weapons of mass destruction – Page 2

Getting to peace and social justice

Posted on June 12, 2017June 12, 2017 by kathiemm

Anti-nuclear arms protesters display a banner during the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (OREPA) rally at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. April16,2011. Author: Brian Stansberry

By Anthony Marsella

Here is a straightforward list of actions and policies to promote peace amidst the madness of pursuing destruction and war for the apparent rewards of empire, economic, and delight in immorality and illegality.

Productive Foreign Policy and Domestic Options, Choices, Alternatives: Paths to Peace and Social Justice

Acknowledge the national security of the USA is best secured by pursuing and modeling peace, not by engaging in constant accusations and enemification of nations, cultures, religions, and people;
Address and resolve domestic inequities and inequalities in wealth, power, and position. Create new policies for equity and opportunity;
Address and limit monopolies (e.g., Big Agro, Big Pharm, Big Health, Big Transportation, Big Education, etc.) because these monopolies concentrate power, and they become impossible to control – “Too big to fail.”
Address the reality of USA decline in reputation and image by stopping the pursuit of a global empire;
Adopt a “Never Again” policy and practices for all countries, by all countries. “Never again” must not be limited to a single group or nation;
Apologize and ask for forgiveness in a public forum. Express intention to no longer pursue violence and war as national policy;
“Be the nation you want others to be;”
Build museums, monuments, holidays, and tributes to peace. Stop glorification of war;
Cease all vilification of Muslims and Muslim nations;
Condemn and prosecute apartheid;
Choose and support non-violent and non-killing protests and social changes;
Circulate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to all schools and governments as an accepted guide;
Close Guantanamo, and other “war on terrorism” prisons, camps, and rendition sites;
Destroy all weapons of mass destruction Nuclear, Toxic, Gas, etc);
Develop Department of Peace as an official standing cabinet office separate from State or Defense Departments;
Develop a metric to assess and prosecute USA international abuses and crimes;
Develop metrics to assess USA contributions to advancing humanity and the natural sectors. Assess metrics constantly;
Develop, implement, and empower UN conflict resolution office;
Develop ethic/ethos of global interdependency;
Diplomacy dialogue, rather than military force or violent interventions;
Educate women and children, and re-educate men;
Empower UN, and improve its functions and roles;
End corporate political election influence, control, and dominance;
End global surveillance and restore privacy and constitutional rights;
Increase governmental transparency and accountability;
International loan forgiveness;
Join and cooperate with international courts;
Limit “imperial” president powers as reflected in abuses of signing statements;
Limit lobbyist influence and control of public offices;
Limit Presidential terms of office to six years;
Limit Congressional terms of office to eight years. End seniority system of power;
Limit military-industrial-congressional- education complex powers;
Non-Contingent humanitarian aid and assistance, rather than contingent aid;
Practice humility, apology, and forgiveness;
Prosecute American war and military crimes to national and international laws;
Public apology for violent and destructive national and international policies and actions (e.g. NATO);
Reconsider political and economic treaties that isolate and marginalize nations (e.g., TPP) and seek hegemonic control (e.g., Russia, China);
Resist military solutions to conflicts and disagreements – choose diplomacy;
Restore balance of power across executive, congressional, and justice sectors. Dominance of the executive branch under the auspices of protecting national security has been abused, and has proven a failure and crime;
Restorative justice to victims;
Restrict central banking model of financial control over nations’ debt;
Review immediate and long-term consequences of DHS/NSA Abuses;
Stop “for profit” prisons, and their associated judicial corruption;
Speak truth, do not distort or exaggerate, practice transparency;,
Use “Justice” as an arbiter for decisions;

From: A.J.Marsella (2014).Two Paths in the Wood: “Choice” of Life or War. First published in Transcend, 27 October 2014. TRANSCEND MEMBER

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, 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 15 edited books, and more than 250 articles, chapters, book reviews, and popular pieces. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.

American Sniper, Part II

Posted on January 15, 2015January 14, 2015 by kathiemm

By guest author Ross Caputi. This is the second in a series discussing the implications of the new film, American Sniper.

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.

The first casualty of the last war, and the next war, and the next

Posted on January 8, 2015January 8, 2015 by kathiemm

: Aeschylus, an Ancient Greek writer of theatrical plays. This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

Greek writer and poet Aeschylus (525–456 BCE—a very long time ago!) proclaimed that “Truth is the first casualty of war.” Isn’t it just as true in the US as elsewhere that supporters of war try to prove they are in the right, and use lies and distortions to support their position?

And think of the advantages to the military-industrial-media complex of gaining support for a “war on terror” instead of a war only on the selected evil country of the moment. Given our government’s policies, there are likely always to be a few terrorists around. What a swell way to guarantee a perpetual war with perpetual profits—in money and/or power.

In his Monday post, Dr. Anthony Marsella wrote passionately about how the power structure in the US has used Propaganda, Media Deception and Abuses, and Lies to convince Americans that being dragged along one path of violence after another is not only in their best interests but also the right thing to do.

Once the mainstream corporate media, a strong arm of the power structure, has planted misinformation in people’s minds, it can be a challenge to get those people to rethink their views. (Remember the expression “Don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.”) For example, long after it was well established that Iraq did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were the purported reason for the 2003 US invasion, some people, especially conservatives, continued to insist that the weapons were there.

In order to override misinformation, lies, and propaganda, it is helpful to have the facts communicated by people who are seen by their audience as having some credibility. That is why the efforts of anti-war veteran activists to lead us from the path of war to the path of peace are so important.

Check out the sites for:

Iraq Veterans Against War: http://www.ivaw.org/

Vietnam Veterans Against the War: http://www.vvaw.org/

Veterans for Peace: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

And, in particular, listen to this interview with Ross Caputi, a frequent contributor to this blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ZwuizScxw

Continue reading “The first casualty of the last war, and the next war, and the next” →

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other (Moral disengagement, part 7)

Posted on December 20, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Photo of antisemitic Nazi propaganda — Antisemitic Nazi Propaganda. (Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license. From WikiMedia Commons)

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other is a particularly common form of moral disengagement, especially during wartime or other types of conflict.

Another moral disengagement mechanism described by psychologist Albert Bandura, it refers to portraying your enemy as less than human, as some sort of vile creature.

During World War II, all factions in the conflict created posters of the enemy as a subhuman monster. In addition, propaganda and feature films of that era–as well as during the Cold War and the Vietnam War–stereotyped, sub-humanized, dehumanized, and demonized the enemy.

Consider this quote: “…[This nation is] aiming at the exclusive domination of the [world], lost in corruption, [characterized by] deep-rooted hatred towards us, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors to show its head, and the eternal disturber of the peace of the world.”

Who do you think said that? To what nation was he referring?

The answer to the first question is Thomas Jefferson, in 1815, when he was President. The nation in question was Great Britain. Imagine what might have happened if weapons of mass destruction were available back then. Suppose Jefferson, as President, pushed Congress for a preemptive strike against Great Britain. Would a more peaceful world have been achieved?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.