Peace Piece

The release and return of the Canadian hostages, and one Brit, from Iraq was a great relief to some and opened up the notion of making peace in a war zone the topic of debate among the pundits. This pundit, if I may be so bold, wants to offer his observations on the story from another point-of-view, namely political.

Considering the risk that these men made to enter the very dangerous war zone in Iraq of their own free will and attempt to bring peace to the region speaks more to the inadequacies of the American government intervention than it does to the notion of peace in Iraq. Even though the missionaries were trying to do the work of Jesus, I think they were also circumventing the political process in their own small way. Why? Because their government wasn’t acting on their behalf or doing the job very well.

You have to remember that governments often pretend like they’re acting on behalf of the citizens who elect them; closer scrutiny would indicate otherwise, most of the time. The Iraq war, for example, is led by the Bush administration whose responsibility includes the preservation of corporate interests in the region, and the security of the last remaining oil reserves on earth. While Bush also invokes the power and blessings of God at every opportunity, he serves a different Master.

Consequently, some honourable organizations, like the Christian Peacemakers whose loyalty to the word of God is more practical than symbolic, felt the need to participate at a level in which their government was failing. Peace, the first casualty of War, is the last item on the agenda of the American Government.

The Christian Peacemakers in their own radical way, offered the Iraqi people a different avenue to peace. And they should be recognized for their courage while attempting to subvert the US agenda.

It’s a lousy job, but somebody has to do it.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Bush League

Last Thursday, March 16, three important stories came over the wire regarding the United States. The first story was about preemptive military strikes, the second was about a new human rights council and the third about money.

The first item was the release of George Bush’s National Security Strategy offering the world his first strike policy. Said Bush, “under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.” This notion was offered, again, regarding Iran, a new target for the Pentagon, and a dangerous one. Bush’s security strategy is neither strategic or secure. If the United States invades Iran, it will start World War III.

The second story, released the same day, was about the United Nations vote to establish a Human Rights Council to replace the Human Rights Commission. In a vote of 170 to 4, it was approved. Guess who voted against it? The United States! [the other three were Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau.] This new council is to be elected by members of the UN and therefore be more representative of the General Assembly. It has term limits of 3 years per member [47] and improved regional representation. “The seats would be distributed among regional groups: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight for Latin America and the Caribbean and seven for a block of mainly Western countries, including the United States and Canada.“ (Reuters). The first duty of the new commission is a review of the human rights records of the new council. By voting against the Council, the United States voted against such scrutiny.

The third story has to do with money. Congress approved a bill to borrow more money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to a total of 67.6 billion dollars. This will add to the debt of the United States, now just short of 9 trillion dollars.

Said Bush upon the release of his strategy report, “...history has shown that only when we do our part will others do theirs. America must continue to lead."

You call this leadership?

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Understand Afghanistan

Where does one begin an essay about Afghanistan? Historically speaking, jump in at any decade and the story is basically the same: this is a country in a region that is easy to march into but difficult to leave. It’s been invaded by the Greeks, the British and the Russians. And now Canada's military participation which was handed the lousy job of maintaining order in the streets of Kabul.

There are 34 provinces either controlled by the local warlords or the military or the Taliban and what most people don't understand is that the country is probably easier to rule under such a system. [Perhaps Aghanistan can adopt and adapt a version of Canada’s confederation.] The country has vast areas of desert in the south and mountains in the north. There are very few major roads and the climate doesn't suit much agriculture except the opium fields planted in the fall and harvested in the spring.
 
Control the opium fields and you can control the country, to a certain extent. [At least that’s what the Americans are trying to achieve.] Trouble is, as the Canadian Army has discovered, everybody wants a piece of the action. But like the Soviets who left in 1989, after 8 long years, the Canadians will be hard pressed to leave in 2006. Their shared mission is disguised to look like a UN peacekeeping assignment, but it's not. Canada wanted to please the United States in 2001 after the WTC attacks during the early days of the so-called War on Terror. Jean Chretien committed troops to Afghanistan because it was easy and typical of a Canadian compromise. It was easy to say yes in those days and again easy to march into Afghanistan. Alas, our new PM, who has stated clearly that he will not budge from our commitment to the war there, doesn't know what to do. That's because it is extremely difficult to leave a battlefield where peace is just a five-letter word. Just like it was for the Russians, the British and the Greeks. The question for Canadians is: how many soldiers will die before we, too, give up the assignment?
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Best Documentary Feature

I first heard the expression "military industrial complex" when I started University. It was probably quoted by a history professor or more likely, a sociology prof. I didn't really understand it but it rolled off the tongue nicely if I wanted to impress my friends with what I learned in school. Why We Fight is a new documentary that looks at the history of the United States since 1945. It’s produced and directed by Eugene Jarecki. It's premise is simple: that the economic life of the US is driven by the need for a "war economy". And since the United States is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Why We Fight is a timely reminder of how the American military drives the economic, social and political life of the country.
 
I highly recommend this film. It's a coherent and serious study of the military industrial complex as stated by Eisenhower in his farewell address in 1960. The interviews feature scholars, experts and journalists on both sides of the political spectrum. We hear from Gwynne Dyer, William Kristal, Richard Perle, Charles Lewis, Gore Vidal and John Eisenhower, son of the late President. But more importantly, we follow the lives of two New Yorkers: Wilton Sekzer and William Solomon.
 
Sekzer is a Vietnam Veteran and retired New York Police Officer. Solomon is a 23 year-old man who has no job, no money and no diploma. The contrasting lives of these men truly reflects the pulse of the "complex". Two men who believed that fighting for one's country is an honourable and just choice. Two men who join the army because their President said it was necessary to maintain freedom from tyranny. Sekzer, who lost his son at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, experiences a range of emotions: personal loss, anger, revenge. He was a man who believed what his President told him, until the United States invaded Iraq. Sekzer truly learns that war is futile and that he was exploited for his blind loyalty.
 
Solomon is a lost soul. He has few friends and no direction in life. But he finds encouragement at the local US Army recruitment office and is quick to sign up because they guarantee him an education and a job flying helicopters.

In this documentary people are seduced by simplistic rhetoric, jingoism and false hope from a continuing government commercial with slogans that offer superficial status. Why We Fight is the deconstruction of that penetrating message. Go see it.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.