NashuaPeace.org

Veterans Day 2007

(The above is a rough composite of 3 pictures; click it for a larger version)

As the Veteran's Day Parade marched past Nashua's Library Hill, NashuaPeace.org displayed one tombstone for each New Hampshire soldier killed in the Iraq war, and one US Flag for each soldier from the US forces.

Members of NashuaPeace.org showed support for the troops on Veteran's Day by calling on Senator Sununu for a rapid end to the war. If just 4 Republican Senators change their minds about "staying the course", we could begin to have a rational plan for ending the war, rather than just doing more of the same.

(Click for larger version)

"You Were Hoping The Surge Would Fail, Weren't You?"
John At NashuaPeace.org
25 November 2007

Have things improved in Iraq? Maybe. In some places.

One explanation for improvement might be the so-called "Surge", an increase of troop levels ordered a year ago. Maybe the Surge has helped to reduce casualties.

A different explanation might be that mixed neighborhoods have largely sorted themselves out - so there are fewer Sunnis being attacked in Shia neighborhoods, and vice versa.

For the moment, let's suppose for the sake of argument that there have been improvements, and that the Surge has truly helped.

If so, how should Peace activists react when our Hawk friends say "See? Aren't you ashamed that you didn't support the Surge? You were hoping it would fail, weren't you?"

Three points:

1. Speaking only for myself: no, I didn't hope it would fail. I have wished only success to my friends in military service. These are people - many noble and heroic - who have dedicated themselves to our country, and of course I want them to encounter only success, and to sustain zero casualties.

   Come to think of it, I don't think I'm speaking only for myself. Almost everyone I have met in the peace movement has said that we "Support the Troops" - so, I bet most would agree that whatever our troops' mission, of course we wish them success.

2. Nevertheless, we have legitimately questioned the mission.

   The Surge has stretched, and sometimes broken, our troops and their families; it has continued to show the Iraqis the armed and violent side of America; it has continued to feed the War Economy; and it has not yet yielded the political stability that the "Benchmarks" claimed would result. (See: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/07/12/final.benchmark.report.pdf)

   We can, and do, legitimately question whether military force is truly the best that America has to offer Iraq.

   Sure, "we broke it", and sure we have responsibilities; but are those responsibilities best fulfilled by planting US forces in Iraq for years or, likely, decades? Forces who are well trained in the military arts, but poorly trained in Arabic and poorly trained in Iraqi culture? Forces who did not sign up to be police, and who have little means to accurately distinguish friend from foe?

   Under the US Constitution, the military reports to civilians, not vice versa; and the government is reponsible to the people, not vice versa.

   We, the people, ask: Is the best moral choice truly the continuation of military force? Is this really the best we have to offer?

3. Finally, the Surge has perpetuated the damage to our country's relationships with other countries. Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum nails it:

   "The collateral damage inflicted by the war on America's relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized. It isn't just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. What's worse is the fact that -- however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy is a decade from now -- our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence."

Thanks for reading this. Comments would be most welcome.
      john at NashuaPeace dot org