Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 3. August 2004 / Timeline August 3, 2004
Version 3.52. August 2004, 4. August 2004
08/03/2004
Iraq Veterans Against the War
By: Alexander Zaitchik
NEWS & COLUMNS
http://www.nypress.com/17/30/news&columns/AlexanderZaitchik.cfm
Back in March, the Army released the results of a poll conducted
to gauge frontline morale in Iraq. It was hardly a shocker to learn
that most of those stationed there almost a year after the fall of
Baghdad weren't very happy about it. Confirming an earlier study
published by the military paper Stars and Stripes, the Army found
that morale was "low or very low" among a slight majority of U.S.
soldiers, while almost three-quarters felt that battalion-level
leadership showed a "lack of concern" for their safety.
The report was a wake-up call for a military establishment still
haunted by Vietnam. When the rank and file soured on that war,
G.I.s didn't just shoot themselves—the Iraq poll was
commissioned after a rash of suicides—they famously turned
their guns and grenades upon their superiors. By 1970, "fragging"
unpopular officers rivaled the mainlining of Burmese brown as a
popular jungle pastime. Desertion shot way up; reenlistment way
down. The breakdown of the U.S. war machine in Indochina was so
complete that some observers called it the biggest military
collapse since the Tsarist armies abandoned the Eastern Front.
Writing in the June 1971 issue of the Armed Forces Journal, Col.
Robert D. Heinl described the U.S. military as "drug ridden and
dispirited where not near mutinous."
It took about six years to reach this boiling point in Vietnam. If
more than half the troops in Iraq were losing faith after a single
year of relatively few casualties, how could U.S. commanders expect
to maintain the discipline, order and morale needed for the long
haul? Upon the poll's release, a senior army commander told the
Washington Post he was "extremely worried by the numbers," adding
that they should "set off alarm bells."
It's now been four months since the Army released its study. One
hundred and thirty-six thousand U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq; many
are neck-deep in their second brutal summer. The one-thousandth
American casualty is loosely scheduled for late August. There is no
discussion of setting a date for U.S. withdrawal, even though the
Bush administration's case for the war has already been judged and
shredded by History. Yet disruptive manifestations of widespread
discontent among the ranks have not materialized. As of this
writing, there are still only four known cases of soldiers refusing
to deploy. Instances of outright combat refusal in Iraq have
remained few and far between. To the Pentagon's surprise and
relief, the branches are hitting or nearing their expanded
recruitment goals. It's three months before a presidential election
in which both candidates vow to continue the bloody occupation, and
the highest-profile symbols of anger in the military are a few
pro-Kerry vets in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. What's wrong
with this picture?
Tod Ensign, director of New York-based Citizen Soldier, a
non-profit G.I.-rights advocacy organization, attributes the lack
of public dissent to the relatively fresh wound of 9/11, which
fueled patriotism and created an immediate sense of war that has
been manipulated by the Bush administration. He also points to the
economy.
"The thinking is, 'This really sucks, but it's all I've got,'" says
Ensign. "They want the G.I. Bill, they want their college loans
repaid. It's not like the late-60s, when you could walk down the
street and get another job. The cost of refusing is very high."
Still, there are signs that more soldiers may be getting ready to
take their chances. The G.I. Rights Hotline, which provides
counseling to soldiers considering deployment refusal or
conscientious-objector status, claims it is now handling 3000 calls
a month—a 50 percent increase from what it received in
2003.
Another possible storm cloud over the now-quiet Iraqi front is the
founding of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), which announced
itself to the world last Thursday at a press conference in Boston.
The IVAW advocates immediate withdrawal and seeks to create
political pressure at home while encouraging active-duty soldiers,
reservists and recent veterans to come forward and speak out
against the occupation. The founding membership totals just
12—double the number that hatched Vietnam Veterans Against
the War in 1967. Within two years that group had grown to more than
30,000 active members demanding an end to the war, including a
returning Navy lieutenant named John Kerry.
Michael Hoffman, co-founder of IVAW, stormed Baghdad with a First
Marine Division artillery battery and observed the early months of
the occupation from Tikrit, an experience that confirmed his worst
fears. Not only was the war based and sold on lies, he says, U.S.
troops are the problem in post-Saddam Iraq—not the solution.
Upon his return he began working with veterans groups opposing the
occupation, activity that led directly to the founding of IVAW,
which he hopes will provide an outlet for the widespread G.I. anger
he believes is simmering in Iraq.
"The organization will fill a void," says Hoffman. "It's really
hard for guys over there to express themselves. Any of their
stories that we can relay is a big thing, because the picture we're
getting is filtered. The guys with the lowest morale are the guys
with the least access to computers—in Najaf, Samarra,
Fallujah. The guys in Baghdad who have it the best have the access
to the computers all the time. The ones who are pushed out to the
other areas are getting the worst of it. Right now there's no
outlet for anti-war feeling. We'll be a magnet for venting. I
expect a lot of people to come out of the woodwork."
One of the groups Hoffman contacted upon his return from Iraq was
Military Families Speak Out, until the founding of IVAW the closest
thing to a megaphone for antiwar sentiment among the enlisted. MFSO
began with two families in November of 2002; it now contains more
than 1500 families with new members joining every day. Co-founder
Nancy Lessin, whose stepson completed a tour of Iraq last year,
says the organization's growth tends to follow the news, especially
when the president says something callous or stupid. When Bush
declared the end of major combat on May 1, 2003 ("We knew that it
was such a lie," she moans), membership exploded. When Bush
taunted, "Bring 'em on!" in the face of rising Iraqi resistance,
the phone calls and emails poured in.
Even if a groundswell of public refusers does emerge out of the
work of groups like IVAW and MFSO, Tod Ensign worries that the
support network won't be in place to handle it. During the height
of the Vietnam War, there was a developed ring of counseling
centers and coffee houses entrenched around U.S. bases all over the
world, agitating against the war and offering legal assistance.
There is currently only one such center, near Fort Bragg, called
Quaker House. "If 10 to 20 people came forward tomorrow," says
Ensign, "it would enormously strain whatever resources are out
there. These are very difficult cases."
IVAW's Mike Hoffman is sadly confident that the occupation will
drag on, and that many more than 20 soldiers will soon come out
against it, led by returning vets. "If the war continues the way it
is," he says, "I expect something like what happened in Vietnam.
They have a chance to pull out the troops, but if the government
sticks to its guns, it's gonna happen."
Should John Kerry be in the White House when Iraq veterans start
tossing their medals in its direction, the irony will be thick. We
know Kerry the decorated veteran can throw, but can he catch?
Volume 17, Issue 30
© 2004 New York Press
08/03/2004
EURO-MPs RISK ARREST TO HALT WORK ON NEW NUKE FACTORY
http://www.jeanlambertmep.org.uk/downloads/pressrel_articles/0408Aldermaston.htm
TWO Euro-MPs risk arrest after pledging to join a campaign of
non-violent direct action to halt construction of a laser facility
for testing 'the next generation of nuclear weapons' at the atomic
Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, Berkshire.
Green Party MEPs Caroline Lucas (South-East England) and Jean
Lambert (London) have joined more than 30 peace campaigners -
including CND Chair Kate Hudson and veterans of the Greenham Common
Women's Peace Camp - in agreeing to physically obstruct and prevent
construction of the planned 'Orion' Laser Facility when work starts
next year.
Caroline Lucas, who was arrested in 2002 for 'breaching the peace'
during a non-violent demonstration at the Trident nuclear Submarine
base in Faslane, Scotland, said: "This proposed facility is an
assault on local health, local democracy and world peace.
"It breaches the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and flies in the
face of the International Court of Justice's 1996 ruling that the
use or threat of nuclear weapons would be unlawful.
"I will be pursuing all legal means to 'block the builders' and
prevent the construction of the Orion Laser facility at Aldermaston
- or anywhere else."
Their decision to join the 'block the builders' campaign comes as
the world mourns the anniversary of the dropping of the first
nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 7th, 1945.
Jean Lambert, who visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki and met relatives
and survivors of the blasts which brought us into the nuclear age,
said:
"I have seen at first hand the devastation caused by nuclear
weapons - and the human price still being paid more than half a
century on.
"The Government's commitment to nuclear weapons is an extraordinary
and counterproductive waste of money too: there are so many better
things we could be spending our money on to contribute to world
peace than finding better and more efficient ways to blow ourselves
up.
"As long as the Government remains committed to researching and
developing new nuclear weapons systems, and as long as the
international institutions and agreements fail to stop it, I will
remain an active campaigner in the non-violent resistance to this
unlawful escalation of Weapons of Mass Destruction."
The proposed Orion laser facility is designed to replicate the
conditions of a nuclear explosion in a 100-metre building and is
expected to play an essential role in the testing of new nuclear
weapons, currently being designed in the US.
The non-violent 'block the builders' campaign has been initiated by
the Aldermaston Women's Peace Campaign, which has joined 90 local
authorities in calling for a full public inquiry into the Orion
facility - a demand which the government has so far ignored.
A spokesperson said: "The developments [at AWE] should be subject
to both public and parliamentary scrutiny. If the Government won't
let either the public or parliament discuss its plans then we will
use all non-violent means at our disposal to stop this facility
being built.
"The Government has strenuously denied any plans to build new
nuclear weapons - but, after Iraq, why should anyone believe
anything it says about Weapons of Mass Destruction?"
 |
 |