Hermann Goering and American Politics

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." [Hermann Goering]

Why does this Real Politik sound so familiar? Do you think that some of President Bush's advisors, wittingly, or unwittingly, followed this advice to get us embroiled in Iraq?

Those of you who know me understand that I supported, and still support, the war in Afghanistan. I firmly believe that when al Qaeda existed there as a client of the former Afghan Taliban regime, it was legitimate to go after them. I have no problem with our presence in Afghanistan.

However, I DO have a major disagreement with our presence in Iraq. I have yet to see any evidence that we needed to go there. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and thousands died under his regime, but haven't thousands died in the fighting since? Also, there is that nasty bit of reality that when Saddam was our dictator, he was a good guy. He was, after all, against Iran, and since the fall of the Shah, our government has always been against Iran.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the sectarian violence and ability of al Qaeda to easily move into Iraq were all results of removing the brutal dictator from power. Nation building is not like playing with a jigsaw puzzle. One piece does not necessarily join to another to make a sound, complete picture. In Iraq the pieces appear not to fit together at all.

Ah, but what about the nuclear bombs? Some of my friends continue to tell me that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including the nukes, were transported to Syria. Possibly some lower grade chemical or biological weapons might have been, but I do believe we would have seen any movement of nukes, knowing that our intelligence capabilities are sophisticated enough to track convoys coming and going from "known weapons factories and depots" our leaders told us about when they justified this quagmire.

Also, there is that inconveniently broad definition of what constitutes a WMD. People automatically assume (and are often lead to believe) that it means mainly his alleged nuclear capabilities, and while the definition of WMD does indeed include nuclear, Saddam's weaponry was, to the best of our intelligence assessment, limited to chemical & poorly developed biological, such as "anthrax bombs" that reportedly would not have been very effective. Yes, he would have been interested in nuclear, and was apparently working on strengthening his low-grade biological arsenal, but the assumption for our going to war involved the specter of the nuclear fear that Saddam was actively producing nuclear weapons and would be ready to use them in a very short period of time.

Democrats were fooled by this slight-of-hand, too, so I can't blame Republicans alone. But if one is told a lie by a government agency that is supposed to only tell the truth, then one tends to believe the lie until it is proven false. And when the lie comes from "the buck stops here" office of the President, then who is willing not to believe it?

All the pundits who now cry out that Kerry and Clinton and other Democrats voted for giving the President the war option fail to also state that we, all of us, were patently lied to. There was no obfuscating the facts that our highest leaders lied and then lied again, and, apparently, continue to lie to us even today, some 5 years and more after this war began.

And now that some responsible people in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, repudiate the reasons for our war in Iraq, these same pundits call them traitors.

Worse yet, when members of congress dare to hint about the alleged involvement of Mr. Bush and his top cronies in this scheme, the attack dogs call the critics traitors and demand they pay a price for their criticism. I now quote one of my favorite presidents, Teddy Roosevelt: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

I have to state that I am not alone in believing that we were lied to, and continue to be lied to, concerning our ongoing involvement in Iraq. Just recently two former government officials who worked in Iraq came out and stated publicly that the corruption in the Iraqi government under Nouri-al Malaki is rampant, and that our own efforts to stop it were comical, at best.

Arthur Brennan, former head of the Office of Accountability and Transparency, (OAT) said concerning our State Department meddling in OAT's mission "not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government." The U.S. embassy "effort against corruption — including its new centerpiece, the now-defunct Office of Accountability and Transparency — was little more than 'window dressing,'" Brennan added. (Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_corruption )

So, how many more lies will we accept? How much more will our nation accept? Recently John McCain (and President Bush as well) said it would not be wise to support a revision to the G.I. Bill because it would be too costly. How much has this war already cost us? Well, simply put, it has cost us more than 4,000 lives and billions upon billions of dollars.

Also recently the Fort Bragg barracks of one of the 82nd Airborne were found to be far below substandard. (Source: http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1140 ) Is this how we show support and patriotism for our troops fighting in Iraq? Is this the government's way of telling us we all need to be patriotic?

My feeling is this: If you can't support the troops after they come home, Mr. McCain, don't dare to play the patriotic card in the election.

Yes, I am more than aware of Mr. McCain's service, and I applaud that, but his service to the troops as of late has, in my opinion, left a lot to be desired. I, too, am a veteran, and there is plenty I could say about how I was treated after I came home. But that is for another day.

And concerning our facilities in Iraq & Afghanistan, more than a dozen soldiers were electrocuted while showering in their barracks in those sorry nations. Why? Allegedly because of shoddy building construction by an American company hired to build the facilities. And that company would be? Houston based KBR, which until last year was known as Kellogg, Brown and Root, and which was at the time a subsidiary of, guess who - Halliburton.

Jeffrey Bliss, an electrician working over there recalled the KBR excuse when he pointed out these abuses: "The excuse KBR always used was, 'This is a war zone — what do you expect?' " He added his own thoughts. "But if you are going to do the work, you have got to do it safe."

(Source: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/05/04/kbr-allegedly-behind-soldier-electrocutions/ ) and (http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_9145057?source=rss )

I would add, if you are going to go to war, then plan it right, and know what the expectations are, when they will be met, and build your case based upon the truth. We Americans, most of us anyway, can justify going to war if it is for the "right reasons", but we will, as is our patriotiuc duty, rebel against being lied to as if were being led astray by the likes of Hermann Goering.

I consider it is a national shame that there are so many people who still refuse to believe the truth about the lies we were fed by those who, from the start, seemed to want to pick a fight with Iraq for reasons only they can explain.