Chris Hedges is one of those tender and enlightened sorts, who – when not writing books comparing Christian fundamentalists in America with fascists – worries terribly about what the war in Iraq is doing to America’s soul. The Mother Jones columnist was against the war in Iraq from the start, you see, although not against war per se. He found the humanitarian interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo quite appropriate since they helped to stop the genocidal slaughter of people whose centuries-old religious differences set them murderously at each other’s throats.
I know, but trust him. It’s complex.
In today’s LA Times, he bewails the misfortunes that attend to a war in which the enemy declines to wear uniforms in a stand-up fight, preferring instead an asymmetric campaign of Suicide Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (SVBIED), suicide vests and the odd roadside bomb. It appears that innocent bystanders can get hurt – even killed! – when terrorists get in the habit of exploding infernal devices among them.
I was as shocked as you.
Worse even than checkpoint shootings which cause the deaths of innocents in Hedges universe are the night-time cordon and search of homes. These are intelligence-driven operations, many of which have resulted in bombers and their equipment being removed from circulation, although inevitably a few will end up as dry holes. When this occurs the paterfamilias is apparently exposed to the kind of humiliation that, in company with the fact that some soldiers have taken to calling Iraqi’s “hajjis” – a Arabic term of honor, except when they use it – turns “huge swathes of the Arab and Muslim world against us.” Like that genocidal campaign of rape on murder going on in Darfur between Muslim Arab Sudanese and Muslim African Sudanese that has, at current accounting, taken the lives of 500,000 and displaced another 2.5 million.
No, wait. Not like that. At all.
Anyway, there really is nothing new under the sun, so to go with the stilt puppets and bongo drums already in ubiquitous abundance, Hedges has reached back into the musty archives of anti-war agitprop to resuscitate the “Winter Soldier” tribunal, all on his own. You remember, John Kerry? Reminiscing about Genghis Khan?
That whole thing.
Hedges interviewed 50 combat veterans to assemble his tale of The American Fighting Man Gone Amok, but he declines to offer us the means by which they were selected. Probably the first 50 who walked through the door.
He is careful to state that those who are, well – not quite committing war crimes exactly, but anyway, doing things Hedges himself would never (have to) do are in the minority, but that doesn’t stop him from labeling this the “vet’s view” of Iraq, or conclude:
We need to muster the moral courage to face the reality of the war. To wallow in a myth that trumpets our goodness, denies our irresponsible rules of engagement and demonizes those who oppose us will leave us unable to end the occupation and begin the long, slow process of reconciliation.
This is smug pretentiousness and supercilious nonsense. The reality of all war is that it is horrible. The calculus of war is that there are things more horrible still, like genocide for example, or madcap tyrannies atop explicitly hostile states in pursuit of WMD. And we can either choose to “wallow in a myth” of goodness as contrasted to those we “demonize” – you know, those kooks with their hopped-up teenagers in suicide vests viewing jihadi snuff porn videos on YouTube when they’re not stoning the odd adulteress – or we can wallow in a carefully constructed narrative that conflates well-intentioned errors made by young people under terrible pressure with the crimes and misdemeanors of a small number of miscreants.
Choose your poison.
I’m for what’s behind door “A” myself, because that long, slow process of reconciliation Hedges is talking about? That’s not between the Sunni and the Shi’a in Iraq, nor between the forces of modernity and oppression around the world. No.
He’s talking about reconciliation between people like him – people who believe that any exercise in American power must, no matter how morally correct in its own right not even collaterally serve to advance our national interest – and all those godbothering Christo-fascists who disagree. We will be reconciled, in other words, when the rest of us trade our morality for his.
Pass.
Let him go “preach” his drivel in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and leave newly-returned Troops alone. Of course, then he wouldn’t have a public platform. With his ilk, self-promotion is the name of the game.
Veritas et Fidelis Semper
Shipmates,
Y’all might want to also take a peek at Ted Rall’s latest cartoon. If your blood pressure can stand it.
I never realized a donkey could have two assholes, but these two seem to be vying for the pole position within the leftist sphere…
Respects,
Lex, as you well know, we don’t always agree. But on this one, YEAH, let’s pass on that option. We’ll be in Iraq for a LONG time. I am talking in terms of millennia, that’s plural. The one thing to remember is this, those neat little Iraqi kids we see with our military. At some point, they’ll grow into those 16 year olds killing our military. They believe this is their right or destiny. If you look through these very same eyes of the young males, you would see many things. Their view, “The Americans came over here and fought so that ‘we’ might be able to stand up.” The question we have is this, “What or who are the ‘we’, you talk about in your statement? Is this a tribe, sect or your Nation?” What do we do now? Defund the troops? This sounds like Charles deGaulle, at the end of WWII. He cut off all logistical support to his best troops and disclosed their positions so snipers could kill them. He didn’t want to deal with the issues of these men. Lex, I have two questions for you.
1. How would you like to be David Petraeus at this point in time?
2. What do you think about the White House refusing to turn over certain papers relating to the discussion of Pat Tillman friendly-fire incident citing “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests”? Lex, on this last one, there is no such a thing as the “High Ground”!
THANK YOU!
Respectfully,
Grumpy
WRT Petraeus, It’s a hard job Grumpy, and these are hard times. Seems to me like he’s much the better man for it than me in any case.
And to answer your second question, the president does have a right to invoke executive privilege on internal conversations with aides, especially when his friends in Congress – lacking the skill or will to actually write any laws – spend their time playing the professional inquisitor. I mean, they’ve got a perfect right to ask permission to rake through his rubbish, looking for something embarrassing.
But he’s got a perfect right to say “no.”
“He?
“He’s talking about reconciliation between people like him…”
Yes, that’s what my personal contacts have taught me for over 30 years: When a liberal or leftist talks about “reconciliation” what he really means is you saying “thank you may I have another” as he insults you and all your beliefs.
Lex, WRT to Petraeus, I couldn’t agree with you more. He is a much better man than me. In regard to the Tillman incident, you are right, the President has the right to simply say “No.” This really isn’t the question. The real question is, is this the right or wisest thing to do? Because you have a right, does not mean you use it. – Grumpy
This from the Wiki intro to “American Fascists”: ..”Hedges is a former seminary student…” Yikes, there must be a club for these folks.
It’s often the guys who can’t/won’t play the 2d half who emerge with the most strident opinions on the game. Always a good idea to follow through on any task. Kinda like others not completing a semester in RVN. Skews your vision.
Mr Grumpy, You seem to think POTUS is complicit in the Rgr Pat Tillman cover-up, hence his refusal to assume the “dying cockroach” position. Please refer to the recent position paper privately published by a Br. Occam (OSF). Tolle Lege.
Tom G., as is anyone in this country your are permitted your own opinion. I just happen not to agree. With the seriousness of the situation, it is not appropriate for me to assume that I know, therefore I asked the question. Therefore, the only way to write authoritatively about this subject, is to write from the eyewitness point of view. I was not an eyewitness, were you? If not, your point is moot as far as I am concerned. As to your reference by a Br. Occam, privately published papers tend to have a very limited distribution.
Grumpy
“Like that genocidal campaign of rape on murder going on in Darfur between Muslim Arab Sudanese and Muslim African Sudanese that has, at current accounting, taken the lives of 500,000 and displaced another 2.5 million.”
The following are comments I left on a website out of the U.A.E. I thought your readers might find them interesting since you brought Darfur up in your latest essay. All you need to do in order to follow along with the argument is google “Sudan Oil Maps”. You will then be able to verify my statements and understand my reasoning about the herding of the defensless to the northwest portion of the country.
Being from the west I have never seen the crisis in Darfur as a “black opression” thing. You, being from the general region, might pick up on something like that from western news casts but,I never have.
I see the conflict in Sudan as oil generated. When one looks at the exploration and contract maps for Sudan it is pretty obvious that the genocide has followed a predictable path. The first area to be cleansed of land holding population was the south. The fact that the population in the south was mostly Christian I think is somewhat beside the point. The much greater indicator was the availability of oil.
So now, the gov’t of Sudan has tens of thousands of refugees herded into the northwest corner of the country. One wonders if the gov’t would be happy to just wipe everyone out so they could explore for oil unabated… I mean, what happens if the gov’t discovers oil below Darfur???
Going again to the oil contract maps, you can actually watch the genocide and herding of defenseless people from the south into the northwest of the country… It has all reached a head in Darfur as there are now too many refugees to kill off en mass without a huge cry from the rest of the world and condemnation from western exporters of oil
As to the oil; you are probably aware at this point that the biggest oil exporter other than the gov’t of Sudan is China… I heard an interesting talk the other day about the country of China and their interaction with various oil producing countries in Africa. The speaker labelled China as “agnostic” to internal politics in African nations as it concerns human rights. In other words, they don’t care what is going on as long as their oil contracts are met and business proceeds as contracted.
I am sorry to say that the 2nd largest foreign oil exporter from the Sudan after China is the country of France… They are followed closely by a host of other EU nations. When we talk of “No blood for oil” we should be directing these comments to EU nations. China, as I am sure you would agree, is immune to such criticism. But, the people of France get very annoyed when you call them on their business dealings in 3rd world nations. They have a tendency to tell you that you don’t know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, the oil contract maps speak for themselves.
As to the relative silence of the Muslim world, I have long wondered about it. I have brought this situation up many times on blogs such as yours. I have been met with only two comments; “you refuse to stay on topic and discuss the atrocities of the United States or Israel” (and you can forget about bringing up Thailand or Kashmir) or the more honest, “our press doesn’t tell us anything about the conflict in Sudan hence we know nothing about it…”
The LAST THING I would like to see is American boots on the ground in Sudan be them “U.N. Peacekeepers” or in any other capacity… I will be terribly annoyed if the U.S. military gets involved in something that was none of their making. Let the EU grow a pair and do the right thing for a nation that they have exploited for their natural resources. You can forget about China doing anything.
The speech by George Bush recently about how the U.N. Security Council should intervene was a bunch of hot air considering that China and France sit on the security council. Nothing will be done as China doesn’t give a damn about the suffering in Darfur and France will not give up its business interest. It is up to the neighboring states to bring pressure on the situation, not the U.S., who has had a trade embargo against Sudan for more than a decade. The U.S. can’t fix this problem. They shouldn’t even try… Really, I think that the EU holds the greatest obligation, after the neighboring states, to do the right thing. They won’t…
Should the neighboring states and those in the west (discounting China, the greatest beneficiary of Sudan oil) that have gained the most by exploiting natural resources in this 3rd world country finally be made to account? FINALLY be called out in a world forum for their actions or lack there of? Unfortunately, the U.S. placed a trade embargo on Sudan a decade ago, making U.S. oil companies abandon their equipment in place due to sanctions. To my knowledge, not one drop of oil has reached U.S. shores from Sudan for years now… You can’t possibly place the blame on the U.S. for this mess. Again, don’t mean to insult but, the fact that the “reliable old devil” is not available in this instance might bring some people up short… Certainly one of your commenters could not process that as they claimed: “why America is making a fuss about Darfur, because somewhere in all of this is oil.”
You might have to go looking for the real perpetrators of this crime against humanity. Who are the winners here at the expense of defenseless blood?
I know you might find this hard to believe but, not only don’t I think this is a black opression thing, I also don’t view it in an Arab context. Idi Amin was not an Arab (as far as I know) and he was a mass butcher in Africa… It would take a very small mind to drill the genocide in Sudan down to Arab vs. defenseless people.
To be honest, the silence of Arab neighbors does trouble me.
IMO, the overriding issue here is oil, a commodity now more precious than money. The gov’t of Sudan is exploiting the revenue for the personal gain of a few and the mass slaughter of the native population (again, I will say that their skin color or religion at this point means nothing to me).
I also must say that your use of the word “fuss” conjures up a situation that is being made too much of. If you think the situation in Sudan is a “fuss” what would a full scale genocide look like?
Your statement that “now everyone else is involved”… If it were only true. I see no sign of the E.U. trying to do anything to stop the genocide. The fact that the Chinese couldn’t care less goes without saying. To my knowledge, the neighboring states have done nothing positive to stop this situation.
Who cared about Rwanda? This implies that no one is able to learn from previous mistakes? And BTW, where was your nation when the slaughter in Rwanda was taking place? I know nothing about any type of positive influence by the Gulf States in that genocide. Possibly, I am just not educated…
Throughout the western world entirely other gov’ts were in power during the Rwanda genocide. Mr. Bill Clinton comes to mind… He sat back, watched it happen and refused to put boots on the ground. What did your country do to help?
I won’t defend their lack of action but, for you to claim that the western world is concerned about the genocide happening today in Darfur due to (and I don’t want to put words in your mouth but it sure seems to me that you imply)an Arab gov’t allowing this genocide to their own people seems a bit of a stretch.
As you can see, I am rather passionate about this subject. The people of Sudan deserve more than what the international community as a whole is willing to do. The fact that Arab states still hold forums in Kartoum makes me sick. The fact that the E.U. continues to prosper on the backs of dead Sudanese makes me sick. The fact that the Chinese get a pass on this tremendous violation of humanity on earth makes me sick.
Study these maps. Realize who has the greatest stake in Sudan oil. Please note the lack of U.S. oil companies.
Anyone that has any other idea regarding the genocide in Sudan is certainly encouraged to supply their ideas. For me, it is all about oil. Forget skin color, religion and tribes. It’s oil…
I ask again, if the gov’t discovers oil under Darfur, what would they do then?
A hundred million stashed outside the country isn’t enough. How about a billion? Still not enough…
This type of criminal thinking crosses all ethnicities and religions. Unfortunately, it is a universal truth.
Babs,
Interesting analysis on Sudan/Darfur and the point that oil is central to the terrible problem. I wouldn’t dismiss the Muslim/Christian component of the issue though. Any excuse to expand the Dar al-Islam.
BTW, I can see where your kid gets his (a lot) of his smarts.
GEO6
You’re right Grumpy; you and I were not “there” – all the more reason to avoid assigning high/low locations.
LOL, you are just jealous because you are not “tender and enlightened”!
Hmmm, Hedges makes an interesting statement; i.e., these interviews were done in 2003, 2004, and 2005 — none in 2006 or 2007. These interviews took places as the war was gearing up, going through its unstable and deteriorating phase, and as insurgents were surging into Iraq to fight Americans. He included no one since our troops have up-armoured their vehicles, adapted to the conditions and the enemy there, or started seeing success in defeating the enemy.
He has used a selective representation of personnel to present his skewed version of the war and his fervent hopes for the defeat of Amerikka — not reality nor the experiences of the majority of our troops, I would hazard to guess.
About Darfur and the Sudan — beyond my paygrade, I fear. I’d need to start a long way back to figure out what’s going on and what has happened there. All I really know is that it’s a mess. Everyone just cries and moans about it, but no one actually has an answer or any actions to contribute to make the situation better. It’s a “Blame America” place, whether we had anything to do with it or not.
My two cents ….
Grumpy,
I take it that you think that the President was complicit in the cover up of the friendly fire incident. What evidence do you have for this other than the fact that the President won’t let the congresscritters go rumaging through his trash for something to stone him with? Really, if you’re going to go there, you really ought to have something more than Bush won’t let them look at certain private papers that pertain to the discussion. When dealing with issues of executive priviledge sometimes the fact that the President won’t turn over the papers doesn’t have anything to do with a cover up… it just means that he’s protecting his constitutional authority as President to not turn over papers. Precedent matters a lot in cases like this.
Jim C
AW1 Tim,
WRT Ted Rall; I stopped looking at his stuff years ago. He is probably the lowest form of dog sh*t on the face of the earth. Although, as you said, this Hedges guy seems to be trying for a close second.
Jim C
Babs, I’d have to respectfully disagree on the Sudan thing. It’s only become a topic of interest recently…why? The Christians were being slaughtered well over a decade ago, in horrible fashion, the information was there for the whole world, but the Christians DIDN’T COUNT. Not for the US, it’s celebrities, etc., and not for anyone else. There used to be a lot of Christians in Sudan, but no one cared as long as it was “just the Christians.” No one but our churches.
sigh.
d
I would like to remind you Doorkeeper that the US pulled out of Sudan oil production, placed a limited trade embargo on the country, and forced American oil companies to abandon their equipment in place a decade ago due to human rights violations. The violations to which I refer were the slaughter of Sudanese in Southern Sudan… Those are the Christians to which you refer.
This slaughter started over a decade ago and one has to ask why? After all, the country managed to allow a Christian population to co-exist for many decades prior to the slaughter.
It is my opinion that the discovery and large scale production of oil is to blame. The gov’t wanted the land cleared of population so they could mete out oil leases unabated by pesky civilian property claims. It just so happened, IMO, that the first large stores of oil were found below the historic Christian population centers. Hence, the slaughter of Christians.
So, when you say that no one cared except the churches, you are incorrect. The United States gov’t cared.
I would also like to say that my thoughts above are a compendium of several comments I made on a U.A.E. web site. I have learned to always post as annonomous because being a female American is not the best calling card, LOL!!!
Babs,
I reiterate: concur that oil has a major piece because of the $ but you cannot ignore 13 centuries of aggression against Christiantity. Every piece of territory that is now Islamic was once Christian from Persia to the Atlantic along the same latitudes. Islam means submission in arabic. Peaceful religion my fourth point of contact! Every opportunty that Dar al-Islam has to attack Dar al-Hab it will.
v/r,
GEO6
Well GEO – In this case, maybe it made the slaughter go down a bit easier…
I wouldn’t dream of arguing with you regarding the anomosity of Islam to Christianity. What I am trying to say is that when oil was shoved into the equation there was an overriding reason to clear the Christian areas of Southern Sudan of their population.
Oh, and BTW, thanks for the compliment re: the brains and stuff, aw shucks! Maybe that’s why the guys on the Gulf State’s sites I visit hate me so much
Babs- Could be as there is enough anti-Christian animus in the West as it is.
Hey! maybe you could come in under the radar in the UAE if you showed up in a burkha?
maybe you could come in under the radar in the UAE if you showed up in a burkha?
What does a pixelated burkha look like? I submit it looks just like “anonomous”…
Babs- I guess the burkha thing fell flat. A feeble attempt at humor on my part. Anyway I am sure you would still remain stunning even in a burkha so don’t bother. Pixelated or otherwise.:) And reasoning doesn’t work with 7th Century mindsets anyway.
Web Reconnaissance for 07/16/2007…
A short recon of what?ǂ
Web Reconnaissance for 07/16/2007…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….
[...] Looks like Lex doesn’t like Chris Hedges very much. [...]
[...] insufferable Chris Hedges, who Lex commented on last week, has a longer excretion in the Nation. I just figured out who the co-author [...]