Logic

Yesterday, an op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman from the LA Times, "Military must guard its ranks" warned about people in the military belonging to hate groups. The editorial stated, "A long-standing Defense Department directive decrees that 'military personnel must reject participation in organizations that espouse supremacist causes...advocate the use of force and violence, or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.'"


Really? Soldiers can be kicked out of the military for participating in the military? Well, let's do it. Let's invite those young people back into the community doing what a community needs done. Growing food, building homes, fixing plumbing, teaching kids, making sick people better and making the sick planet better. That's what will make me feel more secure for sure. Afghanistan badly needs its young people to do the same there. Iraq desperately needs its people back from exile to rebuild homes and unbuild walls. Stop piling war on war. As President Obama said at Ft. Hood last week, killing people to show that killing people is wrong is and always has been twisted logic.

Letter handed to President Obama today on behalf of Iraq Veterans Against the War

I hope that President Obama will read the following letter that was presented to him today by Michael Kern of the Ft. Hood chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War. A friend wrote that Michael handed President Obama this letter as the President shook the hands of soldiers in Michael's barracks. The letter was accepted by the President's security detail, apparently.

Here is the letter, straightforward and sincere.

President Obama:

In your recent comments on the Fort Hood tragedy, you stated "These are men and women who have made the selfless and courageous decision to risk and at times give their lives to protect the rest of us on a daily basis. It's difficult enough when we lose these brave Americans in battles overseas. It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil." Sir, we have been losing these brave Americans on American soil for years, due to the mental health problems that come after deployment, which include post-traumatic stress disorder, and often, suicide.

You also said that "We will continue to support the community with the full resources of the federal government". Sir, we appreciate that-but what we need is not more FBI or Homeland Security personnel swarming Fort Hood. What we need is full mental healthcare for all soldiers serving in the Army. What happened at Fort Hood has made it abundantly clear that the military mental health system, and our soldiers, are broken.

You said "We will make sure that we will get answers to every single question about this terrible incident." Sir, one of the answers is self evident: that a strained military cannot continue without better mental healthcare for all soldiers.

You stated that "As Commander-in-Chief, there's no greater honor but also no greater responsibility for me than to make sure that the extraordinary men and women in uniform are properly cared for." Sir, we urge you to carry out your promise and ensure that our servicemembers indeed have access to quality mental health care. The Army has only 408 psychiatrists — military, civilian and contractors — serving about 553,000 active-duty troops around the world. This is far too few, and the providers that exist are often not competent professionals, as this incident shows. Military wages cannot attract the quality psychiatrists we need to care for these returning soldiers.

We ask that:

1. Each soldier about to be deployed and returning from deployment be assigned a mental health provider who will reach out to them, rather than requiring them to initiate the search for help.
2. Ensure that the stigma of seeking care for mental health issues is removed for soldiers at all levels-from junior enlisted to senior enlisted and officers alike.
3. Ensure that if mental health care is not available from military facilities, soldiers can seek mental health care with civilian providers of their choice
4. Ensure that soldiers are prevented from deploying with mental health problems and issues.
5. Stop multiple redeployments of the same troops.
6. Ensure full background checks for all mental health providers and periodic check ups for them to decompress from the stresses they shoulder from the soldiers they counsel to the workload they endure.

Sir, we hope that you will make the decision not to deploy one single Fort Hood troop without ensuring that all have had access to fair and impartial mental health screening and treatment.

You have stated on a number of occasions, starting during your campaign, how important our military and veterans are to this nation. The best way to safeguard the soldiers of this nation is to provide ALL soldiers with immediate, personal and professional mental health resources.


-Iraq Veterans Against the War

One of the lessons of Killeen: cover the news of nonviolent resistance

There certainly has been a lot of commentary and speculation about the motives of the perpetrator of the Ft. Hood shootings. When I first heard the news and read that Major Hasan had, at some point before the shootings, expressed his objections to the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, my first thought was to fervently wish he had pursued his objection through the nonviolent means available to him, as many other enlisted persons have done. I wondered what prevented him from doing that. What were the barriers? Did he simply not know about the avenues of nonviolent resistance that exist? Had he never read or heard about enlisted people, including officers, who have refused deployment on moral, legal or religious grounds? It seemed to me that, given his age and education level, he must have known that such options existed.

Or did he? Hasan apparently was working at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington DC at the time when the Winter Soldier hearings were being held near there by Iraq Veterans Against the War. This would have been an excellent place to hear from veterans and military personnel who were questioning the wars and speaking openly about their own experiences. Hasan might have realized he was not alone in his doubt and pain. He might have been moved to become a GI resister himself, to refuse deployment and to accept the consequences. Yes, he would have incurred personal risks -- of losing a well-paid job, being ridiculed or harassed by others or facing a court-martial and possible prison time. Did he consider these risks? Did he know he would be supported by others on this path?

The thing is, it's quite likely that Hasan never knew about Winter Soldier or about the GI Rights Hotline counselors who are available to discuss options and consequences. He might not have known about these things because the major news media in the US passed on the Winter Soldier hearings and have generally ignored or minimized news about nonviolent GI resistance.

Investigators will want to ask Hasan many things about his motives and his actions.

If I could question him, this is what I would ask: If you were opposed to deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, why didn't you resist nonviolently? Were you aware of those options or not? Why did you ruthlessly murder people instead?

If I could speak to the major media, this is what I would continue to say: Cover the stories of those who pursue nonviolent resistance to war and militarism. Because if you do, more people will know what to do with their turmoil rather than lashing out through family violence, suicide and murder.

The rest is commentary

I've set aside blogging in recent weeks. The hiatus was occasioned, in part, by reading this passage from a shabbat service I attended in early October.

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
But if I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when?

Do not say, 'I shall study when I have leisure.'
You may never find the leisure.

Do not separate yourself from the community.
Judge not another until you are in his or her place.

The world is sustained by three things:
By truth, by justice, and by peace.

What is hateful to you
Do not do to your neighbor.
This is the heart of the Torah.
The rest is commentary."

The shabbat service was the first I had ever attended. It was the occasion of my partner's nephew's bar mitzfah. I was impressed with the coming-of-age tradition, the idea that teachings and responsibilities are passed from one generation to the next in this way. It's a serious rite of passage that seems timely for 13 year-olds -- who need that special combination of belonging to a strong community while also establishing their own identity.

So, being part of an adult community passing along our common wisdom to the next generation, I found the advice applicable also to myself. Blogging is commentary, and I've been doing that for some time. Behind all the commentary stands the principle that undergirds all faith traditions, as stated above: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor." This most basic piece of practical and moral guidance could hardly be more clear or more universal. Living it is the challenge -- and the perennial opportunity. If not now, when?

Nonviolence is key

A very nice article by Stephen Zunes, posted today on Common Dreams, originally published in the most recent issue of Yes! magazine:


Weapons of Mass Democracy
by Stephen Zunes

On the outskirts of a desert town in the Moroccan-occupied territory of Western Sahara, about a dozen young activists are gathered. They are involved in their country's long struggle for freedom. A group of foreigners-veterans of protracted resistance movements-is conducting a training session in the optimal use of a "weapons system" that is increasingly deployed in struggles for freedom around the world. The workshop leaders pass out Arabic translations of writings on the theory and dynamics of revolutionary struggle and lead the participants in a series of exercises designed to enhance their strategic and tactical thinking.

These trainers are not veterans of guerrilla warfare, however, but of unarmed insurrections against repressive regimes. The materials they hand out are not the words of Che Guevara, but of Gene Sharp, the former Harvard scholar who has pioneered the study of strategic nonviolent action. And the weapons they advocate employing are not guns and bombs, but strikes, boycotts, mass demonstrations, tax refusal, alternative media, and refusal to obey official orders.

Serbs, South Africans, Filipinos, Georgians, and other veterans of successful nonviolent struggles are sharing their knowledge and experience with those still fighting dictators and occupation armies.

The young Western Saharans know how an armed struggle by an older generation of their countrymen failed to dislodge the Moroccans, who first invaded their country back in 1975. They have seen how Morocco's allies on the U.N. Security Council-led by France and the United States-blocked enforcement of U.N. resolutions supporting their right to self-determination. With the failure of both armed struggle and diplomacy to bring them freedom, they have decided to instead employ a force more powerful...

Read the rest of the article here.

Hoodstock: 4 hours of peace & music on August 30th

A commenter to a post on my Austin American-Statesman reader blog said that we "Code Pink ladies need to do more to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Well, I wish we ladies could do that all by ourselves, but of course we need everyone to pitch in.

Here's one way you can help: Attend the upcoming Hoodstock benefit for the Under The Hood Cafe on Sunday, August 30th at Jovita's at 1617 South First St. Or, if you can't attend, you can donate right on the Under The Hood website.

Help keep the doors open to GIs needing a place to think, socialize, speak freely and access resources off-base near Ft. Hood.

Here are the particulars:

Benefit show for Under The Hood Cafe, a GI coffeehouse in Killeen, TX
Sunday, August 30th, 5 to 9 pm
Jovita's, 1617 South First St. in Austin
$10 suggested donation at the door
Featured bands:

Gary Graves
Will T. Massey
Castro's Beard
Shootin' Pains

GI resister, Travis Bishop's stand of conscience

Kudos to the Austin American-Statesman and AAS reporter, Jeremy Schwartz for the fair and accurate front-page story published Saturday about the GI coffee house, Under The Hood Cafe in Killeen.

I joined a group of people who gathered that afternoon for a vigil at the Bell County Correctional Institution (a new facility in the middle of nowhere) to express our support for Victor Agosto and Travis Bishop, who just began serving sentences for refusing to take part in US military operations in Afghanistan. Travis will be transferred to a military brig and Victor will serve out his sentence at the county jail.

Several of the people at the vigil had witnessed both of the recent court-martial proceedings that took place at Fort Hood. Alice Embree of Austin has written good accounts of both, posted on The Rag Blog. Dahr Jamail, who has authored a book about GI resistance, also witnessed Travis Bishop's trial on Friday and has written about it on Truthout. The Truthout posting includes Travis Bishop's full statement to the court, which I am copying below. I think it offers insight into the arbitrariness of the way the US army carries out its regulations regarding the right to conscientious objection. As Travis Bishop argues, if soldiers are not informed of their rights, their rights are abridged. Also disturbing is the description of the jury in Travis Bishop's trial, comprised of officers several ranks above his own. It was certainly not a "jury of his peers."

I am upset by the long sentence imposed on Travis Bishop. A jail sentence is not something I wish on anyone, but especially not on someone who takes a stand AGAINST killing. It's a backward ruling. I'm glad to learn that Bishop's attorney plans to take the case to higher courts.

Here is Travis Bishop's statement, made during his court-martial:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Panel,
The prosecution raised the point that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse for the crime.' And here is proof of that. Case presented, verdict rendered, Sgt. Bishop is guilty. I have been convicted of the crimes that I committed, and I cannot argue that.

All I can say is this: If I had a Soldier that acted on impulse and did something illegal that I, his Sergeant, could have trained him on, there is no doubt in my mind that I would be in the First Sergeant's office the next morning explaining how I 'failed' the Soldier, leaving this Soldier untrained and, ultimately, unprepared.

Since the day I was promoted to this rank that is now in jeopardy, the idea of the Sergeant being responsible for even the individual actions of the Soldier has been drilled into me; especially on the issue of training your Soldier. My rank would be in jeopardy if my Soldier was doing things that I could have, according to my superiors, prevented, as long as I had taken an interest in my Soldier's life, and trained my Soldier as best as I possibly could.

But today, I stand alone. My actions and decisions, based on a seemingly unapproachable command structure, and a lack of training of my rights as a Soldier, remain defended by myself only. I have defense counsel, but the 'buck' stops with me and me alone, and I don't believe that this would be true in any other situation in the Army.

So why is that? Why is there such a stigma around the words? Conscientious Objection. To me, for the longest time, it was only an archaic term from somewhere back in the Vietnam Era; not something that applied to me, the modern Soldier. COs were the butt ends of jokes; they were punch lines. But why?

Maybe it's because since day one of anyone's career in the military, fierceness and bravado are pounded into every potential Soldier, and fear and doubt are viewed as weaknesses. This leaves Soldiers that feel as I feel in quite a predicament.

Does a Soldier who feels as I feel tell someone in their Command? Or a peer? And risk persecution and ridicule? I have never heard the word 'coward' used more than when I say the words conscientious objector around a group of Soldiers.

But what most Soldiers don't realize is that CO is not only a regulation, it's a right. To file for conscientious objector status is an individual right of every Soldier in the Army. This right ensures that Soldiers with the beliefs that I share have the opportunity to request to be discharged due to said beliefs. But, unlike other regulations in the military, this one remains unpublicized.

Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, there are many regulations that offer Soldiers individual rights that without these regulations, they might not ultimately have, even though the average Soldier has no idea these regulations and rights exist. And yet, regardless of knowledge of these regulations, they still fall under these rights given to them by the military.

My key point is this: AR 195-6 covers Army polygraph procedures. If a Soldier doesn't know their rights covered and protected under this regulation, does this give persons giving the polygraph test free reign to ask whatever they want? Just because they don't know the regulation?

If a Soldier doesn't know that, under AR 600-8-22, they are entitled to receive a Good Conduct Medal after 3 years of outstanding service, does that mean that it is ok to not award this Soldier?

If a Soldier doesn't have a clear understanding of AR 600-8-3, Unit Postal Operations, does that mean that the Soldier isn't entitled to receive mail in theaters of combat?

It is my firm belief that the Conscientious Objector regulation is not a regulation only, but an individual right of every Soldier, and that the responsibility to teach this regulation falls on Unit Command Teams. There are plenty of regulations that we do teach Units about, sometimes quarterly even. Why not this one?

In closing, I am not trying to say that I did not commit these crimes. The point I'm trying to convey is that, had I known that the process for applying to be a CO was still alive and well in the Army, I would have applied to be discharged as such a long time ago.

The truth is, as soon as I discovered that the process existed, I acted upon it. I left because I did not feel that I would have a sympathetic, understanding command structure to fully take my problems to, and also to give myself time to prepare for my CO application process, and the legal battle I'm currently fighting.

These are not excuses. These are explanations. My hope is that you truly treat them as such during your sentencing deliberations. Godspeed.


-- Travis Bishop

photo of Travis Bishop at Under The Hood Cafe, photo from www.underthehood.org