Truth or Consequences, II

We are never deceived;
we deceive ourselves
--Goethe

Yes, I'm stuck in the middle with you,
And I'm wondering what it is I should do
--Stuck in the Middle with You,
Stealer's Wheel
______________________

The biggest lie is that our election are about freedom and democracy. These are the same lies that we accept as the basis of our wars. Wars are not about anything but power, since democracy and freedom are never achieved with a bayoneted rifle.

Our elections and wars are based upon capitalism, not democracy. This has been the truth since the founding of our nation. Every election walks the fault line between Jeffersonian (agrarian homeland focus) and Hamiltonian (strong armies, banks and foreign policy) thought.

If words have no fixed meaning or are lies, then so, too, are our laws. Words are the only thing that binds us to the world and reveals its meaning. If words are untruthful the the resultant insincerity is the precursor to societal decline.

Our elections are about capitalism and the parties ability to exploit that fact. If they were about freedom and democracy we should have no need for them since we would all agree that freedom and democracy were good things.

Freedom and democracy are words that have no fixed meaning, for we are told the elections in Egypt and Afghanistan provided democracy and freedom to those countries, but should ask, "how?"

Our elections are about two very simple capitalistic thoughts. With one party the top one percent get to exploit what used to be the middle class (which is now the working class) and trickle up the money from the many to the few.

The other party wants to take from the top and distribute to the lower income bracket. At the same time, they pretend to support a middle class democracy.

Neither strategy enhances democracy or freedom. Elections simply decide where the money will flow and which party gets to exploit the middle class. In both scenarios, the middle class takes a beating.

If one accepts this logic on the topic of elections then one must accept the use of lies as party planks, for it unlikely that people will vote to be exploited.

History has proven that all elections have been based upon lies, false suppositions and faulty assumptions or interpretations of facts.

And we the people continue to march as if our voices matter.

That's the lie of democracy.


--by Jim

From Prussia, With Love

 --Emad Hajjaj (Jordan) 

We'll sign some trashy treaties
And protocols galore,
(They won't make any difference
If I decide for war)  
--Stuff and Nonsense: A Book of War Verses, 
Sir Ian Malcolm

If I listened long enough to you
I'd find a way to believe that it's all true 
--Reason to Believe,
Rod Stewart
_________________________

The first assumption of United States' nation-building protocol is to build up an army and a militarized police force as the basis for establishing the nation we wish to create. The idea is, the government will fall into place if backed by sufficient force.

As a recent New Yorker piece on the Sykes-Picot treaty observed: "[Iraq and Syria] trained plenty of men in uniform. But both had weak public institutions, teeny civil societies, shady and iniquitous economies, and meaningless laws. Both countries were wracked by coups and instability . . . (t)he glue that held both countries together was repressive rule and fear."

But the balled-up belief in democracy issuing from force is echoed all 'round. Lieutenant General (ret'd) James M. Dubik allowed in a recent BBC America interview that Iraq was terribly off-balance, but stated that the army would not hold if the government falls.

We need only look back 40+ years to Vietnam, the modern prototype for counterinsurgency warfare, to see the failure of  this approach. And since this model failed so spectacularly in the Republic of Vietnam, why do we think it would work in Iraq or Afghanistan today?

The U.S. operates in bad faith, as though armies buy freedom, but the shallowest tour of history debunks that theory. In the most charitable reading, we optimistically operate on that misbegotten template because the Continental Army was created by fiat to expulse the British army and create a new democratic union.

In contradiction, the armies the U.S. creates in Iraq and all of the other oil countries exist simply to quell internal threats. They subdue their citizens and don't even pretend to be democratic. When an army is habitually used to suppress its citizens, this defines a totalitarian regime. 

The late, great Prussia serves as a cautionary example of a state which existed for the benefit of its army. This attitude is the opposite of democratic thought, and since the U.S. fought Prussia in two World Wars, it could be inferred that we opposed the construct.

Sadly, 21st century U.S. thought has devolved to the Prussian template: the U.S. invades, destroys, then nation-builds upon the assumption that out of strong armies and police will grow a democratic  nation. Not.

While this is the statehood pattern followed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et al., there is no reason to believe that the equation will endure when the state is placed under extreme stress. An army plus militarized police do not ensure statehood, and especially not when they are simply uniformed militias dedicated to a sect opposed to the concept of nation statehood.

The state does not exist for the army; the army exists to defend the state. When the U.S. builds strong armies and police in foreign ventures, it is creating the conditions for repression, not democracy.

Could somebody remind our leaders why we fought two world wars, and why conventional wisdom warns against secret and entangling alliances?

Nigger Jim

--A young CPT Jim, 
who thought he'd always have a seat at the table

Here was a free nigger there from Ohio --
a mulatter, most as white as a white man 
--The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 
Mark Twain
 _____________________

Stalag 13, Part Two: Nigger Jim

RAW reader "tw" asked why Ranger would even care to belong to the American Legion (Stalag 13). Simple: because their congressionally-mandated charter assures him a seat at the table. The Executive Committee's rejection of Ranger's petition for membership is denying him his civil liberties.

Following the Legion's refusal of Ranger's application, he asked his attorney if he had any legal recourse; the attorney demurred. Ranger then wondered if his protest was petty, and it was only after discussing the issue with others that he realized his desire to press the issue was entirely appropriate. (The attorney is a good old boy not wanting to upset the apple cart.)

The point of the exercise is that of the 1950's and 60's Freedom Riders. Ranger's petition for membership is equivalent to that of a negro sitting at the lunch counter of a 1963 Birmingham, Alabama soda shop. He is the Little Rock Nine against Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus. He is Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the Montgomery bus. He paid for his ticket.

Whether the people who constitute its membership are largely out of step with his beliefs is not the issue. Whether he wants to sit and drink with them is not the issue. He does not have to like them, nor they, he. The point of a Democracy is that all have equal access and opportunity in the municipal realm. Additionally, that is the only way for ideas to evolve and fraternity to have any hope of flowering: by the abutting of conflicting views in a neutral, respectful setting.

The Legion is congressionally-chartered as a fraternal organization which welcomes all who qualify into its meeting halls. There is not a separate American Legion for disgruntled vets who feel their government has shafted them. There is no "American Legion for Embittered, Screwed Up Vietnam Vets," and one for the happy sots. There is only the one, who's strength can only be had in true fellowship and acceptance. There is no room for acceptance based upon murky liturgical guidance; we have the rule of law to ensure equality for all. Not separate but equal, as Plessy v. Ferguson decided. There is no such animal.

If the Legion is not admitting eligible veterans on the basis of their beliefs, then it is operating in contravention of its charter. If it turns away a needy vet with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) who might then find himself hanging, his blood will be on their hands, for while they are not a medical organization the brotherhood and guidance they are tasked with providing could be a lifesaver, but only if the life raft admits all.

The American Legion, like so many groups in The United States, has lost its way by operating in an emotional and irrational manner, contrary to its mission. The Legion, like our government, has subverted the foundations of democratic thought. It adopted the exclusionary motto "For God and Country" in McCarthy's 1950's, in reaction to the feared godless menace of Communism, forgetting the basis of our Democracy is separation of Church and State. That separation ensures both freedom of religion, as well as freedom from it.

The Executive Committee of American Legion Post #13 is behaving like the Comintern. Ranger thinks the majority of the Legion members would be appalled by their exclusionary actions, or at least, he hopes so. He was good enough to offer his mind and body for his country and fellows, but not good enough to sit with them as a civilian.

This is not the end of the story.

Comes a Time

My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors' 
--Mending Wall, Robert Frost

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere.
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. 
--The Second Coming, W. B. Yeats 

Comes a time
when you're driftin'
Comes a time
when you settle down 
--Comes a Time, Neil Young

 Can I look at myself without a word,
without an image,
 without pride?-- 
J. Krishnamurti
 _________________________

There comes a time when we need to stand up responsibly in our own personal lives, and as citizens and neighbors.Or not.

This responsibility is what makes us human; it makes us good citizens. Oh, right, those amorialists among us would dismiss this call to responsibility and call goodness as naive, conservative, or some other vile thing, because "good" is something different to everyone, right? Can't impose goodness; there's no postage stamp celebrating it. But if we are going to be real, let us guess at what being a good citizen is.

We can start with simple goodness: He does not blast his music into his neighbor's yard, and especially not into the evening hours. He restrains his animals, and honors property lines. He basically is not a blight upon the neighborhood, blight being imposing his predilections upon others in his immediate proximity. Goodness beyond that would be opening oneself to one's neighbor as such; this is not required, however. Simple cessation of offense is neighborly.

Beyond this, we need define to ourselves what being a good citizen means. Being a citizen is not an optional designation (for those who choose not to become expatriots); you are a citizen, now, how to make that "good"? Obviously one abides by the basic dictates of citizenship -- recognizing that you do have a responsibility for taking part in the upkeep of your nation. If you do not do that in a hands-on manner, at least you pay taxes, which fund others to do the work. No one likes crumbling bridges or decaying water lines.

What motivated Ranger to write this essay? It is time for him to stand before the mirror and acknowledge some painful insights. This is something he believes we should all do if we believe in the core values that constitute America. Yes ... the scolds among us will mock the very idea.  "Core values", they smirk? Like slavery and women's subjugation? No, we have moved past that, and we have legislated our way out, to the degree that equality can be legislated.

The problem these days is that the things that make us free men are as identifiable as a river crossing covered by a division-level smoke generating company. Our lives are lived over river crossings smoked to conceal both our behavior and that of the enemy. The enemy, as construed by your media, is you, and reality, in no special order.

We live this adversarial relationship every day we read the papers and engage in the rodeo du jour. Oh, today President Obama is a "Bad Man" for his cronyism;, or his "weird penchant for discussing ultra-serious topics, ranging from rape to Benghazi, on late-night comedy shows"; flip that idea for next week's "news". But we citizens are not the enemy -- we are supposed to be the friendlies. Freedom thrives only when leaders and people are observable and accountable. We supposedly took politics out of Boss Tweed's smoke-filled back rooms for a reason, but we are back to secrecy for national security's sake. Unfortunately, we do noty realize that accountability can be had without jeopardizing the safety of the entity you are ostensible protecting.

On the national level, responsibility is not defined by voting for narrow, niche interests, yet more than ever that is the thing that seems to motivate us up off the couch. Who addresses the core issue, either citizen or candidate? We cannot have better candidates until we become better citizens. How to do this?

One must look into the mirror and ask, "Do I have the strength, wisdom, courage and conviction to tell the truth?" One may do this in one's private realm, and also the public. Rhetorical questions may be helpful: "Would I, given the absolute knowledge that an agency were operating in a manner detrimental to our general well-being, disclose classified materials? Could I stand up to the government steamroller?"

Think of the probably thousands of people run over by government tanks in China's Tienanman Square in 1989. It is another aspect of the question: must truth-telling be a sacrificial act? Given a society or a relationship which encourages the health of the system over secret one-sided gain, the answer would be "no". Given a culture which rewards robust competition, that more wholesome friendly participation is not the norm.

Oh, but we have the problem again of the words: "wholesome" and "friendly". The conservatives are happy to define and own the words as a part of their platform, but they do so in a constricted fashion; the liberal's response is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. "Who dares to define 'wholesome'?", they would attack, in a very sophisticated manner, making the one who wishes to use that as a yardstick for functional behavior seem like a hayseed for even trying. Words denoting health and harmony have sadly become by needs, the realm of the religious, the naive, the Conservative cadging for votes among the marks.

But ideas like "responsible", "wholesome" and "friendly" should be part of a functional democracy; if we have let them go in the name of liberality, we are flailing for a reason. You know what the words mean, and the educated among us more or less hew to them (as serves their purposes), but they do not let on to the others that they form a part of the fabric which is the secret underpinning to success.

Sadly the majority of the well-off who understand these terms just smile at the degradation of The Others and call it freedom, but it is their own freedom to make a profit off of the groundling's lunacy. But in the mobius strip that is modernity, we are labeled "loons" for criticizing any behavior as "aberrant", and not wanting to appear retrograde, we shut up.

We treat whistle-blowers like espionage agents, ground like cockroaches in a TexMex bar. If we were real, we would say that Secret Federal Courts and secret military tribunals are more in the evolutionary line of Nazi courts than they are in the liberal tradition of Western law. Who will stand against this, and what do we label such people?

What sort of a Democrat are you?

Show Time

 You can go to church and sing a hymn 
You can judge me by the color of my skin
You can live a lie until you die
One thing you can't hide
 Is when you're crippled inside 
--Crippled Inside, John Lennon

Being a bitch --
that sounds like a Republican to me 
--30 Rock 

[Homer, as Grand Kleagle at a KKK rally]:
 Brothers! Oh, brothers! We have all gathered here,
 to preserve our hallowed culture and heritage! 
We aim to pull evil up by the root, 
before it chokes out the flower of our culture and heritage! 
And our women, let's not forget those ladies, y'all. 
Looking to us for protection! From darkies, from Jews, 
from papists, and from all those smart-ass folks 
say we come descended from monkeys!
 --And so, we gonna hang us a negro! 

--Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

 __________________

While volunteering with the group Election Protection in the 2008 Presidential election, Lisa was posted to a precinct in the rural part of what is already Ruralia.  Our job, as disinterested observers, was to make sure everyone had a satisfactory voting experience, and to contact our sources should there have been any problems.

What I remember most is one woman voter who embodied the whole shift for me.  She was thin -- wiry -- and wore men's tree bark garb, rubber knee boots and a scowl.  Her hair was in disarray and she dragged several children of similar mien behind her.  She was a cross between Holly Hunter's character in "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" and the iconic Afghan girl on the cover of National Geographic: intense, challenging, burdened. It was a mystery how she started her truck, so cobbled together was it.

She was single-minded and angry; this was not a celebration of exercising her franchise.  She would not look at us or acknowledge our greeting, or anybody's, for that matter.  She strode in and out of the precinct at a 60-degree angle and a charge.  I imagine her purpose was one: Keep the black man out of office. 

White rubber knee boots are the Nikes for people in Wakulla County who work in the seafood industry, and mullet is considered the "Better White Meat".  It is not an easy life and the educational level is fairly poor.  But the residents of Panacea will be voting again this year. 

Don't listen to the pollsters; don't give any data to the exit inquisitors.  It's your private moment.

Rise and shine. Do it -- vote.

Sitting Ducks, Pt. 3: Johnny Got His Gun

It's a beautiful night, 

We're looking for something dumb to do 

--Marry You, Bruno Mars 

We knew you would leave because you could leave. 

We lived here; we couldn’t leave 

--Vietnamese diplomat to Robert McNamara

_______________________

Upon seeing a recent photo of the M240 and the M-249 machine guns with which we are arming the Afghan National Army, Ranger returned to the 50% poverty rate of Athens County, Ohio, home of Ohio University, a small town remembered in its better times over 40 years ago.

Two of these weapons cost almost as much as the annual income of the folks of Athens Co. Why did we give an enema of democracy to those who do not love us in Afghanistan, giving away weapons to people who will never defend democracy or add to the security of Americans dancing on the edge of the volcano that is poverty.

It is hard to understand how the good folks of Athens will benefit by this huge outlay of materiel.  But the boys still love to get the plastic guns at Walmart, preparing for their role in the grand drama.  It is hard to see what all of this outlay will buy for Athens, aside from some more names for a war memorial; perhaps a few more families who can feel conflicted about the good their family's ultimate sacrifice has achieved.

When we leave, as we will, it will be as it was when the Army of Vietnam fell.  There the U.S. left behind 22,000 M60 machine guns, which were then flung worldwide into various camps hostile to U.S. interests.

Thank you, Uncle Sam.

Tread on Me

But the law, Judah.
Without the law, it's all darkness
--Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
__________________

Remember all of the purple thumbs which were part of the constructed pastiche that said, "We're winning?" Well, voting is not the sign of either freedom or democracy.

The sign of democracy is being allowed to vote on key issues and having politicians who will then fulfill our mandate. That is freedom and democracy marching hand in hand. When we in the U.S. vote for President, is our intent to elect a warrior king ? An assassin? A jailer? Do we expect him to uphold The Constitution, or to view it as a buffet for the choosing?

What politician will cease being a reactor and fulfill the role of statesman, instead being an actor for the betterment of his nation? As long as any man sits in prison sans trial, none of us is a free man. Rights are not rights if they can be abrogated by arbitrary Presidential fiat. Discretionary rights are as bogus as discretionary war.

How can we tell our troops that they are fighting for our rights, when one of them (Bradley Manning) sits in jail without any rights at all? Do we and they not see this? The actions of Presidents George Bush and Obama to assassinate citizens and incarcerate people without trial embodies the Constitutional concept of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Republican candidates are stepping up to the plate, but no one asks them, "Would you free, try, or just let Manning continue to rot in prison?" Instead we focus on their sex lives and other meaningless drivel. We should ask, "Do you support the assassination of U.S. citizens sans benefit of trial?", but we do not, because we know the answer. Both political parties support the truncation of citizen's rights in this not-so Brave New World.

It is strange that the U.S. would try and impeach a president for sexual dalliances with an intern, while gladly accepting the assassinations and jailings without a whimper.

Don't Tread on Me has left the building.

Democracy in Descent

Ya' feelin' alright?
I'm not feelin' too good myself
--Feelin' Alright, Joe Cocker

And I guess we're doing fine,
But there's no escaping our
Spectacular failure
--Spectacular Failures, Just Jack

Ranger Question of the Day:
a book club meeting at local coffee shop was studying,
"Having a Real Relationship with God":
How can one have a relationship with something
that is unreal?
________________

The entire Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) has been sold as an effort to democratize the undemocratizable. Simply put, elections are not the guarantors of a liberal democracy. Think Putin, Chavez, Mussolini, Hitler -- any garden-variety fascist.

The essential question regarding United States foreign policy is, does the U.S. favor stability, or the supposed propagation of democracy? In the past, U.S. security trumped the peddling of a democratic agenda, until President Bush thought to channel Jimmy Carter and deliver democracy to the intransigent Afghanistan and Iraq. However, realpolitik seems to have left the building when recent Middle East elections in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria indicate conservative Islamic fundamentalist winners.

In Egypt's example, the U.S. is footing the shift to a more fundamentalist government to the tune of $1.3 billion per year -- and that country is not remotely dancing to the U.S. tune. So why the effort? As The Week stated, "The Egyptian military might be corrupt, but it has to remain strong enough to keep the Islamists in line" (Chaos in Cairo).

As the PWOT enters its 10th anniversary, poster boy Afghanistan remains at the BOTTOM of a recent survey of transparency in governments, beating out shining beacons of corruption North Korea and Somalia for the privilege (Transparency International). [FWIW, the U.S. came in at #24 -- behind Canada and Qatar, but at least we beat France at #25, which is what matters, right? Hey, democracy's messy business.]

What do We the People want our government to accomplish with our foreign policy? Since we can't vote for what we want, as the promises do not actualize, voting -- the crown jewel of a true democracy -- becomes an act of futility in a democracy in descent.

Last Tuesday:

On Tuesday 60 members of the United States Senate voted to preserve a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act—that would be the bill that funds the Pentagon—allowing the U.S. military to pick up and detain, without charges or trial, anyone suspected of terrorism, including American citizens, and to restrict transfers of prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay. Specifically, 60 senators voted against an amendment that would have invalidated the part of the bill which empowers the president and the military to detain anyone they suspect was involved in the 9/11 attacks or supports al-Qaida, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” (Military Police State).

The 2012 Defense Appropriations bill is an anti-democracy bill proposing giving the Department of Defense jurisdiction over domestic terrorism, to include suspension of habeas corpus to U.S. citizens. Jose Padilla and Anwar al-Awlaki helped pave the way. How can you export what you don't have?

This is an example of the New U.S. Democracy, which aims to level itself with systems that look somewhat less-than democratic. On paper, it will help bring more nations into the democratic fold, and those who trumpet the loudest for the curtailment of our once-sacred rights will say, "What need have I to be worried about the anti-democratic bills -- I'm not doing anything wrong?" Until, like Pastor Niemoller suggested, they come for you.

The 2012 Defense Appropriations bill is exactly what the U.S. fought in Nazism and Japanese militarism, and what we demonized in Communism with its military primacy over civilian interests.

If the bill becomes law, 235 years of U.S. policy and practice will have belly-flopped into the trash heap of history, next to Cold Fusion and The Great Leap Forward.

Stirring the Pot

Is you is, or is you ain't my baby?
Won't you tell me please, I gotta know
--Is You Is, or Is You Ain't My Baby?
--Billy Austin

Hey, you, get off of my cloud
Don't hang around 'cause two's a crowd
on my cloud, baby
--Get Off of My Cloud, Rolling Stones

If you don't know where you're going,
any road'll do
--English saying
____________________

The games the politicians play are disconnected from the results of their policies, which are always strapped to the backs of the citizens, trusty mules we are. If they would only lead, versus politick.

Would anyone 60 years ago have imagined the Fantasyland that government policies have wrought? Does it matter that we won a Cold War when we are now devolving into Iron Curtain status ourselves?

Does it matter that Afghanistan and Iraq are free and democratic (sort of?) Did it really matter if Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)? Does it really matter that there is an al-Qaeda hostile to America? Do we realize that our own policies are hostile, and that WE export violence?

Do we realize that our Department of Defense policies add to the drain of dollars from our domestic lives? Our military policies adversely affect our economy and our people, and to what benefit? And to what detriment?

Now the U.S. has gone from assuming the onus of "protecting" rebels to supplying said rebels in Libya so that they may take out the sovereign leader of their nation. Iraqi and Afghani rebels: BAD; Libyan rebels: GOOD. Why are we meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations? Who was President Obama to tell Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek to step down? Our President is not president of the world.

Do we know what Democracy is about anymore, or are we are just deluding ourselves? If the reason for going into Libya is to protect the "innocent" civilians who are anti- Gaddafi from his brutal army and secret police, why are we not doing the same to Iran, Syria or any of the other states that are oppressing their peoples? The U.S. never lifted a finger to protect the protesters in Iran or Syria, so why Libya. Seems one rule for some and another for others.

Our venture into Libya will only incur the wrath of Gaddafi's supporters and help al-Qaeda consolidate power. It's a lose-lose scenario. Despite the exhortations of John Kerry and crew, air intervention in Libya is military intervention and arming the rebels is foolhardy and short-sighted. How many times has the U.S. armed the rebels only to see them become our eventual enemies? The unasked question is, if we arm the rebels now, at conflict's end will we be able to disarm them?

Why has the U.S. betrayed it's neutral hand and not simply urged Tunisia, Egypt and Libya toward a peaceful and bloodless outcome? When did we become instigators rather than negotiators for a regime change.

The U.S. has lost it's way, and the clarion calls to 9-11 grow fainter by the day.

--Lisa and Jim

Cult of Personality

I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize
--Steven Wright

I sell the things you need to be
I’m the smiling face on your t.v.
I’m the cult of personality
I exploit you still you love me
--Cult of Personality, Living Colour
_______________

The basic break between totalitarianism and liberal government is the orientation of the government to the governed. The story of democracy is that We the People matter, and government exists to serve the individual. Totalitarianism is supposed to be the opposite.

In our myth, citizens are unique individuals, not drop-forged identical personalities. We take pride in our rugged individualism, but a survey of the environment says otherwise. We are, in fact, interchangeable and stereotypical. Rappers don't wear Brooks Brothers, and congressmen don't wear their pants around their knees (though a shav may sport a Burberry cap, exercising his maximum ability to infiltrate corporate culture.)

Our educational and religious systems teach conformity and compliance. Bankers, lawyers and tradespeople are all die-stamped and interchangeable. The same is especially true of military personnel. Yet we continue to perpetuate the lie that we are all unique, when the reality is quite the opposite.

Dictators are always considered to be exceptional people, beyond the norm and above the law; supreme. To Americans, Stalin, or Mao or Il Duce or Der Fuhrer are all considered unpalatable, to be charitable. And yet . . . there has been a recent transference of these ideas onto our perception of our own leaders. Call it an American hagiography of the ruling class.

Americans like to think themselves so classless and free, but we do have a caste system, and it is economic and political.

If we do not clearly see the delusion of our exceptionality, how can we address world issue objectively?

Ranger Reveries

_______________

Ranger recently viewed a television show worse than U.S. policy: The Ghost Whisperer.

As a result, he had a nightmare in which someone whispered to him that the U.S. had only one year to live, after which we would be a ghost, too. Just like Benjamin Button at Year One. This led Prophet Ranger to thoughts on how we'd come to our terminal point.

The fault is not solely George Bush's, but rather a pervasive worldview that might is right, and the Great White God has blessed all that drops from the limbs of the tree of democracy. However, not the entire world buys into this dogma. Our counterinsurgency [COIN] efforts are seen as post-colonial wars of suppression and aggression.

What are the honest goals of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq? What does it hope to gain, and what does it actually gain? Do we fight to make people free, and what if they refuse the gift?

Who is the enemy in these theatres, and what is the battlefield? The enemy is the people we are supposedly there to liberate, and the battlefield is the country that we are unrealistically trying to build.

A nation-building project must have both [1] a national identity which to augment, and [2] a historical basis for the effort. Neither of these exist in Afghanistan. While preconditions exist, the impulse to federate must be internal.

Iraq was a nation without a national identity, a fact which is still true, despite U.S. efforts to the contrary. Afghanistan will never be a beacon of democracy. Both countries have been by-passed by history, and rightly so.

If a country wishes to remain pre-literate, that is their right. COIN cannot impose values that the country does not embrace. We can kill them, but that doesn't make them buy into our world view. If the U.S. were truly democratic, these country's very backwardness should be recognized as their expression of freedom -- even if it is repressive and repugnant to our perception.

The U.S. has no right or mandate to impose its will on any group outside of its borders. Even if it did it should be implemented through means other than military -- an introduction, versus an imposition.

Soldiers are not social workers, nor do they deal in feel-good products.

Military operations in these arenas have not been based in reality, nor have they been faithful to our principles. By extension, COIN is ineffective since COIN is a subset of military operations.

The entire military equation cannot be dictated by one hastily written Field Manual, even if it does talk pretty.