Paul Meuse: on War

One of the best things that came out of this blog, is that I got (electronically) introduced to Paul Meuse properly. I say properly, because we were in the same class at University. However, our conversations only went as far as Hi's and Goodbye's! Nevertheless, Paul was given my blog address, and quickly became a regular reader and commenter. One of the things you should know about Paul is that he is a war veteran, and an American. Before I became acquainted with him, I believed that this combination of qualities was synonymous with conservatism and refusal to accept the reality that most wars are fought for reasons other than those the leaders put forth to the public. Paul changed this belief. I was so impressed with his opinions, his quest for 'the truth', and his unique perspectives on what's going on in the world lately, that I asked him to put together a short piece for the blog. Paul is keen to see the world from all points of view, and with this end in mind reads 10-12 daily newspapers from around the world. He regularly contributes articles to newspapers, and recently sent a letter to the Pentagon. Thanks for the article Paul!



"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is…the government of my country." Martin Luther King JR. 1967.

When American troops commit another atrocity in Iraq or Afghanistan President Bush or Rumsfeld try to assure the world that these actions do not represent American values. I beg to differ. I love my country, but America was founded upon the genocide of Native peoples who existed there for thousands of years.

After the massacre at Haditha excuses were heard such as the troops ‘were under great stress’ or that they weren’t thinking right after seeing one of their own blown apart by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device-in Vietnam we called them booby traps). Some blamed understaffing of troops as being partly to blame.

Others talked about such soldiers being a ‘few bad apples’. Rumsfeld and Bush pushed this to explain the torture at Abu Ghraib. When I think of a ‘few bad apples’ I think of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld!

But many people wonder how can ‘good young American boys’ do such things?
I have a unique perspective because as an 18 year old boy I volunteered for combat twice in the Vietnam War. I was a Marine Corps rifleman; a ‘grunt’ or ‘bullet stopper’ as we called ourselves. I landed at DaNang airbase on Christmas Day 1968 at about 3 a.m. I had been out of secondary school just under six months. I hope that my experiences may shed some light on how these atrocities can occur.

Like many of the troops in Iraq I believed the lies of my government about the Vietnam conflict. I believed that we were the ‘good guys’ trying to help the South Vietnamese in their quest for freedom and democracy. Was I gullible! For instance, I did not see the irony of my government’s propping of up a military dictatorship while preaching democracy.

The young are sent to war because they have the physical stamina required of combat, and have a desire for adventure, or to be heroic.

American boys of my generation had grown up on a steady diet of World War II and cowboy and Indian movies. War seemed glorious. The rich and powerful direct these emotions towards war. That ended the first time I had to carry a young man who had absorbed the explosive impact of a land mine-booby trap. I’ll never forget the expression of pain and shock on his face at the instant of death.

But, how do you explain massacres and atrocities that we are seeing in Iraq?

But, how do you explain massacres and atrocities? Some of it is rooted in a culture that believes that it is superior to others. But, military training plays a big role as well.

It begins in boot camp. I spent nine weeks at Parris Island, in boot camp.Then six to eight weeks in advanced infantry training (AIT) tactics, and another 3-4 weeks at more at Camp Pendleton, Oceanside, Cailfornia. In all of my training the Vietnamese people were referred to, at best as ‘gooks’. Webster's dictionary defines 'gook' as:'usually disparaging : a nonwhite or non-American person; specifically Asian.' The only time that I heard the word ‘Vietnamese’ was in a class on cultural sensitivity crammed in at the end of training. There were other more offensive terms as well. They were repeated over and over again; hundreds of times. By the time mt training ended I was two things.

One was a perfect killing machine. I wanted to kill; I saw that as my job, and I couldn’t wait to start!

The second thing was that I did not think of the Vietnamese as human in the same sense that I, an American was. This is the probably true for the troops in Iraq. Almost all, or most likely view the Iraqi people as different in an unsaid, but inferior way. Many troops have openly expressed their contempt for Iraqi’s and Arab culture.

In my military training an instructor would yell ‘what are you going to do in Vietnam", or words to that effect. And we would scream back KILL, KILL, KILL. The Drill Instructor would often yell: 'I Can't hear you.' And, we would yell it louder. For a sense of what Marine Corps boot camp was like I recommend the movie 'Full Metal Jacket.'

I have heard some troops say that in training Arab people are referred to as 'camel jockeys.' Many troops in Iraq call the refer to Iraqi people as ‘Hadji’s’. I think that Zena would be better able to explain the significance. My understanding is that is a religious slur making reference to a Hadji; a pilgrim who makes a religious journey to Mecca.

I apologise for any offence. I am trying to show how insidious military training, and the military mindset is.

Military training equates masculinity with aggression and violence. On our time off we drank and got into fights. Military training that I had degraded women as purely sex objects whose sole purpose was to satisfy male sexual impulses. It is interesting to note that the Pentagon has had a massive increase in sexual assaults committed against female personnel by male troops since the war began. I am not surprised at this.

When I got to Vietnam I believed that I was there to help the Vietnamese people. However, most Marines who had been in country longer had nothing but contempt for the people. I understand this now. We were occupiers, and many hated us; yet we felt they were ungrateful for our risks and sacrifices. In these situations hatred and contempt and distrust grows.

Before joining my rifle company a combat veteran grabbed me and said: " Get that F------ John Wayne look of your face. I don’t care what you’ve been told in training, out in the bush the word is ‘no contact’. We want no F------ contact with Charlie (the enemy). The only thing that matters over here is to get your butt out alive. You got that?" He had a knife at my throat; I nodded. This meant, as I would find out that we don’t want to get into combat. That only means another chance to die. War is only about killing and dying and trying to stay alive and in one piece while keeping your sanity!

At one place I was at, LZ (landing zone-for a helicopter) Cunningham, just a mountain top in the jungle we were partially overrun nightly. Sapper teams with satchel charges of TNT strapped to their backs tried to locate our holes and bunkers. When they did they jumped in and pulled the cord that would end in a massive explosion in six seconds or so.

We had many casualties. I don’t remember seeing one of theirs. Fighting breeds rage, and feeling that the population is hostile breeds more rage and contempt. And, in these situations troops want to extract revenge, and try to imagine every eighteen year old boy in Cork walking the streets with hand grenades and automatic weapons. Would you trust them to be rational human beings? I wouldn’t! I’d stay out of the city as much as possible.

Revenge, such as happened at Haditha are not new. In World War II, the German army killed almost all the inhabitants of Lidice, in Czechoslovakia. Then they razed the village. This occurred after two German occupiers were killed by partisans. In the U.S. attack on Fallujah the U.S. employed similar tactics of the Germans at Lidice. The U.S. forced males of 15 to stay in the city.

During the Vietnam War over 500 Vietnamese civilians (mostly women, young children and elderly) were killed in a murderous rampage by members of the Americal division. The My Lai massacre ended because Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr. a US Army helicopter pilot, who saw the carnage landed his gunship between the American troops and the surviving Vietnamese people and told the US officer in charge that if one more shot was fired his guns would open fire in the soldiers engaged in the killing. The difference between an atrocity happening and not happening is leadership. If abuse, or killing is tolerated, then it will continue.

There are certain factors that lead normal people to do the most despicable things in war, such as at Abu Ghraib, Haditha, (every day in Iraq there are Hadithas on a smaller scale), Gitmo, Bagram et al. First is the willingness to follow authority without question. This is instilled in most soldiers.

The second factor is conformity. Very few people have the moral fiber go against the crowd and speak out against injustice.

The third, and most important factor is the dehumanization of the ‘others’, or victims. It happens every day. The word Palestinian has become synonymous with ‘terrorist’. When the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) shoot young Palestinian girls in the stomach, or use snipers to shoot at peace activists(this was reported and verified), this is denied by the Israeli government. Then, when admitted we are told that the soldiers thought that they were ‘terrorists’ To me, the Israeli Defence Forces treatment of Palestinian people are war crimes and crimes against humanity. But the world is silent.

Insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan are called ‘terrorists. They are fighting against an illegal occupation. I would call such people ‘freedom fighters’.

There are two other factors. One is ‘peer expectations’. In Iraq killing passengers in a car as they drive towards a checkpoint is normal. It is also against the Geneva Conventions. It is a war crime. Yet, no American soldier or Marine has been prosecuted for this.

Another decisive factor is how the U.S. military handles cases of illegal killings or torture. Let’s look at the facts. New York University’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice conducted a joint project with Human Rights Watch and Human Rights
First. The study looked at all allegations of torture and abuse in Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan.

The study noted that there were over 330 cases of abuse, torture and killings of detainees involving more tha ‘600 U.S. personnel..and more than 460 detainees.’

“f the hundreds of allegations of abuse collected by the DAA Project, only about half appear to have been adequately investigated.

• In cases where courts-martial – the military’s equivalent of criminal trials – have convened, the majority of prison sentences have been for less than a year, even in cases involving serious abuse. Only 10 U.S. personnel have been sentenced to a year or more in prison.

• No U.S. military officer has been held accountable for criminal acts committed by subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility. Only three officers have been convicted by court-martial for detainee abuse.

• Although 20 civilians, including CIA agents, have been referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for detainee abuse, the Department of Justice has shown minimal initiative in moving forward in abuse cases. The Department of Justice has not indicted a single CIA agent for abusing detainees; it has indicted only one civilian contractor.

This may be contrasted with the stiff sentences handed down by military court martial to soldiers or marines who refuse combat duty in Iraq. They can expect to spend more time in jail than they would if they shot an Iraqi child in cold blood.

In Vietnam I knew that I could kill in combat, but I knew the difference between right and wrong. I could never imagine myself killing civilians, and during my time in Vietnam did do the best I could to be friendly to the people.

However, as long as the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan there will be atrocities. And, the real war criminals, Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and the military leaders who planned and executed a war against a nation to grab their oil resources go free. That is a real crime.

Paul Meuse, June 2006

So Much Talk About The System. And So Little Understanding.

Alright, let's think about this rationally.
Let us review the way the world has evolved, let us focus on the reasons that 'civilised' society ever developed. Let us try and understand the reasons why morality exists. Why certain actions have been deemed to be 'immoral', and therefore unacceptable, in the eyes of both society and some higher being. Let us try and understand what the point is in so tightly holding onto the belief of a higher being; of a higher spirit watching over us and our actions, and deciding whether those actions are worthy of approval or indeed, of condemnation.
Why? Why are we here? Why do our actions have to be censored by, not only man-made law, but also the higher 'natural law'? Why do so many of the world's people not spend more time asking these questions and trying to find answers? Why are so many content to accept things the way they are? Why do the others, the questioning minority, drive themselves crazy asking such questions for which answers probably don't exist?
Perhaps rationality is not the approach to take.

Allow me to quote from Robert M. Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance":

'To speak of certain government and establishment institutions as "the system" is to speak correctly, since these organisations are founded upon the same structural conceptual relationships as a motorcycle. They are sustained by structural relationships even when they have lost all other meaning and purpose. People arrive at a factory and perform a totally meaningless task from eight to five without question because the structure demands it to be that way. There's no villain, no 'mean guy' who wants them to live meaningless lives, it's just that the structure, the system demands it and no one is willing to take on the formidable task of changing the structure just because it is meaningless.
But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government...because it is a system, is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There's so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.'