Iraq War, 2003-2011

Photo from Here and Now

After 8 long and difficult years, U.S. Troops (most of them, anyways) are coming home from Iraq, and the war in Iraq is now officially over.  The events that have lead up to the war, and what has happened since then are numerous, disheartening, and outright sick.  From the amount of patriotic browbeating and full-out lying that took place in the lead up to the war, to the arrogance and mismanagement (to put it mildly) of the initial invasion; from the bloodshed and chaos of proceeding years of our occupation, to the relatively quiet, but marginally better (to put it kindly) final years of the occupation.  America's departure from Iraq is something that is long-overdue.

My initial reaction as someone who has always opposed this war is to say "good riddance" and try to push it as far into the distance past as possible.  However, it is also important that one revisits it's relatively short, but nonetheless eventful history.  We must do this in order to pay respect to the dead on all sides, and to show the brutal reality of what war is really like.  But we must also do this so that America (for all the good we stand for and for all the wonderful things we've ever done for people around the world) can realize the horrendous mistakes that it made, and try to never repeat them again.

I have decided that the best way to share write this post is to share a number of videos about the from individuals who could as good of a job of telling the story of the Iraq War, if not better, than I could have.  I will provide some of my own text, but I want to give credit to those who made these videos, and as well as those who did an outstanding job of reporting on this war when it was taking place(oftentimes, risking their own lives in doing so).

First, there is how we actually got into the war.  We all know now about the fact that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, almost no link to Al Qaeda, and absolutely no role in the September 11 attacks (as the Bush Administration had claimed).  But how many people actually remember the time and energy taken by the Administration (along with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain) to really sell the war?  It was immense, and it lasted for almost the entire year of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 leading up to the war.

The Administration was not alone in helping to push for this war.  One new word to enter the American mainstream lexicon as a result of this war was "neoconservative", and they were prevalent through the media and the Bush Administration foreign policy team leading up to the Iraq War.  They believed it was America's duty to push for democratic reform throughout the world, using military action if necessary.



The goal of promoting democracy in undemocratic countries is good enough in itself, and I'm sure many of those who were neoconservatives felt as if they had good intentions.  For instance, it is a shame that the late Christopher Hitchens (one of my heroes) so staunchly supported the invasion of Iraq, and was still one of the war's strongest supporters long after it was clear that the invasion was a disaster.  He originally supported it because he was friends with Iraqi Kurds who were being oppressed and slaughtered by Saddam Hussein.  The idea of what such an ambitious goal would look like, and the hard truth of what it really means to invade another country are two different things.

We were supposed to have an independent media that would ask questions about the legitimacy and acumen about what the Bush Administration was trying to do.  This isn't to say that members of the media shouldn't have lost all sense of objectivity, and come out staunchy against the war as say, a Democracy Now or The Nation would have.  But it seems like liberal outlets such as DN, The Nation, and the like were the only ones in the media who were truly doing their job in questioning the motives of the administration leading up to the war, and have done about as good a job as any media outlet on reporting on the war objectively in the first year or so of the war.  The same cannot be said about the mainstream media

While things have gotten a little better since then in regards to bringing truth to power, it wasn't that long ago that "liberal" MSNBC made Phil Donahue have two conservative, pro-war guests on the show for every one liberal, anti-war guest on his short-lived, prime-time show (Donahue was supposed to count as the second liberal, and thus, the debate was equal).

So, the United States went war in Iraq, bombed the hell out of Baghdad through the campaign of Shock and Awe, and within a matter of weeks, Saddam Hussein was thrown from power.  The war had just started, and it was already over.  At least, that's how it seemed at the time.  For a while, it seemed that the anti-war protesters and those damn hippies were wrong, and the neoconservatives and the Bush Administration were right.  In the months to come, the world realize just how far away from over this war really was.



What America soon found out was that "liberating" another country not as easy as it sounds, but it helps to listen to those who know the most about combat and military occupation.  This is one thing that the Bush Administration did not do.  Rather, they relied more on the opinions of those (primarily neoconservatives) who were most loyal to the administration and the Republican Party.  This ended up with disastoruos decisions being made that would cost vast numbers of lives, and greatly soil the reputation of the United States around the world.  This includes not sending nearly enough troops to Iraq to begin with; sending them with scare amounts of necessary equipment (often times, that was shoddy anyways); breaking international laws through the use of torture; dismantling the Iraqi Army; and basically not having anything resembling a realistic, long-term occupation plan.











Is it possible that America could have succeeded with the occupation aspect of this war, and not just the initial invasion?  Is it possible that, today, Iraq could be a truly safe and functioning democracy if  different decisions had been made, and the Bush Administration had actually listened to those who knew what they were talking about?  Perhaps, but of course, we will never know this for sure.

What started off as a half-assed, invasion and occupation quickly turned into chaos, and eventually turned into civil war.  One of the things the Bush Administration, and many of the supporters of the Iraq war did not realize before the invasion was the complexity of the country they were invading.  Specifically, they did not consider the different tribal, ethnic and religious conflicts that existed within Iraq , well before Saddam Hussein ever took power (if they even realized such conflicts existed to begin with). 



All of these decisions would lead to years of violence and blood shed for both American Soldiers and Iraqi civilians.  Baghdad would become the most violent and deadly city in he world. At least  one hundred thousand Iraqi lives would be lost, and so many more would be injured and displaced from their homes.  Nearly 4,500 American soldiers would parish, and many thousands more would be seriously injured.  This is not what so many American soldiers asked for, but it is what they got.









In more recent years, the situation on the ground in Iraq has ended up getting better, relatively speaking of course.  The arrogant and incompetent Donald Rumsfeld was replaced with Robert Gates as the Secretary of Defense, American commanders in Iraq started reaching out to different sects within Iraq to try and minimize the violence that was taking place, and more of the country were given over to Iraqi authorities.  In addition, violence and casualty levels on both sides have decreased, and deadlines for withdraw (which the Bush Administration had so stubbornly fought against for the first few years of the war) were finally being put into place.  In addition to changes in leadership and changes in policies, these successes must be given immense credit to our American soldiers, as well as Iraqi civilians, who have risked their lives to make Iraq a much more stable nation for the years to come.



This is not to say Iraq has turned out to be a successful, Jeffersonian democracy, or even safe and stable nation.  And it probably won't be one for many years, if ever.  For instance, Baghdad is still ranked as the most dangerous major city in the world, as it has been since the war started.  Gunfire, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), and suicide bombs are still a daily reality in the country of Iraq.   And despite the improvements that have been made, many experts are questioning whether Iraqi security forces will be able to keep the country as stable as it is.

Then there are the costs of the Iraq War: not just in money and resources, but in lives and limbs.  There are those who would argue that all of the bloodshed and sacrifices that have gone into this war will be worth it in the years to come.  While I do wish that the Iraqi people will continue to progress and make successful strides in the stability of their country, I cannot say at this time that the war was worth it, nor am I sure I will ever be able to.  







So, to recap in a more lighthearted, but still thought-provoking manner:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - The Bush Years - The Iraq War
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

May those that have perished in the war (whether American, Iraqi, or elsewhere) Rest in Peace.

Photo from The Public Record

 May we never forget the lessons this unfortunate conflict has taught us, so that we can never repeat them again.

 

Photo from Impeach For Peace

The True Meaning of Christmas

 Photo from Blog Critics

There are many wonderful traditions about the Christmas season that people around the world enjoy every year: the decorating of Christmas trees and lights, the hanging of stockings, the wrapping and unwrapping of presents, the singing of Christmas carols, Santa Claus and so on.  As an Atheist, I love all these traditions, even the one about Jesus and the Nativity.  I think a large part of it is nostalgia growing up in a Christian household, going to a church I liked and performing in Christmas plays for church.  I realize it is complete nonsense, and we are not even sure if Jesus was a real person.  In fact, both the birth story, and the rest of Jesus's life story isn't even an original story. 


Going back to Christmas, one new tradition that has seemed to come about in this country in more recent years is fighting a battle against those evil atheists against a so-called "War on Christmas".  Fundamentalist Christians and conservatives in the media will find isolated incidents where an atheist complains about a nativity scene being on public property, a non-Christian parent doesn't want their child singing Christmas Carols in school, or some other story with a similar storyline.  Suddenly, there is an all-out assault on Christmas and Jesus himself by atheists, secularists, and liberals.  And don't even think about saying "Happy Holidays".  It's MERRY CRHISTMAS, God Damnit!


In addition to the cherry-picking of "Christian Persecution" stories, the term "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" has been acceptable phrase for as long as I've been alive, and probably a lot longer.  It was only a few years ago that this alleged assault on Christmas began to take place.  Part of this is the effective work that fundamentalist Christians have put in to help delivering this message that they are under assault by evil, secular forces.  In reality, of course, these Christians don't want anything that isn't Christianity getting in their way of glorifying their Lord, or spreading the word of the Bible.

Part of this phenomenon is also that some members of the media always need something to complain about so people will watch their show or read their articles.  This is especially true for conservative pundits and journalists who love to talk about how liberal, secularists are persecuting conservatives, Christians, and of course, conservative Christians (double whammy).  I can assure you Christians that while we secular liberals have many items of business on our agenda, neither persecuting Christians or ruining Christmas is not among those things.

One phrase those individuals who insist there is a "War on Christmas" like to say is that "He is the reason for the Season".  But the funny thing about the season is that Christmas is primarily a pagan festival. Check out this fascinating video from The Thinking Atheist, and you will learn about the origins of Christmas.




Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

 

Photo from Young Australian Skeptic

A Video for Sunday: More Occupy Wall Street

One can never go wrong with the great Bill Maher. Here, Maher defends the Occupy Wall Street, and discusses the reality of the movement that so many of it's detractors don't want to admit: Occupy Wall Street is not a bunch of hippies.

There may be a few hippies there, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of the movement are filled with everyday people who are either hard-working, or who can't work because of our shitty economy. Maher is as witty and poignant as ever in this video.



Remember, we are the 99% (hippies and non-hippies alike)

A Video for Sunday: Socialism/Occupy Wall Street Edition

 

Picture from Crain's New York Business

This week, I am providing a double dose of videos.

I recently had the immense pleasure of listening to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle on audio book.  It's a novel about a Lithuanian family that moves to Chicago trying to find the American dream at the beginning of the 20th century.  What they actually find is personal and economic hardships not to be wished upon anyone.  Numerous events of a devastating nature crush the family into the lowest depths of despondency and poverty.  By the end of the novel, the main character, Jurgis Rudkus, realizes that evils of American capitalism and finds grace in supporting the socialist movement.  The novel was Sinclair's attempt for the American people to look at the evils of American economic system, and realize that socialism is the direction the country needed to head in.  Here is a video, originally posted on TeacherTube, that talks about the book a little more in depth, and what the real legacy of the book actually came to be after it was published. 



This book, as well as the the ever-growing Occupy Wall Street protests, provides a good opportunity to re-look at socialism.  For the longest time, the word "socialism" has had a dirty connotation to it in the United States, and even more so from the American right ever since Obama took office.  When people hear the term, they equate it with communism.  Images of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Che Guevera come to many American's minds.  But the reality is that most developed countries around the world, including the United States, have socialism in their economic system to a certain point.  Except unlike other countries in the world, socialism is generally not the evil, dirty word that it is in the United States.  And truth be told, many of us who do call ourselves socialists wouldn't advocate government takeover of all industries and private property (like some claim).  Most socialists (including myself) would probably prefer a type of mixed economic system: a capitalist/socialist hybrid where great emphasis is placed on economic equality, worker's right, and protections in case something bad happens to one of it's citizens (e.g. health care, unemployment benefits, etc.)  Here is a clip from a while ago by MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on the the use of the word "socialist" to describe himself.



It should be noted that not all those who support the Occupy Wall Street movement are socialists.  What those of us who do support these demonstrations agree upon is that damage that the banks and corporations have done to our economy, and that something needs to be done about the way they do business.  It is a grave injustice that in this economy, corporations are receiving record profits, CEOs and other corporate executives are receiving bonuses, and more corporate cash than ever is being filtered into our political system (among so many other things).  All the while, no new jobs are being added to our economy, and millions of American's are suffering economic hardship, and are worried that they will never be financially secure again.  I won't say we have it as rough as Jurgis and his family did in the early 20th Century, but it is still quite bad, and we deserve better.

Photo from rrstar.com

There are those (myself included) who support the movement, but have expressed criticism to protesters on a couple of different points.  First, the protest needs to broaden it's marchers so that it will be more than just "hippie-types".  While it is perhaps unfair to classify all of those involved with such a stereotype (and we should be grateful to those "hippie-types" for getting the protest off the ground), this is a movement that has grown into something big.  If we really are the "99ers", and we really want to make a significant change in our system, our movement must go mainstream, and try to bring in more than those from the activist left.  We need to bring in average citizens who may normally not be involved with political issues  These can be liberals, socialists, fed up capitalists, moderates, maybe even some conservatives.  We need to grow and unify.

A second criticism is that, while those who are protesting are clearly angry at the actions of Wall Street, they must also be able to come up with some specific, concrete ideas for policy change.  Hopefully, this movement is young, and when it comes to the potential to create change, the sky is the limit.  However, Eric Stetson at Daily Kos has some good ideas for short term changes:

1. A bailout for homeowners who are facing foreclosure and unemployed people with student loan debt -- of equal or greater value as the bank bailouts. Give these people a fresh start by forgiving their debts and keeping them in their homes, and thus improving the economy for all.
2. The "Buffett Tax" (i.e. taxing capital gains at the same rate as income earned from a job, so that working people won't pay higher taxes than the idle rich). It's only fair! And this will help to fund #1.
3. A short-term trading transaction tax for people and financial institutions who use Wall Street as a casino. Such a tax could raise huge amounts of money to fund #1, and would likely reduce the volatility in the markets by making computerized "high frequency auto-trading" by large investment companies less profitable. Such a tax would also make it harder for already-wealthy institutions to "vacuum up" more and more money from the productive sectors of the economy into the black hole of their own coffers.