Dissent in the United States

[Guest guest]

S

Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:49:20 -0700 (PDT)

Dissent in the United States

 

 

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9730.htm

 

Dissent in the United States

 

" If you don't love this country, get the f--- out! "

 

By James Rothenberg

 

 

 

08/10/05 " ICH " -- -- It is better to be wrong and having to explain

why you were for non-violence in the world when it turned out that

violence was the proper mode, than be wrong and having to explain why

you were for violence when it turned out that non-violence was the

proper mode.

 

Has nothing much changed since March 2003? That mushroom cloud turned

out to have zero degrees of probability, and as to the whereabouts of

the weapons of mass destruction…maybe Judith Miller knows. Real inner

circle guys like Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke said some highly

unflattering things about this administration, but you know how people

talk after they leave the job. And you couldn't miss the prison

torture pictures, not from anywhere on this planet. Nor those nasty

explosions from those ungrateful insurgents who wouldn't recognize

freedom if it was hanging from a flagpole. Still, considering what is

going on in the world, and specifically in Iraq, there is a real quiet

here.

 

Most of our politicians say they are against a draft, and let's accept

that for a moment. I'm going to speculate, though, that our country's

rulers are against it for a very specific reason – that they would

never be able to get away with what they've been getting away with if

there was a draft, because the campuses would have stopped this thing

by now, maybe not even have allowed it to begin. No draft equals quiet

campuses, and quiet campuses equal a quiet country.

 

Bush said he wants America to be the best place to do business with in

the world. It's the only thing he's ever said that I believe. But as

good as that is for some, it isn't enough to kill for, and it isn't

enough to die for.

 

" Support our troops " , despite its benign-sounding inclusiveness, is

not a neutral statement. As our new, federal slogan, it makes " our

troops " inseparable from the government that commands them, leading to

high cynicism; the near impossibility of our troops not being

supported should they be doing rescue work, or genuine humanitarian

protection, or genuinely defending the people of this country; and the

deflection of valid criticisms, such as the war's blatant manufacture,

its illegality and immorality, a crime of the highest order – by

keeping the focus on our troops who are doing the sacrificing – in

effect, the government hiding behind the skirts of the troops while

sacrificing them.

 

The " War on Terror " is not really a war, and it's certainly not on

terror. It's a brand. If the government was selling it for $$ it would

have a logo. Instead they're pitching it for obedience. Do what we

say, and we'll keep on keeping you safe from those terrorists. Only we

know where a lot of terrorists are, and we know where they cash their

checks. This is unofficial. Officially, we cannot commit terrorism

because our State Department restricts it, by definition, to the

sub-national level. Anyway, as I write this the brand is getting a

little worn so the " War on Terror " is in the shop for a nomenclature

change.

 

Freedom. Liberty. Democracy. Service. Flag. Honor. Country. All terms

such as these default back to the government, as if licensed. A recent

United States Golf Association publication contains an article about a

staff employee now deployed in Iraq as part of the Army Reserves. He

writes a letter back home to his friends at work. " Our missions range

from taking soldiers in and around the Forward Operating Bases (FOB),

to transporting U.S. and Iraqi Generals, political dignitaries,

celebrities, prisoners, assault insertions and what we call Hero

missions (our fallen comrades). " He says there are some beautiful

areas, some of which would make for great golf courses, like Arizona.

He commends the Iraqi people for their simplicity, intelligence,

resourcefulness, bravery and pride. " It's good to see the smiling

faces of kids as you go by. It helps to know that we are doing some

good and hopefully winning the minds and hearts of the young. " The

article is titled, Honoring His Country.

 

I hope he is winning some minds and hearts, and I certainly do not

question his honor. But there are others that have seen too many lost

,young minds and stilled, young hearts to go on believing that.

They're the soldiers of conscience who oppose the war on moral grounds

and, rather than go on participating in it, risk court martial or

jail. Can anyone imagine a prominent employer referring to them as

" honoring their country " ?

 

The first example " honors his country " . The qualification for this is

doing what you are told. Anybody who goes off to war and does what

they are told qualifies for this distinction, even if the country is

dishonoring itself, because there is no higher authority to pass

judgment on this. The second example " dishonors his country " simply by

insisting that his country stand for what it professes to stand for.

One is honoring dishonor, which is dishonorable. One is dishonoring

dishonor, which is honorable. It may be good logic, but try telling

that to a judge. All wars are fought with the same rules. Pin medals

on those who fight, and jail those who refuse. In some less free

countries, it's worse than jail.

 

A car spoke to me from its bumper sticker the other day: " If you don't

love this country, get the f--- out! " It also had a lot of flags on

it. I don't own an American flag, never felt the need. A lot of people

have one at their house, usually just one. When the president speaks

on TV he is surrounded by flags, more than I can count, and then that

one on his lapel. Anyway, though the sticker creator could be expected

to disagree, this bumper sticker delivers the unmistakable message –

the country belongs to the people who do what they are told.

 

Some caution against allowing dissenters a sole presence, yet no

amount of room could begin to rival the everpresence of the state.

Systems of power, even democracies, are designed to maintain control

over the public arena. Harold Lasswell wrote that with the rise of

democracy, " propaganda attains eminence as the one means of mass

mobilization which is cheaper than violence, bribery or other possible

control techniques. " Is there a clearer and more effective example of

this than the song/phrase, God Bless America?

 

The presidential administration uses (and as we know now, abuses) CBS,

NBC, ABC, CNN, and yes, even PBS. I won't even mention FOX because

they've been deputized. If Bush and Co. have a propaganda message, it

takes the form of an official press release, goes out on the wires,

and is promptly featured in our respected daily newspapers.

 

Suppose everything the administration has said about the war has been

a lie. Just suppose for a minute. Suppose they had other motivations

all along. How would you know about it? Who could have told you that

you would have believed? Not some anti-war person. They're always a

little scuzzy, aren't they? When one of our national heroes, such as

Colin Powell, says Iraq is coming after us, who are you going to

believe… him, or some scuzzy member of some antiwar group? Well

everyone should know by now that Powell said he was not going to read

that " bullshit " before the UN, but then, like the good, plantation

" house nigger " that Harry Belafonte compared him to, he read it anyway.

 

Rather than wait 30 years or so for Powell, or Cheney, or Wolfowitz,

or Rumsfeld, or Franks, or Myers, or Rice, or Feith, or Libby, or

Perle, or Bolton, or the brothers Bush, (I'll stop here but it's so

hard to leave people out), to make a McNamara-like confession of

sorts, maybe we should pay more attention to those who bring

alternative views right now.

 

Public opinion polls are a little confusing, but it's fair to say they

are at least mixed on Iraq. Opinions are sort of like the past two

presidential elections…statistical ties. How mixed do you think

opinions would be, though, if the public was not subjected to such an

intensive propaganda campaign, brought to you by the people who can

sell anything and boast openly about it. And what do you think the mix

of your own community would be if spared that onslaught?

 

So look what we have here. On one side there is the federal government

– Bush and all his " earned political capital " from the statistical

tie, Senators Schumer and Clinton who didn't oppose the war when it

might have done some good, and still can't seem to oppose it,

Congressman Sweeney, touchingly sensitive to the plight of horses yet

mute on the life and death of Iraqis (and to think, we're this close

to Congressman Hinchey) – this imbalance of power that justifies the

unjustifiable, so that the war will seem worth it, the fight a good

one, the lives lost not in vain.

 

On the other side, there are a few people standing on corners and in

parks, doing what you would be doing if you believed that any life

lost in service to an unprovoked act of aggression, a grab, an

investment, is a life lost in vain. They're protesting.

 

Albert Einstein called racism our national disease. In a similar but

narrower vein, I'll offer what I consider to be our national,

political disease: hypocrisy. And for the national hypocrisy, the

pledge of allegiance, notably the phrases, " for which it stands " , and

" under God " .

 

If we live in a country with the widest disparity between rich and

poor of any country in the world, with large numbers from both classes

behind bars – the poor in their prisons and the rich in their gated

communities – and national economic policy is to accelerate the pace

of that widening gap; if we commit the " supreme international crime "

of waging aggressive war, pretending we are freeing a people whose

dead and mutilated we can't be bothered to count; if we bomb Iraqi

hospitals with children in them while prosecuting Americans who dare

sneak vital medicines into Iraq; if our government plants fake " news "

stories here at home while killing real journalists elsewhere; if our

biggest problem with prison torture is the damn digital camera that

revealed it, if this is what our republic is " standing for " , then

what's the difference if it's under God or not?

 

Shortly after the invasion began, a grieving Iraqi father asked, " Why

didn't the British and American people stop their leaders from doing

this? " He had a right to be asking this question that goes beyond the

obvious one. Those that live under repression in military or police

dictatorships, or under totalitarian regimes, have scant chance to

stop their leaders from doing anything. He is well aware of the

glorified traditions of law in Great Britain and the United States,

and the legendary freedoms enjoyed in these countries. Certainly he

would have been in no position to stop his own leader from doing

anything. But the people of Great Britain and the United States?

Surely they could have done something, he thinks. If only for this

father, at this time, in this country, dissent is the only real badge

of honor one can wear.

 

James Rothenberg. <jrothenberg

 

Copyright: James Rothenberg