THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA, Part 3

“September 11, 1973″ by Carlos Latuff; depicts the U.S.-backed attack on democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.”

by Stefan Schindler

Disturbing facts from American history, continued:

11 – The first 9/11 occurred on September 11th, 1973, when Nixon and Kissinger overthrew the elected government in Chile, the longest running democracy in South America, beginning’s America’s subsequent support of the 16-year Pinochet dictatorship and slaughter of liberal activists.

12 – The Carter administration launched a terror campaign against the newly elected social democratic government of Afghanistan in 1979, leading to the Russian counter-intervention in 1980, which led to Reagan’s eight-year creation, arming and financing of Al Queda to fight “the godless communists” occupying Afghan territory and preventing the installation of American pipelines for the transport of Iraqi oil.

13 – In the first five years of his administration, Ronald Reagan transformed America from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world.

14 – Ronald Reagan conducted an eight-year terror campaign against the social democratic government of Nicaragua, which had finally overthrown 40 years of American supported dictatorship.

15 – The Bush-Cheney wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were an updated repeat of the lies that led to America’s Indochina Holocaust (euphemistically called The Vietnam War to obliterate memory of U.S. devastation of Laos and Cambodia).

16 – The Bush-Cheney Administration’s continuation of Reagan’s attempt to unravel Roosevelt’s New Deal for the American people, with its regulatory safeguards, led directly to the all too predictable economic meltdown of 2008: the largest stock market crash since 1929, from which millions of Americans, and many people around the globe, are still suffering.

17 – The single greatest factor leading to the outbreak of World War Two was the U.S. stock market crash of 1929.  That crash had ripple effects around the globe, including the implosion of Germany’s already impoverished economy.  In desperation, the German people elected a charismatic lunatic named Hitler.

18 – America’s neutrality during the so-called Spanish Civil War (actually a coup d’état) from1936 to1939 – the only place in Europe where ordinary citizens were actively fighting the rise of fascism – led to the overthrow of Spanish democracy by a cabal of Hitler-supported bankers, bishops and generals, and persuaded Hitler that he could continue Nazi expansion into other parts of Europe, including Czechoslovakia and Poland.

19 – American banks and corporations (including Ford and General Motors) helped Hitler build his war machine, and sanctioned Hitler’s persecution of German socialists (hoping that Hitler would invade Russia and put an end to the Soviet experiment in communism).

20 – Japan was begging to surrender in late 1945, asking only that their emperor, Hirohito, be left in place as the nation’s nominal leader.  Truman refused to accept Japanese surrender because of that single condition.  No American troop invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.  Truman dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki primarily as a warning to the Soviets.  After Japan’s surrender, Hirohito was allowed to maintain his nominal political title.

21 – During World War Two, the American air force was ordered not to bomb Nazi war-making factories owned by Ford and General Motors.  After the war, the CEOs of Ford and General Motors were awarded millions of taxpayer dollars in compensation for “collateral damage,” instead of being tried and convicted for treason.

Co-founder of The National Registry for Conscientious Objection, a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, a recipient of The Boston Baha’i Peace Award, and a Trustee of The Life Experience School and Peace Abbey Foundation, Dr. Schindler received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston College, worked one summer in a nature preserve, lived in a Zen temple for a year, did the pilot’s voice in a claymation video of St. Exupery’s The Little Prince, acted in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf,” and performed as a musical poet in Philadelphia, Boston, and New York City.  He also wrote The Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience Awards for Howard Zinn and John Lennon.  He is now semi-retired and living in Salem, Massachusetts.

Whose Side is “God, god, gods, g _ d,” _ _ _ on? A Reprise and More

They shall beat their swords into plowshares, a monument at the Menachem Begin Heritage Foundation, Jerusalem. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: דוד שי.

by Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D.

Preface

17 Oct 2016 – This paper is an expanded version of a paper first published in Transcend Media Service (TMS) on January 7, 2013, under a similar title. The focus of the first paper was the invocation of “God, god, g _ d” as a “moral” rationale for justifying wars, occupation, and invasion by empires, nations, religions, and dictators.

Invoking the moral authority of “God, god, gods, g _ d” is a timeless ploy used to assure military invincibility, enlist public support, and comfort public doubts about consequences of violence, destruction, and war. The 2013 paper focused on the debate between two competing British prime minister election candidates in 1878: Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone. Gladstone raised the question of whether “God” favored Britain or Afghanistan following British invasion and occupation. Gladstone argued eloquently, God would have no preferences because God valued all lives.

Of special interest in those times was the controversial decision to divide Afghanistan between Britain and Russia according to the 1893 Durand Line; this line established specific spheres of influence and control between the two nations, ignoring any Afghanistan concerns. (see: Durand Line, en.m.Wikipedia.org. October 14, 2016, 11:47).

Fifteen Anniversary Day of Invasion: October 7, 2016

  1. USA Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)

October 7, 2016 is the Fifteenth Anniversary day of the NATO (USA) invasion, occupation, and on-going destruction of Afghanistan. In some quarters, the Anniversary will be celebrated as an example of Western (USA) determination to avenge the 9/11 attacks with military, economic, and political responses, and to assert USA military power and global domination. The Afghanistan invasion was adroitly sanctioned by the G.W. Bush infamous Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), with its ridiculous “Manichaean” duality: “You are either with us, or against us!”

The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan has become “America’s” longest war. No victory is in sight. Some suggest the USA may remain forever. The human, environmental, economic, and moral costs are beyond comprehension (See Costs of War Project. R. Khouri, (October 12, 2016, Al-Jazeera).

costsofwar

While the USA and Europe recall, relive, and celebrate June 6th as the D-Day WWII landing in Europe, it is unlikely similar status will be assigned to the Afghan invasion date. Perhaps this reflects the growing shame and guilt associated with the blood stained decision (“Out, Out Damn Spot!” Thank you, Lady Macbeth, for reminding us guilt is difficult to erase).

The GWOT is now acknowledged to be a surreptitious-failed policy, contrived in Pentagon rooms by neo-cons, militarists, and right-wing zealots; it was presented as a triumphal stance asserting Bush’s legacy of leadership. The GWOT continues to be used by President Barack Obama’s Administration whenever needed. It is essentially “carte blanche” to  invade at will, without remorse, regret, accountability, or risk of criminal prosecution.

  1. Long-Planned Invasion Plans

The fact of the matter is the United States government developed plans for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq years before the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center (see Corbett, 2016 for detailed and illuminating revelations of the secret government policies and decisions behind the tragic invasions). The 9/11 bombings merely became an opportunistic excuse. Carpe Diem!

There are now informed views proposing the 9/11 attack was itself part of a false-flag conspiracy; these views acknowledge (1) the architectural impossibilities of the towers’ orchestrated collapse; (2) the targeted location destruction of the Pentagon budget office and personnel office. This office location was investigating billions of dollars in military fraud; (3) obvious failures to prevent the 9/11 tragedy when information was available weeks prior to the actual attack.

Was the 9/11 tragedy a radical Islamic terrorist attack, a state-sponsored terrorist attack, or a carefully contrived plan to justify the destruction and decimation of Middle East invasions and regime changes (e.g., Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Turkey). The destructive role of the infamous 1996-1997 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) remains to be explored (Wikipedia reference).

  1. 9/11: False Flag?

Although celebrated in some quarters, in other quarters, the Anniversary of the Afghanistan invasion will be recognized as yet another example of the continual efforts by Western international military-industrial cabals to provide causes and/or reasons to invade, occupy, and exploit non-Western nations. Although noble cries of liberty, democracy, and freedom are voiced by the USA and its NATO allies, more sinister reasons are always denied, including concerns for access to implement and exploit natural resources (e.g., oil, rare metals), strategic military positions (Silk Road gateway, military missile defense locations), and chess-board game dominance tactics enjoyed by foreign affairs experts (e.g., Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski).

In the non-existent world of principled media and journalism, the October 7, 2016 Fifteenth Anniversary would elicit challenging headlines of remorse, using forceful words and analyses condemning USA’s “lust” for war using the aegis of lies, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentations, celebrity endorsements, movies, games, medals, and, bombs and bullets.

  1. Total War: Learn from Nazi Leaders

Unfortunately, headlines of this nature are unlikely to occur. Unlikely, also to appear in headlines, will be accusations of the slaughter of soldiers, enemy fighters, and innocents. The sterile term for innocent-citizen deaths is “collateral damage.” How quaint! Deaths of soldiers and enemy fighters, however, are considered acceptable legal and legitimate actions! A death is a death! Enemy fighter deaths are inscribed in impersonal accounting-ledgers as numbers’ soldier deaths on tombstones.

The “Total War,” military strategy policy was advocated by Nazi Minister Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Josef Goebbels (1897 – 1946). “Total War” is now accepted logical military strategy. When you make war, use every tactic you can to win. Among militarists, war brings a calculated indifference to human suffering, destruction, and death. Reflexive reliance upon limited military solutions raises questions about the consequences for both targets and the perpetrators. “Total War” offers flexibility to destroy.

Interestingly, an article on a recent Government Accounting Office (GAO) report (see Claire Bernish, October 14, 2016, Activist Post), alleges the Pentagon uses more than five hundred million dollars annually to “galvanize public support for its wars.” At some point, invoking “God, god, g _ d” would by an excellent PR tactic. Can’t lose if “God” is on your side, even if it is a lie!

I wonder? Is there some functional value considering war-making a psychological, behavioral, and moral disorder? While it is notably absent as a category in the two arbiters of insanity, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and ICD 10, it could be argued chronic pursuit of war warrants a disorder, disease, and/or deviancy status for either a nation, society, and or culture. Perhaps it could be called the “The Pentagon Syndrome.”

Lessons from 19th Century “Imperialism”

In 1877-1878, as Great Britain struggled to expand its imperialistic global empire spanning six continents, two men, dramatically different from one another in political ambitions and moral values, were pitted against each other in a fierce election struggle to become prime minister: Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone.

At this time, Britain and Russia were at war against each other in Afghanistan, in what was euphemistically called the “Great Game,” romanticized in the novel, Kim, by Rudyard Kipling (1865 – 1936). The two nations were fighting over the division of Afghanistan. Little concern was given to the wishes of the Afghan peoples, who were considered by both sides to be war-like uncivilized hill tribes, deserving Western civilization’s fateful invasions.

  1. Disraeli and Gladstone

Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), believed Britain should continue to expand its colonial wars and occupations. He argued the pursuit of “Empire” reflected Britain’s destiny to lead the world; Britain’s moral responsibilities to “civilize” the world. Disraeli pointed out the extensive economic wealth brought by Empire, as evidenced by the financial profits of generated from the Industrial Age (Edwardian – Victorian periods). Can you hear English composer Edgar Elgar’s (1857–1934) rousing Pomp and Circumstance Marches?

William Gladstone (1809-1898), leader of the opposition Liberal Party, argued in favor of re-considering Britain’s imperialistic expansion because of its social and moral consequences for both the people colonized, and for the moral standing of Britain’s citizens. Gladstone saw colonial wars as a “criminal assaults on innocent people” (Porch, 2001, p 42).

Gladstone appealed to conscience at a time when Western imperialism was colonizing Africa, Asia, and South America, exploiting natural and human resources, killing conquered people with impunity, and celebrating (Joseph Conrad’s gripping novel, The Heart of Darkness, 1899 & 1902, captures the sheer madness and horror of imperialism).

Results of the 1878 British election would have profound implications for the entire world. Amid the accusations, character insults, and personal attacks, fundamental questions emerged regarding (1) the morality of wars, invasion and occupation, (2) colonial domination and exploitation, and (3) national economic growth and development. Issue: “Invoking God as a moral justification for ending imperialistic invasions and wars.

Disraeli and disliked each other intensely; their quick wit made for memorable political insults. At one social gathering,” Gladstone said to Disraeli, “I predict, Sir, you will die either by hanging, or of some vile disease.” To which, Disraeli replied, “That all depends, Sir, upon whether I embrace your principles, or your mistress.”

Although quick-witted character insults brought laughter, applause, and well-known British triumphal affirmations of shared opinion: “Hear! Hear!,” but a pivotal moral moment was at hand. The election came down to Gladstone’s views the Zulu War and Afghan War (“The Great Game”) were essentially “slaughters of innocents” by British Redcoats;” an indelible stain on British identity and civility. It was a time of choice! At the height of the debate, Gladstone appealed to the British public’s sense of conscience:

“Remember the rights of the savage. . . . Remember the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eyes of Almighty God as can be your own.”

Timeless words and wisdom! Anyway you spell it, Gladstone asserts God does not play favorites. Disraeli lost the election. Britain’s pursuit of empire continued, but lacked the prior resolve and support of its citizens. A nation’s conscience was laid bare. Some claim Gladstone’s words signaled the beginning of the end of the British Empire! Imperialism, of course, continues today via violent wars and invasions and associated immoral political and economic exploitation and abuse.

Question: Can awareness of the Afghanistan invasion Anniversary date lift American “public conscience” to rises in protest: Whose side is God, god, gods, g _ d, on? Gladstone’s words remain one of the most powerful arguments against the “exceptionalism” used by the USA, Great Britain, and allies (e.g., NATO) to justify invasions, occupations, and domination. No nation can claim moral superiority as a sanction from “god” or any other force or history, to justify its violent actions.

  1. Enduring Lessons

Are there any enduring lessons to be learned from the fateful words of this 19th Century election in Britain? I believe so. Some lessons come from sacred religious texts, too often forgotten amidst carefully selective proclamations from Monotheistic religion pulpits and lecterns. Some come from secular texts (e.g., Magna Carta, UDHR, and USA’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution), which speak of the enduring human values of peace, liberty, freedom, beauty, and god-given rights. Some lessons are in the daily utterances of people who see the tragic consequences of militarism and violence.

The following is a list of enduring lessons coming to mind as I reflect on the endless wars of our times. With Gladstone’s words ringing in my ears, I offer them to you:

  • You reap what you sow!
  • Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
  • “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed”
  • “Thou shalt not kill!”
  • “What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not s that your passions are at war within you?”
  • “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.”
  • Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you (Golden Rule in every major religion)
  • Violence begets violence; violence begets hate; hate begets hate; hate begets violence.
  • Every empire in human history has collapsed.
  • Empires collapse from within.
  • As empires collapse, leaders impose domestic controls, and assert their dominance.
  • It is easier to conquer a people and their land, than it is to leave depart in peace.
  • Wars are easy to start, difficult to end.
  • The legacy of Imperialism is enduring resentment.
  • Wars require money; public services are denied.
  • Major beneficiaries of war, are war industries, arms dealers, and generals.
  • Exceptionalism is always self-deceit!
  • There are no winners in wars.
  • Wars scars are permanent.
  • When you go forward for revenge, dig two graves.
  • Oaths of office cannot be used as excuses for war. The best defense for a nation is peace and justice.
  • War socializes a “culture of war; a “culture of war” socializes citizens.
  • “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation.”
  • “God, god, g _ d,” does not have favorites!

And So . . .

Today the national dish of Britain is “Curry.” Britain and Russia remain rivals. The United States of America is involved in hot-wars and cold-wars around the globe; USA sullied and flawed invasions and regime-change strategies and tactics have resulted in millions of deaths, displaced people, floods of refugees, and mass migrations redefining nation identities and boundaries.

The United States of America has been at war in Afghanistan for 15 years. Estimations of human, environmental, economic and moral costs are staggering; yet even so, they do not capture the full consequences of our tragic invasion for Afghanistan, for Afghani people, and for our conscience. Numbers are tossed before us as a balance sheet of assets and liabilities. My “God, god, gods, g _ d,” or whatever force may be! The horror is apocalyptic!

This is genocide and ethnic cleansing by any name, term, or definition! It is endless war; destruction of a nation, people, culture, and history. This is savagery at the hands of the USA’s paradoxical self-defeating counter-terrorism war. This war fills immoral military-industrial complex coffers, and a suffering people’s coffins. Gladstone’s words echo today if we choose to hear them: “Remember the sanctity of life . . .

And Now Africa . . .

And as if to dismiss any semblance of moral authority, the USA has announced it will send USA troops to 35 African nations. The strategy is the same: advisers, troops, occupation, regime change, exploitation. Stop it! We are not the Empire of “God, god, gods, g _ d!” We are a cruel, brutal, merciless, vicious nation. No amount of PR can disguise this fact! Have we no shame?

We punish and abuse our own citizens! Stop this delusional portrayal of our nation as sanctioned by “God, god, gods, g _ d.” We are not! We are a corrupt and bought nation, sold like a slave to the highest financial bidders! What happened to us? Are the roots of our actions traceable to our own savage history? Are we now? Have we always been a “Culture of War?”

References:

Corbett, J. (2016, October 12). Afghanistan War: What you are not being told? Corbett Report: 10:16 PM.

Khouri, R. (October 12, 2016). The frighteningly high human and financial costs of war. Al-Jazeera.

Marsella, A.J. (2014). War, peace, and justice. Alpharetta, GA: Mountain Arbor Press.

Marsella, A.J. (2011). The United States of America: A “culture of war.” International Journal of Intercultural Research, 35, 714-728.

Porch, D. (2001). Wars of empire. London, UK: Wellington House.

Wikipedia: Durand Line, October 14, 2016, 11:47 AM.

Wikipedia: Project for a New American Century, October 16, 2016 8:54 AM.

__________________________

Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., a member of the TRANSCEND Network, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Emeritus Professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii’s Manoa Campus in Honolulu, Hawaii, and past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center in Honolulu. He is known nationally and internationally as a pioneer figure in the study of culture and psychopathology who challenged the ethnocentrism and racial biases of many assumptions, theories, and practices in psychology and psychiatry. In more recent years, he has been writing and lecturing on peace and social justice. He has published 21 books and more than 300 publications noted for challenging the ethnocentricity and biases of Western psychology and psychiatry, and for advocating peace and social justice. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.

 

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 17 October 2016.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Whose Side is “God, god, gods, g _ d,” _ _ _ on? A Reprise and More, is included. Thank you.

 

Where the heck can dancing take us?

By Guest Author Sarah Oppenheimer

There is a long history of arts-for-peace groups focusing on promoting peace practices and influencing people to think about their own interpretations of peace. Contemporary groups include the Peace Education through the Arts Culture and Exposure (PEACE) (http://arts-for-peace.org) and Create Peace Project (http://createpeaceproject.org).

 

The Peace Education through the Arts Culture and Exposure group describes themselves as seeking to imagine a future celebrating the plenitude and diversity of the world’s cultures within three major objectives:

  •  Focusing on our shared human interests in peace, equity, and justice by providing fora in which the arts provide an expressive vocabulary for the examination of social and political issues affecting our communities.
  • Creating a space in which visual and performing artists can acknowledge difference and advocate creative, nonviolent conflict resolution by engaging with each other and their audiences, especially young people.
  • Relying on the arts as a platform for social innovation and peace education, in order to inspire hope and build bridges across cultures.(http://arts-for-peace.org)

The video at the beginning of this post features Matt Harding who, in 2012, began traveling around the world, because he wanted to dance with people from different countries. His video is an enthusiastic display of how people from a wide variety of cultures and backgrounds can engage joyously with each other. It reflects the philosophy behind Dance for Peace, which “creates a container where each person can find their own peace, not by suppressing their difficult emotions, but by celebrating them through creative and healing outlets: Dancing, conscious breathing, chanting, drumming, hugging, laughing, crying.” (http://danceforpeace.com/)

 

Sarah Oppenheimer is a student studying psychology and philosophy at Boston University. She currently works as a research assistant in the Translational Research Program at BU’s Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders and BU’s Social Development and Learning Lab. She is also currently President of BU’s Undergraduate Psychology Association. She took Psychology of War and Peace with Professor Kathleen Malley-Morrison

 

Investing in Moral Repair, Part 3, by Ross Caputi*

This is part 3 of a 3 part series by Ross Caputi.

Investing in Moral Repair, Part 1

Investing in Moral Repair, Part 2

Three children wounded by a US bomb in Nangrahar province of Afghanistan

There are good reasons why in her book Afterwar: Healing the Moral Wounds of Our Soldiers (2015) Nancy Sherman might have wanted to avoid a discussion of afterwar ethical obligations to the victims of American military campaigns. She explains that her lack of focus on the injustices of the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq was simply because it was not the focus of the veterans she interviewed. Their moral injury was most often the result of what they perceived to be their failures to protect their fellow soldiers, and in some cases, individual Iraqis and Afghans too. Most of the veterans that she interviewed did not feel burdened by the ethical question of whether the wars they participated in were just or unjust.

That has been my experience too. I’ve met few veterans who were raised with the internationalist perspective that I was, and even fewer who feel, as I do, that the relationship between occupier and occupied is an inherently immoral one. If Sherman were to advocate that we should feel morally responsible for the justness or unjustness of the war itself, as I am willing to do, she would run the risk of burdening veterans with new moral dilemmas that hadn’t previously occurred to them.

She might further have made a deliberate choice to avoid topics that are interpreted in our culture as being radical—such as responsibility for civilian deaths or war crimes, topics that might just be interpreted as ethical issues in other parts of the world—in order to avoid alienating her audience. Instead, by limiting her focus to the invisible wounds that veterans carry, wounds that cannot be healed by prescribing them more medication, and the ways in which the civilian community is essential to their process of moral repair, this book stands to do a great service to veterans by building the sympathetic community that they need. However, such an approach does not fully address all of the post war responsibilities of civilians.

Afterwar is an important challenge to our national war culture. Sherman provides us with a matrix of concepts—such as “affective access” and “self-forgiveness”—that act as a set of tools for a national discussion about moral injury and how best to care for our veterans. This valuable contribution provides a starting point from which we can begin to have a discussion about the jus post bellum that is not limited to the actions of nation states, but rather addresses the ways in which we as citizens can live ethically in a globally connected world. It is a step towards a deeper understanding of the ways in which we as individuals are connected to global events, such as war, and the responsibilities we have towards one another, and the ways in which we can begin to repair what has been broken.

*This review by Engaging Peace Board member Ross Caputi is reprinted from the American Book Review, Volume 36, Number 5, July/August 2015.

Ross is currently on the Board of Directors of ISLAH. He is also a graduate student and a writer. In 2004, he was a US Marine in the US-led occupation of Iraq. His experience there, in particular his experience during the 2nd siege of Fallujah, compelled him to leave the US military and join the anti-war movement. His activism has focused on our society’s moral obligation to our victims in Iraq, and to the responsibility of veterans to renounce their hero status in America.