Well, here we go again! The deniers of history are once again hard at work, attempting through logic defying comparisons to other historical events, to change the worth of an irresponsible, callous blood-spilling venture - the Iraq War.

What troubles me is that well-meaning, otherwise intelligent Americans are committing that effort. And they are doing so in the name of a sort of 'patriotic inspired hero worship' of an incompetent president and a despotic vice president. And worse, they employ this tactic as political leverage against those who may hold a differing opinion of events as to motives and necessity, which they've wrapped up in a false and desperate patriotism. Try to come to grips with it fellow citizens - the Iraq War was totally unnecessary - period!

As refreshing as Scott McClellan's book is it should be regarded as unspectacular, especially to those who didn't have their heads up the backside of some partisan political ideology. The thinking minority instinctively knew or suspected most of what he revealed to be true. Let's face it; we're not all hardcore partisan idiots and patriotism junkies!

It is quite understandable that most Americans do not like the prospect of losing a war. Vietnam struck us hard in the national solar plexus, but at least in that war we had the cold solace of knowing that the French had lost it first. And much later on there was a catharsis gained from the knowledge that the Russians were undergoing their own Vietnam in Afghanistan.

Now we are fighting on two fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq with total U.S. combat deaths form both wars nearing 5000; and there is no sign of us getting out of this two theater conflict in the very near future.

That's right, let's be real, we can't just pull our troops out immediately, for that would constitute an act even more irresponsible than starting the war in the first place. Like it or not, we're stuck for the duration in a complex mess of our own creation - which a responsible incoming leader must strive to make as short as humanly possible.

Despite these sobering facts, there are still average Americans on the street who protest loudly that our president, George W. Bush, had every right to involve us in an endless ground war in the Middle East. They have taken up his battle cry by insisting that he is fighting a - War on Terror.

The Global War on Terror Myth

Just for the record, the entire world has been involved for nearly 150 years in a War on Terror. The war has been going on since the development of nitroglycerine in 1846, and escalated with the invention of dynamite 21 years later in 1867.

Nitroglycerine, a highly unstable explosive chemical compound made stable by innovative compaction into package form - dynamite, allowed political vendettas and agendas to be carried out via its concealed use. No more effective application of this product to address political ends has ever been made than during the decades long conflict between the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the British government.

It should noted that the IRA, the same 'terrorist' organization under a new name, is now an accepted political wing of the British House of Parliament. This unlikely accommodation came about when both sides shared a common political and financial cost analysis of their efforts of continued war and retaliation, and decided to cut their losses. (Ref: "The Mechanics and Politics of Terrorism" - CI archives: July 14, 2005)

Of course, since the unresolved elements of the initial unrest are still in place, the unrelenting blind hatred remains intact; theoretically, the conflict has the potential to arise once again. But it is unlikely to be negotiated in the same violent manner, since in order to do so both sides would have to shoulder major losses of their valuable political gains. The Middle East is an entirely different matter.

The Middle East Classroom

The Middle East conflict is an incredibly violent and complex stage play; one that has been running on for almost 2000 years. Barring a nuclear war, the conflict is capable of a continuing run for another seventy-five years. I make that calculation based upon the estimated amount of oil reserves remaining in the area.

Therefore, when any government speaks of ending the reign of terror in the world, without attacking its roots, the gesture becomes a futile one. At bloody cost in lives and aspirations, this is the prime lesson we've gained from this conflict in that part of the world.

The Internet, computers, cell phone technology, easy portability of weapons and explosives and suicide battalions that know no geographical boundaries, have all come together at this point in time to allow every group to have its 'fifteen minutes of bloody fame.'

So how does one wage war on such fragmentary forces spread over the globe? The answer to that question is - with incredible difficulty. Think about that! How have we done with the Drug War? In the long term, narcotics trafficking inflicts far more harm to countries than terrorist factions are able to achieve, but even with international cooperation - we've not made an applaudable dent in the trade and the same can be said for terrorism.

Let's face it, as of September 11, 2001, war as we have come to know and experience it changed forever. No matter how powerful or well defended your nation or home, the enemy can now - reach out and touch you.

Added to which, in today's world you may not know who the enemy is - until it's too late, and no nation can realistically wage war on an unidentified enemy. But the legitimate identification of the enemy remains as important as ever. However, when caught by circumstances between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place', politics often dictates that we take the low road toward the illusionary quick resolution of a problem.

Should this supposition be true, the morally unpalatable option left is to wage war on the people of a nation that harbors, or is suspected of harboring terrorists or terror organizations. Or is it?

Catch a Terrorist by the Toe...If He Hollers - Is He Real?

From Detainee To Detonatee:

"A Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday,"Reuters reports from Dubai: "A friend of Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi in Iraq informed his family that Abdullah carried out the attack in Mosul, his cousin Salem told the Dubai-based television channel.  We were shocked by the painful news we received this afternoon . . . through a call from one of the friend's of martyr Abdullah in Iraq," said Salem al-Ajmi in a telephone interview aired by Arabiya.  He did not say when the suicide bombing happened."

       ---James Taranto, Best of the Web Today
          May 5, 2008

The above news excerpt represents the central fear in the minds of many, in regards to releasing prisoners from America's Guantanamo prison facility in Cuba. The question to be contemplated however, does this genuine fear sanctify the open-ended incarceration of foreign nationals - we suspect are terrorists? Note, the key word here is - suspect.

In every operational policy there comes a point of no return: which is in itself a double-edged sword. For when it comes to waging war on a people as a whole in order to root out and destroy a terrorist faction, two phases of population reaction tend to occur: first they support you until many of them die, then they begin to support the factions who brought your wrath down upon them in the first place. This may seem illogical to some but, for better or worse, that is how the human psyche operates. One might describe this reaction as a sort of an offshoot of the well-known 'Stockholm Syndrome.'

There is however another more dangerous syndrome, and its called .....you've got the wrong individual. That's right! You've identified an individual, you capture and ignore his pleas of innocence, whisk him away to some secret place where his screams won't be heard or matter - like Guantanamo.

There you waterboard him, stand on his bare toes with combat boots, stick an electrical prod up his anus, pour cold water over him, and for hours sit him naked in a cold room - and damn if he doesn't finally confess to what you have informed him that you suspect him of.

Unfortunately, too often in fact, when you have checked out the data he has given (under extreme duress - formerly referred to as torture), the information turns out to be false and useless. Damn again, he was telling you the truth all along. Now what do you do? Well, for political expedience you lock him away and, virtually, throw away the key.

Yes, there is some merit to this approach to 'on ground terrorist intelligence gathering.' In a raid on a known terrorist hangout or encampment, more than likely anyone apprehended can be legitimately labeled a terrorist. But when you randomly grab someone in the street running with many others from the scene of a terrorist bombing, how do you know he isn't just an innocent bystander desperately trying to seek safety? After all, to many of us they all look the same. So the answer is - we don't know - for certain.

Therefore, when you bring this person back to your 'secret hell', if he survives, he's going to remember you - with good reason. And some day, after the war is over, he and others may harness the resolve to track you down. Isn't that what Jewish prisoners of the Nazis did? But worse yet, these damaged human beings in some unknown percentage will form new terrorist groups, or join other terrorist groups in the making - and the madness will start all over again.

I can well imagine a future trial in the United States or the Hague, in which a physically and emotionally scarred Iraqi is accused of tracking down and brutally executing a former American serviceman, Master Sergeant X, father of three young children and loving husband of Mrs. X. His reason? Because the former U.S. Army officer had tortured him years previous, somewhere, and, at the time had ignored his furtive pleas of innocence - which were later proven to be true.

This emotionally distraught individual, finally released from American captivity after many lost years, returned to his war ravaged homeland to discover that, in the interim of his imprisonment, his home and business was destroyed and his wife and children completely vanished - never to be seen again.

How such a trial turns out is, at the moment, of no immediate concern to me. What I am curious about is just how an American public, let's say ten years after the 'fictional end' of the Iraq War, would view such an avenging criminal defendant and his claims to his just right to vengeance? In other words, will he have a case?

A Trial In Quick-Time

Since this is a fictional trial concerning fictional people, we can access fiction for the role precedent will most likely play:

In the classic tale of revenge by Alexander Dumas, "The Count of Monte Cristo", an individual named Edmund Dantes, is wrongfully arrested and convicted on contrived charges, unjustly incarcerated and tortured for 14 years in a hellish prison. Over this time he plans an escape and manages to succeed, where upon he sets out to seek revenge on the man who had him imprisoned so that he could steal his home and his wife. Needless to say, he does find him and... Well, we all know what happens. But the question is - was his vengeance an act of murder?

If memory serves me correctly, wasn't the fabled "Robin Hood" subject to similar injustice, before he and his Merry Men took to the outlaw life in Sherwood Forest? And did he not in the end, at the point of his foil, settle his long sought justice upon his tormentor, the Sheriff of Nottingham? Was his final act that of justified vengeance or was it - murder?

How many Jewish survivors of the Nazi nightmare of World War ll, fueled by memories of loved ones murdered in mass executions, were driven to track down their wartime tormentors: often in the end exacting non-judicial justice upon them? Was it rightful vengeance, or was it - murder?

Many of our classic fictional heroes started out as wronged individuals, who survived to exact 'vigilante justice' upon their former - in the name of the state.

Therefore, when the time comes and we must stand in judgment of a wronged individual, in which the initial 'war crime' was perpetrated by one of our own warriors in service to our nation - how do we judge the defendant? Only time will tell.

How We View Ourselves, Our Friends and Our Enemies

Back in the days of the Cold War, we derided the Soviets for maintaining a Gulag. Now we have a Guantanamo. So how we say to the world and ourselves - that's different.

To study the psychology of our duplicitous dealings in the world, one simply has to examine the 'arms race' and the instances listed below:

Iran-Contra: A political was a scandal revealed in 1986, resulting from earlier events during the Reagan administration. The operation began as an effort to increase U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein Israel would ship weapons to a moderate politically influential group of Iranians opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni. The U.S. in turn was to reimburse Israel with those weapons and receive payment from Israel. The moderate Iranians agreed to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by Hezbollah. The plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, without the direct authorization of President Ronald Reagan.

North Korean Arms Sales (AP) September 1997: A U.S. State Department official claims that North Korea earned close to $1 billion from missile sales over the past decade, making it the foremost missile exporter in the world.

Israel Reported as the 4th Largest Arms Dealer in the World

by Justin Goldstein· (AP) Sunday, June 1st, 2008

The Associated Press reports that in 2007 Israel sold $4.3 billion in arms exports, primarily to the United States and India.ֲ The report states that Israel now leads Great Britain, following after the U.S., Russia and France ....Whether one is a peacenik, a hawk, a “conscientious objector,” a pacifist or a realist, one thing is clear–Israel is manufacturing and selling lots of weapons, and that has an effect on the local and global economy.

A World Policy Institute Special Report
by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, with Leslie Heffel of the Arms Trade Resource Institute
June 2005

Perhaps no single policy is more at odds with President Bush’s pledge to "end tyranny in our world" than the United States’ role as the world’s leading arms exporting nation.....All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries. As in the case of recent decisions to provide new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, while pledging comparable high-tech military hardware to its rival India, U.S. arms sometimes go to both sides in long brewing conflicts, ratcheting up tensions and giving both sides better firepower with which to threaten each other. Far from serving as a force for security and stability, U.S. weapons sales frequently serve to empower unstable, undemocratic regimes to the detriment of U.S. and global security.

Let's face it, this troublesome bi-polar view we tend to have of ourselves as a people with a purpose, of our anointed friends and our declared enemies is diplomatically unacceptable and is rapidly becoming evermore destructive. The very manner in which we supply arms to one faction, then deny them to others. The allowance of one supposed ally to build nuclear weapon production capable facilities while, in the same region, denying the same right to another local entity we deem an enemy. Such a policy renders us in the eyes of the world bankrupt of sustainable reason, argument and credibility.

We can no longer maintain such an international stance, and each day we attempt do so we lose more credibility with the world community.

Hatred held within a society has a tendency to, in most cases, fade with the years amassing after a conflict ends. After all, who would ever have thought in the middle of World War ll, that we would today be trading partners and military allies with the Germans, Italians and Japanese? So it would seem that hatred can lose focus over time measured in years.

There are noted critical exceptions, however, such as with the Arab world and the Israelis. And the reason is for this is the unjust appropriation land belonging to others in occupation - the Palestinians. In 1948 a game of musical chairs was lost by a portion of the Arab population of the then state of - Palestine, which virtually overnight became the state of - Israel, and the cause of these newly 'lost people' has become symbolic to the Muslim world.

It is also to note that we accepted an open unwritten alliance with one Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, who was a wanted terrorist . But we rejected any such alliance with one Yasser Arafat, elected leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) - because we regarded him as a terrorist.

Strange as it may seem, in an interview at the end of his office (CBS "60 Minutes"), when questioned about his 'terrorist past', Prime Minister Begin claimed he was not a terrorist...."I was a patriot", he responded. Could not PLO President Arafat have legitimately made the same claim? And by what guideline does the U.S. recognize one and not the other? (Click to see comparison of pre-Israel jewish terror groups and Hamas)

This conflict between the two peoples has been ongoing for almost 2000 years, and shows no signs of ending anytime in the near future. Therefore, I will not try to offer solutions here for that which greater minds have strived mightily - and failed.

The Gift of Time

Soldiers on the battlefield not only fight to protect us, they also fight to overcome and repair, at great human cost, our failures to prevent the battle from having to be fought in the first place.

The elective process of a democracy offers that which is denied on the battlefield - the gift of time. When we are about to step into the voting booth, - at that moment - there is no immediate threat facing us or our loved ones that we must respond to instantaneously, and we have the time to "Think" and to choose our leaders carefully.

So it is unfortunate that so many regard the act of "Thinking" in wartime as an act of treason or, at the least, the act of being - unpatriotic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. During the upcoming presidential elections, We the People need to do our best to bring back the United States of America of our nation's inception.

This country's 'first patriots', the Founding Fathers, applied the art of "Thinking" not only as a weapon of freedom, but also as a building tool when they forged the greatest and most powerful document in the history of humankind - The Constitution of the United States of America. Personally, I think the process served the Founding Fathers well.

Let's all give it a try on November 8, 2008! Allow the patriotism to drive you to the polls - but park it outside, and take only the thinking process with you into the voting booth - and let it guide your choice.

Your comments - The voices of our readers

You really know how to push peopls buttons.  You have made some good points here, and I reeally don't know how to respond.  But I kinow I must say something.  Do you relly think that someday an American will have what happened to Eichmann happen to him?  Now you probably want to ask me how I would react if it did?  I don't know.  But your points even though I don't like what you said are valid.  I have to think some more. T. Brack, Brooklyn, NY