I want to show that I support the humans involved in this war WITHOUT implying any endorsement of the mission. It's a fine line, and one that may seem patently absurd- for the average soldier, it's likely to be love me, love my mission; because for anyone, it is a lot easier to do a job well if you
believe in it. Sure, recruitment is sagging (blame
low unemployment, or
anti-enlistment activities, or the
liberal media for reporting, what, fake deaths? Were those bombs real? But we shouldn't report them because it is bad for recruitment???Maybe the amry needs to make another
video game., but make it like, with less insurgents and make it harder to die and easier to kill the bad guys or something.
) But re-enlistment rates suggest that those involved are largely believers, despite Michael Moore, though
perhaps many would later wish they had discovered the spirit of international service away from all the bombs, like in the Peace Corps rather than the Marine Corps.
But let's face it, the administration in charge of this war not only led us in under false pretense, and ignored the best advice they had (and we paid for), the Future of Iraq Project, because it suggested post-Saddam Iraq would be a messy place- and thus a hard sell to Congress, and thus it was ignored. And the looting and dismantling of infrastructure ran unchecked, the borders unsealed...but why worry? As Rumsfeld said,
"Freedom is messy."Even ignoring the politics leading up to the war and its botched prosecution, this is the administration that instituted a backdoor draft and then cut veteran's benefits. The selective use of intelligence and the denial of reality has characterized the Bush White House from day one- maybe because his administration is based on faith, rather than reality?
Another example. The administration commissions a report on labor practices in Latin America, and when it finds systematic violations which would suggest those nations are not ready for CAFTA, the
results are
ignored.
Now,
here is the other side's case, I am not always myopic...it's just that the clinical platitudes offered there...
Prior to and during the negotiation of the Agreement, all countries have demonstrated a remarkable commitment to improving their labor laws. In many cases, passing significant domestic labor reforms and ratifying ILO conventions. A recent ILO assessment found these laws to be in close compliance with international core labor standards. Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua have ratified all eight ILO core labor conventions, and El Salvador has ratified six of the eight ILO core labor conventions. The U.S. has only ratified two conventions.
Well, what to day? Having been in a few developing countries, I can tell you that the laws on paper and practices on the ground are often wildly different...for example, prostitution is illegal in Thailand and the
Phillipines (warning: adult link, apologies to any sensitive Filipino reader). So to have a stuffed suit report that these countries have ratified a bunch of laws doesn't mean shit on the ground, because their civil servants are all underpaid and thus corruption is rife, meaning a factory paid well by a US corporation could easily persuade any authority to overlook a few violations. As for the last line, implying that because Central American countries have ratified even MORE international labor conventions than the US, well, again... so what? Do you expect me to believe that as a result, the average factory worker in Honduras is better protected or has more legal recourse than a US worker??? Furthermore, the reason the US hasn't ratified the ILO conventions is the same reason we didn't touch Kyoto, and threaten to hold the UN budget hostage- because the US refuses to let international bodies tell it what to do, because we feel it is our God-given place to not only do whatever we want, but to tell the rest of the world unilaterlly, not though some ponderous consultation, what they should do as well. We back up this Manifest Destiny foreign policy with sanctions and bombs, and then we wonder why droves of people are signing up for suicide mission against us.
And so, the lies and suppression of truth, the deafening noise of conservative spinmasters goes on and we are left to see what will stick in our minds longer, Jennifer Aniston's romance or CAFTA? Another suicide bomb, or an amendment against flag burning? The Downing St. Memos and possible impeachment, or Social Security (talk about a distraction!)
But back to the beginning of this stream of consciousness. How to show support for humans, both troops and Iraqi citizens, and not imply support for the war? The whole yellow ribbon campaign was an insidious way to say 'Support the War'. Just as Bush's urging in his recent speech to
fly the flag on July 4th not only for patriotic reasons, but to show 'support'... Well, there it is again. Or how about this; I just got a rubber bracelet, ala Lance Armstrong, for the
initiative to help poor, AIDS-stricken nations, emblazoned with ONE. It was given to me, I don't care for rubber jewelry personally, looks like a hospital ID band or something..anyway, I then read that white bracelets stamped 'Freedom' were being given to families of soldiers. Which again, does not so much say 'I support your family member' as 'I believe they are fighting for a just and noble cause, freedom.' Who believes that is what this war was about? Or, even if they accept that the war was about oil and politics, who thinks that our occupation is good for Iraq? Granted, they are closer now to freedom than they have been in years. Yet, they are also closer to chaos, and largely worse off in infrastructure, security and health care than they were under Saddam. Anyway, there I was pissed off because I thought my white bracelet could be misinterpreted as a 'Support our Troops' symbol- which again, I despise not out of any animosity for our soldiers, but because it is twisted to imply 'Support Bush and His War', which I don't. I support our troops by hoping they get their asses back here in one piece as quickly as possible, and an international force more appopriate to the task- less Western, less Colonial, less US- is assembled and deployed to replace them. It is not rocket science to see how the presence of a Western army in a middle-eastern country provides recruitment and training to Islamist groups. Unless you are W, who needs to be taught 2 months prior to invading that there are Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, and, well, they haven't always gotten along.
My idea was a black ribbon, the tagline to be: FOR THE DEAD. Then of course I saw the black MIA/POW ribbon... and again, I support the effort to find POWs, but only if we are spending twice as much on
removing our old ordinance. So, are we? I can't find info for federal spending on MIA/POW efforts.
HERE IS A HOT FAMILY ISSUE FOR PROGRESSIVES:
The Paid Family and Medical Leave Act of 2005
http://www.house.gov/stark/news/109th/floorstatements/06-30_pfmla.htmcredit: http://www.nathannewman.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2795
Let's see how pro-family Republicans
really are and get this to a vote. Write your representatives today.
Which is what I'm going to do, rather than sit here a spew. Blah, blah, blah.
