Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

More than half a year after Bush left office, our country still finds itself involved with two wars. Barack Obama flew into the White House with a message of change. So far he has kept Bush’s policies of bailing out failed companies with taxpayer money, continues to support State’s Secrets, has called for the creation of internment style prison systems, supports the denial of habeas corpus to prisoners in Bagram airbase, and has escalated Bush’s side-war in Afghanistan.

I am failing to see the change that Obama promised us. Turns out I’m not alone.  There might be a few of us who remember Cindy Sheehan. She was the woman who courageously protested against the War in Iraq outside of Bush’s Texas ranch. Well unlike most people of today, she understands that there still is a war going on in the Middle East even though Obama has taken office. She is now protesting Obama’s wars in the Middle East, actually calling his policies “worse” than Bush’s. Not surprisingly, the Left who once supported her and her negativity toward Bush, are not so happy with her anti-Obama rhetoric. Go here to read her words on how quickly the Left has ‘left’ her side (pun intended).

I have been called a “racist” from the so-called left. In these people’s opinion, I was totally justified in protesting Bush, but I am a racist for protesting the same policies under Obama…There are many people in this country who oppose Obama because they’re racist, but I am not one of them. I oppose Obama’s policies because they are wrong…

Due to the negative press the US has gotten over its military reports concerning the air strikes in the Farah Province in Afghanistan and their “possible” murder of 86 innocent civilians, General McChrystal has issued a tough new order for his troops: don’t fight so close to innocent people. 

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the “number of Afghans shielded from violence,” and not the number of militants killed.

Of course, the problem could be the simple ignorance of the rules of engagement with total impunity. However, It seems Gen. McChrystal may be on to something. Perhaps, his new goal of low civilian exposure to violence will be best achieved by simply leaving Afghanistan. I believe then the civilians there would be under no threat of violence from US forces whatsoever. You want less violence and less death Gen. McChrystal?  How about stop bombing (and torturing) the world.

It is no stretch for one to conclude that terrorism has replaced socialism as the new perceived threat to America. Our government has found it exponentially more convenient to use mythical terrorist threats to scare US citizens into saluting the flag and pledging support for all horrendous atrocities being carried out in our names. These scare tactics are to be expected post Cold War because America needs a new reason to justify its empire, as well as its increasing control over the lives of the population. However, a recent court case has me questioning the arbitrary definition our government has placed on terrorism.

According to Al Jazeera, A US court recently sentenced the former heads of the charity organization Holy Land Foundation to 65 years in prison for providing funds to Hamas. Prosecutors claimed that the charity was spreading Hamas ideology by providing aid to its schools, hospitals, and social welfare programs inside Palestinian territories. They also accused the charity of allowing Hamas to fund its fighting with the charitable donations. Bush labeled this case another battle in the War on Terror. However, while I would not agree with this charity funding Hamas’s violent actions, the case does expose the hypocrisy of the US government in dealing with Israel and Palestine.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have read several letters to the editor regarding the importance of honoring the victims of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I could not agree more, we need to view these fallen soldiers as human beings, not as casualties or statistics. However, the men and women who have died during the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and during the brief overthrow of said governments, deserve more than just a brief “moment of silence” every day. They deserve more than words, flags, patriotism, memorials, and parades. They deserve our respect. There is a difference between “supporting the troops” and supporting the unethical, unconstitutional, and unwinnable foreign policy of our government. We ALL support the troops. The difference is between those who support the human beings in uniform and those who support the foreign policy of our government at the expense of those in uniform.

What we are subjecting our military personnel to is sickening. They deserve better. According to the Department of Defense, 35% of Iraq veterans seek psychological counseling within a year of coming home. While overseas, our soldiers are pressured to bottle up their psychological illnesses and fight their way through it. Upon their return to reality, the bottle explodes and many lose the ability to live life as a civilian without anti-depressants. The next time you find yourself saying, “someone has got to do it” or “they volunteered for the job”, take a moment to think about the damage being done to these young men and women, as well as their friends and families. Then take a moment to think about whether their lives, limbs, and mental health, are worth the continued occupation of nations that no longer desire our presence. Then write your State Representative and tell him or her your thoughts.

President Obama recently stated that he was going to move 100,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.  In no particular order, I tried to justify the most common reasons for continued occupation:

1.  To Capture Osama/Al Qaeda: While it is clear Bin Laden is no where near Afghanistan (and why would he be, he’s not even from there), someone in the country might know where he is.  Also, none of the 9/11 terrorists were from Afghanistan, and the bulk of Al Qaeda is spread amongst 45 different countries (according to CIA reports).  Therefore, a surge is needed in Afghanistan to enable us to move to the next country harboring Al Qaeda terrorists.  If the occupation’s true intention is to capture and kill all of Al Qaeda, why would we ignore their presence in the other 44 countries?  Al Qaeda in Afghanistan are just as dangerous as Al Qaeda in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, one of which is housing Osama and the other produced nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists.

2. Eliminate Terrorism: Terrorism can not be eliminated if there are no terrorists to eliminate. Since Al Qaeda is using our occupation as a recruiting tool, it is likely our evacuation would reduce the amount of terrorists (violent dissenters) available to eliminate.  Thus, only by continuing our occupation can we create enough terrorists to be able to wage a war to eliminate terrorism.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a recent article, Senator Fritz Hollings asks a very important question: Why are we in Afghanistan?

After years of brutal failure in Iraq, you think the US would have learned its lesson when it comes to fighting wars which have no good rational behind them. So just why exactly do we need more troops in Afghanistan?

Read the rest of this entry »

Dick Cheney

During his interview with ABC last week, Dick Cheney made some interesting comments and confessions. When asked about the interrogation methods used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which involved waterboarding, Cheney admitted to knowing about them, supporting them, and, “helping to get the process cleared.” The United States is very familiar with waterboarding, and has treated it as a war crime historically. So what now is going to happen to Cheney? Under the Anti-Torture Statute of the United States , Cheney has admitted to a felony and should very well be indicted.

Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, believes Cheney is actually snooping for a presidential pardon. Go here to listen to his interview with the Real News. He believes Cheney could be afraid of getting prosecuted for his atrocious acts, and feels he would get along better with a pardon under his hat. Therefore, his admission was an act to put the pressure on Bush to pardon his vice president during his last days in office.

Will there be enough outrage to provoke somebody to prosecute our leaders when they break the law? I don’t believe Obama will have the guts to do it. He has been more than sketchy in matters dealing with political retribution. Perhaps he would be happy to have a spineless judicial system when he takes office and decides to break the law himself.

Is everybody familiar with the cliché, “One man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter?” Though it may be used too often, this phrase is all too true, and very relevant to our current situation in the Middle East. There are several examples throughout history that relate to this, ridiculously named, “War on Terror.” One all too prevalent to me is the Native American/White Man struggle that occurred a while back.

Condensing this long struggle for land and culture into a few paragraphs will eliminate several points I could make; yet I will try nonetheless. We are in a place today where most people will admit the atrocities that were inflicted upon Native Americans in the early settlement of the Americas were horrible and unfair. We have issued apologies to the Native Americans, and tried to right the wrongs. However, most people still shudder when they stop to think about the horrors these people suffered at the hands of the ‘white eyes,’ or white man. Eve Ball wrote of the Apache Indians’ perspective on some of these events. She interviewed many Apache tribe leaders about what they went through at the hands of the ‘white eyes.’ A nephew of the famous Apache Indian Geronimo described to Eve Ball a night when his mother, baby sister and his uncle were all murdered by ‘white eyes’. It breaks your heart to hear these interviews and the completely inhumane treatment that took place during this time.

We wonder why people were so brutal to these Native Americans. However, if you heard of some of the horrors that people captured by Apaches went through, you would shudder as well. The Apache warriors showed no mercy to their enemies either. Their brutal retaliation made it easy to demonize them to all ‘white eyes.’ Therefore, Indians, the ones inhabiting the land first, were deemed terrorists. However, I’m sure the Apaches themselves viewed these ‘terrorists’ as freedom fighters. I would be willing to bet that the types of acts committed against these Apaches had a lot of bearing on the hatred they harbored toward ‘white eyes.’ During an interview, one Apache told Eve Ball he wished a nuclear bomb would wipe out white civilization; and this was in the 1940’s and 50’s! Think of the deep seeded hatred. But it is a natural reaction, considering white people had killed these peoples’ families. Even in this country, the defense given to the death penalty is, “What if some guy had murdered your mom or dad, wouldn’t he deserve to die?” This revenge mentality is the same mentality the Apaches had, and it’s the same mentality the “terrorists” of today in the Middle East have as well.

America has done more than enough to anger Palestinians into a vengeful mindset. America supports Israel, who is responsible for numerous atrocities against Palestinian people. America has supported brutal dictators in the Middle East, imposed harsh sanctions, built military bases on holy soil, and, as a latest edition, declared war on Iraq, which has resulted in over 50,000 civilian deaths, not to mention the water-boarding and the paying of other countries to torture family members of these newly created ‘terrorists.’ We also have that Abu Ghraib prison debacle where the US has tortured and killed the freedom fighters of many extremists. I would say the torturing of one man to get information for one act of terrorism creates three to four new “terrorists” and several acts of terrorism.

Is this our idea of winning the war on terror and preventing more attacks on US soil? We are creating a whole new generation of extremists and terrorist acts by fighting a war of ideals with weapons. Native Americans began fighting white settlers in the 1600’s, and the end of the fighting really only came in the late 1800’s. That is two centuries! Are we willing to wage this war of attrition for over two centuries? If not, I would suggest us putting our pride away and start dealing with fighting terrorism the correct way. This is an ideological struggle, and the side that portrays morality is going to be the victor. Apaches had a limited terrain to deal with, while terrorists have the whole world. Apaches can only be born, while terrorists can be created. In this war of ideology, we cannot win by being a bully; we must be the better man.

-Justin Head