“For those of us who believe…that the two party system is corrupt beyond redemption, the prospect of supporting a Democrat is agonizing … and yet, John Kerry versus George W. Bush is something akin to Hubert Humphrey versus Genghis Khan. Such is the nature of war.”
Jazzman Chronicles, Volume II: The War Chronicles.
Barring an “October surprise,” (or perhaps despite it) members of the antiwar movement hold the key to the outcome of the next election. The Bush-Cheney machine is breaking down. Ironically, they appear to be as inept at repair and maintenance as they are at foreign policy. Ironically, they are running out of gas well short of the finish line.
It is not the time for an open assault on the policies of Democratic candidate John Kerry but it is time to reconsider the role of independent candidate Ralph Nader. It is hardly a dark secret that we are discontent with the war policies of Senator Kerry. The idea that we “cannot fail in Iraq” is as tired as the latest appearance of the band of brothers. The admonition against a “cut and run” approach is more appropriate to a football game than a foreign policy. Senator Kerry should mind Einstein’s admonition that folly is repeating the same pattern of behavior while expecting a different result. We have lost in Iraq and no declarations of resolve or pipedreams of internationalization will alter that solemn fact. What remains to determine is the cost.
Either John Kerry does not believe that an antiwar candidate can win the presidency or he has painted himself into a corner. Given the record contributions he has collected and his steady climb in presidential polls, he has every reason to stay the course. Given the rising sentiment against the war, however, the Senator would do well to consider the distinct possibility that he cannot win without the antiwar movement.
Already the more impassioned of our numbers have begun zeroing in on the Senator’s policies and who can blame them? He has seemingly done everything in his power to alienate us. He has issued a call for more troops in Iraq. He has groveled at the feet of John McCain. He has refused to disavow military conscription. He has taken a stand against Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He has backed away from criticizing the Bush coup in Haiti. If we were to rely on his campaign to inform us on the issues of the day, we would never know there is a war going on for the Senator scarcely mentions it.
Enter Ralph Nader to deliver a well-earned rebuke: There is a limit to our patience and pragmatism. If the good Senator has no ear for our message, if in fact he demands that we vote for a policy of escalation, he will leave us in a quandary like the soldiers in Baghdad.
We have listened to the lamentations of Democrats too long. It becomes a drone like elevator music before Pink Floyd. Ralph Nader did not lose the 2000 election, the disenfranchisement of black Americans did. Why not drone about that? Ralph Nader did not run the most inept presidential campaign since Walter Mondale. Why not drone about that? Would Albert Gore be president today if Ralph Nader had not run? We will never know. My informed opinion is that the fix in Florida was in. Republican operatives were primed and ready to pull as many votes out of the hat as needed. The fact that the Democrats chose to dispute the results based on hanging chads rather than high treason is a scandal equal in proportion to the Republican disgrace. But why drone on about the past?
Ralph Nader is right. We all know it. When he speaks, he speaks our views. When he strikes out against the war machine, he does not pull his punches. He is against the war and the occupation. He favors a scheduled withdrawal of our troops. Most importantly, he is right on target when he claims that he is the only practical means of influencing the Democratic party and its candidate.
Realistically, for most Americans, a vote for Ralph Nader is not evidence of political lunacy. For most Americans a vote for Nader will have no more influence on the election than a vote for Bush or a vote for Kerry. If you live in California, New York or Texas, you can vote freely or not vote at all and it will have no impact on the outcome of the election. In fact, if you live anywhere outside the estimated fourteen or fifteen “battleground” states, your vote is as meaningful as a vote in Moscow. As the Republicans in Florida were so fond of reminding us: We do not live in a democracy. We live under a representative system so corrupted that political parties game it as Enron and El Paso Gas gamed the electrical power system.
For most of us, the only hope of influencing the direction of our nation resides in a vote for independent, third party or mainstream antiwar candidates (that rarest of breeds) in every race from city council to Senator. In congressional elections, we may actually find some success. The major parties have gerrymandered districts to such an extreme, concentrating progressive voters in Republican states and conservative voters in Democratic states, that they are vulnerable to the challenges of true progressives and true libertarians, respectively.
So where does all this leave us in the presidential election?
We must continue to support John Kerry as an alternative to the Bush war machine but, as we do so, we should also support Ralph Nader as he pushes Kerry to assume an antiwar stance, to open his thinking to the possibility of withdrawal, to oppose the draft, the Bush doctrine and the Wolfowitz approach to the war on terror.
Until John Kerry gives us something to vote for we must regard him with the same indifference that Albert Gore inspired in 2000. We are not naïve or stupid and we will not be taken for granted. We are counting on the Kerry campaign to hear our voices. We are imploring the Democrats to embrace the cause of peace. If they fail us, we will still make John Kerry president but we will also make him a one-term president.
Jazz.
FREE COPIES OF THE WAR CHRONICLES NOW AVAILABLE.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
A DOOMED IDEOLOGY
A RESPONSE TO JACK RANDOM’S
IRAQ & VIET NAM: THEY WON’T KILL THEIR OWN
By Dragon Lady
Dear Sir,
You have acquitted yourself with such passionate eloquence in validating an uncomfortable reality - one my father once stated with equal passion and conviction. Being a war-hardened soldier, his words were taken seriously by all of us kids. He had fought 'the good fight' to liberate Europe - and always denounced colonialism and imperialism. None of our family 'volunteered' for Vietnam, or endorsed any of America's idealistic brush-wars.
The one unfortunate circumstance this time though, is that the world's oil reserves will be depleted in short shrift. Already the greedy are fighting over the scraps of a doomed philosophy and a doomed ideology. This is one war that won't go on for hundreds of years - the treasure, once looted, will leave the desert blood-soaked and empty. The Iraqis - those that survive this atrocity - will be abandoned. There will be bigger problems occupying those that pillage and loot - the ability to roam the world at will ends when the oil runs out. Then it's back to basics - wind, water, and sunlight will create new realities on the ground - and new challenges for society.
I do hope the Iraqis are successful in ridding their country of conquering invaders bent on looting and exploitation - hoarding their national treasure might force these modern day pirates to change their ways. If the Iraqis succeed in defeating the military super-power that claims dominion over the entire planet, it might lead to hope - and freedom - for billions of others. Iraq just might be the new Armageddon - the evil forces of violence against the resistance of ordinary people. That would be a lesson in democracy to make despots tremble - a true David-and-Goliath struggle of epic proportions.
It's ironic that the fate of the world might just hang on the actions of a handful of unemployed, uneducated, disillusioned, misguided Iraqis - the fundamentalist dogma of some insurgents hardly merits admiration - but their dogged resistance is pure inspiration. It's unfortunate that the resources of the 'civilized world' are aligned against their noble endeavor - imagine what might be if we co-operated and encouraged freedom instead of so violently opposing it! How dare they dream of sharing in prosperity? How dare they envision freedom? How dare they insist on being masters of their own destiny? Can't they see that Americans know better? Impudent ingrates!
Being intimately familiar with colonialism, it pained me to see Vietnam so brutally devastated - the mendacious ruses of the current US administration make me wonder if there isn't a fatal flaw in American mythology. In spite of a long and damning history of brutality and exploitation, they had no trouble rousing the people again, to indiscriminate mob violence against an innocent non-enemy. Creating imaginary enemies to be subjugated by the brute force of unimaginable atrocities seems to be deeply imbedded in the American psyche. A persecution complex born of guilt, much akin to that of the Zionists.
I have little trouble with the assessment of much of the world that the US is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity - the record is undeniable. There is a fatal flaw that seems to thwart the best of intentions - Americans just don't 'learn' anything - from anyone. They really believe they are the epitome of civilization - that they have achieved the limits of 'perfection' in human evolution. The arrogance is stunning. My father had a piece of advice about that too - he always said 'You'd better learn from the mistakes of others - you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.' Every soldier in this new conquering army is proof that one ignores history at their own peril. I might grieve for their stupidity - but not for any of them. Every time I see the 'Stars and Stripes' I am reminded of other arrogant follies - the swastika, the rising sun - symbols of hubris and impending doom. I can't help wonder how so many people can embrace cognitive dissonance as some kind of achievement - is it racism? Is ignorance a normal human state? Is morality relative? Then why do some of us see so clearly what others are so busy denying? Are we the vanguard of a new philosophy? Or the remnants of one in dissolution? Or just a constant minority that laments the needless waste of so much talent? Sometimes I can't help but feel that I'm watching an ant farm.
You've raised a lot of questions in my mind - and I thank you for that. Maybe that's the highest compliment anyone can pay to a writer. Maybe challenging those around us is all that we can hope for - and more than we can appreciate. One thing for sure - when the oil runs out, life will be very interesting - maybe all that energy can then be devoted to real social progress. Maybe oil just stagnated evolution. But the despots have always found an excuse - we just have to keep fighting.
IRAQ & VIET NAM: THEY WON’T KILL THEIR OWN
By Dragon Lady
Dear Sir,
You have acquitted yourself with such passionate eloquence in validating an uncomfortable reality - one my father once stated with equal passion and conviction. Being a war-hardened soldier, his words were taken seriously by all of us kids. He had fought 'the good fight' to liberate Europe - and always denounced colonialism and imperialism. None of our family 'volunteered' for Vietnam, or endorsed any of America's idealistic brush-wars.
The one unfortunate circumstance this time though, is that the world's oil reserves will be depleted in short shrift. Already the greedy are fighting over the scraps of a doomed philosophy and a doomed ideology. This is one war that won't go on for hundreds of years - the treasure, once looted, will leave the desert blood-soaked and empty. The Iraqis - those that survive this atrocity - will be abandoned. There will be bigger problems occupying those that pillage and loot - the ability to roam the world at will ends when the oil runs out. Then it's back to basics - wind, water, and sunlight will create new realities on the ground - and new challenges for society.
I do hope the Iraqis are successful in ridding their country of conquering invaders bent on looting and exploitation - hoarding their national treasure might force these modern day pirates to change their ways. If the Iraqis succeed in defeating the military super-power that claims dominion over the entire planet, it might lead to hope - and freedom - for billions of others. Iraq just might be the new Armageddon - the evil forces of violence against the resistance of ordinary people. That would be a lesson in democracy to make despots tremble - a true David-and-Goliath struggle of epic proportions.
It's ironic that the fate of the world might just hang on the actions of a handful of unemployed, uneducated, disillusioned, misguided Iraqis - the fundamentalist dogma of some insurgents hardly merits admiration - but their dogged resistance is pure inspiration. It's unfortunate that the resources of the 'civilized world' are aligned against their noble endeavor - imagine what might be if we co-operated and encouraged freedom instead of so violently opposing it! How dare they dream of sharing in prosperity? How dare they envision freedom? How dare they insist on being masters of their own destiny? Can't they see that Americans know better? Impudent ingrates!
Being intimately familiar with colonialism, it pained me to see Vietnam so brutally devastated - the mendacious ruses of the current US administration make me wonder if there isn't a fatal flaw in American mythology. In spite of a long and damning history of brutality and exploitation, they had no trouble rousing the people again, to indiscriminate mob violence against an innocent non-enemy. Creating imaginary enemies to be subjugated by the brute force of unimaginable atrocities seems to be deeply imbedded in the American psyche. A persecution complex born of guilt, much akin to that of the Zionists.
I have little trouble with the assessment of much of the world that the US is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity - the record is undeniable. There is a fatal flaw that seems to thwart the best of intentions - Americans just don't 'learn' anything - from anyone. They really believe they are the epitome of civilization - that they have achieved the limits of 'perfection' in human evolution. The arrogance is stunning. My father had a piece of advice about that too - he always said 'You'd better learn from the mistakes of others - you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.' Every soldier in this new conquering army is proof that one ignores history at their own peril. I might grieve for their stupidity - but not for any of them. Every time I see the 'Stars and Stripes' I am reminded of other arrogant follies - the swastika, the rising sun - symbols of hubris and impending doom. I can't help wonder how so many people can embrace cognitive dissonance as some kind of achievement - is it racism? Is ignorance a normal human state? Is morality relative? Then why do some of us see so clearly what others are so busy denying? Are we the vanguard of a new philosophy? Or the remnants of one in dissolution? Or just a constant minority that laments the needless waste of so much talent? Sometimes I can't help but feel that I'm watching an ant farm.
You've raised a lot of questions in my mind - and I thank you for that. Maybe that's the highest compliment anyone can pay to a writer. Maybe challenging those around us is all that we can hope for - and more than we can appreciate. One thing for sure - when the oil runs out, life will be very interesting - maybe all that energy can then be devoted to real social progress. Maybe oil just stagnated evolution. But the despots have always found an excuse - we just have to keep fighting.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
IRAQ & VIETNAM: THEY WON'T KILL THEIR OWN
By Jack Random
“So they stood on the sidelines as the parade marched on and 50,000 of our soldiers died in a war they did not understand. And they watched and cheered as millions of Vietnamese died at our hands, while the silent enemy went to Sunday barbecues and John Wayne movies and trotted out the flags for the Fourth of July. They watched and applauded, year after year, as presidents spoke of victory and light at the end of the tunnel, as the body count grew and soldiers came home in boxes. They watched until their silence turned to sickening horror and they began to whisper among themselves: What have we done?”
Jazzman Chronicles, Vol. II: The War Chronicles
Confronted with the Tet Offensive in 1968, American warlords publicly professed confidence in our campaign to liberate Viet Nam. There was a light at the end of the tunnel. Secretly, they lamented the ineffectiveness of South Vietnamese forces: Vietnamese would not kill Vietnamese. We know now that the presidency of Lyndon Johnson would not survive long enough to see that light revealed as Vietnamese liberation.
Confronted with the rising tide of Iraqi resistance in the wake of Fallujah, our president assures us it is only the remnants of Saddam loyalists and isolated foreign terrorists. Secretly, our generals know better. They have expanded the targets to include noncooperative journalists (Al Jazeera) and civilians who refuse to collaborate with the occupying force. Like Operation Phoenix in Viet Nam (a CIA operation that killed 20,000 South Vietnamese), we are targeting the very people we are supposed to be liberating. Openly, our warlords lament the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi security force. It seems we must learn again another lesson of Viet Nam: Iraqis will not kill Iraqis – at least not for a foreign invader.
What has become clearer than any light at the end of the tunnel is that there can be no American victory in Iraq. The people of Iraq have delivered a strong and unambiguous message: Victory is an end to the occupation. They do not believe we are liberators. They believe we are there to secure their oil and to establish a permanent military base in the Middle East. As long as our president flatly refuses to disavow such claims, those beliefs will persist and harden into a conviction that will feed the resistance. We cannot kill enough Iraqis to suppress the will of the nation and the more we kill, the stronger the resistance will become.
The president is right for the wrong reason: Failure is not an option because it has already been secured. America will never be allowed to establish permanent bases in Iraq. America will never be allowed to control Iraqi oil. And whatever form of government evolves in Iraq, it will be one of their own choosing.
The Vietnamese fought against foreign invaders for centuries before securing independence. Are the Iraqis so very different? How many lives are we prepared to sacrifice to find out? How many lives must be sacrificed before America can admit: We are wrong? How many more must we ask to give their lives for this mistake?
You cannot convert wrong to right by prolonging the occupation. You can only increase the cost in lives, money, and the respect of all nations. You can only fuel the fires of our true enemies and further alienate our true friends.
Let us undo the harm insofar as it can be undone. Let us use our resources not for weapons but to rebuild the nations we have destroyed. Let us make amends as best we can. Let us admit wrong and withdraw our troops. Let us pledge our support to the United Nations. At this critical juncture, we can do little else.
Jazz.
“So they stood on the sidelines as the parade marched on and 50,000 of our soldiers died in a war they did not understand. And they watched and cheered as millions of Vietnamese died at our hands, while the silent enemy went to Sunday barbecues and John Wayne movies and trotted out the flags for the Fourth of July. They watched and applauded, year after year, as presidents spoke of victory and light at the end of the tunnel, as the body count grew and soldiers came home in boxes. They watched until their silence turned to sickening horror and they began to whisper among themselves: What have we done?”
Jazzman Chronicles, Vol. II: The War Chronicles
Confronted with the Tet Offensive in 1968, American warlords publicly professed confidence in our campaign to liberate Viet Nam. There was a light at the end of the tunnel. Secretly, they lamented the ineffectiveness of South Vietnamese forces: Vietnamese would not kill Vietnamese. We know now that the presidency of Lyndon Johnson would not survive long enough to see that light revealed as Vietnamese liberation.
Confronted with the rising tide of Iraqi resistance in the wake of Fallujah, our president assures us it is only the remnants of Saddam loyalists and isolated foreign terrorists. Secretly, our generals know better. They have expanded the targets to include noncooperative journalists (Al Jazeera) and civilians who refuse to collaborate with the occupying force. Like Operation Phoenix in Viet Nam (a CIA operation that killed 20,000 South Vietnamese), we are targeting the very people we are supposed to be liberating. Openly, our warlords lament the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi security force. It seems we must learn again another lesson of Viet Nam: Iraqis will not kill Iraqis – at least not for a foreign invader.
What has become clearer than any light at the end of the tunnel is that there can be no American victory in Iraq. The people of Iraq have delivered a strong and unambiguous message: Victory is an end to the occupation. They do not believe we are liberators. They believe we are there to secure their oil and to establish a permanent military base in the Middle East. As long as our president flatly refuses to disavow such claims, those beliefs will persist and harden into a conviction that will feed the resistance. We cannot kill enough Iraqis to suppress the will of the nation and the more we kill, the stronger the resistance will become.
The president is right for the wrong reason: Failure is not an option because it has already been secured. America will never be allowed to establish permanent bases in Iraq. America will never be allowed to control Iraqi oil. And whatever form of government evolves in Iraq, it will be one of their own choosing.
The Vietnamese fought against foreign invaders for centuries before securing independence. Are the Iraqis so very different? How many lives are we prepared to sacrifice to find out? How many lives must be sacrificed before America can admit: We are wrong? How many more must we ask to give their lives for this mistake?
You cannot convert wrong to right by prolonging the occupation. You can only increase the cost in lives, money, and the respect of all nations. You can only fuel the fires of our true enemies and further alienate our true friends.
Let us undo the harm insofar as it can be undone. Let us use our resources not for weapons but to rebuild the nations we have destroyed. Let us make amends as best we can. Let us admit wrong and withdraw our troops. Let us pledge our support to the United Nations. At this critical juncture, we can do little else.
Jazz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)