As the Obama administration debates whether to send tens of thousands of extra troops to Afghanistan, an already overstretched military is increasingly struggling to meet its deployment numbers. Surprisingly, one place it seems to be targeting is military personnel who go absent without leave (AWOL) and then are caught or turn themselves in.

Hidden behind the gates of military bases across the U.S., troops facing AWOL and desertion charges regularly find themselves in the hands of a military that metes out informal, open-ended punishments by forcing them to wait months – sometimes more than a year – to face military justice. In the meantime, some of these soldiers are offered a free pass out of this legal limbo as long as they agree to deploy to Afghanistan or Iraq – even if they have been diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

In August 2008 at TomDispatch.com, we reported on the deplorable conditions at the 82nd Replacement Barracks at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. There, more than 50 members of Echo Platoon of the 82nd Airborne Division’s 82nd Replacement Detachment were being held while awaiting AWOL and desertion charges. Investigations launched since then – in part in response to our article – have revealed that the plight of members of Echo Platoon is not an isolated one. It is, in fact, disturbingly commonplace on other bases throughout the United States. And it is from these “holdover units,” filled with disgruntled soldiers who have gone AWOL, many of whom are struggling with PTSD from previous deployments in war zones, that the military is hoping to help meet its manpower needs for Afghanistan.

Nightmare in Echo Platoon

On Aug. 16, determined to put an end to unbearable mental and psychological pain, Pvt. Timothy Rich, while on 24-hour suicide watch, attempted to jump to his death from the roof of Echo Platoon’s barracks (where he had been held since being arrested for going AWOL). Prior to his suicide attempt, Rich had been offered amnesty by the military in exchange for agreeing to deploy to Afghanistan or Iraq.

He had already been through a hellish year awaiting a discharge and treatment for mental health problems. “I want to leave here very bad,” he explained. “For four months they have been telling me that I’ll get out next week. I didn’t see an end to it, so I figured I’d try and end it myself.”

He fell three stories, bouncing off a tree, before hitting the ground and cracking his spine. The military gave him a back brace, psychotropic drugs, and put him on a renewed, 24-hour suicide watch.

While he has recently been discharged from the military, Rich was not atypical of the soldiers of Echo Platoon, some forced to wait a year or more in legal limbo – in dilapidated buildings under the authority of abusive commanders – for legal proceedings to begin, and many struggling with mental illness or PTSD from previous deployments. As Spc. Dustin Stevens told us last August: “[It's] horrible here. We are treated like animals. Some of us are going crazy, some are sick. There are people here who should be in mental hospitals. And the way I see it, I did nothing wrong.”

Shortly after our story was published, Stevens told us that at least half a dozen soldiers in the platoon, including him, were suddenly given trial dates. Although he was likely to be found guilty and face punishment, Stevens claimed to be “relieved” to have an end in sight. Soon after, according to Echo Platoon informants, their barracks were condemned as a result of a military investigation of the site and, on Oct. 19, the platoon itself was disbanded.

Recently, due possibly to the attention his story drew to the mistreatment and indefinite detention soldiers were facing in Echo Platoon, Stevens was informed by the military he would be “chaptered out” – in other words, given an administrative discharge from the Army – and will not be forced to serve formal prison time.

James Branum, Stevens’ civilian lawyer, as well as the legal adviser to the G.I. Rights Hotline of Oklahoma and co-chair of the Military Law Task Force (MLTF), summed developments up this way: “After repeated complaints and congressional inquiry, Echo Platoon was shut down. The whole place was shut down. Everyone was scattered to other units. If your old unit still exists, they are sending you to your old unit. We know that at least one of the NCOs [non-commissioned officers] in charge of Echo Platoon was fired. I think this is a positive thing.”

Echoes of Echo

The troubling state of affairs in Echo Platoon may only have been the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Army holdover units. Evidence suggests that soldiers being held on other bases in the United States for AWOL and desertion face similar apathy or intentional neglect – and that they, too, are often left with the choice between living in legal limbo or agreeing to be sent to a war zone.

Scott Wildman, a former Army specialist, went AWOL in 2007 when he was unable to receive adequate help for severe PTSD sustained after a 15-month deployment to Iraq. In February 2009, he finally turned himself in at Fort Lewis in Washington state, only to find himself lost in a labyrinthine bureaucracy. For the first four months, he was not allowed to leave a confined area and was forbidden even to walk around by himself.

Here’s how he describes his experience: “I was flipping out. My wife had left me while I was over there. I hadn’t seen my kids in a couple years. I came home and tried to get help. At Fort Lewis, they do not care about you. I had been diagnosed by civilian and military doctors with severe depression, PTSD, and severe anxiety. When you are at the unit, they make fun of you. They crack PTSD jokes. They all have it too, but they’re too cool.”

During the eight months he has been held at Fort Lewis, Wildman claims he has suffered verbal abuse and substandard mental healthcare. “The command treated me like dirt. My commander ignored me for the first couple months until my roommate jumped me. They’ll make sure you’re in the room and call you a ‘bunch of PTSD pussies.’”

Four weeks ago, Wildman was informed that he would be court-martialed, but he was not given a trial date. Feeling he had no other choice, he went AWOL again and remains so today. “I’d been going to see some military counselors, but we weren’t making progress on the real problem…. They give us classes on calm and peacefulness, but they are right near the shooting ranges. There’s gunfire and explosions all around, people being screamed at all the time because it’s infantry. It’s not a good place for someone with [mental health] issues.”

At one point, despite a confidentiality protocol that should have prevented it, Wildman’s commanders went through his medical evaluations and found out that he had been involved in the accidental killing of two little girls in Iraq. They proceeded to needle him by threatening to write him up for war crimes.

Explaining why he once again went AWOL, Wildman says, “I didn’t know what was going to happen next. I had to remove myself from that situation.”

“Examples of how the military is treating soldiers, like the case of Wildman, are common,” comments Kathleen Gilberd, co-chair of the MLTF. She also points out that the Army, stretched thin by years of multiple deployments to two war zones, has taken to downplaying potentially severe medical conditions to keep soldiers eligible for service overseas. It is commonplace, she reports, for formerly AWOL soldiers to be “bribed” with offers of having all charges, or potential charges, dropped, as long as they accept deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

“A lot of folks who are under-diagnosed or misdiagnosed are being deployed second and third times,” she adds. “Barrier mechanisms that should prevent this from happening are being routinely ignored. … If someone is on psychotropic medication or is diagnosed with a fresh psychiatric condition, there should be a 90-day observation period and delay, under DOD [Department of Defense] policy.”

Remarkably, that sometimes-ignored 90-day hold period for military personnel on psychotropic medications does not always apply to soldiers who are diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI) of a sort commonly caused by roadside bombs. According to an Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center analysis, reported in theDenver Post in August 2008, more than “43,000 service members – two-thirds of them in the Army or Army Reserve – were classified as nondeployable for medical reasons three months before they deployed” to Iraq. The process, if anything, only seems to be accelerating when it comes to Afghanistan.

Deploying the Undeployables

Not all soldiers go AWOL in order to save their minds and bodies. Some are trying to save their families. One soldier held in Bravo Platoon, a holdover unit of the 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs (who did not want his name made public) disclosed that, having returned from service in Iraq, he was told he would soon be redeployed there. Because his mother was ill, he refused and was threatened with a court martial.

“When I turned myself in, I submitted a binder with letters from my mom’s doctors and state officials that made clear that I needed to be home to take care of my mother. At that time, they had me on restriction and lockdown 24/7 to keep me from leaving again. Later they punished me. I was assigned extra duty and received a rank reduction from E3 to a private. I was treated like crap.”

He and the other soldiers in his holdover platoon were subjected to verbal abuse and made to do menial jobs. He claimed that he was threatened daily with being sent to the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the military’s maximum security correctional facility – and then was urged to agree to go back to Iraq instead. It made no difference that he had “no-go” orders from doctors at Fort Carson exempting him from overseas deployment.

His commander promised him a clean slate if he would redeploy to Iraq, insisting that the only alternative was a court-martial. Despite a regimen of humiliation, he stood his ground and was finally discharged for family hardship in September 2008. There were at least 11 other soldiers then in Bravo Platoon. Like their counterparts in Echo, most were told that their records would be wiped clean once they agreed to redeploy. The alternative was a non-judicial punishment, followed by a court-martial some months down the line.

As he tells it, Sgt. Heath Carter, originally based at Fort Polk, La., found himself torn between pressing family needs and an indifferent military command. On returning from the invasion of Iraq, he discovered his daughter living in what he believed to be an unsafe environment. Heath and his new wife started consulting attorneys in order to secure custody of the child. Precisely during this time, the military began changing Carter’s duty station. He was moved from Fort Polk to Fort Huachuca, Ariz., then on to Fort Stewart, Ga., reducing his chances of gaining custody.

Convinced that this was a crucial matter for his daughter, he requested compassionate reassignment to Fort Leavenworth, Mo., about two hours away from her. His appeals to the military command, to his chaplain, even to his congressman failed. In May 2007, having run out of options, he went AWOL from Fort Stewart, heading home to fight for custody, which he won.

This Jan. 25, however, he was arrested at his home by military police, who flew him back to Fort Stewart, where he has been awaiting charges for the past eight months. Being a sergeant, he is in a regular unit, not a holdover one. Initially, his commander assured him he would be sent home within a month and a half. Several months later, the same commander decided to court-martial him.

Carter feels frustrated. “If they had done that in the beginning, I would have been home by now. It’s taken this long for them to decide. Now I have to wait for the court-martial. If we had known it would take this long, my family could have moved down here. Every time I ask when I’ll have a trial, they say it’s only going to be another two weeks. I get the feeling they’re lying. They’ve messed with my pay. They’re trying to push me to do something wrong.”

His ordeal has forced Carter to reflect on America’s wars. Once, he admits, he was proud of his mission in Iraq. Now, he sees things differently. “I don’t think there is any reason for us to be there except for oil.”

His wife, who witnessed her husband’s callous treatment, says, “He’s been there [Iraq], done that, and seen horrible, terrible things, so of course he doesn’t want to go back.”

While the Obama administration decides how many thousands of troops to send to Afghanistan, service men and women are already facing repeated deployments, oftentimes while having already been diagnosed with medical conditions that should render them unfit for deployment.

Nothing has changed for these beleaguered troops, except the venue of their maltreatment and the desperation with which the military is now struggling to make the necessary deployment numbers as it continues to fight two endless wars.

Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket Books, 2009) and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq(Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from occupied Iraq for nine months, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey over the last five years.

Sarah Lazare is the project coordinator for Courage to Resist, an organization that supports troops who refuse to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is also a freelance writer.

Bhaswati Sengupta contributed to this report.

Copyright 2009 Dahr Jamail and Sarah Lazare

PROTEST IN THE STREETS THE DAY AFTER AN ANNOUNCEMENT IS MADE TO SEND MORE TROOPS INTO AFGHANISTAN

We in the anti-war movement have been tirelessly and endlessly calling upon the government to end the occupations. We want our troops out of the middle east, and an end to the drone bombings that are killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Letters have been written, petitions signed, arrests made but the wars drone on. And now we are grimly awaiting the announcement by the Obama Administration of an escalation of troop levels once again in Afghanistan.

It is impossible to predict when this announcement will come, but it will, and we must be ready. Everyone of conscience who can’t stand one more day or one more minute witnessing the death and destruction being wreaked upon countries and its people, under the guise of “bringing democracy” or “helping women” or “ending the poppy production” or “protecting civilians”, or the best yet, “fight the war on terror”, must join together, show unity, and strength against this scourge.

We must stop flying our own banners announcing our “affiliations” and fight our common enemy, those who chose to continue wars of aggression in our names, and we must fight cohesively and with one message, and in one voice: END THE WARS, ALL TROOPS HOME NOW!

Soon the announcement will be made to send more young men and women to die and to kill. We don’t want it, we have told those who have taken power that it must end. But slowly we have come to realize that our cries fall on deaf ears, and it is in our hands and our hands only to enter the belly of the beast and show them what the people can do united.

We must have a national day of resistance against these occupations, and when the announcement is made to send more troops to Afghanistan, it is time for ALL of us to get into the streets and stop business as usual.

It may mean going out in your community during the week! It may mean expressing our anger in the form of non-violent civil disobedience.

But if hundreds of people around the country picked a location where they live and formed alliances to make sure this happened, our message would be heard, loud and clear. We owe it to the troops and to the people of other countries who are looking to us for their salvation.

If Obama makes his announcement on a weekend, then we as a collective group of anti-war activists, with a plan in place, go to a pre-determined location the next business day at 5 PM and shut down the streets in the name of PEACE.

If we are truly determined to face our enemy then we must do it with resolve. We must be relentless, unafraid and staunch in our demands and demeanor.

It is way past time to join together and move forward to a more peaceful world. But without hundreds if not thousands out there around the country being arrested in the name of peace at the same time and on the same day, we will not move one inch from where we are now. It is a step forward, a small brave step, but if we do it in unison we will find strength in our numbers. The world is counting on us!

Eric Margolis is contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada. He is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World. See his website.

Copyright © 2009 Eric Margolis

Voltaire made that observation after he had been exiled to a penal colony Island by the King of France who didn’t take more harsh action because Voltaire was loved by the public who agreed with his writings that the King was a despot.

When we consider our Government, it follows that we need an accurate explanation of what is meant by “ when the Government is wrong”. And that explanation might be best described by using illustrations or examples.

Of course the most disruptive and harmful conflict is one of immoral or unnecessary conflicts of choice – armies conducting invasions, killing and destroying – for profits to war Industries or for Empire building. However there are many kinds of war – war between nations, religious wars, class wars, wars against drugs, wars against terrorism, even wars between political Parties. And certainly we shouldn’t forget Husband/Wife or Parent/Child conflicts.

But the sobering realization should be that all wars could be avoided. And as you raise your voice to condemn such an absurd statement, all I ask is that you hear me out since it has been proven that the human brain does not work well when it is inundated with facts that it does not want to hear. So lets see if we can agree on something:

War must have something to initiate it. And that thing must emanate from one or both of the potential combatants. Are you with me so far? When conflict arises there is always the opportunity for one or both sides to seek common ground. If either side fails to seek that common ground, physical conflict is likely to arise. The only scenario where armed aggression arises, when one side is seeking peace, is when the other side doesn’t want peace.

The question then becomes, does one side or either side really want peace? If one side doesn’t want peace, then there will be none. But even with this scenario, there doesn’t have to be war – it starts simply because one side chooses to start one. The other side then is forced to defend itself.

Has our Government sought peace in any one of the more than fifty incursions that we have been involved in since World War II? Or were we that side that refused a chance at peace simply because we had the might to assert our will? If you think we started wars only for peace, could you give a good reason why we didn’t invade Russia in the last half of the last century? Why didn’t we invade China? Why did we invade Iraq? Why does our Government want to invade Iran? Could it be that our Government has become a warrior Nation bent on building Empire? Can an honest American claim that all these fifty plus conflicts we have entered into since WWII have been “Wars for Peace”?

Would our Government be wrong if it is correct, that we have not sought peace? Would it be dangerous to oppose such a Government? Even for the citizen of the Government? How badly things can go wrong in a war is best illustrated by the Iraqi War. Remember, the Iraqis were predicted to greet us with flowers as our invading army marched in.

Our Government un-leased a war on Iraq for no reason other than to provide a profit stream for the War Industry and to provide fertile grounds for immoral Corporations to rape the Iraqi resources. While achieving this they used Depleted Uranium (DU) tipped munitions, a volatile radioactive weapon that is spread by wind currents and causes cancers, leukemia, and grotesque birth defects, and will continue to do so for up to 4.5 Billion years. Iraq today is staggered by the high rate of simply hideous birth defects that is causing Iraqi potential mothers to have to make a choice about chance.

Historians could very likely judge this atrocity to be the most heinous crime ever committed against human beings in the history of mankind. Dave Lindorff just recently wrote about this tragedy done to mankind. I hope you read it. What are we going to do about the criminals who are even today enjoying their Blood Profits? Smart money says we will never even scold them.

And to think, this war was wanted by no one except the War Industry, the Neo-Cons of the Republican Party, and the Energy Corporations. Could this historic massacre have been avoided? Absolutely! Should we let it go unpunished? Absolutely not! If we do, what does it say about us as a people? For thousands of years after History no longer remembers George Bush and Dick Cheney, the people of a land that was once Iraq, the cradle of civilization, will still be dying and grotesque births will still be occurring because of what we allowed to transpire in Iraq in the early twenty-First Century. And it may even spread far and wide, even to the United States, a once Great Nation, now just dust in History’s past, once hailed as the Ideal of moral and ethical people, who could even then lie in still radioactive graves, the detritus of an un-necessary war.

In the past year there was serious consideration given to enacting legislation that would approve the prosecution of “Thought Crimes”, with penalties including every thing from torture to imprisonment without trial and all the atrocities done in the name of this War on Terror, but this time the legislation was for prosecution of American Citizens as well as “Terrorists” – can you think “ For Thought Crimes against the State”?

And in spite of all the evidence of the evils of DU, the United States military still uses DU all over the World, and even in the United States.

Think long and hard before you answer those questions I have posed.

The answer to that question is up to us.

We were attacked on 9/11. We reacted. Eight years later, with over a million dead, many more millions displaced, infrastructures destroyed, Billionaires made, our economy shattered, Torture accepted, Mercenary Corporate Armies empowered, a World aroused against us, and a Future threatening wars and more wars, who do we blame – those who attacked us, or should we blame ourselves for the reaction ( The War on Terror) and the carnage that has followed?

Although millions of foreign innocents have suffered, we have suffered mightily also – so who are the victims? Are we the victims, or is it those others that have suffered so much?

Did those foreign innocents do something to us to bring this carnage on themselves or are we to blame for allowing those that would profit from war to seize on an opportunity to instigate a war for profit?

Was there an avoidable event that happened prior to 9/11 that brought on that tragic morning in September and the consequences that followed? If there was such an avoidable incident what could it have been? If it could have been avoided, and we didn’t make any effort to avoid it, why did we allow it to happen? If that were true would that make us victims or perpetrators?

Wouldn’t it be beneficial to review the past and see if there was or were events that we should have paid heed to, and if we could identify those points, shouldn’t we make sure we remember what they were and examine how we addressed those impending problems in order that we might head off another 9/11?

What were the warning signs in those years before that morning, that we should have noticed, and when noticed, what should have been done? Well for one, Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, at the advent of Desert Storm, promised a declaration of war if the United States placed a Military base on Saudi soil. But at the time Bin Laden was a friend of the United States and was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan working with the United States to expel the Soviet invaders, and his transition from friend to foe could have been avoided. Unfortunately the Military wing of our Government wanted a base in Saudi Arabia and using Desert Storm, a conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, as its basis, pressured the Saudi Government into allowing a United States Military base to be placed on Saudi soil. Ben Laden then declared war on the United States.

Another warning sign was Desert Storm itself. For those who have forgotten, that war was to be between Iraq and Kuwait because of oil piracy committed by Kuwait against Iraq. But before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he asked the United States if they would intervene for Kuwait after he gave Kuwait an ultimatum to stop the piracy. The well-documented reply by the United States delivered to Saddam by U S Envoy April Glaspie was “The United States considers the argument between Iraq and Kuwait a local issue between the two and the United States would remain out of the conflict”. Saddam gave the ultimatum, Kuwait ignored it, Iraq invaded, and the United States went ballistic. And as they say, the rest is history. We should never forget that history plays itself out over many years and this episode most likely isn’t over yet, which brings me to some more happenings we shouldn’t forget – if we want to learn from history.

The Project For a New American Century outlined its proposal to promote the United States to Sole World Power in the early 90’s. One of the items of interest should be the word “Sole”. That word would indicate Empire building – The Worlds Policeman and the Worlds subjugation. Little countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East shouldn’t be a problem, we can run over any one of them easily or any two or three, but there are some other strong Military powers on this earth, and embarking on subjugating them might be quite risky. One thing for sure is that “There will be blood” when the attempt starts. And blood is the fertilizer for the War Industry Profit garden.

Our Foreign Policy of conquest and domination of the Worlds resources can take us to the goal of Empire, but it can also take us to defeat and our own eventual demise. It is risky business for you and me, but is it risky for those who would initiate wars of conquest? The most dominant of the World’s organizations is the Financial sector. Wars don’t start without their funding and like several of the Nazi Financial and Industrial Corporations, they survived WWII and their Upper Management just moved into the winning Country, the United States, absorbed by U S Companies who were in partners with those Nazi Corporations before and during the War.

Every time you buy medicine or aspirins just remember Bayer is a name now identifying the German Industrial War Giant I. G. Farben, who’s business management were allowed to skip Nuremberg and go directly to work in the U. S. That’s what happened to the elite.
For regular people like you and me, somewhat over a hundred million died. But some U S Companies like say Ford, continued to supply German war needs, even after the war was ongoing. We didn’t do anything to them and they found that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or should I say the World’s financial and War Industry Corporations came out of it better than they went in. That’s called profit.

So whether we know it or not, what we do, or don’t do, will affect the future and the future inhabitants of the world.

What we can do, and what we must do, is always punish criminals even if they are our leaders. Today’s Political Parties work our populace into a frenzy opposing the other Party. They keep us divided so that we are easy prey for their criminal activities.

Any party that advocates fear of the future instead of a mutual solution to problems is not worthy of our votes. How we use those votes will determine the shape of the future.

What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on US soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks?

What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the US, had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?

Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy.

I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on US soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values?

Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of “promoting democracy”.

But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments.

This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security.

If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions.

If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And, if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism.

The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.

Remember the controversy over the Pentagon policy of not allowing the press to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets of American war dead as they arrived in the United States? Critics accused President Bush of trying to hide the terrible human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“These young men and women are heroes,” Vice President Biden said in 2004, when he was senator from Delaware. “The idea that they are essentially snuck back into the country under the cover of night so no one can see that their casket has arrived, I just think is wrong.”

In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.

But after that, the impassioned advocates of showing the true human cost of war grew tired of the story. Fewer and fewer photographers showed up. “It’s really fallen off,” says Lt. Joe Winter, spokesman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where all war dead are received. “The flurry of interest has subsided.”

That’s an understatement. When the casket bearing Air Force Tech. Sgt. Phillip Myers, of Hopewell, Va., arrived at Dover the night of April 5 — the first arrival in which press coverage was allowed — there were representatives of 35 media outlets on hand to cover the story. Two days later, when the body of Army Spc. Israel Candelaria Mejias, of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico, arrived, 17 media outlets were there. (All the figures here were provided by the Mortuary Affairs Operations Center.) On subsequent days in April, there were nearly a dozen press organizations on hand to cover arrivals.

Fast forward to today. On Sept. 2, when the casket bearing the body of Marine Lance Cpl. David Hall, of Elyria, Ohio, arrived at Dover, there was just one news outlet — the Associated Press — there to record it. The situation was pretty much the same when caskets arrived on Sept. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23 and 26. There has been no television coverage at all in September.

The media can cover arrivals only when the family gives its permission. In all the examples above, the families approved, which is more often than not the case; since the policy was changed, according to the Mortuary Affairs Office, 60 percent of families have said yes to full media coverage.

But these days, the press hordes that once descended on Dover are gone, and there’s usually just one organization on hand. The Associated Press, which supplies photos to 1,500 U.S. newspapers and 4,000 Web sites, has had a photographer at every arrival for which permission was granted. “It’s our belief that this is important, that surely somewhere there is a paper, an audience, a readership, a family and a community for whom this homecoming is indeed news,” says Paul Colford, director of media relations for AP. “It’s been agreed internally that this is a responsibility for the AP to be there each and every time it is welcome.”

Colford says the AP has a photographer who lives within driving distance of Dover and is able to make it to the arrivals, no matter what time of day or night. As for the network news, it’s not so simple; a night arrival means overtime pay for a union camera crew. And then there’s the question of convenience. “It seems that if the weather is nice, and it’s during the day, we get a higher level of media to come down,” says Lt. Winter. “But a majority of our transfers occur in the early evening and overnight.”

So far this month, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 — more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.

With casualties mounting, the debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan is sharp and heated. The number of arrivals at Dover is increasing. But the journalists who once clamored to show the true human cost of war are nowhere to be found.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on ExaminerPolitics.com. He can be followed on Twitter at ByronYork.

And that the counter-reformists, who comprised a lion’s share of the remaining vote (47%) did so to maintain the status quo, one in which the elite among them holds 80 to 90 percent of the nation’s wealth, influence and power that run government, make most significant corporate/business decisions, and hold most key positions in the full spectrum of American institutions.

To argue, or even begin to discuss, the need or virtuosity for change, however self-evident and overwhelmingly good for society, can turn out to be an exercise in futility… unless one is prepared to recognize where the seat of power truly resides. Without a significant shift in the number of Americans from the ranks of those who now choose the status quo to the ranks of those clamoring for change, the reformists would be left with three choices: (1) convince at least one-third of the counter-reformists to switch sides since, often for the worse, people ultimately decide on issues not based on facts and logic alone, but on their sense of belonging – allegiance and identity – to a given group; (2) surrender to the desires and designs of the elite; or, (3) take up arms in a revolution or, more appropriately, a civil war.

Accepting a priori that such elite has shaped for generations much of the thinking and conduct of Americans – a most effective form of brainwashing – it follows that unless de-brainwashing takes place there is little or no room for change or reform. That calls for reevaluation of past ideas relating to peace-and-war, to blind adherence to a socio-political-economic system, and also to the role government should have in the well-being of people, making de-brainwashing force majeure to precede change or reform.

De-brainwashing America in terms of peace and war is a monumental task not likely to be accomplished until civil discourse rules the day and existing predatory capitalism is exiled and replaced with a system not in conflict with the aspirations of most Americans, nor with the legitimate aspirations of people around the globe.

Nowadays, the concept of empire assigned to the United States, softened somewhat by what is perceived to be the existence of a non-oppressive Pax Americana – a cruel joke for those nations under American occupation, or the prospect of occupation – is defined more by military decisions taken at the Pentagon than by proclamations made at the State Department. It would be naïve to think any incoming president, particularly one with liberal leanings, as capable of starting a de-brainwashing process with the brass at the Pentagon, or the senior career diplomats carrying the baton at State, or the sordidly-independent group that makes up the Central Intelligence Agency.

Obama, in order to maintain tenure – and possibly his personal safety – is obliged to walk the narrow path determining peace and war for the American empire. For now, that includes acceptance of the impossibility of peace in Palestine, a permanent accord between Israelis and Palestinians, unless and until Israel initiates and consents to it. Also, the termination of Iraq’s occupation [a lost war] as the Pentagon decides what’s in the empire’s best geopolitical interests so as to keep in check Shiite power in Iran, Syria and the current fluid situation in Afghanistan; this latter, a dire predicament after 8 years of occupation [a war being lost]. And finally, without exiting the region, the disarray which the US has helped create in Pakistan, first with Pervez Musharrad in power, and now its successor regime [a war which may yet occur].

In less than a decade, the empire has created havoc in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, upsetting the lives of over 100 million people (populations of Afghanistan, Iraq and the Northwestern border of Pakistan), being responsible for up to 1 million people dead in the region, over 5 million people uprooted from their communities, and upwards of 1 trillion dollars in destroyed infrastructure and wasted resources.

But in matters of peace and war, regardless of recent lessons received, Obama will have no choice but to do exactly what the entrenched military-industrial complex wants him to do… and absolutely nothing else.

And just as the US president, through his actions, pledges symbolic allegiance to the powers that rule the land – powers not readily identified in civic or history books – he must also do the same with all the institutional forces that jointly represent a socio-political-economic system that equates predatory capitalism with democracy, and accepts nothing short of complete adherence to it.

Americans have been indoctrinated for generations to repudiate any other ism which may be in conflict with capitalism, refusing to learn or tolerate ideas which they are told to be foreign to their blessed land; ideas not acceptable in the American Catechism that has been coauthored by the extreme Economic Right (an elite representing fewer than 5 percent of the population) and a fundamentalist Religious Right (probably approaching 25 percent of the population). And so, concepts such as socialism, unionism, Marxism, anarchism, libertarianism and any other isms denounced in the catechism’s dogma are pejoratively and prejudicially dismissed before they are even understood. Americans have been, and continue to be, kept in extreme ignorance under the guise they are different and unique by divine choice… above the doctrines, systems and theories of the outside “inferior” world.

Obama could certainly opt to start the de-brainwashing process to change this state of opprobrious ignorance; however, by so doing, he would self-immolate and become a sacrificial lamb with little prospect of representing his own party in the next presidential election. One cannot imagine this president assuming that role.

But just as Obama’s hands appear manacled in dealing with issues pertaining to peace and war, or upgrading Americans’ understanding of a world other than their own, he has a last resort for impact in the domestic front. His administration could certainly take steps in helping determine the role of government in the well-being of the citizenry – leave an imprint at the very least in defining the commons in American civil society. And no better place to show that he is at least a minimal reformer, and not just another articulate president, a la Bill Clinton, than by directing the overhaul of a healthcare system which is drowning the American economy while a source of embarrassment.

There are many industrialized nations – even some developing countries – that have systems of healthcare superior, certainly more equitable, than that in the US, affording universal coverage for their people at a fraction of the US cost, in relative terms to their nation’s GDP. For Congress to disregard or dismiss existence of such successful programs elsewhere, and not try to learn from them, could be considered just one more sign of arrogance; however, it is just a way of admitting that in the US the legislature is a self-serving political body at the beck and call of special interests which in this case happen to be insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, and affiliated/kindred for-profit groups.

For Obama to settle for and not veto legislation that will allow this nation to continue with an inferior and far costlier system of healthcare than that of other first world nations would be an affront to a society that prides itself for justice and compassion. Moreover, it would tell the nation, and the world, that Obama is incapable of loosening himself from the corporate yoke.

Baby steps in de-brainwashing could start, if Obama is worth his mettle, right here in the creation of a comprehensive system of healthcare modeled after those systems that work around the world. America need not reinvent the wheel; only acknowledge that it is round.

Americans won’t have long to wait before they find out if there is change in the air, even if small. And neither does the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, top US administration and army officials cautioned Iraqis of their own recklessness. “Biden Warns Iraq About Reverting to Sectarian Violence,” read a New York Times headline. “What will it take to make a good exit from Iraq?” inquired a Kansas City Star analysis. But missing from news headlines and commentary was any indication of direct US responsibility for the genocide that has befallen Iraq.

How can one claim that US ambitions in Iraq have altered if the ongoing legacy in Iraq is being perceived as a strategic mistake, rather than a moral one?

One thing remains the same, for sure: and that is the arrogance that has long permeated US relations with Iraq. “The president and I appreciate that Iraq has traveled a great distance over the past year, but there is a hard road ahead if Iraq is going to find lasting peace and stability,” said Vice President Biden during a visit to Baghdad on July 3rd. Biden’s remarks were saturated with the same hubris that defined the former administration’s attitude towards Iraq for years: ‘we did our share, that of liberating you, and now its your turn to take charge of your own security’, type of rhetoric. “It’s not over yet,” Biden said. Ironically, he is right, since that could only mean the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the end of foreign meddling in the country’s affairs, and the removal of corrupt politicians that have destroyed the country’s national identity in favour of sectarian camps endlessly fighting for dominance and privilege. Indeed, it’s anything ?but over.

It’s true that the majority of Americans now accept the once rebuked claim that the Iraq war was predicated on a lie, and readily blame former President Bush for drawing the country into a costly war that should have never happened. President Obama’s arrival has seemingly ushered in a new discourse of honesty and national introspection.

Although one wants to believe that the new administration is sincere in seeking an exit strategy from Iraq, one is hardly sure that the US is ready to divorce itself from the war-scarred country. There is little reason, aside from tactical redeployment, that should compel antiwar sentiments to weaken, or self-respecting commentators to halt their questioning of US intentions.

The terms “exit” and “exit strategy” are now dominating media discourse regarding Iraq. Some attribute this new language to the new administration. The odd fact is that the recent US army redeployment is not the brainchild of the Obama administration, but a provision of a November 2008 agreement signed between the Iraqi government of Nouri Al Maliki and the Bush administration. Talk of exiting Iraq indeed preceded the entrance of Obama. The new US administration simply honoured previous commitments. As per official statements, following the June 30 redeployment, the US is expected to reduce its forces by 50,000 troops by August 2010, and then many of those remaining by the end of 2011.

So, 2012 will witness a fully independent Iraq, right? Wrong. “Many studying Iraq believe the US will end up negotiating with Baghdad to establish a couple of permanent military bases,” writes Matt Schofield. “Those could be essential to leaving behind a stable government, a military loyal to the nation and capable of defending it, and a country that has the backing of the people.” Those who wish to decipher such deceptive language should comprehend the permanent US military presence as permanent occupation. Indeed, the US doesn’t have to be present on every Iraqi street corner to officially occupy the country. The sectarian Iraqi army and police – US armed and trained – should be enough to carry out US wishes in Iraq (under the guise of fighting terrorists), while the US will “stand ready, if asked and if helpful, to help in that process,” as explained by Biden.

Iraq headlines will eventually fade away, making space for the new escalation in Afghanistan, also in the name of fighting terror, bringing democracy and all the rest.

The faces of the victims will be hidden so as not to harm our sensibilities, and causality figures will be manipulated, contested and at times blamed on the coward terrorists who hide among civilians. In other words, the US will take the spirit of its Iraq war to Afghanistan, remain in Iraq – as inconspicuous as possible – so as to hold onto its strategic military achievement, and, if necessary, blame both nations for their growing misfortunes.

However, before we take our eyes off Iraq, Americans must remember their own culpabilities in what transpired there. Antiwar activists and people of conscience must not forget that 130,000 US soldiers remain in the country; that the US has complete control over Iraqi airspace and territorial water; that there is not yet a reason to celebrate and move on. Even if one is trusting enough to believe the administration and army’s own account of its future in Iraq, one should recall comments made by Admiral Mike Mullen last February: “Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a ‘residual force’ of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down terrorist cells and guard American institutions.”

One may be truly eager to see a sovereign, democratic and stable Iraq, but such hopes must not occur at the expense of truth and common sense.

Featured Post for 05/08-05/14 I wrote this to Mr. Obama after reading the following article. I guess we’ve got to keep trying.

Red Cross Confirms Dozens Dead in Afghan Air Strikes

Mr. Obama,

I do not understand what is going on. When you inherited the White House, did you also inherit the bubble that your predecessor lived in?

You campaigned for change. We the People, after eight years of Cheney/Bush flouting the Constitution, causing a million or more deaths in their endless search for oil, thought we might have a new broom in Washington that would sweep these people into the dustbin of history and reverse the draconian laws that were put in effect.

Instead, what do we see? On the home front, the billionaires get richer and the poor, the retired, the workers whose jobs have been outsourced are winding up living in the streets. There is more surveillance, more restrictions on our individual lives. Habeas corpus is still a corpse, NorthCom’s combat brigades are still getting intensive training on suppressing civilian unrest. Now you want to keep the Military Commissions for Gitmo because, apparently, the fear is that the civil courts might not allow hearsay evidence, and evidence obtained by torture into their courts, and that the attorneys might have the right to cross examine witnesses, or actually see the evidence!

Our endless wars, which we thought would finally end, are expanding. Iraq gets a change of occupiers from combat troops to “advisors.” Same troops, different name.

We are upping the killing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Every time we bomb a village full of civilians on the off chance of killing what we term insurgents, we create still more Afghan and Pakistani patriots yearning for the end to occupation, as I hope we would if we were occupied. What we consider insurgents, they consider freedom fighters trying to rid their country of yet another foreign invader,

Look at the number of bases we have worldwide. We cannot spread ourselves over the earth like peanut butter on a slice of bread. Especially if the jar is getting moldy.

We have horrible problems here in the US to deal with, yet you sidestep any suggestion that those who committed unconstitutional actions such as violating the treaties which we have signed and which are therefore the Law of the Land (read the Constitution) against torture, indefinite imprisonment, and treatment of prisoners, should be tried and punished. These people were not ignorant, they knew what they were doing and that, if the United States ever became a Constitutional Republic again, tthey would face trial and punishment. According to you, they will not, but their victims, here and abroad, will continue to suffer.

We are still dealing ineffectively from the effects of Katrina, yet we can continue to allow misappropriation of funds and no-bid or fixed contracts with the big money contributors. Veterans, destroyed mentally or physically, and their families, are living in the streets. Runaway inflation and the depression are destroying the lives of retirees.

The Military Industrial Complex has billions and billions in war profits. Can’t you stop feeding them and start caring for We the People who elected you? So far, all that those of us below the rank of Congressman or CEO have seen is Bush Lite and Bush style lies.

Please! Show enough gumption to get rid of these old parasites and turn the country around. We the People will be glad to help. That’s what we elected you for!

Sincerely,

Steve and Adrienne Osborn

From the Editor: Please watch the following video – Ron Paul questioning Richard Holbrooke on war, empire and foreign policy