleigh News & Observer reported that two former Blackwater employees are cooperating with federal authorities investigating the accusations. They pleaded guilty earlier this year to possession of stolen firearms that had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. In their plea agreements, which call for a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the men agreed to testify in any future proceedings.
Back in July, Turkey officially protested to US officials that they had seized US weapons from captured PKK terrorists. The Turkish government provided the US with serial numbers from the weapons which are now being traced by the FBI.
A joint US/Iraqi commission is looking into the incident in Nisoor Square to try and sort out what really happened. The US is conducting its own investigation into the illegal smuggling of weapons into Iraq.
Neither is likely to result in anything more than a mild reprimand to any of the offending parties. A few foot soldiers will be designated as bad apples and have their butts kicked but the big wigs with the big wallets will walk away.
We’ve seen it all before; another incident; another investigation; another whitewash.
According to an unidentified spokesperson, “Blackwater guards reacted lawfully to an attack on one of its convoys.” The spokesperson was commenting on an August 16, 2007 incident in which, according to initial reports, eleven Iraqi civilians were killed and fifteen others wounded. The latest news reports put the death toll at seventeen, with twenty-three others wounded when a Blackwater security detail opened fire in Nisoor Square in Baghdad.
One might reasonably ask whose law they were acting lawfully under. Back in 2004, the US State Department granted Blackwater (as well as other private security contractors) immunity from prosecution under not only Iraqi law, but under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice. Nor does this private contractor have to worry about following the rules of the Geneva Convention.
It is also unlikely Blackwater employees can be tried in the United States for crimes outside that jurisdiction, which means that Blackwater is accountable to no one. (A US rights group announced it was filing a petition to have the courts decide if they can be tried in a civil proceeding on behalf of a survivor and the families of three victims.)
The shooting prompted a wave of outrage in Iraq about the activities of private US security firms protecting diplomats and foreign workers, and calls for those responsible for the deaths to be tried in Iraqi courts.
According to an official Iraqi investigation, ordered by Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, guards from the US security firm had not been shot at before they opened fire on Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. This contention is supported by accounts from the first US soldiers to arrive on the scene, who claimed no evidence was found to support Blackwater contentions that they had come under fire.
According to a US congressional report released last week, Blackwater has been involved in 195 shooting incidents in Iraq since 2005. In 84% of those cases, the report claims, Blackwater personnel were the first to open fire.
And, apparently, it’s not just the shootings of innocent civilians by private contractors in Iraq that has Washington concerned. Federal prosecutors are investigating allegations that employees of Blackwater smuggled weapons into Iraq that may have ended up in the hands of a designated terrorist organization, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party).
The Raleigh News & Observer reported that two former Blackwater employees are cooperating with federal authorities investigating the accusations. They pleaded guilty earlier this year to possession of stolen firearms that had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. In their plea agreements, which call for a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the men agreed to testify in any future proceedings.
Back in July, Turkey officially protested to US officials that they had seized US weapons from captured PKK terrorists. The Turkish government provided the US with serial numbers from the weapons which are now being traced by the FBI.
A joint US/Iraqi commission is looking into the incident in Nisoor Square to try and sort out what really happened. The US is conducting its own investigation into the illegal smuggling of weapons into Iraq.
Neither is likely to result in anything more than a mild reprimand to any of the offending parties. A few foot soldiers will be designated as bad apples and have their butts kicked but the big wigs with the big wallets will walk away.
We’ve seen it all before; another incident; another investigation; another whitewash.
The war on terror is not a conventional war; and it won’t be won by conventional means. The way to defeat terrorism is through the very ideals of democracy and justice which it seeks to destroy.
Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted and executed as a mass murderer for the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. He was afforded his full legal rights, in a public setting and the public came to see him for what he was: a common criminal who killed hundreds of innocent men, women and children. Justice was not only done, but seen to be done.
Contrast that with the treatment of alleged terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay. Deliberately held outside the jurisdiction of the continental United States and without legal representation, they are deprived of any hope of ever seeing the inside of an American courtroom. Tortured, by all reasonable definitions; their religious beliefs used to ridicule and humiliate them. Any future trial is to be conducted in secret, under rules which guarantee conviction, advertising to the world (the Muslim world in particular), that the United States is not the bastion of democracy and justice it purports to be.
As former Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC’s Meet the Press, “I would do it (shut down Guantanamo) because, essentially we have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commissions.” Every prisoner held under those conditions has supporters who become potential recruits to the terrorist cause. And, to complicate the issue further, the Bush administration simply ignores rulings from US Courts which call their tactics into question.
Iraq played no part in the atrocity known as 911. But, the Bush administration launched a war against that nation based on misrepresentation and lies. They used the war on terror as an excuse to implement their own agenda. Even Alan Greenspan, former head of the Treasury Board, acknowledges that the real reason for the war was oil.
Iraqis watch the lives of friends and family, including untold numbers of women and children, snuffed out by the American war machine; the Bush administration shrugs their shoulders and offers half-hearted apologies for the infliction of “collateral damage”.
Iraqi civilians have been dying by the tens of thousands. And, for every innocent who dies, there is a husband, a son or a brother who becomes a potential recruit for Bin Laden’s terrorist goon squads. The United States is feeding fuel to the fire, creating future generations of hate-filled terrorists who will use their murderous tactics against the people of the United States and every civilized country which supports them.
The outcome of the war against Iraq was foretold before it was fought; Iraq had no hope against the military might of the United States. But, the war against Iraq, when viewed as a single battle in the war on terror, has been lost. No one in the Arab world is likely to forget the death and devastation caused by an unnecessary war.
The actions of the Bush administration in waging war against Iraq and perpetuating the injustice of Guantanamo, greatly enhance the prospects of Bin laden and his cohorts to recruit new members to their fanatical cause.
For Iraq, the future is uncertain; for Bush, the only certainty is his declining poll numbers.
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the wanton slaughter of 3,000 innocent people was the most heinous atrocity ever perpetrated against the United States. It was not simply the death and destruction visited upon an unsuspecting nation that made it so; but the grief and anguish caused to the families and friends of the victims, indeed the entire nation. And, because of the international flavour of the Trade Centre, the United States was joined in her mourning, and her resolve to avenge the innocents, by people around the world.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a reasoned, calculated response. Take away their sanctuary, tear down their training camps and leave them no place to hide; don’t wait for further provocations. And, the world recognized the need for a military response by the United States and her NATO allies and offered its support.
But, then came the Patriot Act, Guantanamo and the invasion of Iraq. And, support for the US cause dissipated like the morning dew. George Bush and his administration gave Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted.
For the purpose of those attacks on September 11, 2001, was not simply to kill Americans. Nor was it to destroy US symbols of financial or military might. The objectives of the terrorist mission were to create a climate of fear in the US; and, to provoke a massive retaliation, where use of US military power would be seen as an attack on Islam itself.
What the world suspected prior to the invasion of Iraq has been shown to be true. The rationale the Bush administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq was a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction; there was no nuclear capability; there were no terrorists plotting attacks against the US.
Confidential documents recording conversations between Bush and the British Prime Minister, and a conversation between Bush and the President of Spain, have been made public. They demonstrate, quite clearly, the intent of George Bush to wage war against Iraq, even if he had to manufacture an incident.
And, with the invasion came the massive destruction of an Iraqi infrastructure, already severely damaged by years of US led economic sanctions, tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the internal conflict between opposing religious factions that threatens to engulf the country in a bloody civil war when occupying forces are withdrawn. Prior to the US invasion, there was no al Qaeda presence in Iraq; now, it flourishes.
Photos from Abu Gharib showing Iraqis being tortured, their religion and religious taboos being used to humiliate them, do nothing to alleviate the belief of many Iraqis that their country is being torn asunder, not because of anything they’ve done, not because of any “war of liberation”, but simply because they’re Muslim and Bush needed a scapegoat on which to vent his anger.
Iraq was not a necessary battle in the war on terror. In fact, it compromised the fight against terror. The blunders of the Bush administration have played into the hands of Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist goons. And the people of the United States are paying the price; in dollars and cents and in the lives of the young men and women serving in her armed forces.
And, judging from the polls, they know it.
It should come as no surprise that the American armed forces are stretched pretty thin as a result of the Iraq war. That’s simply one of the drawbacks to having a volunteer army.
