[Peace-discuss] More disgusting nonsense from the Democrats

[C. G. Estabrook]

Our New Iraq-Afghanistan War National Holiday

Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2011-05-29

Memorial Day is nice, I suppose. Veterans Day is all right. Patriots Day can be 
fun. Yellow Ribbon Day's not bad. But you will be pleased to hear that on 
Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously voted, in pure bipartisan 
harmony, to add the following gem to the big war-funding, war-expanding, bill 
that now goes to the Senate:

"The President shall designate a day entitled a National Day of Honor to 
celebrate members of the Armed Forces who are returning from deployment in 
support of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat areas."

Catchy, ain't it? I can't wait to find out what day the President will so 
designate. I do hope it's my birthday, but I'm not trying to be greedy -- I know 
you all just had the same thought. While, oddly, not a single newspaper took 
notice, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Dem., Texas) proposed this historic 
bit of legislation on the floor of the House on Thursday thusly:

"Today I rise with an amendment supported by my colleague and a member of the 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. [Hank] Johnson, to ask support for an amendment 
that can bring all of us together, the designation of a national day of honor to 
celebrate the members of the Armed Services who will be returning from 
deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan and other combat areas. This national day of 
honor would recognize the enormous sacrifice and invaluable service that those 
phenomenal men and women have undertaken to protect our freedom and share the 
gift of democracy in other parts of the world.

"How many of us have stopped to say 'thank you' to a soldier walking alone in an 
airport, maybe having made a travel of millions of miles, thousands upon 
thousands of miles, to find himself or herself in their rural hamlet or urban 
center coming home. They have come home over the years, and they have come home 
not seeking glory or appreciation. That's our men and women. The men and women 
of the United States military and intelligence community who helped bring Osama 
bin Laden didn't ask for applause and appreciation.

"My amendment will give all Americans, no matter what your political views, 
religion, ethnicity, gender or background, the chance to be able to say 'thank 
you.' It is reminiscent of times that some of us did not live through. I am 
reminded of the pictures that I saw of those celebrating in the streets during 
World War II."

Now, technically, the members of the armed "services" (and the roughly equal 
number of mercenaries and contractors who apparently will not be honored or 
celebrated), while enduring outrageous hardship and exhibiting courage and 
determination, have not actually protected anyone's freedom or actually shared 
with anyone the gift of democracy. The point, however, is to be reminiscent of a 
time when those claims were less ludicrous. And while no one actually helped 
"bring" Osama bin Laden anywhere, as the armed "services" were assigned to put 
bullets in his head and did so, the point is to celebrate his murder without 
focusing on what it was. And while the armed "services" and the president and 
the television spokesgenerals went out of their way, and all the way to lower 
Manhattan, to ask for applause and appreciation, the idea is to give them a bit 
more, darn it.

"My uncle served in World War II. My grandmother sent her sons to war. She 
watched them one by one, and proudly so. As an immigrant American, she was glad 
to be able to send them to fight our battles. Now, as we make our decisions to 
bring our troops home, to be able to provide them the opportunity of economic 
enhancement such as jobs and education, let's have a day where all of us will be 
able to be in the streets, if you will, to simply say 'thank you;' and job well 
done!"

While World War II killed more human beings than any other event in history, it 
has done far more damage in the 65 years since then, by serving as a 
justification for more killing. Got an unpopular war that a strong majority has 
come to see as misguided and declares never should have happened? Not a problem! 
Just pretend it's World War II and celebrate accordingly. That this is unlikely 
to work terribly well is demonstrated by the total lack of interest in the 
passage of this amendment on Thursday. Of course, there were more important 
stories to cover in the news, and the most important ones were nearly ignored as 
well. While Congresswoman Jackson Lee speaks as if the troops are coming home, 
the House actually passed, with her vote, a mammoth bill to fund the 
continuation of the wars, and rejected numerous amendments that would have made 
it more likely some troops might come home. In addition, the House voted down an 
amendment that would have stripped from the bill language empowering current and 
future presidents to make war almost anywhere at any time, regardless of 
Congress or the Constitution.

"We are in the midst of ongoing conflict and warfare. We must show continued 
support of our troops and increase their moral. What better way to demonstrate 
our support than by celebrating their return from deployment with a National Day 
of Honor. Though we may be divided by our positions on the war in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and other combat areas, we stand together to support our veterans. 
Currently, there are close to 100,000 troops serving in Afghanistan. And even in 
the aftermath of the death of Osama bin Laden, troops remain in Afghanistan to 
protect against retaliatory attacks and to help rebuild the country.

Do they, now? No bases, no weapons positioning, no gas pipeline, no 
profiteering, no protecting of corrupt war lords, no destruction of the country? 
On the contrary, this is a humanitarian mission to "rebuild" and "protect." But 
protect whom? Is al Qaeda expected to retaliate against the people of 
Afghanistan or against the foreign occupying army? We leave the members of our 
military there tempting retaliation in order to protect against retaliation, as 
we celebrate the childish murder against which retaliation was entirely 
predictable -- retaliation that has already caused the deaths of some of those 
we're honoring and celebrating. The language says we are to celebrate those 
returning; it doesn't say they have to be alive at the time.

"As of April 2011, close to 46,000 American troops are serving in Iraq. At the 
height of the Iraqi dispute, close to 170,000 U.S. troops were stationed in 
Iraq. These courageous men and women are mothers and fathers, husbands and 
wives, yet they have risked their lives and left their families to fight for 
what they believe in which is freedom, equality, and all the like principles 
that America stands on. The courage and sacrifice of the men and women are 
certainly well deserving of celebration. Their service is an extraordinary act 
of patriotism for which we should all be thankful."

This is demonstrably false. Polls of U.S. military members in Iraq over the 
years have shown them to be persuaded they are there to exact revenge for a 
crime Iraq had no part in, or bewildered as to what they are doing there, 
resentful of having been sent there, and in favor of ending that war. Many have 
gone AWOL or refused the illegal order to participate in an illegal war. How 
about a holiday for that bravery? How about a holiday for peacemakers -- as 
distinct from peace prize laureates -- who help avoid wars? Members of the U.S. 
military do not need holidays that most of this country will laugh at. They need 
to be kept out of imperial adventures. They need to be brought home. They need 
job training, education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, a sustainable 
environment, and a democracy in Washington, D.C., none of which we can have 
while pretending that it is our patriotic duty to pretend the military is in 
Afghanistan on a humanitarian mission.

Word to the wise: you can care about the people put through the horrors of our 
wars, including the 95% who are not Americans (how about a holiday for them?), 
and including the members of the U.S. military, and the mercenaries, and the 
contractors, and the warmongering presidents and senators and congress members, 
and the weapons profiteers, all without ceasing to denounce what they are doing. 
The best way to honor veterans is to stop creating more of them. And the only 
way to do that is to call a halt to this celebratory scam. I'm not going to "say 
thank you" to a participant in an illegal war. I'm going to say "I'm sorry we 
gave you no education or job options and allowed our government to put you 
through that hell. What can I do to help?"

"In the words of President John F. Kennedy, 'As we express our gratitude, we 
must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to 
live by them.' It is not simply enough to sing the praises of our nation's great 
veterans; I firmly believe that we must demonstrate by our actions how proud we 
are of our American heroes."

Kennedy wrote but didn't dare speak aloud, this: "War will exist until that 
distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and 
prestige that the warrior does today." Why do we keep trying to make that 
distant day more distant?

"We promise to leave no soldier or veteran behind."

Oh? Will you provide them with jobs, housing, healthcare, apologies, 
explanations, truth about what you've done to them? I didn't think so. Jackson 
Lee showed big photos of military members in action in our wars, none of 
veterans living on our streets. Her holiday is about celebrating war, not about 
caring for the people we imposed war on. A separate amendment introduced by 
Jackson Lee toothlessly expressed the sense of Congress that access to treatment 
of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder should be expanded. I'd prefer Congress 
actually expand that treatment and, more importantly, reduce the incidence of 
the trauma.

The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon (Rep., Calif.), 
author of the language granting presidents war-making power, was quick to agree 
with Jackson-Lee:

"I thank the gentlelady for doing this. I think she is exactly right on. I think 
everything that we can do to honor these warriors who are out there fighting for 
our freedoms and freedoms of those around the world we should do."

Congressman Adam Smith (Dem., Wash.) agreed:

"I am just in awe of how great our military is . . . and what a tremendous job 
they have done for us."

Chairman McKeon emphasized that not only was celebrating troops a way to 
celebrate war, but passing this amendment was grounds for passing the underlying 
bill to fund more warmaking:

"We have a good bill, this National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. It is a 
very good bill. We have a lot of good things in it; but this amendment, this 
amendment alone is reason to vote for the bill."

The amendment passed on a voice vote, but Jackson Lee insisted on a roll call, 
upon which it passed unanimously.

The same bill proposes April 9th be made Yellow Ribbon Day, honors in various 
ways the veterans of a wide variety of past wars, defunds the U.S. Institute of 
Peace (thus saving the cost of 5 hours in Afghanistan), and requires that all 
suspected foreign terrorists who are not killed be tried, if they are tried, by 
the military and not in courts. This is, I repeat, the same bill that formally 
gives presidents virtually unlimited power to make war. This may be the worst 
bill ever deemed likely to pass into law. A holiday for the Iraq and Afghanistan 
Wars somehow just doesn't make up for that in my mind. I'd rather party like it 
was 1999, before the current madness really kicked in. I hope we all still have 
jobs from which to get time off for Jackson Lee's holiday.

http://warisacrime.org/content/our-new-iraq-afghanistan-war-national-holiday