“Peace restraining war” part of the Bolton War Memorial by Walter Marsden Image by Gordon Lawson and in the public domain.
Today, Memorial Day 2015, I commemorate what the United States could have been and still could be.
The participation of colonists (invaders) from abroad in the near genocide of the native peoples did not make the United States great, let alone honorable.
The bloody subjugation of the Philippines into an American colony did not make the United States great, nor were the invaders honorable.
Were the Americans who fought in WWI and WWII and Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq and the countless other forgotten little wars that Americans fought in the last two centuries brave? I am sure many but not all of them were. Were they fighting for their country? Most of them probably thought they were doing so. Were they actually fighting on behalf of the military-industrial complex, the powerful elite intent on pursuing its own interests with little concern for the human costs? I believe so.
Is it appropriate to honor members of the military who killed others, including innocent civilians, because they were told to do so and trained to follow orders? I believe sympathy for them and their families is more appropriate; however, I am also moved by the words of Ambrose Bierce, who fought for the Union in the U.S. Civil War, and was distressed by the insistence of northerners and southerners in the post-war decades to have two separate memorial days, honoring only their own dead: “The wretch, whate’er his life and lot/ Who does not love the harmless dead/ With all his heart and all his head— / May God forgive him, I shall not.”
But, I ask you, when will we start honoring the conscientious objectors, the war resisters, the anti-nuke activists, and all those who embrace nonviolence? When will we create a national peace memorial and a Memorial Day transmuted into a day honoring the pursuit of peace, nonviolence, and human rights?
Part 2 of a two part series by guest author Dr Majed Ashy.
US State Department contract security, International (Green) Zone, Baghdad, Iraq. Image by Tmaull, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Companies that provide mercenaries need international regulation and must to be subject to international law. Unlike governments that can be held accountable by voters, international law, and the freedom of information act, these private national and international businesses resist any intrusion into their work and claim a right to secrecy.
One of the many disturbing features regarding mercenary groups is that the standards of hiring are different of those of regular national armies. In different parts of the world, these mercenaries can include individuals with criminal, psychiatric, or drug issues that influence their conduct. In addition, as we have seen in several incidents, these contracted mercenaries and their companies might not be held to the same standards of accountability as regular professional armies.
We might be moving into an era in which wars are not conducted by national armies for the sake of certain ideologies, religions, or national interests, but by private contracted armies of mercenaries who will fight outside the restrictions of international or national laws for the narrow interests of individuals or groups or governments. This will take us into a new understanding of wars, terrorism, and peace.
Suggested reading: The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order by Sean McFate. A brief excerpt is available here.
Dr. Majed Ashy is a certified consultant in psychology in Saudi Arabia. He received a bachelor degree, a master degree, and a doctorate degree in psychology from Boston University in the USA, and a post-doctorate in psychiatric research at the Developmental Bio-Psychiatry Program (DBPRP), MacLean Hospital at Harvard University Medical School, and a second post-doctorate at the Mind, Brain, and Learning Program at Harvard Graduate School of Education. He has been a research fellow at DBPRP since 2008.
Dr. Ashy’s research examines the developmental and neurological bases of political thinking, attitudes, and behavior, including the role of childhood maltreatment and trauma in brain development and later attitudes towards peace, war, terrorism, extremism, torture, protests, human rights, apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation. He is an advocate for peace and human rights as pre-requisites for mental and physical health, and advocates for cross cultural understanding and cooperation in making mental health services available to cultural minority groups and promoting healthy relations among groups. Dr. Majed has several professional publications, presentations, and memberships in the area of peace psychology.
Dr. Majed Ashy is a certified consultant in psychology in Saudi Arabia. He received a bachelor degree, a master degree, and a doctorate degree in psychology from Boston University in the USA, and a post-doctorate in psychiatric research at the Developmental Bio-Psychiatry Program (DBPRP), MacLean Hospital at Harvard University Medical School, and a second post-doctorate at the Mind, Brain, and Learning Program at Harvard Graduate School of Education. He has been a research fellow at DBPRP since 2008. Dr. Ashy’s research examines the developmental and neurological bases of political thinking, attitudes, and behavior, including the role of childhood maltreatment and trauma in brain development and later attitudes towards peace, war, terrorism, extremism, torture, protests, human rights, apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation. He is an advocate for peace and human rights as pre-requisites for mental and physical health, and advocates for cross cultural understanding and cooperation in making mental health services available to cultural minority groups and promoting healthy relations among groups. Dr. Majed has several professional publications, presentations, and memberships in the area of peace psychology. He is a regular contributor to Engaging Peace.
By guest author Ross Caputi. This is the second in a series discussing the implications of the new film, American Sniper.
A US Marine Corps Corporal sights through the scope of a sniping rifle, while training at the Military Operations in Urban Terrain, Camp Pendleton, California, during Exercise Kernal Blitz 2001.
It is not my intention to accuse Chris Kyle of committing war crimes as an individual, or to attack his character in any way. Some critics have pointed out the many racist and anti-Islamic comments Chris made in his autobiography (significantly toned down in the film). Others have noted his jingoistic beliefs. However, I too participated in the 2nd siege of Fallujah as a US Marine. Like Chris, I said some racist and despicable things while in Iraq. I am in no position to judge him, nor do I think it is important to do so. I am far more interested in our reaction to Chris Kyle as a society than in the nuances of his personality.
In both the book and the film, Chris Kyle comes off as a man who is slightly embarrassed by the labels his comrades-in-arms and his society throw on him, such as “legend” or “hero.” And the financial success of his autobiography and Clint Eastwood’s cinematic adaptation of it reveals just how willing America is to embrace him and his story, despite its factual inaccuracies.
Perhaps the only thing that is important to say about Chris Kyle the individual is that he has the power to legitimize a sanitized version of events in Iraq. Somehow in our culture, combat experience is mistaken for knowledge about a war. And Chris Kyle’s status as a Navy SEAL with mountains of medals and ribbons, multiple deployments to Iraq, and battlefield accolades makes him an “authority” on the topic of Iraq to those who don’t know better.
I sympathize with Chris, because while I was in Iraq, I believed many of the same things he believed: That Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. That our mission was just and good. That the people we were fighting against in Iraq wanted to kill Americans because of some irrational political ideology or fanatical religious beliefs. And that most Iraqis wanted us in their country.
Notice how within this ideological framework, the emotional turmoil that Chris goes through and the strain his multiple deployments put on his family gets interpreted as a sacrifice that he bravely and consciously makes for a noble cause. Our mission in Iraq is, of course, understood as a peace keeping and nation building operation, not as the imposition of a political and economic project against the will of the majority of Iraqis. “Hearts and minds” become objects to be won, rather than something to be respected. The lives that Chris ends become “confirmed kills,” not murder. And the people he kills are interpreted as “terrorists,” not as people defending their country from a foreign, invading and occupying army.
This ideological framework is America’s war culture. Absent these ideological assumptions, the suffering that Chris and his family go through, and his tally of confirmed kills, do not get interpreted as brave sacrifices or heroic acts—they can only be tragic.
By guest author Ross Caputi. This is the first in a series discussing the implications of the new film, American Sniper.
What American Sniper offers us — more than a heart-wrenching tale about Chris Kyle’s struggle to be a soldier, a husband, and a father; more than an action packed story about America’s most lethal sniper — is an exposure of the often hidden side of American war culture. The criminality characterizing American military engagements since the American Indian Wars, and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, is hardly noticeable in this film. And that’s exactly my point.
Chris Kyle built his reputation as a sniper during one of the most criminal operations of the entire occupation of Iraq, the 2nd siege of Fallujah, yet American Sniper doesn’t even hint that Chris Kyle did anything in Iraq except kill bad guys and defend America. This speaks volumes about how little we understand the wars our country fights around the world.
Perhaps my argument seems strange — that the most significant part of this film is what is not in it. I believe the omissions reflect more than what the director decided was irrelevant to the plot. They reveal an unconscious psychological process that shields our ideas about who we are as individuals and as a nation. This process, known as “moral disengagement ,” is extremely common in militaristic societies.
What is fascinating about American Sniper is how these omissions survive in the face of overwhelming evidence of the crimes in which Chris Kyle participated during the 2nd siege of Fallujah — an operation that killed between 4,000 and 6,000 civilians, displaced 200,000, and may have created an epidemic of birth defects and cancers. That he can come home, be embraced as a hero, be celebrated for the number of people he killed, write a bestselling book about it, and have it made into a Hollywood film is something we need to reflect on as a society.
Ross Caputi, a regular writer for engagingpeace.com, is a former Marine who participated in the 2nd Siege of Fallujah. Today he is on the Board of Directors of the Islah Reparations Project. He is also the Director of the documentary film Fear Not the Path of Truth: a veteran’s journey after FallujahRoss holds an MA in Linguistics and he is working on an MA in English Studies at Fitchburg State University. Read his blog here.
