Go Back to Sleep

Back in 2005 or so I found a book called "The Terror Timeline", a factual timeline on issues relating to the 9/11 disaster and related material. If you've never read this book, it is simply amazing. Instead of narration, the book is outlined and divided by topic, and subdivided by events that relate to the topic. "Insider" information that can't be verified isn't used as proof, but where it appears, it appears as the event in which that information has been made public, and presented as "So and so claims such and such to XYZ news" or whatever. It is extremely hard hitting, completely transparent and there is not much difficulty in verifying sources (although some sources are in books which must be purchased to continue investigation). Recently, I remembered this book, and it's linking the Carter doctrine, as well as the former National Security Adviser for the Carter Administration Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a direct cause/effect timeline stretching from the late seventies all the way to more current events.

When you look at mainstream media today, however, no one shows pictures of the satellite photos of Russian tanks invading Afghanistan. No one references Zbignew's open admission that the Carter administration was directly involved in creating the conditions that provoked the Soviet invasion. No one points to the people we decided to train, fund and assist, the people who were, at the time, a minority in both method, and belief of what Islam was and meant. We openly admit we knew these people used torture, violation of civil liberties, and even skinned people alive.... and we gave them guns, expert guerrilla training, demolitions training, showed them how to recruit and train more members.... basically...without regard for who or what these people were, we trained, often in our own country...the largest, most dangerous affiliation of special forces without any kind of real oversight or handling...even though we could clearly see by their dialogue, their actions and their writings that none of these people were even sympathetic to our cause, much less our allies. These people hated us already as much as they hated the people were sending them against (Soviets).

Last week I find an article in Time Magazine, which was about Russia invading Georgia. One of these articles is written by. None other than former National Security Advisor to the Carter administration, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

And I'm thinking...isn't this anti-communist rhetoric and paranoid post McCarthyism what led us to blindly training the most notorious, brutal and power hungry men in the world today?

So I go back to historycommons.com, where the 9/11 Timeline project has actually grown into a civil journalism effort of incredible impact, for many topics. All of this information is cited, can be fact checked, and so far has proven to be one of the most accurate forms of reporting actual events.

The deeper I go, the more appalled and deeply impacted I am. We do not live in the country that my father taught me was important to defend. It isn't the country that values human life, freedom, democracy...not even in the slightest degree. While I agree every nation behaves badly from time to time, and that it's ethics and values are often made by these conflicts, our nation has had an abysmal record of oppression since it became a superpower. Yet today, while researching differences between McCain's political history with Barak Obama's, in an effort to write an article which confronts popular rumors about both candidates...I find numerous references to the waterboarding incident where three Al-Queda prisoners are subjected to drowning torture. (For the record, both candidates are heavily against the practice so far as I can tell).

Do I know what waterboarding is? I had some idea, but...no, not really. So I look it up, not in History Commons, because it only deals with waterboarding in light of the current issues, but across the internet I'm searching for what exactly waterboarding is, what the effects are, how far back the practice goes, who's used it, etc.

I'm horrified that it's even a controversy, much less one that has not been settled already. At the very least, military officers have been dismissed from the army for using such practices. Law enforcement officials as early as the start of the 1900's have been criminally tried, convicted and fired for using the same techniques. Vanity Fair journalist, Christopher Hitchens, underwent simulated water torture in order to experience it first hand. Unlike actual detainees, his experience lasted only 12 seconds. Actual prisoners undergoing the torture of "waterboarding" have no code words, no safety, no dead man switches, no way of making it stop. Even with the assurance and knowledge beforehand that Chris was going to be completely safe, he still suffers from posttraumatic anxiety. There is a surprising amount of video documentation on the web about Waterboarding (and a surprising number of people willing to experience it in order to understand, and tell us). While some video's opinions range from "should not ever engage in torture" to "if it saves lives, in extreme situations, I want torture to be used"...in few cases have I found anyone who this intimately involved with waterboarding who will deny that it is torture. Yet still, the issue of whether waterboarding is torture or coercive interrogation is controversial. The issue seems to be weighing against fears of terrorist attacks against the rights of the people we have in captivity. John McCain, however, would argue that it "isn't about who they are, but about who we are". And I agree with it. Especially when one weighs in who is responsible for arming, funding, training and handing power in the form of naked force to radical, fundamental, militant Islamic organizations in the first place.

U.S.

And I mean that in every way, "us". That is what our country is about, isn't it? Us. We have the ultimate responsibility, the last authority; we make the decision on what is acceptable behavior by our country, the good old U.S. of America. It's written into our very Constitution, the legal writ by which we are determined to be a nation, and what kind of nation we are, begins with "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States", and it's written just like that, in huge, sweeping strokes, so that there can be no question WHO constitutes the authority by which the leaders of our nation rule. These words, "We the people" are the largest on the document, and can be clearly read even at a distance when nothing else can be seen. So while we may claim that the perspective of history makes the meaning of the rest of the words uncertain, at no point could we ever claim not understanding what this very central piece upon which all of our law, authority and power of the United States is based upon.

"We the People"

This is both a practical as well as ideological concept. As we know already, no tyrant can long stand against sustained revolution that is supported popularly by a nations own civilian population. While some independent revolutions or acts of revolution may fail, collectively, should no compromise be reached, revolution will occur again and again. In even the most uneven contests, internal strife within a nation can cause it to weaken enough so that it falls victim to its enemies. In some cases, such as the American Revolution against England, the enemy may support and give aid and encouragement to these revolutions for their own ends (France). We know this to be true, for these are the practices we used to against the Soviet Union during its occupation with Afghanistan, indeed, we started the conflict ourselves for this purpose.

We the People decided it would be beneficial to back men such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and other Islamic extremists during the mid to late 1970's, to provide resistance to the Soviet backed republic after the toppling of the Afghan King by Prince Muhammad Daoud (1973). While this may seem like a sound plan, it should be pointed out, that We the People also decided it would be in our best interests in 1979 to provide major support to Gulbiuddin Hekmatyar, who had little support in Afganistan, who we knew to be a drug dealer, and who We the People knew was a corrupt, brutal and inefficient man who skinned his enemies alive, on the recommendation of the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI. Over half of our support for the Afghanistan mujaheddin eventually goes to this man. We the People weren't deceived by the ISI on who this person was. In fact, We the People decided that Hekmatyar's ruthlessness was an asset because it would be used against the Soviets.

If you are wondering why "you" as a person were never made aware of what "We the People" determined, that might be because in this instance, "We the People" came in the form of our Central Intelligence Agency. It was also not known that prior to this, "We the People" in the form of former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, decided that supporting these men and drawing the Soviets into conflict with them would also be in our best interests. We didn't make this decision "despite" what we knew about the kinds of thugs we were giving sophisticated weaponry, money and training and naked force to...but because of what we knew about them. These traits were considered assets usable against the Soviet Union, with no regard to the effect this balance of power would have to the Muslim communities themselves.

We talk about hawkish and dovish tendencies, about how we must take a strong, military stance against people who oppose freedom, who oppose Democracy, who oppose "everything we stand for". Yet when Carter, an outspoken human rights activist tours an industrialized Iran on the verge of, and yearning for democracy, equal rights, and a share in their countries wealth, he heaps praise upon the still Imperialistic Shah for his work there, and says nothing about human rights. Despite an alarming rise of a secret police organization and oppressive rule by a hardliner intelligence community, Carter fails to push Human Rights with Iran. More importantly, the Shah of Iran was a U.S. ally with a cozy relationship with the west dating back to the Nixon administration.

So on one hand, we have our outspoken Human Rights president elected in our country, while we talk about the importance of human rights across the world, in every country. Yet we continue to give support and aid a "regime" which in the 1970's began denying these basic rights to it's population who's eyes had begun to see the hope of freedom, a freedom we as American's hold deep and dear in our hearts.

Why, if we are a freedom loving nation that has become the envy of the world, would we fail on this most basic level? In the January 15, 1979 issue of Time, Brzezinski is quoted as saying "An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries." A year earlier, Carter had appointed George Ball as head of the White House Iran task force under Brzezinski, who advised dropping support of the Shah in favor for radical Muslim, the Ayotollah Khomeini.

Balls ideas are based on Dr. Bernard Lewis' ideas that the middle eastern regions should be divided up by tribal and religious lines in order to destabilize them, providing a region of chaos within the Soviet Union. Lewis' uses the same "Arc of Crisis" language in The Bernard Lewis Plan, which Brzezinski adopts. Compare this ideology with the quote by Brzezinski above, and you hear the subtext plainly continue "political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries...or be filled by elements hostile to our adversaries."

Surprised? I was. Outraged? I am. Responsible? Oh yes. "We the People" made these decisions, through our proxies, proxies we trusted, not just to protect us, but to protect what we believe in. We were not told "We're chopping up the Middle East in order to create chaos and mayhem with the Soviets", which would have actually been believable before the fall of the Iron Curtain. Why are we still doing this now? The answer, which I am still hesitant to mention, may be as simple as the most basic motivations nearly every American believes we are at war for...oil and profit. I am loathe to cite this as the motivation because it seems so obvious, and I know things are not always what they seem. But, like my dad used to say, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...it's probably a duck".

Throw me in the shallow water, before I get too deep. Maybe it's hard for me to accept because of what it says about me...a member of the "US" of America. My Constitution makes responsibility for the actions of my government clear to me. As Truman might put it, "The Buck Stops Here".

Of all the branches of the government who have failed to secure our happiness and safety, or assisted in the safeguarding of civil liberties abroad, it is the Populous Branch, the fourth check and balance in our system of governance, which has the greatest culpability.

Us.

The citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan suffer terribly because of the organizations which "We the People" have given raw, naked force for the express intent and purpose for oppression and destruction of basic human rights and liberties. We, the "US" of America have been given express permission and right to control and govern our leaders, and to deny them power when abused, to decry destructive and abominable policies. We have a right and responsibility to demand the end of atrocities committed in the name of our country, using our national resources, spilling the blood of our citizens, our sons, daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters...especially when we are told the cause is for Freedom...

...when it is not.

We have protected, legal rights to hold our nation accountable for what it has done in our name. Citizens in these other countries who want these rights must break their own laws in order to gain them. We don't. In fact, should it be found that there is such a law that forbids us to be responsible members of our own government, there is legal recourse for these laws to be abolished.

How can we expect the Iraqi people to "welcome us with open arms", to throw off the shackles of their oppressors, when we have such a long, winding history or not caring enough to do the same? Who's holding a gun to our head?

Whose hearts and minds are being won here? Is it actually our hearts and minds being won? Are we being lulled into complacent complicity, to agree we are not ultimately responsible for the actions of our government? Without responsibility for our government, we lose all authority over it, and we oblige it in laying down our rights, our means of oversight by failing to demand an accounting. If our Legislative Branch will not check the Executive Branch, if our Judicial Branch will not convict those who have deliberately deceived us, we...the "US" of America are still here, and by our own Declaration of Independence:

"... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

These are powerful words, rooted deeply into all of our beliefs as Americans. Maybe I don't have the right to invoke them, but certainly no one has the right to invoke them as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" when the actions of our government, it's destructive policies, its own...OUR own participation in the history that has led us to this point thus far. We cannot look at these words in our own Declaration of Independence and, in any way, justify the actions of our government concerning the Middle East and vast cultural diversity that makes up the people of Islam. We have too often used the "ring of freedom" to sway our population into supporting foreign action, and then denied that freedom to the people who have waited to taste it.

It is no wonder so many young lives harvested in the brutality of the chaos we've deliberately caused in their lives no longer believe in peace, no longer believe in freedom? How can they when blood and violence has been the direct reward for believing in American Democracy?

One has to ask, what value is any freedom that is had at the cost of the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", which are by our own words "unalienable rights". By what logic, reasoning or even sentiment may we claim these things for ourselves against an oppressive government in order to declare our own freedoms and then deliberately, with malice and callous apathy, deny these rights to any other human being?

Only once we've taken responsibility for our part in this issue, can we ever have the authority to change it. When you are told you are not responsible, it is, in essence, telling you that you also have no power to change it. The two come hand in hand, responsibility is authority, and we have been given implicit right to both, more so in our country, than perhaps any other. The Declaration of Independence plainly states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And in any case where the Executive branch feels there is need for war, two parts of our government cannot be ignored to gain this power. The first is the Legislative Branch, by means of Congressional vote, and the second, is the U.S. of America, you and I. One is by condition of our Constitution, while the latter is a pragmatic result because of the nature of our Democracy. Otherwise, there would be no need to call this one "Operation Iraqi Freedom". It is the force and power of the Declaration of Independence which our leaders have called for this war with Iraq, but in no way have we demonstrated any intent in securing for the Iraqi people, the Iranian people, the Afghanistan people...any measure of freedom. We have, instead, handed the enemies of justice, the predators of peace, the hyena's of human rights, guns, money, assistance, power, justification and training to exert their influence over their own people, locally, as well as to recruit from, train and indoctrinate others to a like mind.

We are winning the hearts and minds of people to the rhythm of the war drum.