They Fight and Die, But Not For Their Country

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Published on Wednesday, December 1, 2004 by Ted Rall
They Fight and Die, But Not For Their Country
Why Soldiers Make the Ultimate Sacrifice

by Ted Rall

On Veteran's Day, Kyle Burns of Laramie, Wyoming lost his life in Iraq. At his memorial service, the Associated Press reported, he was remembered "as a marine who died for his country." Another fallen American was honored in Topeka the same week. Clinton Wisdom, said a reporter for Channel 13 news, was "a soldier who had died for his country." There was another service in Belington, West Virginia, for Romulo Jiminez, killed at age 21 in Fallujah. "He not only died for his country, he died for each one of us individually to preserve freedom," said the funeral director. Wisconsin lost three men in Iraq that week, including Todd Cornel, 38. "What he did was what he wanted to do, and he died for his country, for our freedom," said his father.

Did he? Have any of the Iraq war dead really "died for their country"?

At a time when every other Arab oil-guzzling SUV bears a yellow "support our troops" sticker and probable antiwar liberal Dan Rather "salutes fallen heroes" of Iraq on the evening news, the red-blue divide hasn't altered traditional perceptions of military service. But with 1,500 U.S. soldiers dead in Afghanistan and Iraq and influential Bushists calling for invading Iran, the question bears asking: What does it mean to fight (or die) for the United States?

When we hear that soldiers fight for our country, we immediately think of their role guarding our borders, protecting us from invaders. Yet the U.S. has only been invaded twice, when Great Britain attempted to bring us back into the colonial fold during the War of 1812 and in 1846, when Mexico launched a brief incursion across the disputed Rio Grande. During the ensuing 158 years, no member of the U.S. military has fought or died while repelling an invader. 9/11 demonstrated that the Pentagon doesn't consider a foreign incursion a major threat; that's why they assigned 12 "ground-based" Air National Guard jets to guard the the entire country.

If you participate in a war of retribution, are you "fighting for your country"? There have only been four attacks on American soil by a foreign power. All were carried out by Japan during World War II: Pearl Harbor, the now-forgotten submarine strafing of a California oil refinery, balloon-borne bombs dropped without casualties on Oregon and Washington state, and an air raid on Dutch Harbor, a remote U.S. outpost on Alaska's Aleutian Islands, in which 43 residents died. Japan and Germany's declarations of war intuitively appear to justify the sacrifice of 291,557 American soldiers in World War II, but were those deaths necessary to defend us? There is no evidence that the Axis intended to invade the U.S., nor did it possess the logistical capability to occupy it. The defeat of Nazism liberated millions from tyranny, but that was a happy byproduct of a war we fought to expand our military and economic influence. Right or wrong, World War II was a war of choice against Germany and one of retribution against Japan.

What about avenging an attack, not on U.S. soil, but against an American facility overseas? In 1986 President Reagan ordered bombings in Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a German disco that killed off-duty American soldiers. Moammar Khaddafi's young daughter, among others, were killed. Subsequent intelligence proved that Libya had had nothing to do with the nightclub attack, but--even setting that aside--it's a stretch to argue that the pilots who bombed Libya were "fighting for their country." Moreover, even retaliatory strikes don't occur frequently. The most recent bona fide assault on a foreign asset by another country took place in 1979 when Iranians took over the American embassy in Tehran. U.S. overseas assets are rarely attacked.

The truth is, U.S. troops are hardly ever called upon to defend the territory of the U.S. or its outposts--military bases, embassies and consulates. Of the approximately 250 deployments of U.S. armed forces since 1798, the majority have been preemptive actions against possible future threats, or wars of aggression waged to advance American geopolitical interests.

81,243 American soldiers died in combat during the Korean, Vietnam and first Gulf wars. True, had the U.S. not gotten involved, a unified Korea might be suffering under the dictatorship of Kim Jung Il and Kuwait could be Iraq's 19th province. But those problems wouldn't have been ours. The snuffing out of over 80,000 young lives didn't do anything to make the U.S. safer, but that wasn't the point. We lost Vietnam and made a friend; we won in Korea and created our most dangerous enemy today.

For one American president after another, winning or losing doesn't matter. For an empire, military action is its own reward. Our willingness to wage war intimidates adversaries and their neighbors into giving us what we want: cheaper oil, military bases, favorable trading terms. When American sailors invaded the Falkland Islands in 1832, it was "to defend American interests." Ditto for 1855, when U.S. forces stormed Fiji. Ditto for the 1903 Dominican Republic action (where defending U.S. interests meant suppressing a popular revolution), Honduras in 1911, the Soviet Union in 1918, Lebanon in 1953...you get the idea. The soldiers who fought in those invasions were told they were fighting for their country. Those who lost their lives were called heroes.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Now we're at it again, this time in Iraq, a nation that would never have invaded us. Everyone, even the Bushists who manufactured the war from whole cloth, admits that Iraq never had weapons that could hurt us or means to hit us with them if they had. And we know that they didn't attack us--not on 9/11, not ever. Our soldiers may be doing their duty, fighting fiercely, and giving their lives in the bargain. But since Iraq neither threatens our freedom nor our borders, they're neither protecting our freedoms or fighting for America. The best anyone can say is that they're fighting for our country's geopolitical interests--and what those are is subject to interpretation.

"Private ______ died for his country's geopolitical interests." Huh. Doesn't quite have the same ring.

Ted Rall writes for a generation unjustly maligned as a pack of lazy slackers. He voices Generation X's frustration and resentment at the excesses of the baby boomers who've left a spent America in their mammoth wake.

© 2004 Ted Rall
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
Yep. The rhetoric used in the article sounds so true. "He died for his country", "She died for her country", "He died for his country" ... It's not that I object to the Americans going to Europe in WW II and freeing us though, but as Rall says, it's hard to imagine that the US participated in such a large war just to "help those poor Europeans" (my own words now) ...
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
I don't know if you read my other posted article today. Iraq is known to have equal if not more oil than Saudi Arabia and it is easier and cheaper to get out. And now it is easier for the US to get this oil since you have the troops there.

The tyran that the US claimed to have freed Iraqis from was put there for so many years. They helped him for so many years. Now they used him as a way to get in.
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
Well it's sort of logical Iraq was not only liberated from Hussein because he was a tyran and Bush had the desperate need to free the country, just to restore the freedom of all Iraqis. I mean, billions and billions of dollars were invested into a war based on a threat which hasn't been proven (hello, where are the WMD?). That could mean two things: 1) Bush is a REALLY, REALLY bad investor; 2) there's something to gain. I'd go for option two 8)
 

Paco

Electoral Member
Jul 6, 2004
172
0
16
7000 ft. asl and on full auto
moghrabi said:
Published on Wednesday, December 1, 2004 by Ted Rall
They Fight and Die, But Not For Their Country
Why Soldiers Make the Ultimate Sacrifice

by Ted Rall

moghrabi said:
Paco,

If you think my posts are lies, I put a link to every single one of them. They are from the media that you and I read everyday.

mog, just because someone writes an opinion on some obscure web site, does not mean it is true, nor does it mean it is "from the media." If you posted news from respected news sources, then some deference might be due. Mostly though, your links are from dirty little corners of the internet where conspiracy theories abound.

Ted Rall is well known for his leftist diatribe. He is not fair, nor balanced, nor does he claim to be. The left leaning Washington Post just dropped his cartoons because of his radical views.

Our willingness to wage war intimidates adversaries and their neighbors into giving us what we want: cheaper oil, military bases, favorable trading terms.

Ya know, this is what is wrong with the left. They do not recognize what is real.

I agree with this statement. It is what human beings are all about. We have not changed since Alexander conquered the known world. Once we face up to the fact that human beings desire power and want to hold sway over others, then maybe we can get on with life. Anyone who says, "We are more civilized now!!! We should not make war." is missing the obvious. The only difference between man today and man in the ancient past is technology. Microwave ovens and cell phones do not civilize human beings. We have not changed.

So what would make you leftists happy? Maybe America should bring its military home, defend only its shores and stay completely out of world affairs. Would that make you happy?
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Paco said:
So what would make you leftists happy? Maybe America should bring its military home, defend only its shores and stay completely out of world affairs. Would that make you happy?

This will make all of the people of the world happy. America should defend only its shore and not interfere with the internal affairs of others. Or make lies to invade other countries for its own gains.

You say my articles are from the darkest corners of the internet. Maybe this is where the truth lies because a lot of people like to hide the truth.
 

Paco

Electoral Member
Jul 6, 2004
172
0
16
7000 ft. asl and on full auto
moghrabi said:
This will make all of the people of the world happy. America should defend only its shore and not interfere with the internal affairs of others. Or make lies to invade other countries for its own gains.

That is impossible. It is not human nature. And if somehow Americans had been able to defy human nature, what would the world look like now? All of the world would be under a (German, Japanese or Soviet) facist regime while we sat home grinning safe and sound.

Looks like a lose - lose situation for us.
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
Well, I do think countries may interfere (criticize) with internal affairs of others. If we would all move back into an isolation, I don't think it will improve the world. With that, I do not mean only the US moving back into an isolation, but every country in this world. What if a civil war goes on in a certain country? Should we just look the other way and say "it's not our business" - something which the US has been accused of doing, like in Pakistan or Central Asia. How far should this non-interference be taken moghrabi?

And Paco: you say "the Left" does not know what is going on in the world. Maybe "the Right" sees more things than there are actually going on - like WMD in Iraq, eh?
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: They Fight and Die, B

The world is too interconnected for countries not to criticise the internal affairs of others. We have developed mechanisms for doing these things though. The problem is that when one country feels it is above the power of the organisations who control those mechanisms, then it undermines the authority of those organisations all around.

In the case of the US, it is a reluctance to understand that it is beholden to the same laws as everybody else on the planet. That means no illegal invasions of Iraq and it means that when the WTO tules against you you annot ignore it.

If the US would play within the rules it would be much easier to convince others to do the same, and it would be much easier to build a consensus to deal with those that don't.
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
I have often said that if Bush pulls this Iraq-trip off ..... he will go down in history as the Greatest American President ... ever!
I don't think he will succeed with all his dreams .... but, he's gonna move up North with the Kurds and settle for that part of Iraq.

America was down the tube if it had not invaded, and thus the American dollar.
Lots has been written about the "Oil For Food" program and how every country in the world was buying Iraqi oil on the sneak. There was no U.S. companies in on this oil-for-food trip, that I'm aware of. Not because they didn't want to, but because Iraq was shutting out the U.S. and so were many other Arab countries. They were selling the oil for Euro's.

Look at the costs of this war. It's not just the 6 billion a month, just take a peek at this story:

Unfunded liability for the disability compensation program $600 billion Over 30 years
By Alison Young
September 28, 2004
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/9783554.htm

Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets
A death sentence here and abroad
By Leuren Moret
August 21, 2004
http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml

“We’re fighting average Iraqis who don’t want the US there”
By Jeff Riedel
November 08, 2004
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/hoff-n08.shtml

The civilians we killed
If only those who sent us to Iraq lay awake at night
By Michael Hoffman
December 02, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1364244,00.html

“We’re committing genocide in Iraq”
By Jeff Riedel
November 11 2004
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/vet-n11.shtml

Left Hook Exclusive: An Interview with an Anti-war Veteran from the Iraq War Jim Talib HM3 (FMF/PJ)
By Derek Seidman
November 29, 2004
http://www.lefthook.org/Interviews/SeidmanTalib112904.html

‘With Deepest Sympathy’
By David H. Hackworth
November 22, 2004
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/...nd=viewone&op=t&id=101&rnd=189.83231155828633
 

Paco

Electoral Member
Jul 6, 2004
172
0
16
7000 ft. asl and on full auto
Re: RE: They Fight and Die, B

Reverend Blair said:
In the case of the US, it is a reluctance to understand that it is beholden to the same laws as everybody else on the planet. That means no illegal invasions of Iraq and it means that when the WTO tules against you you annot ignore it.

If the US would play within the rules it would be much easier to convince others to do the same, and it would be much easier to build a consensus to deal with those that don't.

You make a good point. The problem with it is the tendency for countries to interpret international law to their benefit or vote on resolutions in a way that benefits themselves. Moreover, most want a piece of the pie that America has. That tends to group most of the world against us. I see nothing wrong with protecting the pie. Nor would you if Canada was the world’s power or a Russian, etc.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: They Fight and Die, B

It's not a matter of interpretation though...the invasion of Iraq was illegal. The USA was the aggressor and wars of aggression are illegal.

The Byrd amendment is illegal, the WTO has said so. You lost. That has happened numerous times in front of trade panels, yet your country ignores those rulings time and again.

Bush's insane little dance to put all Americans above international law is another example. His only stated reason is that Americans would be tried outside of the US...that's about as disingenuous as he can be. The US would have first shot at trying its own war criminals under its own rules. Only if it cannot or will not do that do international courts come into play.

Here's a question for you, Paco. If Dick Cheney gets supoenaed by France for laws he broke as CEO of Halliburton, do you think he should stand trial?