Edwin Starr sang it loud in 1970.

War, huh (good God y’all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War (uh-huh), huh (yeah, huh)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me

You can see the full lyrics here. Starr was lucky to live in the USA where War not only got widespread airplay, but spent three weeks at number 1 on the Billboard charts. Starr’s intense anti-Vietnam War anthem hit a cord.

Imagine such a thing happening in Russia today, where any public criticism of the Kremlin line in its bloodthirsty and unprovoked war in Ukraine guarantees its citizens up to 15 years of jail time, no redress admitted. In Russia, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is fake news.

Edwin Starr’s War is just one in a long line of anti-war, protest and solidarity songs that are enshrined in our collective conscience. Joan Baez did her part with We Shall Overcome. Marvin Gaye gave us all a wake-up call with What’s Going On. John Lennon pushed us to Imagine. Dolores O’Riordan summed up the Northern Ireland conflict with Zombie. Jimi Hendrix sang there are many here among us who think that life is just a joke when he electrified Bob Dylan’s All Along The Watchtower. Putin foretold.

Putin miscalculated on many fronts, military, intellectual, strategic and cultural. His generals and foot soldiers are dying in unprecedented numbers on his self-determined battlefield. His true support comes only from those Russians and Belarussians brainwashed or ignorant of the facts, a situation that Putin facilitated by shutting down any and all media outlets that might have found him accountable. In terms of Russia’s importance in the world, Putin has sent his country back to the Soviet dark ages. And he completely underestimated the connectivity that defines the world outside of Russia in 2022.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is being photographed, televised, YouTube’d and tweeted in real time. Russia has no escape from the atrocities in which it is now complicit. Putin has no escape here. He is forever going to be damned for leading his country to disaster and for lending his reputation, or what is left of it, to a Russia diminished.

Putin was once an able chameleon, biding his time in a background role on the world stage. But now, thanks to his recklessness and inflated ego, he finds himself an emperor without clothes in a real world that has coalesced, and how, against him. It turns out that Putin is just the latest version of the Russian tyrant, dictator, despot and oppressor that we once knew as Stalin. Stalin died by natural causes. Putin can only wish for the same.

How do you protest such evil in song?

At a moment when so many people are dying daily in Ukraine, it may seem inconsequential, but it’s not.

Pink Floyd put out their first new song in 28 years to protest Putin’s self-delusional brain fart in attempting to redefine a Russia-centric world. Floyd’s song was called Hey Hey Rise Up, and featured Andriy Khlyvnyuk of Boombox singing in Ukrainian. And even though it spent a short time atop the Apple US Chart, the song didn’t resonate.

But then came Florence + the Machine. By some mechanism of chance, Florence Welch went to Kyiv in late 2021 to film the video for her latest release. This was months before the onslaught of Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine. By coincidence, or not, Florence’s song is called Free. Hers is not a protest song at all on the surface. Her song is an upbeat pop/rock dance track. Florence did the video with the actor Bill Nighy as her side portraying her anxiety. The lyrics don’t obsess over political freedom even though the video ends with Florence and her anxiety overlooking a graveyard in Ukraine. But Florence does sign off on the video with a dedication to the spirit, creativity and perseverance of our brave Ukrainian friends, and notes that the video was filmed with Ukrainian filmmakers and artists, whose radiant freedom can never be extinguished. The song may not be protest per se, but the video keeps Kyiv and Ukraine front and center on YouTube. It’s already been seen more than 2,144,546 times.

Keep in mind that not all solidarity songs need to be anti-war. Does anybody remember the Andrews Sisters? They had a huge hit during World War 2 with Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy. The Andrews Sisters great contribution to ending the Second World War was in making our soldiers feel valued, loved, important and appreciated in song. The lyrics were secondary. The Andrews Sisters made everyone feel that a future with good times was still possible.

Just a week ago, Ed Sheeran premiered a new song 2step with a video also filmed in Kyiv before the Russian attack began. Sheeren is donating the royalties of his song to Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal. The DEC website reminds us that 18 million people are projected to be affected by Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, and that 12 million Ukrainians, more than a quarter of the population, have so far had to flee their homes. Ed Sheeren and Florence Welch show us just how badly Putin miscalculated. Ukraine was already firmly integrated, accepted and understood as European long before Putin’s botched attempt to claim it for himself and Russia.

Unfortunately, nobody in Putin’s coterie of yes-men gave him the message.

The post War, huh (good God y’all) What is it good for? Absolutely nothing appeared first on Occasional Planet.

President Joe Biden did something that his three predecessors failed to do during their nearly twenty years of presiding over America’s longest war. Biden leveled with the American people and told them that the war that they were fighting in Afghanistan was one which they were not going to win. That was Truth to Power, something that rarely comes from the mouth of someone in Power. He said that he was taking action to forthwith remove American troops, contractors and support personnel from Afghanistan.

It was time for a president to acknowledge to American and global citizens that if there had been a good time for the United States to extricate itself from Afghanistan, it would have been shortly after air strikes flattened key Al Qaeda positions in 2002-2003. Since then, any chance of “winning” the war had long since passed. No matter how many corners could be turned in the future, America and its allies were not going to win a war in Afghanistan.

Biden’s willingness to say that the United States was leaving Afghanistan; his courage to follow through on this pledge indicate how remarkable both he and his actions have been. This is particularly so in comparison to American presidents of the recent past.

Biden’s courage to take responsibility for a final resolution of this chapter of American conflict with Afghanistan is the headline. It should remain that way for weeks, months, even years to come. It is difficult to think of any action by any American president since the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson chose to fight for human and economic rights for minorities and poor white people in America that matched what Biden did.

However, as well received as Biden’s decision has been by most of the American people, there has not been a concurrent “trickle down” of support reaching many of the fine men and women in the American media.

No sooner had President Biden delivered his remarkable speech on August 16 than MSNBC cable journalists Nicolle Wallace and Brian Williams agreed that “95% of the American people will love the speech, and 95% of the press will hate it.” Kudos to them for being so spot on and brutally honest about their colleagues in the media.

The response of most of the media to the Biden speeches in many ways reflects the theater of the absurd. Prior to the speeches, if you could have gathered leading media commentators around in an informal gathering and asked them what they would suggest that the United States do about Afghanistan, it almost a sure bet that most would have said that the United States has to get out of Afghanistan. They might further add that the U.S. has to analyze the wars in which it has engaged since its last “victory” in 1945 in World War II and learn how to avoid going to wars which have “loser” written all over them. Finally, should the U.S. once again become involved in a war in which it has no way out other than formally or informally turning tail and leaving, it needs to rehearse Biden’s script on how to say “enough is enough.”

Members of the media seem to suffer from the same malady as other well-educated people who take their particular profession too seriously. Journalists lock themselves into the norms and standards of their profession and remove themselves from the grounding that comes from seeing oneself first as a human being and a reporter second.

No sooner had Biden delivered his seminal speech than they criticized the president with nit-picky questions and comments about the American extrication. There is legitimate grounding to many of their questions, particularly about the strategy and logistics of the final days in Kabul. However, the tone expressed by many of the journalists is snarky and absent of praise for the bold and thoughtful actions taken by Biden.

This is not to imply that no critical questions should be allowed in a press conference when journalists speak “Truth to Power” as clearly as Joe Biden did. Biden spoke the “Truth” about America’s presence in Afghanistan. He may have overlooked some of the smaller “truths” about the difficulties that American forces were facing in the final extrication.

For example, when he stated that there was no way for him and his advisors to know that the Taliban might be able to seize the capital city of Kabul and the area surrounding the Hamid Karzai Airport, that simply does not jibe with the on-the-ground reporting that we have seen and the video that accompanies it. When Biden was not straight about events that both the media and citizens could clearly see, then it undermined the credibility of his assertions about the wisdom of terminating the presence of American troops in Afghanistan immediately.

Media tends to consistently give itself a free pass. This is unfair for so many reasons. When vitriol is directed at Joe Biden as if he were Donald Trump, then the media’s checks and balances on Trump are undermined. The way for the media to enhance its credibility, and to gain more support from the American people, is for journalists to operate as human beings first and reporters second. We tend to admire politicians who speak to us as if they were across the table from us in our kitchen; the same holds true for journalists. The media is the lens through which we learn so much about what is going on in the world, our country, our regions and our localities. No need for grandstanding; just some low-drama honesty and truthfulness.

The post When a President Hits a Home Run, don’t criticize him for wearing the wrong color shoelaces. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Whether he was pushed out or resigned, Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer did not leave quietly. When Trump meddled in the disposition of several military justice cases, he stepped over the line, Spencer implied in his resignation letter, saying, “I have strived to ensure our proceedings are fair, transparent and consistent, from the newest recruit to the Flag and General Officer level. Unfortunately, it has become apparent that in this respect, I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

As Commander-in-Chief, Trump has the right to meddle in Naval justice, but just because he can do it t doesn’t mean he should. No one is sure why Trump pardoned two convicted war criminals and insisted that the Navy SEALS not demote another who, although acquitted of murdering a civilian, was seen by the Navy as not living up to its standards of conduct. (He posed for photos with the body of a teenage captive and reportedly threatened to kill SEALS who reported his misconduct.)

Apparently, right-wing media love Trump’s unprecedented micro-management of a military justice matter, and may even have pushed Trump toward it. Trump himself has been characterized as saying that the military should be more “savage.”  In the meantime, the Secretary of the Navy, as well as—it’s rumored—top brass in other branches of the military see this development as undermining the military justice system and the rule of law. They also see it as lowering the standards for conduct. One commentator I heard on NPR said that, in the future, when we criticize other countries for killing civilians, we’ll have no moral ground to stand on.

Here is Spencer’s resignation letter:

Dear Mr. President:

It has been the extreme honor of a lifetime to stand alongside the men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps team in the protection of the American people and the values we all hold dear.

Together we have made great strides over the past two years. strengthening the foundation of our readiness, and bolstering our constellation of allies and partners, to respond wherever needed with the honor and professionalism that have marked our force for the past 244 years.

Now more than ever, the United States Navy and Marine Corps stands ready and firm in every part of the globe, fueled at all times by our greatest resource – the men and women who wear the uniform. Many of them will soon miss their Thanksgiving dinners at home so that they can continue the watch beyond the curve of the horizon. They and their families are, and will forever be, my personal heroes.

As Secretary of the Navy, one of the most important responsibilities I have to our people is to maintain good order and discipline throughout the ranks. I regard this as deadly serious business. The lives of our Sailors, Marines and civilian teammates quite literally depend on the professional execution our many missions, and they also depend on the ongoing faith and support of the people we serve and the allies we serve alongside.

The rule of law is what sets us apart from our adversaries. Good order and discipline is what has enabled our victory against foreign tyranny time and again, from Captain Lawrence’s famous order “Don’t Give up the Ship” to the discipline and determination that propelled our flag to the highest point of Iwo Jima.

The Constitution, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are the shields that set us apart, and the beacons that protect us all. Through my Title Ten Authority, I have strived to ensure our proceedings are fair, transparent and consistent, from the newest recruit to the Flag and General Officer level.

Unfortunately, it has become apparent that in this respect, I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President deserves and should expect a Secretary of the Navy who is aligned with his vision for the future of our force generation and sustainment. Therefore, with pride in the achievements we’ve shared, and everlasting faith in the continued service and fidelity of the finest Sailors, Marines and civilian teammates on earth, I hereby acknowledge my termination as United States Secretary of the Navy, to be effective immediately.

I will forever be grateful for every opportunity to have served, from my days as a Marine, to the extreme honor of serving as the 76th Secretary of the Navy. My wife Polly and I stand in appreciation and admiration of the patriots who today forge the next link in the unbroken chain of our Navy and Marine Corps, and we urge all Americans to keep them, and their families, in their hearts and prayers through this holiday season and beyond.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to serve.

Respectfully yours,

Richard V. Spencer

The post Secretary of Navy resigns after Trump undermines military justice appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I have to share some thoughts about how we are being manipulated into repeating the falsehood that our military men and women are “fighting to protect our freedom.” Everywhere you look, we are forced to see and hear this over and over… at ballgames, big ads in the paper, fundraisers for military families, etc. The fact is that humans have been fighting for power and over resources since the first caveman hit his neighbor over the head with a club in order to steal his food.

The post Fighting to protect our freedom? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

(reprinted from Midwest Socialist)

Francis Horton is that rarest of U.S. soldiers: a leftist and self-identifying socialist. Born in Missouri in 1983, he joined the U.S. Army in July of 2000 and served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and various NATO countries. Currently he serves as a Public Affairs Non-Comissioned Officer and lives in St. Louis. He is also the creator of What a Hell of a Way to Die, a podcast examining military politics from a left perspective. After gaining some popularity on Twitter (@armystrang) and an appearance on Chapo Trap House, Horton launched the podcast over a year ago and was soon joined by fellow soldier Nate Bethea. It’s a witty, fun, and informative look at the absurdities of military life and American empire.

Are you a DSA member or member of any other socialist or left group? To what extent is political involvement curtailed for on- and off-duty soldiers, particularly PA officers?

I am not a member of the DSA because I am aware that there are some in the DSA and other leftist organizations who wouldn’t feel comfortable with a currently serving member of the military in the ranks. Though I am familiar with my local DSA chapter and have done a meet and greet with them at a local gun range.

I’ve never noticed political involvement being curtailed. The UCMJ (Uniform code of military justice, basically our laws in the military) say troops are encouraged to be active in politics, but we can’t wear our uniforms or belong to hate groups. My commander isn’t really concerned with anything we do as long as it isn’t illegal, nor are most leaders. The important thing is keeping it to yourself and not bringing it into work, just like any other job. My job in public affairs isn’t anymore a help or hindrance really. Though I do hear stories from time to time about leaders who try to push their politics onto their soldiers. As always, it depends on the person above you. Personally I’ve been to rallies and protests and no one seems to care as long as you aren’t breaking anything.

What were your politics like before joining the army? What was your reason for joining?

I can’t say I really had politics before joining as I was 17. I voted for Bush in an absentee ballot in Afghanistan in 2004 with the resounding logic of “Well he started it so I guess he should finish it out,” which we see how well that went today. I was 20 and didn’t know any better, which should be a little frightening when it comes to who is doing the voting in this country. I’m from Missouri though, so my presidential choices don’t mean squat. As for why I joined, I guess I saw my incredible privilege as something I owed back to the country and not exactly what it was, the privilege of being born a straight white dude into a middle class Midwest family. Though I got lucky as my father is a socialist as well, but never really talked politics at the dinner table. I didn’t have to deal with super racist family members as even they knew better than that.

These days, I know I joined because I was bored and had no idea what I was planning to do with my life at 17. I knew I didn’t want to go to college, and figured I’d join the reserves. Not like we were at war or anything. 

What caused you to move left or explicitly identify as leftist or socialist?

I suppose I moved left after the 2016 election, though it was a direction I was always headed. I saw that democrat leaders were staying beholden to whatever was going to keep making them money, and I was tired of being scolded by Hillary supporters for daring to question voting for more of the same. I saw that better things were possible and I was mad people wanted to keep it the same for their own selfish reasons. That’s not how you have a healthy country and it’s not how you stay strong together.

What caused you to start What a Hell of a Way to Die?

I felt there had to be more veterans and soldiers like me. And not even necessarily socialist, but certainly not right leaning. Nate and I get messages all the time thanking us for being a voice for the more left veteran community, and I think that’s why we like to keep doing it. As someone still serving on a contract, the world has somehow become even more uncertain and awful for troops, and it’s good to know there are others you can reach out to and have that connection you might not be able to find in your own unit.

I also wanted to be a bridge between the military and the civilian world as there’s a huge gap between the two. Many civilians don’t know a troop, and I want to be more accessible to them.

Besides your podcast, are there outlets for discussion and promotion of socialist thought in the veteran community? You’ve written for Task and Purpose, is that a potential opportunity for left-wing veterans?

My writing isn’t particularly socialist for T&P, and I’ve bee approached a few times for pitches as a socialist veteran, but veterans don’t read Jacobin. The easiest way to spread a message of socialism is to show troops they’re already living it. Guaranteed housing or housing stipend, education benefits for you and your family, guaranteed healthcare, tax-free shopping, maternity leave, 30 days paid vacation from day one. We have it really good on active duty. Once you get out into the civilian world, you find it a lot harder. I’ve met more than one veteran try to scramble back into the military or go back to active duty following separation because, as hard as we think we have it in the Army, it’s really hard out here for civilians.

Service members are stereotypically reactionary; How frequently does one encounter left-leaning soldiers and vets?

I don’t meet left leaning veterans because I don’t talk about my politics in ranks to anyone other than people I already know lean Democrat. And even then it’s sparse. It’s not that I don’t trust people to not do some kind of witch hunt, but I just don’t want to deal with a lecture, nor do I want anyone to think I’m lecturing them.

Thomas Frank wrote in What’s the Matter With Kansas about how many Vietnam vets leaned left rather than right. What do you think has changed since then?

When Vietnam vets came home, they weren’t greeted with the heroes welcome veterans today enjoy. Vietnam was a war that took kids from their families and flung them overseas to a war most people couldn’t understand why we were fighting for so long. The image of the soldier coming home was a perfect target for a nation mad at their government. Like screaming at the customer-service representative when the electric company raises your rates, it was an outlet for rage, and the victims of that rage stood against the war themselves many times. Not only was it shit overseas, but it was now shit at home.

Today veterans are put up on a pedestal for joining and going overseas. It’s actually a very impressive massaging of propaganda aimed at the civilian masses to support the troops, even if you’re against the war. But at this point, no one who is a troop has an excuse. The war has been going for 16 years and it’s ramping back up. But this time the deployments are small enough that the volunteer military can fill in (even though the cracks in our ranks are showing and we’re absolutely not ready for any of the conventional wars we’re beating the drum for). Couple that with extremely low fatality rates in a nation that doesn’t even slow down when 500 people are wounded at a madman opening fire on a concert in Las Vegas and you have a country that is placated.

Maybe it’s also that some of us are spoiled. They were told they were owed and they still have their hands out asking for things. Asking for your respect. Asking you to shut up because the troop is talking and you’re just a weak civilian who never joined because you’re a pussy. Really there’s lots of small things that I think make this big right-wing stew. Isolation and insulation away from the civilian world and thinking that because we dragged a rifle across a foreign country we suddenly have some trump card in any argument.

That was super rambling, but I think it will make a good podcast episode after I sort my brain out a bit more.

St. Louis has been at the center of movements for racial equality in the last decade or so. How have soldiers reacted to the protests surrounding Ferguson (2014) and the Stockley verdict (2017)? Do servicemen find anything objectionable about the militarization of local police departments? How about you personally?

Lots of troops are against the militarization of the police because the cops are getting weapons that they don’t have the same training regimen as we do. Combat troops are always (in theory at least) training on their various weapons systems. When you aren’t actually doing war, you’re practicing. Police don’t have that same luxury and end up driving black MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) out to a peaceful protest in case it gets violent. Those things are meant to keep you safe from anti-tank mines, you don’t need it if someone chucks a bottle at you.

I’ve watched our police department make mistake after mistake with the people of this city and the people who protest, but that’s more of incompetent leadership than anything else. Some of the soldiers I’m around are of the mindset that “protest is fine, just don’t bother me with it,” which is a hard hill to climb and I generally don’t get into it during my weekend duties.

On What a Hell of a Way to Die, you speak facetiously about being an “imperial stooge” and the like. How do you reconcile left-wing, anti-imperial politics with working for what the left considers to be an imperial entity? How do you respond to leftists who feel service members should not be a part of revolutionary politics?

Every troop has to make peace with who and what they are. I can’t get out of the Army without financially screwing myself for the rest of my life, but I’ve found a little corner I can coast out to the end of my contract without contributing too much to the global imperial war machine. For myself and my past in the military, I can only admit that I wasn’t paying attention when I was in, and promising myself to do better with open ears and an open heart in the future.

As for the ones who say I have no part in revolutionary politics, it’s nothing new. As I said, I’m not a member of the DSA or PSL because there are those who wouldn’t feel comfortable with me. But to me, the point of socialism in being inclusive, not exclusive. Will you turn away the person who was a bootstrap conservative if they have a change of heart just to be petty? If so, your socialism needs to be checked, because it’s not one I want to participate in anyway.

Personally, I have little local things I’m a part of to help and give back to the community. For me, the real socialism is finding the people near you and doing what you can to help them if they need it. National politics is fine, but it’s not helping the person down the street with an empty cupboard.

What is the most important thing civilian leftists should know about the military and service members?

We exist, and there’s more than I thought there were. And to not hold service in the military against people. I reenlisted twice because they offered me money, school, and healthcare. If you can’t understand why in this time that might be attractive, then you aren’t paying attention. And don’t discount Democrat troops either. Maybe they aren’t into socialism, but they can still be allies and they can still fight for the things they enjoy in the military, such as housing and healthcare. Some democrats are going to need coaxing over to the left, but it’s important to not shout them down because their politics don’t fully align with yours. Though mostly I only see that online. In person, people are generally more polite.

A century ago, the Midwest was the breeding ground for left movements like the Populists and the Socialist Party. Do you see any hope for a leftward shift in the region? In particular, among the region’s service members and veterans?

I bring up Southern Missouri as a perfect place to kickstart a new socialist movement. I often hear the same with Appalachia because it shares the same economic demographics. The problem with rural areas in the country, and I don’t just mean flyover states, I mean outside the big cities, is that they are largely ignored politically. Democrats see them as lost causes and Republicans do drive-by handshakes on their way to expensive fundraising dinners. But no one actually addresses the issues happening in those areas, like massive opiate problems and crippling poverty. In some ways, Being born in a trailer park can be just as hard to claw your way out of as an inner city. You don’t leave your financial class.

I think soldiers have a unique position as potential ambassadors to these areas. Your average infantry platoon of 40-ish troops will vary wildly from rural Texas, San Francisco, the bayou of Louisiana, at least a couple guys born in foreign countries, and an NYC guy. They all have to work and live together and find a way to talk and get along. I wasn’t born in Southern Missouri, but I know most of the roads, I can put on the accent, and I’m handy with a 12 gauge on a turkey hunt. I also want to make sure you can get that thing checked out at the doctor that’s suddenly started aching but your hours got cut and you can’t afford a 5k deductible.

Francis Horton can be found on Twitter (@armystrang). What a Hell of a Way to Die is available on a variety of podcasting platforms such as SoundCloud and Apple Podcasts. It is free, but Horton offers bonus content to supporters of his Patreon.

The post What a Hell of a Way to Organize: An Interview With Francis Horton appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If we needed to be re-awakened, the PBS Series “The Vietnam War” reminded us that men and women who served in Vietnam were certainly treated differently by the American people than those currently returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, Niger, and wherever. Disrespect was expressed towards many of those who returned from Vietnam, even though few had anything to do with defining the mission. Most were drafted, and they certainly deserved a pass, particularly from citizens such as me who found ways to avoid the military.

There is little doubt that a man or woman who serves in the military deserves special respect. Short of going to prison, they cede more personal freedom than virtually all others in our work force. In many cases, they put their lives in danger. The psychological tolls of sacrificed individual liberty and high personal risk are demonstrably high.

If we cast our gaze only on those who serve in the military, then it might make sense to place them on a pedestal. But as difficult as their lives may be, most of the rest of us face difficult challenges and often overcome them. Standard practice is not for us or our families to be given stars of any color for our service, even though we contribute as much or more towards enriching our society.

For a moment, think of the United States as being the 2017 Los Angeles Dodgers. This is the team with the best regular season record in the Major Leagues. They may well win the World Series to cap this outstanding season. But let us not forget that near the end of the season, they lost eleven games in a row and sixteen out of seventeen.

A reality check shows that when it comes to the post- World War II military record of the United States against under nations, it is not that different from the low-point of the Dodgers’ 2017 season. Korea may have been a very honorable draw, particularly at a time when we did not know whether the concept of “bleeding red communism” was a potential threat or a real one. Even with Vietnam, there was still uncertainty about the threat of communism.

But Vietnam became a loss for the United States, and it appears to be a compounded loss because we seemingly have not learned some clear lessons from the war. Perhaps the most succinct way to view these lessons is to apply the U.S. experience in Vietnam to major tenets of the Just War Theory, a concept that has withstood the test of time over several millennia.

1. War should be a last resort policy

Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

2. There should be proportionality in war

The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.

3. War must be fought for a just cause

The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

4. War must achieve comparative justice

While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

5. War must be fought with the right intention

Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

6. In war, there must be a high probability of success

Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

With virtually all of these factors, the U.S. has made serious mistakes in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. It’s as if the Just War Theory had never been written and no one tried to learn lessons from Vietnam.

Part of the collateral damage of misguided American overseas ventures is that we bend over backwards to not associate the men and women in uniform with their missions. We want to give them a break which includes not attaching them to the foolishness of some of what they do. We would do better to help them earn their honor through purposeful missions.

Some Republicans have said that we should not discuss US policy in the wake of the tragic deaths of four soldiers. These are the same voices who are saying that we cannot discuss gun control in the wake of mass shootings.

Policy must always be on the table, regardless of gold stars, guns, or a host of other items that often prohibit us from improving the quality of life for Americans and others around the world.  In the meantime, the U.S. should concentrate on being like the Dodgers and putting more stars in the ‘W’ column, a column that hopefully does not involve war.

The post What we don’t say about the Gold Stars appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Recently, many of us learned that the US has troops stationed in Niger and in other African nations. The news came as a surprise to many—not the least of whom was Sen. Lindsay Graham [R-SC], who is a long-time member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and who often touts his credentials as a foreign policy wonk.

“I didn’t know there was 1,000 troops in Niger,” Graham told NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. “They are going to brief us next week as to why they were there and what they were doing.”

It has to make you wonder: Where else in Africa does the US have troops? How many are there? And what is their mission?

One person who seems to know a great deal about this subject is Nick Turse, who writes at Tom Dispatch.com, and who published a book in 2015 called Tomorrow’s Battlefield: US Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa. A summary of the book says:

You won’t see segments about it on the nightly news or read about it on the front page of America’s newspapers, but the Pentagon is fighting a new shadow war in Africa, helping to destabilize whole countries and preparing the ground for future blowback. Behind closed doors, U.S. officers now claim that “Africa is the battlefield of tomorrow, today.”

What is AFRICOM?

The US military presence is not new. US troops have been stationed in African nations since 2007, mostly as part of Special Operations units. They are overseen by U.S. Africa Command [AFRICOM], a unit that is only now, in light of the recent ambush in Niger, beginning to get press coverage. AFRICOM’s headquarters is in Stuttgart, Germany, rather than in Africa, because, according to an NPR report, “While many African nations welcome the U.S. assistance, they aren’t interested in a high-profile U.S. presence.”

Much of the US’s engagement in African nations comes by way of Joint Combined Exchange Training, known informally as JCET missions. The budget for these operations in Africa has been growing in recent years, and that budget escalation reflects a steady rise in the number of special operations forces deployed in African nations.

According to CBS News,

The US has roughly 800 military personnel temporarily deployed to Niger, and roughly 6,000 military personnel spread across the continent.

Turse reports that on average,

Special Operations are “routinely engaged in about half of Africa’s 54 nations… Special Operations Command Africa [SOCAFRICA], is busy year round in 22 partner nations.”

As an example of the scope of US presence, U.S. Special Operations forces conducted 20 JCETs in Africa during 2014, according to documents obtained from SOCOM.  These missions were carried out in 10 countries, up from eight a year earlier.  Four took place in both Kenya and Uganda; three in Chad; two in both Morocco and Tunisia; and one each in Djibouti, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania.

A few nations host the bulk of US military personnel. CBS News reports that:

Djibouti is one of the world’s smallest countries, but it currently hosts more US military personnel than any other African nations. Roughly 4,000 U.S. military personnel on the continent are temporarily deployed to Djibouti.

U.S. troops have been in Djibouti for years. Camp Lemonnier is the only permanent U.S. base in Africa, and serves as a key outpost for surveillance and combat operations against al Qaeda and other extremist groups in the region.

The country with the second most U.S. military personnel deployed there is Niger, with roughly 800, according to AFRICOM. Next comes Somalia, Djibouti’s neighbor, with roughly 400 U.S. military personnel. The fourth nation in terms of U.S. military personnel is Cameroon, with more than 100.

Reportedly, the US has one drone base in Niger, and is working on a second one.

It should be noted, though, that exact figures are hard to come by, and Turse points out the many discrepancies in counts that come from different military sources. The question then becomes, “does anyone really know what America’s most elite force are doing in Africa?”

What are we doing?

The Pentagon says that US troops are in Africa “support African partners, alongside allies like France, with the goal of increasing the African nations’ own security capabilities and stabilize the region.”

NPR says,

In almost all of the missions, the Americans are there to advise, assist and train African militaries—and not to take part in combat. The operations tend to be small; they are carried out largely below the radar, and most are focused on a specific aim: rolling back Islamist extremism…Still, those supporting roles can often take US forces into the field with their African partners, as was the case in Niger…It’s hard to say it’s not a combat mission when there’s the potential for conflict and combat as they accompany African troops.

“Africa is an enduring interest for the United States,” said the commander of AFRICOM in a statement.  “Small, but wise investments in the capability, legitimacy, and accountability of African defense institutions offer disproportionate benefits to Africa, our allies, and the United States, and importantly, enable African solutions to African problems.”

It’s hard to decipher what the first part of that crypto-statement actually means–and  the obfuscation is probably intentional. But the part about enabling “African solutions to African problems?” That sounds eerily, worryingly, and dangerously familiar.

The post Where does US have troops in Africa, how many, and why? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It may be that I’m romanticizing the past, but I feel so fortunate that when I was younger I had limited exposure to organized sports and lots of time for sandlot sports. I fear that the tsunami of organized sports that is flooding America with Harvey-like intensity is:

1. Taking much of the fun out of life for kids.
2. Running parents ragged.
3. Running many parents close to bankruptcy.
4. Segregating kids on the basis of all kinds of ability levels and interests (which may be their own interests, or the ones that adults think that they should have).
5. Making us more of a militaristic society.
6. Possibly reducing empathy in the body politic because we’re so competitive.

I remember playing one year of little league baseball, but couldn’t wait for it to end because the coaches were so didactic and seemingly inhumane. Fortunately, in high school, the coaches I had were warmer (and probably more knowledgeable) but then again, my football coaches were largely shouters and sometimes beraters.

When I think of playing baseball or football as a kid, I think of playing one-on-one baseball on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis, using a big tree on the quadrangle as our combination catcher, backstop. Later we moved to stickball (a great sport because it doesn’t hurt when you get hit in the head with a tennis ball). We learned to umpire for ourselves and make up other rules on the fly. In the fall, we switched to touch football. We seemed to have an awareness of the beauty of making it democratic; allowing everyone into the game. We made up bizarre plays, and would draw up more of them when bored in class. It was sport based on getting along with friends, because what could be better than sports and friends?

I was reminded of this a couple of weeks ago with a Harry Smith report on NBC about kids enjoying baseball in what really is a “league of their own.” No adults allowed; just play ball with friends.

But lest I think that this is becoming a trend, two days ago the latest Time Magazine arrived in our mailbox with a cover story on “How Kids Sports Became a $15 Billion Industry.”

As no surprise to anyone, sports are no longer games in the generic sense of the term. Instead, they are part of an industry that milks players, parents, consumers, and society of $15 billion a year. The dollars go in, and for many, the joy goes out.

But the big question is what does this mean to our society? The growth of organized sports for kids comes at a time when increasing pressuring suffocates kids from all directions. In some schools, homework begins in kindergarten. As students get a few years old, specialty camps seek the most talented kids, whether it is in art, drama, or even test-taking.

Misguided federal intervention into education by the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations turned schools into test factories, not so much for the students, but more so for the teachers, administrators, and ultimately bragging rights for the parents in the district. But it was the kids who paid the price.

For a kid who would just like to learn some literature, history, math, science, social studies and lots of electives in high school, it is virtually an impossible task unless you want to get onto the treadmill of AP classes. It is as if nothing osmotically happens in learning; it all must be categorized and regurgitated for the tests.

It may be that the tip-off as to what is happening comes to us from the Time headline about the $15 billion industry. There is money to be made by prescribing life for American kids playing sports, and the same is true as students become more performers for parents, teachers, and upcoming colleges.

If we leave decisions about how we raise our kids to those who make money off these decisions, then we are in deep trouble.

For those parents, courageous enough to let their kids just live life and learn in a natural way, there are huge benefits with the quality of life. While some kids may prosper from high expectations, most will do just fine “on the fly.”

Can society ease up? Probably the best advocates for human rights for kids are the kids themselves. Kids, let us know what you really think.

The post Let’s have a shout-out for disorganized sports and living life appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When Donald Trump announced via Twitter that he was banning transgender people from military service, 56 retired generals and admirals said, “No, sir.”  Their statement, released on August 1, 2017, adds to the growing dossier of public objections—issued by concerned current and retired government officials, scientists, and other knowledgeable professionals—to Trump’s offensive utterances and casually tossed-off “ideas” for new policies.

Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were blindsided by the out-of-the-blue tweet order. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joseph Dunford, responded by saying:

There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President’s direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidelines. In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect.

The reason behind Trump’s impulse to tweet out a far-reaching and backward-looking policy change like this one is not clear. He didn’t say why he was doing it. We can only speculate. It could be an effort to throw out some red meat for his base—given that he has not accomplished any of the terrible things that he promised them during the presidential campaign. Or, it could be a grandstanding distraction, launched to divert attention from the investigation into Trump’s Russia entanglements that is inching ever closer to him. Or, it could be a way of giving the ultra-conservative religious right and other angry white guys a win in their campaign to turn back the social clock. Whatever the reason, the twitter-edict has resulted in skepticism and potential disobedience from the very people who would have to implement it.

Below is the full text of the statement from retired generals and admirals, with my emphasis in bold. These guys are not dancing around the issue. They address each of the objections raised by transgender-phobes, and knock every one of them down—not just by opinion, but via facts and their direct observations of soldiers and units in the field.

And, although I am not a fan of most of the military actions that I have witnessed during my lifetime, this is one military intervention that makes complete sense. Trump has recently elevated several generals to his White House cabinet and inner circle, and they seem to be the only levelheaded people in the room. Trump apparently worships military honchos: Maybe he’ll listen to them, both in rescinding his transgender tweet-ban and in making even bigger decisions as they come along.

The Commander in Chief has tweeted a total ban of honorably serving transgender troops. This proposed ban, if implemented, would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission-critical talent, and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a lie, as well as non-transgender peers who would be forced to choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying policy. As a result, the proposed ban would degrade readiness even more than the failed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Patriotic transgender Americans who are serving—and who want to serve—must not be dismissed, deprived of medically necessary health care, or forced to compromise their integrity or hide their identity.

President Trump seeks to ban transgender service members because of the financial cost and disruption associated with transgender military service. We respectfully disagree, and consider these claims to be without merit. The RAND Corporation, as well as research in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that the financial cost of providing health care to transgender troops would be, at most, $8.4 million per year. This amounts to one one-hundredth of one percent of the military’s annual health care budget. As for ostensible disruptions, transgender troops have been serving honorably and openly for the past year, and have been widely praised by commanders.

Eighteen foreign nations, including the UK and Israel, allow transgender troops to serve, and none has reported any detriment to readiness.

Recently, two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have taken courageous stands in support of our transgender service members. General Martin Dempsey said of our transgender troops that, ‘The service of men and women who volunteer and who meet our standards of service is a blessing, not a burden.’

“And Admiral Mike Mullen stated that, ‘I led our armed forces under the flawed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy and saw firsthand the harm to readiness and morale when we fail to treat all service members according to the same standards. Thousands of transgender Americans are currently serving in uniform and there is no reason to single out these brave men and women and deny them the medical care that they require. The military conducted a thorough research process on this issue and concluded that inclusive policy for transgender troops promotes readiness.’

Admiral Mullen urged civilian leaders ‘to respect the military’s judgment and not to breach the faith of service members who defend our freedoms.’ We could not agree more.”

 

The post 56 generals and admirals sign statement opposing Trump’s transgender ban appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How unfit for the presidency is Donald Trump? The term “unfit” has been bandied about quite a lot since January 2017, when Trump was sworn in to office. But how, exactly, do we define “unfit”  as the term applies specifically to the presidency of the United States? We can look to the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but it lacks a clear definition, stating only that the President can be removed if he “is unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office.

We all know that Trump ran for president by saying that he was a great CEO and that he’d run the country like a business. I have my doubts about his effectiveness as a business leader. But even if he is somehow as good as he has bragged about, a president is not a CEO [he has yet to figure this out], nor is the White House a mob-family compound. Presidents of the United States need a completely different set of skills and personality traits from presidents of family owned real-estate conglomerates with no accountability, bosses of crime syndicates and “Dear Leaders” of authoritarian regimes.

But what are those skills? In a recent Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, psychiatrist Prudence L. Gourguechon describes her search through professional literature for definitions of leadership – a search that led to many descriptions of business leadership, but few that defined the characteristics needed to carry out  the “powers and duties” of the presidency.

She finally found what she was looking for in a most intriguing place: The U.S. Army’s Field Manual , which contains a 135-page subsection [FM 6-22, published in 2015] entitled, “Leader Development.” After studying the document [so we don’t have to], Gorguechon distilled the Army’s criteria for high-level, strategic leadership into the five categories quoted below.

While it’s tempting to cite examples of Trump’s unfit behaviors regarding each of these traits, there are simply too many to list — and even the most casual observer of the man’s words and actions knows what we’re talking about here. So, I’m going to quote Gorguechon without comment and let you remember your own favorite, illustrative moments from the Trump presidency so far.

Trust

According to the Army, trust is fundamental to the functioning of a team or alliance in any setting: “Leaders shape the ethical climate of their organization while developing the trust and relationships that enable proper leadership.” A leader who is deficient in the capacity for trust makes little effort to support others, may be isolated and aloof, may be apathetic about discrimination, allows distrustful behaviors to persist among team members, makes unrealistic promises and focuses on self-promotion.”

Discipline and self-control

The manual requires that a leader demonstrate control over his behavior and align his behavior with core Army values: “Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.” The disciplined leader does not have emotional outbursts or act impulsively, and he maintains composure in stressful or adverse situations. Without discipline and self-control, a leader may not be able to resist temptation, to stay focused despite distractions, to avoid impulsive action or to think before jumping to a conclusion. The leader who fails to demonstrate discipline reacts “viscerally or angrily when receiving bad news or conflicting information,” and he “allows personal emotions to drive decisions or guide responses to emotionally charged situations.”

Judgment and critical thinking

These are complex, high-level mental functions that include the abilities to discriminate, assess, plan, decide, anticipate, prioritize and compare. A leader with the capacity for critical thinking “seeks to obtain the most thorough and accurate understanding possible,” the manual says, and he anticipates “first, second and third consequences of multiple courses of action.” A leader deficient in judgment and strategic thinking demonstrates rigid and inflexible thinking.

Self-awareness

Self-awareness requires the capacity to reflect and an interest in doing so. “Self-aware leaders know themselves, including their traits, feelings, and behaviors,” the manual says. “They employ self-understanding and recognize their effect on others.” When a leader lacks self-awareness, the manual notes, he “unfairly blames subordinates when failures are experienced” and “rejects or lacks interest in feedback.”

Empathy

Perhaps surprisingly, the field manual repeatedly stresses the importance of empathy as an essential attribute for Army leadership. A good leader “demonstrates an understanding of another person’s point of view” and “identifies with others’ feelings and emotions.” The manual’s description of inadequacy in this area: “Shows a lack of concern for others’ emotional distress” and “displays an inability to take another’s perspective.”

In a political and cultural environment in which the military is revered nearly to the point of worship, the U.S. Army’s take on leadership is especially relevant, and it’s worthy of serious consideration. You have to wonder what the people who wrote this section of the Field Manual are thinking when they evaluate their current commander-in-chief against these principles, and as they try to instill these values into up-and-coming leaders. If they really believe in what they have written, the irony must be very, very painful.

The post Trump flunks US Army’s own leadership checklist appeared first on Occasional Planet.