|
One of my professors read an essay of mine regarding why I believe meaningful democracy in Iraq will not occur, she then convinced me to expand it into a short book. In writing my introduction, I decided I liked how Will Pitt started "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence" with a more personal type intro and wanted to do something similar. So here it is pasted in all it's glory. Don't mind any typos etc. I know I haven't caught a few of them. Thanks a bunch. -Bill
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated." –Thomas Paine
OF CONVERSATIONS, HISTORY AND PATRIOTISM
In mid-July 2003, the chaos of current events nudged me into the past, in the hope that I could gain some insight into the future. For months, my thought process had been overrun with politics, breaking stories, bickering congressman, war protests, French bashing and conflicting points of view on every issue imaginable. My once moderate Clinton-era political views took a sharp left turn past Howard Dean only to land somewhere near Dennis Kucinich and the progressive memory of Paul Wellstone.
Before this year, my idea of keeping up with the times was hurriedly reading a newspaper and, occasionally, flipping on the ten o’clock news. I grasped the idea of politics, kept up with current events, but was a semi-interested, casual observer by my current standards.
When the first anniversary of 9-11 was nearing, along with shouts of war with Iraq, my search for information intensified. In a short few months, I went from regularly reading opinion columnists to actually becoming one myself for the Arizona Daily Wildcat. Fearing the possibility of making an idiot out of myself in front of thousands of readers, I morphed into a maniacally obsessed news junkie.
My conversations became dominated by current events. Whether in agreement or argument, I found others had become ensconced with the topics of war and terrorism. My friend, Mike, and I had particularly rabid arguments through e-mail about the justification of the pre-emptive strike on Iraq. He was pro and I was con. He said it was for freedom and integrity. My argument was it was for business interests and obtaining a false historical legacy. Our debate was but a microcosm of what was going on in the United States, and, indeed, the world. Everywhere I turned, others had opinions. People were interested. Then in the summer of 2003 came the questions. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Why is Iraq in chaos? Will democracy work in the Middle East?
Conversations, it seems, led me to search history for some answers.
“Whatever happened to the Sandanistas? You never hear much about them anymore.”
This was my father on the other end of the phone, interrupting one of my diatribes on our current administration’s wretched pro- big business foreign policy. “The Sandanistas?” I asked myself. I was not sure. What I did know about the history of Nicaragua was a bit outdated. I could only tell my father the United States had battered the country so badly throughout the 1980’s that they may never fully recover socially or economically. I knew Ronald Reagan declared a “national emergency” designating Nicaragua a substantial security threat to the United States. He then funded the right-wing Contra rebel group in an effort to minimize the communist terrorist government. But I had no absolute answer. As it happened, the next day while researching a paper, I stumbled onto an academic article which contained information on the early 1990’s electoral defeat of the Sandanistas and how this correlated with a decline in public health. Decline in public health? It appeared as if we killed off all the positive aspects in Nicaragua and backed a group of unconscionable thugs. We squelched all Sandanista social progress and reform.
But were not the Sandanistas terrorists?
Were we not right in beating them into submission?
My recollection of terrorism, up until recently, was one of loathing and ignorance. In the summer of 1993, I traveled to Bulgaria to compete on an all-star wrestling team representing both Montana and the United States. Ten years ago, while standing in an airport in Frankfurt, Germany, one of our coaches informed us terrorists had perpetuated attacks there before. While talking with a teammate, it became evident we shared the same awe in viewing security guards armed with Uzis, along with the bombardment of constant questioning by airport personnel. Did anybody hand you anything suspicious? Do you have anything that uses batteries? Have you heard any ticking? I never witnessed anything similar to this before. It was somewhat tense and frightening, especially if you are in an entourage of Americans dressed in patriotic team shirts, variants of red, white and blue, adorned with flying eagle logos. We might as well have had targets on our backs. Fear is a valuable tool. Consternation leaves a person skeptical, shrouded in a state of vulnerability. Soon enough, I was hawking around with my eyes, expecting the worst. Every person could have been a killer. Tinted skin tones. Turbans. Arabic sounding languages. All were dead on betrayals for terrorists with wicked intentions. These preconceived notions were playing tricks on my incognizant mind. Would somebody kill me just because I was an American? If so, then why? My brain ruminated questions with no discernible answers.
Fast forward eight years later.
On September 11, 2001, I spent the evening until the early morning hours of the day after, lounging in my apartment, listening to caller-driven radio. By now, I was a video production student at the Art Institute of Seattle; a scant few weeks away from graduating with an Associate of Applied Arts degree. Nearly every host, on each show, went on about how we were attacked because Islamic fundamentalists hate our freedoms. They were jealous of us and assaulted the World Trade Center and Pentagon. These, according to most opinions I heard at the time, were symbols of our power and wealth. These extremist devils resented us for all the great things we have in our country. Some people spoke of Palestinians cheering at the news of the towers falling. The prospect stunned me! I was told the Arabic people wanted nothing more than the eradication of America and Israel off the face of the earth. At one point, I called into one of the programs expressing my paranoia and consternation. “There could be a terrorist cell in every major city,” I said. My concerns over public and airport safety were aired in front of thousands listening that night. I was terrified in the continuation of the attack. What else could be next on the terrorist agenda? Would it happen tonight? Tomorrow? Next week? However, my strong sentiment prevailed that America and our allies would unite strongly, striking down our foes, in the name of everything good and just in this world. The righteous would triumph over evil.
Our displacing the Taliban in Afghanistan appeared as heroic retribution for their harboring Osama bin Laden. The good guys were back on top again. Justice was taking some semblance of shape. I was a believer. When George W. Bush made the axis of evil comment during his first State Of The Union speech, my initial dissent against the War on Terror began formulating itself. What did Iraq, Iran and North Korea in have conjunction with Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and 9-11? Nothing. Not at all. From this point on, my concept of terrorism began changing. It became apparent our administration was using fear as a tool, exploiting the deaths of thousands of Americans for their own personal gain. The same tool that aroused my skepticism and increased my vulnerability, in Frankfurt, was now being used against the concerns of millions of frightened and patriotic Americans. The manipulation of 9-11 is the most scummy desecration of trust in our country’s leadership that has ever occurred. As in Nicaragua, the threat of terrorism was invoked for political reasons. The concept of terrorism is simply a myth to describe political violence. It’s propaganda. As in the case of our adventures in the Middle East, the United States leadership has fixated the American public in believing we are attacked for our freedom. Yet, men like Osama bin Laden, Ronald Reagan and the entire George W. Bush administration envisage political violence as an option for gaining whatever they want. Foreign rogue political violence is countered by state-sponsored political violence. We call it terrorism and counterterrorism. In the Middle East, they call it the same thing, except the other way around. Without fail, the end result is that the crimson blood of countless innocents will stain soil for the petty rationalizations of privileged elites on every side of the spectrum. One side of extremists is no better than the other. On March 19, 2003, under false pretenses, the United States preemptively struck Iraq. By default, our administration made me a terrorist in the eyes of most of the world.
And I do not like it one bit.
As history has shown, our use of political violence has largely been for the gain of corporate interests. Our administration, in particular has, relished an eerie penchant for corporate malfeasance. With the same zeal for thievery his good pal, disgraced Enron CEO Kenneth Lay once displayed, George W. Bush has taken to cooking the books of his own country, with the cost overruns from unnecessary tax cuts to the wealthy, unwarranted political violence and out-of-control spending on all accounts. The talk of our economic recovery is nothing short of deceptive expediency. These ideas transcend to foreign policy, globalization and the misuse of our volunteer military in capturing ripe foreign resources for harvesting by U.S. and British based corporations.
Globalization is pure Enronomics at its harshest.
Nobel Prize winner and former chief economist for the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz has been highly critical of the American-British version of globalization. Stiglitz says the current globalization solution to cure AIDS is to raise the price of medicine. The way to cut electricity costs? Raise the prices! The key to fixing the system is you get rid of a liberal bureaucracy, privatize all resources to American/British companies and deregulate everything. Free market rules, which means, there are no rules at all to get in the way of corporate interests. No minimum wage. No environmental oversight. No unions. Nothing. Stiglitz has stated the WTO, IMF and World Bank, essentially “condemn people to death.” One more pertinent fact I should mention, Joe Stiglitz is not some quack or indoctrinated, ultra-liberal academic, complaining about these policies.
He is one of the men who conceived and wrote the whole system.
In talking with my military or other pro-war friends, none of them mention that this is what we have in store for Iraq, or the whole Middle East. Nobody mentions how these policies destroyed the economies and quality of life in Argentina, Thailand, Indonesia and countless others. Nobody I talk to mentions that our history shows we hail democracy at home, but do anything to kill all meaningful attempts for it in other countries. How can this be? Nobody notices that our economic malfeasance is on the path to bankrupting our treasury, creating a situation, in which, Social Security and Medicare, will no longer exist as we know it. Nobody, I converse with, understands that our administration’s political maladroitness has destroyed American credibility around the globe. Several months ago, an Englishman living in Germany responded to one of my columns with a melancholy message. He replied: “trust in the United States is at an all-time zero.” He went on to say the European people feel like they have “lost a trusted friend in an increasingly fascistic America.”
Some of us here feel the same way.
Last night, my dad happened to call me again. For the past few days, I have been thinking about “Sunshine patriots,” and the famous quote by the great essayist, Thomas Paine. In one of our most heated exchanges, Mike attached this quote at the bottom of the page, to justify the war in Iraq and the integrity of our country. For nearly two years since 9-11, dissenters in our country have had their patriotism and integrity questioned. Cowardly men who skipped out on a chance to represent their country in Vietnam, instead, offering lame excuses to this very day. These same men have sacked every valid counterterrorism bill, airplane security improvement, and terrorist investigation in recent memory. Men who seek to destroy freedom and social reform at home, as well as abroad, have had the gall to question the loyalty of free-thinkers in the name of political violence for personal and corporate gains. A sunshine patriot is a patriot of convenience. One who prefers rhetoric to a proper action. One who jeopardizes democracy, security and integrity for shallow interests. Anyone can wave a flag or tie a yellow ribbon, but not many have the courage to stand up for morality, truth and the quest for the purest American ideals. Not many have the merit to ascend in a fight for values. History is full of cowards and sunshine patriots who arise at their opportunistic convenience, yet retreat to the status quo in times of turmoil. Conversations are full of principle touting banter and institutional stupidity. From fast-food news to indoctrinated ideology; the mythology of a false narrative history stands before our eyes. So when speaking to my dad last night on the phone, I reminded him of the Sandanista question he asked me earlier this summer.
Then I told him that freedom is not highly rated anymore.
Bill Wetzel, Tucson, AZ,
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
