Arms exports from United States to Iraq 2000-2013

Arms exports from United States to Iraq 2000-2013

This is a list of all the arms trades made in contracts from the US government to the Iraqi Government.


#Ordered/Designation/Weapon description/Year of order/Year(s) of deliverie/ #delivered/Comments

8 Avenger Mobile SAM system 2012 2013 - 2013 (3) Part of $105 m deal; 'ISFF' aid
5 ISR King Air-350 AGS aircraft 2007 2008 - 2008 (5) Part of $132 m deal
5 ISR King Air-350 AGS aircraft 2008 2010 - 2011 (5)
16 Bell-205/UH-1 Huey-2 Helicopter 2005 2007 - 2007 (16) Iraqi UH-1H rebuilt to Huey-2
7 Comp Air-7SL Light aircraft 2004 2004 - 2004 7 Financed by UAE; assembled from kits in UAE
20 Bell-206/OH-58 Light helicopter 2007 2008 - 2009 20 Incl 10 ex-US OH-58C and 10 second-hand Bell-
206B version; aid
3 Bell-407 Light helicopter 2009 2010 - 2010 3 $6.9 m deal; T-407 trainer version
24 Bell-407 Light helicopter 2009 2012 - 2013 24 $60 m deal; armed version; option on 26 more
3 Bell-407 Light helicopter 2010 2011 - 2011 (3)
(11) Cessna-208 Caravan Light transport ac 2005 2007 - 2009 (11) Including 3 AC-208B armed version
1 King Air Light transport ac 2007 2007 - 2007 1 Part of $160 m deal; King Air-350ER version
1 King Air Light transport ac 2008 2010 - 2010 (1) King Air-350ER version
15 PC-9 Trainer aircraft 2009 2009 - 2010 15 Part of $257 m deal; T-6A version
12 Cessna-172/T-41 Trainer/light ac 2007 2007 - 2009 12 Option on 6 more
3 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft 2004 2005 - 2005 3 Ex-US; aid
6 C-130J-30 Hercules Transport aircraft 2009 2012 - 2013 6 $293 m deal
43 ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2004 2004 - 2005 (43) $50 m deal; incl 2 CP version
(19) ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2004 2005 - 2005 19
378 Cougar APC 2006 2006 - 2007 (378) $180 m deal; Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle (ILAV) or
Badger version
20 Cougar APC 2006 2007 - 2007 (20) $7.8m deal; Iraqi Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV)
version
50) M-113 APC 2006 2006 - 2007 (50) Ex-US; aid
27 Cougar APC 2007 2008 - 2008 (27) Iraqi Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV) version
(122) ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2008 2008 - 2009 (122)
20 M-113 APC 2008 2010 - 2010 (20) Probably ex-US; incl 12 M-577A2 Command Post
version
09 Cougar APC 2009 2010 - 2010 109 $59 m deal; Iraqi Light Armoured Vehicle (ILAV)
version
80 ASV-150/M-1117 APC 2010 2011 - 2013 (80) $85 m deal; incl 8 command post version
(834) M-113 APC 2010 2011 - 2012 (834) Ex-US; M-113A2 version; modernized before
delivery; incl command post, mortar-carrier,
ambulance and other versions

The Humanitarian case and Non-Interventionism

Many people tend to have a hard time recognizing the differences between Non-Intervention and Isolationism; rather using the terms interchangeably and erroneously. The classical argument of refraining from intervention into foreign affairs, entanglements and conflicts comes from the belief that national interests should remain in the nation and that no matter the action, internationally, eyes and opinions would be cast towards whatever nation becomes involved in a situation amongst other nations. Many of the founding members of the government of the United States held beliefs in this idea.

Genocide, Holocaust, War, Invasions, Operations, Missions, and Conflicts all involve at the very base people, human beings, that for whatever their own reasons seek to extend the wishes of the governing body they submit to. Governments, and by extension entire countries and the majority of people who make up the society or population of, commit to end conflicts between themselves by the brutality of War. Sometimes they use this when all other means to peace have been exhausted, sometimes as an initiation of violence and others as a defense. These governments recruit, draft and conscript those citizens of value to them, the young, stronger and the productive, to the ranks of their militaries. For this we will only be addressing military intervention; though economic intervention through blockades, embargoes and sanctions should be addressed the same way.

Non-Interventionism seems a pretty simple and straight forward principle. “Do not intervene in affairs of other countries that do not directly affect the US”. But in this very simple statement lies questions.  And serious questions. These questions have been answered repeatedly by many authors, and their acceptance is up to each individual to decide.

Is there a Humanitarian Case FOR intervention?

Of course this question begs the individual to place a subjective value on a human life and pit that against the value of another life. Because the intention and action to do harm to others is a factor to the value of a life for most, it stands that those persons doing harm or threatening to do harm would be subjected to a lesser value than the so called victims of events. Saving a life by taking a life can be seen as justifiable by some and somewhat undebatable to others. The judgment of those who will do harm or violence to others is a constant in the political world, hence a presidential kill list, drone bombings and secretive missions by highly trained military members in government sanctioned assassinations and murders. Even in everyday life, the citizens of every country place value on the lives of every other nation’s people.

Can there be a Humanitarian cause for military intervention. In this question lies an impasse of logic. Can the killing of some be considered “humanitarian” if it is the case to help others to live? If a country’s government were to threaten another with nuclear annihilation, would it not be in the humanitarian sense a point for justifiable intervention?  To ensure the loss of life is kept at a minimum and the worldwide effects of such an act be avoided? One could argue in the defense of the intervener as the wholly humanitarian effort and against the aggressor as the initiator of force. But the end result of to take a life to save a life contradicts the compassionate excuse it seeks to eradicate.  In the purely libertarian sense, one can urge intervention so long as those whose mind is made up against said intervention are not forced or coerced into facilitating the action, whether that be through taxation to afford the intervention, conscription to the cause of the intervention or whatever other means to force a person to act against their own belief of non-intervention.

What is the Humanitarian case AGAINST intervention?

Military intervention comes in many forms. From the small arms trades and sales, troop training, asset maintenance and facilitator of large weapons and munitions, and of course the act of entering into a military conflict with supplies of troops and mechanized weaponry. In the present, all of these actions are ultimately coerced from those who may or may not hold value to them, as stated before, increased taxation and conscription are all part of the norm for these types of affairs.

The Humanitarian case comes into effect at the soldier level and at the economic impact level it has on the citizenry of the intervening nation or state.  Each soldier’s life and those that they may take in combat or those that die from indirect conflict related economic hardships are not necessarily counted as such in current times. But each one of these should be considered when trying to make a humanitarian case either for or against intervention of any kind. As stated before the taking of one life by any means declares the end result of any intervention wholly inhumane and against the stated goal of saving humanity from death or harm.

What are the effects of Intervention?

There is a persistent fallacy associated with those that claim Non-Interventionism is Isolationism. Calling someone an isolationist has become the favored insult to Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals to cast towards libertarians. While not every Libertarian completely agrees with the idea of Non-Intervention, the same can be said of the idea of Intervention by Conservatives and Liberals.

The term Isolationist is one that for the most part is used erroneously and in a kind of inaccurate, hypocritical way. If the refraining from foreign affairs isolates any nation or state from any others it is in a belief that the non-intervening state or nation has some Responsibility to Protect (R2P) any others. In this theory any nation’s citizens should come to expect to be saved by all other nations or states if their respected nation or state fails to provide adequate protections. In that aim any nation’s citizens can expect to oblige to pay for any such intervention by their government. But this obligation often comes begrudgingly or not at all voluntarily. Should any state or nation, in their attempt to save another, put their own citizens at risk? Or to force them to give up their wealth on a choice not made by them that they may not find the least bit worthy of their contribution?

Sometimes intervention has other effects; creating enemies and leading to an inclusive war or attack by an offended nation or state. It has the effect of reduced production in consumer markets; due to enlistment, conscription or mandatory transfer of market production to production of intervention bound supplies.

However you view intervention it is imperative to comprehend that no matter what type of intervention is being touted, it ultimately is not in the name of humanitarian efforts. It is, as it is now, a monumental shift of wealth and lives into the domain of public welfare, domestic theft of wealth, imperialism and will have further effects that will affect those who have had no choice to submit their own voice against the will and actions of the government they live under. 

What do you call a man fighting for his home?

A person who fights against an invading force in their home country is called what?

A. Hero
B. Patriot
C. Terrorist
D. It depends on what the US Government calls them

As you answer this question take a minute to think about what is asked here.

If a person, any person, from anywhere in the world, from any religion, from any creed or color, any nationality, backed by any government or a free person fights against any invading force in their home country what do you call them?

It gets a bit more complicated when you stop to think of how what people think and how people act are two entirely opposite things, polar opposites in fact. 

In one breath I bet most would say this person would be a hero or a patriot, but think about it another way. What do you call those Afghanistanis and Iraqis fighting for their home? What do you call the Syrians and Saudis, the Pakistanis and Yemenis that are taking up arms against the invading American Government's military? 

Are they still considered Heroes and Patriots?  

Or did they Magically become Terrorists, Radicals, Murderers? Did the American Government labeling them terrorists change what they were fighting for or against? Did the final root situation change? Or was it all the mindset and perception of the individual being manipulated by an outside entity?

A member of a military, any military is no more a hero or patriot for attacking someone else's home than the other for protecting his home. The Invading force is no less a terrorist than the other for doing what he does.

This is a test of the idea of Nationalism. A test of mindful hypocrisy. A test to the idea of what is called "American Exceptionalism"

Did your answer stay the same from beginning to end?

Let me know on Twitter @PatriotPapers

On Constitutional Rights

Of the many different arguments on where rights come from I find the Constitutional Case the most far-fetched. It is a long held and deeply rooted belief that the United States Constitution is where the country’s citizens obtain their rights. The argument of Constitutional Rights is fallacious and easily the most wide spread and enduring myth among Americans. This argument supposes that a document signed by and ordained by people long since dead have somehow bestowed upon the subsequent generations certain acts or protections under a system of governance. The myth of Constitutional Rights is a touchy subject for most, but I will try to explain the case against the Constitutional Rights Theory. 

A piece of paper has no inherent rights. It is a product of labor mixed with resources, by humans. Lacking any inherent rights it also has no rights to bestow upon others. It does not offer any protection, as it has no means of protection, except by outside forces, notably human beings. And since men cannot endow rights to others it stands that it has no means to give those rights away. It has no voice, and is subjective to the capabilities and thoughts of those who read it. It, being paper can be destroyed by many different means and can be reproduced with almost no limit. It carries no means to hold precedence over man, and cannot be asked to define its power or even source of power.

As a document it was a contract between those that agreed to partake in its formation, contracting themselves to its supposed limits by signature. There is no reference to it being forced upon following generations, there is no clause that leads us to be ruled by others opinions and writings of a time we did not live or respect and follow a document, a contract we did not sign. This is the error in the Social Contract Theory, the basis of which is that as I did not sign into any contract I do not have to subject myself to that contract. The Social Contract Theory is dependent on the thought that one must be obligated to endure the social rules in a place he was placed at birth or else leave. This theory is particularly used when a person is found to dissent to the idea of the social rules in that area of birth. The “if you don’t like it here  you can leave” attitude in other words.

Of the many errors of those that hold a belief in Constitutionally Granted Rights is the interference in the logic of American History.

 “The members of the Constitutional Convention signed the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Constitutional Convention convened in response to dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the need for a strong centralized government. After four months of secret debate and many compromises, the proposed Constitution was submitted to the states for approval. Although the vote was close in some states, the Constitution was eventually ratified and the new Federal government came into existence in 1789. The Constitution established the U.S. government as it exists today.” Excerpt from the Library of Congress Website

The first thing to look at in this excerpt is the phrase, “secret debate and many compromises”. If this were to be the founding form of contract for every generation hereafter its signing why then would these debates and meeting need to be held in secret?  Why would this sort of thing be kept from those that it intended to subject? 

The next point to be taken is the phrase, “dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the need for a strong centralized government”. The dissatisfaction of the current form of governance grew from the inability to control the free and sovereign states and its lack of control over industry, trade and the funding of federal exploitation of other nations. The Articles of Confederation were partially successful in their ability to maximize personal freedom while offering some semblance of protection of the natural rights of the people. They were not successful in retaining power as the march of men and their power hungry ways consumed it and disregarded it.

The last point in this small quote is the last line. “The Constitution established the U.S. government as it exists today.” This is exactly the problem with the idea of limited government touted by the Republican Party, Constitutionalists, and the various tea party groups. The limit that is imposed is not by the citizenry but by the same government that gives it power. Small government is likely to grow out of this relative smallness and into the beast it is today.

The very Idea that this contract gives any person rights is easy to prove otherwise. Since the beginning of non-native conquest and inhabitation in the Americas began well before the drafting and ratification of the Constitution the question is posed; where did these Pre-Constitution people derive their rights from?  Were they privy to the Magna Carta? Hard to be since the Magna Carta did not grant rights to people but rather limited power of King John of England and stood to protect their natural rights in the year 1215. Did they derive their rights from the Articles of Confederation? The articles were an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution. Again these articles did not propose to grant rights to people and would in effect limit the freedom of people inside the confines of territory of what would become the United States.

One could argue that the very basic precept of time in relation to rights clearly defines that the rights of individuals predates even the earliest form of community or government. One could also argue that if one believes in the endowment of rights by written words than the act of destroying this document would insure the decimation of all semblances of rights. If any Constitution would be destroyed today the ability and right to speak as one wishes remains; the act of defense remains the same, the right of being secure in the privacy of your own property and the right to own said property would all still be there.

Secondary questions.

Did people before any written documents not have inherent rights? Were these people somehow less inclined to the abilities of themselves and of freedom from tyranny? How would their lives be defined if not for the rights they had? Were those Native Americans here long before Europeans invaded and settled not in possession of any rights in their lives and property? Do people outside of all Constitutions or documents forming any sort of Government not have rights? Could the destruction of these documents ensure no person would have any rights to themselves or property?

Simply stated, the origin of rights is inherent on a person being alive. They are natural, they are inalienable, they are non- transferable, they are not for sale or rent, they begin the moment of life and cease with death. The idea of any right bestowed from outside forces begets the ability to restrict those rights from outside forces. The Natural ability to do as one sees fit as long as those actions do not interfere with the rights or freedoms of others is not reliant on any form of documentation, any decree, from any person or institution.  

"No one watches and they don't have a game. It's as simple as that..."

That is a line from the novel and movie The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. It is a quote that I look back to as a line that must be taken in order for there to be real change in the world. If people refuse to participate, if they refuse to watch, if they refuse to allow politicians to constantly degrade human existence to rules and regulations, acts of terror and murder on a grand scale, we may be able to salvage our freedom yet.

But is this is a pipe dream? As we have seen in the past there are always those willing to participate in the games as the rule makers and the rule keepers. Mao had loyal soldiers to enforce his rule, even if the citizens refused, the state still had it's enforcers. Hitler was also privy to the mindlessness of the authoritarians he ranked to his police and military to keep the state and its machine like authority moving in goose-step. The smallest of groups against the mass of citizens, once indoctrinated and made to fear the state, could manipulate control of the citizens.

If people realized the simple fact that in order for the State or the Government to remain in control, for it to impose its immorality and its own unjust laws, it must have willing participants. It must retain power out of fear and it can only remain in power by force and coercion. Willing and delusional authoritarians have in the past joined the ranks of oppressive governments, and if this past is any picture of the future we have much to fear and much to change.

"The Future is Too Good to Waste on Lies": Bowe Bergdahl's Moral Odyssey

Bowe Bergdahl and his mother, Jani.

“I can’t make up my mind to put the damn thing on again. I feel so clean and free. It’s like voluntarily taking up filth and slavery again….I think I’ll just walk off naked across the fields.”

John Andrews, a U.S. soldier in World War I who went AWOL, discusses his uniform in Three Soldiers by John Dos Passos

Trying to find their footing amid a gale-force outpouring of largely manufactured outrage, officials in Hailey, Idaho canceled their long-planned homecoming for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. They were understandably intimidated by the prospect of dealing with thousands of protesters who planned to besiege the tiny central Idaho town to demand the blood of a young man they now regard to be a deserter, and a father they consider a terrorist sympathizer.

To understand the kind of welcome the War Party has been preparing for Bowe and his family, it’s useful to consider the treatment given to the family of World War I-era conscientious objector John Witmer.

A Mennonite from Colombiana, Ohio who was denied a deferment by the local draft board, Witmer died from the Spanish Flu while stationed at Camp Sherman, Ohio. Witmer's lifeless body was returned to his hometown on October 10, 1918, where the family – his father Dan, his siblings, and his fiancee, Nola – was greeted by a silent crowd heavy with sullen disapproval for the “slacker” and his family.

Like thousands of others who shared his faith, John had been kidnapped at gunpoint from his family farm through the evil practice of conscription. The local draft board had turned down John's appeal for Conscientious Objector status, dishonestly assuring him that once he had taken the oath of enlistment he would be recognized as a CO and be given a non-combat assignment.

As with everything else of consequence that emerges from the lips, pen, or keyboard of a government functionary, those assurances were lies.

During wartime, explained Bernard Baruch, the head of the Wilson Regime’s War Industry Board, all “men, money and things” within the government’s claimed jurisdiction “suddenly become a compact instrument of destruction…. [T]he entire population must suddenly cease to be a congeries of individuals, each following a self-appointed course, and become a vast unitary mechanism." John Witmer, like many thousands of others, was designated a “slacker” because he persisted in the belief that he was not the property of the State. His refusal to  undergo military training forbidden by his religious convictions provoked violent reactions from his fellow conscripts, and led to a punitive re-assignment to a CO camp – a detention facility that was also used as a holding pen for German prisoners of war.

The weather turned colder, and influenza – one of the government's chief wartime imports from Europe – propagated itself throughout Camp Sherman.  John pleaded for adequate bedding and dry clothes, to no avail. The isolated, terrified young man contracted the Spanish Flu, from which he soon died.

John's body was returned in a flag-shrouded coffin. While most Americans would regard this as an honor, the Witmer family's convictions didn't allow them to make acts of allegiance to anyone or anything but God. There is a sense in which wrapping John's body in the US flag was one final proprietary gesture by the government that had stolen the young man from the family who loved him, the religious fellowship that had raised him, and the young woman who wanted to be his wife.

The crowd that had congealed at the train station to witness the arrival of John Witmer's body was acutely interested in the reaction of his Mennonite family. Most of the spectators knew that the Mennonites didn't support the war; their principled pacifism had provoked both curiosity and suspicion.

For a brief period, the Witmers enjoyed what could be called probationary sympathy from the crowd. But they quickly learned that few things are likelier to provoke sanctimonious violence from war-maddened Americans than a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm for killing foreigners whom the State has designated the “enemy.”

Slumping beneath a burden no parent should ever bear, Dan Witmer approached the coffin containing his son's body and carefully removed the flag. In doing so, he committed an act regarded as a sacrilege by adherents of the omnivorous idol called the State: Either out of innocent ignorance of, or commendable indifference to, the ritual called “flag etiquette,” Dan folded the banner as he would a blanket.

The crowd, deep in the throes of the psychosis called “war patriotism,” erupted in pious outrage.

“The mood of the onlookers turned from one of sympathy to hostility,” recounts Lily A. Bear in her book Report for Duty.

“Mennonites!” hissed one disgusted onlooker.

“Got what he deserved!” declared another of Dan's dead son.

“Traitor!” bellowed yet another outraged pseudo-patriot.

Someone hurled a stone that hit John's younger brother in the shoulder. A second stone, missing its target, landed at the feet of the mourning father. John's young sister Mary, puzzled and hurt by this display of murderous hatred, began to cry. After making arrangements for his son's funeral, Dan took his family home. This crowd, deprived of the hate objects that had given it cohesion, quickly dissipated.

This repellent spectacle, recall, occurred in a tiny Ohio town nearly one hundred years ago. In this age of saturation media and online social networking, the “homecoming” given the Bergdahl family would likely have been worse by several orders of magnitude.

“I will push for Bowe Bergdahl’s execution during the next Republican administration,” fumed South Carolina Republican agitator Todd Kincannon. “And his dad too. Those who commit treason need to die.” Kincannon’s sentiments are not an aberration.

Bowe’s detractors claim that his desertion cost the lives of U.S. soldiers sent to rescue him – a claim that plays well on talk radio but cannot be substantiated by casualty records. Given the fact that Bowe had expressed his growing misgivings to his superiors, the effort to locate him might have been less a rescue mission that an attempt to locate and re-assimilate a wayward drone who had exhibited troubling symptoms of resurgent individualism.

Like John Witmer, Bowe Bergdahl was raised in a deeply religious home. Unlike Witmer, Bergdahl was not a conscript. Like countless other young men, Bowe was lured into enlisting by a recruiter who cynically appealed to his idealistic and patriotic impulses, and offered lying assurances about the missions he would be required to carry out. Bowe was a committed and disciplined soldier who devoted what private time he had to refining his skills, conditioning his body, and feeding his mind, rather than indulging in recreational vice.
Once he arrived in Afghanistan, Bowe was immediately disillusioned by the corruption and cluelessness displayed by his superiors, the laxity and unprofessionalism of his fellow soldiers, and the criminal indifference to innocent lives that characterized the mission.

“The few good [sergeants] are getting out as soon as they can, and they are telling us privates to do the same,” Bowe informed his father in an e-mail. He decided to act on that advice immediately, explaining to his parents that “The future is too good to waste on lies.”

Bowe’s parents are Christians of the Calvinist persuasion who home-schooled him, instructed him in Christian ethics, and respected his independence of mind and sense of personal responsibility.

“Bowe was a young man with all the dangers of home-schooling – a brilliant and inquisitive mind, a crisp thinker, and someone who had never really been exposed to evil in the world,” recalls Phil Proctor, who was pastor of the Presbyterian Church attended by the Bergdahl family. “He [wanted] to determine whether the Christian faith was his own, or his parents’ and was doing a lot of exploring of ideas – never drugs or alcohol, but trying to be an outdoors/Renaissance type figure.”

When Bowe announced his enlistment in the US Army, Bob didn’t approve but also didn’t discourage him. When Bowe expressed his terminal disgust with the mission in Afghanistan, Bob offered the admonition: “Obey your conscience.”

By offering that advice, rather than rebuking his son or turning him in to his superiors as a potential “shirker,” Bob Bergdahl committed treason, according to his detractors, who insist that loyalty to the Warfare State trumps all other moral commitments.

Bowe’s parents never relented in their efforts to bring their son home. Now their relief over their son’s liberation, and their expressions of unconditional love toward him, are being depicted as evidence of disloyalty to the Regime and even hatred forAmerica.

“Bob felt (with some justification) that the US government was not going to engage with diplomatic efforts and so decided to try to free his son himself,” recounts Pastor Proctor. “He learned Pashtun and developed a lot of contacts in the Middle East. The Qatar connection is one that either originated with Bob or, at the very least, became very personally connected to Bob. Bob has, for quite some time, been saying that the closure of Guantanamo is integrally connected to the release of his son.”

In addition to placing his duty to his son above loyalty to the State, Bob Bergdahl’s offenses include learning the language of his captors and expressing the heretical view that God disapproves of death of Afghan children. Even Bob’s beard is presented as evidence of his supposed affinity for Islamic jihad, a charge that – if applied even-handedly – could justify a drone strike targeting the cast of Duck Dynasty.

Rather than being a jihadist sleeper cell, as they are being portrayed by War Party dead-enders, the Bergdahls are Christian individualists. Their moral universe is defined by the Two Great Commandments (that we love our Creator and love our neighbors as ourselves ) and biblical teachings regarding the reciprocal moral duties of parents and children. They do not place allegiance to the State above loyalty to their family – which to a statist is an unforgivable heresy.

Speaking on FoxNews, Dr. Keith Ablow – displaying the ideologically inspired certitude of a Brezhev-era Soviet psychiatrist – discerned “narcissistic” tendencies in the entire Bergdahl family. Bowe’s desire for adventure and self-directed nature indicate that “he can’t really serve the nation … because he’s serving himself.” Bowe’s individualism was a form of “addiction,” insisted Commissar Ablow, eliciting coos of thoughtful assent from the Fox News personalities interviewing him, one of whom was prompted to underscore the importance of “obey[ing] your commander, rather than your conscience,” which is a decidedly a pre-Nuremberg order of moral priorities .

Bowe’s incorrigible commitment to his conscience is to be expected, Commissar Ablow continued, given that Bowe was raised in a family displaying a tendency “to distance one’s self from institutions, to diminish the rule of law and to elevate the individual above all else.” The problem with the Bergdahls, Ablow suggested, was that they “don’t feel part of our country.” The exchange of five Gitmo detainees for “somebody who didn’t feel very American” resulted in “a tremendously psychologically dispiriting moment for our people,” summarized the putative doctor, who strikes me as the kind of person who would consider the public execution of the entire Bergdahl family to be a moment of communal healing.

For people in the grip of war patriotism, the proper role for Bob and Jani Bergdahl was described in Livy’s account of the Horatti, or sons of Horace. During one of the countless conflicts in Rome's early expansion, Horace's triplet sons volunteered to engage three brothers from a rival tribe on the battlefield. The victors would win, on behalf of their city-state, possession of a strategically crucial – and now long-forgotten -- village.

Rome’s opponents were killed in a battle that also claimed two of Horace’s sons. In the subsequent victory celebration Horace lost one of his daughters as well: She was killed by the surviving brother as punishment for her romantic dalliance with an enemy of Rome. Horace bore the losses stoically, as befitting a father who sought above all things the greater glory of the government that claimed him.

Under that model of “patriotism” – which inspired the totalitarian French Jacobins, as well as their ideological offspring in Italy and Germany – Bob Bergdahl’s duty was to chastise his errant son, and exhort him to be true and faithful in carrying out the State’s murderous errand. If Bowe were to be killed by Afghans defending their country, his parents were expected to regard their son as an exalted hero, and their irreplaceable loss as a holy privilege.

Bowe was hardly the first American soldier whose understandable disillusionment led him to quit while deployed overseas.

                                                              

“I cannot support a mission that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,” wrote

Colonel Ted Westhusing, a West Point Graduate, Special Forces veteran, and devout Catholic husband and father, in a despairing e-mail to his family. “I am sullied. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. Death before being dishonored any more.”

A few hours later Col. Westhusing shot himself in the head, ending his life less than a month before his tour of duty was scheduled to end. In the fashion of “Doctor” Ablow, an Army psychologist who reviewed Westhusing's e-mails following his suicide determined that the Colonel was “unusually rigid in his thinking” and unreasonably committed to his moral code.

 Army Specialist Alyssa Peterson was also devoutly religious, a former Mormon missionary from Flagstaff, Arizona. Like Bowe and Bob Bergdahl, Peterson had what one friend described as an “amazing” ability to learn languages, an aptitude that helped her learn Arabic at the Army's Defense Language Institute. Spec. Peterson volunteered for duty in Iraq, where she was sent to help interrogate prisoners and translate captured documents at an air base in Tal-Afar.

And, like Ted Westhusing, Alyssa Peterson was driven to suicidal depression as a result of the role the regime forced her to play in Iraq.

“Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners,” summarized Reporter Kevin Elston, who was using the official euphemism for “torture.” “She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokesmen for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed.”

Immediately after lodging her objections, Alyssa was reassigned and sent to suicide prevention training; her suicide note took ironic notice of the fact that the “prevention” training actually instructed her in the best way to kill herself.

“What right had a man to exist who was too cowardly to stand up for what he thought and felt … for everything that made him an individual apart from his fellows, and not a slave to stand cap in hand waiting for someone of stronger will to act?” asked John Andrews, a WWI-era deserter, in John Dos Passos’ novel Three Soldiers. It’s quite likely that Ted Westhusing and Alyssa Peterson asked that question of themselves. Bowe Bergdahl’s emails to his father make it clear that he was pondering that question at the time of his desertion.

Implicated in grotesque crimes against decency, Col. Westhusing and Spec. Peterson “deserted” through suicide. They were buried with honors, and their bereaved families received sympathy, rather than scorn. Rather than ending his life, or allowing it to be wasted in the service of lies, Bowe Bergdahl sought to reclaim it on his own terms – and this is why War Party fundamentalists are seeking to not only to imprison him, but to destroy his entire family. 

This is a re-blog from Pro Libertate: "The Future is Too Good to Waste on Lies": Bowe Bergdahl's Moral Odyssey. Used with permission.

Author 

William N. Grigg

Payette, Idaho, United States

Christian Individualist, husband, father, self-appointed pundit.

Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations

"...In spring 2008, inspired by the Vietnam-era Winter Soldier hearings, Iraq Veterans Against the War gathered outside Washington, DC and testified to atrocities they witnessed while deployed in the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. This video captures the powerful words and images of this historic event.

Well-publicized cases of American brutality like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of an entire Iraqi family in the city of Haditha are not isolated incidents. Instead, they are the logical consequences of U.S. war policy.

Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan preserves and honors the participants' courageous contributions in or to ensure that people arounf the world remember their stories and struggle. The 1 hour edited video features 13 veterans from three days of testimony given by over 70 men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The footage addresses such issues as the U.S. military's callous disregard for civilian life, the torture of detainees, the culture of racism that's inherent in a military occupation, gender discriminations, and the health crisis facing today's veterans..."

See also http://www.ivawarchive.org/wintersoldier

Adam Kokesh and other Veterans give their accounts of their time in the United States military in the Occupations and Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. These accounts bringing these Vets to their ultimate decision of dissent from the practices of the US military in the expansion of the Empire and the ever long war in those countries. 

Did Imperialism, Radicalism and Nationalism cause the Benghazi Tragedy?

What do we really know about The Benghazi Incident (not a scandal)? Could it have been prevented? Could the foreign policy and war hawking have been a factor? What are the main factors that lead to the deaths of 4 American Government workers? Are these deaths the consequences of a failed policy and retribution for intervention? How do the “Radicals” on both sides of this issue fuel the fire and promulgate the cause beyond this incident? Can a deep held Nationalism and Imperialism be to blame, at least partially?

The lives of J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were added to the statistical sheets and lists of names of those killed by the actions of the government they worked for. Their own actions contributing to their deaths.

Empire building is paid for by the blood of its citizens.

In empires the cost of expansion has always been monetary and lives. The monetary losses are inherent due to an ever expanding use of resources to fulfill land, power or military gains. It goes without saying that Fiat currency and its value manipulation aid in this matter. It is the human losses that are taken the hardest and rightfully so. The deaths of men and women who have been led to believe they are doing a service to the civilian population at home are justified under the rules of war and the guise of a better tomorrow. The lives of these four men were not the first in this long line of death attributed to government’s interventionist policies and empire building. Though you will not hear it on the political “news” commentary these consulate and embassy attacks happened during the prior Presidential Administration as well, from January 22, 2002 to September 17, 2008 there were 13 separate attacks on US buildings resulting in the death of many and injuring many more. Some will say that these deaths were mostly not Americans and that they should not count as the same, but I say this, how is one life or one attack different than another. A US diplomat, David Foy died as a result of an embassy attack in 2006, where is this in the media today? It’s not there because it has no bearing on the sensationalism of the story today, right now, in your face rhetoric redirecting from the factual past and skewing the point. That point being that this isn't a partisan issue, it’s a policy issue. It is the act of intervention that keeps enemies at our gates. It is the act of intervention that breeds hate and contempt. It is this intervention that costs us one of the most basic natural resources we have, the human being.

We have radicals on all sides.

I hear this all the time, “If it weren't for those radical _____ (insert religious term of your choice) none of this would have happened” Well that’s one way of saying it. Let’s try another, “If the American war radicals weren't so keen to blow up things around the world…” Get it? There are radicals on all sides of this issue. We have radical Pro-Military people screaming to nuke the world. We have radical religious people who claim their religion is the only one allowed and all others must not be allowed to survive. (Don’t think I am just pointing at the Islam faith, Christians pull the same stunts). There are the interventionist radicals and the empirical radicals just the same, shouting for their blood baths and land and power grabs, urging on the utter annihilation of complete civilizations and religions.

The thing is if we didn't have all these radicals screaming for their favorite way of dealing with things all dealing with death and destruction of some sort or another, maybe we could have a rational and logical discussion on the affairs of the world. But maybe I’m just hopeful. Maybe I am just a radical Peace Monger, I just don’t see the rational to defy reason and subvert logic for a gain of temporary peace and faux respect.

Nationalism is a horrid disease of the brain.

Albert Einstein said it best of Nationalism, He says

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

And dammit if he isn't right.

It is a disease, a curable disease at that. Inject some knowledge, a little understanding, a few shots of philosophy and it can change the world. Nationalism really is a hard thing to beat, mainly because most people do not see it as a negative thing. They see “Love of country”, National Flags, Pledges of allegiances, our colors and stripes; they claim superiority and greatness arrogantly and erroneously. Exceptionalism is a word they like to throw around a lot. But are they really exceptional? Are they really great? Are they really superior? How do they fill these claims, by what measure?

Let’s think about it this way, the Nation you were born into, you did not pick it and it did not pick you, by some cosmic happenstance you are where you are and not somewhere where you accept bombing to rubble, on the other side of that is those people that are in the place you are destroying and through that same cosmic happenstance they are being murdered and displaced because of that placement. That doesn't sound too much like a good thing. What if it were reversed, would you accept your fate because you are in a place that others see fit to destroy or invade? Would you feel the same if your home were burned or bombarded, if your family were killed, or you were targeted by drone bombing all because of the geographical location you are in? Nationalism has killed more innocent people than almost any other belief in the history of man. Hitler and Mao used Nationalism to subject millions to the will of Socialism and Dictatorship. The Northern States used Nationalism to carry out a Civil war and subject free individual states to an all-encompassing never ending contract of subservience.  The United States, along with other nations, is using Nationalism again to justify homicide around the globe.

Benghazi wasn't an isolated incident, and it wasn't a scandal, hell I even say it wasn't a surprise. It was a response to the policies and procedures, the mindsets and arrogance Americans show the world. If it be said that justifying an act such as this is on the national security interests of a nation than this is no more an attack than invading Iraq or Afghanistan was. If it be said that the radicals were to blame, then we can say yes, radical nationalists on both sides are to blame. If we are to say that the price of an expanding empire is paid by the blood of its citizens then these four men have paid that price, and there will be more to come.  

The investigation that is and will be taking place in the coming months and years will produce no tangible results, it will not alter policy or procedure, it will not halt the footsteps into a world war, it will not affect the outcome of imperialism, nationalism or radicalism in any nation. The investigation will not lead to arrests of those who perpetrated the act; at best a drone will fly overhead and destroy the entire village they may be staying in, without regard for the innocent lives it will destroy.  No this investigation is a sham; it is a waste of time and ultimately tax payers money.

Benghazi wasn't a single act of terrorism; it was the partial culmination of bad policy and even worse judgment.  These men were not heroes; they are statistics of the loss of lives due to government policy of world domination and world policing.