Fear and Loathing in Iraq meets the Army censor

I have been reading a blog by a soldier in Iraq since early this month, "MY WAR: Fear and Loathing in Iraq." The soldier uses the blog handle "CBFTW" rather than his name. The blog has been up only since June 21, and it is so vividly written, giving such a sense of gritty immediacy that I have read all the posts back to the beginning.

Unfortunately, lots of other people have been reading and spreading the word, which word apparently spread to the commanders in Iraq. The soldier's CO called him in and told him to clear his blog with his platoon leader. The entries slowed markedly after that, and lost some of their spontaneity. Then NPR did a feature on soldier blogs, prominently mentioning CBFTW and apparently the excrement hit the rotary ventilation device. There were only a few entries after that, and then today the blog has only a quote from Johnny Rotten at the last Sex Pistols' concert: "Ever Get the Feeling You've Been Cheated?" At the top of the blog cover, the heading now reads, "Over and Out."

All the previous entries, all the archives, have been wiped. Interestingly, the NPR story on their website has been edited to remove the soldier's real name, replacing it with his blog handle. Something is going on behind the scenes here. CBFTW is keeping a journal of unlogged writings, so I hope that eventually he will publish once he is out of the army and safely home. May that day come, and soon.

Below is the link to the NPR story online:

Soldiers' Iraq Blogs Face Military Scrutiny

P.S. at least as of a few minutes ago, the audio clip of the NPR original story had not been edited to remove the soldier's real name.

The Race is not always to the Swift...

Swift boats. Texas National Guard service or lack of same. The presidential race batters against the unyielding shore of events almost forty years in the past. Not to belabor the metaphor, but somebody is going to sink in this exchange. In conversations and reading many sources, I find nobody who is impressed with the tactics of exhumation. Nobody cares, outside of the fiercely partisan on both sides. I think of this brouhaha in light of the political tactic of "strengthening the base." Those who hate one candidate and love another will of course follow their inclinations, and argue the facts that suit them.

Where does this leave the vast, amorphous middle of the electorate? I truly do not believe that most voters in the United States are irretrievably committed to either of the major party candidates. I certainly am not. I have many issues with George Bush, from the huge deficit partly resulting from his tax cuts and unabated spending, to the Patriot Act and all its ramifications, to the whole Iraq mess. Iraq has always been a mess. The European powers patched it together after World War I without regard for anything but their own business interests. President Bush has constantly revised the reasons for invading Iraq, and none of them convince me that we were justified in what we did, and most especially in how we did it.

But John Kerry is a featureless shadow on my political radar screen. Outside of the obsessive military jousting, he promises all sorts of fine sounding outcomes of his putative presidency, but I have seen no concrete proposals for accomplishing any of them.

I read some of the 263-page Kerry-Edwards book on their proposals. I couldn't sustain much interest because the plans were so general in description. In outlining plans for the military, the book gives a laundry list of increases in manpower and technology to strengthen our forces. I kept wondering how to pay for this, and how to persuade more young persons to volunteer for the military.

I suspect that either side will end up activating the draft. But that will change the whole context of public sentiment regarding military actions.

With massive deficits and a slowing economy, I doubt that either applicant for Chief Executive will get all their proposals passed.

Finally, the deployment of intelligence gathering against our own citizens, with streamlined procedures and back door denial of habeas corpus is downright scary. The Supreme Court has at least temporarily blunted holding suspects with no charge or right to counsel, but I don't see that the Bush Administration is ready to back off on aggressive steps that weaken constitutional provisions. Incidentally, in going over the published judgments by various Justices, I was amazed to see that Clarence Thomas thought the Court did not go far enough in barring government meddling with habeas and other rights of the accused. Just shows that you need to be careful in assuming how any one decision will come down by any of the Justices.

Hell, I don't know who I will vote for in November, and once again I will be faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. Ain't the democratic process grand?

Family at home

After a week of being in the hospital, going home, coming back again, my daughter-in-law is finally at home for good. A regimen of meds to stabilize her blood pressure and reduce the pain of her headaches. She needs lots of rest and quiet, so I took my place in the grandparent childcare rotation late this week. Maybe tomorrow again. *whew*

Bumpy road for new mother

Problems with blood pressure spiking have sent my daughter-in-law back to the hospital. The new baby, Logan, is fine, but Jocelyn has pressure zooming up to 199/117 at short notice. Bad, bad headaches accompany this sort of pressure. The docs give her bp meds, the pressure goes down, the headache clears up, then after some time, same thing all over again. Third day in the hospital today for the poor girl. Cat scans, MRIs, the whole gamut of tests are being done.

She is missing her new baby and his older sister. Visitation has been ordered up for noonish today. I am going to see them, and maybe take over babysitting duties from my co-grandparents.

Sometimes you forget what a risky business childbirth is for the mother, not to mention the baby. I hope the docs figure something out... and do it TODAY.

Dollar Darwinism

Capitalism in the United States has been extremely successful.

Growth of the economy, of individual wealth and income flow from this success.

Entrepreneurship is key to the economic success of the larger economy.

Recognizing these observations as true leads many, especially those who have profited under capitalism, to formulate a sort of social Darwinism.

Free enterprise and unfettered competition, in this theory, result in those who are superior in skill, energy and organization succeeding where others fail.

In this view, those who fail have done so because they have not worked hard enough or smart enough. It is right and proper for them to fail. The corollary to this premise asserts that any effort on government's part to offset individual economic failures is wrong. The anecdotal arguments of those who have prospered, giving their own or other's success stories, buttress the general argument with personal fervor. The earnest advocates of natural selection in the marketplace seem personally offended that anyone could feed their children using public funds.

In his book, "The Right Stuff," journalist Tom Wolfe wrote at some length of the fighter/test pilot's attitude, the "right stuff" of which top pilots were made. In discussing any accident, any crash or failure of equipment, the pilots always maintained that something was lacking in the doomed pilot's performance. There was no circumstance which excused a crash. Not equipment failure, nor weather, nor malignancy of fate could bring down a pilot who had the "right stuff."

Wolfe maintained that this attitude was a necessity for the pilots, for any doubt that they would succeed would guarantee failure. To believe without question in the right stuff was necessary to survival.

Social Darwinism follows this pattern. To admit that someone could fail economically through no fault of their own undermines the sense of accomplishment so necessary to successful participants in the economic jungle. Success is only worthwhile if some do not have economic moxie, and fail.

How a just society can tolerate the degree of personal financial erosion exhibited over the past three decades is not a question the social Darwinists care to address. Those who have gained prefer to blame widening income gaps on the measures taken by government to alleviate those same conditions. Cut off subsidies for the poor, and they will work harder and smarter, say the successful.

I don't think the advocates of this sort of Draconian measure would like the consequences. Such a revolution in policy would accelerate our decline into a sort of banana republic, with pockets of wealth becoming surrounded by favelas of deteriorating housing and hopelessly poor families. I hope we don't have to learn the hard way that the ideas of natural selection in the marketplace are too simplistic to apply to real life.

The limits of power: The limits of liberty

Consider a dilemma of living in the 21st century United States of America. What is the right and proper application of our military power? How far can the application of this power take us in the world before we lose our defining characteristics of reverence for liberty? The exigencies of the "War on Terror" have stretched our power, and strained our concept of liberty, both in the world and at home.

Since September 11, 2001 we have invaded two sovereign countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. We justified the first as pursuit of the specific terrorists of September 11th. The justification of the Iraq invasion keeps being re-defined as the evidence for the stated reasons evaporates. At least with Afghanistan we had not only definite knowledge of the location of al Queda, and the complicity with them of the Taliban, but the support of much of the international community. Our belated efforts to seek intenational assistance in Iraq find very little traction, which should surprise no one.

Now, our reach exceeds our grasp in military terms. We need more manpower for occupying and policing not only the two most recent war zones, but Bosnia, Kosovo and other commitments around the world. Other monstrous evils pop up like running sores around the world, notably in the Sudan. How should we proceed? "Going it alone" is hardly the answer, considering how we have bumped up against the limits of our power already.

The second concern in the ongoing changes of post-9/11 life is preserving the core liberties that define what is best in this country. Any war brings curtailment of some liberty in the name of security. The Patriot Acts I and II are very broad in application, and have resulted in some questionable and disturbing instances of suspensions in the right of habeas corpus. There are already laws to define when and how this right may be suspended.

The Supreme Court has partially restrained this practice, basically by citing the constitutional provisions already governing such suspensions. The SCOTUS moves slowly, however, and the forces charged with enforcement can be far ahead of future rulings.

Ironically, many who are quick to criticize "intrusive" government are quite ready to support suspension of rights for those not of their national origin, faith or political ideology. They may want to "get government off the backs of the people," but much depends on the definition of "people." Law depends on precedent and eveness of application for the support of those who are governed by it. The quibbling legal evasion of "combatant" status has potential for abuse, as well, on our own soil or abroad. Wrong is wrong, if our belief in the universality of the rights in the Bill of Rights has any validity.

During the Nazi dismantling of free government in Germany after 1933, a few voices were raised in opposition by Germans not of Jewish or other proscribed beliefs. Martin Niemoller was one of these, a Christian theologian. He composed the following:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

We face thorny decisions and shifting challenges in the new world disorder. I hope we can keep our national identity and standards while charting new courses for new times.

A Birth in the Family

For the past almost-nine months my son and daughter-in-law have been expecting their second child, due date August 12th. A boy, the wonders of sonograms tell them. After increasingly uncomfortable weeks this summer, daughter-in-law has decreed that this Wednesday, the fourth of August, will be the day of delivery. Delivery of the little boy, and delivery of his mother from further misery. On Wednesday morning, the ob-gyn will induce and deliver.

An interesting sidebar to the birth details is the further decree that no family show up that morning to keep vigil outside the birthing suite, except for my son, who has father privileges/duties and, in the modern way will be inside attending.

For the birth of Reese, their first child, a mini-convention of in-laws, outlaws and other-laws stood outside the door for several hours. When we could hear the imminent mother becoming vocal (she maintains she was shouting as an aid to "pushing") her mother came unglued, very upset at what she was sure was extreme pain within. So, we are all to await my son's call notifying us of the successful arrival of the newest Miller.

Stay tuned.