why do we do this #2?

[rigney]

Wussy? maybe so! This kid is twenty nine years old and hoping by next August to be home with his family. Don't know him personally; just his folks. Read the message. Give me your thoughts.

 

Hi Guys and Gals,

Greetings from Kandahar, Afghanistan. I hope everyone is doing well and enjoyed their summer. It has been quiet here the last few weeks. Time is going by quickly and I hope to soon be back with Gen and the girls. I've had the opportunity to do some traveling to other bases. In August, I went to Kabul, the capital, and to Maz-er-Sharif, a city in the northern part of the country. There we met and trained Afghanai Army soldiers. Traveling with me are GIs I am responsible for training. I also have an interpreter that is with me daily. We travel on C-130 planes from various NATO nations, including France and Australia. Working directly with the Afghanistan National Army (ANA) has provided many experiences. Every day our crew travels to the ANA base next to our own. There, we spend the time trying to train them on various functions of how to run a hospital. Adjusting to their ways of culture and thinking have been a challenge. The hard part is that Afghanistan standards are not exactly like ours in the US. Teaching them important items like hospital cleanliness and simple patient care are our main focus. Right now the ANA is at a point that we were back in the 1920's. that is, so far as understanding the basics of hospital issues and cleanliness, but they are catching on. Our job is to get them into the 1970's, if possible. 30 straight years of war has destroyed the educational and cultural system of the country. We spend many hours and days with the Afghans. Here, we are more involved with the local population and its culture than in Bagram during 2008. We spend many hours together, eating and sometimes praying with each other. They are an extremely friendly and courteous culture. When seeing each other at the beginning of each day, it is as if they and we, haven't seen each other for ages. Everyone always shakes hands, hug and send greetings. With such courtesy comes lots of food. When eating, giant portions of rice and bread are always the norm. The food tastes wonderful once you get by the sanitation aspect of it. Afghanistan is not like our country. Cleanliness during food preparation is not stressed very much. But, in order to be a good guest, we ignore our inhibitions and push forward. The most surprising part is seeing your food walking around eating grass on day, before enjoying it in a delicious kabob form the next. It has been very busy lately. The ANA hospital here sees only Afghans and no US patients. Our workload is high. The number of Afghans injured in attacks continues to climb. Quite often we will have a mass influx of casualty situations where a number of patients come in all at once for reasons ranging from car accidents, to war injuries and IED attacks. The experiences are different from those in Bagram.

There, we saw and cared for many patients who were our own. Here, the numbers are much higher but it's the Afghans doing all the hands on work. We simply train them for the job, step back and watch to see what happens.

Thank's to all of you who have donated help to the Afghan children. With temperature dropping somewhat, school is about to begin and we are preparing donations for delivery to the kids. Please take a moment to wish Gen well. As you know, baby # 3 is just days away. The family is already in Las Vegas to help her, even though more help is coming during the next couple of weeks. She will always be my hero.

Chris

Edited September 29, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

Thoughts in what sense? Why are you posting this personal letter? Sounds like something you would expect to read in a letter from a soldier. It is a shame they have to deal with attacks and that his family isn't stationed with him. It's good he hasn't gotten sick from poor sanitation in food prep. What else would you like to hear people comment on?

[rigney]

Thoughts in what sense? Why are you posting this personal letter? Sounds like something you would expect to read in a letter from a soldier. It is a shame they have to deal with attacks and that his family isn't stationed with him. It's good he hasn't gotten sick from poor sanitation in food prep. What else would you like to hear people comment on?

 

I said to myself, rigney; your first reply is probably going to be from an "old gunnery sergeant" who will take your head off for digging into someones private life. Well, you got me. I apologise, but didn't think of it quite like that. Just thought it would be nice reading something not so gruesome as most of the stuff we get. You know, the old blood and guts thing? I thought there was even a bit of humor in the young man's letter. Was hoping maybe some folks might reply with a line or two I could send to his Mom and Dad to make them feel a little better, and also to let them know that people out here are actually concerned and care. As far as his family being stationed with him? I don't think he'd take too kindly to that. Well! Didn't mean for my questions to be so provocative and insensitive. I'm just not too expressive. Semper Fi!

Edited September 30, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

I said to myself, rigney; your first reply is probably going to be from an "old gunnery sergeant" who will take your head off for digging into someones private life. Well, you got me. I apologise, but didn't think of it quite like that. Just thought it would be nice reading something not so gruesome as most of the stuff we get. You know, the old blood and guts thing? I thought there was even a bit of humor in the young man's letter. Was hoping maybe some folks might reply with a line or two I could send to his Mom and Dad to make them feel a little better, and also to let them know that people out here are actually concerned and care. As far as his family being stationed with him? I don't think he'd take too kindly to that. Well! Didn't mean for my questions to be so provocative and insensitive. I'm just not too expressive. Semper Fi!

I don't think it's that people aren't concerned and don't care. Generally, I have the impression that many people just don't care about pursing global projects so they see military work beyond US borders as unnecessary and even creating problems. This is due, imo, to anti-imperialist ideology/propaganda designed to garner popular support for protecting national borders globally by motivating people to voluntarily restrict transnational flows except insofar as local authorities allow it. Personally, I find this ideology superficial and somewhat ignorant in that it ignores the abuses that can occur when local authorities are left unchecked by other authorities globally. However, when people buy into this idea that "the US is intruding outside of its own business," it makes people a bit schizoid with regard to the soldiers doing the work. On the one hand they don't want to take out their frustration on the soldiers, but on the other hand they don't want them to be there to start with, so you get the bumper stickers that read, "support the troops, bring them home."

 

Let me be very clear, because I feel like I'm supporting this national isolationism/separatism by explaining it: I think personally that this is a global world and has been since long before the US had a constitution, so I don't think maximizing national autonomy and sovereignty is going to solve any problems except maybe insofar as it allows people to wash their hands of global problems that have evolved with colonialism and global trade. As far as people benefit and suffer due to global interactions, it makes more sense to address global issues actively instead of avoiding them. Still, I don't know what there is to be done about the strengthening of anti-imperialist pro-separatist ideology in democratic civil discourse. If people aren't willing to recognize their personal connection to global economic and political occurrences, how can you convince them to? They know they consume global oil. They know they consume products manufactured globally. They know they export medical and other services. They know there's a global market for drugs and other illicit commodities. They know there are global discourses on religion, politics, economy, etc. and that their beliefs and actions contribute and interact with others globally. So if their attitude then remains denial or avoidance and they want to try to separate the US from other nations and prevent soldiers from doing their jobs, why shouldn't you let them experience the consequences of their position for themselves? Sure the world might become a worse place because of it, but how long do you go on trying to convince people to do the right thing when all they do is fight and/or drag their heels?

Edited September 30, 2010 by lemur

[rigney]

I don't think it's that people aren't concerned and don't care. Generally, I have the impression that many people just don't care about pursing global projects so they see military work beyond US borders as unnecessary and even creating problems. This is due, imo, to anti-imperialist ideology/propaganda designed to garner popular support for protecting national borders globally by motivating people to voluntarily restrict transnational flows except insofar as local authorities allow it. Personally, I find this ideology superficial and somewhat ignorant in that it ignores the abuses that can occur when local authorities are left unchecked by other authorities globally. However, when people buy into this idea that "the US is intruding outside of its own business," it makes people a bit schizoid with regard to the soldiers doing the work. On the one hand they don't want to take out their frustration on the soldiers, but on the other hand they don't want them to be there to start with, so you get the bumper stickers that read, "support the troops, bring them home."

 

Let me be very clear, because I feel like I'm supporting this national isolationism/separatism by explaining it: I think personally that this is a global world and has been since long before the US had a constitution, so I don't think maximizing national autonomy and sovereignty is going to solve any problems except maybe insofar as it allows people to wash their hands of global problems that have evolved with colonialism and global trade. As far as people benefit and suffer due to global interactions, it makes more sense to address global issues actively instead of avoiding them. Still, I don't know what there is to be done about the strengthening of anti-imperialist pro-separatist ideology in democratic civil discourse. If people aren't willing to recognize their personal connection to global economic and political occurrences, how can you convince them to? They know they consume global oil. They know they consume products manufactured globally. They know they export medical and other services. They know there's a global market for drugs and other illicit commodities. They know there are global discourses on religion, politics, economy, etc. and that their beliefs and actions contribute and interact with others globally. So if their attitude then remains denial or avoidance and they want to try to separate the US from other nations and prevent soldiers from doing their jobs, why shouldn't you let them experience the consequences of their position for themselves? Sure the world might become a worse place because of it, but how long do you go on trying to convince people to do the right thing when all they do is fight and/or drag their heels?

 

For generations and reasons only speculative; America has tried remaining isolated. If we went into a scenario as to why other countries have also tried it, we would probably find the cause no different than our own. It's a scary situation at best. But then, we really haven't a choice when self-preservation is the necessity.

An old adage, Damned if you do and damned if you don't? Well, I prefer the "do"! Right now, our country is in a "don't" situation. We have cajoled and frittered away the integrity that an entire world revered. If many other countries were in our position, you, I and an entire globe would be speaking a soveriegn language. We can step away and "nuke hell" out of any offender who goes against us, but that isn't our purpose. I'm just not exactly sure what it is right now? Congruity, perhaps? But to hell with a pack of wolves or neighbors wanting to steal the clothes off your back and the food off your table just because you are amicable? C'mon!. We had better get it together with young people likes this guy while they stilll have the resolve. And this; before bowing and scraping becomes the norm. "Stand proud".

Edited September 30, 2010 by rigney

[ewmon]

Hi Guys and Gals,

Greetings from Kandahar, Afghanistan. ... Afghanistan is not like our country. ... The most surprising part is seeing your food walking around eating grass on day, before enjoying it in a delicious kabob form the next. ... Chris

Many thanks for sharing this letter.

 

Although the most surprising part, its should also be the most comforting. In countries where refrigeration is virtually non-existent, the easiest way to keep meat fresh is to keep it on the hoof. So, one would actually want to see it healthy and grazing one day and on a spit over a fire the next. That's also why, in such countries, you get to select your animal at the meat market or restaurant before they prepare it. Then you know it's fresh. These people simply live closer to life than we do.

[rigney]

Many thanks for sharing this letter.

 

Although the most surprising part, its should also be the most comforting. In countries where refrigeration is virtually non-existent, the easiest way to keep meat fresh is to keep it on the hoof. So, one would actually want to see it healthy and grazing one day and on a spit over a fire the next. That's also why, in such countries, you get to select your animal at the meat market or restaurant before they prepare it. Then you know it's fresh. These people simply live closer to life than we do.

 

Couldn't agree with you more. When I was a kid, we slaughtered in the late fall so the winter weather would keep the meat as fresh as possible. We salted or smoked the pork as a preservative. Beef went to market, other than a few steaks or roasts that we could use right away. Vegetables, we kept in a root cellar under the house. Came spring, we started the process all over again. We even had an icebox. Thanks for the comment, Chris is no prude and will appreciate it.

[lemur]

We can step away and "nuke hell" out of any offender who goes against us, but that isn't our purpose. I'm just not exactly sure what it is right now? Congruity, perhaps?

 

Not sure what you mean by "congruity." I do agree with you that people have to remember the purpose of American ideology. I read someone say that the democrats are the only party that still believe in the American dream that everyone can succeed financially. I don't think that is or ever was the American dream until materialism converted it into that. The American dream always had to do with freedom and independence from royal (or other authoritarian) decree. Somewhere along the line, it became more successful to use fear of poverty to drive people to support collective economic prosperity over the freedom to create your own independently. The pilgrims didn't come to the new world because they could get jobs and make more money than in Europe. They wanted relgious/cultural/economic freedom and independence. What happened to the that American dream?

[rigney]

Not sure what you mean by "congruity." I do agree with you that people have to remember the purpose of American ideology. I read someone say that the democrats are the only party that still believe in the American dream that everyone can succeed financially. I don't think that is or ever was the American dream until materialism converted it into that. The American dream always had to do with freedom and independence from royal (or other authoritarian) decree. Somewhere along the line, it became more successful to use fear of poverty to drive people to support collective economic prosperity over the freedom to create your own independently. The pilgrims didn't come to the new world because they could get jobs and make more money than in Europe. They wanted relgious/cultural/economic freedom and independence. What happened to the that American dream?

 

I only meant that we either learn to "agree" as to how this world keeps turning with people on it, or shut it down and give it back to the worms. The American dream doesn't only belong to Americans, it belongs to any and all who are willing to work for a living. It should have nothing to do with ethnecity, race or creed. Everyone deserves a fair shake regardless of who or where they come from. I despise servitude in any form or fashion. That reasoning went out of style years ago. But all of us can't be wealthy at the same time. I would love to be rich! Have I done enough to acheive it? No! Should I have a chicken in the pot while you eat you're filet mignon? Yes, if I earn or steal it. Today, we seem to have as many thieves as those willing to work. Why?

Edited October 1, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

Today, we seem to have as many thieves as those willing to work. Why?

 

Because an economy and a view of politics has evolved that everything from jobs to compensation is an issue of distribution. For many people, it's no longer about what they produce in their job but whether they deserve their position and salary, promotion, etc. Most things that people consume are produced elsewhere by other people. So people just focus on ways to get access to consumption. People are willing to work when they have the ethic, and the ethic is not about working blindly because it is the right thing to do. A true work ethic is about seeing what you produce in your work and believing in the value of it. Money and status has become its own object for too many people in too many jobs these days. All they do is generate sales or revenues and expect a cut of it. People don't produce actual products anymore, so they just do what they do to justify the money that is distributed to them. This is why people who steal don't see it as something wrong. They just want the piece of the pie they see themselves as deserving, because all anyone is getting is pay for jumping through hoops. When people see that someone worked hard to make something themselves, they are less likely to steal it, imo.

[rigney]

Because an economy and a view of politics has evolved that everything from jobs to compensation is an issue of distribution. For many people, it's no longer about what they produce in their job but whether they deserve their position and salary, promotion, etc. Most things that people consume are produced elsewhere by other people. So people just focus on ways to get access to consumption. People are willing to work when they have the ethic, and the ethic is not about working blindly because it is the right thing to do. A true work ethic is about seeing what you produce in your work and believing in the value of it. Money and status has become its own object for too many people in too many jobs these days. All they do is generate sales or revenues and expect a cut of it. People don't produce actual products anymore, so they just do what they do to justify the money that is distributed to them. This is why people who steal don't see it as something wrong. They just want the piece of the pie they see themselves as deserving, because all anyone is getting is pay for jumping through hoops. When people see that someone worked hard to make something themselves, they are less likely to steal it, imo.

 

I see your reasoning, but simply can't relate to it. I look back on five generations of coal miners that has consumed my heritage and family. But without the integrity, honesty and self respect of their work, I would have no continuity. I'm extremely happy with where I am today because of their effort. Am I rich? Not even in the ball yard. But then, you don't have to be rich to be proud, just honest. Thanks!

Edited October 1, 2010 by rigney

[Marat]

All these stories about the American military helping people in the countries we invade by providing schools, housing, or medical care for them are just propaganda to reduce local resistance to U.S. occupation forces and to assuage Americans back home outraged about the cruelty of war. The reason why these aid missions are such transparent propaganda efforts is that infinitely more good could be done for needy foreign countries if that same amount of aid were delivered via peaceful interventions, since then all the extremely expensive military support would not be necessary. It is quite suspicious that we wind up aiding mainly those places we invade rather than those areas of the world that need help the most. And yet there are many people who fall for that propaganda and actually think we are in Afghanistan to help the local women go to school! As though we would spend $800 billion for that!

 

Another perspective that exposes the absurdity of these foreign aid missions as arising from good ol' American goodheartedness is the fact that we are utterly unwilling to spend much less money at home to save the needy people in our own population. Instead, to keep taxes low on rich people, we let people die on the streets from homelessness, deny medical care to poor people, let middle class families go bankrupt because of medical expenses, and let the education system rot in the inner cities. So if we are not generous with our own citizens, then why do we miraculously become suddenly so generous with the domestic population in the countries we invade? The answer is that generosity has nothing to do with it, but that it is all just propaganda.

[rigney]

All these stories about the American military helping people in the countries we invade by providing schools, housing, or medical care for them are just propaganda to reduce local resistance to U.S. occupation forces and to assuage Americans back home outraged about the cruelty of war. The reason why these aid missions are such transparent propaganda efforts is that infinitely more good could be done for needy foreign countries if that same amount of aid were delivered via peaceful interventions, since then all the extremely expensive military support would not be necessary. It is quite suspicious that we wind up aiding mainly those places we invade rather than those areas of the world that need help the most. And yet there are many people who fall for that propaganda and actually think we are in Afghanistan to help the local women go to school! As though we would spend $800 billion for that!

 

Another perspective that exposes the absurdity of these foreign aid missions as arising from good ol' American goodheartedness is the fact that we are utterly unwilling to spend much less money at home to save the needy people in our own population. Instead, to keep taxes low on rich people, we let people die on the streets from homelessness, deny medical care to poor people, let middle class families go bankrupt because of medical expenses, and let the education system rot in the inner cities. So if we are not generous with our own citizens, then why do we miraculously become suddenly so generous with the domestic population in the countries we invade? The answer is that generosity has nothing to do with it, but that it is all just propaganda.

 

Wish I could answer your queary using Jurisprudence 101, or political BS 000???. But unfortunately, I'm fluent in neither. 'Seat of the pants", is my only forte. Perhaps I am, and have always been a protector of our country through ignorance? But, I would rather be here under those circumstances than being in many parts of the world that care nothing of human life. And propaganda? None of us will outlive the word?? It's here to stay, regardless of which side of the ball you are on! And do I feel for the needy? "YES" The unsavorily greedy? !NO!!

[jimmydasaint]

Dear rigney,

 

I'm afraid I don't buy any of the OP, or the intention behind it. If you are trying to fly the flag for the USA and its 'humanitarian' ventures into other countries then I don't buy it either. IMHO, 21st century wars will be all fought for control of dwindling natural resources. I have also heard Professor Gray echo this worldview:

 

History may not repeat itself, but, as Mark Twain observed, it can sometimes rhyme. The crises and conflicts of the past recur, recognisably similar even when altered by new conditions. At present, a race for the world's resources is underway that resembles the Great Game that was played in the decades leading up to the First World War. Now, as then, the most coveted prize is oil and the risk is that as the contest heats up it will not always be peaceful. But this is no simple rerun of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Today, there are powerful new players and it is not only oil that is at stake.

Link

 

I find it highly unlikely that the leading military and economic powers of the world venture into adventures in other countries merely to distribute humanitarian aid and to spread the message of democracy as you seem to be hinting.

 

I am a British patriot but I can see the wrong in my country and will speak out about it, as a true patriot should; not to blindly support the drama of Public Relations (a euphemism for propaganda) that pervades all popular Western media. I don't know why this post was made in the 'Ethics' section but if you want to discuss ethics then please comment on the following, which relates to our jolly adventures in Iraq (unedited to avoid quotemining):

 

False reality The last US combat troops have left Iraq “as promised, on schedule”, according to President Barack Obama. TV screens have filled with cinematic images of the “last US soldiers” silhouetted against the dawn light, crossing the border into Kuwait.

 

Fact They are still there. At least 50,000 troops will continue to operate from 94 bases. American air assaults are unchanged, as are special forces’ assassinations. The number of “military contractors” is currently 100,000 and rising. Most Iraqi oil is now under direct foreign control.

 

False reality BBC presenters and reporters have described the departing US troops as a “sort of victorious army” that has achieved “a remarkable change in [iraq’s] fortunes”. Their commander, General David Petraeus, is a “celebrity”, “charming”, “savvy” and “remarkable”.

 

Fact There is no victory of any sort. There is a catastrophic disaster; and attempts to present it as otherwise are a model of Bernays’ campaign to “re-brand” the slaughter of the first world war as “necessary” and “noble”. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, running for president, re-branded the invasion of Vietnam, in which up to three million people died, as a “noble cause”, a theme taken up enthusiastically by Hollywood. Today’s Iraq war movies have a similar purging theme: the invader as both idealist and victim.

 

False reality It is not known how many Iraqis have died. They are “countless” or maybe “in the tens of thousands”.

 

Fact As a direct consequence of the Anglo-American led invasion, a million Iraqis have died. This figure from Opinion Research Business is based on peer-reviewed research led by Johns Hopkins University in Washington DC, whose methods were secretly affirmed as “best practice” and “robust” by the Blair government’s chief scientific adviser, as revealed in a Freedom of Information search. This figure is rarely reported or presented to “charming” and “savvy” American generals. Neither is the dispossession of four million Iraqis, the malnourishment of most Iraqi children, the epidemic of mental illness and the poisoning of the environment.

John Pilger Freelance Journalist

[rigney]

Dear rigney,

 

I'm afraid I don't buy any of the OP, or the intention behind it. If you are trying to fly the flag for the USA and its 'humanitarian' ventures into other countries then I don't buy it either. IMHO, 21st century wars will be all fought for control of dwindling natural resources. I have also heard Professor Gray echo this worldview:

 

 

Link

 

I find it highly unlikely that the leading military and economic powers of the world venture into adventures in other countries merely to distribute humanitarian aid and to spread the message of democracy as you seem to be hinting.

 

I am a British patriot but I can see the wrong in my country and will speak out about it, as a true patriot should; not to blindly support the drama of Public Relations (a euphemism for propaganda) that pervades all popular Western media. I don't know why this post was made in the 'Ethics' section but if you want to discuss ethics then please comment on the following, which relates to our jolly adventures in Iraq (unedited to avoid quotemining):

 

 

John Pilger Freelance Journalist

 

Wish I could give you something conclusive Jim, but I just cant. And I'm sorry that all popular western media seems to convey a bit, to a lot of propaganda, which it does!. But rest assured, westerners are not the only ones addicted to such skulduggary? If you have a government, you have deception. Google up Owen Bennett Jones, whom I believe is Enlish. He has a good understanding of casualties in Iraq from the beginning of the conflict 'til the present time. The meaning of ethics? what else could you call this post?

And I believe the term is: Quote Mining,

Edited October 5, 2010 by rigney