“For President–BRADLEY MANNING 2012; conscience, courage, responsibility”

I wrote about war, the consequences of war, alternatives to war, and on the responsibilities of soldiers. Again, it’s the body of a letter to a vet who challenged me regarding my support of Bradley Manning. I deeply apologize for the length and hope it was right to post here.

“I have not been a soldier and cannot imagine a job more demanding, stressful, and complicated, to say the least. I understand that soldiers are taught, along with all their other duties, that they have a duty to NOT follow orders which are illegal, and to report war crimes. I’ve not been in that class and so don’t know the particulars.

“I understand that killing of children and countless other civilians is among the material stamped “classified” (or “secret”?) and allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning. (The released documents contain nothing classified “TOP SECRET.”) Not only is this unjustified and immoral and criminal (war crime), but stamping so much material as “classified” seems a new strategy to hide our inexcusable actions and present mode of operation.

“In my reading yesterday, I learned that the head of Bradley Manning’s defense team is a Mr. Coombs who actually was one of the judge’s teachers in the law regarding classified material. While I don’t know the law regarding classified material, I am sure he does, and he has apparently thought Bradley Manning’s case worthy of taking. I believe that using the classification of “secret” has been misused here to hide things merely because of their nature as atrocities.

“You and I both mentioned WWII on Monday, and your point is well taken that our entering the war seemed very necessary at the time we did. I understand that one of the outcomes of the Nuremberg trials was to question and deny a country’s right to make war just because its leader want and choose to. And if I am not mistaken, the Nuremberg conclusions declared and clarified a soldier’s responsibility to NOT participate in crimes and atrocities. And weren’t the collaborators tried and punished? The Nuremberg conclusions are very important in pointing out the responsibility of soldiers to be moral. They also point to how WWII could have been prevented: if soldiers refused illegal orders and refused to participate in atrocities, these kinds of wars would be stopped even before they begin.

“But Nazi soldiers followed orders to kill without reason. They did not respond to conscience or morality, not even Christian morality.

“In Iraq, soldiers have been told to spray fire in 360 degrees of direction in urban areas with civilians present if they think they have been fired on from any direction. They conduct war from the air like it’s a video game, shooting at anyone without any provocation or threat, and the briefest “okay” from higher ups by radio. A video of such behavior, targeting a group of unarmed civilians (including children) and journalists, is one of the items released–it has been called “Collateral Murder.” I doubt the major networks gave it much air time if any at all. You can get a sense of the careless and eager behavior of our soldiers in firing on them from the air, and on firing on those who tried to help the wounded, as I recall. I don’t know the total death count, but I do know the two Reuters journalists were killed.

“I think you asked me if I believe in war. It is a hard thing to answer because I realize how easily people (or groups of people such as countries) get themselves into situations for which they haven’t yet adequate skills, and how easy it is to fall back on the biological and cultural habits of just going after the other guy because of the stress of the situation. I recognize how easily one can feel, especially one who feels themselves to be in a position of responsibility, that one must act now, and with aggression. This is fundamentally an issue of our human biology when experiencing stress. Stress and this immediately-emerging reaction to fight with all we’ve got can make us big and scary and can make a predator run off. But we aren’t dealing with a hungry tiger here, and it is the wrong response. It is all the more the wrong response because of the danger and harm of the powerful weapons we now have. This is no time to be acting without the combined safety-lock of combined conscience, consideration of both short and long-term consequences, and consideration of the well-being and needs of ALL those affected. With acts of harmful aggression, we end the capacity for well-being of those we war on with this response, which in turn harms our chances for security as well. That’s our best case scenario. Worse case outcomes include the deaths of many of even “our side,” with a high likelihood of worsening situations that result in ALL of us dead, all for having relied on a response that was geared more for surviving a hungry tiger attack, or for chasing down a hoped-for dinner. This ain’t the jungle (or savanna) of our ancestors, and the time for war is OVER. War is too dangerous now, and cannot have good outcomes.

“Just because it isn’t easy to work out a better approach to solve problems, also doesn’t make it an appropriate response even if we don’t yet know what else to do. War is the equivalent of a parent, who doesn’t know how to be there for their kid and to help and guide them, beating that kid to death and calling it discipline. We have NO RIGHT to do wrong to others, and furthermore, as I have already suggested, in this very small present world with very our incredibly dangerous weaponry, war is strategically suicide, a kind of ongoing “Russian roulette,” not knowing when or how long it will take before the bullet gets back to kill us. It has already left the gun, and only great wisdom and effort can still stop it now.

“Modern war, as we practice it, is terrorism, and begets terrorism. Many Americans now fear terrorism at home, and this fear encourages a response of war-making. War fuels perpetuating ramps ups of fear and violence, and all this should go by another name, insanity.

“Bradley Manning is accused of releasing documents which show our war behavior. If we pay attention, I think we will see and understand that the nature of the way we are making war cannot be justified from any appropriate perspective whatsoever.

“I am convinced that most soldiers sign up either because they really want to do good for our country and/or because they have to. The first group deserves to be able to ACTUALLY DO GOOD, and the second group deserves good livelihoods without risking or losing their lives, limbs and much of their brain function. Everyone deserves both for that matter—good livelihood and participation in making things better. The purposes we go to war for can be met far better in other ways, and I would far rather see our soldiers working for national security by helping people around the world SOLVE real problems, rather than being the cause of furthering their problems and killing them.

“Even while President Bush was suppressing information on climate change, the pentagon was studying and predicting the destabilizing effects of it around the world in preparation. Rather than go to war and destroying already devastated peoples, we can prevent war by addressing those needs now. THAT would be a smart use of our intelligence and power. We could be building wind turbines (for our neighbors AND ourselves) instead of drones and fighter planes, and saving our own lives as well as that of others, while making friends instead of enemies.

“The pentagon and armed forces are already moving ahead on these technologies; they just haven’t yet been given a go-ahead to pursue these peaceful technologies in the cause of peace. (National security is their mandate–they should be allowed to pursue this in the BEST way, via HELPING in the first place, rather than destroying.) It is my understanding that the Air Force has flown jets on biofuels made from algae (no net carbon added to the atmosphere or global warming effect) and that solar arrays are used by the Army for power in Afghanistan in remote operations.

“So, no, actually I DON’T believe in war. I believe the pursuit of security requires extending our circle of caring to include all of our own people rather than sacrificing our young and our poor to the idea that “conflict cures,” and by extending our circle of caring more widely whatever our neighbors’s present situation, and offering them help not harm. I believe in developing and using the wisdom born of the experience of soldiers in the field and people warred upon, and on the outcomes of peaceful helps. I believe in figuring out what establishes security and good relations and solves real problems and meets real needs.

“For example, when there are nations or leaders not acting with the consent of or in the interest of the people, I believe our best helps are not with weapons, guns, etc., but with others forms of assistance. I understand that NATO bombing tried in the late 90′s to remove the dictator Milosevich from power, and failed. Then a handful of young people under his rule started a nonviolent movement to do the same, and, using money for xeroxing expense and literature provided by the USA Department of State, managed to do just that in about one year. No guns, no harm, almost no deaths. (There were two deaths total, none from violence. On the day of the march on the capital one person died in a car accident and another from a heart attack.) The US is capable of helping immensely, without an iota of violence.

“Before we entered Iraq to dispose Saddam Hussain, there were at least five organizations of Iraqis inside Iraq already working on removing their leader. Rather than war on the people and country of Iraq (which was not justified on the any basis we were told), we could have offered our support to these peaceful groups. We ALWAYS have BETTER alternatives to war. IF our role, as you wisely suggest, is to END wars, it would be our wisdom to engage in these powerful nonviolent ways to prevent violence and end it sooner, rather than engaging in destructive behaviors that ruin lives and destabilize communities and regions.

“In the case of WWII, we could have acted in many ways to prevent the atrocities by acting early and responsibly including speaking up and opening our doors to those in jeopardy. We could have given assistance and international voice to those resisting from within movement towards atrocities. We chose to NOT involve ourselves; we let it be “Germany’s affair” until the situation was so entrenched and murderous that Roosevelt felt we had to engage in war to stop its worsening. Surely we can all agree that that was millions of lives too late, and at the cost of more lives. (Though YES, essential to stop!)

“What if other countries around the world decide they tire of our abuses and terrorism around the world, and get together to put sanctions on us, and if that has no effect, to invade the US in an attempt to stop our aggressions? Well, that would be foolish of them (at least the second), but wouldn’t it be wiser of us as well if we were persuaded earlier on by some brave soldiers of our own who make public our ill-advised strategies, and who get our populace to listen to reality instead of the war-glorifying and fear-tactics of our present leaders? I’d rather be the country that corrects its ways than a country corrected by a hundred other nations who finally stop sitting on the fence of easy criticism and their hope that we’ll grow up and restrain ourselves.

“I have “For President–Bradley Manning 2012” on the back of my car, not because I have identified him as a candidate who I’m sure is already on the track of pursuit of better methods, but because he is, (if he’s the leak) someone who in the worst of situations was able to say, “No, this is wrong, and I will do what I can in my position where I am, to let people know and hopefully get it stopped.” That’s brave and that’s smart. And if my one person campaign bore fruit, I think he’d be smart enough to continue a humanitarian response, to look for human and humane responses to human problems. He clearly has a conscience, and the ability to listen to it, and the ability to contemplate appropriate responses.

“So that’s my take on war, on responsibilities of soldiers, on the wisdom of looking for appropriate responses instead of relying on instincts and technologies that don’t fit our needs or those of the world now. I feel it is time to wise up, look deeper, work with one another, solve problems, and turn things around. I also think we CAN do it, and that people of our military along with people all over the planet would be happy to transition to a more successful and far happier set of strategies.”

(end of excerpted text)

Again, I hope that was not too long, and hope it turns out to be worth reading for those who do. I am deeply grateful for the notes and all the work you do in support of Bradley Manning and moving us towards real peace. Thanks so much.

On the Dark Side in Al Doura:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiNmerP32xk;

Families of Soldiers Call for Investigation into Deaths After Military Hazing
http://therealnews.com/t2/?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7852#comment-431138003

On one side, we have the people who make money from the economics of empire, together with the people they have succeeded in persuading that it’s good to make personal sacrifices, and to kill other people, for the sake of empire.

On the other side, we have people who care more about other people, including people very different than they are, than they care about empire.

The messages of the two groups conflict, but only one side seeks to prevent the message of the other from being publicly visible.

Did I get that right?

I recently moved from southern North Carolina to central New York State. The contrast between the two communities’ celebrations of Martin Luther King Day was very strong. In NC, the celebration was held in a union hall, emphasized Jesus, included an ROTC (military) ceremony, had terrific music, and very few of MLK’s own words were spoken. In NY, the celebration was held in a protestant church, never mentioned Jesus, and consisted entirely of terrific music and MLK’s own words (which of course did refer to the ministry of Jesus at least by implication).

Those differences, strong as they were, were all arguably stylistic and not especially substantive. There seems to be a much more substantive difference between these two St. Paddy parades. One parade regards the other as downright threatening; the other just wants to join in. But in both cases, the very name of the celebration, “St. Patrick’s” is an unmistakeable reference to the ministry of (guess who). Go figure. The difference is probably as inscrutable to outsiders as the differences between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites are to most Americans.

Which kind of America do YOU choose? Inclusive, or exclusive? A doomed empire, or a living, renewable republic? Personally, I like a St. Paddy parade in which I can be Irish for a day, no matter my politics. The exclusively-militaristic parade is, of course, doomed anyway. It would be best to ignore it, I think, except at public-funding-decision time. At funding time, it would be important to make sure that everyone knows that it’s not actually a public event, but the public is asked to pay for it anyway. What really matters here, probably, is what the Roman Catholic Church has to say about it, with ample reference to the ministry of Jesus, of course. They can provide leadership here if they choose to do so. To fail to choose is still to choose; there’s no avoiding the choice. Which choice will they make? We’ll know the next time the funding question comes up. The key, for people of good will towards other people, is to make sure the funding question is resolved in a public manner.

We do know Manning was unhappy as a serving gay soldier before repeal of DADT, but I don’t see how you could leap to your conclusion. Manning’s defense attonrneys are hardly claiming diminished responsibility on grounds of mental illness. The argument is about the Army’s failures of duty of care and therefore of some share of responsibility for the alleged leaks.