During his Tuesday night address to the U.S. Congress, President Trump paid tribute to Ryan Owens, the Navy SEAL killed in the January commando raid in Yemen that Trump ordered. As he did so, television cameras focused for almost four full minutes on Owens’s grieving wife, Carryn, as she wept and applauded while sitting next to and periodically being touched by Trump’s glamorous daughter Ivanka. The entire chamber stood together in sustained applause, with Trump interjecting scripted, lyrical expressions of support and gratitude for her husband’s sacrifice.
It was, as intended, an obviously powerful TV moment. Independent of the political intent behind it, any well-functioning human being would feel great empathy watching a grieving spouse mourning and struggling to cope emotionally with the recent, sudden death of her partner. The majestic setting of the U.S. Congress, solemnly presided over by the U.S. president, vested the moment with political gravity.
Media commentators predictably gushed that this was the moment Trump became “presidential.” Meanwhile, the U.S. media’s most reliable partisan warriors, horrified that the moment might benefit Trump, instantly accused him of exploiting these emotions, and exploiting Carryn Owens herself, for his own political benefit.
While there is certainly truth in the claim that Trump’s use of the suffering of soldiers and their families is politically opportunistic, even exploitative, this tactic is hardly one Trump pioneered. In fact, it is completely standard for U.S. presidents. Though Trump’s attackers did not mention it, Obama often included tales of the sacrifice, death, and suffering of soliders in his political speeches — including when he devoted four highly emotional minutes in his 2014 State of the Union address to narrating the story of, and paying emotional tribute to, Sgt. Cory Remsburg, who was severely wounded by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan:
George W. Bush also hauled soldiers wounded in his wars before cameras during his speeches, such as his 2007 State of the Union address, where he paid tribute to Sgt. Tommy Rieman, wounded in Iraq.
There are reasons presidents routinely use the suffering and deaths of U.S soldiers and their families as political props. The way in which these emotions are exploited powerfully highlights important aspects of war propaganda generally, and specifically how the endless, 15-year-old war on terror is sustained.
The raid in Yemen that cost Owens his life also killed 30 other people, including “many civilians,” at least nine of whom were children. None of them were mentioned by Trump in last night’s speech, let alone honored with applause and the presence of grieving relatives. That’s because they were Yemenis, not Americans; therefore, their deaths, and lives, must be ignored (the only exception was some fleeting media mention of the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, but only because she was a U.S. citizen and because of the irony that Obama killed her 16-year-old American brother with a drone strike).
This is standard fare in U.S. war propaganda: We fixate on the Americans killed, learning their names and life stories and the plight of their spouses and parents, but steadfastly ignore the innocent people the U.S. government kills, whose numbers are always far greater. There is thus a sprawling, moving monument in the center of Washington, D.C., commemorating the 58,000 U.S. soldiers who died in Vietnam, but not the (at least) 2 million Vietnamese civilians killed by that war.
Politicians and commentators condemning the Iraq War always mention the 4,000 U.S. soldiers who died but rarely mention the hundreds of thousands (at least) innocent Iraqis killed: They don’t exist, are unmentionable. After a terror attack aimed at Americans, we are deluged with media profiles and photographs of the victims, learning their life aspirations and wallowing in the grief of their families, but we almost never hear anything about any of the innocent victims killed by the United States.
Senior Chief Ryan Owens is a household name, and his wife, Carryn, is the subject of national admiration and sympathy. But the overwhelming majority of Americans do not know, and will never learn, the name of even a single foreign victim out of the many hundreds of thousands that their country has killed over the last 15 years. This imbalance plays a massive role in how Americans understand themselves, the countries their government invades and bombs, and the Endless War that is being waged.
None of this is to say that the tribute to Owens and the sympathy for his wife are undeserved. Quite the contrary: When a country, decade after decade, keeps sending a small, largely disadvantaged portion of its citizenry to bear all the costs and risks of the wars it starts — while the nation’s elite and their families are largely immune — the least the immunized elites can do is pay symbolic tribute when they are killed.
Nor is it to say that this obsessive, exclusive focus on our own side’s victims while ignoring the victims we create is unique to the U.S. Again, the contrary is true. This dynamic is endemic to nationalism, which in turn is grounded in tribalistic human instincts: paying more attention to the deaths of those in our tribe than those we cause other tribes to suffer.
As I’ve described before, I was in Canada the week that it was targeted with two attacks — including one on the Parliament in Ottawa — and the Canadian media was suffuse for the entire week with images and stories about the two dead Canadian soldiers and their families. Then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke at the funeral of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, who became a household name for dying in the Parliament attack, even though most Canadians don’t know the names of and can’t tell a single story about even one of the numerous innocent victims killed by their own government over the last 15 years. This is by no means a uniquely American phenomenon.
But unique or not, this is an incredibly consequential tool of war propaganda. By dramatizing the deaths of Americans while disappearing the country’s victims, this technique ensures that Americans perpetually regard themselves as victims of horrific, savage, tragic violence but never the perpetrators of it. That, in turn, is what keeps Americans supporting endless war: These savages keep killing us, so we have no choice but to fight them.
More importantly, this process completely dehumanizes the people the U.S. government bombs, attacks, and kills. Because they’re never heard from, because we never learn their names, because we never experience their family’s suffering, all of their human attributes are stripped from them and their deaths are thus meaningless because they’re barely human.
This dehumanization — the suppression of any humanity on the part of the U.S.’ foreign war victims — is the absolute key to sustaining popular support for war. Nobody knew that better than Gen. William Westmoreland, the U.S. Commander of the Vietnam War, which is why he insisted that “Orientals” do not experience death and suffering the way that Westerners do
A population will only tolerate the ongoing, continual killing of large numbers of civilians if they believe that the innocent victims do not experience human suffering or, more importantly, if that suffering is hidden from them.
Just imagine how different Americans’ views of the war on terror might be if they were subjected to heavy grieving rituals from the family members of innocent victims of U.S. bombing similar to the one they witnessed last night from Carryn Owens. There’s a reason the iconic photo of a South Vietnamese police official summarily executing a Vietcong suspect during the 1968 Tet Offensive resonated: Violence and suffering are much more easily tolerated when their visceral reality need not be confronted.
The ritualistic tribute to dead or wounded U.S. soldiers has other purposes as well: It attempts — not using rational formulas but rather emotional impulses — to transfer the nobility of the slain soldier onto the war itself; after all, how unjust could a war be when such brave and admirable American soldiers are fighting in it?
And it is also intended that the soldier’s nobility will be transferred to his commander in chief who is so solemnly honoring him. As demonstrated by the skyrocketing post-9/11 approval ratings for George Bush and the endless political usage Obama obtained for killing Osama bin Laden, nothing makes us rally around a president like uplifting war sentiment.
Van Jones received intense criticism from Democrats for how positively he reacted on CNN to Trump’s tribute to Ryan and Carryn Owens, but Jones was just speaking honestly and with his emotions, as he often does: War makes people instinctively venerate the authority and leadership of the president who is presiding over it. That’s why — as John Jay warned in Federalist 4 — presidents like wars due to all the personal benefits they generate.
Van Jones on Trump honoring a Navy SEAL's widow: "He became President of the United States in that moment, period" https://t.co/Q4BhK1OpbR pic.twitter.com/52pLrT1CgR
— CNN (@CNN) March 1, 2017
The reaction to last night’s Owens moment was fascinating because the widespread media contempt for Trump clashed with the instinctive veneration of all matters relating to U.S. war; in most cases, the latter triumphed. But more interesting than that is what this ritual reveals about how Americans are taught to think about war and the reasons it is so easy for the political class — no matter the outcome of elections or what polling data tells us or how many people senselessly die — to continue and escalate endless wars. These propaganda rituals are well-tested and very potent.
Our professional military should be seen as just that. Deaths are sometimes inevitable in wars. These people should not be discredited, but they are not necessarily automatic saints.
Charlotte Edwards: What do you mean?
This:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/kjent-kritiker-brasnur—trump-ble-president-i-det-oyeblikket-han-kan-bli-sittende-i-atte-ar/67357649
Was what I could find of News articles of 2017 from Norwegian newspapers when I used the search word yemen.
Except from this “News” I got an review from one of the best-selling norwegian newspapers,VG, about the Us Tv-series “24: Legacy.”, “same shit, old wrapping”, and in fear of taking part in US propaganda I can try to translate some of the text in thisTv-series report into English:
“Keifer Sutherland’s Jack Bauer is out of the picture, and instead plays Corey Hawkins from “Straight Outta Compton” the former special soldier Eric Carter. He has led the attack on a terrorist leader named Sheikh Ibrahim Bin Khalid in Yemen, and now is the Sheikh’s friends in the US and kills troop members one by one – despite the fact that they are living under protected Identity”.
One exception, an article by woman from Yemen and an Citizen in NY TID, one of the smallest newspapers at the Norwegian market:
https://www.nytid.no/norge-krigen-jemen/. I would like to share some part of that text she made into English( not very well translated though):
What once was my school and where I develop myself as a person, is bombed by the Saudis. The hospital where I was born, is bombed, and even the streets where I øvelseskjørte when I would take the test, is unrecognizable. They are completely broken. Sanaa, my town that has for thousands of years, is under bombardment by Saudi Arabia and their coalition with nine other Arab countries. Social media also conveys to me who have lost their lives. I have lost friends and colleagues, so many that it all feels unreal. Although I myself will not be present physically, I experience the war psychologically and emotionally. I feel the war closely at me every time I hear family members’ votes over the phone, when they say that they are doing well, but I understand the tone that they hold things back that I should not have worried.
As the war has raged, I’ve thought a lot about what it is that drives war, and how these Gulf countries have weapons that will enable them to go to war. Yemen is the only country in the region that experienced the Arab Spring, and is also the country at the top of the list of countries gulf dictatorships will embark on. I was shocked when I discovered that peaceful Norway is involved in selling ammunition, military equipment and weapons parts to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as daily bombings and wars in Yemen. These are weapons my family can hear and feel the rumbling of.”
I think I want to ask norwegian journalists why they didnt report about the “war on terror” in in Yemen, in 2017, so far. Fiction and propaganda seems t be the closest I got in my amateur research though.
I contacted the editorial of the main newspapers in Norway today and questioned the apparently lack of news coverage of the 29th of januar assasinations in al Ghayil/Yemen. From one of the newspapers, Aftenposten, I got this answer:
“For some reason this matter does not appear in Google. But here’s the words, matter Tor Arne Andreassen wrote about the attack on January 29. : https://www.msn.com/nb-no/nyheter/verden/%C2%ABnora%C2%BBs-d%C3%B8d-er-blitt-symbolet-p%C3%A5-alt-som-gikk-galt-under-trumps-f%C3%B8rste-angrep-mot-al-qaida/ar-AAmJNjc
The titel:
“Nora’s death has become the symbol of everything that went wrong during Trumps first attack against Al-Qaeda”.
The two other best selling newspapers of Norway as far as I know never covered the attack.
The whole thing sickens me. It’s presidential, all right, but in the grossest and most imperialistic sense of that office. I am appalled that they trotted this woman out and watched her sob, and I’m appalled she let herself and her husband’s memory be used that way, by the very people whose incompetence caused his death. And Ivanka doesn’t even look human standing next to her. This made me realize she is every bit as bad as her father, willing to participate in his corruption. The whole thing just confirmed my worst opinions of the Republicans and the military industrial complex. They are nothing less than evil.
To resist and counter the practice of this one sided propaganda, is it not possible to find the real and reliable examples of the innocent victims of these endless American wars, just as ripped apart, grief stricken and destroyed as Ryan Owen’s family and post them on social media? Our better side as American’s won’t abide the killing of innocent children, women, men, performed by us, in the name of war. That would viscerally remind us that war, endless war, is not the answer and we have the responsibility to do everything we can to stop it.
Very important commentary – thank you, Glenn.
Also, Viet Thanh Nguyen, has written two of the most eloquent books on this very subject – Nothing Ever Dies and his Pulitzer award winning novel The Sympathizer.
My thinking is that those that are in the military enlisted for material gain. If they croak as a consequence good because they are psychopaths to begin with. If they didn’t support death and destruction our government wouldn’t have the killers they need.
934th day of the Syrian bombing campaign. Mar. 4th and 5th, 11 new air strikes on Iraq and Syria, 90% of the casualties are civilian.
Killing anonymous innocent people as policy, for money, is depravity.
I’m embarrassed to be American. Ashamed. Last week Trump said, from the USS Reagan: “…project American power into foreign lands.” Freaky where we know this is going.
I saw the clip on YouTube, because I’ve not a TV for 22 years. The little I did see was absolutely sickening. Trump was not presidential, because he not capable of it. What was on display, on the other hand, was a charlatan’s display of cynical chicanery at its worst. Trump is not the first president to exploit a soldier’s death to justify war and imperialism, and he won’t be the last one. Until we can move beyond the war and plunder paradigm, the elitists will continue to trot out the sacrifices of the working class for the political dog and pony show which we saw performed here.
Another point to note: according to stories this morning on Weekend Edition Sunday on NPR, no useful intelligence was discovered or captured during the botched Yemen raid, thus making the loss of Owen all for nothing…
The name and age of each child killed in the Yemen raid by U.S. forces under Trump’s orders.
But NO ONE talks about them. No one tells their story, or uses them ot show the ugly side of war or to condemn our actions in the middle east – Obama and Trump included. Instead we celebrate their murderers as fallen heroes and excuse their actions with the age old cry of the oppressor: “I was just following orders.”
1. Asma Fahad Ali al Ameri, 3 months
2. Aisha Mohammed Abdallah al Ameri, 4 years
3. Halima Hussein al Aifa al Ameri, 5 years
4. Hussein Mohammed Mabkhout al Ameri, 5 years
5. Mursil Abedraboh Masad al Ameri 6 years
6. Khadija Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, 7 years
7. Ahmed Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab,11 years
8. Nawar Anwar al Awlaqi, 8 years
9. Nasser Abdallah Ahmed al Dahab, 12 years
thank you!! your efforts are much appreciated. i stare at each name absorbing the magnitude of their humanity and reflect on the criminality of their deaths. when the u.s. is allied with saudia arabia we can characterize this as joint criminal terrorism from criminal states. i am more than ashamed of my government. there is no fighting for my freedom, just the opposite. there is a fight to take away our freedoms and it is on going in the u.s. god help us all.
Thank you for your posting.
I heard a report on NPR. They were reporting on the bathos at the speech by Drumpf before Congress and mentioned that the Navy seal had been killed in an operation in Yemen where some locals had been killed. No mention that the locals had been non-military and that one was a nine year old girl who happens to be an American citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The other children multiple the war crime. Rome collapsed as we will.
NPR has been misreporting on Palestine for years.
Ellen, There is nothing so unfair, so full of anguish that children who suffer and die. This publication, and we, its readers never forgot these and all the Innocent lives lost for this and all the wars. Still, I completely disagree when you called our soldiers their murderers. Read the stories, including the ones published in the Intercept about how the mission unfolded and how these children suffered and died their brutal deaths. It was not an intentional targeting of children at all. We all agree that their should not have been this raid. But not a single American man intentionally killed any of those children. Your anger is my anger. Their story is my story. I would ask you to consider aiming your anger much higher than boots on the ground. Let’s start with trials for the Bush administrations.
Please research and do an article on the actual solution to our global problems. There is an idea “whose time has come,” a Resource Based Economy advocated by Jacque Fresco thevenusproject.com. We can use our knowledge and technology for the benefit of all so we can move beyond politics, poverty and war. Hoping you will include this idea so people can know there is a better paradigm that Jacque has worked on for these last 85 plus years. Hoping to see something soon, much respect for you and the whole staff. Big hugs, Gramma D “^_^”
Rather unpopular position here. If a known target surrounds himself with family/children and thinks ,not for moment, the kids are not in danger he is fooling himself while condemning the bystanders to sure death.
powerful writing … and here’s one more thought: the war glorification also justifies the grotesque and bloated military budget. It makes April 15 more palatable for people thinking (incorrectly) that they are safer. Most have not noticed that terror attacks have gone up not down since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, we still pound the war drum thinking more killing will bring peace. Napolean said it best: “every victory is a place to defend.” And no occupier is ever welcome.
A succint appraisal BUT you neglect to mention the trotting out of the Khazir Khan family by the Democrats, who also lost a son to conflict. Perhaps a mention of that might be more equivocal, in your otherwise thoughtful summation. Both of these reprehensible ploys for support, are in relality necessary today to “shock” the meandering attention span of the voting public today.
That was done to support Muslim Americans, to show that they serve the country and also make sacrifices. To point out the kind of people Trump would be targeting with his deportation plans.
Like always Mr. Greenwald, Thanks for all you do, and how well you do it. Maybe some day our two countries can share something slightly more noble than membership in the “5 Eyes Club”.
As you say, this is standard procedure for tribalists. Do you propose that humans change their stripes?
“Well the oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful and life is cheap for the oriental and uh the philosophy of the oriental expresses it. Life is not important to them.” US General Westmoreland, leader of the US forces that invaded Vietnam expressing unbelievable ignorance that resulted in the American barbarity in that country.
Brilliant and sensitive summation of the way Washington gets away with perpetual war. It’s horrifying to think that most Americans remain insouciant about the wholesale slaughter of the innocent victims of their criminal wars. being force fed their “exceptionalism” from kindergarten onwards. Only the deaths of US soldiers are worth crying over and this single minded and emotionally charged response is being ruthlessly exploited as an endorsement for further military action, profiteering and destruction around the globe. What hope is there for peace?
The main stream media did not rip this apart nearly as veraciously as needed. It was and is an affront to human decency that these so-called presidents continue the habit of parading victims of war crimes and general warfare in front of citizens, only because they are about to commit the USA to even more war crimes and general warfare. If even one of the members of CONGRESS had called out, “YOU LIE”, it would have been too little, too late. It disgusts me that we are now under the regime of a group of THUGlicans who care so little about real people, and SO MUCH about their own POWER! Can’t people who voted for him see that? Do they love people who love power over others so much, that they will lie to themselves, and turn away from truth so readily? It seems so.
Thank you, Glenn!
Glenn, I couldn’t agree with you more for your thoughtful essay of how war propaganda tragically fuels this bonfire of the vanity in this Orwellian era of “perpetual was for perpetual peace” which the country has been engaged in since the (/11 attacks. I served in Vietnam as a medical corpsman ( 31 May 1967 – 31May 1968 and I saw the human face of war etched on the faces of the wounded American grunts, wounded South Korean grunts, wounded Vietnamese civilians and even on one rare occasion a wounded VC guerrilla. They were all victims of that tragic and unnecessary war. But since President Richard Nixon replaced the draft with a lottery that evolved into our present volunteer armed forces, the vast majority of Americans have no idea of how horrific and brutal war really is to the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire whose only sin has been to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though I finally went to the local VA in my late fifties for my mild case of PTSD, even now when I think about the Vietnamese civilians I still have fleeting but profound moments of deep shame. But I lucked out when after basic training Uncle Sam trained me as a medical corpsman. I was a non-combatant at a base hospital – “in the rear with the gear” – and though I never committed a war crime I tell civilians I participated in a criminal war. In “The Fog of War,” former secretary of defense Robert McNamara estimated 3.5 million Vietnamese were killed in the war. But even at the figure you cited in this essay – around two million Vietnamese killed – toe million or 3.5 million, well, these figures just boggle the mind. I would also noted that over three million Vietnamese were exposed to Agent Orange and over 150,000 children were born with crippling and hideous birth defects, because the herbicide used in the spraying of Agent Orange is passed genetically to the unborn fetus from the mothers and fathers who conceived children. In September, 2010, the VA awarded me a modest disability due to my exposure to Agent Orange during my tour of duty. Apparently, the specific type of heart disease I have was clinically linked to Agent Orange. Around 150,000 other Vietnam veterans were also awarded compensation – there are thirteen type of illnesses and diseases that qualify- and about 68,000 Vietnam veterans were alive at the time to file claims. But I lead an active life in my retirement, so I consider myself lucky. Of course, all the Vietnamese civilians exposed to Agent Orange will never received any type of compensation for this massive war crime committed against them but the US military forces. Our inhumane disregard for the suffering of innocent civilians is an aspect of this so-called “American expectionalism” brandied about on the editorial page. We have no idea the living hell we rained down on the Vietnamese civilians. But they just don’t count. We are the exceptional Americans and the only party worthy of the trappings of grief. I felt sorry for Mrs. Carryn Owens, of course, but I found this shameless display of the marketing of war propaganda hard to stomach. No one grieves for the three members of Awlaki family – Anwar, the father, the cleric and American citizen, and several months later his sixteen-year old son, Abdulrahman, who were victims of targeted assassinations prosecuted by President Barack Obama with drone strikes; and then compounding this family tragedy, Amwar’s eight-year old daughter, Nawar “Nora” Awlaki, who was recently killed in that blotched Navy SEAL raid in Yemen authorized by President Donald Trump. When I saw a photograph of her posted on W.J. Astore’s website, “Bracing Views,: I thought about all the Vietnamese children we treated in the villes when we went off-base to treat them. We lost “the hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese civilians just as surely as we lost “the hearts and minds” of Muslims throughout the world. It’s amazing how we have forgotten the painful lessons of Vietnam and are merely repeating them in this endless Global War on Terror. The GWOT now clearly rivals the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle, and unfortunately, it seems obvious that President Trump with his close circle of generals will committing the same kind of military blunders that both President George W. Bush and Barack Obama committed during their tenures in office. Insanity is doing the same things over and over again and yet expecting different results. Our fearless leaders over the last almost sixteen years acted like they were insane as myopic and naive civilians continue to cheer on President Trump. War is a profound human tragedy, yet as we saw in Trump’s State of the Union address it is still being treated as a cynical and slick media event. I am beyond tears.
Beautifully written, George Hoffman; thank you.
I can only agree wholeheartedly with DocHollywood. “Beautifully written.” I also thank you for the time you took to share that with us. It is truly appreciated.
Thanks for sharing. Loved it :)
Thank you for your honesty and for telling us your stories. I am sorry for all the pain and suffering you and so many others have gone through. As a country we have wasted so much blood and treasure it sometimes makes me physically sick to think about. The worse part is that there is no way to stop this beast of a machine and madness of humanity as we destroy the planet and each other.
Thank you for this excellent comment!
Your witness needs to be engraved on the Vietnam War Memorial in DC. Thank you.
Thank you George, well said.
Once again your non biased articles restores my faith in Journalism. Well said I especially agree that the Elites Son’s and Daughter’s are exempt from the dangers of war indeed!
Glenn; Powerful and important piece. One point: Yes Obama used American war victims as props too at the SOTU but you don’t mention the fact that for his entire 8 year presidency his legitimacy AS AN AMERICAN was challenged. That charge was lead by the Orange Man Boy. He faced daily assaults on his motives, his citizenship and his character to to point where a substantial portion of Republicans doubted his American birth, believed he was a Muslim and was going to take down America. So sure, he used props. Did he really have any choice?
So the facist Glen stops the ability of readers to e mail because we do not keep your biased writers in their safe spaces
Pathetic.stop censoring people
How’s that Russian salary holding up, Greenwals.
About as well as your mental health. Not very well.
Even people who criticize the raid police their language to such a degree that some things that are obvious to me are rarely said.
1) The U.S. Navy landed and SHOT CHILDREN! People say that children died or were killed in the raid, not what actually happened! What, we are pretending they died by magic?
2) With this raid we are again fighting on two sides of the same war. We are helping the Saudis fight the Houthis, al Qaeda is there to fight the Houthis, so we attack Al Qaeda? who we were arming in Syria just last year? And do we have a better reason to be against the Houthis than that they are a sect of Shia, because that’s who we installed in Iraq. We liked them then.
We fight wars just to be fighting. It’s sick.
The U.S. Navy landed and SHOT CHILDREN!
Thanks for this Glenn. It made me sick to my stomach to see this woman used and manipulated in this way. Even though I disagree with the “patriotism” meme sold by the MIC, I still feel compassion for the grief of another human being. The display was shameful.
I agree with this column except for this: If a war is immoral — as all U.S. wars, both direct and proxy, are — what is so noble about the soldiers who fight them? This knee-jerk bleeding heart idea on the left — that just because a person is poor means that anything the person does is OK — is both illogical and immoral itself. The Nuremberg court held that merely because a soldier was following orders does not excuse that soldier when he commits war- or human rights crimes.
So fuck the troops, I don’t support them either.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that killing done by the troops do is OK; rather pointing out that they are often from poor or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds with few or zero other options and of course, little real education and therefore easily manipulated. I hear what you’re saying though.
Wrong. As your orange Monkey God Emperor corporate puppet would say it. Hiding behind veterans (who happen to be poor) exploiting them for political gain everywhere is 100% right wing you cancerous, ugly hack. Undisputed. Very typical, when the longstanding hypocrisy of right wing children like you is exposed the subhuman screeching and futile spin begins. Bravo for proving Greenwalds and the progressive point.
If you really feel so strongly about immoral wars, then I don’t see how you can direct your anger at soldiers and not the politicians that sent them there. The average soldier is not taking part in war crimes. The average soldier is not thinking about broad national policy. The average soldier is probably just trying to make sure that their friends don’t get killed.
I don’t understand how you don’t blame the politicians 100% for all of it.
“I don’t understand how you don’t blame the politicians 100% for all of it.”
Because many people from the left including Greenwald writes articles that suggest war crimes is normalized in the US military. They completely ignore policies and strategies specifically designed to minimize civilian casualties. They also simplify conflicts, and disregard the circumstances in which civilians die. Finally, they disregard convictions of military personnel guilty of war crimes. Therefore, any simple minded followers of Greenwald, Chomsky. Scahill…will pack politicians and soldiers in the same box.
Of course, the US military has committed serious war crimes, and of course many US soldiers did get away with those crimes. But the US military does not institutionalize war crimes. Every international journalist knows it. But many from the left design a different reality for their simple minded followers. In that reality, the US military just goes to Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and bomb anything that moves. If you tell them the Afghan, Iraqi, governments officially asked for military support, then they will answer those governments are not legitimate. If you tell them about the ISIS, Taliban, Al Shabab, Al Qaeda…massacring civilians, committing genocide, then they will answer the US created those organizations (does it mean the US should ignore their plans to commit genocide?).
If those from the left really care about civilian casualties, then they will present solutions to
1) Minimize civilian casualties
2) To improve legal mechanism in order to punish soldiers responsible of war crimes
I am not into Greenwald’s head, so I do not know whether he really cares about Muslims getting killed in the Middle East. But based on his articles, I doubt he does.
Your answer is total bullshit. Full of holes. Just because I think politicians are to blame, doesn’t mean that the US Military, or any military for that matter, as an institution holds itself accountable for anything. Hardly anybody ever gets tried for war crimes, and when they do, it’s the people least responsible that take the blame. Don’t give me your shit about how any military gives a shit about civilian casualties. You’re living in a fantasy. A “simple minded” fantasy, that makes you feel good.
“Bullshit” “shit” “Don’t give me your shit” “gives a shit”
Conclusion: You are simple minded follower of the left with no debating skills.
Checkmate!
You have to be the dumbest person on the Intercept I’ve ever come across, and I’ve come across a few. But you take the cake.
Attack the argument, not the commenter.
Is that what you were doing? Or are you too dumb to understand the irony of your own comment?
When you understand the following statement
“Attack the argument, not the commenter”
then you shall understand how to improve your debating skills. Until then, checkmate!
Have a nice day for now.
He may have a point, AIC.
Anyone who can post:
and then:
. . .in the same subthread and still exclaim:
. . .is tough to debate.
“You are a simple minded follower of the left with no debating skills” = a conclusion drawn from the opponent’s continuous use of the word “shit” without attacking the argument.
In simple terms for you: AIC avoided the debate by just writing the word “shit” all over the place. AIC simplifies a complicated issue exactly as the left leaning author wants him to. Therefore, he is simple minded and has no debating skills.
In simple terms for you again:
Commenter A: why do people blame soldiers as much as politicians?
Commenter B: because many journalists and writers portray soldiers as killers of civilians regardless of the circumstances the civilians die.
Commenter A: bullshit, full of shit, shit. You are dumb.
Conclusion: commenter A exposed an inability to debate.
You would not understand because you are not here to debate. You are here to acquiesce the reality that others at The Intercept design for you. And as a group of commenters who agrees with each other you call each other “smart” even if your expression of intellect consists of imitating and editing others (you). I have no doubt you sincerely believe your comment above was smart and funny, but in fact it just shows you have no idea what “attack the argument means “.
I’m not here to debate.
AtheistInChief apparently doesn’t want to waste his time debating with you either.
“I’m not here to debate.”
“AtheistInChief apparently doesn’t want to waste his time debating with you either.”
No offense taken. I proved your poor critical thinking skills and you both confirmed your lack of debating skills. That is good enough for me.
Checkmate again!
While I don’t feel as strongly about it as Jeff D, I can understand his viewpoint, and in a limited way I agree with him.
There hasn’t been a draft in decades now. Nobody is coerced into joining the army instead of flipping burgers or pushing a mop.
Furthermore, in my lifetime, there has not been a single military operation which was not optional, and there hasn’t been a single one which, in the long term, did not turn out to have been a worse choice than pursuing a diplomatic solution. Every time the military is used, it is a bad use of the military. This is not some deep secret, anyone who bothers to pay attention to the news will have noticed it by the time they’re old enough to join up, and can certainly go look up the history involved for no cost.
The share of the guilt held by individual members of the military may be smaller than that held by the politicians who send them off to fight — and, incidentally, this was yet another reason why Hillary “Never Saw A War She Didn’t Like” Clinton should not have been made the Democratic nominee, but I digress — but it exists, nonetheless.
Soldiers have always been bad for society. Just the fact that soldiers are taught to ignore any tendency towards empathy in order to kill arbitrarily-designated enemies makes them dangerous; in past centuries it was always regarded as both an economic and a criminal catastrophe when a war ended, because the soldiers would come home, and need pensions and medical care, and a certain number of them would turn to crime when society somehow failed to miraculously provide a vast number of jobs on the spot. We’re affluent enough to ignore that, these days, but nevertheless the military is a net negative for society as a whole — and that’s before they get used by lying idiots as shining examples of patriotism.
(Patriotism isn’t even a virtue! Every soldier in every army we’ve ever fought, the ones who were considered the most immediately dangerous of our enemies, was a patriot!)
“Soldiers have always been bad for society.”
Always????
How was it bad for the Russian society to have soldiers fighting the invading Nazis?
How is it bad for Afghanistan or Kurdistan to have the Afghan army or the Kurdish army fight terrorists that committed genocide on their soil?
You just don’t get it, chum.
You’re nitpicking rather than seeing the big picture.
Democrats did this all the time when Obama gave his speeches Glenn. Remember when they brought in Gabby Giffords? That was met with massive clapping by the trained seals of the democratic congressional delegation.
Yes, the author was pretty clear that this is a bipartisan phenomenon. That’s kind-of the point of the article.
A picture is worth a thousand words. When i look at the expression on Ivanka as well as the way she holds herself, i see pure empathy. You will notice she is not beaming with pride, but suffering for loss. This is uncommon amongst the political crowd. She is not a shallow person.
BS. If Ivanka cared so much she wouldn’t have allowed herself to be used as a tool, propped, sitting next to this woman, looking on with such “empathy.” Such deep”empathy” would have said no to the entire rotten set up of having this woman, and her husband’s death, used as a piece of propaganda. Genuine empathy would have given Ivanka enough fire in the belly to refuse participation in the charade.
Furthermore, if one is a showpiece, then it’s difficult to recognize when another human being is being used as a different type of showpiece altogether.
I agree. I think she probably was emotional, I could see that, but at the same time she is complicit in this farce of a presidency.
Thank you for giving voice to a subject many don’t want to talk about. It has never felt morally right that a fallen US soldier is exalted to hero status, while other human beings are written off as collateral damage. Your article articulated so well how I have felt for most of my adult life.
Trump deliberated manipulated this poor woman’s grief, and for what? That’s how “real world” politics work. The Democrats do shit like this. So we do it too. In sick Steve Bannon’s view, all people and things “liberal” are the enemy and must be destroyed at all costs.
” The Democrats do shit like this.”
You REALLY have to ‘reference’ this crap because you are 99% wrong. NO senior elected official has EVER acted like the Narcissist that Drumph is. This was a despicable very PUBLIC display of his smarmy attitude toward folks that he believes are ‘lesser’.
you’re both wrong: trump didn’t manipulate anyone, Carryn Owens is a grown woman who chose to attend the State of the Union and one must assume she knew she would be acknowledged during the speech. It was HER choice, as a widow, and so don’t go blaming Trump.
as for the other comments: yes, as GG pointed out, ALL politicians, dems and GOP use surviving family members for their own purposes — as well as attempting to “honor” them in the perverse way GG describes.
i expected a higher level of discourse in the comments for this site
You can hardly say “Don’t blame Trump” and then say “All politicians … use surviving family members …”
If they all do it, they’re all to blame, including Trump.
It’s also naive to assume that just because one is an adult that one’s grief cannot be manipulated.
No, Trump Did Not Make a Mistake in Yemen
http://davidswanson.org/node/5431
(by war abolitionist David Swanson)
Brilliant piece that every American should read. My kids are 10, 9, and 2, and far to young to grasp the meaning this article conveys… So I literally printed it out and put it in my safe to show them when they’re old enough to comprehend. Never be a pawn, never be subservient, never relinquish control over “you”, and most importantly never lose your humanity.
check it out
We perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices.
James Garner(‘s character) in the Americanization of Emily.
Mrs. Barham: Emily, I must warn you. Charlie’s picture is in all the papers and they’re going to put up a monument on his grave.
Emily Barham: What on earth for? All he did was die. Dear me, we shall be celebrating cancer and automobile smash-ups next.
Lt. Cmdr. ‘Bus’ Cummings: [fervently] He didn’t just die, Emily. He sacrificed his life.
Mrs. Barham: That was very pagan of him.
Lt. Cmdr. ‘Bus’ Cummings: He was the first American to die on Omaha Beach.
Emily Barham: Was there a contest?
My favorite lines are:
Apocalypse now:
We cut ’em in half with a machine gun and give ’em a Band-Aid. It was a lie.
and
The Thin Red Line:
Property. This whole thing is about property.
“We perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices.”
Damn straight. Thanks for the reference.
Excellent piece….what needs to be said.
Glenn, I see where you are coming from, but I attended Trump’s address on Tuesday night and being able to applaud Mrs. Owens for the sacrifice that her husband made was one of my proudest moments as an American and I am simply a young college student. I didn’t feel for one moment that Mrs. Owens was being used and she was quite evidently overcome with emotion that the highest office in our land was appreciative of the loss that her and our country has suffered. Before you consider the possibility that Donald Trump may have actually wanted to give her at least some closure, you should just keep churning out anti trump articles that google puts on top of their search results because they are hit pieces. Hell, in writing this, you are literally using Mrs. Owens as a symbol against Trump…….
How many children were murdered by the SEALs attack in Yemen, Liam? Of the women murdered in the SEAL attack, how many carried foetuses?
See, you don’t know or care, as long as a white blonde women got her fee-fees stroked by your hero.
Wish more people like you on Earth. Thx.
disgusting comment
Gag me with a big-ass spoon.
Here, have another proud moment as a young American.
Didn’t your parents teach you any morals or ethics?
You are essentially saying through your response that
1) the Navy Seal joined the military for the sole purpose of killing civilians including those kids.
2) Or since you are able to read his mind, you know for sure he did not care about civilian casualties in war zones.
3) Or as an expert in military operations you know the military leadership knows the best way to avoid civilian casualties, but they just ignore it.
Basically you don’t even have a rational argument. You just design your own reality and defend it with irrational thoughts. Since your whole reality and arguments are unsound you rely on name calling when exposed.
Thank you for that dose of reality.
There’s something wrong with you.
You are “simply a young college student”? What the fuck are you wasting your tuition for?
Attack the comment not the commenter.
Maybe it would have been better if the highest office in the land was appreciative of the LIFE of Ryan Owens, and took the time and effort to plan things out correctly. It seems quite unseemly, and almost sociopathic even, for a “young college student” to be able to ‘enjoy “this obviously poignant moment, brought about by total incompetence and gross negligence. Maybe you should tell Ryan Owens’ father about how proud you feel about his son’s unnecessary death.
The moment was to praise the individual, Ryan Owens who joined the military to defend his country and he died in the process.
Many US citizens, (politicians, soldiers, Owens’ father, others) might disagree with the operation itself, but that is a completely different debate. Ryan Owens was a military man who did what he believed was right. Most people are too scared to do what he did. He died in the process, so the least his commander can do is to praise him for his courage.
If you can prove us that Ryan Owens went to Yemen with the objective of massacring civilians and not Al Qaeda members, then your point is valid.
“Ryan Owens who joined the military to defend his country and he died in the process.”
Uh, unless you know him intimately you can’t say why he joined the service. Furthermore, how does killing women and children in Yemen do anything but endanger our country (and why are we there without an AUMF to begin with)?
Can I attack you and not your argument for a moment? Your name is perfect.
“unless you know him intimately you can’t say why he joined the service.”
Very fair assessment. Therefore,
1) We cannot say that he joined the military to kill civilians neither, can we?
2) Do we assume automatically that brokers learns their trade to manipulate their clients, or physicians learn medicine to make lucrative deals with pharmaceutical companies, or soldiers join armed forces to kill civilians? Or we accept the official reasons presented by those individuals until it is proven that indeed the official reasons were false and they had some sinister agenda behind their professional choice?
“how does killing women and children in Yemen do anything but endanger our country”
Unless you were part of the planning and the implementation of the operation, you cannot suggest they went to Yemen to kill women and children.
“and why are we there without an AUMF to begin with)?”
Public Law 107-40, September 18, 2001
Sec. 2 “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001…”
Unless you believe Al Qaeda was not responsible 9/11 or Al Qaeda is not in Yemen, or this AMUF is meaningless, then your statement is inaccurate.
“Can I attack you and not your argument for a moment? Your name is perfect.”
I am not the moderator. You write whatever you want. It is up to him/her to answer that question. But I can tell you attacking the commenter and not the argument says more about yourself and your ability to think critically than about the commenter you wish to challenge.
Going to Yemen is not “defending the country”. I doubt that Yemen could so much as sink an American ship, at this point. So, if he joined up to “defend the country”, then he didn’t die doing what he joined up to do. If, on the other hand, he died doing what he joined up to do, then he was a scoundrel and a murderer. The former is poignant, but not something to congratulate his widow over. The latter is not even poignant.
“Going to Yemen is not “defending the country”.
The above statement would be correct if you believe
1) Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11, the underwear bomber and many other attacks against US citizens even when Al Qaeda leadership said they are.
2) If you believe Al Qaeda is responsible for those crimes, you still believe Al-Qaeda is not in Yemen training and planning attacks against the US regardless of what independent journalists, UN, Yemeni government, Yemeni tribes, and intelligence services have said.
3) Even you believe that Al Qaeda committed these crimes, and Al Qaeda is in Yemen you don’t believe the Yemeni government that says it cannot stop Al Qaeda training and planning of terrorist attacks.
If those are your beliefs, then your statement is correct. But it does not mean that your beliefs are correct. It just means you live in another reality.
I find it reassuring to know that there are young people like you out there, willing to think for yourself and not just parrot hateful talking points fed to you by pussies who hide behind their presumptuous “morality”.
Carryn Owens is scurrilously derided as “a white blonde women (sic)” who “got her fee-fees stroked”. Disgusting, shameful, evil.
When people like Mrs. Owens are able to feel shame and remorse for what the US military, of which her husband was a part, has been doing to the children of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, I’ll feel more sympathy for them.
You cannot in good conscience separate her loss from those of hundreds of thousands of victims of US imperialism.
I can separate cannon fodder from HSBC, Foxconn, the Afghan poppy crop, and all those who benefit from them and every other feature of American imperialism just fine.
The widow is a victim, too. The widows and widowers of cannon fodder are victims. If in her agony she is deluded, I have no disdain for her, nor blame. Let’s see how she is doing in a few months — especially if her late husband’s father succeeds in opening an investigation.
The father is heroic in demanding answers. The widow is just a person, nothing worse. I can give her a break for now.
Is that so, Gordo?
Never mind Greenwald’s article, never mind the facts — simply find one unhinged comment (so rare on the Internet) and paint the entire peace movement as being “pussies” who hide behind so-called “morality.”
Thank you for helping save children’s lives everywhere. Pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
Simple question, Liam:
Do you also applaud Owens’ father?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/truthdigger_of_the_week_bill_owens_father_of_slain_navy_20170304
USA bombs already bombed out Yemen yet again. I am sure more of those brown people were killed that we have been killing since colonial times. Same people are being blamed for all the ills of the world and for problems inside our own country today.
When are Americas going to take their head out of the sand and realized they have lost america to a group of extremist, sociopaths and total lunatics. Just for little piece of land, some money and power they are destroying the whole world.
Our actions and our ignorance will haunt us and our children for centuries to come and when it will come back to bite us in the ass may be then we can start thinking outside of our own selves.
America was good while it lasted. Enjoy your ride on the upper decks of Titanic.
We could have had Ron Paul in 2012 if the toll of Obama’s drone war was in the media between 2009 and 2012.
CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, WaPo, NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC never bothered with it, or I can’t think of one story expressing the toll on a show like 60 minutes during the period.
Obama and the Democrats weren’t willing to drain the right side of the swamp. Trump at least wants to drain the left side, but instead of supporting even that limited attempt to stem the corruption, there is only criticism.
At least Glenn Greenwald has been consistent as long as I can remember. But just look at the other articles here and what (and who) they are criticizing.
Meanwhile Obama is now in the shadows trying to preserve his legacy. He isn’t going to go out and say “my drone policy was evil”. Obama – and maybe Hillary are still a force in politics, and there are new DNC leaders along with the old ones. Where are Pelosi and Sanders on this issue?
It would be nice if there was opposition instead of the continuity of bipartisan support.
Perhaps there can be a small-l libertarian party that arises that really wants to limit power, but I think here is the problem and why we can’t have a nice country.
Even Greenwald cheers when a heavy handed Supreme Court declares gay marriage as a right (not to be left to the states) and has been silent over Sweet Cakes in Oregon and a florist in Washington (state) that got six figure fines because they were Christian.
You cannot have a massive leviathan government and hope it will limit itself to crushing only what you want crushed. A government that will persecute Christians on behalf of the LGBTQ community and insure 3rd trimester Abortions are available everywhere and paid for by insurance or IRS taxes that weren’t taxes (Roberts said the legislators who said the ACA Individual Mandate was not a tax were wrong, but it is a tax, but is going to impose it anyway) is not going to care about the destruction caused by a massive war machine or drone strikes.
The basic error is not left-right, but authoritan-libertarian. If you don’t want a belligerent foreign policy, you can’t have a big, intrusive government.
Libertarians are simply authoritarians who use their money to protect their privilege.
Liberals, (in my view), consider the government’s purpose not as an oppressor but as the only entity designed to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone — including the rights of the poor, of minorities, and of the oppressed. The Republican and Libertarian agenda — differentiated only by who is allowed to use force (police or mercenaries) — aren’t interested in rights, but in property; not in justice but in affluence; not in the general welfare but only in their own well-being.
I think that sums it up beautifully, Milton.
Nothing changes, more Chicken Hawks expoliting war mongers, who cry and mourn when all they do is instigate and love the war games they get themselves into. They love to kill the poor in the name of imperialism and Christianity then cry when they are killed. Real warriors. Trump is like the past ones, but he doesn’t blame Obama for this, I guess this was the enemies fault, after all he ordered it. More BS from the United States of Imperialism.
The following statement is inaccurate.
“More importantly, this process completely dehumanizes the people the U.S. government bombs, attacks, and kills. Because they’re never heard from, because we never learn their names, because we never experience their family’s suffering, all of their human attributes are stripped from them and their deaths are thus meaningless because they’re barely human.”
Media around the world has given victims of US atrocities a platform to express their grievances. I have learned the following from the mainstream media.
Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi (raped) and family killed by US Soldiers. The soldiers have been convicted and are serving their sentences.
Gul Mudin, Marach Agha, Mullah Adahdad, Afghans killed by US soldiers. Soldiers convicted for murder.
March 2012, Kandahar Massacre. Families of dead Afghans talked to several media outlets in the US and around the world exposing what happened and demanding justice.
October 2013, drone strike survivors came to Washington to plead against the policy. Interviewed by CNN and other media.
We cannot blame others who choose not to hear from them, but we do hear from them. Maybe not enough.
Look up “hasty generalization”. Saying “not enough” is a fantastic understatement.
pedinska:
as somebody with a connection to public health, you may be aware of the concept called harm reduction
anticipating your objection, one can say there is nomoral harm reduction in reduced body counts ..
and trump the person is just as amoral as his predecessors, so there’s no win there either
however, as a rat i’m not bound by your constraining term moral human being
so: a lower body count leads to a smaller chance of me getting killed, in the most general statistical sense
also, more money spent on the military may not result in more peace, but it may not result in more war either .. military spending could in fact be completely uncorrelated with predicted real-world outcomes
This is not the same as other leaders in the callous level of hypocrisy Trump used. Can feel nothing but compassion for this woman of course, just reeling from the death of her husband, so recent. Chris Mathews pointed out, Donald did not take responsibility for his death as Presidents have always done in the past with the buck stops here. Instead blamed Obama as Trump quickly authorized the thing while eating. Happy for the footage though. Yes, very much propaganda and amazing how people did not see through it, especially after the way he treated the Khans.
Love your work Glenn. Keep exposing the truth and continue to actually tell it like it is!
What a sicko; trying to gain political favour by exploiting the grieving widow of the Navy SEAL that Trump’s poorly conceived suicide mission killed. Glad the media caught on as this is how incompetent fools like Trump get rewarded for being just downright evil.
Wall Street, media celebrate Trump’s address to Congress
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/03/02/pers-m02.html
NOT “Wife” ” BUT “Widow”.
…and so it goes…
Excellent article.
Mr. Trump did lay the propaganda on a bit thick, but that was necessary to obscure the failure of the mission.
However, people need to remember that Mr. Trump is still learning on the job. He made the decision to approve the mission while having dinner. As Mr. Trump said on Fox news:
But there are indications that his aides have now convinced him that unlike a campaign for the presidency, planning and preparation are necessary for the success of a military mission. So hopefully in the future there will be fewer tearful patriotic displays over lost servicemen and the President will just send in a drone like the last President. Nobody sheds tears over a lost drone.
“He made the decision to approve the mission while having dinner. “.
That alone should indicate his level of incompetence. He made a military based decision spontaneously while eating out instead of planning it properly in the war room behind closed doors where it belongs. This isn’t just a ‘learning on the job’ mistake; it got somebody killed.
The Constitution did not foresee the United States being in a state of permanent war, and therefore does not require the President to have thorough military training before assuming office. So while we naturally blame the individuals involved, it is perhaps more correct to see this as a systemic failure. If you put the wrong people in the wrong jobs you will get poor results.
Yeah, but what was he chowin’ down on? The good stuff, at his palace in the South of the Homeland. Can you imagine if he ordered those hits whilst scarfing down Big Macs?
…or the numerous innocent civilians the drone kills.
Still waiting for Greenwald to somehow blame Democrats for this.
They are to blame in the general sense that they do exactly the same thing when in power. However, technically, since they are not in power, they shouldn’t be blamed in the present case. That is the beauty of the two party duopoly. One party gets a respite from blame every four years and can rebuild is moral standing.
Wait a minute! You can’t be serious!
The democrats CAN”T be held accountable.
It is ALWAYS the republicans who make the poor
democrats do what they don’t want to do.
Everybody knows that Trump forced Hillary and the DNC to
sabotage their chances to win by being SO much more blatantly
obnoxious. Hillary’s devious fraudulence and warmongering
was seen as too timid for a Great-making amurkin.
Surely, Hillary would have tried to milk this situation as well, but
she would have only done whatever because the republicans
force everybody to be like them.
The poor democrats just don’t stand a chance!
Exactly so! Remember when the Republicans made Obama keep James Clapper on, even after all the lying and double-talking? They even made poor Obama say fine things about the Clapper, well after the law-breaking. Man, their powers are indisputable!
Not to mention Israel and what is left of Palestinian territory, the ever growing settlements making those lands look like Swiss cheese.
I once wrote, “The heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising must be weeping for the people of Gaza, locked inside their own ghetto by the Israeli state.”
Yep, the “belt-tightening”, the counting of the calories, the arbitrary banning of certain items from coming in like cardoman. Pretty much everything but the trains and get Naftali Bennet, Ayelet Shaked, and people like Moshe Feiglin a little more power and who knows what will be next. They already talk openly about flattening the place in a far worse way than we have seen before. And with two million people, half of them children, that will bring on ye olde tyme antisemitism like a ton of bricks down upon normal Jews. These people are simply not normal. And it’s just so damned predictable. And I’m afraid, inevitable. Like the One State(tm). And more than one survivor of Warsaw has written laments about Warsaw and Gaza in the way you describe, and that was even before Cast Lead I, II and III. That Jared guy, he has that wild-eyed hilltop look and no doubt fancies himself packing but ending up like a green LT jg.
Of course, as expected from Glenn Greenwald: he cannot stop criticize Trump without dropping Obama’s name somewhere in the article. Wanna know what Trump, unlike previous U.S presidents, said about American soldiers’ death? “It’s Obama’s fault. It’s generals’ fault. It’s clearly NOT my fault because I was busying attending my weekly golf vacation in FL instead of attending intel briefing.” Mind you, Greenwald is still very SKEPTICAL about the Russian-Trump relationship despite of PUBLIC evidences on the ties between Putin’s oligarchy and Trump’s administration. I’m counting of Greenwald departing from the Intercept because of “difference in opinion” in 3..2…1.
FINALLY, someone who agrees and realizes Greenwald will somehow blame Democrats for this, the same people who, for example, actually defended transgender rights in public schools (which Trump and Republicans have now officially reversed).
Fuck Greenwald.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A in “Why The Democrats Have Lost Control of Government”.
First we have Jeremy, with “how dare you consistent in criticizing both parties when they do the same things,” and then we have James, with “the Democrats are better than the Republicans on an unrelated issue which only has indirect fatal consequences and does not make much difference to most people, so you should forgive them when they do things which kill large numbers of people and negatively impact large swaths of the population”.
Yes, folks, the Democrats will let gay people get married, and buy that little house in the suburbs with a white picket fence — but they will deregulate and collude with the banks and Wall Street so that everyone who owns a house in the suburbs, gay or straight, will lose it. They’ll fight for the rights of the transgendered to use the right bathrooms — but they’ll help prop up regimes like the Sauds which put transgendered people to death. The Emperor, in the form of the Democratic Party, has no clothes, but in the world of Jeremy and James, pointing this out doesn’t embarrass the Emperor like in the fable, instead the person who points it out gets harassed, and the crowd happily returns to pretending they can see what isn’t there.
And the sad thing is that the Democrats don’t really need to be as guilty as the Republicans in so many ways, they have chosen to be that way. Sanders demonstrated that you can raise a lot of money through small donations, but that requires you to stand up against the rich and powerful. It’s much, much easier to be like Clinton, sell out the voters and get your funding from the rich and powerful instead. And people like Jeremy and James will vote for you anyway — in fact, they probably prefer to vote for someone who despises them, just like Republican voters do.
TL;DR
TL;DR.
Very well said Sir. This has been my view ever since the American soldiers set foot in the ME where I come from. Nobody cared for the million innocent souls who died during “Shock and Awe” or the bombardment of Afghanistan, Syria and now Yemen. All American governments care for is money, oil and dominance. Lives do not matter, not even their own fodder soldiers, except when they serve the situation as in this case. Very sad lot you are, truly; to lack so much empathy for fellow human beings. Stick to your own borders and take your soldier home to build that wall which Trump promised you to build. Wish you peace, if you can accept it.
Why is it that in the header pic that Ivanka and Jared look like two disgustingly happy Cheshire cats gazing at the quite rightly mucho distressed Carryn Owens who seem to be saying to themselves, “hey that Faux News sociopolitical engineering pollster Frank Luntz guy is really onto something here”?
The obscene self-serving spectacle of it all makes my sphincter loosen and seriously increases my acid reflux. Carrie Weigand (Carryn’s mother to her left) was not amused either, by her appalled at the spectacle and moment, looks and body language… The orange buffoon of doom (OBOD) is one classless, even obviously to a layman, psychotic individual.
Why did the Navy Seal relatives allow themselves to be subject to this spectacle?
The applauding puppets are no different from the Polit-Bureau of Soviet times.
Some of us take being an American and having lost sons respected very seriously. Even when the orange man responsible is using us. See Glenn’s take on Westmoreland above. And the adage there is nothing new under the sun.
Interesting piece. Though it seems to me that parading the survivors of those killed in combat has become a Standard Operating Procedure for American Presidents. I’m not sure I can recall when it did not happen, though perhaps this is merely evidence of the continuity of wars America has chosen to fight in my lifetime.
I might note that there are those of us who know all too well what war costs to civilians. I have seen the figures for Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have seen reportage on funerals for those who have been slain, and been called, in that terrifyingly bloodless phrase, “collateral damage”. Women, children, those simply trying to go about their lives, frequently die in war. And so much of it is useless carnage that leads us nowhere. The raid in Yemen ought to be looked into. Something went wrong there that has not been fully disclosed. The SEALs apparently found themselves landing directly into a combat zone. SCPO Owens’ father apparently did not feel disposed to be made part of the public display. He is angry, and I cannot imagine his grief. The mission was clearly flawed in the sense that there was some sort of failure of intelligence somewhere. But the idea, to gather intelligence and to kill more of the people who were in league with Mr. al-Awalaki could be seen as a reasonable objective in itself. Mr. al-Awalaki, a privileged man who had been born in New Mexico, was a man who had chosen the sword. He had said that he “prayed to God to destroy the United States and its allies”. He was a man of learning and intelligence who used those gifts to lure dissatisfied young men to kill others who were as innocent as his own daughter. And he had no problem with such instruction. He was a man who tried to make it seem godly, even moral, to use faith to destroy the lives of others who had done nothing justify such a fate. If you don’t think that Mr. al-Awalaki would have gladly ordered an operation that would likely have killed many innocent Americans, I bet he would have been the first to disillusion you on that. I imagine that those at the compound who were seen as targets likely held a similar attitude.
It is interesting that the article notes that while there are monuments to Americans killed in Vietnam, there are no monuments to the Vietnamese who lost their lives. I have traveled widely and lived in many countries (for an American, anyway), and I don’t recall seeing such monuments anywhere. Not in England, France or China, to name a few nations that have many monuments to soldiers lost in war. Does any nation do that? I don’t think the failure to memorialize civilian death is a peculiarly American thing. And mention of Eddie Adams photo of the Tet execution is thought provoking for me. I met Adams once. He seemed a very decent man. He often said that he had regretted shooting that frame. He felt that people misunderstood the circumstances, and that General Nyguen Loan (the shooter) had been unfairly persecuted for what many saw as an unjustified killing of a civilian. Most do not know that the man who was shot was a Viet Cong officer who was known to the South Vietnamese, whose mission was the assassination of South Vietnamese Police and Officials. Shortly before the photo was taken, he had been performing this mission, and had been caught at the mass grave of some 30 persons, 7 police officers, and the rest being their wives and children, all bound an gagged, and shot in the head. Some had been colleagues of the General. If this man, whose name was Nguyen Van Lem (but he was also known as Captain Bay Lop) had come across the General in some different situation, it would have been General Nguyen lying dead on the ground. Lem’s wife was pregnant with their child when he was killed, though she was later publicly given a posthumous decoration for her husband’s work and given a place to live (possibly largely because of Adams image, which had made her husband famous). Was this, too, the cynical act of leaders trying to leverage death into popularity? There is much tragedy linked to just that one image, that one moment. War is an ugly business. It cannot be otherwise.
The ritualistic veneration of war and soldiers is an old custom, it can be seen on the walls of Ankor Wat, in Roman Triumphs depicted in sculpture and on the Napoleon’s grand arch in Paris, among many other places. Soldiers know the horror of war, as do the civilians who live through one, but many in countries (particularly nations who fight a war on someone else’s soil) civilians only try to convince themselves that what is happening is just. So leaders show us just a tiny portion of the price paid, and try to act as though they shared in the sacrifice. They don’t really, of course, but bread and circuses are as popular as they ever were. I happen to think that most of what we have done in the Middle East, has made the situation worse rather than better. We might never have had those enemies in Yemen had we not invaded Iraq. But we are not alone in the cynical use of ritual to convince people that war is glorious.
The United States learned its lesson in Vietnam. Sanitize all footage of war zones so human beings torn to bits or burned into misshapen blobs by phosphorous are blurred out.
They have certainly tried to, though public opinion and other factors also influence what is ultimately seen. Americans do have a peculiar attitude about this. Do you remember Ken Jarecke’s photo of the dead, burned Iraqi soldier, frozen in death as he tried to climb out of his vehicle, killed with many others on the “Highway of Death” as they tried to escape Kuwait? Mr. Jarecke though that this photo, showing the graphic reality of war, would get wide publication. And it did, though not at first, and not from American media outlets. It did run in “The Observer” (UK) and “Liberation” (France), though. It had been sent out on the AP wire, and was available to American media, though none of them published at first. A major objection was that it was in “bad taste”, I think editors at Time and Life said it was too “crispy” as though the dead man were a piece of chicken. Some American news people said things to the effect that “Americans don’t want to see that”. In contrast, the effect in France and the UK was muted, and commented that, though not pretty, this is the reality of war. An French photographer I talked about with simply said “war is death, and this is what wars produce. Anyone who is not a child knows this, to deny it is to pretend”. I’ve often thought of that, in considering American attitudes to conflict. The military did not stop the photo from being published, the news media did, and not because they though it unpatriotic, but because they offend their reader’s sensibilities. As my French friend said, we all know that this is what happens. We choose to look at it. And that is not a choice our government has made for us, not entirely anyway.
Sorry, Brian. I meant to say that “we choose not to look at it”. I guess there is no editing function for these comments. I shall have to proofread better.
“That everybody or every generation seems to have—seems not to listen to those who went through it before and bore witness to it. But falls again for the myth. And has to learn it through a tragedy inflicted upon their young.
“That war is always about betrayal. It’s about betrayal of soldiers by politicians. And it’s about betrayal of the young by the old.”
—Chris Hedges, veteran war correspondent NYT.
This was never clearer than last night when the government that funds the illegal US wars of aggression and its commander in chief stood, applauded, commended the fallen Seal ‘solemnly’ to eternity—and then cracked a joke.
Publicizing grieve of the family of hired killers in some foreign desperate land where ordinary people want to live in peace that is disrupted by US funded thugs called terrorists is appalling and crossing border of any acceptable human conduct.
Unfortunately, families of those misguided souls that kill strangers in strangers’s land and are killed for it in a pure self-defense also want to believe lies rather than acknowledge reality of their sons and daughters being nothing but just a paid killers for oligarchic interests.
Here is an excerpt from:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/loss-of-beautiful-mind/
that relates to the self-denials of reality of war among families of soldiers and veterans injured by war:
“The same attitudes of disregard toward conscientious objectors of senseless brutality in military organizations where PTSD war and peace victims are isolated and not allowed to communicate their rational conclusions about their true programmatic role and function in perpetrating atrocities supposedly in the name of national security interests and instead are being isolated diminished, ridiculed enforcing or instigating further mental episodes.
This lack of understanding and compassion not only extends to veteran or military administration but sadly to victim’s families, supporters of the regime, who are often in dramatic denial of what their sons and daughters have become as a result of mental or physical injury after participating in the war. The veterans of the wars that insist on telling the truth about horrors and absurdity of war and refuse to parrot patriotic nonsense are branded abnormal, weak-minded, mentally ill or anti-American and thrown away to the margins of society into poverty and desperation.”
Said so well. Our ‘veterans’ were not drafted but volunteered and are ready willing and able to kill for……….?????
So. Time to buy War Bonds? Or just buy in to more War Bondage?
What are the odds? The father was assassinated then his teenage son was droned to death and now his young daughter? Sounds like someone is trying to wipe out the whole family for some reason. I wonder what that could be?
The Big Bamboozle.
One of the most horrifying acts this country has ever committed.
Who would have believed this? Not even the biggest cynic would have. It stops the mind cold.
You seem to have missed the 2 million civilian dead in Vietnam mentioned in the article. Hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq. And I’ll add another, 500,000 estimated deaths for children under 5 in Iran due to decades of sanctions. “One of the most horrifying”? Unfortunately, no, not by a long shot.
Last year, I took a lot of flak for calling him the orange buffoon of doom (ODOM) last year but now, not so much… No one even questions my motives or what I mean[t] anymore about the moniker I presciently assigned to him.
Not even the increasingly less vocal (or more vocal) hangers-on.
You can chalk up the first two drone assassinations to the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama. Trump is going to have to scramble if he hopes to compete with the master, Obama, at his own game. But you have to admit, killing an eight year old girl who happened to be related to the first two, along with 30 other innocent people in exchange for, uh…what, exactly…is an impressive place to start for any budding strong arm dictator.
I have no doubt that Trump will do just that, and go on to even greater, more efficient and effective clandestine killings now that he has the same power at his disposal that Obama had in his.
Funny, no one seemed to mind when it was Obama with the power. All he did was order the killing of a middle aged Muslim cleric, who happened to be an American citizen, and a short while later, his 16 year old grandson. I guess the younger the victim, the more impressive the kill.
One would hope that a national commentator would have a more sophisticated threshold for determining when a president really becomes a president, period, than declaring it the moment when said president follows in the footsteps of previous presidents in the time-honored tradition of exploiting grieving war widows for personal political gain.
“Fuck you Glenn Greenwald!l! I am so so tired of you liberal tree hugging bleed heart fucks. This man died a hero killing terrorists! These people died along with these POS’s because they CLOSELY hung out with these POS’s. What you think they were doing?… an 8-year-old birthday party?… and a bunch of “bad Americans” came along and ruined their party? You same POS’s will S C R E A M “why didn’t we stop them before they came along slaughtered true American innocents for what for the sake of their pedophile prophet? You all that support this thinking of the “US Killers” make me sick!
GO and Pack your bags get the fuck out of my country and go hug a terrorist, we’ll warm you up with Hell Fire missiles directed in by a SEAL team!”
How to let blinkered ignorance take over reasoned thought and debate.
Thanks, Glenn. This is the sort of journalism that gets one disinvited from future appearances on MSNBC etc. That’s not a bad thing. Again, superb work.
VAN JONES – wow… I wonder who greased this turncoats bank account. The mental fatigue is settling on on the intelligentsia. What a disappointing individual, scoring cheap points with military community.
For the record, I’m a veteran having served in my time with the highest security classification Nato had to offer.
small typo in the opening section: “suffering of soliders” for soldiers.
When the leader/President of a so called “democratic” country can morally, and even legally, justify the extrajudicial killing of its own and other countries’ citizens (just as Obama, and now, Trump did), little else is surprising – including exploiting a widow’s immense grief for political purposes.
Disgusting how stretchable some people’s “principles” can be. Recall that Van Jones had been so upset with Trump’s victory on election night that, almost with tears in his eyes, he had lamented on CNN how he was supposed to explain to his kids that a guy who many apparently considered unfit for President (racist, misogynist, etc.) had been chosen by Americans to lead the nation. Thus one can ask how Van Jones would explain to his kids how his country’s military had killed some 30 civilians, including some 9 children, one of which was an 8 year old girl who was even an American citizen. Instead, there was Van Jones apparently praising Trump for his tribute to Ryan without any mention of Yemeni civilian deaths.
On balance I really enjoyed this article. Two disparate things struck me after finishing reading it….
1) Remember the scene in Forrest Gump? Where Gary Sinise (Lieutenant Dan Taylor) wanted to die in battle like his Forefathers? As a general term it is in the US psyche, that in some way it is unquestioningly honourable to die for your Country without ever questioning why you have been instructed to give your life, for what reason? To open up markets and territories for Capitalist exploitation or for political and military gain? Er no thank you……
2) Many of us, either historically or presently, deny the victims of War “from the other side” just as we blind ourselves to the horrors and shame of unnecessarily killing animals (sentient beings with as much right to live on this planet as we have) for meat when there are viable alternatives.
Stay well people.
Extraordinary article, Glenn. Thank you for such powerful and nuanced treatment of a complex and very human subject.
Jeremy Scahill’s “Dirty Wars”– which right at the jump humanized Afgans killed by US Special Operators– had a tremendous impact on me. I have told dozens of people to watch it. I will be forwarding this article to many people as well.
A tour de force, groundbreaking.
“All good events and pleasing happenings are quickly imputed by the opinion-makers to the leaders of their own nation; all bad events and unpleasant experiences are imputed to the enemy abroad”.
C Wright Mills. The Power Elite (1956)
Politicians who owe their plush existences to the lobbyists of the military-industrial complex turn out to be warmongers?
Whoa! Captain Obvious strikes again!
All, I can’t admire enough the gallantry, skill and ultimate sacrifice of Chief Ryan, and sympathize with the grief his family suffers. I wonder, when America will turn to those responsible for creating false wars, the poorly planned even foolhardy missions, and other folly and bring them to justice; When? When will the millions of dead, wounded, maimed and lost in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia, the hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded, maimed and lost in SW Asia, the thousands of our service members, their families, the displaced refugees, and the instigation, fomenting and explosion of anti-American see justice, and attempt at justice, that our leadership would even openly wish for justice. Do we rally care for our veterans, our gold star families, the innocent victims? Really? I think we are lost. We’ve lot our conscience, our common sense and our sense of morality. We are called, we serve, we follow orders. Some fall, many die, many live but are dead on the inside. The call is just, the call is a fraud, we don’t ask, we cannot ask, we answer the call. When those that call us, know, before, during and after, they were wrong in doing so, they owe it, to admit it, and answer for it. When the people find out those that those who called us were wrong before, during and after, they must cry for justice. The people must offer justice for those that answered the call and those innocents at home and abroad, that suffer. A standing ovation, I believe and I share was heartfelt, sadly offered with deep sympathy, and great respect, is not justice.
Ryan was killed while he and his buddies were in the process of murdering women and children. Including an 8 year old girl and a pregnant woman. If god does exist and god is at all just Ryan is in hell right now. There is not a goddamn “gallant” thing about any of this.
“Ryan was killed while he and his buddies were in the process of murdering women and children. Including an 8 year old girl and a pregnant woman. If god does exist and god is at all just Ryan is in hell right now. There is not a goddamn “gallant” thing about any of this.”
It might not be palatable, but you speak the Truth.
ben and IGrace, thanks for your reply and the opportunity for discourse. They were not in the process of of killing women and children. They were sent to do do a snatch and grab of a high-value terrorist leader. Judging from what we know, and we know what we are told, by the US, the bad guys, the established press, the better press (this journal), and the synthesis of commentary from multiple sources, and having some knowledge of mission planning, that the following probably happened: There is a mission planned with the desired outcome of the capture or kill of a terrorist. Some say, a mission that had been discussed, and I assumed pre-planned to some degree for many months. Some say, President Obama did not approve the raid (and the conjecture blooms as to why). Some say, somebody brought the request for permission to conduct the raid, to President Trump over dinner. Honestly I find that preposterous that three or four guys, one a General Officer, with the classified access these guys have, would be talking macho talk about some super secret mission over dinner in a public restaurant. It doesn’t happen. Having gotten permission, the SEAL’s command made final preparation for the strike. I assume that final planning had some last minute recon of the area. I’ll take both you back to Hue in Viet Nam. During the counterattack against the Tet offensive (1968) Marines went to secure that city, They were told of the light concentration of enemy. As they entered the city, they were being cut down like fish in a barrel. Enemy numbers were much much higher. Back to Yemen. The commandos are arriving at the point of engagement, The intelligence, just like Hue, is all wrong, there is overwhelming enemy presence and strength, against a small (although elite) team. Close air support rains down high-caliber gunfire, maybe more powerful munitions, I don’t know, in support of the raid. The commandos fight to secure the area. The innocent people are killed from the close air support, which cannot see inside the buildings. CENTCOM report From Al Jazeera: The civilian deaths appear to have occurred when US aircraft were called to help the commandos as they conducted the dawn raid that US officials said killed 14 members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
“The known possible civilian casualties appear to have been potentially caught up in aerial gunfire that was called in to assist US forces in contact against a determined enemy that included armed women firing from prepared fighting positions, and US special operations members receiving fire from all sides to include houses and other buildings,” the statement added.
I believe God exists, and I believe God judges; I cannot. Your belief infers the SEAL team purposefully lined up in their sites, and willfully, coldblooded, killed the women and children. Why? Why does an Amercan Warfighter want to do that? To what end? You have no way to prove that and have no basis to doubt his gallantry. Please lay out the scenario better I have so that you can begin to defend your horrendous charge. All soldiers have going into battle is their homeland and their orders. If you believe we send men to plan, hunt, find and kill women and children, what are you doing about it besides writing your comments? As God judges, how will He judge you, for doing nothing about it? and as God judges, how will he judge me, for not doing something more to find the justice I desire for the solder, the innocents, and our country, when we are led, time and time again, into unjust wars. I do appreciate the discussion. It is an important one. War is hell on earth. We are a very lucky country to have not seen it on our soil. I pray it never occurs again on anyone else’s.
I agree that the story about the approval at a restaurant does not make much sense. I also think that, probably because most Americans have never seen war, or even been to a place where a war has been recently fought, most Americans really don’t understand the destructive power of some modern weapons. When air support was called in in Yemen, I imagine that this meant helicopter gunships. These carry 20mm and 30mm aerial auto cannons, often armed with shells that can penetrate as much as 12mm of steel at 1000 meters, and can fire as many as 700 rounds per minute. In trying to suppress enemy fire,stray shells from these weapons could easily have killed people in brick or wooden structures thousands of yards away. Once such weapons are brought into play, the battle can no longer be said to be “surgical” in any way. Some commenters here seem to think that the women and children killed were killed deliberately, as though someone had them in their sights and pulled the trigger. I can’t imagine that to be the case, but the reality is just as disturbing. Even in what is meant to be a small, limited engagement, the weapons that we possess will kill people far from the action, with an indiscriminate and shocking violence that will make enemies of anyone who sees the result. Far too many Americans have a rather flippant attitude towards the use of military power. It’s not a video game. Real people die. Others survive and seethe with hatred for those who killed those they cared for. It is a terrible cycle, that devours the lives of young men in particular, and everyone in the societies affected generally. For many, it destroys all belief in human good will. I wish I knew how to break it, but I don’t.
One has to hope that those who approve such actions consider all the consequences, not just immediate aims, and that they do so with not only knowledge but wisdom. I wish I had faith that they do, but I don’t.
There are no accidental deaths in war.
Those who plan them and those who carry them out know that they will be killing innocents.
“Minimizing civilian deaths” is a self-delusional phrase.
Every person in the military knows the truth.
And in knowing this, every one of them is just as culpable as the politicians whose orders they follow.
You don’t have to directly commit murder to be just as guilty by turning a blind eye to it.
“Gallantry” in an unjust cause is a mockery of the word. Heroism is not about courage alone, but also about the end it serves.
I reserve the right to form my own judgments, free from superstitious constraints. “God” has no influence on injustice. We do.
Jerry, There are certainly accidental deaths in war. Planner don’t know they will be killing innocents; that is nonsense. I was in the military and I know the truth, and I have supported the military closely for many years and never, ever heard an order given, a plan made or unfold, where civilians were targeted. I’m not saying civilians aren’t murdered by soldiers, they certainly are. Those occasions are exceptions. The most culpable are the politicians and Government leaders who create synthetic causes of war. They be brought to justice. Turning a blind eye is not the same as pulling a trigger. Turning a blind eye to murder is a completely separate and despicable act; but it is not murder. Gallantry is to face death for your country and its causes. To offer yourself in sacrifice should death or great injury come. I can add all the fighting parts, but I think I made my point. Senior chief was gallant. I defend your right, respect your judgement, and look forward to supporting you to influence injustice.
Something to think about in the age of Trump:
http://coreyrobin.com/2017/03/01/political-criticism-in-the-age-of-trump-a-how-to/
Still think Prof. Robin is one of the more astute and level-headed political analysts blogging today (particularly re: conservatives/the right). Although opinions vary, as one would expect.
I am incredibly frustrated because the mainstream media will not, perhaps cannot, tell the truth about U.S. foreign policy. This means that most people do not know or understand what is going on in their name. This includes most liberals and intellectuals. As long as this situation persists, nothing will change.Any suggestions?
Hillary Clinton would have been worse.
(Republican) Fallacy.
It is war propaganda, nothing can be worse. Whoever is in the throne has nothing to do with it as a propaganda tool. It is just red meat for the indoctrinated.
Can you imagine Hillary Clinton with the launch codes?
Yes. Easily. With one millionth the consternation I now feel with the narcissistic adolescent possessing them.
Well, just this past week Communete claimed Nancy Pelosi is literally part of the “dark occult” and that the social democracies of Scandinavia are not as fine as they seem because they are in the evil grips of controlling monarchs. Such bizarre declarations are his standard fare.
I’m no Hillary fan — I despise the woman. But she’s not unstable and the nuclear launch codes would be far safer with her (she’s a warmonger, but not insane). Well-informed, stable people understand this, criteria Communete decidedly does not meet.
The clueless, intellectually insecure, and gullible Mona (who bragged 3 mos. ago of her publishing “researcher” job to a commentator who never asked) yesterday rejected and protested that monarchy like the U.K.’s–which asserts final reserve powers over the constitutional monarchies of Commonwealth of Nations subjects–is anything but “ceremonial.”
She previously insisted that We Are Change wasn’t a truther site.
She also repeatedly sang the praises of SPLC before being reluctantly introduced to this by a fellow, and more informed, poster:
http://harpers.org/blog/2010/04/morris-dees-a-life-fighting-poverty/
That pile of mostly false non sequiturs is yet more of your standard fare.It’s unlikely anyone’s really that interested in your bizarre views and their reception here, but a sense of your commenting performance with reasonable others can be gleaned in yesterday’s sub-thread here.
Given that they’re in the hands of a guy who had his Twitter account taken away before Election Day because “they didn’t trust him not to be stupid”, I don’t exactly feel any better.
S, and more importantly her husband, represents all who serve and the risk and loss they may suffer. Very disappointed to read your response, considering the neverending parade of people Obama regularly rolled out. Cheap shot.
You forget to mention that Obama, or other presidents weren’t necessarily exploiting them as much as he was honoring them. Obama didn’t NEED support to fight ISIS. I figure the majority of us are OK with helping the world combat ISIS, as they are the true terrorists, NOT Islam.
trumpy mctrumppants is actively trying to villainize Islam as bad, as terrorism in itself. Him using the moment to honor a fallen soldier, as opposed to a surviving soldier can have some serious implications. Praising the deceased is far more powerful in this situation. I could see him saying, “They, Islam did this! Will you still stand against me when I oppose them?!” So on and so forth. So this could sound like propaganda, or maybe just a crazy rant from some stranger on the internet.
No. Obama was exploiting them. Your post is another one of those “clarifications” that has, at it’s root, a deeply faulty assumption: That Obama somehow does bad stuff the Right way, not like those Republicans. Obama’s smart, and he only does smart stuff, even the really bad stuff. It’s his boundless grace that all those liberals love to see in him.
Probably due to the sensitivity of the issue that has tragically impacted a young woman very recently this article seems to be out of character in an otherwise decent publication.
Yeah, General Sensitive, that’s you.
Here’s some tragic impact for ya.
That’s precisely the point of the article you refuse to see, unless you are physically and mentally blind. Out of character? what is that, another bland euphemism? You must be a television writer…What is it that you consider to be the “character” of this otherwise decent publication? The sensitivity of the issue? which issue? the American widow or the children and women killed at the same time? Is that the grief of the families of these children killed by our bombs doesn’t matter? Is it that because they are foreign and speak an impenetrable language the despair, the fears, the brutal pain in their mothers hearts and the dignity lost with their death are irrelevant?, negligible? If you prick them don’t they bleed?
“That’s precisely the point of the article you refuse to see, unless you are physically and mentally blind. Out of character? what is that, another bland euphemism? You must be a television writer…What is it that you consider to be the “character” of this otherwise decent publication? The sensitivity of the issue? which issue? the American widow or the children and women killed at the same time? Is that the grief of the families of these children killed by our bombs doesn’t matter? Is it that because they are foreign and speak an impenetrable language the despair, the fears, the brutal pain in their mothers hearts and the dignity lost with their death are irrelevant?, negligible? If you prick them don’t they bleed?”
A sincere round of applause, excellently written.
Glenn, you’re watching too much TV and not talking to enough of the locals if you think “Canada” – as opposed to posturing politicians or piety-mouthing commentators – was surprised to be attacked two years ago.
Most of the fellow citizens I talked to completely understood those guys were knocked off their balance by the jihadi view of our years in Afghanistan, our recent (minor) role in Syria. They don’t agree with the jihadi view, but they know it comes from our participation in war.
Why do you think we dismissed our Conservative government the next year, elected a guy who campaigned on pulling us out, and accepting more immigrants from the area?
If the “propaganda” that we were blameless innocents and the terrorists entirely incomprehensible, were widely accepted, we’d still be led by the people who sold that story.
Glenn Greenwald: was Nawar (Nora) al-Awlaki an American citizen with certainty? Her mother, from what I understand, was Anwar’s second or third wife. Somebody said it’s not likely that her father walked into an embassy and requested papers, but it’s hard to find any accurate information since I first checked the story.
On 2/27, NBC reported that no actionable intelligence was found, yet the WH Press Sec’y still lies about the “success” of the mission.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/yemen-seal-raid-yielded-no-significant-intelligence-say-officials-n726451
Nice article. Please send O-m-d my regards for graciously continuing to allow me to comment on his news website while even occasionally posting un-vetted and unapproved thoughts. Van Jones… whatevs. Van Jones becomes Van Jones the minute you Glenn, give him permission to Van Jones.
“What luck for the rulers that men do not think.” Adolf Hitler
The pictures of Vietnam are moving indeed. I think they would be immensely helpful in humanizing the horrors of all wars and perhaps provoke national outrage.
The bar is so low for POTUS, but it doesn’t take away from an evocative moment.
These wars will come to a sudden and abrupt end the minute the lives being cut short are those of the rich and powerful as well as their families.
Bullshit yourselves all you want, but NOTHING short of that will end this lunacy.
yeah but the rich and powerful will never position themselves such that it will be their lives lost. They never do.
Only so long as those seeking revenge don’t invest in drones. It’s coming, and it’s going to be ugly.
Very ugly!
I think you may be half-right. First, the owners of this country will never go to war, of course (well, only with gigantic protection). Their families send their war-age children to study abroad…all very well planned.
So, the only way we can get rid of the owners of this country is……
The sleight of hand in such manipulations is remarkable, but works only because people don’t want to look where they should (or only find fault for partisan reasons, instead of seeing that – as Greenwald points out – there is much bipartisan precedence for this diabolical trick).
I remember as a teenager watching Obama as a presidential candidate get almost everyone I know crying tears of joy at his stirring speeches – but missing entirely that he kept saying he was going to greatly expand the war in Afghanistan. Then, as now, some older people told me to quit harping on about things I couldn’t possibly understand whenever I’d point this out as they sobbed away.
Sure enough, upon gaining office, Obama proceeded to triple the troop levels in Afghanistan to 100,000, and quickly became the drone-strike dickhead bombing-the-hell-out-of-7-countries he was destined to be.
But he had the art of “looking presidential” down pat. It isn’t a good thing, and Americans are the worse for wanting to see such an illusion done well – whether by a lanky smooth operator like Barack Obama or a bloated used car salesman like Donald Trump. Talk to people in other countries, and they would laugh at the thought that their titular leader should have the comic-book gravitas of some figure steeped in mythos.
President worship is a fool’s game, for the establishment knows that “love him or hate him, you’ve got to project importance on him” – when really the actual power steering the nation is a military-industrial complex and an unseen elite of corporate interests with their puppeteering hands up his rear end.
TRUE. God have mercy on all of us.
Your comments are always both insightful and fabulously well-written, thanks.
Trump’s Speech to Congress Was Not “Normal”
By Jeff Shesol
This has been the method of U.S. imperialism for over one hundred years. In 1901-02, the U.S. killed 1.5 million Filipinos in a country of 6 million in order to make the Philippines a U.S. colony. All to advance imperialist aims in Asia for U.S. corporations and banks.
I love this author’s work and his relentless bravery in covering topics other news outlets refuse to touch. I liked this article a great deal, but need to say this: if the “partisan warriors” are terrified that this moment will be exploited and will gain our president some “cred”, they are fully justified. There is legitimate fear that the spectacle will overtake any attempts to get to the truth behind this mission, and for some, for the very reasons why are fighting in that region in the first place. While I agree with Greenwald’s more measured and nuanced stance on this, I truly understand why certain factions, even within our near-dead Democratic party or the mainstream media, might find this a real block to getting at something. And that something is far more insidious than turning a tragedy into their own “Hollywood” moment to further their standing-as awful as that is.
My first reaction to this was disgust with the level of manipulation Trump stoops to in this circumstance. Trump seems to be trying to avoid any investigation into his perhaps reckless bravado about authorizing the Yemen attack without full briefings or staying informed, then lying about the effectiveness of the mission, to cover up the poor results and high costs. Agree with JB, it is more insidious than most viewers seemed aware. It also seems like it will encourage Trump to engage in more war, since he gains from the glorious death and loses nothing. I watched with dread and felt a shiver of cold wind blowing even more deaths all around under Trump, now that he was rewarded so thoroughly for this one.
I agree with your take on this, Marian. It will embolden him even more if there’s no real investigation and he seems to walk away from it, looking all the more “presidential.”
“While there is certainly truth in the claim that Trump’s use of the suffering of soldiers and their families is politically opportunistic, even exploitative, this tactic is hardly one Trump pioneered.”
I understand Trump is not doing anything different than his predecessors. The main difference is that just hours prior he had absolved himself of any accountability and deflected responsibility for the entire incident over to his Generals. THAT is not Presidential. THAT is cowardice and the worst form of self-preservation. The actions speak louder than the carefully chosen words spilling from his mouth.
There is only one tribe, Glenn. The human tribe. All the human sciences confirm there is only one species. *i.e. Homo sapiens (Latin: “wise man”) is the binomial nomenclature for the only extant human species
There are no intrinsic ‘tribalistic human instincts’ compelling the unjustified use of force or the ‘dehumanization’ (h/t my fine feathered friend Pedinska) of other members of the human species. On the contrary, it is a perversion of the human spirit and purpose.
One species does not mean there is one tribe. What you write is simply wrong.
I think he/she means it in the aspirational sense, not literally. But don’t see how mankind evolves much less survives unless it develops broader sense of empathy, and reason, sufficient to escape the idea of “tribalism” i.e. starts to appreciate that our differences in culture, nationality, “race” or whatever shouldn’t prevent us from ensuring our shared humanity and aspirations are respected and advanced through non-violence and dialogue. Cooperation rather than competition. But that probably means “capitalism” as an economic organizing system will have to go as well, or be radically reformed to be much more redistributive.
No, I mean it literally as well as ‘in the aspirational* sense’. In reality, there is only one ‘human tribe’ … albeit seemingly infinite in its secondary characteristics.
*mike is a scientist … so I was trying to avoid putting it in the aspirational sense./
Fair enough.
The ‘brotherhood of man’ means there is only ‘one heart’. The Judeo-Christian tradition expresses this when it says, “And God made man in HIs image”. Note the text does not read ‘Jews’, but ‘Man’. The human soul, in all its essential diversity, has one origin.
Not many have never understood this. Thank you, Glen Greenwald.
Historically, Glenn is correct. Your criticism is mistaken.
He did not say that instinct compels the use of unjustified force. He said that people have tended to organize into tribes and to value their members more than those of others.
And I’m sure Greenwald knows that there’s only one human species.
The technique is known as “waving the bloody shirt.” It goes back to Roman times. Rome was an aggressive imperial power and America is based somewhat on the Roman model.
I am the one, Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousands years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit
I am the emperor of lies, you grovel at my feet
I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain
And still you play the sycophant, and revel in your pain
And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate
I am the politician, and I decide your fate
I march before a martyred world, an army for the fight
I speak of great heroic days, of victory and might
I hold a banner drenched in blood, I urge you to be brave
I lead you to your destiny, I lead you to your grave
Your bones will build my palaces, your eyes will stud my crown
For I am Mars, the God of War, and I will cut you down.
With respect to the grieving widow — like all other widows/widowers before here — certainly she was part of established political theater in Washington. But she herself chose not to let personal grief get in the way of being a political prop.
Good call. I note that Ryan Owens Father was not installed as a political prop…. for good reason too……. he would have been dynamite.
Such blatant manipulation. She may have felt honored….in reality she was a pawn. Ryan Owens would stuill be alive if D T had the brains to see that jhe mission was futile in the first place.
Generals always want to initiate missions. The see soldiers as resources, as expendable equipment. It is upmtomthe President to exercise restraint and judgment….. Something, of which DT has no concept.
The woman looking at the ceiling is thanking jesus. She’s saying “thank you jesus for disposing of hubby. Now I can cash all the benefits and pensions without having to stand his nonsense..And thank you jesus for the cheap oil we get by murdering children”
I can see no one wanted to reply to your comment, but I am sure they wanted to but didn’t have the courage, so I will do it on their behalf. “You are an insensitive Moron”
Donald Trump, his daughter, sons, et al, in this administration make me sick. If they are not extricated and jailed, they will continue to spread like cancer, eventually consuming the nation / world.
The fact that you say that while ignoring the obvious atrocities perpetrated over the last eight years by the previous office holder says a lot about you.
Maybe he did. Does anyone who has a problem with Trump automatically become an Obama supporter?
I’ll just sit here and wait for Tony to come back and spout off about how BO and his family should be jailed.
Pull up a chair.
To be fair, I would love to hear how Sasha and Malia Obama’s business dealings intersected with their father’s presidency. Or how Michelle Obama leveraged her husband’s position for the benefit of her company.
The floor is yours, sir.
Well Sasha and Malia, and Barack and Michelle Obama will never have to work another day in any of their lives, if they don’t want or decide not to:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-obamas-just-signed-a-jumbo-book-deal-heres-why-a-publisher-is-betting-big-on-them/2017/03/01/50b3d682-feb1-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.82d50f4dad95
So neither of the adult Obama’s need to “leverage” Pres. Obama’s position for the benefit of any corporation. He simply leveraged it directly for he and his family. Not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with that, but it is still using your former position as POTUS to make money for you and your family.
That’s funny. You skipped right past the part where the 2x Peace Prize winner killed thousands of innocents via his expanded drone program (and use of the criminal double-tap attacks) and even had the brass to kill a 16 year old American citizen without due process. Comedy gold!
I’ll get right to Sasha and Malia (and the absurdity of including children in any of this) right after you comment about Barron Trump and all of his business dealings.
Get the point?
8 years? Try over 60 years. Americans easily forget. We fall for the same theater. Pat Tillman was yesterday; we’ve learned nothing.
For this woman’s sake, I hope it was just simply a mission gone bad but something tells me there was some unnecessary incompetence, which will eventually be exposed.
A mission gone bad? WTF are we doing in Yemen? Do you bother to consider why we’re there killing women and children in the first place?
Your point is correct.
But your anger at Tony and everyone else here is unjustified.
One is not obligated to state all of one’s views on everything while talking about one thing.
You give us pause, Glenn Greenwald, and of course, you are so very correct. The thousands of innocents who die in wars are given short shrift, no matter if it is a D or an R who presides over it. I lost my boyfriend in Vietnam at the tender age of 23. His name is one of thousands (as you say correctly, 58000 of them), and who thinks of him, or others like him, except for the people that knew them.
And the innocents. I think we all wince because we know instinctively that no one is thinking of them…or are we?
I thought the tribute last night was important. I think it perfectly fine for any President to ‘use’ a mother or wife, or father or son, to remind Americans that while we are enjoying our lives, there are others risking them…in our name.
Should Presidents mention the innocents? Of course they should. But if they do that, then we as a nation have to give pause the next time a President agrees to wage war. It is huge, powerful, moral decision to make.
At least Trump is not sabre-rattling with Putin…yet. If HRC was there, we would already be embroiled in another MAD scenario. Eisenhower was right when he warned the world of the military-industrial complex.
“I thought the tribute last night was important. ”
huh?
“I thought the tribute last night was important. I think it perfectly fine for any President to ‘use’ a mother or wife, or father or son, to remind Americans that while we are enjoying our lives, there are others who are eager to volunteer to take relatively-small risks of losing their own, while killing and maiming innumerable innocent others. . . in our name.”
Fixed it for you.
Hold your horses, douglas. Lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater … I think ‘salixveridi’ is on to something:
*indeed, I suspect in such ways we will make … force the servant of justice.
Hence the reason why, as a nation, we no longer “give pause” and reflect and deliberate when we decide to wage war; for if we did there’d likely be much less of it. See how that works?
must-read essay:
Warriors Are Not Heroes
http://worldbeyondwar.org/warriors-heroes/
Please Glenn, find out what really happened on that mission, no one else will do it. They’re trying too hard to change the subject. Something stinks!
It’s time for Intercept to show how profitable the truth can be.
With all due respect to Mr Greenwald, I think finding out the truth as to what happened would be better aligned with the skillset of his colleague, Mr. Schahill.
Powerful indictment – We have not been ‘educated’ enough on the power of propaganda.
The phrase “looks presidential” is very telling – if only we could go to the next step and see that the whole business is largely a theatrical performance by a figurehead.
Apparently people were shocked when Reagan attained the presidency as he was “merely” an actor – but that’s silly, for probably since JFK (at least) all presidents have all been performers playing the ‘same’ role, some better and some worse (like the many James Bonds); all doing the ostensibly good work of encouraging national pride, and all the plainly evil work of putting on a deceptive façade to cover the disgusting wickedness of the Deep State’s corporatism, militarism, imperialism and oppressive policing.
I keep thinking of Snowden’s statement:
I’m nagged by the thought that the USA is uniquely childish, and needs to stop believing in the illusion that the president is some kind of icon.
SooooooRight! And Snowden nails it.
i dont see this as propaganda.
President Trump was doing all he could to console the family.
Perhaps the price for doing so is substantiating Amercan stomping.
But in this particular case, it was a consolation of endearment.
Contrast this with what GW might have said…
“he was a brave man, a good soldier, he did his duty, as many others do in our struggles to make the world a better place for all and that requires sacrifice, not of just one person, but many because our war is….. bla bla bla”
President Trump didn’t even come close to pushing war.
It was a personal consolation and a very good one.
WHAT INSTEAD WOULD YOU DO?
maybe –
“His death was needless. Shouldn’t have happened. It was a disaster of an operation, it’s a disaster of a war, we shouldn’t be there, he should be alive today, shit happens.”
yeah, sure.
“i dont see this as propaganda.”
Then it’s working, just as intended.
It’s not about what the did but about what he didn’t do.
There is nothing wrong with consolations for the Seal’s family.
But simply ignoring the innocent foreign victims of this attack is just wrong. It’s a sign of completely lacking self-awareness and self-criticism. This raid was a massive failure and all the lost lives are on the President and his generals.
Using the grieving wife for his personal benefits while totally ignoring the victims of his horrible decision is what makes this situation so bad.
In the final sentence, the word ‘ritual’, stood out for some reason, I’m not sure why, but something about that word struck a nerve with me, especially after the nausea-producing speech last night that still has me sick at heart, today: “These propaganda rituals are well-tested and very potent.”
randoms:
– pat tillman comes to mind. killed by other americans then turned into a symbol of the “war on terror”.
– also “blue lives matter”. as chappelle said on SNL, “was you BORN a police?” we’re supposed to ignore the dead civilians gunned down in US streets yet deeply mourn for every heavily armed cop that chose their profession and the risks that accompany it.
– i was irritated by this same dynamic for the entirety of the “benghazi scandal”. the “scandal” wasn’t that hillary encouraged NATO bombing of a country leading to a salafist takeover and thousands of civilian deaths (including lynchings of africans: there’s some hefty cognitive dissonance for the pro-HRC identity politics types). the “scandal” was that one ambassador was killed while aiding the CIA in their latest scheme to make the world a more hellish place. poor baby. it would take like…90 dead toddlers on the beach to equals the sads we feel for ambassador stevens.
– in these situations i can’t help but recall the 2008 essay, “fuck the troops”.
https://questioningwithboldness.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/ian-murphy-pranks-gov-walker-and-the-libs-eat-it-up-just-what-are-they-feasting-on/
Well Glenn, if you’re slinging that kind of bull, I’m gonna call you on it. So, where is your rebuke of a press that refuses to sufficiently report on the opinion of Ryan’s father? Why would you laud and defend Van (why is this man relevant) Jones, and his journalistic malpractice in obviously playing a role in the bought and paid for rehab of dictatorship? Yah, we all get that at last count 100% of sovereign nations resided somewhere on a scale from worse to only bad (or maybe Brazil to Norway) in terms of clean hands (Congo to Andorra?). Having you point out the three countries that possess sufficient destructive power to annihilate our species and providing a comparative analysis of their approaches to dictatorship and social control would at this point likely be most helpful. If you think beating up politicians for being politicians and coming off like some sanctimonious Chuck Todd is getting the job done, think again. One Chuck is too many!
he didn’t “laud” van jones. he pointed out that even jones – easily the most reflexively rabid and brainless of the pro-HRC media crowd (well, besides maddow) – fell for trump’s line of bullshit.
as for the father, maybe some context instead of a rambling text wall:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/25485-father-of-navy-seal-killed-in-yemen-raid-wants-investigation
Defensive first. Check! Ignore context and deflect. Check! Thanks for link Einstein.
not any more
I think this is much more than an “also”, actually the main point of the whole exercise. Nobility in the bank is useful for getting programs passed and for getting reelected. No, Trump did not think of this, but it appears that at least some of his advisors have learned how things are done.
You make good points, especially about the void in our caring about those not in our tribe.
But I see the elevation of a living survivor at an Obama speech — the celebration of a man with the man there to appreciate it — and do NOT see it as the equivalent of exploiting a grieving widow’s tears, her husband needlessly fallen in a botched raid.
And I’ve seen many presidents trot out family members from disasters, wars, etc., over the years. I just have never seen someone so crassly and egregiously carry on about a fallen loved one like T did in front of the world. It was PURE reality television, scripted to grab the hearts of the Weekly World News reader and subscribers to US magazine.
I thought Van Jones had a more discerning mind than that. It WAS moving, but only because the SEAL’s wife was real, and her experience is real, barely more than a month away from losing her husband. I felt so bad for her, with T droning on in the background.
It is not that T brought her to Washington for the speech that is so egregious — it is the way he spoke, with his phony “sensitivity” [and believe me, I know narcissists and their wiles] and clear absence of true heart, on and on like someone on Entertainment Tonight. Ryan is celebrating in heaven because he broke the record for standing ovations. Yes, that is so comforting.
I do wish we would all let our hearts go out to strangers, real people, who are carrying the brunt of war in too many places on the planet right now — Just when I think I’m running out of tears, I find there are more to be shed, and more flow. Suffering in the world is for all of us to know and understand. If we would.
Parading it for political gain is disgusting.
I think there is a real danger here of confusing what with how. They all do it, but they do it in different ways. The crassness of the method should not disguise the action.
Mr. GREENWALD,
I did not finish your article after I read about your characterization of the death of Vietnamese civilians in the Vietnam War. I woke up in the United States this morning. The memorial in Washington D.C. is for our US soldiers. If the Vietnamese want a memorial for their people who were killed in that war then they are welcome to have one in their country. Yes, war is tragic. You are more than welcome to leave the US and go to Yemen to help them grieve their loss. Meanwhile you will excuse us if we mourn the death of one US soldier. I am disheartened that you are not really an American patriot. Will you choose Yemeni life over US life? Will you choose Vietnamese life over US life? God bless America.
Laura,
The article clearly went over your head. You fell for the war proproganda yet again like many Americans do. Bet you voted for trump and believe all he has said.
So I guess those other folks should just be damn glad we went over there and killed them so they could lead better lives. How dare one of our own not appreciate our sacrifices in sending so many of them off to their maker!
America, love it or leave it!
Laura; if and hopefully when you can find your way to Hanoi, you’ll find a memorial. It consists of ruined American military hardware. The Vietnamese fought for what seemed like ever to them. They won. They beat the French, Japanese, Americans, and the PRC. If ever there was a graveyard of heros and villains it’s in Vietnam.
Ms. CAROUSEL:
And you are welcome to move to a country where people demand veneration for their beliefs without critique from their fellow citizens.
Or to a country where your fellow citizens are forced to venerate those soldiers who died in the service of killing millions upon millions of civilian human beings, in their own homes and lands, so those civilians would never theoretically have to be influenced by an idea (communism) or be permitted to choose it if they desired without Americans claiming to know what is best for them and killing them a priori.
You are more than welcome to fuck off when you believe you are the only American patriot because you believe that dead soldier veneration is the highest form of patriotism a citizen can display.
And you are more than welcome to believe that God should bless America, and hypocritically, when God (presumably yours is Christian) would never countenance the idea of Americans or Christians slaughtering millions of God’s children all over the world for “your way of life”.
People like you literally turn my stomach. Your “patriotism” is the “patriotism” of the ignorant willing “exceptionalist” nationalist butcher who thinks he/she and their nation is superior to all other people on the planet, who can’t even begin to comprehend the fundamental humanity of the 7 billion other people on the planet who don’t desire to come to your lands and kill you, and that you and your fellow citizens don’t have any moral or legal right or responsibility to dictate to others at the point of a gun or tip of the bomb how they choose to live their lives, run their political systems or organize their economies. And that it is somehow morally desirable to venerate those who make such wanton needless counterproductive immoral slaughter possible–the soldiers who voluntarily fight and die for another man’s (usually rich) lies and political or economic agenda.
People like you are willing to sacrifice not only your own children, but others as well to your phony immoral form of shallow immoral “patriotism”. So how’s about you refrain from attempting to lecture anybody, much less your fellow citizens about where they should live or who they should venerate or not.
Why are you so mad?
Because I don’t like those who attempt justify or venerate those who think mass murder of my fellow human beings is morally permissible, except in self-defense from an existential threat to me and my fellow citizens on our lands.
I get particularly incensed when someone who attempts to make those justifications tries to tell those of us who know those justifications are built on lies to shut up or move to another country if we don’t salute the flag, or venerate their dead, or that their patriotism is superior to mine. It isn’t. I take my oath to protect and defend the US Constitution (despite its faults) seriously, and my moral obligation to speak out against wars not fought in self-defense.
Why are you so obtuse?
I am not obtuse. I will not let my blood pressure goes up because an individual on the Internet writes something I find ridiculous.
Well maybe incensed was the wrong word. Perturbed and unwilling to let such sentiments stand unchallenged, and to challenge with the appropriate level of outrage and condemnation.
I guess when people write something ridiculous, we should all just respond, “well that’s ridiculous” and move on?
Fair enough, please feel free to employ that tactic as you see fit, and I’ll employ those tactics I believe most effective at countering illogical immoral bullshit as I see fit in whatever tone I feel appropriate to the quality of the idea I’m engaging.
But you will let your blood pressure go up because you see someone responding to someone who made him rationally angry. So why are you on your high horse?
But we contributed to the death toll in Vietnam with our political agenda. We contributed to the death toll in Iraq, in fact we were the catalyst, with our political agenda.
We are care about American deaths. Nobody is asking for you to care any less. We are just asking that that empathy be spread to the victims in other countries—especially those who’s deaths we played a part in.
Until people in every country are able to shed a tear for the suffering of citizens from other countries, it will be easier to justify war. Did our decision to get involved in Vietnam or Iraq take into account the potential suffering of the Iraqi and Vietnam citizens?
If you want to emphasize American deaths over all others, fine. I just think the deaths of the rest of the world—again, especially where we are involved—-should be emphasized to significant degree as well.
wow…is there a limit on the amount of cliches someone can cram into a single comment? cuz this one is looking at that limit in the rear view.
i especially love the “choose” nonsense. i guess the north vietnamese were strafing the midwest from their advanced aircraft? some real red dawn stuff, man!
i guess the houthis had a ruthless plan in place to destroy america with a swarm of weaponized toddlers? those cads!
it’s not enough that americans choose to live in a constant state of self-induced fear and paranoia to excuse their crap culture and behavior; they can’t even pick sensible things to be “afraid” of.
p.s. i actually DID leave america because i hated it there. so…better find a new cliche to replace that one.
IF you think that geographic location is what determines how
you feel about people, then why do you care about Mr. Owens
any more than any other person in Yemen? He died fighting
outside of the geographic USA. Was he there because he was
asked to be there by the people of Yemen or was he there as
part of an invading force which doesn’t even admit that they are
causing another war to become worse? If the faking U$A is
SO GREAT, why don’t its people stay at home and why do they
keep murderously invading other lands and lying about what they
are doing?
When you spout crap like “God bless america” as if it is
the only geographic region deserving of being blessed, your
narrow-mindedness is the same as that which was central to
the NAZIS when they worshiped Germany above anywhere else.
morning.
it’s necessary for people to want to feel good and proud of the country they live in.
Glenn Greenwald is a soldier of the truth and points out hypocrisy at a risk and at expense. Perhaps you can see the patriotic attitude he has toward fighting for a “better” democracy.
As for yourself, blind pride is common but also misunderstood. If you supported the invasion of iraq or the slaughter of Palestinians for their land or the Yinon Plan or a one world government run by the TPP, then you can expect to catch some flack. Sometimes saying to little causes people to fill in the blanks. Surely you dont want to be misunderstood.
Ms. Carousel,
The Vietnamese were defending their country. The Americans were not defending your country. You could see the facts banged out on the offenders’ own typewriters for yourself if you were not too lazy and incurious to read “The Pentagon Papers”. But I understand. You are an American. Knowledge is for commies.
F*** your god.
What a callous thing to say . Casually eliding the horrors and atrocities committed by our soldiers and expecting us to reflexively side with them because of something so random like nationality. You really do deserve to live in Trump’s America and I would say it is people like you who dont deserve to live in the US pre Trump. – Human beings are human beings and national borders should not be the deciding factor for our empathy towards them. How are you, with your shameless jingoism and casual disregard for human life (all life that isnt Amurican that is) any different than the kind of garbage that was spewed during the Third Reich? Absolutely contemptible. Shame on you…
There never seems to be an end of people like you who don’t bother to educate yourselves enough by simply finishing one small article, but then have the utter gall to sermonize the author.
You purposely admit to making yourself utterly ignorant by stating you didn’t bother to finish the article, then have the nerve to lecture the author on the same topic without understanding his position.
Really? Is that how you interact with your neighbors? Do you just cut them off without hearing what they have to say in order to scream at them your position and demand them to leave the country?
I’ll bet you’re the pride of your block.
You are totally brainwashed
Why should we have to choose one life over another life in the first place? Yours is a horrific way of looking at the world. Doesn’t your god think that all life is sacred?
@Milton Wiltmellow:
Glenn has amply addressed why Clintonism has now failed, and he’s done so in multiple venues, including Democracy Now! (my emphasis)
The price of Clintonism for the average voter is increasingly coming due, and they are in revolt. Glenn and many others have been addressing and analyzing this reality with great depth and frequency.
He or she has totally lost it.
Here’s the answer to Milton’s nonsense question: more people preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton (for whatever reason — from being conned, to not liking Hillary Clinton, to being bigots, to Comey’s e-mail releases, to bad press, to being hardcore white nationalist bigots to whatever, which is ultimately indeterminable with any precision and ultimately irrelevant) and voted for Donald Trump in a handful of states, that as a function of the electoral college proved sufficient to help Donald Trump gain enough electoral votes to prevail over Hillary Clinton.
Here’s a novel idea, why don’t you use Google, or better yet, why don’t you identify the voters in those “swing states”, specifically MI, WI, PA and say FL, and ask them why they voted the way they did.
Or pull the voter data when it is fully released and approach every single voter who voted for Pres. Obama in 2012 but didn’t pull the lever for Hillary Clinton either by abstaining, voting third party or voting for Donald Trump and you’ll have your answer(s)–probably 10s of thousands and many of them different, and ask them why they did one or the other.
That you’d feel the “liberal media” is obligated to attempt to read minds and then opine on it is absurd.
Moreover, there have been many pieces by the “liberal media” that have published materials providing some answers to the very question you are asking by talking to folks in those states in case you’ve been in a cave since the election. Judging by the coherence of your comments lately that just might just be the case in which case you can be forgiven for some of lack of familiarity with those pieces.
Indeed, including a commendable piece of journalism undertaken by none other than Van Jones: CNN’s Van Jones Speaks With Obama Voters Who Switched To Trump. Jones went to Trumbull County, Ohio nd interviewed Trump voters:
Milton knows these pieces exist; the Jones interview and other similar reports have been posted here many times. [shrug]
If I’m truly as incoherent amd as lost as you say, why bother responding?
I have an answer — several, actually — but I’ll let you reflect upon the question for yourself.
Or you can dismiss it as proof that I’m a whining, sniveling, crazy person who makes no sense to you. I have no dog in that fight.
You have a dog in the fight every time you pose a nonsensical question. Or when you demand others explain or give answers to your questions. Or when you comment on another person’s comment.
The only reason I engage you at this point, is because lately all you’ve peddled is nonsense that should be rebutted for the nonsense it is.
When your return to wanting to engage people without straw man arguments, without superficial demands from those you concede aren’t responsible for Trumps election to somehow explain or atone for that, then maybe I’ll start simply reading your comments instead of responding to them.
But if you’re going to respond to my comments, I’m likely going to respond to yours. Easy solution is don’t respond to mine and I’ll refrain from responding to yours.
Since you emphasized these words of GG, I will respond to those words.
He is entirely wrong here.
1. People did not vote for or against an antiwar message.
2. The reason Clinton lost had very little to do with her political positions and much to do with her messaging and, more importantly, Trump’s messaging.
3. Exogenous factors — ranging from Wikileaks to media manipulation and new media — had far more to do with Clinton’s loss to a conman than her “insiderness” (a made-up word that would be more accurately expressed as “experience”) if such a qualification were relevant.
4. History matters, even to Trump. So do political professionals like Roger Stone and much of the Republican party establishment. History favors whose who know it.
5. We can never know, but I suspect Sanders would have lost more decisively than Clinton. Your preferred candidate (mine too, btw) isn’t an issue for Republicans or Trump. It is only an issue for those who felt cheated. (Who should we thank for that?)
6. Theories and what-ifs are always a platform for ideological jumps. What’s an ideological jump? It’s the explanation — always ideologically self-serving — as to why I’m right and you’re wrong. e.g., We would have won if the Patriots hadn’t cheated. Trump would have lost if he wasn’t a conman. Clinton would have won if only she wasn’t a blood thirsty warmonger.
Ideological jumps are a platform for whatever political axe one has to grind. There are many markers of an ideological platform — pretzel logic, ad hominems, mockery, non sequiturs, scarecrow opponents, cartoon versions of reality, reliance on rhetoric and many, many more.
Americans should be experts at knowing when they’re being manipulated.
Instead they elect Trump.
Among many explanations which I think apply, here’s one: Trump won because he has less regard for telling the truth than Clinton. Good liars always beat good truth-tellers. That’s why we have courts.
“1. People did not vote for or against an antiwar message.”
You are right, I am not a person.
As soon as I posted and reread my post, I knew someone would say this.
I meant voters in general. People in general. War wasn’t a decisive or particularly important issue in the 2016 election. Here is 538’s analysis.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/year-ahead-project/#part7
I apologize for offending you.
Sigh.
The Guardian has a terrific comment platform. You can isolate replies without scrolling through thousands of posts.
So … I’m sorry if I didn’t respond to you calling me names and telling me how depraved I am.
Your use of the accordion term “neoliberalism” is nonsense. Maybe the term has meaning for you. For me it’s just a sly way of replacing “neocon” with a more derisive term that includes liberals instead of conservatives.
In fact, neoliberalism is exactly what the conservatives push.
The Guardian posting system also includes a preview so that a dropped formatting slash can be spotted and fixed.
I called you a fool in the comment that I linked because of your stance: that there’s just not enough evidence around to indict Hillary’s and the Democrats as being largely responsible for their own demise, despite there being plenty of evidence available.
I said:
“These failings (warmongering, regime change, bankster-ism…) are not just peccadillo’s that I and many like me can just allow to continue in our names; it’s morally repugnant behavior that has no business being in a progressive, humane political party.”
Neoliberalism, as I understand it, encompasses all of these traits and more; especially and specifically when having to do with how the Democrats began decades ago moving more to the center on all of these policies, toward the GOP, going against the very bedrock of why I originally joined the party decades ago, and these reasons were why I left the Democratic party to become an independent voter.
To my knowledge, I’ve never called you depraved, nor any other name that reflects only on you as a person and not on the position you are asserting.
A label is not a reality.
If you must qualify your label as so abstruse that you aren’t certain that you understand it, it makes no sense to apply it to others. Why not call me a “copperhead” or a “whig”?
When you use a label you intend as derisive — one which is “morally repugnant” — it seems to me you should know what you’re talking about, not only regarding the label, but also regarding the person you’re labeling. Otherwise you end up using political jargon to play label-tag.
Name-tag is a game where you stick a label on someone else and then criticize them for being whatever label you’ve applied. It’s a rather popular game here. No matter what someone says, you can always point to the label and insist the person must be lying — or morally repugnant — because that’s what the label means.
e.g., Since you reject neoliberalism, you must be a neoconservative. You have blood on your hands for the Iraq war. What’s the matter with you?
Of course this is a ridiculous argument … but it’s used on this site all the time. Voted for Clinton? Neoliberal!!
Voted for Bush? Neoconservative!! Voted for Trump? Neofascist!!
This is a waste of time.
I and others here (as well as many news articles here and elsewhere) have given you more than enough information to make an informed decision.
The sources of such information, in the end, are irrelevant. Since you reject that information it says something about you, not these messengers.
Try this:
This neofeudal mode of production is supported by a neoliberal set of values drawn from game theory: markets exist to maximize narrow self-interest and payoffs to participants, and these markets are the most efficient way to allocate capital and labor.
This neoliberal view gives unparalleled advantages to mobile capital that can move easily around the world, exploiting resources, cheap labor and poorly regulated markets to serve neoliberalism’s sole goal: to maximize private gain by any means available.
These neoliberal values and mechanisms corrupt the political process, dissolve social cohesion (defined as the shared purpose that binds the various classes into a unified society) and distort the allocation of capital with perverse incentives.
Neoliberalism is a free market economic philosophy that favors the deregulation of markets and industries, the diminution of taxes and tariffs, and the privatization of government functions, passing them over to private business.
WJC – the era of big government is over. HRC – Bernie’s ideas are ridiculous; you must not think boldly; but incrementally. Tom Perez – sure, we’ll accept corporate donations – those are from our class of friends.
The New Dems.
If you don’t like Dems, vote Republican. If you don’t like either, don’t vote.
If none of the above suits you, run for office yourself.
1. There is never an express “anti-war” message in America, that’s part of the problem.
2. Hey thanks for stating the obvious.
3. I thought you said no one was allowed to blame the media for Clinton’s loss?
4. Wow, again, thanks for stating the obvious. Here’s a corollary, the vast majority of US citizens are fundamentally ignorant about their own nation’s history. Again, part of the problem.
5. I was a Sanders supporter and don’t feel cheated. He didn’t start his campaign early enough, and therefore didn’t spend the time it took to make sufficient inroads into those voters who were likely always going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
6. So does this one apply only to everyone else’s theories, or your theories on why Hillary Clinton lost and Donald Trump won?
Why should they be? Clearly they aren’t, large majorities are quite obviously oblivious to their nation’s own history and they keep voting for the same two parties that ensure there is perpetual war going on the last 50 years if not for the entirety of this nation’s history.
You could easily reframe that by saying that a good liar will always defeat a truth-teller if the truth-teller doesn’t have sufficient perceived credibility as a truth teller.
Or you could say, given America’s history, that the American people on balance aren’t good at discerning who is telling the truth or not. And that’s for a wide variety of reasons from poor/biased education of the masses, to religion, to ideology/cognitive bias, to the fact our First Amendment is a double edged sword that doesn’t penalize politicians for lying about the “substantive merits of ideas” as opposed to penalizing only those lies or factual misrepresentations aimed at particular individuals (i.e. libel and slander).
What happened when there was an express antiwar message in America?
etc.
In short, blaming Clinton for Trump’s win is not only wrong, it’s wrong headed, distracting, and disinformative.
5. We can never know, but I suspect Sanders would have lost more decisively than Clinton.
LOL. You’re detached from reality.
I’m detached from reality for speculating about something that never happened?
What does your certainty about something that never happened say about you?
What point is it you think you are making?
You are in fact making my point.
The Democratic party is not “anti-war” and never has been.
When their is a semblance of an anti-war platform in America do you think the Democratic party supports it, or maligns and sidelines it? Historically speaking.
Who do you think, in part, is responsible for the idea that being “anti-war” is a “left-wing extremist” position or idea? Any guesses?
Which is it, I thought you said the only people responsible for Trump are those who affirmatively voted for Trump? In fact you’ve stated that repeatedly in many threads since the election.
And if Clinton was unable to build and motivate a sufficiently large coalition of voters on election day to outvote Trump, how could she accurately not share some of that “blame”?
Are you under the misimpression any American is obligated to vote for Hillary Clinton, or vote for any particular candidate of their choice based on whatever voting calculus they deem relevant to their lives and values? Here’s a newsflash, they don’t and never will.
You either persuade voters to vote for you or you don’t. And when you don’t isn’t really logical to suggest that the “candidate can’t fail but only be failed” and therefore bears no blame. I’m mean that’s not just obtuse that’s absurd.
So to blame Clinton is neither “wrong, wrong-headed, distracting nor disinformative.” It is 100% accurate to do so, in part, unless of course you are going to try and make the argument that voters are to blame, and I’d agree with you in that respect to the extent they were affirmative Trump voters, but to no other voter.
Thanks for asking.
Everything that follows cancels your question.
My point is simply this. Antiwar candidates lose in America. They lose (at least in 1972) because veterans vote.
These voters don’t like being called baby-killers and fascists.
You should heed Gandhi’s advice. If you want peace, don’t be so combative.
He could not be more correct. And none of your special pleading and reaching would persuade a reasonable person otherwise.
Earlier in the thread you kept insisting Glenn and other “must” explain how Trump became POTUS, and they “must do so without blaming (fairly or unfairly) Hillary Clinton, Democrats in general, corporate media, neoliberals.”
That is, you want Glenn et al. explain Trump’s election in a manner to your liking, never-mind that it’s false. For the reasons primarily are “Hillary Clinton, Democrats in general, corporate media, neoliberals.”
It’s a counter-factual, but much evidence strongly suggests you are as wrong there are you in so much else.
You’re joking with this statement, right?
1. She endorsed TPP 45 times.
2. She endorses Endless War
3. She endorses The Surveillance State
4. She voted for the Iraq war
I’m sure there are others, but I think my point is proven.
Take your points and ask any random person what they think about your opinions of Clinton’s platform — or rather your version of Clinton’s platform.
Almost all will wonder what you’re talking about, I suspect.
Your certainty is not truth. It is merely a sad reminder that we need others for our own validation.
Her platform before or after she had to go against Bernie Sanders in the primary?
Oh, I don’t think I need to ask anyone (especially in the Rust Belt) about Clinton’s policies. I think they got the message very well.
They voted change. It’s that simple. People thought they were getting change when the voted for Obama. He failed them, miserably I might add. So, why should the be tricked again by Clinton…..voters are not as stupid as you think they are.
They may not know the intricacies of every policy that a candidate has flipped-flopped on but they can see HRC is an Obama clone and flatly rejected it even knowing that Trump is an authoritarian who scapegoated immigrants.
Of all your specious remarks, this one is doubly specious.
A. How do you know how smart or stupid the voters are?
B. How do you know what I think about the intelligence of voters?
I will address B first. I have no idea about the general IQ of voters. Neither do you (A).
Your assumption seems to be that voters who feel as betrayed by Obama as you feel voted against Clinton or for Trump to express their anger.
But according to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx) Obama’s approval rating was at 57% the day prior to the election. Meanwhile, Trump lost the popular vote with only 46.1 per cent of the popular vote. Clinton won the popular vote with 48.2 percent of the popular vote.
Even if you had any sort of plausible metric for measuring the collective intelligence of the American people, your entire premise is simply wrong.
If, by the American people, you mean most American people, (who cares what I think?), the most plausible facts refute you specious claim.
But if that’s not enough, you go on to validate my claim as you clumsily try to dispute it!
Not only have you not “proven” your point, you’ve expressly accepted mine as valid:
So … uh … good job?
Power and ideology are the sustenance of an empire.
Your generally excellent analysis and insights here notwithstanding, it is quite sanctimonious and unfair to denigrate Bill Maher and Michael Moore as “reliable partisan warriors” motivated by fear that “the moment might benefit Trump.” Rather, they were responding viscerally to the obvious, deeply disturbing exploitation and other tragic aspects of this spectacle, such as Ms. Owens allowing herself to be used in such a manner.
I know you vehemently dislike Maher’s position on Islam, but he is very strong on criticizing U.S. militarism, often pointing out that this empire has been at war most of his adult life. And, have you seen Moore’s new film “Where to Invade Next”?
Careful with the generalized criticisms. They can undermine the power of your points.
@K. Smith – What happened here is that Trump found his own Khizr Khan. I don’t remember Bill Maher or Michael Moore complaining about Hillary Clinton or the Democratic party using the parents of a dead soldier to advance their campaign.
That’s absolutely correct as far as I know, but my point is it’s a false equivalence to paint Maher and Moore with the same brush as the Joan Walsh types of the media, especially when it comes to the U.S. war machine.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
It’s out there folks. ;)
The USA could make formal policies about how much 1 American life is worth vs. larger numbers from other countries. How would it go? I dunno, maybe UK=3, France=8, Greece=30, Yemen=500….Then some Sharpie would say “We are so smart not to put that in written policy because it would offend the rest of the World, and be used against the US, defeating the purpose.” In reality, however, the rest of the World sees that a lot more clearly than the consumers of U.S. media. Also in reality, the CIA/DOD place a positive value on “blowback” because it is good for business.
A very good point and a perspective that must be expressed, exceptional journalism. However, although it does play right into war propaganda, It was appropriate to honor Owen.
Perhaps Trump is the greatest conman of all time, but if that is so, he will only be stealing the crown from Obama and before him, the Bush/Cheney duo.
Unlike Clinton and most of the Presidents before him, Trump is not a war criminal yet. And, until he is one, I would like to hold onto the little hope that is left for our country. Unless the democrats, can shed their decrepit, corrupt leadership and their nefarious relationship with dark forces in the CIA, they will have nothing to offer us either.
I consider that raid in Yemen to be a war crime.
So, dispatching a death squad into a civilian area, resulting in significant civilian casualties for no military (or intelligence) benefit doesn’t constitute a war crime? Especially with the aggravating factor of making a war criminal (Mattis, the Butcher of Fallujah) his Minister of War?
Wasn’t this an Obama operation in progress that was just sent to him for his approval in his first 5 days office?
From Vox:
“But that framing is suspect. Because, as the Times report itself states, Obama rejected the plan not because it was too risky, but because he wanted Trump to be able to make the final call on an operation that would take place on Trump’s watch.”
Very sneaky move by Obama, an actual war criminal.
So, no I dont consider Trump a war criminal yet.
You said it yourself, he wanted Trump to be able to make the final call. And he did. So it’s indeed Trump who is responsible. He made the call. It’s really that simple.
“sent to him for his approval”
Which he gave. He approved it. He’s responsible for it.
I know, … Obama did not really mean to start a war in Yemen, not to mention Syria and Libya, with the Saudis and the Left says that war crimes are really, really bad, so Obama can’t possibly be involved in war crimes. It was all George Bush fault. There, happy?
Obama is responsible for his war crimes.
Now, about the Yemen raid that Trump approved, whose responsibility is that?
I think it’s interesting you Glenn didn’t mention what trumps intentions were. Or questioned what his intentions were. You just stated it was propaganda. He intent was clearly good and not intended for propaganda. If anything that was anti war propaganda!
You think this was “anti war propaganda” ???
So, in response to harsh criticism about the mission in the press, Trump makes a dramatic gesture to shift the focus to the a soldier who was killed, while specifically labeling it a “highly successful mission”. And your reaction is – he is making as a pacifist statement???
Well done, Glenn! :)
Excellent article, and so true! Not to diminish Carryn’s tragic loss, or her courage however, I have to wonder how other’s who have suffered the same heartbreaking loss and have not received the same adulation and support will feel. I also have to wonder how Carryn will feel if or when she realizes that Trump 100% exploited her loss for his own gain.
Bannon and Miller, and perhaps others in Trump’s inner circle want a war and will not be happy until they get one. If they succeed, there will be many who share Carryn’s grief.
The gushing of some journalists points to something else: The establishment getting comfortable with Trump. In some ways it means the establishment is taming Trump, and in other ways it could mean the establishment is adapting to to Trumpism, and increasingly accepting and normalizing it.
Van Jones may still be right. In that moment, 45 became president, not beneath any other president and not greater than any other president, but president insofar as “every president is a war president.”
As Pedinska linked below, all people should listen to this video from Capt. Chappell. It is all worth listening to, but especially beginning about 46:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRAOANK__r4
Good video. Thanks!
Can’t take credit. I wouldn’t have spent the last hour listening to it unless it was for Pedinska linking it below.
I mean he isn’t necessarily saying anything new, but Capt. Chappell is a good messenger.
Ten strike for peace!
This was an exploitative exercise in grief porn. I expect it caused PTSD in some people. Having worked in end-of-life situations and mental health programs, some people find themselves unsure when and how to grieve based on media portrayals, community norms, etc.
That is a very astute observation on people… and gives a bit of etymology on how the phrase ‘act natural’, is unintentionally ironic.
News Flash! The United States is fighting a WAR on Terror. It’s a WAR, as in we kill them while they try to kill us. The object of the war is to kill enough of them that they lose the desire to continue to try and kill us. For thousands of years, in every war, civilians get killed along with the warriors. That’s the way wars are fought. Even if a thousand women and children were killed in that raid their names and even their deaths would be totally irrelevant. They are the enemy, they are nothing more then statistics.
For you to insinuate in the ignorance you spew here, that our solders or any American, should care that some supposedly non-combatant Haji’s were killed along with the terrorists borders on treason. You may hate the war on terror or disagree with how it’s being fought. That does not give you the right to not only attack our troops but also encourage others to look down on our brave men fighting our enemies. Your efforts to lay a guilt trip on our fighting men should be punished. Greenwald, you need your ass kicked, you moronic liberal idiot.
“Even if a thousand women and children were killed in that raid their names and even their deaths would be totally irrelevant. They are the enemy, they are nothing more then statistics.”
How are innocent human beings living in poverty, struggling to survive, the enemy ?
How truly sad to see another brain dead, uneducated, war loving, racist, moron. (And yet the U.S has millions upon millions of your ilk) Perfect fodder for the elites to send you to your death while they profit. Ever wondered why the elites never are the ones on the front lines ? Or their children.
Keep on believing the lies that your government feeds you. Don’t you dare think for yourself. Not even for a second. Let your government think for you. Brain dead halfwit.
Let me guess, you’re “pro-life” to? So innocent children killed via abortion are a tragedy but innocent children killed abroad are “irrelevant” and a “statistic”? You’re truly a repulsive human being.
Leaving aside your racism and your disregard for civilian casualties, do you believe that the US has been targeting Al-Quaida and other terrorist groups? If so:
-How do you justify going to war in Iraq, where the secular government was opposed to Al-Quaida, which was confined to a small area outside government control? (To say nothing of the WMDs that were known NOT to be there.)
-How do you justify going to war in Libya, where a secular government was targeted by Islamist rebels, a fact known long before the war?
-How do you justify aiding Islamist rebels in Syria against the secular government?
-How do you justify aiding Saudi forces against the Houthis, the largest foes of Al-Quaida in Yemen?
-How do you justify ANY aid to the Saudis, as Saudi officials provided support for 9/11, as the recently declassified 9/11 Report section shows?
-How do you justify threatening Iran, when Iran supports the secular Syrians, fought the Taliban, opposes AQ in Yemen, and is from a strain of Islam that opposes the Wahabis of Al-Quaida?
Another article by Glen Greenwald that shines by the light of truth.
A very dangerous clown and the alternative was not better. Nothing good can come from that country. I wonder where the next war will take place, China? More wars in the Middle East? that’s for sure. We have four very interesting and dangerous years ahead, probably like never before.
[[[ I wonder where the next war will take place, China? More wars in the Middle East? that’s for sure. We have four very interesting and dangerous years ahead, probably like never before.]]]
Would you really like to know? The Clowns are at the CFR, Davos, and Bilderberg. These are the people that Hillary/Billary like to hang out with.
They HATE Trump cuz Trump is fully aware of their activities… and He doesn’t like it.
Would you like to know more?
http://www.cfr.org
http://www.foreignaffairs.com
No it won’t take place with China or Russia, it will be with a country that has no army, air force, or navy to speak of and has abundant ($$) natural resources.
General Smedley Butler nailed it.
The only way to stop war is to take the profit out of it.
Greenwald has indeed taken on the mantle of Noam Chomsky in looking more deeply at the truth. Our most important commentator today, though the entire team of The Intercept is actually amazing. Let’s hope that the truth moves us forward.
I’ve thought about that a lot. Like Chomsky, it’s easy for him to dismantle the lazy propaganda repeated by pundits because they’ve made no investment in the information they repeat. No one invites Chomsky to these shows because he exposes their ignorance. Glenn exposes their mental laziness as well.
If he manages to find another Snowden like story under this administration, I hope he has all his facts straight. I think some of the leaks are deliberate, meant to disqualify all journalism. If The Intercept can truly fill this desire for the truth, they could become bigger than the NY Times.
They’ve grown substantially in the last year. I remember there would be only to or 3 posts per story. I’m not a good writer, so, my posts are minimal. My hope is good writers will feel compelled to contribute in order to match the quality of The Intercept stories.
I cannot believe you liberal snowflakes on here saying he used her as a prop. You disgust me. Its a shame that you always look for the negative in everything. His speech last night was amazing. The democrats on the other hand just showed they have no respect for the American People. Is the party on the edge of falling apart? YES! Not once did they support anything that had to do with Americans. We will see when it comes to their re election. They looked like a bunch of pouting school kids in timeout. Stop worrying about all the people that are not in our country and start worrying about our own.
Looks as though the war myth that Chris Hedges speaks about in his book, “War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning” is alive and well.
When this happened, the commemoration of the lost soldier, I rolled my eyes and said, “Ugh, more propaganda to manufacture consent so more folks can die.” And the person sitting next to me got agitated. She said, “They’re just memorializing a soldier is all.”
Wow. And there it is. “is all.” Wrong. They were obviously doing a couple things there. And the least bit important part (to them) was that commemoration of the fallen soldier.
Again, it was manufacturing consent for future atrocities. And isn’t it sad how nobody asked the question WHY we’re in Yemen and why there was no formal declaration of war on that nation? How the UN never voted on any such resolution? Neither did Congress?
And this goes back to Obama, too, of course. Funny, too, how Al Franken and others NOW wish to start an “investigation” into the “Yemen raid”? What about an investigation into the backing of Saudi proxies with our munitions raining down on civilians’ heads for the past year or so?
Great job, Glenn. As always, you’re in my head before I read your stuff.
I couldn’t have said any of that any better, Bif, and since I had a tooth pulled this morning I won’t try. Thank you Glenn and Bif!
Well said, Webster! I felt similarly offended by that part of the speech.
Brilliant work, as usual. I really appreciated your matter of fact wording and tone while describing really complicated processes that have shaped American consciousness for decades and decades. Please keep up the good work
War. War never changes.
It does if you get an arrow through your knee.
[[[ Trump’s Use of Navy SEAL’s Wife Highlights All the Key Ingredients of U.S. War Propaganda ]]
NO IT DOES NOT.
IT SHOWS TRUMP CARES ABOUT HIS FELLOW AMERICANS.
COMPARE: HENRY KISSINGER CALLED AMERICAN SOLDIER BOYS ARE “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy.
CASES IN POINT:
1) AFGHANISTAN (COPPER) — PROOF KISSINGER STATE DEPT CABLES 1973.
2) RUBBER (VIETNAM) — A continuation of WW II.
3) RUBBER (WW II against Japan) — Source … The Pentagon Papers (telegram from FDR to the Emperor of Japan on December 6, 1941 — the day before Pearl Harbor.
4) SYNTHETIC RUBBER (WW II) — Source – Pentagon Papers — Std Oil New Jersey had contract with IG Farben for SYNTHETIC rubber (Rockefeller’s hedge against Japan in SE Asia and Indochina) … We know one of the products created by IG Farben / Std Oil NJ as “Mobil 1 Synthetic Oil”
5) The Congo (Copper)
6) Missiles of October 1962 — Nickel Mines in Cuba.
7) Argentina and Chile — Copper Mines in each respective country.
8)… I can continue forever.
What are your coins made out of???? Copper + Nickel. Why? The perps stole gold and silver coins from Americans in 1965 and March 1933. The Oil Crisis of the 1970s was caused by the swap out of gold/silver and the FRB Exchange Window under Nixon. Why? The Arabs had contracts to price Arab Black Gold (oil) in gold / silver coin.
The US has repudiated ALL REDEMPTION NOTES FOR PAYMENT IN SPECIE (gold / silver coin)… since 1965.
It’s also the same reason Lincoln was assassinated. Same for JFK.
You are a slave. Cuz the powers de facto want it that way.
It’s hard to feel anything for someone who allows themselves to be used as a prop. And Van jones was right, Trump did become president in that moment but that’s not a good thing.
Just more pretty words, but I love the way he sort of leans back and nods after each pronouncement — like, yeah, I just said it — hard to ignore the comparison to Mussolini.
Dear Mrs Owen, no one wants to loose their spouse. Please remember the current administration murdered your husband by trying to take on a project that others had already deemed not worth the potential casualties. I hope you realize that one day.
“the nobility of the slain soldier onto the war itself”
Well well. Fascist greenwald is finally showing his true colors eh. American sordiers are the most despicable murderers on the plaent. Wnat kind of psycho would regard them as noble?
Reading comprehension is one of the most essential skills in written discourse.
Work on it.
“None of this is to say that the tribute to Owens and the sympathy for his wife are undeserved.”
” the least the immunized elites can do is pay symbolic tribute when they are killed”
“Trump’s use of the suffering of soldiers is politically opportunistic”
My command of imperial english, the language or murderers, is good enough. Greenwald’s article is pretty absurd. On one hand he admits that americans are despicable murderers. On the other hand he pretends that murderers are ‘noble’ and deserve ‘tribute’.
Perhaps greenwald and the sheep that follows him need to work on their grasp of basic logic.
I just read your comment about reenacting conscription in the US as a means to stop war. I think that’s a better anti war argument than this article from greenwald. Although technically speaking conscription is just another moral aberration.
You have understood nothing. You are as extreme and ignorant as those, like ISIS, you would fight.
SHAME on the press for fawning over that speech. The disgusting exploitation of grieving families last night – used to incite hatred of immigrants was truly a terrifying sight.
Well said! Why is it so easy for you, I and others to see this and impossible for others?
Those two props annoyed me the most. Normalizing hate and war. I don’t know why Americans refuse to see through this theater every 4 years. We love our lies.
is it possible that the targeted killings, and the resulting scripted political rituals with returning soldiers, are some sign of progress?
after all, world leaders are no longer slaughtering tens of millions, dropping nukes, and dressing us up in Fearless Leader smocks
the idealists would say no i guess, the oppressive structures of empire are the problem and not the number of dead bodies per se ..
and reduced body counts are dismissed as the wishful noodlings of pragmatists. obama of course comes to mind … not really sure if he wasn’t on the right track after all ..
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/16/486311030/despite-the-headlines-steven-pinker-says-the-world-is-becoming-less-violent
is it possible that the targeted killings, and the resulting scripted political rituals with returning soldiers, are some sign of progress?
No, because they are designed to deflect and/or reduce responsibility/accountability on the part of those who make the decisions to send them into harm’s way.
the idealists would say no i guess, the oppressive structures of empire are the problem and not the number of dead bodies per se ..
Actually, people with halfway decent cognitive skills are capable of grasping both that the oppressive structures leading us into self-destruction must be changed as well as acknowledging that the number of bodies overall may be in decline. Though I would say that the latter begs the question how many fewer is enough?
without the superior mind pose, you might see that trump’s tear-jerking milspec tv show is a big step back from “oppressive sructures leading us to self-destruction”, at least in terms of US history over the past 100 years
It’s not a pose; Pedinska does, in fact, have a superior mind. She shouldn’t have to “dumb down” to comment here.
well the idealists do have high IQs, that is true
LOL, Mona. Thanks but my family is poor white trash, especially on one side, going way back……then someone messed up and sent me to college. ;-}
I talk fair and write decent but have never forgotten the simple, basic lessons my mother drummed into our hides, one of which went something like this,
When ever anyone points a finger at you, they’ve got three others pointing right back at themselves.
It was right up there with Two wrongs don’t make a right. There’s a lot of truth in the simple shit. :-)
you might see that trump’s tear-jerking milspec tv show is a big step back from “oppressive sructures leading us to self-destruction”, at least in terms of US history over the past 100 years
Are you referring to the SOTU or The Apprentice? If the former, as I suspect, then I don’t see how it’s any different than the exact same episode which aired under Obama’s SOTU appearances. It’s actually quite stock script writing.
As for the “oppressive sructures leading us to self-destruction”, one would think that the military budget would be included under that umbrella – almost said “penumbra” but thought it might be wrongly perceived as voguing…or something. Trump’s new budget is calling for a $54 billion (with a B) increase. I think it’s pretty reasonable to label that a big step forward.
And I only had to go back two days, historically speaking, to find it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump-budget-military.html?_r=0
p.s. Sarcasm isn’t necessarily an indicator of a superior mind pose. It might, however, be an indicator of mild annoyance at the insistent application of dichotomies, especially when they contain parameters that just don’t exist. The idealists I see and know are, very much, concerned with the number of bodies as well as the structures than ensure it happens over and over again.
And I don’t see how anyone, any moral human being, could possible view targeted killings, and the resulting scripted political rituals with returning soldiers as any kind of sign of progress.
Perhaps you could explain the sign you see in it. As well as what it might be progressing toward. It’s possible I’m overlooking something… :-s
While we quaver at the intimate physical violence of “Game of Thrones” or the real games of thrones in Medieval Europe and Asia, it ranks nothing like the violence inflicted by modern technology. WWI and WWII were league leaders in that earth history. Since WWII we have had what we call the ‘violent peace’ – decades of conflicts, with Vietnam being the most bloody.
After getting burned by the failures of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, (of which the non-American dead are irrelevant) drone warfare and JSOC raids are just the interregnum for the next ‘boots on the ground.’
American Imperial Stormtroopers are not being funded to sit in their silos.
The takeaway from last night was that the media liked a speech where Trump did not attack them.
Nevermind that the content was no different from anything he has covered before, and was deeply threatening to immigrants especially; the shallowness of the American media can never be overstated.
Where was Ryan’s father? Oh yeah, He refused Trump’s condolences..
Sooo..those applause for his wife seem more like a “naa-naa..naa-naa-naa” , we got your wife instead, and she’s his mom, so there!
Trump’s applauding himself for getting the mom..
Thanks, Glenn.
I must argue, however, that we really need to stop honoring volunteer “warriors” as heroes and those who are killed and maimed as martyrs. The fact that they, their families and communities are deluded about the reality of the matter doesn’t mean that we should indulge them by promoting the fantasy.
Education and counseling, to help them deal with the ugly reality, would be a better path for all.
Doug I agree with you. I greatly appreciate Glen’s work and courage to do it. However the people who kill in the name of the US are fools. The American military is the greatest purveyor of terror existing today. A good and honest education of the young is necessary. Counseling for all. I would not count on either being available. Especially an honest education.
Indulge them? I doubt the average soldier and award recipients ever actually view themselves as worthy of such honors.
Read my post again. Slowly and carefully, this time. Pay special attention to the way I assert the various entities are deluded.
Fair enough, thanks.
Understood, but let us not confuse heroes and martyrs.
Anyone who has friends among our combat veterans knows full well that they ARE martyrs — of global finance capital and its defenders posing in this instance as “patriotic Americans.” Their sacrifice is for the likes of HSBC, though they did what they did thinking it was for us.
In that, they are also heroes, but tragic heroes.
I think that most of them know full well what this is, better than most of us do. They know about the innocent people who died, the people Glenn speaks of, because these people died in front of them. When they are with other veterans, they talk about it. It is we who are deluded, not they.
How do you expect the families of the slain soldiers to cope, exactly? Owens’ family epitomizes the two competing emotions perfectly.
As a footnote, I was not at all surprised when the veterans turned up to stop construction on the Dakota Access pipeline. And I was not surprised that they succeeded. Expect more of the same. They know more than a lot of people think they know. They are also very often braver.
But that success was only temporary. Not without value in principle, but ineffective ultimately in reality. Going to have to be 100s or thousands to ever push back against what police can bring.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/25/video-a-closing-prayer-for-standing-rocks-oceti-sakowin/
I agree and maybe someone can tell me who it was that said something to the effect that we will never have peace until the day we have statues and memorials of people that promote peace over wars. I don’t remember that famous person but possibly many said something of that nature.
I know we have statues of people like MLK Jr. but even tho he opposed our wars in SE Asia, calling the US “the greatest purveyors of violence in the world” the memorials all focus on Civil Rights, nothing memorializing Peace over war.
I hear people on the ‘left’ like Daily Kos , Mother Jones, TPM, etc. criticizing people like Dick Cheney, Donald Trump, GW Bush and many more by calling them “draft dodgers”, yes most promoters of wars personally avoid them while beating the war drums but NOT going to war should not be what qualifies them for criticism. In comments I mention that it glorifies promoters of wars that do go to war and that I am very proud of the fact that I was a draft dodger, I killed no one.
If you count the victims of the wars in SE Asia, literally many millions of people died because of people NOT being a ‘war resister’, or draft dodgers and to me the communities of draft dodgers I met in Canada were saving lives by not participating. It is also worth noting that almost all of them are there today with children and grandchildren born in Canada.
In fact so many people were fleeing war by going to Canada that one day I heard an announcement on the radio about a new govt. program called “make our Country your Country”, to bring people out in the open about being there and simplifying the process of gaining citizenship. I confess being from the US I was suspicious of it because I can see the US doing that just to make it easy to round up people, but the Canadian govt. was sincere.
I remember one of the many anti-war posters that were popular in those days that needs to return, “What if they Gave a War, and Nobody Came?
Thank goodness I never got caught up in the US war machine. Now time to ensure my son doesn’t either!
Your daughters too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/women-military-draft_us_57617637e4b09c926cfdbea7?1uufpqma5y5bfbt9=
One of the things I found interesting while reading stories about this was the care they took to always make statements like the following,
while abjectly neglecting to ask the question why the draft should be enhanced instead of abolished. I find that…..telling.
I think the draft should be reinstated and enhanced. It should apply equally to males and females and there should be very few options for deferment — none at all for education, “essential occupations,” etc.
Americans simply don’t care about the the consequences of our wars on strange brown people, far away, and they positively love the boosts to the economy and the “nationalist spirit” that our dirty little wars afford.
Only if there’s a real risk of their very own kids coming home in boxes, with amputations, or psychologically damaged for life with attention be sharply focused on the real horrors of our misadventures.
Doug, your logic in calling for a draft is only good if you assume the country’s mindset will be the same as it was in the early 1970s, when the draft had gradually helped intensify opposition to the Vietnam War. Remember that it took almost 10 years to end that draft-fueled war, costing the lives of 2-3 million Vietnamese. The people who would be drafted today were not alive then, and neither were their parents.
Instead of assuming the mindset of 1970, imagine the dominant bellicose mindset that existed immediately after 9/11. I hardly think that having a draft then would have triggered massive opposition to our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and I suspect many parents, regardless of their economic class, would have been willing to drive their kids to the induction station. And instead of reaching a maximum deployment of 160,000 troops to the region, we’d have seen triple that number and an eventual war against Iran (which didn’t happen in part because military leaders told Bush that our non-drafted military had already reached the breaking point).
The context today is a country that just put Donald Trump in the White House. Do you seriously want to arm a man like that with a draft, and in the process stimulate further militarization of society?
I want people who feel free to attack and brutalize others around the world in wars of choice for the profit and power of the Owners to have real skin — and bones and blood and guts and bits of brain — in the “game.”
It is my hope that one of the results would be to make those people hesitate before launching (and continuing and escalating) their misadventures but, at the very least, they would suffer something at least a bit closer to the equal horrific consequences of their choices — a small measure of justice.
First: You are ignoring the point about how easy it is to convince people to go to war, even when it might lead to personal loss.
Second: The people who would be sacrificed for your theoretical “small measure of justice” would not be just the children of the political elite. What you are really proposing is to hold innocent young people, including the children of war opponents, as hostages. Since when is hostage-taking considered an acceptable way to achieve political ends?
Third–and this is for my near-sighted leftist friends: Even without a war, a draft would expose masses of people to intense military indoctrination and training that would have serious long-term psychological and political impact. That’s why it has always been favored by authoritarian regimes (Hitler, Franco, etc.), and it’s why the draft was continued in the U.S. after WWII. It was an ideal way to condition people to think that they had a “duty” to accept our aggressive Cold War posture.
We’re in the age of a Trump White House. It’s not in the political climate of 1975, when the horror of a 10-year draft-fueled war was fresh in everyone’s minds. Increasing the militarization of young people today is the exact opposite of what we should be seeking in this country.
Those young people and their families are participants in, voters for, and beneficiaries of the system that has promulgated perpetual war all around the planet for decades. I’m not sure that reality equates to “innocence” — although I’m sure that ignorance makes most imagine that it does.
What I’m really proposing is that, if a war is worth fighting, it is worth fighting by all able to do so.
In addition, I am asserting that the absence of conscription has led to decades of of wars of convenience, for profit, being fought without significant opposition by troops who are either economic draftees or eager volunteers who actually love the hell out of combat.
If young people and their families wish to resist being “held hostage” by the War Party, they can resist the draft and the pointless war of the moment. If they are unwilling to rise to that resistance, they have forfeited their right to protection from the consequences, as far as I’m concerned.
In conclusion, the last time we had a real anti-war movement in this country was ______. As my central concern is altering the equation that has led to our unimpeded murder of millions of innocents since that time, I’m not much concerned about the moral struggle with which new prospective draftees and their loved ones might face. Indeed, I welcome it.
You are still ignoring important points I’ve raised. Conscription furthers the militarization of society and makes people–both children and their parents–vulnerable to the manipulations of politicians. The people in my generation who were drafted and sent to S.E. Asia were overwhelmingly unaware of the lies they were being told, as were their parents. They didn’t come realize the truth until there had already been a massive war escalation and several million Vietnamese were being slaughtered. If a new generation is now indoctrinated through military conscription, it will lead to the same manipulation that made possible our use of conscripts to fight in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, etc. I would again remind you of the emotional and political mindset in the U.S. that followed 9/11. Do you really think that Bush and the U.S. Congress would have been discouraged from launching an even greater military assault if there had already been a draft in place?
Those who were drafted the last time around included millions of working- and middle-class youths who went along with it because they thought they’d go to prison if they didn’t (by the way, draftees generally don’t rock the boat when they know they’ll be out in two years ). The draftees sent to Vietnam were barely in their 20s, and they weren’t the ones who controlled the information and political policy that got them sent there. Yes, they most certainly were “victims.” And the same population would be vulnerable to victimization the next time around if your desire to use them as hostages with a draft came true.
If you really want to dream of ways to motivate opposition to our country’s wars, a better idea would be to campaign for modifying tax returns to break out the total paid for war by each individual. That would be a way of annually driving home the personal cost of war to a lot more people than the just those who might be negatively affected by a military draft. And in the process it wouldn’t further militarize the general population.
I want people who feel free to attack and brutalize others around the world in wars of choice for the profit and power of the Owners to have real skin — and bones and blood and guts and bits of brain — in the “game.”
Yeah, I get that, and I might feel differently about it if I thought there was any kind of chance they’d reactivate it without the exemptions they’ve inserted for themselves over time.
Like so many of our institutional cross-checks though, the one ensuring that everyone in society would bear the horrible costs of war has been corrupted and is highly unlikely to go back to it’s intended purposes any time soon. So what we will have in practice is the sons and daughters of the poor and the ‘others’ dying in support of the rich getting wealthier.
Agree wholeheartedly.
You are exactly correct!!!!!
The question should be why are we (US) in Yemen? Rather, the loyal opposition asks why is Trump such a bad tactical general. Do not question war, any war.
The Carryn Owens of this world are a large part of the problem. They are so vested in the illusion that their husbands are doing God’s work, that they allow themselves to be harnessed like a show horse by those who cynically exploit gullibility as a mean to maximizing profit. When the thrill from publicly exhibiting fifteen minutes of grief wears off, and all that is left is a few commemorative baubles, the tragic nature of her loss – and subsequent exploitation – will begin to dawn on her. All of those tearful, opportunistic glances skyward will not console her grief at that point.
I found myself filled with pity for her grief. No one should suffer such for the whims of the powerful, something her father-in-law obviously understands better at the moment. But when we are drowning in sorrow we will reach for whatever gasp of air we can find, so I lay no blame at her feet.
She wouldn’t have been invited without an explicit understanding of her own political views on her husband’s sacrifice, but I couldn’t help thinking as I watched Ivanka repeatedly pet her while her father told manifest lies about the raid that cost that woman her husband, if that were me, I’d have been more inclined to snatch Ivanka’s hand off her arm and tossed it to the blood-suckers below to feast on while they as a class continue to enjoy their cosseted lives, safe from the kind of grief and consequences their decisions visit on a multitude of others.
It’s hard for me to set that kind of anger aside and I’ve suffered no personal consequences of these wars (other than the obvious economic ones everyone feels). I can only imagine the depth of the bitterness experienced by those who are fully immersed and aware of the waste entailed by our imperial conquests.
The most obvious consequence of war is death. Had Senior Chief Ryan Owens been a living recipient of medals to commemorate his “heroic” participation in a raid that included the death on nine children, his wife would have been beaming with pride and joy. Anyone who has experienced profound grief can relate to her pain, but when that pain is publicly paraded by parasitic politicians then I choose to reserve my pity for her loss. Suffer she must!
“…This dehumanization – the suppression of any humanity on the part of the U.S.’s foreign war victims…” Yeah, at least the nowadays Seals come home without the scalps of their victims!
Not much of a scalp left after you canoe them,
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/11/part_2_intercept_expose_on_how
Thanks! Reminds me the time I spend together with SAS in Uganda!
The most decorated soldier in US history understood what the real cause of wars are:
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c4
Well to be precise most decorated Marine.
His words are worth listening to, probably why they aren’t taught in school or covered by the media.
War and capitalism go hand in hand. In fact capitalism, at least as practiced thus far in the world, couldn’t likely exist without it.
And it will never stop until the people demand that it stop. But I don’t see that happening, because too many are too easily brainwashed into believing fantasies and untruths about why wars are fought, and the purported honor of fighting in them coupled with the fact capitalism creates a world where in the absence of universal economic security, some have few economic prospects comparable to becoming soldiers.
There are only two morally defensible reasons, and two reasons, only to fight a war–self defense and in the theoretical mutual defense of a treaty ally under attack, or in the theoretical to prevent an attempted genocide (although the latter is almost impossible to stop in the real world).
We will continue to be a barbaric self-destructive species, and nation, until we understand what Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler was trying to tell people.
Your credentialling sort of undermines your point.
While Smedley has terrific credibility, he’s remembered (and cited) for his political bravery rather than his battlefield bravery.
Google “the business plot” if you want to understand Butler and why he’s remembered today.
As they clamor to repeal ACA, — and every other progressive program going back to Roosevelt — it seems sort of obvious, (to me), that the fascist Republicans of the 1930’s have much in common with almost all the Republicans of today.
I’m well aware of both his battlefield bravery, and his integrity and political bravery, and the business plot.
And his “credentialing” in no way undermines my or his point.
And if you’d like to understand why trying boning up on your Gandhi.
That someone, for whatever reason, succumbed to the lure of war rather than non-violence as Gandhi practiced, does not mean he/she lacks credibility when assessing it’s causes.
And anybody who doesn’t know this about Butler, doesn’t really know how it was his credibility was established in the first instance:
He officially requested and retired from service in October 1931. He began lecturing and helped found the Oregon State Police in May of 1931. He went on a nationwide lecture tour in 1933, and the business plot wasn’t exposed by him until November 1934.
So his credibility was established before the “Business Plot,” and he is remembered for all of what he did AND for exposing the “Business Plot”.
Are you also aware he donated almost all of his speaking fees to charity? And that he never wore his uniform again after separation from the service, except one time at his daughter’s wedding.
You should go back to whining about how all is lost, and that had everyone voted for Hillary Clinton all would be grand.
You forgot to mention my sniveling.
And, oh yeah, you also forgot to mention my comparison of political movements from the 1930s and now.
But otherwise, spot on for you. Butler is a war hero.
All that other complicated stuff isn’t important.
What in the hell are you babbling about?
Who is talking about “political movements of the 1930s?” Nobody, except you in your own head.
You took issue with why Butler had credibility, and attributed it to his historical association with the exposure of the Business Plot. In part, so what? It has nothing to do with my point. Lots of people have credibility on the topic of war, soldier and civilian alike. But in this society, given its militaristic tendencies, it is less frequent that those soldiers most recognized for their “heroism” or record as soldiers are the ones to speak bluntly and critically about the causes and consequences of war. That’s a big part of why Butler, or any soldier who does, has a particular kind of “credibility” on the subject.
Butler had credibility with the American people because of his personal history and record as a soldier, which was well known prior to exposing the Business Plot. Understand that historical truth or not, I could care less what you think or know.
I don’t believe Butler ever perceived himself as a hero. He understood the history and purpose of the creation of military “commendations” that didn’t always exist and are in some sense a more recent development, and never personally trumpeted his military commendations or pointed to it as a source of his credibility. Others did. He pointed to his long-experience within the military and what he was asked to do and why.
Here’s the truth of the matter, “why” wars are fought throughout history isn’t at all complicated 99% of the time. The purported “justifications” for the “necessity” of fighting them often are convoluted and purposely opaque, but not particularly complicated at base.
As I’ve indicated prior, I don’t know what happened to you. You used to demonstrated better critical thinking skills in the past, but I don’t know what’s happened to you since the most recent election half the time you’re just babbling nonsense.
And if you want to understand why war is not just immoral but is becoming an anachronism (except in the sense it continues to generate tremendous profits for certain nation states and their corporate entities), listen to this video starting at 46:00. Thus, until you strip out the profit motive, something Butler understood, you won’t stop them from being fought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRAOANK__r4
Or alternatively, as Capt. Chappell notes, you have to work toward changing the entire paradigm of peoples values and ideals so that they see war as counterproductive and an impediment to a livable future, and therefore inconceivable that we would fight them in the first instance.
Swell.
Fine words.
I heard the same thing in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, … up to just today on this website.
How do you “work toward changing the entire paradigm of peoples values”?
How?
By electing a man who says, “I love war.”
Good for you. Unfortunately you’re headed in the wrong direction if your ideals are true.
Or let me put it differently.
Of all the antiwar movies that have been made since WW2 — (to name a few off the top of my head: Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, Gandhi, Born on the Fourth of July, Apocalypse Now, etc. — how have these changed the dynamic from just last nightso eloquently described by Mr. Greenwald?
When you rightly celebrate General Butler, there’s no need to qualify him as a war hero. You simply reinforce the message of “war makes men credible.”
One person at a time and ideally by making systemic changes to your economic paradigms and political paradigms that deny access to those who profit from any war. One doesn’t really need to “profit” from a war of self-defense, and it is immoral to do so, assuming any of the wars America has fought since WWII were actually about self-defense which they are not.
More of your idiocy. Nobody (no politician at least) ever openly says “I love war”. Thus people, being the easily propagandized dupes they are, believe their elected leaders only fight wars of necessity to defend their homes, families and nation. That’s why the propaganda has been just about the same throughout recorded history.
Which direction is that? Both major parties in this nation have been bombing some nation somewhere for the entirety of my 51 years on this planet. There is some evidence that we are moving toward less people being killed in wars on this planet by comparison to the last 1000 years as a function of global population. Unfortunately, it is demonstrably true that as of today, as a general proposition the statistical majority of those killed directly in wars or as a consequence of same aren’t soldiers, but civilians.
Great that seems the only way you can “put things” and incoherently.
Who’s arguing they did or could? You? More importantly what is your point? That ostensible anti-war movies made by Hollywood (which are in fact generally just as likely to be perceived as glorifying war to some) can and should be altering the human trajectory toward more or less war? If you think you can make that argument make it, I’m not.
Again, for the cheap seats. I’m not reinforcing anything. I’ve already stated there are many civilians who have just as much and often more “credibility” when it comes to being anti-war. But my point in using him is contextual to America and its “culture” of venerating war and soldiers, which wasn’t always the case. And as someone who believes in the principles of non-violence, it is important to reach people with a message with the best messenger they may be willing to listen to, and “hear”, for whatever reason.
There are very well known reasons and causes for that being the case at present. Would you like me to explain them to you with references?
Personally, I find Gandhi, MLK Jr., the Dalai Lama, Howard Zinn (a former soldier turned academic and social critic), Noam Chomsky to be the best anti-war and non-violence messengers but I also recognize the power and credibility that someone like Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (or any veteran) has, at least theoretically, with certain audiences who are not like me. Is that a complicated concept for you, or is it a difficult concept to grasp that it can be more effective in advancing an agenda using different messages and messengers for different audiences at different times?
Please stop being purposely obtuse because you’re embarrassing yourself. Do you think a group of VFW veterans and their families are more receptive to hearing a particular message (or that it is more “credible”) from a fellow combat soldier or from some long-bearded dope smoking “hippie” who never served in the military? Guesses, Buehler, anyone?
Thank you. These perversely hypocritical methods constantly used to promote insane wars throughout the U.S. media need revelation for what they truly are as much as possible nowadays. Genocide and torture are now being widely defined as honorable in the mainstream news, Hollywood /television dramas, video games, books and more.
“None of this is to say that the tribute to Sgt. Owens and the sympathy for his wife are undeserved. Quite the contrary: when a country, decade after decade, keeps sending a small, largely disadvantaged portion of its citizenry to bear all the costs and risks of the wars it starts…”
And do you know that Owens was from a poor background? You seem to be saying that being paid to kill is moral, but only if you are poor. Apart from being kind of an insult to the poor the problem here is that the Yemenis are likely to be a hell of a lot poorer yet. Of course the logic (unspoken) here is that somehow if the soldier was poor then you can convince yourself that they were forced into killing as a profession, and therefore bear no responsibility whatsoever for their own actions. This is absurd. As you said only a very small proportion even among poor people, sign up. These people are volunteers, not draftees. You don’t honor them by pretending they are like children in that they bear no moral responsibility for their own actions. On the contrary by saying their actions are really the actions of others acting on them, any honor they might have had obviously goes to those who gave the orders. These soldiers then, would be “heroes” only in the sense that a little kid with cancer is a “hero”. But there is no honor in their actions or the actions of their superiors. The war party must pretend their is to keep the wars going, but we all know better.
Btw a more recent use of the dead body as a political prop would be the “gold star family” that the DNC rolled out at their national convention to attack Trump.
Dear Glenn, please watch, or if you have already watched, please refer to the documentary “Homeland: Iraq Year Zero” by Abbas Fahdel. It is one of the few which gives a “face” to one of the many American led wars…
In that moment Van Jones revealed himself as the most shallow weasel of a commentator on US News broadcasting. My only doubt about Jones is whether he is a paid shill or just incredibly stupid.
Pretty strong case that’s he’s both (a paid shill and stupid).
“They use human shields.”
They don’t even care about their own people. Kill ’em.
“Islam is uniquely violent.”
Muslim violence against U.S./Europe has nothing to do with U.S./Europe killing Muslims and everything to do with Mohammed.
Wahhabi-Salafist takfiri violence sponsored by Saudi Arabia with the full support of the U.S. and Israeli governments in Syria and Iraq, i.e. this group called ISIS, financed by the Saudis and partially armed and trained by the CIA, isn’t that the issue? Like the Catholic Spanish Inqusition and Opus Dei representing all of Christianity, sure. . . Whatever you say.
And the flood of refugees into Europe, due to the chaos in Libya and the ISIS/Al Qaeda-led regime change effort in Syria, isn’t that what you mean by “Muslim violence against U.S./Europe”?
Of course that flood of refugees did more than anything else to lift support for Brexit and encourage the rise of right-wing nationalism in Europe. How incredibly fucking stupid of the neoliberal elites, isn’t it? Master manipulators! They’ve got their puppet replacements all lined up for Libya, Syria and Yemen! Oops, double oops, triple oops – oh shit, Trump won? Brexit passed? ISIS out of control?
Idiots blowing up their own world. And what’s they’re response? Double down for more of the same!
Well said, Glenn. As usual, the “political class” brilliantly sold out its war propaganda last night by appealing to the emotion of the masses. This is performance at its best, where certain narrative is framed to cloud the minds of the uninformed. In framing certain narrative, the political class is appealing to nationalism or as it is widely referred to in the US, patriotism. What else can I say other than propaganda is and has been the ideal tool of empires. In the meantime, the so-called mainstream media in the age of Bush, Obama, and Agent Orange (Trump) surrender without even raising the white flag. The media made Trump, pretended to challenge him, and then last night vindicated him. Trump’s efforts to organize the wealthy, destroy the environment and many other gains made thus far, and put his stamp of approval on corruption (nothing new, for he is corrupt himself) will continue. Capitalism will continue to survive and “many more will die.”
It is also disgusting to see South Asians parrot the propaganda that Humayun Khan’s death was a sacrifice, and to see Humayun’s parents exhort Americans to vote.
I missed last nights spectacle of presidential hubris and call for even more useless expense to launch yet more militaristic actions to prop up a failing economic system. Glen nails it by pointing out the inconvenient consequences of war; namely all the civilians as ‘collateral’ damage including the US survivors AND the ones that political leaders so callously disregard. It makes me sick. As the middle class is hollowed out and the working poor have to work maybe another job to make ends meet, there is even more borrowed funds funneled into the monstrous war machine. The warriors won’t rest until humanity is destroyed; I’m convinced of it. For those of us wanting a peaceful existence around the world we have no recourse and have to come to terms our own way to hope we don’t get pulled into hole of no return. I just wish a few leaders could see things differently than the constant warring that threatens humanity.
And also there will be no mention of the MILLIONS of Yemeni’s who are now starving to death thanks to Saudi Arabia (the head choppers who allow no rights to gays and women) and their U.S. partner in the current war raging in Yemen.
We certainly won’t be seeing the pictures of innocent two year old babies in Yemen who are nothing but skin and bones.
This is a cruel slow moving genocide being perpetrated by Saudi Arabia and the Trump administration.
There is plenty of blame to go around, but the MSM is at the top of the list for focusing more on how Beatty got the wrong envelope at the Oscars than on what “return” the U.S. taxpayers are REALLY receiving for our tax dollars in the untold suffering of innocents in Yemen.
Sickening all the way around.
Gays will be jumping from the frying pan into the fire if the Iranian-backed Houthis succeed in seizing power.
http://www.thetower.org/article/will-yemens-gay-community-survive-the-iran-backed-militias-trying-to-take-over/
“Iranian backed”?
Zero evidence for that claim.
None.
You are repeating propaganda fully in line with the warmongers this article condemns.
Sick.
According to the NY Times, Iranian ships have been seized in international waters while carrying Iranian made arms to Yemen:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/middleeast/yemen-iran-weapons-houthis.html?_r=0
Trump aside, here’s another very important story, perhaps even more important. Read on beyond my comment: The Wahhabi leader — the Saudi King — understands that as the oil begins to run out, and it will, his brand of Islam is doomed for the trash heap and moderate Islam gains momentum, probably and eventually including Shia, and spreads rapidly particularly as Climate Change hammers tropical regions. It’s either that or the Saudi King recognizes that Climate Change will radicalize these countries, including Japan and China, with the possibility of a new religion being born, one that threatens Islam, Christianity and other religions. This is what has happened throughout human history. It is just a matter of a new prophet with a new religion emerging somewhere, one that spreads rapidly as global conditions deteriorate and the masses seek an answer to deal with daily misery and hunger that existing religions don’t appear to have an answer for. This applies to all the continents, meaning it also includes the United States and Europe. The future is indeed interesting and perhaps especially to people like the Wahhabi King and the Christian Pope, both of whom likely understand their religions are under predictable threat if human history continues to repeat itself, particularly as Climate Change precipitates change.
What the Saudi King Salman seeks in Asia
Riyadh’s economic ambitions paired with its historic political goals leave ties with Asia-Pacific states non-optional.
ALJAZEERA.COM
Of Course, this kind of morbid BS has been going on for years… http://voiceseducation.org/content/alleta-sullivans-letter-bureau-naval-personnel-and-president-roosevelts-reply
THEN the bastards paraded the parents around to flog war bonds!
Put my daughter next to the grieving widow. You know.. for the photo op. Perfect! Now she must touch the widow. Fantastic!
Show the bracelet! Available in stores!
I clearly remember the questions and hand wringing when we first went into Afghanistan, with reference to lessons (not)learned from Vietnam. Do we have an exit strategy? We don’t want a repeat of that debacle. I propose TPTB did learn, and did away with the draft. Poof, problem solved. They’re all volunteers, no lever of power for the people at large to pull. Speak out people, not just here, but also to your family and neighbors. It’s not easy, especially if you live in Trump territory. Thanks Glenn for all you do.
I propose TPTB did learn, and did away with the draft.
But they haven’t. They’ve just slipped it into their back pockets against the time when they can no longer bribe a sufficient portion of the population to participate. In fact, they have expanded its reach, while simultaneously virtue-signalling that their only intent is to help women achieve equality on the killing fields.
It’s shame Lindsey Graham was the only one to address what is actually at stake,
Though he might as well have said, half your potential corpses.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-draft_us_57617765e4b09c926cfdc0a8
Wilfred Owen’s poem
Dulce Et Decorum Est
http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html
Disgusting hypocrisy considering, like other presidents, including George Bush, he used every maneuver he could not to serve. But had no problem later making assinine decisions that put others in harm’s way. What is also missing from the propaganda is most American’s almost total ignorance of what life was like before the killing and chaos. For all they see is the aftermath, of desperate people and rubble. Yes, people went to work. Yes, children went to school. People went shopping, went to parks, met others for lunch. The cities were beautiful. Especially Baghdad. Then, some moral coward and misfit in the Oval office decides it’s time to swing his dick. They don’t lose a minute of sleep over the deaths of troops. Or innocents. And the chaos they create.
Well dammit, Glenn, where’s your list of names of the 30 people killed? Honor them here.
Your references to the Vietnam War raised a question in my mind about war reporting. There was coverage from Vietnam that prompted significant negative reaction from Americans and others. Where are the war journalists now?
The war journalists are embedded/in bed with the military propaganda units. A handful have had the courage to not prostitute themselves in promoting the glories of “our boys” illegally murdering civilians on the orders of the Don or Mafia in Chief. They alone deserve praise and the others our contempt.
Vice does some good work. They have an >100 episode series on Ukraine, with two correspondents in the field from the original protests to the ceasefire — you can watch the whole thing unfold chronologically. Their investigation in that series of the downing of the commercial airliner is still the best. They also some documentaries on ISIS, various wars Africa, etc.
Thanks for reminding me of Vice. Will take another look. Personally, Shane Smith kind of upset me when he called Canada “stultifyingly boring and incredibly hypocritical.” That was a outright lie from a man who was born and bred in Canada. He should be fully aware that we are not hypocritical.
My memory of that time was that the media did not in fact report anything negative about the war nor the conduct of the war. It wasn’t until the war became extremely unpopular with Americans that the media began to report actual events.
It is accurate to say that there were already protests in the minds and actions of some Americans, particularly students who were opposed to more than one aspect of things in the U.S. But, I think that the real cause of the broader anger with U.S. involvement in Vietnam started about 1961-4, when some correspondents began reporting a very different story from that presented by government agencies and by presidential speeches. Credit for those who began this process as I remember goes to an Australian journalist, a French correspondent and, at the beginning, a few outstanding photographers. It was around the same time that, for a number of reasons, U.S. media suddenly found the Vietnam War interesting enough to cover.
This access to different perspectives from reporting, photographs, and footage that were not created by the government, to my recollection, spread the general unrest to the whole population, with a focus on Vietnam.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/yemen-wedding-bombing-15-year-old-survivor-tells-of-devastation-wreaked-on-family-party-a6697331.html
What’s it all about?
Wikileaks cables from the State Department clearly show that Iran had no involvement with the Houthis, a tribal group on the Yemeni-Saudi border, at the time of the outbreak of the Arab Spring; as with the Saudi intervention in Bahrain, this is about crushing pro-democracy groups that threaten the House of Saud and which could eventually force their replacement in Saudi Arabia with a parliamentary style-democracy. Obama and Clinton worked overtime with the Saudis, Israelis, Qataris and Egyptian dictators and authoritarians to crush and hijack the Arab Spring pro-democracy movements; the attack on Yemen was just part of that effort.
1. Arab Spring took place during the spring of 2011; the Wikileaks cable is dated Sep 12 2009.
2. Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. Just because the Yemeni Government could not produce iron clad proof of Iran’s complicity in 2009 does not mean that they were not providing support for the Houthis, orthat they haven’t supplied support since.
3. The article that you cite to lead of your comment is circa Oct 2015; yet, you choose to cite a cable from 2009 as proof that the attack was totally unjustified due to a lack of proof that Iran’s involvement.
First, the Chelsea Manning wikileaks cables end around march 2010 – but go and look through them yourself, it’s obvious that the Yemen situation had nothing to do with Iran.
The main domestic threats to the House of Saud’s grip on power are two-fold: a large Shia population in the east of the country on the Persian Gulf, and the independent-minded tribal groups in the south on Yemen’s borders, both of which would prefer a parliamentary democracy to a hereditary dictatorship. Wouldn’t you?
Second, The House of Saud attack on the Houthi tribal group began in 2009, well before Tunisia and the Arab Spring broke out:
Go on, read the cable yourself, unless you’re afraid of the domestic mass surveillance system:
https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09SANAA2040_a.html
If you want the rest of them, i.e. all of Hillary Clinton’s requests as Sec. of State for information tying Iran to the Houthis, enter this into the Wikileaks search box for Cablegate:
C-NE9-01257
The larger overall picture here is that Trump has basically gotten on board with the Saudi agenda (even though they have been the prime sponsor of ISIS), his people have declared Iran “the #1 sponsor of terrorism” (they’re not) – so it’s just more of what Clinton was doing; instead of raking in donations to a private foundation as Clinton did, Trump’s sons just went to Dubai, UAE, to celebrate the opening of another golf course/hotel operation financed by the Gulf Arab monarchies.
Hope and change, is that what you were looking for from Trump? Wake up and smell the oil money.
Again, the lack of evidence of Iranian involvement in leaked cables from 2009 proves nothing. The purposeful and incremental radicalization of the Shia Zaidi of Yemen was driven internally from two directions since the late 1990s:
http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/middleeast/2014/02/98466.html
Iran’s Islamic Consultative Assembly is a form of parliamentary democracy. Upon seizing control of the Yemeni capital and much of former North Yemen in 2015, the Houthis immediately “declared the House of Representatives dissolved and said a “presidential council” would be formed to lead Yemen for two years, while “revolutionary committees” would be put in charge of forming a new, 551-member parliament.” This declaration was universally interpreted as an effort to consolidate power by the Shia Zaid. The Houthis leadership at that time was dominated by four brothers who were key figures in the aforementioned Zaidi movement. Their reactionary worldview was largely informed by “centuries of Zaidi theocratic rule – a branch of Shi’ism found almost exclusively in Yemen – under a series of Zaidi imams who had held varying degrees of spiritual and temporal authority in the north since the ninth century.”
Al Jazeera has become a propaganda tool of the Qatar Royal family since the Arab Spring. Nothing they report on can be trusted any longer. It’s no surprise they’re regurgitating Saudi and Qatari and UAE talking points on Iran.
If the House of Saud falls, all the other Gulf Arab monarchies will quickly go the same way and be replaced by parliamentary democracy. Nightmare!
Interesting your point #2. That logic was used to help justify the invasion of Iraq. When critics pointed out that no evidence existed that Saddam had “WMDs” (really nukes), the pro-invasion voices would reply that the lack of evidence does not mean Saddam didn’t have them. Which became a bizarre circular argument to justify the invasion, as if the lack of evidence in fact proved Saddam had WMDs.
There was evidence offered (albeit false) by the Bush administration that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and/or the means to create them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErlDSJHRVMA
I’ve noticed this trend in people’s arguments recently. They attempt to shift burden of proof. e.g. If I can’t prove X is happening, therefore it’s incumbent upon you to prove X is not happening.
People don’t have to prove something didn’t happen. The people who make the claim X is happening must prove X is happening.
1. The CIA used NGOs to train rebels in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia 1950s.
2. The US military used US trained assassins (Phoenix Program) to secretly target civilian infrastructure in North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
3. A CIA backed coup resulted in the murder of Ngô ?ình Di?m, the democratically elected president of South Vietnam.
The fact that there was no proof of these historical occurrences for years after the fact does not negate the validity of unsubstantiated claims that they occurred. Often times it takes decades to collect enough proof that a covert action has taken place; that is the key advantage to acting clandestinely, is it not?
In regard to the current exchange between photosymbiosis, Erelis and myself, photosymbiosis is arguing that, because a single set of leaked documents does not provide evidence of Iranian support of the Houthis, the Iranians are not aiding their insurgency. Again the absence of proof is not proof of absence. I can cite numerous cold war incidents wherein proxies were employed to supply arms to insurgency in a way that was intended to deflect blame. In Afghanistan for instance, the CIA funneled arms of east European manufacture through third party brokers that were used by the mujahideen in their war against Soviet occupation.
The Wikileaks documents do not “show that Iran had no involvement with the Houthis.”
I agree with you here. The fact that Clinton emails doesn’t provide proof doesn’t mean that proof doesn’t exist somewhere else or that the Iranians aren’t supporting the Houthis. However, you can’t really put the burden on them to prove the Iranians are not supporting them.
At best, there is no proof, but only suspicions.
Albeit, if the Houthis are being armed, it could be from any number of sources including the Iranians. And the Iranians would rank high on my list of suspicions given their past behavior and the combativeness of the US towards them.
But in the end, if no proof is there, then really all one has are suspicions and probabilities. ;)
@Karl
One other point to make regarding Clinton emails. Proof or statement regarding Iranian activities within the Clinton emails might have certainly been redacted before publication. I noticed many email had redacted blocks of text.
So, to say that the emails don’t contain evidence is a half-truth. We don’t have all of what the emails say as much has been redacted. There certainly could be acknowledgments of Iranian support (or anyone else’s support) within the redacted text.
That would be a better argument to make against Photo and Erelis rather that trying to shift the burden to prove a non-event.
I am not attempting to shift the burden of proof. The Iranians have thrice been caught shipping Iranian Manufactured arms to the Houtis in past couple of years. So, it is now only a question of how long Iran has been providing arms to Houthi rebels. There is much known about the Houthi rebels who seized control of the government in 2015. Their leaders can be found on Youtube espousing the Shia-Jihadist propaganda. The four brothers to whom I referred in an earlier post were instrumental in founding a reactionary youth movement in Northern Yemen that has been largely responsible for inculcating Shia Zaid adherents with an ever-evolving radicalized version of Shia Islam that has become increasingly aligned with that of Iranian Twelvers:
http://www.businessinsider.com/irans-window-of-influence-in-yemen-is-getting-bigger-2015-2
There is enough information available online whereby one can garner a pretty good sense of Zaidi intentions if one is so inclined.
Teddy Roosevelt said a president cannot be considered great unless he presides over a war. This attitude has been prevalent throughout our history. Teddy actual wished he could preside over a war. How indoctrinated and brainwashed is that?
Not all leaders have this opinion, but it seems to be too common.
TR was more commenting on a historical reality than he was saying that war is a good thing that he wished for, at least that’s how I’d interpret it. People focus on periods of war more than they do periods of peace. Some evidence for this:
TR 1904 SOU address:
It is enough to give any one a sense of sardonic amusement to see the way in which the people generally, not only in my own country but elsewhere, gauge the work purely by the fact that it succeeded. If I had not brought about peace I should have been laughed at and condemned.
Interestingly, TR’s most famous quote’s first appearance is:
Yes, he got the idea from the savage dark continent of Africa. . . Which is kind of hilarious, isn’t it?
C’mon, Greg. Surely someone as intelligent as you can see the same article could be applied to the hundreds of *billions* of animals killed for food and entertainment each *year*. If you’re a vegan already, write an article about it. If you’re not, you are not informed and are missing out on a compassionate, healthful life.
Politicians are shameless exploiters of cognitive dissonance in the electorate. This was a Trumped-up version of Hillary’s tawdry Khizr Khan sideshow.
It’s Senior Chief Petty Officer Ryan Owens. The navy doesn’t have a Sergeant rank.
Yes, Glenn, Trump certainly didn’t invent this kind of war propaganda, and yes, Ryan’s wife isn’t the first to be exploited by a president in this setting.
But, as far as I’m concerned, you entirely miss the point of what was different about trump’s contemptible exhibition of Ryan’s widow last night.
What was different last night was that trump used her as a shield against rightful scrutiny of his direct responsibility for Ryan’s needless death, a responsibility he had just egregiously shifted to “his” generals ( yes, it is pro forma to disregard the “collateral damage” deaths of women and children, if not American).
As if that wasn’t sickening enough, trump invited Ryan’s widow knowing full well that Ryan’s father holds trump responsible and wants an investigation. And beyond that, trump had the gall to tell a widow still in shock , after exploiting her, that her dead husband was “very happy” now, because trump’s words about him and his widow had produced “record” applause.
Any fool who believes this disgusting exploitation of Ryan’s widow was the moment trump “became presidential” well deserves every last bit or contempt and disgust that can be levelled.
i certainly missed that one.
…
… and if convention or tradition is any measure, it is indeed the moment Trump became “presidential.”
sorry, didn’t mean to “flame” by posting the same point repeatedly. it appeared that the posts weren’t going through….
I didn’t miss it.
I think you are missing a key point of the article, you can use this example to find away to criticize Trump, but the article’s main point has nothing to do with Trump. Rather, Greenwald, is pointing out the way that we prop up those who die for our “noble” cause, and ignore the millions of “others” who have been endlessly killed because of us. It’s important to note that the CIA and U.S. have been helping Saudi Arabia in it’s Yemeni War since 2012-13 (where was the media coverage of that?) where they have not only bombed civilians on a consistent basis, but even more shockingly targeted hospitals and lead to millions of innocent people starving and fleeing for their lives.
Glennwald’s point is that we ignore these human lives who have done nothing to deserve the chaos they live in, but at the same time prop-up and politicize the few people on our “side” who are killed for political and economic gain. That’s what’s truly sickening and a much bigger issue.
I understood that big picture point and agree with it. What I don’t agree with, for the reasons I’ve stated , is that Trump’s exploitation of Ryan’s widow was typical.
I think the assertion it was papers over the threat posed by a president willing to use a recently widowed woman to divert attention from the shit storm he’s been facing after the military outed him for not doing due diligence before sending Ryan and others in to Yemen, and for then, the same day as his speech, blaming “his generals” for Ryan’s death.
“Obama has awarded the Medal of Honor twice as often as his predecessor for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.” – Washington Post July 19 2014
Why act so shocked and disgusted? Giving these medals, celebrating a criminal war of aggression waged on the basis of lies about WMDs in Iraq, this is pretty standard fare from Bush to Obama to, now Trump. Not an American issue alone, I bet the leaders of the USSR handed out lots of medals to Soviet soldiers injured or killed in Afghanistan in the 1980s, too. Before their empire collapsed.
“Yes, this poor schleb got shipped off to fight a useless war for Wall Street interests, was injured or killed, here’s your medal! Let’s all clap. . . clap. . . clap. Thank you for your service, now get lost, we have to cut the VA budget to make ends meet. ”
22 suicides of veterans a day, isn’t it?
i also think this can indeed be seen as the moment when Trump became “presidential” to the extent that the traditional performances of his predecessors is any indication.
What was different last night was that trump used her as a shield against rightful scrutiny of his direct responsibility for Ryan’s needless death,
There is a reason why every SOTU I can remember has included what I call the Sacrificed Hero Tribute. Harry Truman recognized that he, himself, was the ultimate arbiter of serious decisions for the country. He even had a sign on his desk epitomizing it, “The Buck Stops Here”. In his farewell address he said,
Eisenhower also took this responsibility seriously,
Somewhere along the line, that sense of responsibility became attenuated to the point of non-existence. And now, instead, we see these atrocious displays as a substitute designed to play on our empathy in service of more war.
That you think Trump more responsible for what happened to Ryan Owens than Obama is for what happened to Cory Remsburg – or any other soldiers or civilians affected by his extension of war to Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen (have I left anything out?) – shows only one thing: that you are explicitly and disgustingly partisan.
Obama’s speech on behalf of that young man, who was maimed for life on his tenth deployment, made me physically ill when I first saw it because Obama could have prevented this by withdrawing Cory and the rest of our troops from a conflict that had gone nowhere in the eight years before he took office and has gone nowhere since. His abject pandering of that young man’s past, current and future life is absolutely no better than what Trump did. Differing only in that he had enough sense not to run a stopwatch during the ovation.
Re-upping from below, from someone who should know:
is this not what American presidents do?
I mean he just asked for a 54 billion increase in the DOD budget at the expense of everything else. He has to sell the war somehow and traditionally, presidents and leaders have used fallen soldiers and phony tales of their supposed heroics to push for more military spending. That is because most people feel like they cannot say anything against a man who was sent to die in the line of duty, no matter how illegitimate that mission was. Respect and reverence for veterans is something that most people have in common across party lines and so people like Trump and other war mongers exploit that to the fullest extent possible.
In reality, that Navy Seal signed up for the job knowing very well what it entailed. And he didnt die for his country or freedom or any heroic reason, he died for nothing. He died for the incomprehensible decisions of those in charge and as part of this country’s long streak of engaging in brutal, fraudulent and unjustified wars in the middle east. He died for the defense contractors and the military industrial complex and to line the pockets of the rich and powerful. And he died so war mongering despots like Trump can use him and his death and tragedy to ask for more of the same. So next time he gives a speech, the wives of those other soldiers Trump just sent over will have the honor to sit in his pussy-grabbing presence and pretend their spouses lost their lives for something relevant as opposed to for NOTHING. Silch. Nothing at all. Mud and worms while the likes of Trump enjoy the good life and powers that the entire nation and pundits let him have.
This comment sums up my own view of this very well. It only makes it that much worse that other Presidents, other nations leaders, have been able to get away with such two faced pandering. They start these wars, they never fight in them. Until that changes, we will always have wars and tragic deaths and one side totally ignoring the horrific casualties of innocent victims of the other side.
Speak for yourself. You obviously ignored the countless Yemenese drone strikes, bombing runs, tanks, and troop movements within our nations’ borders. We did not start this war, but we are going to finish it and proudly fly our stars and stripes. Thousands of Americans die every day at the hands of sadistic Yemenis. Now, we fight back.
You poor mis-guided fool you are so full of shit.
I suspect he’s full of sarcasm.
Missed that guess it was fake news or alternative facts.
Hey Van Jones loved it, fucking loved the tribute… said if he can only keep it up, keep it going. Wonder how he might do that? Ensuring more seals, dolphins, and narwhals are killed honorably in successful missions might just do the trick.
But hey, you know there was this thing, this cute saying the founders had about a standing army being a threat to liberty. It was attached, usually to the “second amendments” of the states, it mentioned something about the gov not infringing on the rights of the people to engage in wars themselves, to use their own weapons… now folks don’t want to have their business lives infringed or interfered.
The second amendment has been replaced by don’t bother me I’m busy and besides this really isn’t important anyway, but I’ll clap.
Well done Glenn !!!
Didn’t Mr. Greenwald accept an “Oscar” from the same industry that glorified “our” dead “heroes” in the same vein?
8-year old Nora al-Awlaki was a US citizen, and from the few pictures available she looked like a bright, happy child. If I were Ryan Owens, and it was my bullet that took her life, or any of the other 9 kids, I think I’d rather be dead than try to live with it.
I know right? Hero my tutu. Murdering children and civilian, only in Fuehrer Trump’s dystopia and the mind of ignorant Americans is that something a hero does. Too bad there is no such thing as a hell, because Ryan Owens deserve to be in it.
Sometimes, when people are shooting at you, and you are scared, and you are shooting back, you kill people you don’t intend to kill. I have killed people, and I honestly don’t know if all of them wanted to kill me, but somebody sure was trying, and I was trying to stay alive. I am no fan of Trump, but to resort to defaming a man who as a matter of routine put his life on the line to fight along side men and women who were doing the same and would die to protect one another is silly behavior. Also, he wasn’t a Sgt. I honor the men and women who are willing to fight, and I blame the policy makers for putting them into stupid situations.
Try not to be self-righteous dicks when you are talking about people that are willing to take on greater risks than you can even imagine. The discomfort, the pain, the exhaustion, the depression of thinking that you are not going to live to get back to a normal life, and then a whole lot more that I don’t know about.
Quit huffing paint, the idiot soldiers doing dirty politicians’ bidding aren’t the victim here.
Exactly. These people are carrying out the dirty, murderous work of crooked politicians. They are more like contract killers as opposed to people serving their country. Serving one’s country means protecting its people from incursion and war, not murdering innocent civilians casue the orders say so. The last legitimate war the US fought was WWII, every war since has been one of chance and opportunity. Now i cantblame someone who is drafted into service like it was done during Vietnam, but when you sign up for this sh_t and then get hurt or killed, dont expect any sympathies from me or position yourself as the victim.
You are missing the point. First of all, that Trump is using that soldier to score points for war mongering and the DOD budget is fact. Period. He doesnt care about that man and only does in as much as it helps him push through his sinister, war mongering agenda.
Secondly, the question you have to ask yourself is whether this war, whether being there in the first place is the right thing and if you, as a human being who is now a soldier, are doing the right thing by joining the military.
To excuse murdering innocent children by making the argument that when you are scared (for something you signed up to do and were trained to do) you just shoot and kill kids, is pretty damn callous. I dont know how you live with yourself.
No one twisted this guy’s arm and forced him to sign up for the military.
And let us make one thing very clear about what military is and what it teaches you: it teaches- you to kill. That is what it is. You are supposed to follow orders and do what they say and most notably KILL. they dont even refer to soldiers as people or by their names, for the commanders they are mere boots on the ground “we need 150 boots in this region.” So dont fool yourself into thinking you are doing humanitarian work here and saving people by being a hero. You are a killing machine and that is what you are trained to do. Kill, no questins asked.
Now for defense purposes I can see value in that but nothing the US has done in that region is for defense. And if people are stupid enough to believe that turning the middle east into shambles and setting it on fire was good for the US or heroic, that is on them. if you dont want to have to deal with the discomfort, the pain, the exhaustion, the depression of thinking that you are not going to live to get back to a normal life, then dont sign up for the military. Simple as that. For the people being killed at your hands it isnt a walk in the park either.
What an ignorant, contemptible thing to say. From what little that has been made public, it seems likely that all Ryan had the opportunity to do was to try, unsuccessfully, to stay alive. It is unknown who killed all those civilians, but a good guess is that the troops called in as backup air cover did, not Ryan.
In any case, responsibility for the deaths of those civilians and those of the many hundreds of thousands others killed in our current endless “war” doesn’t belong to our soldiers, it belongs to the war machine that tasks them with killing and dying, and with Americans as a whole for tolerating the carnage being done in our name.
Oh please. Save your sympathies for the innocent victims his actions and orders got killed. He signed for the job, there is no draft, no one made him. Military duty is war and killing or be killed. If he thought it was cottn candies and being showered with confetti, then that is no him. Sure he takes orders, but no one made him sign up for such an enterprise. he id that all on his own knowing what the risk are and that he may have to carry out orders to kill. Period.
He is part of the military machine that has been devastating this world and even our own country for decades and he knowingly signed up for be part of it. I have no sympathy for people like him and you are a fool to miss the bigger picture and think there is no accountability here because he was “following orders.” We established in Nuremberg that following orders is never justification enough for engaging in inhumane actions and atrocities.
So, you have evidence that Nora al-Awlaki was accurately identified by the SEALs and then deliberately killed?
No, but Glenn Greenwald says that Awlaki’s sister was killed by SEALs
Therefore, it must be true
There is no rationale discussion to be had with someone who equates US soldiers with Nazi war criminals.
It’s obvious you don’t know anyone who has or is actually serving in the US military. How easy it is for you, then, to issue your facile, generalized moral condemnations about people and realities you know nothing about.
You said they followed orders and I made the observation that following orders is not an excuse to commit heinous acts and atrocities, including getting 8 year olds killed. The Nazi soldiers certainly do not hold the monopoly on war crimes. And Americans arent somehow magically exempt for being war criminals because they are Americans. And if you knew what our troops are doing to the people in parts of Iraq and Afghanistan and how many innocent our precious military got killed you wouldnt be thumping your chest for them. But I guess since it isnt your children and siblings and loved ones being killed, you can abstractly talk about how soldiers are merely misunderstood heroes.
If there is no rational discussion to be had here it is because you refuse to see things for what they are when it comes to the military and war. You have your head stuck in the sand believing soldiers are innocent victims who are merely misunderstood and just following orders without any consideration for the bigger picture and the context.
My point is, if following orders is good enough for you an excuse to not care about the horrible actions of soldiers who get innocent people killed, then it should also be good enough of an excuse for you to absolve Nazi soldiers. To say the former had very good reasons and is, in fact, not engaging in war crimes while the latter is completely arbitrary and biased.
“responsibility for the deaths of those civilians and those of the many hundreds of thousands others killed in our current endless “war” doesn’t belong to our soldiers”
Of course it does. They did it.
The media’s response to his speech is an absolute disgrace. His speech was an entirely typical Trump-from-Teleprompter address: The usual white supremacist fearmongering about how America is a hellscape from which only he can rescue hardworking white folks, followed by vacuous calls for “unity,” all of which was peppered with a steady stream of straight-up lies. Fifty-one of them in sixty-one minutes, by one count.
We’ve seen this Trump before. The “disciplined” Trump, who can manage to read one address of strung-together dogwhistles and appear, for that finite length of time, vaguely like someone who isn’t a compulsively erratic despot.
Every time that Trump has shown up, he gets plaudits from the pundits, who aggressively compete for who can say the stupidest thing about Trump’s “reset” or “pivot” or some loathsome variation thereof.
This time was no different. Brian Williams set the bar for grading Trump on the most colossal curve by immediately declaring it was the most “speech-like speech” Trump has ever given.
There was much complimenting of his “tone.” He looked “presidential.” Van Jones, continuing to be an utter disgrace, declared that, in honoring a Navy SEAL’s widow, “He became President of the United States in that moment, period.”
Never mind that SEAL died because the raid was a bungled mess, and that Trump spent the preceding hours of the day deflecting accountability and blaming President Obama and the military instead.
None of that matters, because the majority of our pundits have learned nothing from the election and continue to prioritize optics over substance. Facts are as irrelevant to these arrogant commentators as they are to Trump, and they refuse to care about his abundant lies—the biggest lie of all being his temporary projection of seriousness.
Which they buy hook, line, and sinker every damn time.
And discuss ad nauseum while diligently ignoring the content of each politely-delivered speech, pretending as though Trump’s one-hour vacation from screaming outright bigotry and nonsense is evidence of a newfound “civility.”
I have not the tiniest, infinitesimal trace of an urge to find something nice to say about Trump or his contemptible speech. There exists not a modicum of inclination within me to ignore the content of what this incredibly dangerous man said in order to normalize his presidency.
Maybe that’s because I don’t need to make myself feel better about having abetted his ascent in this first place.
Unlike most of our pundits
And your point is?
You’re being very harsh Trump made the decision for the raid between the soup and salad courses and he sincerely regrets it. The soup that is it went cold while he made the decision.
I was happy that at least the US decided to put some skin in the game on this raid. To face their enemy in combat instead of simply blowing up large areas killing masses of civilians in the process. I guess they decided to fall back to the mass untargeted killing after they lost a soldier?
But at least they tried to do things by the rules of war first, and then fell back to massacre. For America, that’s a moral leap. And it cost them too. I’m guessing they won’t do it again.
i don’t think it’s appropriate to merely point a finger at government and politicians for capitalizing on grief porn. the ease with which war is packaged and sold so reliably, time after time, that it’s like throwing a light switch, belies a problem much bigger than clever, self-serving pols.
instances like this one are one of a good few indicators, in my view, of the perverse nature of American Liberalism. when does liberalism have some meaning, and for whom? American Liberals pick this shit up and put it down like a hat, or sunglasses, to suit the weather, and are proud of themselves for not being the hawks.
to clarify, i am not suggesting GG’s article faults political actors alone.
Excellent excellent article and perspective. And sadly most Americans will not pick up on this nuance because they are deeply embedded in the culture of war.
Yes, indeed. Trump’s first attempt to block refugees was horrid and was rightly protested. But the next question should have been how did these refugees come to be. This is a question that is not asked and when asked, the question and person are attacked or ignored. Because those refugees exist because of American war and terror policy spanning both Bush and Obama and which was supported by both major parties. Pity the refugees of war, but don’t question the wars that created them.
Very well written and nuanced (which unfortunately I am sure many of your detractors will ignore most of that nuance and instead focus on “damning” individual details- another example of tribalism at its best).
That aside, I think the biggest issue, which you allude to, is that by not hearing about the other side, everything that the “bad guys” do seems like it’s underserved and came out of a vacuum. It’s not that they are responding (rightly or wrongly) to what we’ve done, it’s just that they’re evil and therefore are willing to inflict arbitrary acts of horror on us.
9/11, as wrong as it truly was, wasn’t because we had been involved in all sorts of chicanery and killing in the Muslim world, it was because Muslims being non-Christian were servants of evil, inflicting death and destruction arbitrarily, the uncivilized wretches that they are.
Thus, every terrorist or military act by non-westerners is like walking down the hall and suddenly being smacked on the back of the head for no reason – a “What did I do to deserve that?” moment.
That’s not to justify these acts on either side, it’s just to say, the silence about what we do to others makes every counter act appear to be unmotivated. It’s always, “They started it,” and because “They started it,” it will continue to justify the endless march to war.
At some point no one even knows, “Who started it?” Look at the Israel – the Jews and the Muslims have effectively been at war for thousands of years with each side endlessly claiming the other “started it”. And, honestly again who knows?
What *I* know, is until someone does actually turn the other cheek, perhaps by admitting they too have some complicity, the cycle will continue ad infinitum.
The origins and causes of oppression of Palestinians by Zionists/Israel are well understood and documented. Britain and the Zionist settlers “started it.”
The first Zionist was a man called Mozes who led his enslaved people to the promised land. (a bit like todays refugees who try to escape violent regimes) So if you really want to put the blame on someone…blame him.
No evidence exists for the Exodus myth or the enslavement of Jews in Egypt.
Just go and see the pyramids ! They are real.
Why yes, they are real. But that’s no indicator of who might have built them.
Maybe you’re thinking of Charlton Heston? Or extraterrestrials?
It’s a shame that the terrorist attack at a Sufi shrine in Pakistan did not get much coverage in the Western media.
Perhaps, the Muslim victims of terrorism are seen as “the others”.
In any case, here is a brief analysis of why Daesh (ISIL) is targeting Sufi Islam:
http://www.juancole.com/2017/03/targeting-tolerant-islam.html
This analysis is by no means complete — and it does not fully explain what Sufi islams* are. Nevertheless, it sheds some light on the age-long struggles between the various forms of Sufi Islam and other strains within Islam — in today’s world with Puritanical Salafism and Literalism, as well as the more militant and violent trends.
I wish the mainstream Western media would cover these traditions, for that will fix, albeit to some extent, the distorted picture of the world and religion of Islam.
====
* I said “islams”, for there is no single Islam in existence today. The world of Islam is a mosaic of several interpretations of Islam all mixed with diverse cultural practices.
That is so easy. There are good Muslims and bad Muslims , just as there are good Christians and bad Christians , and good Jews and bad Jews. There are good people and bad people , and religion is part of the problem and certainly not part of a solution !
The human conduct and experience clearly show that religion can be part of the problem, but it can also be part of the solution.
In many cases, the Sufi Muslims have demonstrated that there do exist forms of Islam that can ideologically, and with good conduct, counter those Muslims who have made their religion as part of the problem.
If the various forms of Sufi Islam were not a threat to Puritanical Salfism and Literalism, groups, like Daesh, would not have attacked the Sufi shrines killing large numbers of innocent people.
This blanket negative judgment on religion per se, with sweeping generalization and stereotyping is counter to the very positive and constructive living experiences of many people whom you’d call “religious.”
You’d notice that the more the religious people focus on the outer forms of religion and the wider gap there is between the outer forms and inner realities, the more there is literalism and exclusivism and self-pride and hatred of the “other”.
Just like non-religious ideologies and paths and doctrines, religion can be a very potent thing.
Interpret and live it through the lower consciousness, and it would cause destruction.
Interpret and live it through the higher consciousness, and the results would be very positive and healthy.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
Bravo on another truth serving look at how the American government privileges certain lives over others. If you live in Palestine or Yemeni, or if you are a child anywhere but America, you are not a priority; your life is worth less.
Not completely irrelevant, I an had experience a few days ago in Amsterdam at the American consulate that personified this attitude in mini form.
Being treated there was a miserable experience. The” security” overload – run not by government workers, but by an outside firm’s workers – are not required to give name and badge number for instance. Everyone who was coming there that day, had to stand outside in the rain, awaiting the gradual acceptance, by some worker unknown, and unaccountable to you, as a citizen. I guess this is a version of rendition-diplomacy;let someone else do the dirty work.
The experience is particularly galling in the capital of the country which, as Barbara Tuchman explained, was the very first country to salute the United States of America. It is inconceivable that any Dutch government office, responsible to the concerns of the citizenry, would even think of treating the people as dismissively and as crudely and as incompetently as the Americans treat Americans in Amsterdam.
Thank you for this piece. I had much the same reaction to that portion of the speech. What I find myself at odds with in regards to the reportage afterward is the glowing commentary of Trump becoming “presidential”. I found his presentation sodden and thought it lacked sincerity.
I was repulsed by that demonstration. It is one thing to honor someone, and recognize their sacrifice. This felt much more like sustained ogling of a recent widow’s tremendous grief for our own grusome entertainment and the awful self-satisfaction we get from feeling sorry for others.
Apparently, human beings find some satisfaction from witnessing these spectacles, evidenced by viewers tuning into local news to witness the harassment of that day’s victims of tragedy.
The war propaganda and nationalistic piece is also, unfortunately, nothing new.
There was one unique thing about last nights demonstration, however.
Those four, very long minutes of cameras zooming in on the terrible emotional suffering of this woman, and on politicians whose faces were arranged with the “perfect” combination of national pride and sympathy, were not just the typical flag-waving and justification for war.
After several minutes of witnessing this woman clearly overcome with grief, Mr. Trump offered his version of condolences. He suggested to this widow that her slain husband is looking down smiling because a record was broken for sustained applause at a political spectacle.
That may be the most repulsive and truly frightening thing I have ever heard from Trump. And that says alot, considering his penchant for offensive and insensitive language. It is clear to me now, that there is something wrong with him psychologically, beyond his oft cited narcissism. His complete inability to empathize, is a mental defect that far outpaces the mere self-serving and rationalized behavior seen in other politicians.
Americans, and people around the world fear this man as no other. As well they should.
Beautifully expressed description of a national shame. Thank you
Ditto
‘After several minutes of witnessing this woman clearly overcome with grief, ‘Mr. Trump offered his version of condolences. He suggested to this widow that her slain husband is looking down smiling because a record was broken for sustained applause at a political spectacle.’
I agree. To speak of a record broken for sustained applause in this context is indeed frightening, for it suggests Trump only thinks in terms of winning numbers. This man is not just immoral, but amoral–without moral quality or principle whatsoever.
Truly. This was perfect.
One of the best things I’ve read in a long time.
Clear-eyed compassion is so beautiful.
I completely agree, on all points. And, in my opinion, trump is very likely a sociopath, his incapacity for empathy being one significant clue.
Ahhh, how much we long for the sane, peaceful times during which our former, magnanimous leader has been killing left and right, throughout seven Muslim nations, with so much grace and style, not to mention a peace loving zeal.
No, not at all.
First: My comment was not about style. It was about this: Trump is uniquely dangerous because he is evidently incapable of empathy. A frightening quality in a person with the power to do substantial damage.
Second: If I’m not mistaken, the underlying point of many of Mr. Greenwald’s articles is that neither party should be able to use the bad actions of the other, as cover. In other words, pointing out person A’s failures, does not absolve person B.
There is plenty of blame to around. The only way to the truth is to recognize all of it.
Pam, you go to the head of the class. Thank you for your comment. It couldn’t have been expressed better or more succinctly.
In general, to ensure popular support for war, all the American government has to do is make sure no reporters actually get near the front lines. The public is happy to support a war, providing it doesn’t infringe on their daily lives.
The resulting absence of any news coverage does pose a difficulty for US service personnel and their families, who when they return, find that no one is aware of their sacrifice or even the fact they are fighting overseas. So the displays of support for the military are more for the purpose of maintaining morale in the armed forces than for feeding popular enthusiasm for war. In fact, it is necessary to find the proper balance, since if you overdo the tributes to the killed and wounded, it might cause people to start wondering whether the war was worth it.
Tributes to, or even acknowledgements of, dead foreigners serve no useful purpose – so their absence is not surprising. Everything that happens and is reported is the result of somebody’s agenda.
I am against mandatory conscription (ie: “The Draft”) because I am against war on a general basis and the draft would seem to be a nod to such militarism. However, I have also become convinced the draft is actually more positive than negative – without everyone’s lives or children’s lives being at risk, we have no skin in the game. If death and mutilation by warfare became not just something that happened to someone else, I think we would see a lot less enthusiasm for our endless wars.
Agreed. I oppose conscription because, pace SCOTUS, it constitutes involuntary servitude. However, I could probably let myself be convinced of a compelling state interest to permit it *if* it was universal with no exemptions save for bona fide health-related ones.
If all the senators and elites had to see their progeny sent off to these wars there’d be fewer of them and lot more opposition to such of the wars that did happen.
Instead, we have lower- and middle-class young adults signing up, often as a means to get the education Bernie would see them have by right of citizenship. That, and it can be attractive in a ghastly job market. As long as hoi polloi are sufficiently available through those lures, there’s nothing to stop these endless wars at the will of the warmongers.
Anti Feds were right?
Seeing some of Trumps gestures last night makes me wonder which one of you is the imposter. I’d go with the one who doesn’t speak English if I had to guess — without DNA test results — which one is the real thing, and millions of people who don’t put much stock in science have already picked the sincere orange guy.
Protect yourself from identity theft. Take that test and prove your provenance to the undecided.
This is a very powerful article, and I’m glad I stumbled upon it. You’re spot on about how a country rallies around its leader in a time of war — without really questioning the validity of that war. That’s the big question I have of this Endless War, but everything else you’ve written is spot on. Van Jones is wrong, though, Trump has unified only a few people for a little while, he’s still the same man he was yesterday.
Yes. And human beings resist it, so must have constant reinforcement of the conditioning.
There is a wonderful talk given by Paul Chappell on waging peace, wherein he lays out quite succinctly the extent of the methods necessary to condition our young people – as well as out populace – into accepting the necessity of wanton killing. It’s about an hour long, but that specific bit begins at around 6 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRAOANK__r4
Paul Chappel’s family were military for three generations, he was a West Point graduate who served six years including a stint in Iraq. I highly recommend this talk to anyone who wants to understand how the military uses our human instincts to warp us into accepting war.
The section from the above that deals specifically with dehumanization begins at around 27:17.
Two more quotes from the above,
And, finally, to bring us back full circle,
“Paul Chappell Talk On Waging Peace”
5,689 views
Uploaded on Oct 20, 2011
Thanks Pedinska. I watched this several years ago. It may be available on another Youtube stream or another venue, but the numbers do speak volumes.
Forgotten also is the father, who currently is screaming for an investigation. His voice will now be silenced, thanks to his daughter-in-law who allowed herself to be used as a propaganda tool. Sad.
A project to address some of your concerns. http://www.iraqimemorial.org
A well considered article, thank you for writing this.
A very good analysis, but
the one aspect of all of these examples of
misguided
celebrations of violence and indifference to outsiders
is that these horror shows are being created
for capitalists private profits.
I have NOT watched any of the garbage media programs-
state of the union addresses, congressional testimonies,….. –
for over a decade because they are all the same fraudulent
pretentious promotions of lies and misrepresentations.
“Freedom” is usually touted as the driving force, but the truth is
freedom is the last thing these delusional degenerates are
seeking. Money is their god and they will chain everyone and
everything to their altar of greed and celebrate the bleeding they
depend upon to feel superior.
Thank you for trying to see through the perversity.
Amen!
Excellent article.
It sickens me (but doesn’t surprise me) that he used Carryn Owens in that way. When, just earlier in the day he went on Fox and basically said that “they lost Ryan”, or the military had lost Chief Petty Officer Owens. But, that’s Trump, not taking responsibility for anything.
One thing about the British elites, they join their military when their country goes to war. I don’t know about the children of the Lords and Dukes nowadays, but the Royal family still serves in active zones. That’s one thing the British have, that a lot of others don’t.
I suppose American elites used to do it too before. George H. W. Bush is a product of Andover and Yale, and he served. His son, not so much. And nowadays, it’s just the plebs and the people without health insurance who’re forced to die.
What a world.
A glorious overall summerization of usa_nazilands psychological ploys to imbue the public with permission too continue flying the flag of war. Because north-america is the only country with two flags, one a civil flag of peace & one for war which you currently use. To know just that tit-bit of information leads many to learn that america was step up as an experiment. An experiment that has burgeoned & plagued the modern world with wars using the hegelian dialectic. I really did enjoy reading this article & long may your reporters raise awareness of how USA/UK/Isreal use psyops & other covert tactics too legalize the slaughter of people who generally are just defending themselves from aggressor’s’.
Enjoyed reading it. Thanks!
Yes, me too!
Unlike many recent columns, this excellent analysis of the propaganda of the most warmongering blood soaked nation in the modern world should be the standard consensus of every educated person in the country. But it’s not.
Still, the remarkable statement … “never the perpetrators of it” … is simply wrong.
The Republicans and their politically naive allies on the left forget about “Killary” who — according to the Republicans — plotted to kill Americans as she orchestrated the NATO intervention in the first Libyan Civil War. Worse, by voting for the AUMF, she is personally responsible for the criminal invasion of Iraq, And from this fabricated seed, the natural opponents of Trumpism actually nourish, harvest and spread the poisoned fruit of the Trump tree.
This is a remarkable bio-engineering feat!
A man who claims to “love” war, who peevishly threatens war over a rude gesture, who expressly wants to bring back waterboarding “and a hell of a lot worse” becomes a peace candidate while someone who persuaded various international entities to support a sanctions regime as an alternative to war with Iran is jammed into the political discourse as a war monger.
So yes. American politicians — all politicians, everywhere and in any era — regularly use war and patriotism as their claim of legitimacy.
Some with more eloquent writers than Trump has.
As I wrote in a post that vanished between my computer and The Intercept comments sectionyesterday, sooner or later GG and the rest of the so-called “liberal media” here must explain how a man like Trump is the President of the United States. They must do so without blaming (fairly or unfairly) Hillary Clinton, Democrats in general, corporate media, neoliberals (whatever that means), or any other explanation that serves to expand and extend the Republican agenda.
I see, so your requirement is that we explain how Trump got where he is without actually explaining anything. Your list of prohibited topics is quite long and illuminating. Let me guess: it’s the unmitigated wickedness and ignorance of American voters alone that put Trump in power. That’s a comforting illusion these days for many people, but illusion it is.
Back in reality…. history didn’t begin in 2016, and Trump’s victory didn’t come from nowhere. He’s a symptom of how thoroughly both parties and the political establishment in general sold out to the military industrial complex and all its profiteers and enablers. Trump at least wasn’t saying the same things that the great majority of politicians (Democratic and Republican) had said for decades, while his opponent mouthed the same official lies. I don’t endorse him personally, but it’s pretty obtuse to pretend to not understand how his message was more appealing than his opponent’s.
Er, no they “must” not. Such critical factors could not leave an explanation remotely adequate if omitted.
Where do I say “omit” this? Where??
What I say is quite in keeping with NOT omitting the characterization you and your chattering rookery want to impose upon me.
If you want accuracy, first be accurate yourself.
I would bet any reasonable stakes that if there’s a god’s eye view, name recognition would have more to do with Trump’s election than anything the Assange, Greenwald, or the entire anti-war gallery in the US said.
Out of curiosity, I googled “americans attitude about assange” thinking that at least 80 per cent of Americans have absolutely no idea of who he is or of his significance.
Then, through the serendipity of google I came across this article from the New Republic. entitled, “Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?”
I haven’t finished reading the article because I’m in the midst of this post but so far, it articulates a theme I’ve repeatedly offered here — and one which brings howls and ad hominems like a person of color might get from applying to join the KKK.
Truth is a precious commodity. You don’t get closer to it by omission — intentional or otherwise.
Don’t know what that means, but I do know you wrote:
No. No they “must” not. Regardless of any notions you may have about what “serves to expand and extend the Republican agenda,” the truth of how and why Donald Trump became POTUS necessarily heavily involves — almost certainly PRIMARILY involves — failures and sins on the part of the parties you claims “must” not be “blamed.”
Obviously your reading skills are little better than your reasoning skills.
“Must” refers to providing plausible explanation for the result of the election.
“Must” does NOT refer to omitting the “failures and sins” of other “parties.”
I know you don’t understand this so let me try to simplify it for you.
Suppose you must rush your child to hospital because he/she ate a Tide pod that looks and smells like candy. The packaging says, “DO NOT LET YOUR CHILDREN EAT THESE LAUNDRY PODS.”
Who’s to blame?
Tide for selling a product that looks and smells like candy or the parent who stores the Tide pods next to the candy jar?
Lawyers will take one side or another, depending on their client. Insisting their client is in the right.
Real people will shrug and say “both are to blame.”
When I say “must” I mean a full explanation, not a lawyer’s argument. I don’t say “omit,” I mean “include.”
Can you understand this??
A plausible explanation MUST include. Or, if it will help you overcome your blindspot, a plausible explanation MUST NOT omit.
Which necessarily entails examining the roles (likely, primary roles) of “Hillary Clinton, Democrats in general, corporate media, neoliberals .”
Your imperative is that:
No. There is no imperative that they do this. None at all.
Trump’s election is integrally involves all of those factors you assert “must” be omitted (i.e., “without blaming”). Why should Glenn or anyone else undertake such a vacuous exercise? The crisis requires the truth and fixing what is wrong, not omitting(i.e., “without blaming”) discussion of what has been/is wrong.
“Truth is a precious commodity. You don’t get closer to it by omission — intentional or otherwise.”
And of course one never obscures truth by tossing dirt in the air.
Keep digging. The “truth-telling-comrades” bit is gold.
Haha … good one.
At least you’re keeping up — unlike everyone else chirping in this chicken coop.
I’m not throwing dirt btw … despite my digging. I have a point which apparently I haven’t yet made. So stay tuned … or put on goggles.
Remember the old saying, “You can’t make an omelet without a having chicken coop somewhere else.”
“I’m not throwing dirt btw … despite my digging. ”
You claim Hillary lost because of messaging and not her positions.
You hedge your claim Bernie would have lost by at least as much.
The clouds are coming from you whether they be dirt, silt, or clay.
that is really pushing the envelope (as if there were anything remaining of it to push) of the long-standing, We’re-not-quite-as-bad-as-the-other-assholes plank of the Democrat campaign platform.
Apparently the Democrats have realized — just like the Republicans — that a vote is a choice.
There’s little real world difference between “vote for me” and “don’t vote for him/her.” A vote isn’t an essay contest.
If you don’t like that reality, don’t complain to me about it.
i have never actually seen or heard someone vindicate the Democrats’ trademark ever-rightward march and Triangulation as a bald-faced Price is Right bidding method/electioneering strategy . . . unapologetically. it’s as if you’re entirely unaware of the contradiction of attempting to appeal to a sense of “fairness” or moral differentiation.
Then you’re not paying attention — or didn’t pay attention during the 1990s,
The justification for this “electioneering strategy” is exactly, “this is how we win.”
Whether I agree with the strategy or not is beside the point. (I don’t, btw)
It won for Bill Clinton in 1992 and it didn’t win for his wife in 2016 — and this was with a far, far more objectionable candidate that Poppy Bush.
This makes my point. If (let’s call it) “Clintonism” succeeded in 1993 but failed in 2016, why? It’s not enough to say Clintonism failed.
That’s too easy — even facile — an explanation no matter how many times GG repeats it. Calling attention to the moral contradictions inherent in LOTE votes doesn’t help anyone or anything.
It’s just more bombast for the fire.
how many sides of this fence do you think you can reasonably occupy at any given moment?
Human props in all their suffering should never be used to justify or excuse war. Their suffering is no different than that of the families of innocent victims we call “collateral damage.” It is regrettable that so many Presidents use them to excuse military action of questionable justification.
Its not “Sgt. Owens”, He was navy, a Senior Chief Petty Officer(SEAL)
Thanks Glenn, for writing well about the USA disease of venerating self over others. Carryn Owens was abused last night.
Agreed. But that’s politicians for you. Soulless ghouls.
T Rump killed her husband and she allowed him to use her in this way.
Well. She’s probably in a difficult position. She can go against the president without knowing the full story of what happened to her husband, or she can have him honored at a national event. It’s not her fault for being used. The people using her are far too clever for the ordinary citizen to even understand what happened.
yes, but remember, she agreed to be there, so she also made some sort of choice. We won’t know the reasons why she chose to be there, but …
Note, also, please, that a great segment of US media, for reasons I’ll let someone else define, regularly reports the names of Israelis killed in conflict, often giving details about their families, their aspirations (always noble) and their heroic acts.
But rarely does MSM give the same treatment to Palestinian dead. They remain nameless, but never blameless. They are always killed “in retaliation.” They are rarely, if ever, compared to French, Greek or Yugoslav resistance fighters of WW II, even though points of comparison abound.
Don’t want to die a pointless death in a pointless war? Don’t offer yourself up as a cog in the wheels of the MIC. I have no sympathy for people who die while willingly making the world a more dangerous place
A lot of people who join the US Military do so for economic reasons. Sometimes it’s the only way they can pay for college. Blaming the grunt, and not the politicians who created the situation where the military is the only option for a young man or woman, is wrong headed, in my opinion. I’d reserve my anger for your politician, who voted to send them there.
This is more offensive than I intend – but a woman who takes money for sex to support her children is still called a “whore”.
The economic choices outside the military may not be great, but that still does not justify making and executing immoral acts. Germans who were ordered, literally at threat of death, to commit atrocities were prosecuted as war criminals. If I steal to feed my children I am still a thief.
The point being, bad options or no, they are still responsible for their choices.
Only by bigots and boors. The rest of us call her a sex worker.
That assumes a level of informed choice that many simply cannot reasonably be expected to have.
“If I steal to feed my children I am still a thief”
Actually I’m not sure that’s true. Depends on if your children are hungry to the point of endangering their lives. If they are you have a duty to save their lives, and in fact a perfect stranger (while they wouldn’t have a duty to act) could also act to defend their lives. this is no different from acting if the child was threatened in any other way with death. Italy’s supreme court recently ruled on this:
“The condition of the defendant, and the circumstances in which the seizure of merchandise took place, prove that he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of an immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of necessity,” said the court,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stealing-food-not-a-crime-italy_us_57296b6fe4b016f378941ef9
For the most part the military is the only option for the poor, with no way out. Do you know how many immigrants have enlisted, with the hopes of a path to citizenship?
Good story Glenn.
Generally speaking though, this sort of tactic is exemplified by individuality. Notice how it’s always the Lone Soldier.
US media doesn’t cover stories of dozens or hundreds of US soldiers coming home in boxes.
President Bush went to great lengths to hide this from the media. It was just recently that images were obtained by a parent of a soldier.
When images of mass US deaths are shown ant the true cost to Us is seen, it has the opposite effect. That’s why Bush hid them from reporters. So he could continue the longest war in US history.
So true. Excellent point.
One can claim that Carryn Owens was willingly abused yesterday by the President. The US military industrial complex will not complain ! I do however feel a slightly anti-American bias in the above editorial, Glenn.
A lot of the problems and conflicts will go away if those who are in position of power, control and decision-making would adhere to this simple universal principle:
Do not do unto others what you don’t want done unto you.
Or
Do unto others what you want done unto you.
Adherence to this principle allows the human self to stop seeing “other-ness”, for, in reality, we all have the same essence.
Recognizing this is the first step towards seeing each other’s humanity.
The love we have for those who belong to “us” is to experience what love is, and then to work on grooming our self so that this love is extended to “them”.
Especially true for religions with their power structures.
Yes, organized religion can certainly be used for power, control, exploitation and injustices.
At the core of human action is the human self, regardless of one’s religious or non-religious affiliations.
It will produce good results when it reflects the higher consciousness.
However, it is those who are in position of power, control and decision-making, who have wider and deeper effects on humanity.
So it is urgent for them to reflect the higher.
That higher consciousness cannot be realized if it is tethered to belief. Belief is far too random to be considered the basis of spirituality. There can be no Truth (upper-case T) based on the conceptualization of a god or gods. The only Truth is in the moment.
You are not necessarily wrong.
However, in our tradition, it is tethered to inner openings and experiences, which result in inner convictions.
The word, belief, does not have an equivalent word in our spiritual vocabulary.
The focus, nevertheless, is self-development.
And, there are as many ways to do it as there are human beings, for it is an individual quest and effort.
I consider self-development as the primary need of our times.
I have no issues with whatever path, religious or non-religious, one chooses for themselves to do that, or does it without a path.
It is the results that matter, not the path one has taken, which is a very personal thing.
To my memory, I have never said anything about what some call “god”, except once when a commenter here seemed to ask me to provide a scientific evidence of this entity even though I had not mentioned that entity.
Indeed!
That is why, it is so important not to be a prisoner of the past and the future.
Many spiritual paths have techniques for individuals to live in the moment. But I am sure there are non-spiritual ways to learn how to live in the moment.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
Take care,
“Do not do unto others what you don’t want done unto you.
Or
Do unto others what you want done unto you.”
It’s very interesting to analyze these two proscritive statements and see what the hidden assumptions are and which one leads to a better outcome. I’ve done this exercise a few times with my students and they have always been surprised because they thought the two were basically the same but they are so not.
I haven’t seen your comments here in a long time. Nice to see you again.
Yes, there are subtle and deep differences between the two. Definitely.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Take care,
P.S. My commenting or not commenting here is a reflection of my own inner struggle regarding the necessity and value of commenting here. Moreover, I feel that I became quite repetitive a while ago. So there is the issue of lack of new-ness to my comments.
“Moreover, I feel that I became quite repetitive a while ago. “
One cannot repeat this often enough:
“At the core of human action is the human self, regardless of one’s religious or non-religious affiliations.”
True, it’s hard to find unique ways to outline this basic tenet that is universal. But that you try says a lot about you and your journey. For my selfish self, I’m better for having heard it…again.
“A population will only tolerate the ongoing, continual killing of large numbers of civilians if they believe that the innocent victims do not experience human suffering or, more importantly, if that suffering is hidden from them.”
This is an awful, horrific truth. Ignorance – wilful or otherwise – has always been an all-purpose soporific of conscience.
“The reaction to last night’s Owens moment was fascinating because the widespread media contempt for Trump clashed with their instinctive veneration of all matters relating to U.S. war; in most cases, the latter triumphed.”
And this, also indisputably true, is just depressing.
Well said Glenn.
Great story, Glenn, but I have to do it: Owens was a Chief, an E7 in the Navy. The Navy does not have the title of SGT (E5), we instead use the term Second Class Petty Officer for E5 (E stands for enlisted or grunts). You have demoted Chief Owens two ranks by calling him a sergeant. Not sure if it was intentional or not, part of the story, but some people will be very upset about it. Just letting you know.
WAR a monument to the STUPIDITY of man !
Yeah…politicians just love to pretend to care.