Battlefield Paradox


There are beautiful paradoxes, like those in Buddhist thought. Then there are ugly paradoxes, like the ones in the Memorial Day 2004 spotlight.

There is the ugly paradox of Pat Tillman, the Jack Armstrong-style American hero who gave up a life of wealth and glory in the NFL to soldier in Afghanistan, probably in the belief that his example, his athletic ability could be more meaningful in what he believed was defending his homeland, the noble role of young men in our history. But his death it now turns out was caused by an accident. He was killed by his own, in that horrible paradox called "friendly fire."

This is the reality of war. It is something that must be considered before the decision to go to war is made, and it must be considered in every decision on the conduct of war. This administration is open to the charge of callous disregard for these realities, and their mistakes in conduct of war are weighed in lives like that of Pat Tillman.

Then there is the ugly paradox of dealing with the realities of war. It has never been clearer than in the ongoing story of a San Francisco art gallery. Lori Haigh, owner of the small Capobianco Gallery located in a very liberal neighborhood of the very liberal city of San Francisco, exhibited a single painting which depicted Iraqi prisoners being abused by American soldiers. The basic imagery, of course, has been flashed thousands of times on TV screens. But some people feel very strongly that showing such images demeans the bravery and goodness of American soldiers, and the good soul of Americans in general.

So some of these people threw broken glass and garbage on the sidewalk in front of the gallery. Some 200 of them sent angry emails and voicemails, and some included death threats. A man walked into the gallery and spat in Lori Haigh's face. She closed the gallery. Then a man knocked on the door of the closed gallery, and when she came to the door, he punched the 39 year old Lori Haigh in the face, very hard. She lost consciousness, suffered a concussion and a broken nose.

So this is the ugly paradox of people protesting an image of Americans doing violent, hateful, bad things to unarmed helpless prisoners because Americans are good and what they are doing is noble, by doing violent, hateful and bad things to an unarmed woman on her own property, who is not forcing them to do anything at all, not even to look at an image similar to those brought into their homes on Fox News by Campbell's Soup, General Motors and McDonalds.

This is war: lashing out indiscriminately at the wrong enemy, with anger and hatred that belies the possibly good purpose. This is the paradox of patriotism in our time.

The World War II monument opened officially in Washington, honoring "the last good war" and the "greatest generation." Certainly the bravery of many in that war is worth contemplating and honoring, not just those who soldiered knowing their actions, initiatives and courage were small but necessary single parts of a large mechanism of war, but those who made brave decisions, not just in battle strategy but in diplomacy and purpose.

But recognizing this is not enough, in both senses of enough. It isn't enough for people to want to praise these people and what they did. They have to turn them into "the greatest generation." Greatest in comparison to what? Greatest because many of these men returned to become emotionally unavailable fathers who were never home, the "bad mood behind the newspaper" Robert Bly talks about? Greatest because they did what they were told on the battlefield, and came home and did what they were supposed to do, build suburbia, work for the corporation, and buy a new gas-guzzling car every year?

No, it's not enough, because we have to see the other side of the paradox. Yes, they were brave in a generally good cause, but many of them knew how screwed up that war was---as all wars are---and all their comrades who died needlessly, because of mistakes, arrogance, careerist officers, apathetic bureaucrats, etc. Some of those men returned to become strong voices against war. Vietnam may have produced John Kerry, but World War II produced Gene Roddenberry, Kurt Vonnegut, Joseph Heller and many others, just as World War I produced the great antiwar poets and novelists of that era. Virtually all the novels and movies prominent in the Vietnam 1960s that displayed the ugly paradox of war were created by members of "the greatest generation."

The paradox of war is in the pages and in the very title of James Hillman's new book, "The Terrible Love of War." War is ugly and war is beautiful in some respects, but both are heightened beyond what we perceive in ordinary life. War is the playground of the unconscious as well as the battlefield between the conscious and unconscious, individually and collectively. It is just as important for us to face both sides of the ugly paradoxes and take instruction from them, as it is to take joy and instruction in the beautiful paradoxes.

But surely the paradox that should be floating into the consciousness of most Americans today as they honor those men and women who died in World War II is the doubtfulness of a similarly justifiable cause for those we are sending to their deaths in Iraq. For those at the Vietnam Memorial today, that must be a bitter thought, without paradox or irony.

Memorial/Independence Day

The news story reproduced later in this post, as well as the actual candidate's actual words, cut through the clutter of media bobbleheads, and remind us that this election is too important to be left to the cute and brain-impaired cynics of media punditry.

The conventional "wisdom"---in fact, the conventional vocabulary, is that there is "no daylight" between the Bush and Kerry positions on Iraq. Bullshit.

On policy there are clear differences, embracing not only Iraq but the Middle East, the war on terrorism and America's general strategy in the world. Kerry has been making a series of foreign policy speeches, and in one he outlined his basic strategy.

"It's time for a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, we must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. Second, we must modernize the world's most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America's arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil."

Though few have made it a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy, politicians often make statements about lessening American dependence on Mideast oil that are either empty or they mean, "Drill American wilderness and coasts." But here is what Kerry said he means:

"I have proposed a plan for energy independence from Mideast oil in the next ten years. It invests in new technologies and alternative fuels. It provides tax credits to help consumers buy and manufacturers build fuel efficiency cars. It will tap America's initiative and ingenuity to strengthen our national security, grow our economy, and protect our environment."

"If we are serious about energy independence, then we can finally be serious about confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological support of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. We cannot continue this Administration's kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. As President, I will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. I will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system."

On force and allies in foreign policy:

"More than a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt defined American leadership in foreign policy. He said America should walk softly and carry a big stick. Time and again, this Administration has violated the fundamental tenet of Roosevelt's approach, as he described it: "If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble."

But that is precisely what this Administration has done. They looked to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied when they should have persuaded. They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a team. They have hoped for the best when they should have prepared for the worst. In short, they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership. And that is what we must restore.
Today, there is still a powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again. An America that is respected, and not just feared. "

On Iraq specifically he said:

"Over the last year, we've heard from the President that our policy should simply be to stay the course. But one thing I learned in the Navy is that when the course you're on is headed for the shoals, you have to change course."

"If President Bush doesn't secure new support from our allies, we will, once again, feel the consequences of a foreign policy that has divided the world instead of uniting it. Our troops will be in greater peril, the mission in Iraq will be harder to accomplish, and our country will be less secure."

But beyond the broad yet telling policy differences, there are matters of attitude, passion, personal character and emotion. These are evident in Robin Toner's story below.


Kerry Redoubles His Attack Over the War

By ROBIN TONER

The New York Times


GREEN BAY, Wis., May 28 - Senator John Kerry promised an occasionally tearful gathering of soldiers, veterans and their families here on Friday that as president he would bring the troops home from Iraq "as fast as possible."

He also attacked the Bush administration as insensitive to the human toll of the war. Noting that Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, was unable to tell a recent Congressional hearing how many American soldiers had died in Iraq, Mr. Kerry declared, "You'd think that every day they'd be conscious of exactly what the cost is."


Mr. Kerry's comments came at a forum that captured his campaign's
current mix of patriotism, support for the troops in Iraq and
scalding criticism of the policies that put them there. On the
second day of a two-week drive to establish his credentials on
national security, Mr. Kerry also told an audience of veterans that
Mr. Bush had shortchanged their health and benefit programs while
carefully protecting tax cuts for the wealthy.

Citing a recent administration budget document that discussed new
reductions in spending for the veterans benefits, Mr. Kerry
declared, "I'm not going to listen to Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld
and some of these other people talk about patriotism in America when
the first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with the people
who wore the uniform of our country."

A spokesman for the Bush campaign, Steve Schmidt, called Mr. Kerry's
attacks "egregiously false.''

In a measure of how raw the debate over the war has become, several
who spoke at this gathering struggled with tears. Donna Freeman of
Green Bay rose to say that her brother was killed in Vietnam "four
months after he was sent over there." Her voice cracking with anger
and grief, Ms. Freeman said she was dismayed to hear people play
down the number of deaths in Iraq.

"When I hear we've only lost 500 or 600 kids, you tell that to a
family member who has lost that child," she said. "What I want to
know is, what do you plan to do to bring our troops home?"

Mr. Kerry said it was impossible to predict what the situation in
Iraq would be when - if elected - he took office. But he said
neither the United States nor its allies could afford a failure in
Iraq, and repeated his call for Mr. Bush to engage more countries in
the transition.

"I promise you this," he said, "I am going to get the troops home as
fast as possible, with honor and the job accomplished in the way it
needs to be, and we will bring other people into the process."
Mr. Kerry was also introduced and endorsed by a decorated Vietnam
veteran, John Nusbaum, who said he was a longtime Republican. Mr.
Kerry is increasingly reaching out to Republicans in his speeches,
arguing that what is at stake in this election transcends
partisanship and ideology. "In the end, this isn't about party," he
said. "It's about country."

Mr. Kerry also regularly urges his audiences to "do away with
partisan politics for the moment" and "just think common sense about
our country, about what it should be doing."

The senator's campaign swing this week, from Washington to Portland,
Ore., to Seattle and Green Bay, drew large, attentive crowds.
The upheaval in Iraq and the prisoner scandal have turned the
public's attention to foreign policy in a way few could have
predicted. Now Mr. Kerry is trying to seize the moment to show
himself as a credible commander in chief.

The policy speeches over the next few weeks are part of his case, as
are his 20 years in the Senate. But Mr. Kerry is also relying, once
again, on his comrades from Vietnam, some of whom were with him
again on Friday. One of them, Jim Rassman, an Army Green Beret whose
life was saved by Mr. Kerry in Vietnam, carried the same message
here on Friday that is implicit throughout the Democratic campaign
these days: that a candidate can vigorously disagree with the
government while vigorously supporting the troops.END OF NY TIMES STORY



The Hope

A few hopeful signs emerged during another doleful week. The polls that show Kerry gaining ground in the battleground states and among independents, and Bush continuing to lose support even in his areas of previous strengths: among Republicans and in the South. Then the Annenberg study that indicated Kerry's positive biographical campaign ads being shown in battleground states are having a positive effect. The Kerry campaign, recognizing this, is airing these and other positive ads in other states as well.

This is especially hopeful because, while polls showed growing disapproval of Bush on Iraq, the economy, the country's direction and overall job performance, he seemed to be retaining his electoral support among registered and likely voters. But polls also indicated that voters didn't have a strong impression of Kerry, so they were voting for not only the current Commander in Chief in "wartime" but the devil they know. It seems they are waiting for Kerry to give them the confidence to switch their vote to him. That process appears to be beginning.

The Emptiness of Full


What kind of sovereignty? "Full sovereignty" says Bush to the Swedish ambassador, and by extension to the UN. That's what the U.S. will grant its hand-picked government of Iraq. So just in case you thought the Bushies had learned their lessons with phantom WMDs and insurgents instead of flowers in the street---and you missed Ashcroft trying to manufacture a terror threat to manipulate the election against Kerry last week---get a load of the straight face---the straight smirk anyway---on Bush when he said this. He's an entertaining liar all right, but while more Americans may want to have a barbeque with him, they might not want to take any of his promises to the bank.

Full sovereignty, with thousands of American and British troops and their tanks in the street, with helicopter gunships, missiles and bombers discreetly at the ready out of sight. While the UN envoy and the U.S. government designs the government, plans the election and the country's future. If this is full sovereignty, what would limited sovereignty mean? Some joint letterhead stationery?

So the first concrete act in preparing for full sovereignty was to appoint a CIA asset as prime minister. Iyad Allawi, a member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, was appointed prime minister by the U.S. appointed Governing Council, with the hearty endorsement of the U.S. government, over the objections of the UN envoy.

Then as soon as they papered over those differences, the Governing Council decided to appoint an Iraqi president different from the one selected by Brahimi. This difference became public, and will apparently be settled by an election---of the Governing Council. Said one of its members, quite reasonably, "They say we have a sovereignty, and that we are democracy. If that is true, then why are they trying to impose this decision on us?"

As for Allawi, a former honcho in Saddam’s army, his first statement to the press indicated that they shouldn't hold their breath hoping for a fully democratic Iraqi government. And his first act was to at least attempt to recall large elements of… Saddam's army. Be careful what you say you are giving, GW, cause you might get it.