Author: mopress

[Attn Editors: It’s Bobby Seale in paragraph two–gm]

A Memorial Day Meditation

By Greg Moses

http://peacefile.org/wordpress/

Absolute pacifists are absolutely rare. Even the
ancient Jewish pacifist, Jesus of Nazareth, got so
pissed off at the sight of holiday shopping that he
tossed tables around with his bare hands. Yet when it
came time to acquit himself before imperial
authorities, he steadfastly refused.

Stew Albert tells a story about the late Dave
Dellinger, “the life long pacifist” who “got in some
real shoving matches with the Federal Marshals” as
they tied Bobby Seale to a courtroom chair. Yet
Dellinger, “the wrestling pacifist,” chose prison over
war. So pacifism is nearly always a position that one
takes in relation to circumstances.

Anti-war pacifism in recent centuries arises out of a
judgment that the institution of war, waged by
structures of the capitalist state, cooly delivers
death to the many and profits to the few. The
stronger the institution of war becomes, the more
death and profit we may expect, with ever diminishing
returns to the greater good.

Yet along with modern pacifism come modern
philosophies of existentialism, pragmatism, and
postmodernism, with their philosophical assertions
that reality always resists the single meaning. If
war is indeed a profiteering enterprise, it can be
other things, too. Even among liberals and lefties,
there are very few who oppose all war at all times.

And finally, even among the very few pacifists who
counsel young folks about conscientious objection, who
refuse to pay taxes for military use, and who go to
prison for crossing some line, even among these
present day saints one finds abiding respect for the
individual conscience, and therefore respect for the
soldier or citizen who believes that wars can be
fought a right way.

So on this Memorial Day, the third one to be
celebrated since the massacres of Sept. 11, 2001, I
wonder if there is a liberal, lefty, pacifist,
anti-war activist to be found who does not find a way
to honor the soldier of conscience.

For the soldier of conscience, military service is a
way of risking one’s life for others, preparing to
take a bullet, and being part of a larger whole that
lives because some are willing to die. For the
soldier of conscience then, the value of war lies not
in the willingness to kill, but in the readiness to be
killed.

The military uniform, therefore, when worn by a
soldier of conscience, is a public sign to the rest of
the world that here walks a person who is prepared to
do your dying for you. On Memorial Day, the graves
call up to us. Here lie soldiers of conscience who
died so that you could live.

The soldier of conscience is in on my mind this
Memorial Day weekend as I think about the publicity
stunt that the President pulled Monday, when he staged
a reading of his stock war speech at the Army War
College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Surely the President noticed right away that the
audience at the War College was not going to be the
adoring crowd that he had found a few days earlier at
an AIPAC rally. But this is precisely the difference
that one would expect to find between an audience that
does not wear uniforms and one that does, because,
when you talk about war to audiences that wear
uniforms, you are talking to them about making use of
their readiness to die.

I wonder for instance, whether the President is aware
of Directive 1344.10, published by the Department of
Defense. It is an updated regulation that reiterates
some long-standing ethical principles that are
supposed to regulate the power of the uniform in
political affairs. Simply put, the American military
uniform is not to be used for political purposes.

Yet press reports and commentaries surrounding the
President’s speech were hardly guessing at the
political nature of the President’s speech. He was

speaking in a “battleground state” about political
policies that were clearly a matter of national and
international dispute.

“Generations of officers have come here to study the
strategies and history of warfare,” said the President
to the War College. “I’ve come here tonight to report
to all Americans, and to the Iraqi people, on the
strategy our nation is pursuing in Iraq, and the
specific steps we’re taking to achieve our goals.”

With two disjointed sentences, the President tells the
War College audience that regardless of their reasons
for being at Carlisle, he is here to make a national
and international political appeal. The uniforms of
the Army War College, here on display, will serve as
so much televised backdrop for a flagging political
campaign. What “we’re doing” in terms of a strategy
crafted by a partisan Republican administration
becomes a strategy already dressed in uniforms worn by
soldiers of conscience.

A soldier on active duty, says Directive 1344.10
(Enclosure C.3.9) shall not: “Participate in any
radio, television, or other program or group
discussion as an advocate of a partisan political
party or candidate.” Yet on Monday night the
Commander in Chief of the War College in effect
ordered his troops to lend their uniforms to the
unethical purpose of advancing his partisan Republican
image. What choice did they have but to salute him?

Well, perhaps the press has been accurately reporting
that Monday night’s speech was “more of the same.” It
all depends which same you start from. On the
unethical use of the lives and uniforms of soldiers of
conscience indeed, this President continues to sink
lower each day.

http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/ethics_regulation/1344-10.html

And His Pledge to Destroy Abu Ghraib Prison was a Filthy Mislead

By Greg Moses
first published at Rob Kall’s OpEdNews.Com

Already two claims have been repeated about the President’s War College speech, but both claims are misleading. First is the claim that the speech offered nothing new. But this claim is misleading because it fails to take seriously the meaning of the venue or the prime time schedule. The image of the War College audience is not just another backdrop. Second is the claim that the only news of the evening was the President’s pledge to demolish Abu Ghraib prison. And this is misleading, because the President promised to replace that prison first.

If we correct for these misleading claims, the War College speech becomes another kind of promise from the President—not to stay the course, nor to abolish the power of prison in Iraq . Rather, the President promises the War College audience that he plans to fully exploit the US uniformed services to advance the construction of a globalized garrison state. Before Abu Ghraib can be torn town, said the President in effect, the US Army will protect the contractors that will build the replacement prison. And he said all this in such a way that his proposals were met with a burst of televised applause from the uniformed professionals themselves.

No, the War College speech was not nothing new. It was a crucial escalation in a plain agenda of power over the people, both at home and abroad.

….

First published on May 25, 2004 at Sam Hamod’s Today’s Alternative News

Greg Moses

In choosing the US Army War College as backdrop for
his televised speech on Iraq policy, President George
W. Bush again chose poorly.

If the President’s talk was intended to convey a
concept of mission to military intellectuals,
proffered by the office of Commander in Chief, then a
daytime C-SPAN venue would have been more appropriate.

But when the White House requests prime time from
major commercial media and then surrounds the
President with an audience of none but uniformed
scholars, in order to send a global political message
about policy, in the midst of an election campaign,
then another grave line has been crossed in the
President’s war on democracy at home.

By surrounding himself with uniformed scholars, the
President conveys an impression that his political
exploits are not to be distinguished from national
defense. By addressing the Army’s scholars on
international television, the President compels global
images of applause from a group that is already sworn
to obey him….

Fractured Reflections on Kissability

By Greg Moses

first published at Counterpunch

Tuesday morning, 8:53 a.m., MAN PRESIDENT kisses Woman President and begins: “Thank you all very much. Finally, AIPAC elected a President I can kiss. (Laughter and applause.)” Mornings all should be like this–thanking crowds for electing kissable presidents. MAN PRESIDENT does not explain why he was previously unable to kiss AIPAC presidents. Nor does his audience require an explanation. MAN PRESIDENT only kisses women.

Study Question: what does MAN PRESIDENT mean when he says he “can” kiss this president? How does his threshold of kissability illuminate the freedom-loving central nervous system of the Judeo-Christian West? What fears and taboos are intuitively connected to their laughter and applause? How does MAN PRESIDENT propose to federalize these barriers into Constitutional Law? ….