Advancing towards destruction
complacently behind military policy

We seem still to be following the path of World War I — progressive widening of destructive war with no non-military options, since 9/11. See my discussion of this in 2003 and 2004. The Vietnam War is a trifling and inadequate comparison.

Before looking at the history – Iraq – here is the simple case for sanity in relation to Iran:

"The West, for its part, has the option of using diplomacy to pressure Iran to change its behavior, from its human rights record inside the country to the nature of its nuclear energy program. The threat of regime change by military force, while reserved as an option by some in the Western world, endangers nearly all of the efforts democracy-minded Iranians have made in these recent years. The threat of military force gives the system a pretext to crack down on its legitimate opposition and undermines the nascent civil society that is slowly taking shape there. It makes Iranians overlook their resentment of the regime and move behind their unpopular leaders out of defensive nationalism. I can think of no scenario more alarming, no internal shift more dangerous than that engendered by the West imagining that it can bring democracy to Iran through either military might or the fomentation of violent rebellion."
Shirin Ebadi, in Iran Awakening, Random House 2006 p 214.

See also the excellent Iran feature in the March 2007 issue of New Internationalist magazine.

It is argued now that we have to stay in Iraq because defeat for the west would be a disaster. But, alas, that has already happened and was the obvious prospect...follow this campaign for sanity by AVAAZ.ORG

When one's Prime Minister has the audacity to say "... if I ever develop reservations, well I hope I would have the grace to keep them to myself" [John Howard, press conference, Ho Chi Minh City, 21 November 2006] how can we hope to get back to a sensible and honest basis for new policy. Would you follow a boy scout who took that view of what track to follow, of never admitting fault?

With this Prime Minister describing President Bush's 10 January 2007 announcement of plans now to escalate the Iraq war as sensible and realistic, compare the blind wateriness of that – and of Australian public debate – with this mainstream American media commentary from NBC News (transcript and video - video needs broadband). Video also here and here, at truthout.org. "...You speak of mistakes... but you do not admit to making those mistakes..."

It seems that Australians have been deprived of a vocabulary to debate this war in terms other than the military argument. This again parallels WWI. My comparison with WWI is not with America, Britain and us in WWI, but with the Germans and Austrians, their overriding preoccupation with force — and their downfall. We are destroying our civilisation, our civil societies, slowly and deliberately. Why? Read Barbara Tuchman The March of Folly 1984 . Tuchman quotes Benjamin Franklin: ""...it should not be supposed that honor and dignity are better served by persisting in a wrong measure once entered into than by rectifying an error as soon as it is discovered."

WHO CARRIES THE BURDEN OF IMPLEMENTING WAR POLICY?

How do soldiers in the field think about all this? Consider these videos submitted to youtube.com by soldiers in Iraq immediately after the President's January speech. Perhaps start with the 'dance' item:

[note in March 2007: these important videos have now been 'removed by user' - use the youtube search engine at links to search for 'iraq']
• Life in Iraq by Kevin Niebuhr
• Iraqi Troop Dance Along
• Iraqi Car Bomb

Not a simple matter to implement a 'grand design' and survive, physically or mentally. War is not a perfect instrument. At January 2007, civilian deaths in this war exceed 50,000, (or consider this figure of 655,000, opinion of epidemiologists) American military casualties 23,000, deaths 3000. Here is a soldiers' view of the war a year ago. And another... asserting religious blessing for Operation Iron Fist.

Clausewitz (often misquoted) warned statesmen that though they may resort to war as an instrument of policy, war will drive out policy and pursue its own ends — as seen here, at the level of soldierly thought. Consider the 'innocence' of the thinking behind this mindless Christmas Day depravity, sent to youtube.com on 25 December 2006.

But, from the comfort of home, how can we disparage attempts of soldiers in the field to make sense of senseless duties? We ourselves are not thinking much.

Will soldiers' perceptions of this war have more coherence in another year? Will the United States suffer as the USSR did as it was devastated internally by Afghanistan? The United States is perilously close to running beyond its resources for war as well in other ways.

What becomes of soldiers? Listen to Ashley Foot's program about the film The Ground Truth on Canadian pop culture Radio Allegro. Many former American soldiers are actively opposing this war. Lots of valuable links from Vietnam veteran James Starowicz's Imagine a World of Peace, Understanding, Tolerance.

Why, in Australia, is there no reporting of the refusal of this American officer to go to Iraq. Listen to the elegant arguments of Lt Watada here. Is it not in Australian interests for Lt Watada's defence case to be heard? He is being refused the right to base his defence on the illegality of the war.

In the event, the conduct of the courtmartial of Lt Watada seems to have been as incompetent as the conduct of national security policy.

I suggest that our obligation is to find a vocabulary to speak of things other than in war-prosecution terms and to try to think clearly and constructively about a future less bleak. We have no political guidance on this in Australia. We have to figure it out, not blame others. We are all complicit if we remain silent and complacent. Do support GetUp, but do more... I wrote to friends and family about all this on 15 January; here is a copy. Talk to people about this.

A world without killing and violence?
This is what Flory Zozo seeks in the Congo and Burundi. Lessons for us all in this vision. Flory has become a virtual member of our family. There are links there to Flory's school for orphans and to his church.

Can young people organise themselves to recover from the scars of war?
Fred Obala, who is also virtually family, has many projects under way in his refugee village and is also organising cooperation between community projects across Uganda.

How did we get involved with these interesting things?
Read about nabuur.com here in this conversation with the founder and find their web site here. Click on the picture to see the Clinton connection.

A chance for anyone to apply skills via the internet, from home, to do practical things that communities in the developing world themselves define. If you have ever thought of volunteering overseas, perhaps start by doing this from home?

Support for Austrailans dealing with brain tumours.

In 2000, when Dennis's late wife Margaret was fighting a brain tumour, he established OzBrainTumour, an online support group which currently has some 500 members. There are also some reference papers here.

We live in Tomerong NSW, near Jervis Bay, where we participate in our local
'Tomerong Community Forum'.

Also hosting here:
The Australian Youth Against Landmines Association (TAYALA)
The International Youth Against Landmines Association (INYAL)