Friday, February 20, 2004

Cheering for Kills

By Abu Spinoza

Read full article...

Posted 02/20 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Solid writing, Abu. Thanks, truly.  There is another “key difference,” however.  With the cheerleaders you’ve got a crew appropriating that which belongs to Native Americans, so that in the process of one perpetuating one abomination another “feather” in the cap of genocide is placed...for ignorance to compound ignorance among the general public.  I submit that respecting “sympathy,” “liberty,” and “respect,” among other things...much more is being made of mockery of with the visiting cheerleaders.  I would also draw your attention to comments I made today with regard to Mark Hand’s GIBBS piece (the second day I’ve commented on it).  In all humility, I ask you and everyone to consider whether or not there might be a way to write what you want to write...and still make a small additional contribution...in eliminating the use of “Redskins” completely...from our articles, etc.
    Thanks for your kind consideration, Richard

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  02/22  at  01:55 PM

  2. I find it hard to believe that the Washington cheerleaders would fly all the way to Fallujah to shimmy around in their little skirts and shake their pom poms. Whether or not you approve of these cheerleaders CHOSEN profession, they have every right to disagree with your views of the Iraq war and express in a brave manner their support for the US troops. David Hoe, a highly educated and happily married man, was merely trying to thank the cheerleaders for their show of solidarity. Perha s some people are able to see beyond a pretty face and recognise the strength of a person within.

    Posted by Amy from  on  02/23  at  01:58 PM

  3. [1] I do agree with Richard Oxman that the term “Redskins” is an offensive one given the ugly history of genocide and massacres committed against the Native Americans. 
    [2] The issue is not, as Amy would have it, whether one apporoves of “cheerleaders’ chosen profession.” Rather the issue is that it is tasteless and inhumane to have occupation troops “entertained” when Iraqis are living under occupation, malnutrition, disease, and lawlessness.  The sexist entertainment provided by the cheerleaders is certainly quite offensive and disrespectful of the people whose country has been invaded.  Just imagine yourself being bombed and living without clean water and have your country invaded.  Would you like cheerleaders to “shimmy around in their little skirts and shake their pom poms” while your kids have no medicine and no food?

    Posted by Abu Spinoza from  on  02/23  at  06:29 PM

  4. I cannot believe you and your readers could be so cynical as to suggest that the men and women of the US armed forces are happily playing and enjoying themselves in Iraq while blithely ignoring the plight of the people in that country.  Our men and women are engaged in a very unpleasant task which they agreed to undertake when they signed up to represent and defend this country.  None of them knew precisely what the circumstances would be and, I suggest, virtually all of them would prefer to be home.  But they are meeting the responsibilities they agreed to undertake.  We can all debate the merits of the action in Iraq, but it is wrong through implication or otherwise to accuse the young people on the ground of insensitivity because they found some pleasure in a 15 to 30 minute visit, during a full year’s deployment, from a group of entertainers from home, whether they be cheerleaders or singers from the Metropolitan Opera.  Expressing thanks to a group for bringing a few minutes of relief from a 24/7 demanding undertaking tells you nothing about the sensitivities of the person giving thanks nor of that person’s concern for the plight of the Iraqi people.  The US is spending billions of dollars in Iraq that it need not spend to address the conditions you cite.  As for the “occupation,” I suggest that most in Iraq considered Saddam to be an “occupier” while he was in power, certainly those whom he murdered and dumped into mass graves and their families.  Even your cynical readers could not believe that Saddam’s occupation was more benevolent than what the US currently is attempting in that country.

    Posted by Ed from  on  02/25  at  03:12 PM

  5. Regarding Amy’s comments and Ed’s comments...any support whatsoever at this point of American soldiers makes the supporters complicit in the abominations...that we continue to perpetuate worldwide.  It’s time for all readers to draw a line --see my WHAT TO DO? VIOLENCE RECONSIDERED, if you will, posted on http://www.dissidentvoice.org-- respecting other U.S. citizens...and, in fact, all citizens of the world.  As far as I’m concerned, American soldiers don’t deserve the slightest consideration of support abroad until they permit themselves to be subjected to international law; that would require that the American public insist that those in power return to --at least on the surface-- our nation honoring international agreements which we signed on to in the past AND seriously reconsidering those international agreements which we refused to be a part of previously.  Merci, merci and gracias, Ricardo (as in Richard Oxman)
    P.S.  American soldiers have a disgusting history, contrary to what the American public school system teaches and what the mainstream media continues to...sell.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  02/26  at  12:39 PM

  6. I disagree with Amy’s comment that: “Whether or not you approve of these cheerleaders CHOSEN profession, they have every right to disagree with your views of the Iraq war and express in a brave manner their support for the US troops,” if, as I believe is true, the war is immoral, wrong, unjust, fought for reasons other than what it is allegedly being fought for, and violates international law.  Then there is no right to support it; that would be immoral, unjust, and a crime, and those perpetrating, as I believe they are, WAR CRIMINALS, AND OUGHT TO BE IN THE HAGUE.  I have no right to support a reckless burglar breaking in to my neighbor’s home.  Keep in mind that 10,000+ INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIANS have perished in this war.  For what?  What for?

    In reply to Ed, I don’t believe it’s cynical to see “the men and women of the US armed forces are happily playing and enjoying themselves in Iraq while blithely ignoring the plight of the people in that country.” In fact, they are instruments of war criminals, less to blame than their leaders, but the essential component of those crimes, nonetheless.

    I think it is absurd to suggest that that war is being fought in defense of our country, in fact laughable, rather than see it for what it is: an imperial subjugation of a sovereign country to dominate a strategic area, install military bases there, and dominate its oil resources.  Just look at the wholesale sell out and privatization of the Iraqi resources to whomever, and rules allowing that profits from same be allowed free movement out of the country.

    I would have much more respect for the US soldiers in Iraq if they deserted or refused to do the dirty work of the diabolical and contemptible Cheney et al. or became conscientous objectors.  I have little respect or pride in their subjugating, robbing, raping, and murdering in another country on false pretenses in my name.  Indeed, it’s another in a long series of embarrassments at my pathetic imperial government. 

    As to Saddam’s occupying of Iraq:  How many times does it have to be said before those like Ed will get it into their heads, that the United States practically created Saddam (like Osama), supported him for decades with massive military, economic and diplomatic aid, and among other things supplied him with the precursor chemicals to manufacture chemical weapons, and the intelligence to deliver them against Iran, and more, right up to the time of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990?  What does it take?  It takes a book, and I would recommend William Blum’s “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII,” if you want to have your illusions as a citizen of the United States shattered.

    And what Richard says. 

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  02/26  at  05:41 PM

  7. I rather think it is despicable to engage in dancing after a hard day of occupation and killing resistance fighters.  If one is serious about helping US soldiers and freeing them from the burdens of being a much disliked occupier, bring them home, rather than provided sexist entertainment, or try to come up with vain excuse to have cheerleaders, or other entertainers fly in.  Sexism, combined with military imperialism, is a particularly serious matter.  Its manifestations are quite ugly.

    The New York Times in an article, “Rapes Reported by Servicewomen in the Persian Gulf and Elsewhere,”
    [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/national/26MILI.html?ex=1078766215&ei=1&en=2d9cce1130c2004f ] reported that: “[D]ozens of servicewomen in the Persian Gulf area and elsewhere saying they were sexually assaulted or raped by fellow troops. ...There have been 112 reports of sexual misconduct over roughly the past 18 months in the Central Command area of operations, which includes Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, military officials said on Wednesday.  The Army has reported 86 incidents, the Navy 12, the Air Force 8 and the Marine Corps 6.  Military officials said that the bulk of the charg s were being investigated and that some had already resulted in disciplinary actions, but they could not provide specifics. They said a small number of the reports had turned out to be unfounded.”

    If this is how some US female soldiers are being treated by some US male soldiers, it might be worth investigating how US soldiers in general are treating Iraqi civilians, including Iraqi women and girls, and specifically whether US soliders are engaging in sexual harassessment and raping.  Occupation gives an occupying army power over a people and an awful opportunity to use force with accountability which some do use. The record of occupation regimes have never been too good.  The possibility of the abuse of power always exists, and that’s why it is critial for the media and others to expose any abuse of power.

    Posted by Abu Spinoza from  on  02/26  at  08:02 PM

  8. I take it I’ve stumbled into, and now become part of, some libertarian or anarchist website.  That’s unfortunate because such groups often are too filled with loathing for authority to leave any room for other views.  Take the “WAR CRIMINAL” and the “subjugating, robbing, raping, and murdering” language and it is clear that there is little room here for rational discussion, but I will try nonetheless. 

    You assume wrongly that we who have different views than you are unaware that the US had a role in supporting Iraq and Saddam at one time.  If everything in the world were neat and clean and remained static, our actions today could be said to be hypocritical.  But the world is not neat and clean, nor static, and never has been.  Nations exist to protect and defend and they do so by acting in what is in their own national interest.  As circumstances change, the national interests of all countries change.  Is the suggestion that since the US had a role at one time in supporting Saddam in what it believed to be its national interest, it was forever barred from seeing him as a threat.  The reverse may be more accurate - - the US had a particular RESPONSIBILITY to deal with him as he became more depraved since it gave him life. 

    I am struck by the fact that nowhere in any of the responsive commentary is there mention of the Baath regime’s record.  There is only castigation of the US.  Where is the outrage over Saddam or, at a minimum, acknowledgement of his regime’s dismal conduct?  If the answer is that this is irrelevant, that the US simply is drunk with lust for oil or some other vice and always has been (as is suggested) and that the US is the source of all evil in the world (as also is suggested), then it is clear that this group has but one agenda.  A balanced view would recognize the new threat facing the US as evidenced by 9/11 and the depravity of Saddam’s regime.  We can debate whether Iraq posed a threat in the context of 9/11.  But it is wrong to judge the US and its soldiers devoid of any acknowledgement of these other conditions.  The nation’s leaders still may come up wanting, but to call them “diabolical and contemptible” when acting under these conditions is wrong.

    Of course, if this group believes that nations themselves are evil, my thoughts surely will fall on deaf ears, as they may in any event.

    Assuming our views remain very far apart, I will take my leave of this exchange and wish you all well.

    Posted by Ed from  on  02/26  at  08:36 PM

  9. As the author of the “cheerleader’s to cheer for” article, and a proud member of the US Army, I find it funny that you and your readers have no respect for the American Heroes that are risking there lives and devoting a year of their time to defend the liberties that you so freely enjoy. 
    I can testify as a first hand witness that what we are doing here has, and will continue to have a profound positive impact on freedom desiring Iraqi’s.  I have met more Iraqi’s than I can count who have told me with tears running down their eyes that Saddam’s henchmen either killed their brother, father, son or cousin and ho thankfull they are that those days are over.
    I can also tell you that the elementary school my battalion sponsors wouldn’t have electicity, clean running water or a septic tank if it weren’t for the $40,000 dollars we spent hiring Iraqi contractors to help us with the work.  But cynics like you Abu, prefer to focus on the 20% of the population (Sunni Baathists) who are still upset because they are no longer in control of this countries vast wealth.
    June 30th is quickly approaching and our Civilian Leadership is doing the right thing to transfer the power and authority back to freedom wanting Iraqis.  I hope and pray that a secular democracy will take root here so that my children won’t have to come back 20 years from now to finish the job. 
    It’s probably pretty difficult for you to judge what it’s really like over here from your comfortable office in Arlington, VA.  All you know is what you read in the newspapers and see on TV.  And as for the cheerleaders; they have more honor, courage and bravery than you or your readers will ever be able to know or understand.

    Posted by 1LT David Hoe from  on  02/27  at  09:53 AM

  10. I’m not going to go back and forth with you regarding the fact that America has never been in the business of pushing democracy anywhere in the world in the sense that you’re talking about.  All I want to do here is recommend that you review William Blum’s KILLING HOPE.  His ROGUE STATE might do also.  There’s loads to recommend, of course, on the subject touched upon above, but those two should be easily available, and should be highly instructive.  In closing, I’d say that rather than denigrate Abu respecting the “armchair” comment, you might look at yourself...and ask yourself where you got your information from, your fundamental info about what America is about, what America has wrought.  Anecdotal points --such as witnessing tears being shed by Iraqis over...whatever-- have to be measured against the overwhelming evidence of the historical record which clearly delineates America as genocidal, ecocidal and homicidal worldwide.  I might add that none of it could have been accomplished without the aid of those “heros” you speak of; none of the above has anything to do with criticizing your intentions.
    Loving best, Richard Oxman

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  02/27  at  07:45 PM

  11. 1LT David Hoe’s defense of having flying cheerleaders for a bachelor-party dancing is indeed shameful.  He needs to wake up and perhaps talk to Iraqis, *without* carrying an gun, and ask them how they feel.  What an occupied people tell a soldier of occupation isn’t exactly a good guide to what they really think.  Also the question isn’t whether Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone.  It is naturally to be pleased that a dictator has been overthrown.  That does not imply that the Iraqis want to be under Anglo-American occupation.

    If Lt Hoe cares to find out the facts, he’d know that during most of the period when “Saddam’s henchmen either killed their brother, father, son or cousin” of the people talking to him, the US was supporting Saddam with intelligence data and material support. US support for Saddam continued till he invaded Kuwait.  If rather than voyeuristically watching cheersleaders, 1LT David Hoe’s cares to learn a bit about the role of Anglo-American sanctions, he would know that thousands and thousands of Iraqis, including children, died during the sanctions because of lack of clean water, medicine, food, and depleted uranium.  Also Lt. Hoe would be well advised to pay some attention to the culture and tradition of the Iraqis.  Perhaps he should imagine for a minute how he would feel if the USA was under occupation by Iraqi soldiers and these soliders had belly dancers fly in from the middle east, when American people lacked water, food, medicine, any security, and so forth. 

    People like First Lt David Hoe not only lack any respect for Iraqis, but also ave no self respect.  But perhaps morality sensitivity requires not only compassion for others but a positive self-image and self respect.

    Posted by Abu Spinoza from  on  02/28  at  05:08 PM

    12. Next entry: Ravaging Homes

    Previous entry: Anticipating the Capture of Osama bin Laden

    [ads]

    Support Press Action