Meanderings starting from: Today in school.

Today in school (well, a few days ago now), I learned of Aristides the Just. During Athenian radical democracy (c. 461-430 B.C.E.) there was an approved measure called Ostracism. Once a year, all voters could cast a ballot with the name of one man that they wanted thrown out of Athens for a period of 10 years. His family could stay, land and house were protected, but the 'winner' of the vote had to leave town.

On one such day of ostracism, an illiterate citizen handed Aristides a fragment of pottery (used to cast a vote) and asked Aristides to write a name on it for him:

"Certainly," said Aristides. "Which name shall I write?" "Aristides," replied the man. "All right," said Aristides as he inscribed his own name, "but why do you want to ostracize Aristides? What has he done to you?" "Oh, nothing. I don't even know him," sputtered the man. "I just can't stand hearing everybody refer to him as 'the Just.'"

I often comment on news stories, certainly much more than what is seen here on this blog. It constantly amazes me how much of a 'herd mentality' exists in the comment sections - when said comments actually reflect the content of the article. I compare this 'herd mentality' to the activity of Aristides on that day of ostracism. Greeks did not view citizens that did not participate in their own governance highly. Peer pressure, and values such as Honor, made it imperative that every citizen cast a vote, when called upon to do so. Here we see one such citizen, doing what he knows he has a responsibility to do, yet not having taken part in the society enough to know who, or why he should vote for one person over another.

Would I rather have the miserable voter turnout that we have currently, or a total voter turnout with a bunch of 'those citizens' voting. I like to make my ballot card say something, when you turn it sideways and look at it; it's harder than you think, writing words into the ballot punch holes while working sideways. Sometimes I even look to see who, or what, I voted for. I love to vote; I don't think I've missed an election. I'm a good citizen and fulfill my responsibilities.

We see folks in the headlines being ostracized for their actions without the benefit of due process. I think when public opinion overrides the facts and controls the outcome, a form of anarchy likely already exists.

We can't blame the government for it is 'of the people, by the people, for the people'.

We can't blame the media, as they merely reflect viewers desires for content delivery.

I wonder then, as I gaze into the mirror determining whether it is time to shave, who can I blame?

A Missed Opportunity ?

 

Moving to Wise County about two years ago, I was shocked at the amount of litter that lined the roads throughout the area. I mentioned to a couple of people that the only other place I had ever seen so much trash tossed about was in the Middle East (Kuwait and Iraq). Having served for a period of almost 30 years in the Army, I realize that I tend to have a rather critical eye for this stuff. I’ve done more than my share of ‘police calls’ in those 30 years, and last year picked up 12 bags of trash along the road where I live. I only did about a 1 mile stretch, and then simply extended about 6 feet from the sides of the road – in other words, I did not pick up ALL the trash, but I felt I made a big dent in our little corner of the county.

I believe that littering reflects a lack of values, morals, and ethics. I believe that tossing ones trash out the window is a strong indicator of a lack of responsibility and a lack of citizenship. It’s a cycle that must be broken and I believe that the way to break it is through educating our young. I do not believe that teachers are the answer to all the worlds’ ills – yet a rather famous Virginian named Thomas Jefferson thought the world of teachers and the role they would play in maintaining a newly established democracy. He felt so strongly in fact, that he wrote a model of education for our young Nation, and later led the founding of the University of Virginia, a model for higher education in post-Revolutionary America. I think then it is only fair to Mr. Jefferson that we ensure our children learn about positive values, morals, and ethics during their formative years. We would hope that this is a collaborative effort, engaging both parents and teachers, but must also understand that for some school is the only place where values and morals will be, or can be, taught.

If we provide our children with strong values, and establish a sense of responsibility - to community and fellow citizens - then perhaps we can start to break this cycle of littering. When children begin to question why Daddy is tossing the couch out of the back of the truck on the side of the road, then perhaps Daddy will think twice; when they ask Mommy why she threw that bag of McDonalds trash out the window, maybe she will stop and think – after all, Wise County has a great system in place which allows us to pull up and dispose of much of our trash and refuse just by dropping by a Convenience Center. Some may complain that they don’t have a truck to haul the unwanted items with, but are somehow able to haul the junk down the road and dump it in the ‘middle of nowhere’ – which just happens to be somewhere to my neighbors and I.

Unfortunately this is closely related to another important subject. I’ve got a puppy that I rescued from the road. My neighbors have a pure-bred German shepherd they rescued; we all have cats that people have just dumped out of their cars and sped off. We’ve called Animal Control and PAWS multiple times when we’ve passed another dog dumped on the side of the road, lost, hungry, and scared. Without values and morals these people view a dog or cat as just so much trash to be disposed of, which allows them to dump pets in the ‘middle of nowhere’ and just drive off without a second thought.

I’ve been thinking about this letter since I moved here and it has taken this long to think it through and get it written down. I was out running around the track in Wise this evening. The trash was overflowing from the cans, but I don’t have a problem with that, since it was actually in the cans awaiting collection and disposal. The problem I had was along the sidelines – the players benches were covered with plastic bottles from water and sports drinks. Some had fallen off the benches and were haphazardly laying in the grass – wherever that particular bottle landed when someone stepped on it, or kicked it aside – anything but bending over and picking it up. I’ve always been told that getting our children involved in sports helps to develop them into responsible adults, makes them resilient, enforces values of shared responsibility and teamwork; helps to mold good citizens. This is what I’ve always believed and been led to believe, so I have to then believe that we missed an opportunity when we just let our athletes wander off without picking up after themselves. This is a fundamental. It’s called Discipline. It is required for a fully functioning team. I think it was a missed opportunity.

I am not blaming our coaches or our athletes for the litter problem in this County. It existed long before they came along, however, I believe that they stand to gain by adding this little bit of discipline to the greater program. If they help to sow the seeds we perhaps will begin to notice change even quicker. We will not break this cycle in just a year or two; it will take a generation, but we can make meaningful progress each day by simply doing the right thing and asking our families, friends, and neighbors to do the same.

Respectfully Submitted,

Samuel Boyle

Approaching Societal Change

This subject came to me, while sitting and waiting for a daughter to get her annual checkup prior to school. It reflects the area that I live in - but also the area where many of us live - problems are similar everywhere we look.  Is the Federal Government failing to secure our borders? Is the question that simple, since we are the shining example of self-government to the rest of the world - or at least we like to think we are. I'll have to figure out my thesis statement, but this is the note that I took to myself:

Immigration (refugees) resulting from drug violence in Central American countries feeding a culture in the US that takes care of drug dependent people who may have turned that direction as a result of a failed national drug policy. Wasted resources on marijuana when the real crime lies with over-prescribed pharmaceutical drugs, and failing that homemade bathtub drugs. Combine the above with a health policy that states we will care for these folks because they are poor or uninsured or uninsurable. And should they be unable to work, we will place them upon Social Security Disability and give them Medicaid or Care so we don't have to deal with it ourselves. Yes, these folks are all someone's relative.
Does a solution exist that is consistent with our Constitution, and impacts society great enough to affect change without losing our Democratic principles based upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Are we willing to pursue change that will impact our own daily lives? Are we willing to accept that each one of us, as citizens of these United States, is ultimately responsible for creating the change that must happen in order to ensure that 'and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'

Before I can continue, I must address that over-prescribed pharmaceutical drugs are designed by, made through, sold with, pushed on, profited by.....

I must also make clear that we took care of the uninsured long before the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) so please, do not try and point a finger and say "that is the cause" It is not.

The humanity of it all. (or) The Humanity of it all?

Turn thee; look upon thy death

or

 

Where doth thy finger point?

 

                I always start my blog post with some personal history – if I can’t tell you why this is so important to me, then I have no reason to believe that you, the reader, should ever endure the pain of reading to the end.

                During my almost 30 year career in the Army, I had the pleasure to serve in Berlin during the Cold War. In fact, I was present when the first part of the Wall began to come down, and as the West German Government began to grapple with the overwhelming amounts of people coming across that border. I witnessed the morass of people walking down the Kurfurstendamm for their first time; the countless smoke belching Trabant’s motoring down the autostrasse causing congestion and confusion the likes of which the West Berliner’s had not dealt with in decades. These people however were not migrants, immigrants, or refugees, however I believe that the Bonn Government did classify them, initially as refugees, allowing for aid and assistance to be provided. These ‘refugees’ of course, were also family to some. Certainly not too all though, the Wall went up in 1961 and this was 1989, a generation had been born, on both sides, that did not have ties to each other. You also had the movement of peoples within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which was sometimes done to ensure the absolute control of power.

                I have never spent time in a foreign country that was struggling to deal with refugees. I have been present while countries struggled to deal with the displacement of their peoples due to wartime activities. Sarajevo, Bosnia comes to mind, there were sectors that we were not allowed to travel in, that the Bosnian authorities were struggling to render aid to their displaced personnel. I guess this was occurring in Kosovo also, they just dealt with their folks slightly differently. My Son took his Army Signal team to New Orleans, following Hurricane Katrina, and established communications for the Soldiers that were attempting to help out with the people attempting to survive against unsurmountable odds. The news media had a hard time trying to figure out whether they were to be called ‘refugees or evacuees’. Mike Pesca, writing for NPR on September 5, 2005, quoted Civil rights activist Al Sharpton who said, "They are not refugees. They are citizens of the United States."

                So there we have it, before we go on much further though, let us define two terms that are in use by media reporting. For these definitions I have gone to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), which has a global mission of finding, classifying, and aiding refugees. The first term is just that, refugee: - is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal, and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries. The other term, requiring definition, is immigrant, when talking of the US southern border we often are referring to illegal immigrants, but their reason is mainly due to economic reasons, so we’ll use the definition of ‘economic immigrant’ provided, again, by the UNHCR: - normally leaves a country voluntarily to seek a better life. Should he or she decide to return home, they would continue to receive the protection of his or her government. Refugees flee because of the threat of persecution and cannot return safely to their homes.

                Our issue then, according to the news media reporting has to do with 57,000 children, coming to this country, illegally, since October 2013, primarily from the countries of (I quote The Guardian, dtd 12 July for this fact) “because of a dramatic rise in children arriving from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, where murder rates are among the highest in the world and violent gangs are common.” They are coming to America, under the impression that the U.S. is offering legal immigration visas. Randal Archibold, reporting on July 19^th for the New York Times offers this piece;

                Last year, Mexico deported 89,000 Central Americans, including 9,000 children, the bulk of the returnees coming from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, officials have said. In the fiscal year that ended last September, the United States sent back 106,420 from those countries.

                So far this year, Mexico has detained 53 child migrants a day, mostly Central American, double the pace of the same period last year. It has deported more than 30,000 Central Americans so far this year, including more than 14,000 Hondurans, driven home on packed buses at least three times a week.

(The Army’s 11^th Signal Brigade has been deploying signal teams to Honduras, to support Humanitarian Aid efforts for as long as I can recall. When I was with the Brigade in 1995, this was not a new mission, and news reports show that a recent deployment to Honduras just concluded; you can bet that another team is en-route, or preparing to deploy soon.)

Another part of Randal Archibold’s article discusses ‘migrants’ fleeing violence in their own countries, (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador). I do believe that our definitions above would lead a thinking person to reach the conclusion that these people are not migrants, they are refugees – by definition.

                I hope that we can agree then that the problem we are currently facing, on our southern border, is a refugee crisis. Certainly some untruth out there about ‘legal immigration’ could be having an impact, but look at the numbers that were returned last year! This is not a new problem, so let us take a look at what we have spent on securing our borders, namely since 2001, when ‘securing the borders’ became a catch-phrase of Patriotism that allowed our government to spend almost unrestrictedly.

                I take my values from the Department of Homeland Security’s website (DHS.gov), and did my best to make an educated guess from the budget documents posted. What I was able to determine about our spending, other than it has increased substantially since FY 2001; in fact, in 2001, spending on US Border Security was around $7 billion, if my memory serves right. Following 9/11 approximately $120 billion has been directed towards US Border Security – this number covers FY’s 02-12 appropriations, and does not reflect un-funded spending or that portion of BioShield, whose spending is no longer public. A billion dollars use to buy you quite a bit of stuff, one must wonder exactly what have we gotten for our one-hundred and twenty billion dollars over the past 10 years that still leaves us with this current problem – but, I digress, we’ve already seen that this is not a new problem we are dealing with. Oh, in case that $120 billion didn’t seem to be enough, recall that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created to secure our skies and make air travel so much more…..convenient and safe. They are now on a separate spending line and from FY09-11 have been appropriated approximately $23 million on their own. That number just doesn’t seem to be enough to me, but it did come from the budget documents; maybe it is supposed to be ‘billion’ and I just wrote it down wrong. When it comes to border security it makes me think of potato or potahto; apples and oranges; millions or billions. What it should make us think is, “how are these children refugees getting in?”

                Reuters reported, on Sunday June 29^th of this year, that President Obama was preparing to seek an additional $2 billion from Congress to tackle the child ‘migrant’ problem. Congress was in recess at the time, perhaps a big holiday was coming up? Anyways, we all know that his request of Congress is now at $3.7 billion – where did the extra $1.7 come from, you ask? I do not have the answer to that, although one could guess, knowing the workings of our government and Congress, that an additional amount was included to make it ‘passable’ to different members of Congress. It’s called pork barrel politics, and it will not get us one single step closer to a resolution to this crisis. According to AP reporting, ERICA WERNER and JIM KUHNHENN July 8, 2014 from Washington, ‘The White House said the money would help increase the detention, care and transportation of unaccompanied children, help speed the removal of adults with children by increasing the capacity of immigration courts and increase prosecution of smuggling networks. The money would also increase surveillance at the U.S. border and help Central American countries repatriate border-crossers sent back from the United States.’ The bill that the President announced included a breakdown of costs, as follows:

                $1.1 billion to the Department of Homeland Security to help deter border-crossers and increase enforcement.

                $443 million for Customs and Border Patrol to cover overtime costs and fly more drone aircraft hours.

                $64 million to Department of Justice to hire an additional 40 teams of immigration officials with a Judge (this is in addition to the 35 teams and Judges already requested and not acted upon by Congress)

                $1.8 billion, finally, to the Department of Health and Human Services to care for the unaccompanied children, including shelter and medical.

I’ll not question anyone’s intelligence, so you can do the math on your own. And no, I do not know the answer to the question you are coming up with now (refer to pork barrel politics perhaps?)

I am unable to answer my own next question, which is, “Is this spending going to incur further obligations that must be a recurring line funded in future budgets?” It’s really a stupid question - when was the last time Congress said, “We don’t need this money anymore, here, please return it to the people.” Asked and answered is how Lawyers and Judges refer to it, I believe.

                I’m still confused about this whole problem though. I mean, why would parents expose their children to such risks, that they would send them off on a perilous journey, across multiple countries, in order to cross into America. Why not just use the established legal channels for refugees, that the U.S. State Department has available on its website instructional pamphlet. The mission of the U.S. State Department, after all, is:

                Promoting freedom and democracy and protecting human rights around the world are central to U.S. foreign policy. The values captured in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in other global and regional commitments are consistent with the values upon which the United States was founded centuries ago. The United States supports those persons who long to live in freedom and under democratic governments that protect universally accepted human rights. The United States uses a wide range of tools to advance a freedom agenda, including bilateral diplomacy, multilateral engagement, foreign assistance, reporting and public outreach, and economic sanctions. The United States is committed to working with democratic partners, international and regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, and engaged citizens to support those seeking freedom.

                The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor leads the U.S. efforts to promote democracy, protect human rights and international religious freedom, and advance labor rights globally.

 Here is an introduction to the State Departments policy on Refugee Resettlement:

Planning for Refugees’ Arrival in the United States

The Department of State works with nine domestic resettlement agencies that have proven knowledge and resources to resettle refugees. Every week, representatives of each of these nine agencies meet to review the biographic information and other case records sent by the overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSC) to determine where a refugee will be resettled in the United States. During this meeting, the resettlement agencies match the particular needs of each incoming refugee with the specific resources available in a local community. If a refugee has relatives in the United States, he or she is likely to be resettled near or with them. Otherwise, the resettlement agency that agrees to sponsor the case decides on the best match between a community’s resources and the refugee’s needs.

Information about the sponsoring agency is communicated back to the originating RSC, which then works with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to transport the refugee to his or her new home. The cost of refugee transportation is provided as a loan, which refugees are required to begin repaying after they are established in the United States.

                I think I’m starting to understand exactly where the problem lies – the refugee must pay back all costs associated with the movement and resettlement…..this isn’t about humane treatment of all peoples, this is about the financial bottom line, plain and simple, after all, this is a Democracy that is based upon a free-market economy with minimal government intervention, well, except when that intervention results in a loan that can be recouped, with interest, of course. Again, I find myself off-course. The fact is, that there is a process - not a quick one, but a process nonetheless, by which affected peoples may apply for refugee status in the United States. I’m not sure about you all, but if I was fleeing violence and murder and persecution or war, I may not be willing to wait around for the ‘process’ to take its course. Additionally, if I could somehow work to ensure the safety of my children, during these times of ‘mayhem’, I would, I would a million, billion times over, and still I would.

 

                There is a song, sung by Willie Nelson, and released in February 1986, it’s called “Living in the Promiseland.” I’m reminded of one part of that song, as I’ve watched the media and various social media postings over the past couple of weeks.

We are the multitudes
Lend us a helping hand
Is there no love anymore
Living in the Promiseland

                We spent over $120 billion on border security since 2002; we spent $1.7 trillion in Iraq, untold more dollars in Afghanistan (one website said over $7 trillion in Afghanistan alone). We travel the globe talking about humane treatment of all peoples as a ‘natural right’ that should be provided to all people. Is every person that enters the United States, as a refugee or an immigrant, legal or illegal, always going to be law-abiding and contribute as a member of our society? I believe the answer to that question to be No. When Al Sharpton said they aren’t refugees, they are Citizens of the United States, aren’t we glad he made that clear in the days following, during the looting, burning, murdering, raping and pillaging that went on – we should be proud that there wasn’t a refugee problem in New Orleans following Katrina. The only thing that I can truly conclude from this blog post is that perhaps we are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Perhaps a little reflection on what exactly it is that we stand for is called for. I don’t believe that we need to re-write the Constitution in order to do that, and I don’t think that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to weigh in on any decisions either. There is one other possibility that comes to mind. How about instead of concentrating on Iraq and Afghanistan (one for oil - that we didn't get; and the other for.....I don't know) we concentrate a whole lot more on Central America. Why don't we do more to solve the crisis at the root; let's turn a little more of our diplomacy down that direction, after all, they are connected to us. We do co-exist on the same continent.

 

                We are talking about 57,000 children; we are talking about refugees, we are talking about crisis and human rights and humane treatment; that is exactly what we are talking about.

 

“Give us your tired and weak, and we will make them strong.”

The question is not ‘Should we return to Iraq’ but rather ‘Is it our business’?

                Having served in the United States Army for some period of time, the following question has been repeatedly posed to me by others, “What do you think of this thing in Iraq right now?” Unfortunately, for me (and for those asking) this is not a simple question for me to reply too. As I have not blogged in some time, I determined that this would be a good subject to take up, thereby clearing my conscience, and hopefully enlightening some of my friends on my view of this complicated subject.

                I did serve in the forces that aided in the removal of all U.S. Forces from Iraq by 31 December 2011. You must know that we left some forces behind, not only those Marines normally assigned Embassy Guard duty but also Airmen to help continue to form and prepare the Iraqi Air Force for ultimate transfer/purchase of US Fighter Jets, and Army Soldiers, from various backgrounds to aid in the establishment/continuation of maintenance and training of the Iraqi Army. I can’t give you any numbers, as I’m sure they are a closely held secret, as is the location of assignment etc… all for good cause, as wanton disclosure would certainly place them in great harm. I’m sure that this didn’t go through the heads of Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, as their disclosures may possibly have caused undue harm to our military men and women. Edward Snowden probably does belong in his own special category; I’m not sure exactly what that is, regardless of the outcome I am not positive that the ends justified the means. There were other avenues for him to get his message out, and certainly there are aspects of his message that needed to be heard by us Americans. But I digress, this is not about that subject.

                Having established that I was there, let us then determine what the ‘objective’ of the Iraq War was. According to reporting by the New York Times on 22 March 2003, the Secretary of Defense laid out 8 objectives:

                The first of the eight specific aims, Mr. Rumsfeld said, is to ''end the regime of Saddam Hussein by striking with force on a scope and scale that makes clear to Iraqis that he and his regime are finished.''

Second, Iraq's arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, and any program to develop nuclear weapons, are also targets, as the American military has been ordered ''to identify, isolate and eventually eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, production capabilities, and distribution networks,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Troops will then ''search for, capture, drive out terrorists who have found safe harbor in Iraq,'' he added.

Next, he said, the allied forces will ''collect such intelligence as we can find related to terrorist networks in Iraq and beyond.''

The fifth goal, Mr. Rumsfeld said, is to ''collect such intelligence as we can find related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction activity.''

The United States also seeks ''to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian relief, food and medicine to the displaced and to the many needy Iraqi citizens,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Military forces also will ''secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Lastly, Mr. Rumsfeld said, the war effort is ''to help the Iraqi people create the conditions for a rapid transition to a representative self-government that is not a threat to its neighbors and is committed to ensuring the territorial integrity of that country.''

People can make their own determinations on what they feel our objectives were, I think we have to discount any stated objective related to ‘terror networks’ – they could not operate under Saddam’s regime; we also discount objectives related to chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction – there was never a shred of proof to lead us down that path, contrived intelligence perhaps, but absolutely no proof; it’s like saying, “Al-Qaeda is operating from within Iraq to attack the US”…now our ally, Pakistan, perhaps another story, eh ? So I’ve discounted reasons 2-5, reason 1 was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. I believe there to be some legal issues with us going into another country and toppling their government. That said, Saddam’s sons, Uday and Qusay, were pretty rotten people. There is not a shred of doubt in my democratic, republic, libertarian, freedom loving mind that these two people deserved to die by the worst imaginable means possible. The stories told of their atrocities are unimaginable. Reason 6 was the removal of sanctions, that we had prodded the United Nations and the Security Council to put into place since Desert Storm, and increasingly added pressure on the sanctions over the ensuing years. The sanctions were in place mainly due to reasons 2-5 stated above, which we’ve discounted already. Reason 8 is really Democracy, I mean isn’t that what self-government is all about. We’ll discuss that below.  Reason 7 is about Oil, but is it really about ‘belonging to the Iraqi peoples’?

                Democracy isn’t easy. We’ve watched the Arab Spring on CNN, seen fighting and marching in the streets, we’ve seen people fighting for the right of self-determination, somewhat, because underlying it all is Islam, the religion of true Muslims. If we were to take our own history into perspective then we would have to concede that Democracy and therefore Freedom is something that you must want very badly; it is something that you are willing to lay your life down for; it is something that cannot be given, it must be earned and yearned for. In my advanced training, upon becoming a Sergeant Major, I had to do a country study and present my findings to my classmates. I chose the country of Sudan, this was prior to them formally splitting into two countries, and as I watch the news I see that many of the predictions I made are coming true. Will they be successful ultimately, I don’t know, I do know that I gave it about a 60/40 chance of succeeding as two countries, and no chance of remaining as one. As the lines were drawn, I now give the chance of survival as two separate countries a chance of zero, unless the international community can aid in the development of the South. Democracy is not easy; it cannot be handed over, like a rift of papers, there is no written exam that one can study for and pass; you have to want it so badly that you’ll stop at nothing to get it, and then stop at nothing to defend the right to keep it.

                Oil from Iraq historically flowed to the U.S., much like Iranian oil during the Shah of Iran’s tenure (wasn’t Saddam, like the Shah, initially our propped up pawn to ensure the cheap flow of their mineral resources to our country?) Does anyone recall the ‘Energy Meetings’ that Vice-President Cheney held, behind closed doors not that long before we ‘freed’ Iraq? According to the Washington Post, he met with over 300 different institutions while drafting our National Energy Policy, from oil to natural gas, to wildlife protection, to Canadian officials, coal representatives from Virginia and West Virginia, etc., etc…          My experience, during the Bosnian conflict and before we went into Kosovo, was that the major contributing nations had to agree on who was going to share in the spoils of this little war, namely the contracts to rebuild those nations. Protecting families, saving lives, ensuring freedom of religion…..no, money to be made, and whose turn is it this time. My experiences drive that comment, no other proof offered. I was never in a meeting that discussed this, just second hand and comments overheard while working to fix some critical communications links. Critical to that discussion, I concluded. However, we are discussing reason (objective) 7: securing the oil. The news from 2003-09 was certainly about how Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell would benefit greatly by the U.S. restoring access to the Iraqi oil fields.  Again, the New York Times reports on 2 June 2013 that the Chinese are reaping the greatest benefit. I especially like two paragraphs in that report:

“We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

and

Notably, what the Chinese are not doing is complaining. Unlike the executives of Western oil giants like Exxon Mobil, the Chinese happily accept the strict terms of Iraq’s oil contracts, which yield only minimal profits. China is more interested in energy to fuel its economy than profits to enrich its oil giants.

Having discussed our ‘objectives’ in the Iraq War let us move onto a little history lesson, and why I believe that the real question is, “Is it our business?”

From the Al-Islam.org website I’ve taken some background, written by their contributors, which I think is very important to this discussion. It follows:

As a statesman, Muhammad ranks among the greatest in the whole world. He was endowed with amazing perspicacity, vision and political genius. During the last ten years of his life, he was called upon to make the most momentous decisions in the history of Islam. Those decisions affected not only the Muslims or the Arabs but all mankind. He was also aware that his actions and decisions would affect the actions and decisions of every generation of the Muslims to the end of time itself.

Muhammad, the Messenger of God, therefore, did not make any decision, no matter how trivial, on an ad hoc basis; nor did he make decisions by a “trial and error” method. His decisions were all inspired. They were precedents for the Muslim umma (nation or community) for all time. It was with this knowledge and understanding that he said or did anything and everything.

Muhammad had succeeded, after a long and sanguinary struggle against the idolaters and polytheists of Arabia, in establishing the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth so that his umma (people) may live in it in peace and security, admired and envied by the rest of mankind.

The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth was the lifework of Muhammad. He knew that he was a mortal, and would die some day, but his work, as embodied in the “Kingdom” would live. He knew that after his death, someone else would have to carry on the work begun by him. He also knew that orderly succession is the anchor of stability. He knew all this and much else besides. No Muslim would ever presume to imagine that Muhammad, the Messenger of God, did not know all this better than anyone else.

                I’m not interested in discussing beliefs with anyone, at this time. I suspect that the Messenger of God and the Son of God had much in common, and that is where I stop with that. 

Our problem, now explained, is that upon Muhammad’s death on 8 June 632 there was no selection of a successor defined by Muhammad. He had brought a new religion, and new ways of life to a region that was tribal in nature, and constantly warring with each other. Shia Muslims’ maintain that Muhammad declared Ali as his successor and thus sovereign over all Muslims.  Abu Bakr was elected leader of the Muslims by some of Muhammad’s companions in the city of Medina, immediately following his death, this being the Sunni sect of Islam. Battles followed, that turned into wars, that returned to battles, but always there was, and still is, the feeling by the Shia Muslims that the Sunni’s stole the position of the rightful heir to Muhammad.

It may seem rather juvenile to continue fighting about something that occurred fourteen-hundred years ago, but then Devil Anse and Randolph McCoy fighting, and killing, over a pig might seem a little childish in retrospect also.

                It is unknown exactly what the division of Sunni and Shias’ are throughout the world, it’s thought that it could be as close as 60/40 or as far as 85/15 in favor of one or the other. What is known is that they do not trust each other, to this day. In one of my recent discussions, I invoked a proverb said to be attributed to Arabians, it states that, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Hence the situation in that part of the world is not one that a ‘Christian’ nation could ever hope to solve. I’m not always positive that we are a ‘Christian’ Nation, but I believe that we are purported to be, and will therefore accept it as fact. While I discuss Muslim, Islam, and Arab’s in this piece, do not make the mistake that they are one and the same. All Muslim’s follow Islam, but not all Muslim’s are Arabs. This is a pretty simple idea…not all Christians are white. There, understand now? However, making a mistake of calling someone who is not an Arab an “Arab” could get you shot, immediately, by someone standing bye who is an Arab. Confusing a Sunni and a Shia during conversation, or within documents and discussions will get you no-where, zip, zero, end of discussion and whatever the objective may have been – you will never achieve it now. Ever. Remember, they have been practicing hatred and revenge for almost fourteen-hundred years now – who are we, at a relatively young 238 years of age, to think that we can ‘solve the Arab/Muslim/Islam/Middle East’ crisis.

Hell, we don’t even know what the exact crisis is, we certainly don’t understand it, and therefore we certainly cannot ‘solve’ it.

So, what do I think about what is going on in Iraq right now? I think we spent over 1.7 trillion dollars, witnessed the loss of 4,486 American lives, and significantly increased our national debt – for what? What exactly was our Objective? I’m not sure, but I do know that we do not belong in their problem. If it’s democracy that they are to have, then they must fight for that; failing that, we’ll see a return to whatever tribal form results, and yes, the supply of oil to China will be greatly impacted. Let’s spend the money on R&D for a post-petro world, reclaim and improve our infrastructure, build new energy sources and national and local forms of transportation that operate oil free. I think it’s possible, and I think that companies can reap their profits, return value to stockholders, and continue to evade paying taxes just like normal.