|
The Myths of
Military Progress
The More Things Appear to Change, the More They Don't
By Ron Jacobs
11/29/07 "Counterpunch"
-- - Making occupation and calling it peace. Killing fewer
and calling it progress. Rotating troops and calling it a
withdrawal. Setting up new death squads and calling them allies.
Lowering standards and calling it opening new opportunities.
All of the above phenomena seem to be part of the current
campaign by Washington in Iraq. There are fewer GI deaths in the
country now because they don't leave the bases. Why? Because
their latest allies-tribesmen paid in cold cash to kill for
DC-are doing the killing and taking the hits. Indeed, some of
the most fatal of those hits come from US air strikes that
"mistakenly" bomb the men involved in killing the US bogeyman Al
Queda in Mesopotamia, which may or may not be a phantom reality.
Meanwhile, these tribesmen learn US military methods and
locations while stockpiling US-supplied weaponry for some future
war on their Shi'a opposites or perhaps even the same US forces
they currently align themselves with.
The politicians here in the US, meanwhile, continue their
cynical dealing in human life by refusing to insist on a genuine
withdrawal timetable even as they steal billions from their
country men and women to fight their wars and try to maintain
the empire. False arguments erupt over withdrawal bills that
aren't withdrawal bills because the White House insists that it
has complete control over the war and its conduct while the
opposition in Congress writes legislation that has more holes
than a hooker's torn fishnets. Despite the impotence of the
legislation, they fail to pass even that and end up giving the
White house every penny it originally asked for. Wait until the
election, says the opposition. Things will change then. If
previous elections are any indication, the only thing that will
change are the faces in the White House. Troops will remain in
Iraq and the occupation/war will continue its haphazard road to
control of the oilfields. Or, it will result in the defeat of
Washington's plans for the region, no matter which politician
sits in the Oval Office.
``We're going to fund the troops,'' Levin, a Michigan Democrat,
said today (11/25/07) on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program. ``No
one's trying to undercut the military.'' The subtext of this
quote is simply this. No one is going to undercut the wars.
After all, it is the military that fights the wars, is it not?
It's hard for students of history to believe, but there was a
time in the history of this nation when the military was not the
untouchable institution it has become. Indeed, there was a brief
shining moment when it was purely a defensive force.
Unfortunately, that time was not only brief, it was also quite
long ago. There has been no time in US history, however, when
the military has dominated the American polity like it has since
the United States entered World War Two. This domination of the
political sphere is why no politician who wants to stay in power
will ever defund the Pentagon and the complex it has spawned.
This situation exists not necessarily because the US public
wants most of their tax monies going to corporations that build
weapons or to maintain an imperial army. It exists because the
propaganda wing of the aforementioned complex can and will
destroy the career of any politician that attacks that complex.
Consequently, the number of national politicians in the two
major parties fundamentally opposed to the Pentagon's sacrosanct
position in US politics can be counted on one hand. Not only
does fear guide these spineless men and women, but so do the
dollars tossed their way by the very corporations that profit as
members of the previously mentioned complex. Our silence, fed by
fears that are by definition unreal allows them to get away with
what can only be truthfully called murder.
Back to Iraq and Afghanistan. Violence in those countries ebbs
and flows, reflecting a rhythm of death and destruction known
only to the beast of war. Some children lose their parents while
other parents lose their children to that beast. The dollars we
pay in taxes every day feed the beast's greed despite the
outspoken desire of what seems to be the majority that they be
used for peaceful purposes. Perhaps the structures we allow to
rule can no longer spend that money for peace. Perhaps they are
too corrupted by war and its profits. Perhaps their long service
to the beast of war has rendered them not incapable of
conceiving a world where peace does not mean domination and does
not require war in a fruitless effort to secure said peace.
It is only natural that those who are subject to this domination
would resist. That resistance takes up arms only because to do
otherwise is suicide. Why should one commit suicide when they
are being murdered? When this is the scenario, then armed
resistance become self-defense and doing nothing is defeat. If
this is so, the question is raised once again: are those
tribesmen currently working with the occupier in Iraq and
Afghanistan merely pretending to collaborate so as to strike the
final blow to the occupier when the guard is down? Wasn't this
the strategy of anti-occupation forces of Muqtada al-Sadr
(labeled Shi'a by the western press)? And aren't those forces
now in the gunsights of the US military?
Meanwhile, the government in Baghdad's Green Zone is asking the
US military to commit to a longterm agreement to stay in Iraq in
substantial numbers. Besides the obvious fact that the Green
Zone government really has no say in how long the US military
occupies Iraq, the fact that those in power are asking the
military to remain is an acknowledgement that their power does
not come from the Iraqi people but from the military power of
Washington. In fact, according to the November 26, 2007
Associated Press story discussing this "request" by the Green
Zone government, the request was made because "Iraq's
government, (is) seeking protection against foreign threats and
internal coups." One can be certain that those internal coups
most likely refer to Washington's fear of a victorious
insurgency. Tellingly, opposition to the "request" was voiced by
the supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the US occupation
in all its manifestations. The more things appear to change, the
more they don't. The casualties continue to mount, even when
they are not part of the equation.
Ron Jacobs is author of
The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground,
which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill
Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art
and sex,
Serpents in the Garden. His first novel,
Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can
be reached at:
rjacobs3625@charter.net
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
