As Americans, we are not one in any way, shape or form.

We are diverse, inclusive, at times exclusionary, conflicted, self-righteous and, more often than not these days, divisive. In our fast-evaporating sense of who we are, or once were, we have left our beacon of hope for the world at large adrift in a sea of uncertainty.

It was once easy to tout the United States as the symbol of desirable values, a sort of Rhodes port of entry for democracy. Oh, how we have stumbled as a nation, and precipitously, in recent years.

We continue to be warm, insensitive, confused, confusing, at times at one with ourselves, at times just a human bunch of some 331.9 (as of a 2021 count) million souls trying to make sense of what we have been given, the United States of America, and our place in the world beyond.

We are, and have always been, far from being one, and way far from being perfect. Yet our Constitution and our daily lives once allowed us to be just that, imperfect, with guaranteed freedoms … at least until the next crazed teenager or over-armed adult decided to pick us off with an automatic shotgun one by one in some unsuspecting mall, school or Home Depot.

As Americans, we are easy to hate, difficult to love, and as often as not misunderstood. Where some of us attempt to break down barriers, those of us across the street, or across our national divide, have been happy to build borders, walls and barriers. At times, it would seem that we are completely unknowable, political pundits aside.

There are still many of us alive today who remember the torn country that we were during the Vietnam War. We remember how it felt to be American then. It was confused and confusing all at once, day after day. The rest of the world did not like us at all, to put it kindly.

So, give a thought for Russians now.

Just for a minute, put yourself in the skin of a Russian today.

Russia is right now the Big Bad Wolf in headlines worldwide, and justifiably so. Russians, after all, elected Putin president once again by a vast majority as recently as 2018. Yet, remember that the Vietnam War, our Vietnam War, was prolonged under 5 Presidents until it eventually folded in April 1975.

This is hardly good news for the people of Ukraine. For a World Power to recognize its mistakes can take decades.

Are Russians as conflicted as we were during the Vietnam War? I imagine they are. Are their opinions of their country fraught? They must be. Can Russians protest within Russia? Not at all. Thousands upon thousands have been removed from the streets and silenced in a way that is unthinkable here in the United States.

I was, in more ways than one, reminded of our United States – yes, those same conflicted United States above – on a recent arrival in Madrid.

The EU is still a much newer concept in co-living than our American Union. Within the European Union, things are even now falling into place. The EU as we know it today had its beginnings with the Maastricht Treaty of 1993. The European Union is a work in progress. The United Kingdom was a reluctante partner for awhile, until they decided in 2019 to Brexit. However, their example is far from being the norm. Other countries are lining up to join the Union.

According to Wikipedia:

There are seven recognised candidates for membership of the European Union: Turkey (applied in 1987), North Macedonia (2004), Montenegro (2008), Albania (2009), Serbia (2009), Ukraine (2022), and Moldova (2022). Additionally, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Kosovo (whose independence is not recognised by five EU member states) are considered potential candidates for membership by the EU.^[1][2] Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia have formally submitted applications for membership, while Kosovo has a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU, which generally precedes the lodging of a membership application.

 Ukraine sees things differently than the UK. Ukraine doesn’t have the UK’s options of history and geography. Putin didn’t decide to invade the United Kingdom, after all.

Putin choose a defenseless neighbor, still not a member of a nascent European Union, to try to exert his late-blooming and misbegotten manhood by invading a benign neighbor to prove somehow his macho worldview. As is now evident to anybody paying attention worldwide, Putin misjudged, and exiled his eternal reputation to the gutter.

Back to landing in Madrid. At Barajas, there were Russians dragging and pushing way-overweight bags along their way, any which way, far from Russia. That was understandable. Until it wasn’t.

For Russians with money, Madrid is just one of many escapes from the horror of the motherland to a neighbor that still extends a welcoming embrace.

The sight of Russians at Atocha, Madrid’s train station, toting Louis Vuitton bags filled with recent purchases, was unsettling. Louis Vuitton in times of war? Drinking beer, happy with their day of shopping, joking around, the Russians at Atocha disquieted me.

The disquiet continued.

On the Metro in Rome, I sat next to a bunch of loud Russians wisecracking among themselves, laughing and seemingly happy on their way to view the ruins of the Coliseum. They were oblivious to any discomfort they might have been communicating to their fellow passengers concerned about their country’s invasion of a helpless neighbor, Ukraine.

These Russians didn’t seem to care about the nuances of co-existence. Nuances be damned was what I, unfortunately, understood.

These joyous Russians were, for me, somehow complicit in Putin’s imperious view of the world.

We can do what we want, they seemed to be saying as they joshed around, just as their elected leader, Putin did, toasting a glass of champagne high in celebration of his invasion of Ukraine not even a month later.

I was disturbed by the attitude of the Russians that I saw in Italy and Spain.

Could it be that Russians, at large, really support Putin? I found myself wondering.

Could it be that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine might represent the true mindset of the majority in Russia?

I know, I know, that Russians are as diverse as we are. See above.

I know that many have been swept off the streets, disappeared forever.

Yet, could it be that Putin really represents Russia? I found myself thinking in Rome.

Could it be that Russians in general could care less about Ukraine?

Just maybe, I found myself thinking.

Is Putin the true champion of a Russia anathema to our Western view of civilization? That’s what I really wondered.

Could that be true?

Just maybe, I found myself thinking again.

The post Is Putin Russia, and Russia Putin? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

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.

In 1959, Chuck Berry had a hit with a song called Back in the USA, a rock ‘n roll propelled love anthem to America. The lyrics went:

Oh well, oh well, I feel so good today
We touched ground on an international runway

… New York, Los Angeles, oh, how I yearned for you
Detroit, Chicago, Chattanooga, Baton Rouge
Let alone just to be at my home back in ol’ St. Lou

.… Well, I’m so glad I’m livin’ in the U.S.A.
Yes, I’m so glad I’m livin’ in the U.S.A.
Anything you want, we got right here in the U.S.A.

Just about a decade later, in November 1968, the Beatles led off their White Album with a tongue-in-cheek riff on the East-West divide going on at the time, a track called Back in the USSR, a shout-out to Chuck Berry.

The Beatles lyrics went:

… back in the USSR
You don’t know how lucky you are, boy

Back in the US
Back in the US
Back in the USSR

Then the Beatles segued into a spoof of the Beach Boys – California Girls:

… Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the west behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout

And then back to:

… I’m back in the USSR
You don’t know how lucky you are, boys
Back in the USSR

The Beatles brought many new Russian fans on board with Back in the USSR, among them a certain Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the very same thug now directing genocide against the people of Ukraine. But the Beatles were just messing around. Back in the USSR was not a love anthem to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had just invaded Czechoslovakia in August of that same year, 1968, and the Beatles were well aware of that. The song had its base in irony.

In a changed world, Paul McCartney later sang the song at a concert in Moscow’s Red Square in 2003, and Putin was in attendance. At that Red Square concert, everywhere you looked Moscovites were rockin’ and rollin,’ happy as hell that they were being acknowledged by McCartney. Putin was deadpan, perhaps already fixated on how he might recreate the empire that the Beatles had satirized and that McCartney was now flaunting right in front of him in Moscow. Putin was not amused by the irony.

All water under the bridge now that Comrade Vlad has directed his military might to invade and attempt to choke off life in Ukraine.

Despite the passage of time, inter-connected world economies, the acceptance of Russia as a partner, glasnost, the internet, Facebook, TikTok, Telegram and Twitter, here we are looking at an East-West divide, the likes of which we never imagined possible at the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century.

And what the fu .. why (expletive removed)?

Well, just maybe because Putin, going about his daily life as a dictator par excellence in Russia in 2022, has an ego even greater than Trump’s. Putin is mega-egotistical, eager for a mention in history equal to that of his heroine Catherine the Great, paranoiac in the extreme and, unfortunately for the rest of us, someone with a uniquely manhood-threatened view of civilization. He has his finger on a nuclear trigger, something that Stalin and Hitler never had. His mention in history, if the there ever is a history after this, is sure to be in the column of the latter.

Once, we might have imagined, in our innocence, that Paul McCartney knew what he was doing, penning a guitar-driven rock song that the world – Russia included – could twist-and-shout to.

Oh, how silly we were.

All the while, our real future was being decided in Comrade Putin’s mind.

Here in the USA, we were dutifully electing a new President every four years. Back in the USSR of his dreams, the de facto ruler of Russia since December 1999, according to Wikipedia, Putin was upending the last 22 years of history, consolidating power, readying his new Russia for the moment when he might recreate some semblance of his lost Soviet empire.

Soviet, you might just reasonably ask, What is that exactly?

Basically, Soviet is a synonym for Communist, an elected community council that makes decisions for a society, a country, no dissension allowed.

It’s a world vision that went out of favor in 1991 when the Soviet Union was dissolved, an empire that consisted of none other than Russia, but also Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

In the world at large, we may have thought Soviet was forever gone from our reality, a thing of the past.

In 1991, the Soviet Union was replaced by something called the Commonwealth of Independent States. The Bush Administration at the time quickly recognized the independence of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. And some of those newly independent states immediately understood their opportunity. Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, fast aligned themselves with Europe and the West, and over a relatively short period of time became NATO members.

And so Soviet was gone from the world stage, or so we wished ourselves into thinking.

Except, Soviet was not gone. Soviet had one major shareholder remaining.

That major USSR shareholder was not at all discouraged, put off or disheartened by past Soviet setbacks or failures, but in a cockeyed view of world politics, found himself not only the President of Russia, but capable of invading a previous ally to inflict unprecedented death, pain and destruction on Ukraine.

That shareholder’s name is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

His goal?

To drag us all back to a pre-McCartney, pre-Beatles era, to a psuedo-utopia, a ghost empire that he has convinced himself he can regroup called the USSR?

What a blockhead, what a fu..-up (expletive again removed.)

Pardon my French.

The post Back in the USSR 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.

The post How World War I unleashed total war and the power of propaganda appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What’s better: a military-based economy or a peace-based economy?  Jason Sibert of the Peace Economy Project, says that cutting military spending and funding human needs would create a peace economy, which would work better and become more effective and prosperous.

Sibert, a Navy veteran and the recently hired executive director of the St. Louis Peace Economy Project, has an extensive background in journalism and reporting, from sports to news. Whether writing for the Java Journal or the Progressive Populist, he reported on topics and issues he is passionate about. He is the only paid employee of the Peace Economy Project.

Since its founding in 1977 by Sister Mary Ann McGivern, the Peace Economy Project has raised questions about how much money our country spends on the military and whether those funds could be better used to support middle- and lower-class people. Basically, what it comes down to is more spending on human needs and less on guns, nuclear weapons, and F-35s. A simple question this project asks is: What should we spend money on – guns or butter?

From the Cold War to the present, the Peace Economy Project has addressed many issues: It has criticized the military-industrial complex and advocated for for healthcare, education and infrastructure reform. Not affiliated with a political party, the organization will criticize any president of any party, says Sibert.

An unchecked military-industrial complex brings many hazards, says Sibert. Overspending on the military causes the rest of the economy to suffer. Other countries allocate more money to development, and that attracts high-tech companies. Overspending on the military has also resulted in cuts to education. In addition, noting that 40 percent of US workers earn less than $15 per hour, the Peace Economy Project has become involved in the Show-Me $15 initiative aimed at raising the minimum wage in St. Louis.

“We rot internally when we spend everything on the military,” says Sibert.

Legislative and policy changes are important in the quest for a peace economy, says Sibert. So, in addition to advocating for ideas, his organization is often out on the streets collecting signatures, and then visiting legislators to show them what their constituents want.

Critics of the Peace Economy Project contend that the military is the only decent thing about America. But Sibert argues that the United States can spend less money on military, while still having an effective and beneficial foreign policy. Sibert notes that Switzerland has a smaller military, which is cheaper, but is in need of natural resources, and that other countries depend on trade. Sibert’s idea of a better world economy would be to see more cooperation between power nations, such as Russia, China, the European Union, and the United States, as well as more cooperation in the United Nations.

“We all live in the same world,” says Sibert, “which explains why we need an economy that focuses on  human needs and peace for everyone.”

The Peace Economy Project collaborates with several other organizations, including the St. Louis Chapter of the United Nations Association, Veterans for Peace, and Jobs With Justice. Support for the Peace Economy Project comes from membership dues and individual donors.

Sibert hopes that more citizens will become aware of the need to change from a military-based economy to a more stable, peace-based economy. To do that, we need to become more educated, by reading and watching the news, paying attention to the world, and knowing the political pushes and pulls of it.

“The State Department and its diplomats are as important as the generals,” he says. “Problems need to be solved diplomatically instead of lethally.”

The post Guns or butter? Butter, says Peace Economy Project appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Four and a half years ago, on Sunday, February 23, the 2014 Winter Olympics ended in Sochi, Russia. Four days later, masked Russian troops without insignia took over the Supreme Council (parliament) of Crimea, and captured strategic sites across Crimea, which led to the installation of the pro-Russian Aksyonov government in Crimea.

Could Vladimir Putin do the same thing right after the World Cup ends in Russia this Sunday, July 15? He may not take immediate action, because over the next several days he will have meetings with none other than Donald Trump. Why should Putin take precipitous action without first playing with Trump’s brain a little more to ensure that the acting U.S. President knows what to say and do to affirm his unqualified support?

Trump likes to blame Barack Obama for allowing Russia to take over Crimea and to further encroach upon the Ukraine. However, Obama recognized the age-old theory of “sphere of influence.” Crimea and the Ukraine are in Russia’s orbit, and there is very little that the U.S. or even NATO could or can do about it militarily. What the West did under the leadership of Obama was to initiate a series of economic sanctions on Russia that were particularly painful, because they were specifically aimed at the oligarchs. In other words, the action that the West took hurt the Russians who are personally closest to Trump.

What, if anything, might Putin have up his sleeve after the spotlight of Russia hosting the World Cup dims? Putin is cagey, so it’s difficult to tell. But one possibility is that he will work to convince Trump that the U.S. no longer needs to be in Syria, a move that will strengthen the Russian connection with Bashar al-Assad and ultimately with the leadership of Iran. Putin needs to expand his sphere of influence, and Trump seems to have little interest in parts of the world that he does not see as challenging “America’s greatness.”

Putin also has his eye on the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They had been under Soviet control from the end of World War II until the shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. If Putin could neutralize their independence, he would once again put Russia on the doorstep of Poland. All of this illustrates how important NATO is to the West, and how risky and unpredictable an impetuous U.S. president is to the world.

It is possible that Putin will not take a dramatic political or military move soon. After all, since 2014, he has had remarkable success causing confusion in the West through cyber-warfare. He has infiltrated social media and mainstream media alike. With the three branches of the U.S. government under strict Republican control, very little is being done to blunt Russia’s cyber aggression.

But before the summer of 2018 passes, let’s not forget what we can learn from the recent history of 2014. Once the praise of Russia’s hosting a great international sporting event has passed, it is quite possible that Putin will ramp up his international aggression. Perish the thought with Donald Trump acting more and more like his puppet.

The post Beware of Putin after World Cup and meeting with Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

For those who think that Donald Trump is thinking about issues, think again. From his utterances [let’s not dignify them by calling them “statements”] and early-morning bedside tweets, one can only conclude that no thought goes into his “pronouncements.” He merely stumbles from one shiny-object issue to the next, cribbing his remarks from whatever Trump TV has said, and garbling even that. Clearly, he does not actually understand what he is talking about, and we see that most vividly in his rambling, incoherent attempts to Trump-splain his latest policy lurch.

With that as an introduction, here is the complete [mercifully short] transcript of Trump’s attempt at an answer about US policy regarding Syria, from his  joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, on April 24, 2018. It seems as though he and Macron did have a discussion about Syria, from which Trump may have picked up a few phrases to sprinkle in as a way of trying to sound knowledgeable. [What, by the way, is “open season to the Mediterranean?”]  But I have no idea what he is trying to say. Do you? Does he?

As far as Syria is concerned, I would love to get out. I would love to bring our incredible warriors back home. They’ve done a great job; we’ve essentially just absolutely obliterated ISIS in Iraq, and in Syria. And we’ve done a big favor to neighboring countries, frankly, but we’ve also done a favor for our country.

With that being said, Emmanuel and myself have discussed the fact that we don’t want to give Iran open season to the Mediterranean, especially since we really control it to a large extent. We really have controlled it, and we’ve set control on it.

So we’ll see what happens. But we’re going to be coming home relatively soon. We finished, at least almost, our work with respect to ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. And we have done a job that nobody has been able to do. With that being said, I do want to come home, but I want to come home also with having accomplished what we have to accomplish.

The post Trump transcripts: Latest “thinking” on Syria 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.