US Military Suicide Rate Exceeds Combat Fatalities

If we are really interested in supporting our troops then that means cutting the political rhetoric that calls for support of our troops merely to appeal to American sensibilities and instead ending our wars, ending serial redeployments and ending cuts to veterans’ benefits and support programs.

If we are really interested in supporting our troops then we would stop treating them like cattle, shipping them off on foreign wars that have nothing to do with national defense and everything to do with nation building, stop putting soldiers directly in harm’s way, call them heroes and then immediately forget about them when they come home – until redeployment that is.

If we are really interested in supporting our troops then we would cut spending of military ventures abroad instead of slashing veterans’ benefits promised to soldiers who have loyally served their country, often times at great expense to themselves.

As Congressman Paul put it:

There’s just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.

Don’t believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That’s nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth — including home.

We shouldn’t forget that the administration took $600 million from the war in Afghanistan and used it in Iraq, before any direct appropriations were made for the invasion of Iraq. Funds are always available to put our troops into harms way; they are always available for leaving a war zone.

Those in Congress who claim they want the war ended, yet feel compelled to keep funding it, are badly misguided. They either are wrong in their assessment that cutting funds would hurt the troops, or they need to be more honest about supporting a policy destined to dramatically increase the size and scope of this misadventure in the Middle East. Rest assured one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.

The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all of us.

If we are really interested in supporting our troops then we must stop manufacturing wars where good men and women bleed and die on the battlefield or in their bathtubs while the rest of us sit at home and watch NCIS.

Obama and the Apparent Cookie-Cutter Diplomacy of his Foreign Policy

Maybe if we engage in real, genuine diplomatic efforts that had actual meaning then we wouldn’t have so many problems abroad. Who knows, we might even avert perpetual warfare in far off lands just to “defend our freedom” in the future.

US Bishops: The United States Cannot Justify Preemptive War in Iran

While politicians employ escalating political rhetoric purporting the urgency of our situation regarding Iran and how we must use preemptive military force against Iran the US Catholic Bishops have stated the contrary view that, even considering the prospect of a nuclear Iran, we cannot engage in preemptive war. That was back in 2007 when we were hearing the same hysterics about the “urgency” and the “danger” of Iran and how we must attack them before they attack us. Yet, five years later we’re all still here and while relations in the Middle East are even more precarious than ever they don’t have to be. We could drop our sanctions and initiate free trade and genuine diplomatic exchange between the United States and Iran and minimize the already exaggerated threat of Iran or we can continue to slowly give ground to fear-mongering chicken hawks endorsing immoral and, frankly, stupid policies. The US Bishops on an attack against Iran:

US Catholic Bishops have said that while the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons is unacceptable, in the absence an immediate threat, the USA and other nations must pursue a diplomatic solution to the present confrontation.

The message came in a letter issued by the church to US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice late last week.

It was signed by Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida, on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The bishops are reacting to escalating political rhetoric and news accounts speculating about a potential pre-emptive use of force against Iran, supposedly to deter further possible nuclear weapons ambitions.

“From a moral perspective,” Bishop Wenski wrote, “in the absence of an immediate threat military action would constitute an act of preventative war.”

The Catholic Church, he noted, teaches that “engaging in a preventative war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions.”

The bishops make clear their assessment that the Iranian situation does not presently constitute an immediate threat.

Under the ‘just war’ tradition of moral reasoning, before military action could be considered, say the bishops, all non-military alternatives must be exhausted.

Options, they suggest, range from diplomatic and economic incentives, increased international involvement and cooperation, to economic sanctions.

Catholic and other Christian peacemakers say that the churches’ stance should be for nonviolence, not for the justification of military action.

The bishops have also called on US leaders to change the nations’ current nuclear posture to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used against non-nuclear threats. They have appealed for greater, more sustained progress toward nuclear disarmament in the spirit of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The full text of the Catholic bishops’ letter is available at: http://www.usccb.org

Additionally, on March 2nd 2012 the U.S. bishops urged U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to work to reduce nuclear arms and maintain security in the Middle East in a letter about Iran from Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines. Bishop Pates chairs the Committee on International Justice and Peace of the United States Conference of Catholic bishops (USCCB). In the letter, Bishop Pates explicitly states that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran does not justify military action:

“In Catholic teaching, the use of force must always be a last resort. Iran’s bellicose statements, its failure to be transparent about its nuclear program and its possible acquisition of nuclear weapons are serious matters, but in themselves they do not justify military action.”

“Discussing or promoting military options at this time is unwise and may be counterproductive. Actual or threatened military strikes are likely to strengthen the regime in power in Iran and would further marginalize those in Iran who want to abide by international norms. And, as the experience in Iraq teaches, the use of force can have many unintended consequences.”

Its Time for Us to Go

While Obama has stated that he wants to stay in Afghanistan until at least 2014, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has explicitly stated that “Afghanistan is ready to take overall security responsibility.” The people of Afghanistan are sick of us. They are sick of the over-a-decade occupation of their homeland by foreign troops, of abuses by our military like the desecration of the bodies of dead soldiers and inappropriate Koran burning, and they’re sick of Afghan civilians being murdered – especially the most recent massacre of 16 Afghans by a US soldier. President Karzai stated, ”Our demand is that this process should be executed sharply and the responsibility should be handed over to to Afghans” by no later than 2013 and that international forces should “be withdrawn from villages and relocated in their bases.”

And the Afghan people are not the only ones that are sick of it. Americans are sick of perpetual war too. Osama Bin Laden is dead and it is time for us to go. Ron Paul has been saying this for years and, finally, others are slowly inching towards his point of view.

From the National Journal:

CHAMPAIGN, Ill.—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says that recent shifts by some of his rivals on the Afghanistan war are a sign that he’s “winning the fight” with his signature hands-off foreign policy.

Paul won standing ovations from some 4,600 people on Wednesday night at a University of Illinois rally–his largest turnout ever–for his calls to “bring our troops home!” He also told the crowd, made up mostly of college students, that “the other candidates on our side are saying we need to fight more wars.”

Asked by CBS News/National Journal about recent comments by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum that the United States should review its commitment in Afghanistan and possibly back off, Paul replied, “It’s about time.”

“But they’re what we call chicken hawks. And they talk a lot, they push the wars, they themselves haven’t gone, and they don’t serve, and yet they … promote the wars,” he said of his rivals, who talk often of taking military action against Iran to keep it from getting a nuclear weapon.

“Sure, the politics are changing, and that’s great. We’re changing people’s minds. The American people are sick and tired of it,” Paul said. “And like I mentioned in my speech, I spent five years trying to prevent the war in Iraq. So if they want to come on board now, fine and dandy. That means we’re winning the fight.”

Paul got chuckles from the gaggle of journalists and close supporters backstage when one reporter asked how he plans to bring home the troops. “By ship,” he said.

A new Gallup Poll shows half of Americans back a faster pullout of troops from Afghanistan than President Obama’s timetable of completing a withdrawal by the end of 2014.

(emphasis mine)

 

What’s the Point in Staying in Afghanistan?

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. – Dwight D. Eisenhower

The United States has been in Afghanistan for more than 10 years. And President Obama insists we will remain in Afghanistan until the end of 2014. CNN’s Jack Cafferty asks: why?

Of course, this is what Ron Paul has been saying for years now. Lets end our wars, brings our troops home to safety, and rely on diplomacy, free trade, cultural exchange and a strong national defense at home, not military adventurism, in our foreign relations.

Unfortunately, the Republican party is already chafing at the bit for the next foreign war, this time with Iran, and the Democratic party, which was so outspoken against unjust war and the handing out of unconstitutional war powers have fallen eerily silent since their own boy has taken office. Suddenly expansion of executive powers at the expense of our rights in the name of fighting terrorism isn’t such a big deal, apparently. Finally though, others are stepping up to the plate, heralding Ron Paul’s message and are getting some media attention. However, they remain a minority in the media’s spotlight and a rarity among our politicians.

While politicians in Washington may already be beating the drums of war, however, I stand with Ron Paul in defense of Catholic Just War Doctrine. Only then can we hope for any semblance of peace, prosperity and liberty – for ourselves and for all of those abroad who are affected by our decisions.

American Politicians’ Love Affair with Israel

Jon Stewart: allowable opinions on Israel in American politics range from “I unequivocally support Israel and might bomb Iran” to “I unequivocally support Israel and will definitely bomb Iran!”

The Daily Show: Hebrew Nationalist

Meanwhile, members of the Israeli leadership offer harsh criticism for Netanyahu and his aggressive foreign policy. They must be pro-mullah anti-semites . . . or at least that’s what the logic of U.S. politics would dictate. Additionally, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said that an Israeli strike on Iran would lead to devastating consequences for Israel.

In response to all this Mark Shea points out the obvious:

Meanwhile, an opposition leader in Iran notes that Iranians, who are remarkably like human beings, have this bizarre tendency to solidify behind their leaders when foreigners start dropping bombs on them and that, because of this inexplicable patriotism and love of their homeland, an attack on Iran would be a “gift from God for the mullahs“. Me: I’d like to see the mullahs gone and their opposition, which seems to want out of the Bronze Age, take their place. Indeed, I even remember that, crazy as it sounds, something similar happened in our country after 9/11 with people like Rosie O’Donnell thanking God that George Bush and not Al Gore was president and getting in line to support their leadership in the face of huge violence done to their country.

Yup, Iranians are *gasp* human beings and, as such, fear the same things we fear, want the same things we want and generally behave much like we do. Out of the 73 million human beings living in Iran, turns out many of them want to be a part of the modern world and peacefully associate with other countries – yes, even America. Sure, their leadership is corrupt and responsible for human rights violations and political demagoguery but lets not shoot ourselves in the foot by herding the Iranian people to the wholehearted support of their tyrannical leaders, begging Ayatollah to defend them from the American military juggernaut. Short of Iran attacking us, we must restrain ourselves from using any kind of military intervention – either on our own initiative or in support of an Israeli strike. The answer is not sanctions, either, as this too breeds resentment among the common Iranian against the United States and leads private industries in Iran to fail, allowing the government to step in, take over, and further extend their power over the Iranian people. Instead, we must engage in free trade and cultural exchange to win over the populace and initiate genuine diplomacy.

Essentially, it comes down to upholding Just War Doctrine and treating people like people. Then maybe we’ll get somewhere. I’m not saying it’ll be easy but it sure beats Israel and Iran bombing each other to oblivion.

Apologizing for America’s Mistakes is not Un-American

Columnist Gary Younge is spot on when he states that apologizing for America’s mistakes is not un-American. In fact, recognizing and working to rectify America’s shortcomings is precisely the patriotic thing to do. So when President Obama offers apologies to Afghanistan when we burn Korans, or when a U.S. soldier goes on a shooting rampage killing 16 Afghans, in an attempt to defuse escalating violence abroad I say kudos. Why do I say that? Because even though I consider Obama possibly the worst president in American history I’m not a bigot and, therefore, don’t decry the positive actions of my opponents in the name of misplaced tribal loyalties. Unfortunately, those on the right seem more interested in engaging in polarizing rhetoric than in giving credit where credit is due. In Romney’s words:

“Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signalling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable. There are anti-American fires burning all across the globe; President Obama’s words are like kindling to them.”

Strange words. Am I to believe that it was Obama’s formal apology for the American military’s Koran burning that lead to the subsequent riots and violence and not, perhaps, the Koran burnings themselves? To say nothing of the remarks made by Gingrich and others like him demanding that Afghanistan should be the ones apologizing to us. Remember that, should our military ever accidentally burn a pile of Bibles like they “accidently” burned Korans then its the Christians who owe our government an apology. Ridiculous.

On the same issue of Koran burning Rick Santorum recently argued that Obama’s apology over the US military burning Korans in Afghanistan, showed weakness:

“It suggests that there is somehow blame, this is somehow that we did something wrong in the sense of doing a deliberate act wrong. I think it shows that we are – that I think it shows weakness.”

Even if our military’s Koran burning really was accidental blame still exists. The Koran is sacred to the 1.7 billion Muslims of the world just as the Bible is sacred to Christians and apologizing for their destruction shows integrity not weakness. Some things are more important than cowardly attempts at saving face.

American Exceptionalism? Or Tyranny in Disguise?

Radio Host Michael Medved cannot explain why other countries like China can be perfectly safe without bases around the world but the United States must have them in order to be safe. He cannot defend the militaristic- interventionist policy and instead tries to sidetrack the discussion by making slanderous attacks on Ron Paul.

America is exceptional but not in the way that Medved demands. We have no basis upon which to demand that other nations compromise their sovereignty to us so that we can be the police force of the world. We have no moral high ground that justifies our wars of aggression because no such justification exists. There exists a world market but it exists despite military interventionism, not because of it. Instead, what is needed in order to maintain the world market is free trade, something that Ron Paul and non-interventionist policies wholeheartedly support.

Contrast that with the numerous sanctions and embargoes, necessitated by Medved’s ideology, which directly inhibit international free trade. Serial war and occupation goes even further, naturally obstructing the free world market to say nothing of the widespread destruction it inflicts – think of Iraq, for example, where hundreds of thousands were killed and over 4 million Iraqis were displaced in what was possibly the largest refugee crisis in history; is this what makes us so invaluable to the world economy? That we remove these seemingly “expendable” players like Iraq from the world market, crippling their economy for decades to come? One might also wonder, if Medved’s assertions were true, why does the world market flounder with all of Europe on the verge of bankruptcy when the United States has hundreds of bases around the world, a decades long history of CIA and military intervention in the Middle East, and spends more on its military than the next 14 highest military-spending countries combined?

America’s exceptionalism is a matter of degree, not kind. So we have the single largest GDP in the world? So we live in a country founded on the ideals of a republic and not on culture? So have the most powerful military in the world? So what. We are no different than our European, African, South American or Asian counterparts. Our Constitution recognizes what Medved does not: that all “persons” and not just U.S. citizens have certain inalienable rights endowed to us, not by the “exceptional” American government, but by our Creator. We have no authority over the other countries of the world and those who claim otherwise are the enemies of liberty. I’m an American but, even more fundamentally, I’m a human being, and I don’t like the taste of tyranny, Medved – even if its the United States of America who is the perpetrator . . . especially if it is the United States of America who is the perpetrator.

These Cronies Must Go

RT.com points out the corruption and hypocrisy of Washington politicians who contradict our own top brass and intelligence agencies on foreign policy in favor of serial warfare benefiting the military-industrial complex all at the expense of the very people they were elected to serve:

Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn), Lindsey Graham (R – SC)  and John McCain (R-AZ) stick together through thick and thin. They are frequently seen side by side, both physically and politically, and the most common speech they seem to  give has to do with the need for more war.

Brian Becker, National Coordinator for the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition, said, “These three haven’t met a war that they don’t like.”

Together, they led the charge to amp up the effort in Afghanistan.

“We need more troops there, American troops,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) at a Senate hearing on Afghanistan in 2009.

“IED attacks by the enemy have gone up by a thousand percent,” said Sen. Graham at the same hearing.

“In the words of Admiral Mullen,” Sen. McCain said, “time is not on our side.”

InAugust, 2009, the three of them met with Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi at a time when it was in the United States’ interests to call him friend.

Less than two years later, they called for him to be replaced.

“If you want Gaddafi to go,” said Sen. McCain, “then one of the steps among many would be to establish a no-fly zone.”

On CNN, Sen. Lieberman made the case for involvement to the American people.

“Will the world stand by and watch a leader like Qadhafi slaughter his own people?” he asked.

Perhaps the most constant target for the three senators is Iran.

“If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war,” said Sen Graham. “They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float.”

Even in 2010, Sen. McCain’s sense of urgency with Iran was immense.

“We keep pointing a gun and we haven’t pulled a single trigger and its time we did,” he said.

But two years later, that lack of immediate military action hasn’t resulted in Armageddon, or anything like it.  Still the calls for action expand – now across the globe

“The Iranian nuclear program is a threat to the entire world,” said Sen Lieberman this week in his speech at AIPAC.

And on Monday on the Senate floor, Senator McCain made the case for airstrikes in Syria.

“Foreign military intervention is now the necessary factor to reinforce this option,” he said.  “Assad needs to know that he will not win.”

Babka said it is a nearly identical debate to the ones in the past.

“Once again, almost with Pavlovian response, these guys come and say, well we gotta go to war,” he said

The mood  of the American people may have  shifted to ending the wars but the perpetual lobby for war does have its supporters, among them – defense contractors.

“They’re very popular with the military industrial complex which sees every new adventure, every new invasion, every new occupation, every new major bombing campaign as an investment,” Becker said.

But it’s an investment fewer Americans want their country to make as they have already lived through the consequences of the previous military adventures.

Remember, these are the exact same individuals who gave us the NDAA, SOPA, the PATRIOT Act, Kill Switch and more. Neoconservatives like Lieberman, Graham and McCain leave no room in their despotic ideals for preserving the integrity of our constitution, defending the rights of Americans or respecting the authority entrusted to them. These cronies must go.

Preemptive War Still Contradicts Just War Doctrine

Mark Shea over at the National Catholic Register addresses the erroneous mental gymnastics Catholics in favor of preemptive war must pull to rationalize militarist politics:

The point is this: just war doctrine has been formulated by the Church, not to give us a trigger mechanism so that we can roll up our sleeves and commence slaughter with a song in our hearts, but in order to make it as hard as possible to go to war—because war kills innocent people.  The point of just war doctrine, in other words, is to set up a series of roadblocks to slow down and restrain the human appetite for mayhem, vengeance, murder and destruction which sinfully yearns for an excuse to be unleashed.  Just war doctrine is formulated in such a way that you have to fulfill all the requirements of just war teaching, not just one or two, in order to fight a just war.  The first requirement is that all just war must be an act of defense against an actual aggressor, not a preventative act of aggression against somebody you fear might be an aggressor one of these days.  Similarly, one of the criteria which must be fulfilled is that war must be a last, not a first, resort.  Therefore, pre-emptive war is necessarily unjust war—because war is not something you “get” to do.  War is something you tragically are forced to do as a last resort: like amputating your own leg.  Pre-emptive war, being neither a response to an actual act of aggression nor a last resort is, itself, an act of aggression.  It should be as morally desirable to Catholics as the thought of amputating one’s own healthy leg because you fear that in five years you might step on a nail and get gangrene.  Not too eager to do that?  Neither should any Catholic be eager to cut corners on just war doctrine—because war mean innocents will die, women will be made widows and children will be made orphans. That is why Joaquin Navarro-Valls, speaking on behalf of Pope John Paul II, said, “He who decides that all pacific means provided by the international law are exhausted, assumes a grave responsibility in front of God, in front of his own conscience and in front of history!”

In short, the argument that the silence of the Catechism on pre-emptive war is an argument in *favor* of it is like the argument that the silence of the Catechism on the subject of ritual cannibalism means that cooking and eating human beings in religious ceremonies is not “always wrong”.

Yes.  It is.  And so is pre-emptive war.  That’s why it’s not in the Catechism.

Its actually pretty simple. Church doctrine isn’t about mere rules and regulations, it is a way of life and, when an individual stops asking, “how can I act in such a way as to always respect human life and dignity?” and instead approaches church teaching with the mindset of, “okay, how close can I toe the line and still get away without sinning?” Then you’ve already abandoned the spirit of the law. We don’t “get” to go to war. We are forced to engage in war only when it is necessary for our own defense, all other options have been exhausted and and we can do so without causing disproportionate or indiscriminate destruction. Going to war because our enemies might have WMDs is a violation of just war doctrine; going to war to “bring them democracy” is a violation of just war doctrine; going to war because a country we’re on bad terms with could be developing a nuclear weapon is a violation of just war doctrine. Period. End of story.