Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
It’s People Who Come with the Territory
It's hard to find words to describe adequately the emotions and energies present in the world today. It's scary in the sense that in the past less conflict than is going on now has led to World Wars. The outlook is somewhat hopeful in the sense that we don't have the world lined up in two major opposing camps.
Unfortunately, what we do have is two sides actively involved—the Middle Eastern mostly Arab countries lined up against Israel and the US —and then the rest
of the world mostly uninvolved. Include those who support us in Iraq and Afghanistan , and it's basically the US , Israel and Great Britain versus the world. Being an Arab country while actively and openly supporting the US is dangerous for almost all of the Mid East governments.War is generally about territory. We may say it's about principles, but territory, property or resources are what change hands after a war.
While territory can certainly be altered by bombs and chemicals, what comes with the territory—who is really affected—is people. Isn't territory really houses, gardens, farms, apartments, schools, parks and businesses, all of which contain people?
In June in Iraq an average of over 100 people a day died. These were noncombatant civilians. Over 3,000 died in June. In comparison to that, very few Americans or terrorists died. When told over 300 civilians had died in Southern Lebanon , one Israeli soldier commented—almost in a “yes, but look what we accomplished” manner—that they had been able to kill six Hezbollah terrorists.
What Vietnam “accomplished” was that we—the American people—could, for the first time, actually see a war unfold on the evening news. It didn't look precise or smart or clean or very strategic. It wasn't very glorious. Territory was won one day and lost the next, and regained the next. While the cost of the territory may have been counted in terms of casualties, it never appeared that the value or cost/benefit was measured in those people terms.
It's tough to watch the violence and casualties. At this point who can object when Israel wants to do more than sit there and watch the bombs fall? Going after those supplying the rockets seems logical, but I have to wonder if there is a single country over there that has not been supplied arms by the US at one point or another. The roots of this go deep.
One danger now is that we will find a villain to go after in the same way we went to war in Iraq . Let's hope we remember how the facts were stretched—bent, folded and mutilated actually—to justify the war and so-called “quick” victory in Iraq .
Let's hope we remember that during President Johnson's administration the Tonkin Gulf incident was staged by the US to gain public support for the Vietnam War. A US destroyer, we were told, was attacked by North Vietnam . It wasn't.
We certainly have precedents that should make us leery about believing whatever we hear and being swept up in the patriotic defense of ourselves or our “interests.”
The tape was erased before I could get his name written down, but a Columbia University professor who specializes in following Syria was on television recently talking about Syria . Since 9/11, they have cooperated extensively with the US giving us information about terrorists. It's not a two-way street, however, in that they don't get anything for that except criticism (as they are getting now). Therefore, it's much, much easier for them to join with other anti-American governments in the region.
I'm not saying this to defend Syria . Only to say we are not necessarily hearing a balanced presentation from the Administration—once again.
It's a good time to do our homework before jumping onto any bandwagons. The cost of war is just too high, and in terms of numbers, the highest price is paid for by those who don't want to be involved.
It's time to remember that when the Administration says something and it gets reported in the headlines, that it may look like news, but it's simply one side.
This is especially a good time to encourage the media to do its homework and not simply repeat the mantra of the day.
We've seen the consequences of that. We're in a war that has gone from a complete victory to an insurgency to a civil war. No one is talking about victory now. The Administration now talks in terms of propping up the new government until it can defend itself—and good luck to y'all. That's assuming we eventually leave.
It's time to support the media in questioning events and motives, which is its traditional role in supporting our system of government. It's time to object when they are attacked. Our government has to know that restricting the press is against the Constitution. Unfortunately we have to remind them to read the document they swore to enforce. Unfortunately, to many of them, it's just a quaint old piece of paper.
Imagine what might happen if Iran and other anti-American governments took a look and thought it a good time to join against the US and Israel . Watching Lebanon , we know that it doesn't even take a government to cause a war.
With the US barely holding its ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq , where we just had to send more troops, our forces are divided. A united effort against us—which would reflect the popular opinion of most of the Middle East —could really be a mess. We are stretched so thin, is it time for them to unite and attempt to drive us out?
What may be a bigger danger is to read what I just wrote and think I had subverted our efforts there. Did I give the enemy a good idea? The New York Times (NYT) just went through that. It's surprising we didn't laugh at the notion that they helped the enemy.
Consider for a moment the daily life of a terrorist. They must certainly be just like us, complaining about the cost of oil, getting the kids to school, traffic, and paying bills for terrorist activities, never giving a thought to who may be watching. They must certainly be free of paranoia, never ever considering that their daily activities might be watched. Do we really think they would never think that they might be watched? If you believe that, then all we need to do is round up their checks and read the “bank note” section and we'll know everything. Or maybe not.
Maybe these were already secretive, paranoid people before the NYT told them to be. It might come with the business they're in.
We can only hope that it is becoming obvious to more and more people that controlling another country is not about controlling territory. What's important is our relationship with what occupies that territory—people—and our ability to cooperate with—not control—them. Control is an illusion. Even if we “win” a total military victory, we then start over when we begin talking.
It's sad that we can't begin there. It's sad that we have so many committed to other paths. But that is the way it is. One hopes that we are learning the futility of war and how control ultimately has to be replaced with cooperation.
Meanwhile, isn't it time for citizens to be citizens—to be vigilant and not only pay attention to what is going on, but to question what becomes the conventional wisdom? After all, that wisdom can get very bizarre. At times like this, that also seems to come with the territory.
Have a Great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
