|
(1) "Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of our brothers who are called the opposition." -- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
This passage is from what I believe was the greatest speech in American history. It was delivered by Martin on April 4, 1967, exactly a year before his death. It was King's most revolutionary speech, an address to the Clergy and Laity Concerned meeting at the Riverside Church in New York City to discuss a war that threatened to destroy the soul of this nation. Though King had previously expressed concern about the Vietnam War, this was the first time he directly attacked the Johnson administration's war policies. The content of this speech is believed to be what caused the dark forces in America to take this prophet's life.
As I watch President Bush in his 11-12 press conference with Tony Blair, I am reminded of the situation King faced in 1967. Yet with Bush, we are dealing with a man who appears to have none of Lyndon Johnson's considerable skills; he does, however, appear to have almost all of LBJ's tragic flaws. His gleeful glibness that is a result of the election has distorted his judgement on Iraq to a point that is more dangerous to America than was Vietnam.
The pompous "mandate" that is used to justify his war policy is built upon a foundation of "religious and moral values" that ranks with any of the worldly kings in the Old Testament. And so I believe that the religious people in America should look to our prophet, Rev. King, in order to determine what path we must take.
Just as in the biblical days with deluded tyrants, people need to look to a higher source for inspiration. We must find unity among the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jainists, those who practice Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastianism, Sikhism, the Native American religions, and our Pagan brothers and Sisters. Yet I am convinced that the greatest responsibility falls onto the shoulders of the Christians, because this terrible evil is being committed in the name of our churches. It is a yoke we must shoulder.
(2) The Morality of War
In this week's Irish Echo (www.irishecho.com), the largest Irish-American newspaper in the country, the talented author Peter McDermott writes in the cover article that this "Election begs a question: Whose beliefs matter more?" The Mac Diarmada sept of Connacht always ask such beautiful questions as a teaching tool, a tactic they perfected for dealing with tyrants.
Peter quotes Drew Christiansen S. J., the executive editor of "America," the Jesuit magazine, who says, "A significant group of Catholics regard this war as immoral." Of the major US churches, Christiansen notes that "only the Southern Baptist Convention supported the war policy in the lead-up to the invasion in Iraq."
McDermott notes that Lancet, the British medical journal, reports that the numbers of women and children being wounded and killed by our air strikes is ten times what our media reports. General Tommy Franks said, "We don't do body counts," even though the Geneva Convention requires an army to do just that. We have moved beyond the international agreements that have helped define human decency.
McDermott writes that "in Ireland, a country where traditional Catholic teachings remain influential in the public sphere, America's decision to go to war" was strongly opposed, and continues to be identified as immoral. Yet this was not considered by the fundamentalists to be worthy of consideration in the "debate on morals" in the 2004 campaign.
(3) "I don't think the people of the country know much about Vietnam and I think they care a hell of a lot less." - LBY to Richard Russell; 5-27-64; "Taking Charge" by M. Beschloss, page 365.
John Kennedy picked LBJ for his vice presidential running mate for two reasons: Johnson could carry Texas, and he had been the "master of the senate." Yet Johnson had remarkably little background in foreign affairs. When he became president, he was aware that he would need to rely upon Kennedy's "wise men" for advice.
Despite their counsel, LBJ would simply never grasp the realities of Vietnam. That LBJ was a bright man is beyond debate; yet he was grossly ignorant in the areas of Vietnam's history and culture. He never progressed beyond seeing the Vietnamese in terms of his prior experience with Mexican-Americans, and his view of the North Vietnamese leaders in the context of his grandfather's experience with "wild" Indians.
Likewise, LBJ would never fully understand other minority groups in America, most notably blacks. He was furious at what he believed was King's betrayal in the "A Time to Break Silence" speech from 4-4-67, and didn't comprehend the reason young black men did not want to serve in Vietnam. Hence, as older DUers will recall, LBJ made a pathetic attempt at a patriotic pep talk, which included his infamous telling the soldiers to "bring home that coonskin." It was hard to imagine that any president could ever be more out of touch with reality; this may be the most outstanding accomplishment of the Bush presidency.
(4) "Our people long ago established Vietnam as an independant nation with its own civilization. We have our own mountains and rivers, our own customs and traditions." - Le Loi ; 15th century guerrilla warrior defending Vietnam from Mongol invaders.
Ho Chi Minh was a student of history. He was educated in Paris for seven years, and later in Moscow. His studies ranged from the US-Indian wars, to Marxism. However, his primary interest was his own country's history.
He knew that the histric regions of Tonkin (north), Annam (middle), and Cochin (south) had been established as a distinct nation by 200bc. From the 111bc invasion by China to the 1960s "involvement" by the United States, the Vietnamese history was one of near constant fighting outside aggressors.
Ho appreciated poetry, and often quoted the words of Nguyen Trai, who joined forces with Le Loi: "Although we have been at times strong/ at times weak/ we have no time lacked heroes."
LBJ's inability to understand this simple verse led to the death of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese.
(5) "If you wish to conduct offensive war you must know the men employed by the enemy. Are they wise or stupid, clever or clumsy? Having assessed their qualities, you prepare appropriate measures." - Sun Tzu; quoted by Michael Scheuer; "Imperial Hubris;" page 103
Michael Scheuer was CI's leading expert on Usama bin Laden, until his recently announced retirement from the agency. In "Imperial Hubris," his second book on the growing conflict between the United States and the Muslim world, Scheuer details the extent that bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders have studied American history. He quotes from Islamic journals that "describe al Qaeda's intention to follow Clausewitz's principle of attacking its foe's 'center of gravity.' " Their goal is to make "sure to direct all available focus against the center of gravity during the great offensive." (pages 100-101)
This is an extremely important concept for us to understand. Scheuer felt strongly enough about warning the American public about the actual nature of this "global war" that he published his two books as "Anonymous." He is clearly no fan of the Clinton administration, but he recognizes that the Bush administration is completely out of touch with the nature of the opposition.
In Vietnam, the al Qaeda leaders have concluded, the "center of gravity" was the American soldiers; when the public saw the reality of the war on TV, as compared to the lies about a "light at the end of a tunnel" and inflated "body counts," the nation turned on the war. When the middle class withdrew their support for the war, the Vietnamese had achieved victory.
Today, Scheuer reports, al Qaeda believes the media is so firmly controlled by US business and security interests that the public has little or no exposure to the truth about the war in Iraq. Thus the "center of gravity" has become the American economy. Al Qaeda leaders believe the American public so worships "the Almighty dollar" that they will not withdraw support for Bush's wars until the American economy is bankrupt. Scheuer makes a strong case that this is exactly what Usama bin Laden is attempting to do.
If we put aside our beliefs about who may have been responsible for 9-11, and suspend judgement about the advisability of the war in Afghanistan, but keep in mind the "threat" posed by the WMDs we were told existed in Iraq, the world looks different than what is reported by Fox News. From this detached stance, we can look at the affects of these three things on the United States' economy. The fact that Halliburton resembles a pack of jackals attempting to capitalize on the situation only quickens the pace that the Bush administration will destroy our economy. One need only remember what LBJ called "that bitch of a war" did to his plans for a Great Society. The time will come when a wheel barrel full of Halliburton stock won't buy a loaf of bread.
(6) "Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world." - Scheuer; pg x in preface of "Imperial Hubris."
Scheuer believes the Bush administration has done a grave disservice to our country by painting a picture of Usama bin Laden as a rabid mad-man who hates us for our freedoms. By creating a one-dimensional monster, the administration seeks to divert attention from the the real issues we face. "What the United States does in formulating an implementing policies affecting the Muslim world, however, is infinitely more inflammatory. While there may be a few militant Muslims out there who would blow up themselves and others because they are offended by McDonald's restaurants, Iowa's early presidential primary, and the seminude, fully pregnant Demi Moore on Esquire's cover, they are exactly that : few, and no threat at all to U.S. national security. The focused and lethal threat posed to U.S. national security arises not from Muslims being offended by what America is, but rather from their plausible perception that the things they value -- God, Islam, their brethren, and Muslim lands -- are being attacked by America. .... Part of bin Laden's genius is that he recognized early on the difference between issues Muslims find offensive about America and the West, and those they find intolerable and life threatening. .... And in the movement-causing category fall, almost exclusively, U.S. political, military, and economic policies toward the Islamic world." (pages 9-10; "Imperial Hubris")
Compare Scheuer's description of bin Laden to that of the Bush administration, or of Bush's friends in Saudi Arabia. Most DUers will recall Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan dismissing bin Laden as a dull-witted fellow in Michael Moore's F 9-11. " Bandar Bush," as our president calls him, has also told reporters that, "When I first met bin Laden in the 1980s, I thought he couldn't lead eight ducks across the street."
Scheuer notes: "The most common form of the Saudi's defamation of bin Laden is done by having his friends in the kingdom describe him as a gentle, amiable, and relatively unintelligent man.This seems to be an effort to suggest to the world that bin Laden is not capable of the 11 September attacks, while sparing the regime the anger and resentment that too harsh a critique of bin Laden would produce in the politically powerful bin Laden family -- a pillar of the Saudi establishment -- and the majority of the Saudi populace that polls show admire bin Lade." (pg 108 of "Imperial Hubris")
Even many people on the democratic left subscribe to a false legend of bin Laden. He is referred to as a "CIA asset" on several DU threads, although there is no evidence to support this claim. The fact he fought in Afghanistan at the same time the CIA bankrolled some of the mujahideen is apparently the only "proof" needed. Yet bin Laden did not fight the Soviet Union because they were a godless, communist country; he fought because they were invading an Islamic country. While it is true that this episode represents perhaps the CIA's most successful effort in battling the Soviet Union, it is an error to assume the agency bought the control of the Islamic fghters.
Scheuer has served as the CIA's leading expert on bin Laden. His books present a very different view of bin Laden, in an entirely Islamic context, as a highly intelligent, very capable military leader. Scheuer shows how bin Laden has used the Bush administration's Imperial Hubris to his best advantage. He lists about 30 successful actions by the US and its allies against al Qaeda since 9-11, and about 75 successful al Qaeda strikes against American and allied interests in the same period.(pages 87-100)
Scheuer notes that the United States is "fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or terrorism." He traces this struggle to the US policy in the Middle East, especially in regard to oil. One cannot read this without being reminded of the work done by presidents from Carter to Clinton, that had made significant progress towards creating friendships between our country and moderate Muslim nations. This administration has destroyed every single friendship except that of the Bush family and the Saudi "royal" family.
The tape of bin Laden that the American public saw on 10-29 seemed to be an effort to help President Bush win the 11-2 election. Yet when we ignore the false images of bin Laden that our media has presented, and view him from the context Scheuer presents, one realizes that bin Laden recognizes that President Bush's Imperial Hubris generates an ever increasing support for the growing hatred of America that al Qaeda capitalizes on.
(7) "We thank God for appeasing us with the dilemma in Iraq after Afghanistan. The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw, they will lose everything; and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death." - Ayman al -Zawahiri; pg xxi of "Imperial Hubris"
Scheuer describes the goals of the anti-American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as classic guerrilla warfare: "The first job of an insurgent organization .... is neither to stand and fight nor to be able to hit its foe with a single, fatal blow. Its first responsibility always is to be positioned to prevent its annihilation by a single, comprehensive military strike or campaign by its always more powerful enemy." (page 60)
Their goal is to avoid major defeats and to protect senior leaders. Their fighting is limited to using "whatever weapons come to hand to wear down the enemy in military, economic, political and morale terms." (page 61) I believe that Scheuer accurately predicted the US action in Fallujah. He has a clear grasp at what is going on. Compare this to President Bush's insisting that the increase in violence represents our coming closer to the "victory" that he already announced in May of 2003. Like LBJ in Vietnam, President Bush does not recognize that an escalation in death and destruction does not translate into peace and democracy.
And again like LBJ, when patriotic and highly intelligent citizens such as Michael Scheuer attempt to inform this administration of their tragic errors, Bush turns a deaf ear. He lacks the capacity to recognize that he is capable of being wrong. Instead, Scheuer and many other highly qualified CI employees are labeled as "enemies" and forced out of their jobs. Because these individuals put more value on the truth and are willing to act on their dedication to this great country, the administration becomes more entrenched in their Imperial Hubris, and thousands more people suffer and die for no reason.
(8) "Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poorof America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaderso my own nation. The great initiation in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours." - Rev. King; 4-4-67; "A Time to Break Silence"
I read on a DU forum about a sit-in planned in Ohio. Apparently, the FBI spoke to the lady planning this event, and she canceled it. I understand fear and anxiety. I can appreciate that it can cause some of our brothers and sisters to back down from taking the steps they know they should to protest this administration's war in Iraq.
I often read a story that Martin told about a time he struggled with these emotions. A late-night caller informed him that "nigger, we've taken all we want from you," and let him know that he would soon die because of his stance against hatred. We should never forget that King was a human being, his parents' son, a husband and a father. Like us, Martin felt the fear and anxiety that comes at that midnight hour, when the danger of the darkness looms the most threatening. He was exhausted, and this call brought him to his knees. He prayed: "I am here to take a stand for what I believe is right. But now I'm afraid .... I have nothing left. I've come to the point where I can't face it ..."
"At that moment I experienced the presence of the Divine as I had never before experienced him. It seemed as though I could hear the quiet assurance of an inner voice, saying, 'Stand up for righteousness, stand up for truth! God will be at your side forever!' Almost at once my fears began to pass from me. My uncertainty disappeared. I was ready to face anything. The outer situation remained the same, but God had given me inner calm." (King; The Strength to Love)
President Bush has used the imagery that Rev. King used when he spoke to us on that last night of his life, about having gone to the mountaintop. Only one of these two men could possibly be telling the truth. The other is a liar. One is a man of God; the other an evil-doer.
As a people, we must decide. As Martin said at that Riverside Church : "Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons (and daughters) of God, and our brothers (and sisters) wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men (and women), and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope...? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of Human history." (King; "A Time to Break Silence")
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
