All posts by Christian Avard

Gail Dines: How “Pornland” destroys intimacy and hijacks sexuality

This is an interview you may not be accustomed to viewing at Green Mountain Daily but I was encouraged to post it here. Pornography is an issue I don’t take lightly.  As a father of two boys, I am concerned with how pornography conveys sex to today’s youth; how it exploits both women and men; and the fact that pornography is getting more and more graphic (and violent) than ever. Dr Gail Dines, of Wheelock College, puts pornography in some much-needed perspective and I hope this engages a lively, yet respectful, discussion. – Christian Avard

PS: I’m excited to say this interview got picked up by Andrew Sullivan, of The Atlantic, and Razib Khan of Discover Magazine : )

PPS: A section of the interview is today’s quote of the day at “The Economist” online. I don’t believe it!

Crossposted at P U L S E and XY online.

In today’s world, sex has become commodified and industrialized. We see it all the time in print publications, television commercials, cable television shows, major motion pictures, and adult entertainment. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry that misuses and abuses sex and represents it in disturbing ways. Pornographers sell and produce films based on teen sex, torture porn, humiliation, and/or racist caricatures. What’s more disturbing is that hard-core porn is becoming more mainstream in society.

Dr. Gail Dines is a professor of sociology and women’s studies at Wheelock College and an expert on pornography. Her new book, Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, has just been released by Beacon Press and is considered a groundbreaking study of how today’s pornography shapes men and women’s ideas, attitudes, and perceptions of sex. Here is what Dines has to say about her new book and the effects of pornography.

Interview starts below the fold.  

In the preface of your book, you share a personal story about a conversation you had with your son over pornography. You write, “I said [to him] that should he decide to use porn, that he was going to hand over his sexuality-a sexuality that he had yet to grow into, that made sense for who he was and who he was going to be-to someone else.” How and why do boys and young men give their power away to pornography? What kind of power does pornography have in shaping boys’ and men’s perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward sex?

Boys and men don’t realize the power they’re giving away to pornography. They don’t understand the power it has to shape who they are, their sexuality, and their sexual identity. In this culture, we think of pornography as a joke or something to laugh about. We don’t take it seriously as a source of information that has the ability and power to impact on the way we think about the world. Most boys and men go to pornography for an ejaculation; they come away with a lot more. I don’t think they’re quite aware of it.

Pornography, like all images, tells stories about the world. It tells stories about women, men, sexuality, and intimacy. In pornography, intimacy is something to be avoided, and-as I say in the book-“In pornography nobody makes love. They all make hate.” The man makes hate to the woman’s body. It’s about the destruction of intimacy.

Is it true that what most boys and men see in current trends of pornography are things that they expect in sex? How did that happen, and how is it impacting on boys’ and men’s perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward sex?

Well, a lot of people don’t know what pornography is. The first thing I do in the book is very purposefully describe it in detail. I know that for many people it’s going to be hard to read. I understand that. But if you’re really going to understand what I’m saying and why I’m saying it, then you have to understand the material I’m talking about. A lot of older men and women think I’m talking about Playboy from 15 years ago: a centerfold or a woman with no clothes on smiling in a cornfield. They think, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, that was bad enough in the way it objectified women, but we’re on a whole new level now with this kind of imagery.

How it got to this point is the Internet. It made it more accessible, affordable, and anonymous. You’re seeing a massive rise in use, and the users are getting younger and younger. Children who are 11½ years old are now looking at pornography because it comes straight into the home. There’s no limit on how much you can access. It used to be you had to steal father’s Playboy or Penthouse.  Use was limited to how much you could actually pilfer. Today it is unlimited.

So what happens is that desensitization sets in that much quicker and that much earlier. In order to keep the consumer base going, the pornographers have to keep upping the ante. They make it more violent, body-punishing, or abusive as a way to keep men interested. When you think about it, if you’re exposed to it at age 11 or 12, you’re jaded by 20. You’re certainly jaded by 30. Pornography bleeds sex dry of intimacy, emotions, and connection. Once you  do that, then there’s not much left. It becomes boring and mechanical. So you have to keep feeding newer and newer ideas just to keep [the audience] interested.

You describe Gonzo porn as “body-punishing sex.” Why is it body-punishing, why is it prevalent today, and what do people need to know about it?

It’s body-punishing because the male performers pound away at a woman’s body. You often see three men orally, vaginally, and anally penetrate her over and over again for 20 minutes or more, and these are often Viagra-fortified penises, so they stay hard much longer. A woman’s body has limits. All of ours do. What you see in Gonzo porn is a woman’s anus that is red and sore and a swollen vagina. All of these things happen because of the way a woman’s body is treated. Even the pornography industry says that Gonzo is very demanding and potentially dangerous for women. If the industry is saying it, then there’s certainly a problem.

What I’ve found with my interviews with men is the more they watch, the more they want porn sex, because they become habituated to that kind of industrial-strength sex. Once you become habituated to that, anything else looks boring or uninteresting. What I find is that some men lose interest in their partners altogether and use more pornography. Other men nag and cajole their girlfriends to perform porn sex, or they use prostitutes because that’s who they think they can play this porn sex out on.

Remember that you are not just reading or looking at porn. You’re actively masturbating and having an orgasm to it. It has a very visceral response in the body.  This is one of the reasons it is so powerful.

How/why does pornography misuse and abuse the concepts of sex and how/why does pornography normalize the idea that pain is pleasure?

Well, it’s because of the way the woman’s body is treated. In pornography, no matter what you do to her, no matter how much you physically or verbally abuse this woman, she loves it. She can’t get enough. What I find fascinating and upsetting at the same time is…

Men believe that!

… That’s right. They believe it. I’ve had men argue with me that they believe women like it. So when I say to them, “What’s your evidence? Have you seen any empirical studies? Have you interviewed these women?” No, of course they haven’t. They’re using the text as their evidence because she’s saying “I love it! Give it to me harder!,” when of course she has no choice. First of all, she wants to get paid. She has to say that, and if she wants to continue working in pornography, she has no choice.

I often hear that women actively seek “body-punishing sex,” talk about liking it and desiring it, and write about it in non-pornographic, sex-related blogs, periodicals, and other forms of media. Sometimes I hear people say that degrading acts of sex can be intimate. Why is this perception wrong, and how has pornography made people think this way? Why is this an unhealthy perception of sex?

Because it distorts what women want, who they are, and the kind of sex they want to have. I don’t want to say there’s nobody who wants that kind of sex. In any society, you’re going to have variations on what people want.

The problem with pornography is that it normalizes that which is a minority preference for many women. That’s all you see in pornography. You never see anybody say, “Let’s hold, let’s kiss, let’s do all of these things.” Everyone in pornography wants it as hard and fast as possible.

So what they do is they normalize something very unusual in the culture. The more men look at pornography, the more they actually think that this is what women want, especially because they have no counterbalance to it. There is very little sex education today in this country outside of pornography that really speaks to boys and young men.

I’m sure you’ve heard the common response that “no one is forcing a gun on women to perform these acts, and they are doing it by choice.” Why is that a common justification for porn, and what is wrong with that argument?

I think that’s a very apolitical and de-contextualized understanding of choice. The majority of women in pornography-and it’s true in prostitution as well-are not women who have medical and law degrees, and they’re not choosing between practicing medicine or going into pornography. The women are usually working class women who are looking at minimum-wage jobs and who have been sold an image of pornography, that it’s glamorous. They see people like Jenna Jameson or Sasha Grey with all of their pop culture celebrity status.

Recently, Jameson was on Oprah Winfrey, and there was no real analysis of what happens to women in pornography. What they did is glamorize it by showing the wealth Jameson accumulated. What they don’t show is that for every Jameson there are tens of thousands of women who end up poor, drug-addicted, incur bodily problems and diseases. And often a lot of the women are there for only a short time. They have a very short shelf life, and many of them end up in brothels of Nevada. They don’t end up in a huge mansion with lots of fancy cars and beautiful clothes.

Another common attitude or belief boys and men have toward pornography is “Well, that’s just a fantasy and I wouldn’t act that out in real life.” Do you see that as an excuse to legitimize pornography? Why is that problematic?

I address this in my book. As progressive people, we cannot bear that the right-wing media has the power to construct ideology in this country. None of us who are progressive will look at Fox News and say, “It’s just imagery; it’s just a fantasy; and it has no effect.” People can tell the difference between media and reality.  We know media has the power to shift views and consolidate right-wing ideology.

Pornography is also a form of media representation. So why is it that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have the power to change and shape society, and suddenly pornography is the only media form that has no effect? This whole fantasy issue is totally ludicrous. It takes no account of how images construct reality.

While pornography is pushing the boundaries of sex, it’s also making its way into more and more mainstream media. What are the most prevalent examples of porn being accepted or seen as “normal,” and how is it being legitimized?

One example I talk about in Pornland is Brazilian waxes. They come straight down from the pornography industry. Most of the female students I meet across the country have no pubic hair whatsoever. Their boyfriends don’t like it, and I’ve even heard of cases where boys won’t have any sex with women if they have any hair. Where did this come from? When I was growing up, if somebody did that, you would think something was wrong with them. Suddenly girls are increasingly taking all of their pubic hair off and getting bikini waxes.

Another example is the way in which the pornographic and prostitution culture is being glamorized. Women can now take pole-dancing lessons. They wear clothing that looks like they just stepped out of pornography. You see it everywhere, and women are capitulating to men’s sexual demands because there are very few alternative ways of being female in this culture.

Another example of pornography having power is in the hook-up culture that’s taking place on college campuses. What is hook-up sex? It’s porn sex. It’s the same thing. It’s anonymous, non-intimate, and disconnected sex, and everyone is having hook-up sex in pornography.  Increasingly, what’s interesting is that women and girls are consenting to hook-ups even though studies show that they experience less sexual pleasure than men and are more likely to be raped in such situations.

Pornography today is being mainstreamed by the likes of Howard Stern, “Maxim” magazine, or the “Girls Gone Wild” series. You also mention the series “Sex and the City” in your book. How does the show shape perceptions of pornography, especially for women?

In “Sex and the City,” pornography is kind of a minor character on the show. It pops up a few times with men masturbating to porn and wanting to bring it into the bedroom. These women on “Sex and the City” were not outraged. Some of them didn’t like it but rarely complained. A lot of men in “Sex and the City” wanted porn sex, hook-up sex, urination sex, and other things that come from pornography. What you saw in “Sex and the City” was women hooking up and then feeling empowered by it, when in reality what they really wanted-and what made “Sex and the City” such a conservative show-was to settle down with a guy. The series was all about finding Mr. Right.

In Pornland you discuss racism in pornography. Oftentimes I hear, “They’re not racist, they’re just funny titles.” How prevalent is racism in pornography, and is it being diminished or trivialized by consumers and producers alike? Why hasn’t most of society picked up on this element?

One in four new videos to hit the market is interracial, which is sex between a black man and a white woman. Today’s interracial videos depict body-punishing sex. A black man’s penis is referred to as “gigantic,” “huge,” and “monstrous,” and the images reduce black men to their penises, which has historical resonance  in this culture. Black women are portrayed as extremely animalistic, uncontrollable, and deviant in their sexuality. Now what happens is when you show these images over and over, it reinforces the way white people think about people of color, because in this country one of the ways in which they have rendered invisible racist ideology is by sexualizing it.

Why haven’t many people picked up on this racist element in pornography?

I think most of them don’t know. When I tell people, they’re shocked. If you ask the men who use pornography, they’re not. But these men, once aroused and eager to find an image to masturbate to, are not in any mood to start doing a critical deconstruction of the text.

One of the main reasons why interracial porn is so popular with white men, which is the main consumer base, is if pornography is about the dehumanization of women, what better way to dehumanize a white woman in the eyes of white men than to see her being penetrated over and over by something they view as depraved, the black male body?

People or individuals who try to explain that sex is about intimacy, caring, sharing, and trust in a relationship are often cast off as “prudish,” “a tight-ass,” “a religious nut,” or “someone who isn’t getting any.” How difficult has it been to explain this aspect of sex and how pornography strips it of any human connection? Why is there such aversion to sex based on equality and respect?

I think there is a real fear of being labeled anti-sex. The way pornographers and their allies have sold this is that you’re either pro-pornography or you’re anti-sex. Which of course is ludicrous because pornography is not the same as sex. Pornography is an industrial product. It commodifies human needs and sells it back to people, often in an unrecognizable form. It is not simply a reflection of reality. It is a specific representation of it and it is a specific way of representing sex.

Now to assume that if you are against pornography you’re against sex, is to assume that anyone who criticizes McDonald’s is anti-eating. People who criticize McDonald’s are against the destruction of the environment, against the assault on healthy foods, and against child obesity. They are against an industrial product. They are not against eating. So why can’t they see that it is the same thing when it comes to pornography and sex?

Given the prevalence of pornography today, that demand for pornography is going up, not down, and that sex acts are getting more and more violent, degrading, and humiliating for men and women, are you hopeful that things can be turned around?

To turn this around there needs to be a massive public health awareness campaign. Unless people begin to understand the role pornography is playing in our culture, I can’t see any reason that this won’t get worse, because all of these men who started watching pornography young are going to want more and more. Pornographers themselves say they’re having trouble keeping up with what fans want because they want it so hardcore.

Where is this going to end? I don’t know. What will an 11-year-old boy want 10, 20, or 30 years from now? Nobody knows. The truth is we’ve never brought up a generation of males with hardcore pornography. No one can really say what’s going to happen. What we do know, from how images and media affect people, is that it’s going to increasingly shape the way men think about sex, sexuality, and relationships.

Share

Vermonters mourn the dead of the Memorial Day Massacre on Aid Flotilla to Gaza

BURLINGTON- If you weren’t on Church Street yesterday, you missed this demonstration and memorial to the nine humanitarian activists who were murdered by cowardly Israeli commandos this weekend. The attacks have spurred worldwide condemnation including Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Women’s Initiative, Russia, Turkey, India, China, Brazil, France, and Spain. Obama expressed “deep regret at the loss of life.”  

The Turkish Mavi Mamara was delivering humanitarian aid and miscellaneous supplies to Gaza. Gaza cannot receive the aid due to the Israeli naval blockade, claiming it will help Hamas (which is rubbish). More flotillas are headed to Gaza and the Turkish parliament approved military escorts to ensure their safe arrival. An Israeli naval commander said “next time [we] will use more force.” There’s more to the story. There’s so much late breaking and developing news. For a good rundown click here. Glenn Greenwald also has a full recap.

In the meantime, here’s the YouTube from yesterday’s actions in Burlington. There will be another demonstration tomorrow. If I have any further information, I’ll post it here.

 

Friday Night Lights: Human rights activists disrupt ballet performance at Flynn Theater

UPDATE: YouTube already pulled the video down. Not to worry, it will go back up.

UPDATE 2: It’s fixed!

I want to give a shout out to those who participated in a successful night of activism. Several activists leafleted 249 people attending last night’s Israeli Ballet performance at the Flynn Theater.
 

The leaflet asked “Would you like some information about Don Quixote and the Israel Ballet?” — which was an accurate presentation of last night’s performance. “Israel’s ‘Golden Helmet of Mambrino’ — which makes one invisible, thus capable of all actions — is slowly turning into Don Quixote’s version of it — a upside-down shaving bowl plopped on the head — incapable of nothing but making its wearer more obvious and actionable to the world. Brand Israel will continue to call forth increasing protests as audiences realize they are being used,” said author and activist Marc Estrin.

The headline said “A Modern Don Quixote.” Estrin said almost all ballet-goers accepted it, even those glancing at the opening before continuing into the theater. There are no trash cans inside the actual theater, so he assumes most flyers made it to people’s seats for reading before the show began. Estrin said one elderly man “came all the way out again to present us with a crumpled up ball with instructions to ‘shove this up your ass,’ but the other 249 copies all made it in.

The other highlight was when one Israeli and three Vermonters unfurled a banner during the performance. Check out the YouTube Vimeo below the fold!

Israel ballet interrupted in Burlington, Vt. – No tutu is big enough to cover Israel’s War Crimes from samayfield on Vimeo.

Here is the text of the leaflet given out at last night’s performance. Kudos again to everyone involved in the organizing efforts.

A MODERN DON QUIXOTE

Whether conscious or not, there is a deep irony in the choice of Don Quixote as a touring piece for the Israel Ballet.

For the company here presents a story of enchantment and self-enchantment, delusion and self-delusion, a fairytale of madness and delusory nobility, the story of a dreamer driven mad by ancient books, his mental state now lucid, now insane.

Tonight you will meet The Knight of Sorrowful Countenance, surrounded by enemies and magicians, battling the world of evil. He is cruelly used, physically and mentally, beaten and scorned by the powers around him. Normally grave and self-controlled, he can be goaded into mad fits of rage, unable to distinguish between his fantasies and the world’s realities.

By the end of the book, our hero’s soul is taunted by doubt, by the suspicion that his quest to reestablish the past through arms and armor may be an illusion. “I find myself, Niece,” he says, “at the point of death, and I would die in such a way as not to leave the impression of a life so bad that I shall be remembered as a madman: for even though I have been one, I do not wish to confirm it on my deathbed.”

There are lessons here for all of us.

You art-lovers, people of conscience, members of the international community of intellectuals, have historically stood with the ancient — perhaps quixotic — moral responsibility to fight injustice — as you did, for instance, in helping abolish wage slavery among grape-pickers in California, or apartheid in South Africa — through various forms of boycott.

Given that the UN has many times condemned Israel’s colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal, and that six decades of diplomacy have until now failed to convince Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its oppression of the people of Palestine, we ask you in the future to support a general boycott of Israeli goods and cultural offerings —  an international non-violent effort to impel the Israeli government to end its occupation of Arab lands, to end the house demolitions, dismantle the walls, recognize the claims of Arab citizens of Israel to full equality, and to promote the globally recognized rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

As it is not anti-American to call for ending our own wars, it is not antisemitic to call on the Israeli government to change its policies in the name of freedom and justice.

Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel   vtjp.org

For anyone who needs a brush up on Israel-Palestine click here.

Ice truck gets through VY security without a search

Speaking for myself.

You can’t make this stuff up, but it appears Vermont Yankee is “melting down” in more ways than one.

Two weeks ago, an ice truck made a delivery to the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant without being searched. Now we’re learning about the incident.

Bob Audette of The Brattleboro Reformer has the story.

Though spokesmen from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon said there was no danger to the plant’s reactor building, a man who delivered a truckload of ice to the plant said he was astounded when he was waved through the front gate two weeks ago without being searched.

“It struck me as weird to be able to drive through the first gate,” said Peter Caloon, Rice’s Ice plant manager, in Greenfield, Mass. “Why do they have a guy with an automatic rifle at the gate if they’re not worried about checking vehicles there?”

Caloon was delivering $68 dollars worth of ice — 360 pounds – -for an employee meeting.

“If I had gotten through the second gate and my truck was filled with explosives like Timothy McVeigh and I pushed a button, everyone would have been gone,” said Caloon.

Caloon used to drive for a local beverage dealer and whenever he delivered spring water to the plant, his truck was searched. But not now.

Neil Shehan, of the NRC, gives the usual “nothing to see here, keep moving” excuse. Audette continues.

Under NRC regulations, plants are required to ensure that only authorized vehicles are granted access through vehicle barrier portals, he said, which might consist of obstacles such as Jersey barriers or large concrete blocks.

“Vehicles and materials that will be going through the vehicle barrier portals are searched for contraband or other items that could be used to commit radiological sabotage,” said Sheehan. “The ice truck was not granted access past those vehicle barriers and therefore did not have to be searched. There was no requirement that the truck be searched.”

But Caloon comes up with the money quote.

“Shouldn’t that be your first line of defense?” asked Caloon, about the main gate. Caloon was so concerned that he contacted the NRC’s Allegations Division, which told him no security measures were violated. Caloon said he begged to differ with its conclusion.

“I was delivering ice to the Keystone Cops,” he said.

To read the article in full click here.

Peter Welch to Obama, “End the siege on Gaza.”

Speaking for me only… and on vacation too!

Some good news came out of Washington yesterday that went largely unnoticed. Ha’aretz reports 54 members of Congress sent a letter to president Barack Obama urging him to pressure Israel to end the siege on Gaza.  Peter Welch, of Vermont, was one of the 54 members of Congress that signed the letter.

Ha’aretz correspondent Natasha Mozgovaya writes:

The letter was the initiative of Representatives Jim McDermott from Washington and Keith Ellison from Minnesota, both of whom are Democrats. Ellison is the first American Muslim to ever win election to Congress.

McDermott and Ellison wrote that they understand the threats facing Israel and the ongoing Hamas terror activities against Israeli citizens but that “this concern must be addressed without resulting in the de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip.”

“We ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East peace efforts,” they wrote, adding that the siege has hampered the ability of aid agencies to do their work in Gaza.

The congressmen urged Obama to pressure Israel to ease the movement of people into and out of Gaza, especially students, the sick, aid workers, journalists and those with family concerns, and also to allow the import of building materials to rebuild houses. Israel has warned that such materials would be used to rebuild Hamas infrastructure and not civilian homes.

Fifty-four members of Congress urging the president to pressure Israel to treat Gazans like human beings is unheard of. On top of that, several prominent Israeli human rights and lobbying groups signed on as well. This is a positive development IMO.  The tide is slowly turning in how we, and the Democratic Party, view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Operation Cast Lead blew the lid off Israel’s rationale for the occupation. The congressional visits to Gaza have exposed them to the realities of the conflict and what Gazans encounter on a day-to-day basis.

The full text of the letter is posted below. In the meantime, call Peter Welch’s office and thank him for taking an all-important and brave stand on the Israeli-Palestine issue.

 

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

Thank you for your ongoing work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for your commitment of $300 million in U.S. aid to rebuild the Gaza Strip. We write to you with great concern about the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

The people of Gaza have suffered enormously since the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt following Hamas’ coup, and particularly following Operation Cast Lead. We also sympathize deeply with the people of southern Israel who have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks. We recognize that the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups. This concern must be addressed without resulting in the de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Truly, fulfilling the needs of civilians in Israel and Gaza are mutually reinforcing goals.

The unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East peace efforts. The current blockade has severely impeded the ability of aid agencies to do their work to relieve suffering, and we ask that you advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas:

* Movement of people, especially students, the ill, aid workers, journalists, and those with family concerns, into and out of Gaza;

* Access to clean water, including water infrastructure materials,

* Access to plentiful and varied food and agricultural materials;

* Access to medicine and health care products and suppliers;

* Access to sanitation supplies, including sanitation infrastructure materials;

* Access to construction materials for repairs and rebuilding;

* Access to fuel;

* Access to spare parts;

* Prompt passage into and out of Gaza for commercial and agricultural goods; and

* Publication and review of the list of items prohibited to the people of Gaza.

Winter is arriving and the needs of the people grow ever more pressing. For example, the ban on building materials is preventing the reconstruction of thousands of innocent families’ damaged homes. There is also a concern that unrepaired sewage treatment plants will overflow and damage surrounding property and water resources.

Despite ad hoc easing of the blockade, there has been no significant improvement in the quantity and scope of goods allowed into Gaza. Both the number of trucks entering Gaza per month and the number of days the crossings have been open have declined since March. This crisis has devastated livelihoods, entrenched a poverty rate of over 70%, increased dependence on erratic international aid, allowed the deterioration of public infrastructure, and led to the marked decline of the accessibility of essential services.

The humanitarian and political consequences of a continued near-blockade would be disastrous. Easing the blockade on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza’s civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas. Under current conditions, our aid remains little more than an unrealized pledge. Most importantly, lifting these restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their conditions.

Your Administration’s overarching Middle East peace efforts will benefit Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region. The people of Gaza, along with all the peoples of the region, must see that the United States is dedicated to addressing the legitimate security needs of the State of Israel and to ensuring that the legitimate needs of the Palestinian population are met.

Sincerely,

Members of Congress

Arizona

Raul Grijalva

California

Lois Capps

Sam Farr

Bob Filner

Barbara Lee

Loretta Sanchez

Pete Stark

Michael Honda

Lynn Woolsey

Jackie Speier

Diane Watson

George Miller

Connecticut

Jim Himes

Indiana

Andre Carson

Iowa

Bruce Braley

Kentucky

John Yarmuth

Maryland

Elijah Cummings

Donna Edwards

Massachusetts

Michael Capuano

William Delahunt

Jim McGovern

John Tierney

John Olver

Stephen Lynch

Michigan

John Conyers

John Dingell

Carolyn Kilpatrick

Minnesota

Keith Ellison

Betty McCollum

James Oberstar

New Jersey

Donald Payne

Rush Holt

Bill Pascrell

New York

Yvette Clarke

Maurice Hinchey

Paul Tonko

Eric Massa

North Carolina

David Price

Ohio

Mary Jo Kilroy

Marcy Kaptur

Oregon

Earl Blumenauer

Peter DeFazio

Pennsylvania

Chaka Fattah

Joe Sestak

Vermont

Peter Welch

Virginia

Jim Moran

Washington

Jim McDermott

Adam Smith

Jay Inslee

Brian Baird

West Virginia

Nick Rahall

Wisconsin

Tammy Baldwin

Gwen Moore

Virginia

Glenn Nye

The End of Arabs?

The following critique of Peter Galbraith was written by Robin Yassin-Kassab, a colleague of mine from PULSE. Robin is a great guy and he knows his stuff.  This was so well written that it should be posted here. I think we should hear from Arab perspectives of Galbraith’s solution for Iraq. I also recommend checking out Robin’s latest book. It’s called The Road from Damascus.– Christian Avard

Crossposted at PULSE and Qunfuz.

In 2007 I read Peter W. Galbraith’s “The End of Iraq”, which suggests cutting Iraq into three mini-states, and then responded in two parts. The first part criticises Galbraith’s thesis, and the second part criticises the failures of Arabism. Both are merged below. More recently it has been revealed that Galbraith actually stood to gain financially from the dismantlement of Iraq.

Peter W. Galbraith’s book ‘The End of Iraq’ argues the initially persuasive thesis that Iraqis have already divided themselves into three separate countries roughly corresponding to the Ottoman provinces of Basra (the Shii Arab south), Baghdad (the Sunni Arab centre) and Mosul (the Kurdish north), and that American attempts to keep the country unified are bound to fail. I agree wholeheartedly with Galbraith’s call for America to withdraw from Iraq – America is incapable of stopping the civil war, and is in fact exacerbating it. (update: I stick by this. The civil war has to some extent calmed because of internal Iraqi dynamics, not because of the US ‘surge’ – the Sunni forces turned on al-Qaida, and also realised that they had lost the battle for Baghdad and national power. Some groups then allied with the US for a variety of reasons to do with self-preservation). The rest of Galbraith’s argument is much more debatable.

For a start, he minimises the extent to which the US occupation has contributed to the disintegration of Iraq. I do not wish to deny the sectarian and ethnic fractures which exist in Iraq and other Arab countries, but it is reasonable to expect that any country, having suffered dictatorship, war, sanctions, and then the overnight collapse of all its institutions, would enter a period of chaos and division. Galbraith accurately records Western support for Saddam Hussain throughout the Iran-Iraq war, when he was gassing Kurds, and the American refusal to intervene when Republican Guards were slaughtering southern Shia in 1991 (the massacres happened under the eyes of American forces occupying the south at the end of the Kuwait war). He describes the criminal failure in 2003 of the occupying forces to stop the looting and burning of every ministry except the oil ministry, of military arsenals and even yellowcake uranium stocks the Americans claimed to be so concerned about in the run-up to the invasion, and of the national museum and national library. (He doesn’t examine claims made at the time by Robert Fisk and others that masked men with Kuwaiti accents were bussed in to certain ministries to set fires professionally.) The attack on Iraq’s – and the world’s – heritage is of course a cultural crime far greater than the despicable Taliban destruction of the Bamyan Buddha statues. Bombing and looting ravaged what was left of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure. The Iraqi state was destroyed within the first week of occupation, long before the sectarian killing began.

Galbraith charitably calls incompetence what may more realistically be seen as deliberate divide and rule policies. Certainly arrogance, stupidity and corruption have played a large role – the arrogance and stupidity which allowed Americans to park their tanks on the ruins of Sumerian cities; the corruption which allowed Halliburton to profit by the billion from reconstruction which never happened, and which put Americans in their early twenties, and with no knowledge or experience of Iraq, in charge of entire sectors of the Iraqi economy simply because they were members of the right ‘think tank’ or prayer group. At a certain point, however, it seems naïve to put all the mistakes down to incompetence. From the very beginning it was obvious to me and the people I talk to that a violent assault on an Iraq already crippled by war and sanctions would not result in a prosperous, unified democracy. It was obvious that every ‘mistake’ made would further damage national unity. I and my friends are not geniuses, and unlike the neo-conservative and Zionist architects of the invasion, we aren’t paid to study the Middle East.

The immediate and sweeping dissolution of the Ba’ath Party, the army and security forces made it inevitable that people would look to the nearest militia or criminal gang to provide security and material supplies. Before long each area had its dominant gang, and the country was a free competition zone for Shia, Sunni, takfiri, and Kurdish militias, American and British troops, South African and Latin American mercenaries, imported Wahhabi nihilists, kidnappers and drug traffickers, and so on. John Negroponte, who had made a career setting up fascist death squads to destabilise leftist democracies in Latin America, was brought in to organise Kurdish and Shia militia into ‘police’ to pacify militantly Sunni towns. Meanwhile, Bremer at one stroke abolished Iraqi economic independence, opening every sector of Iraq to privatisation and foreign control.

These supposed ‘mistakes’ give us a much clearer picture of the real purposes of the invasion than all the journalistic psychoanalysis of a traumatised post-September 11th America or of its ignorant president. The war was designed as corporate rape of a resource-rich country and as a further hammer blow to the possibility of any secular Arab state taking on apartheid Israel. Having the Iraqis split into tiny units, each fighting the other and looking for an external sponsor, guarantees that there will be no unified Iraqi force to pose a serious threat to the corporations or their imperial and Zionist facilitators.

Despite the hatreds unleashed by the sectarian war, the number of Arab Iraqis I’ve met who want the disintegration of their country to be formalised is precisely zero. The neat picture ‘The End of Iraq’ presents of three clearcut post-Iraq zones is not realistic. Iraq has splintered into smaller pieces than the three zones Galbraith describes. In the south, the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army battle for supremacy. In al-Anbar, the battle is between the tribes, the Ba’ath, and al-Qa’ida. Baghdad, supposedly part of the Sunni zone, has a Shii majority. Mosul is a largely Sunni Arab city with a largely Kurdish hinterland. For these cities and other mixed areas such as Diyala and Babil a formalised partition would lead to greatly intensified ethnic cleansing. The horrific bomb attacks which recently killed 500 Yezidi Kurds happened within the context of a forthcoming referendum on which northern areas will join the Kurdish zone.

And if Iraq is allowed to formally splinter, where does the break-up stop? The Arabs of the Jezira in eastern Syria have more in common ethnically, culturally and tribally with the Arabs of al-Anbar than they do with the urban Levantine Arabs of western Syria. There are almost two million Iraqi refugees in Syria, most in Damascus, very many of them Sunnis who have nowhere to return to if Iraq is not put back together. An ethnic-sectarian Sunni state would also pull at the fabric of Jordan, as artificial a state as they come with its three populations of urban Iraqi Sunnis, Jordanian Beduin, and Palestinian refugees. And in Syria, if the Sunnis were to give their allegiance to a sectarian identity, what would stop the Alawis demanding a state in the north west, or the Druze in the Hauran? Which would bring us back to an early French imperial plan for Syria. I could go on, ad infinitum, to prospects for the division of Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and further afield.

Division is a disaster for all but imperialists and for Israel, the region’s key sectarian state. If the map must be changed, we should aim for fewer state units, not more. Yet Arabism as manifested so far has clearly failed. I’ll examine why in part two.

Part Two

Peter W. Galbraith writes that Iraq is an artificial creation made up of different ethnic groups. This is true, but Iraq is not alone in its artificiality. All states are artificial in that they have been created by historical process and human machination, not by God or nature, and all contain different ethnic groups. More specifically, the centralised nation state in the Middle East (and Africa and much of Asia) is always artificial because the very concept of the nation state is an import from 19th Century Europe. The borders of every Arab state were determined, suddenly, by imperialism, and not by the long processes of war, negotiation and ideological mythmaking that drew borders in Europe. It is this imperialist division of the Arabs which has led to various forms of pan-Arab nationalism.

The definition of ‘Arab’ has expanded over the last hundred and fifty years from describing tribal nomads as opposed to townsmen, to describing the people of the Arabian peninsula, and then to describe all from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf who share the heritage of the Arabic language.

The Ba’ath Party went so far as to find religious significance in ‘Arab,’ as is evident from the slogan ‘One Arab Nation bearing an Eternal Message.’ The ‘risala’ or message is what Arabs would previously have assumed to be the revelation of the Prophet (more often called Messenger in Arabic) Muhammad. The word used for ‘nation’ is ‘umma’ – a word previously used to denote the international Muslim community. In fact, Ba’athism should be seen as one of the twentieth century’s many attempts to compensate for the collapse of traditional religion (Nazism, Zionism, Stalinism, contemporary Wahhabism and hedonist consumerism are others).

In its effort to spiritualise and mythologise Arabism Ba’athism surely takes nationalism to absurd extremes, but it is significant that the Ba’ath Party was founded by a Damascene Christian, and that it appealed in the main to minority communities. Arab nationalism’s potential strength was its inclusive nature, the possibility that Sunni and Shia, Christians and Muslims, urban and rural populations would all identify together as members of the Arab nation. Sadly, it is precisely this inclusiveness that has failed.

If nationalism’s definition of ‘Arab’ had been the widest possible – to engage all those who share the common heritage of the Arabic language in a cooperative enterprise – the Arabs could perhaps have overcome their underdevelopment and imposed borders more easily. They would have had increased political weight for a start, and would not have wasted so much blood and treasure on intra-Arab fighting (or rather, fighting on behalf of the little ruling classes of each state). Given that some Arab countries are blessed with fertile land but not with oil, others with educated people but not with sea ports, an intelligent sharing of resources would have been mutually beneficial.

This cooperation has failed, and there is no Arab state, but the Arab nation exists. The nation, not the state. The nation exists despite the tens of states, and now the attempt to splinter the Arabs further, into yet more mini-states squabbling over sect and ethnic variation, all of them dependent on a corporate-imperial sponsor for survival. It exists in shared language and cultural reference points. Any Arab who travels the great distances of the Arab world will find each corner foreign and also familiar. He will recognise the classic and contemporary music on the radio. He’ll see the same Egyptian films in the cinemas, the same Syrian comedies and historical dramas on the television. He’ll understand the newspaper. He’ll feel welcomed and understood, more than he would, for instance, in a non-Arab Muslim country. Wherever you go in the Arab world the ordinary people want closer economic cooperation between Arab countries, an end to foreign military bases, and justice for the Palestinians. In these times of rising sectarian conflict, it’s important to realise and remember that the Arab nation exists.

So why then is Galbraith’s thesis – that even a single unit of Arabism like Iraq needs to disintegrate – to some extent persuasive? Because the same homogenising impulse that animates both contemporary Islamism and late capitalism has perverted Arabism. I’ll repeat it: Arabism only had a chance if it recognised the diversity of the Arab world’s peoples. The inheritors of Arab history, culture and language include blue-eyed Syrians and black Africans in the Sudan. Many of the heroes of the Arabist narrative were not ethnically Arab at all. Salahuddeen al-Ayubbi (Saladin) was a Kurd, Ibn Rushd a Spaniard, Ibn Batuta a Berber. In Iraq, where Arabism has failed most spectacularly, ‘Arab’ even began to morph into ‘ethnically-Arab Sunni Muslim,’ but many of the great Arabic-language writers and scientists have been Christians and Jews, Berbers and Persians.

The moral degeneration of Arabism is painfully evident on Layla Anwar’s blog. We must make allowances for the fact that Mrs. Anwar lives, it seems, in Baghdad, in the midst of a savage occupation and civil war. Many of the Iraqis I meet who have recently left Iraq are traumatised in some way or other, and Mrs. Anwar probably is too. But then, she doesn’t make any allowances for the Kurds or Shia who suffered so much under the previous regime. She calls the Kurds turds (ha ha), and denies that any were massacred by Saddam Hussain. I must say here that by now, although I don’t believe that new states can set anybody free, I understand the Kurdish desire for an independent state, at least in Iraqi Kurdistan. Perhaps Iraqi Arabs could have persuaded the Kurds to be part of an Arab state if, from the start, they had treated them as full citizens with full rights to cultural expression. What happened was that they were seen as a non-Arab security problem, and that thousands of their villages were razed, hundreds of thousands of their people subjected to poison gas attacks. True, it was a dictatorship, backed at the time by the West, that committed these crimes, and relations between ordinary Kurds and Arabs often remained good. But if people like Layla Anwar can’t accept that the oppression even happened, we have an insurmountable obstacle to coexistence. Mrs. Anwar declares in one of her postings that the Kurds are guests in Arab Iraq. How shameful that this supposed nationalist is unaware of her own country’s history. Kurds have been present in Mesopotamia for as long as Semites, and for far longer than Sunni Muslims.

Mrs. Anwar regards ALL Shia forces in her country as Persian, and therefore inauthentic. Again, exclusive national-chauvinist extremism has blinded her to her country’s reality. The Shia are of course a majority of Iraq’s people. It is both true and unsurprising that many Shia escaped Saddam’s persecution by crossing the border to Iran, where some founded organisations with Iranian help. Some of these organisations, like al-Hakim’s Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, returned to Iraq after the regime’s fall, made themselves available to the Americans as death squads, and are now in powerful positions. But other organisations, like Moqtada Sadr’s Jaish al-Mahdi, are Arab nationalist as well as Shia, and resent the Iranian-supported organisations. Mrs. Anwar rightly complains about the persecution of Sunnis by Shia militias, but is silent on both the sectarian repression practised by the Ba’ath regime which provoked the Shia revival, and the horrific Wahhabi terrorism to which Shia militia crimes have been retaliation.

As for more general Iranian influence in Iraq, which many Sunni Arabs are unable to accept, this is natural. The word itself, Iraq, comes from the Persian ‘Eraagh’, meaning ‘lowlands.’ The Arabs of southern Iraq have been as influenced by the cooking and religious and philosophical ideas of Persia as much as the Arabs of Syria have been influenced by the Turks and Mediterranean cultures. This doesn’t stop them being Arabs.

Nations (as opposed to states) are imaginary structures. Their borders are porous and membership in them is not exclusive. You can feel allegiance to the Arabs and also to Islam, or Africa, or Christianity, or Shi’ism. Variety and diversity should be the strength and richness of the Arabs, but many Arabs are ill with the centralised state disease, the rage for conformity which made Saddam Hussain brutalise the majority of Iraq’s people. When we replace humane, inclusive nationalism with exclusive totalitarian police states, we have lost nationalism as a positive force.

There are still glimmers of light. Important sections of Sunni Iraqi opinion have turned decisively against both Wahhabism and Ba’athism. The vast majority of Shia feel both Iraqi and Arab. But the Iraqis and other Arabs will be unable to work cooperatively until they honestly confront sectarianism and the class oppression which it usually masks, until they are able to sympathise with the history of the other, until they can think beyond the imported nation state.

Dahr Jamail: Honoring The Vets Who Go Unnoticed

Crossposted at Air America Radio.

Today is Veteran’s Day and every year, veterans are honored on television, the newspapers, parades, etc. We salute the American flag, wear yellow ribbons in honor of the troops, listen to the playing of Taps, watch the 21-gun salutes and hear the speeches about those who gave their lives for freedom and democracy.

But what about those who sacrificed and served their country and speak against the horrors of war? What about those who come back from war never the same? Why do we honor the silent, dead warriors, but not those who have been harmed by war and feel the need to speak out?

Dahr Jamail is an award-winning independent journalist whose work has appeared on National Public Radio, in The Guardian (UK), The Nation, The Progressive, and more. In his latest book, The Will to Resist: Soliders who refuse to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jamail brings us inside the movement of military resistance to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. War is traumatic and many veterans who speak out against their actions (or their government’s policies) want their experiences to be validated, understood and accepted. Yet anti-war veterans organizations are not honored to the same degree as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion or Disabled American Veterans. Jamail believes all veterans must be honored, even those who speak out against war. The Will to Resist opens the door to the lives of many servicemen and veterans who speak out against war and killing, and their need to regain their humanity. Jamail talked about what war resisters endure on a daily basis, including the recent tragedy at Fort Hood, TX.

In researching this book, is it true that many service members and veterans lack adequate psychological and emotional counseling? Did Nidal Malik Hasan received adequate attention for his needs? Could the Fort Hood tragedy have been avoided if he had received adequate attention?

It’s true that people in the U.S. military who need post-traumatic stress disorder treatment as well as secondary trauma treatment, like Nidal Malik Hasan, are not getting what they need. I can’t tell you how many soldiers I’ve been talking to, some who are in the book, who are already diagnosed with PTSD and then they are sent back over to the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of last year, more than 43,000 soldiers already diagnosed with a medical condition, including PTSD, were classified as non-deployable and were deployed anyway. In Hasan’s case, this is a guy who was counseling people with severe PTSD who had lost limbs and were at Walter Reed. He had an extremely heavy workload, he was overworked, and he clearly needed counseling himself for secondary trauma he was experiencing. This was certainly a factor that contributed to what he chose to do by carrying out this atrocity. I think the Fort Hood situation on Friday, as well as what’s been happening there this year, clearly illustrates more than anything else, how severe the situation is in the military with people not getting psychiatric and psychological treatment they need. Another thing to add about Fort Hood that Friday’s tragedy doesn’t illustrate enough: this is an Army base that so far, this year, according to the most recent statistics there were 10 suicides this year- at that base alone.

Is it systemic that the military’s reaction to handling soldiers’ and veterans’ emotional and psychological problems is, “suck it up,” “don’t be a pussy,” or “quit being a fag?” What did you discover?

Absolutely. I just wrote a story about a guy who came back from Iraq with severe PTSD. He was being held in this unit and they were threatening to send him back again. He was trying to get counseling because he was suffering from regular abuse from his commander. One time the soldier met up with some of the other folks suffering from PTSD. They were all talking with each other and the commanding officer called them “a bunch of PTSD pussies.” It falls right in line with this kind of code in the military you exactly described. It’s based on the whole premise that boys don’t cry. It’s the grade school mentality of ,”we need you to be a mindless robot that’s willing to follow any order we give you.” If you have any concerns, physical or psychological, you need to suck that up and keep moving forward. Anyone that shows weakness or asks for help, they are ridiculed regularly and ostracized and this is another factor why so many people who need help are not getting it.

You write about stories of discrimination in “The Courage to Resist.” What about racism and Islamophobia? The Armed Forces claims they do not have any form of racism. Is it more prevalent than we think? Does the military cover it up like they often do with sexual violence and other recurring social problems?



Racism, sexism, homophobia are all a big problem. This is an institution where mysogynistic behavior is embedded in people. That would certainly include race and racism. I’d say there is a kind of informal segregation in the military. When I was in Iraq, I talked to several people, including a Jordanian contractor who worked at a base serving food to soldiers. There were entire units that were only Hispanic, and Spanish was the only language they spoke. Slang terms like “nigger” and “spic”are used and all of this is common in the military. I think this is another indicator of how dysfunctional the military really is as an institution.

I know racist language is used in dehumanizing the enemy. But on an ordinary day-to-day basis, is it bigger than we think?

Absolutely, I think all of that falls under the umbrella of dehumanization. When someone joins the military, the military will break them down in basic training and prepare them to follow orders to kill people. To do that, you have to dehumanize the people they’re going to kill. So Iraqis become “Ragheads” or “Terrorists.” In Vietnam, the Vietnamese were “Gooks” and in World War II, they were “Japs.” In that process of dehumanizing “the other”- they cannot do that without dehumanizing themselves. They have to kill off parts of their own humanity so they can be willing to go out and kill somebody else. This is another factor of why racism is so bad in the military. Anything that doesn’t fit in with the dominant paradigm of a white male soldier is going to be an object of racism and discrimination in that institution.

One of the responses I often hear is “this isn’t systemic” or “there are always rotten apples” or “there’s always going to be some element of racism” in any institution. What is your response to that?

Yes, because when soldiers complete their training, they’ve all been through this process and were subjected to what we were just talking about. I’ve had many veterans tell me that’s exactly what it’s like. It’s like the high school boys locker room syndrome where you are consistently reinforced- all the talk and behaviors in basic training- if anyone goes against it, they are ostracized or ridiculed.

Vietnam Veterans got significant attention for speaking out against the war in the 1960s and 1970s. Polls constantly show that the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations are very unpopular with the American public. Why aren’t groups like the Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Gold Star Mothers for Peace, and such, gaining ground like Vietnam Veterans did? Especially with all the activist tools they have today that they didn’t have back then…



I think it’s because it was an entirely different era. The first main thing we could point to is lack of a draft. The draft mobilized the entire population in the country. It wasn’t just poor people that were forced to get a college education or serve. All of a sudden upper middle class kids had to be very concerned and of course, people resisted. Nobody wanted to be forced to go. So not having a draft is a critical component. Also, the lack of a real antiwar movement with any real power (like) the civil and women’s rights movements (had). All of these things were going on simultaneously and Vietnam was the perfect storm for an antiwar movement to stand up and give the backing necessary for an effective GI movement. All of what’s said is in the context and what I hear so much from soldiers today is, “Look, I was afraid to stand up because I felt like I would be all alone. I didn’t feel like there would be any support and I felt like I’d be hung out to dry.” That was not the case during Vietnam. It was the opposite. The people who stood up were heroes. They had housing, friends, they were hooked into this underground railroad where you could be shipped to Mexico or Canada and it was a completely different scenario.

A thing I often hear is soldiers don’t decide where they go, they’re not supposed to have opinions of the conflict, and it was all part of the contract they signed. I’ve heard this in regards to Ehren Watada’s recent case and others veterans you talked to. How do you and/or your book respond to that?

Here’s my rebuttal. According to the U.N. Conventions, the United Nations charter says there’s only two reasons why a country is allowed to have a “just war.” One, it must be ratified by the U.N. Security Council. The other is it must be an act of self-defense. Iraq doesn’t pass either of those. This war violates that and it also contravenes the Geneva Conventions. With Afghanistan, international lawyers like Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, are arguing that Afghanistan does not meet those qualifications. It did not have the U.N. Security Council ratification and they’re now arguing this was not an act of self-defense. Neither the country nor the people of Afghanistan attacked the United States. Thus, it’s a violation of international law. Because of that, there’s a (supremacy) law in the U.S. Constitution that states that when the United States signs a foreign treaty, that law becomes our law and essentially a part of our Constitution. Soldiers are sworn to support and defend the Constitution and they are violating their own oath by following an unlawful order (namely Iraq and Afghanistan). Those who are standing up and refusing are actually being hyper-patriotic. When you stop and read the laws of the letter and listen to what these international lawyers are talking about, it’s very clear that the people who are dissenting and refusing these orders are following the law right to the letter.

This interview will be published on Veteran’s Day. Why are veterans’ peace groups and veterans who speak out against war not taken seriously on Veteran’s Day? Every year I read about how this group or that veteran was not allowed to march in this parade or that one. It seems that Americans are pushed into honoring only those veterans that are sanctioned. Your response?

It sounds like a similar situation as to why my articles (and probably your articles) are never going to make it into the New York Times or the Washington Post. If you take a stand and you write an article coming down on the side of international law and you’re being critical of government or the wars, you’re perceived as biased. But if you write articles that are pro- war or pro-U.S. government policy, then you are considered objective. It’s the same thing with these veterans groups. They are censored and kept out of the public eye. Another example is high schools. Military recruiters can go into any high school, hand out their propaganda, help them go to college and recruit people. But Veterans for Peace can’t go into high schools because what they’re talking about is too political. The military is going in and that’s not political, but people talking about peace and alternative ways to get college funding is political. It’s the same thing when these organizations are censored and kept out of the media.

Mothers and Soldiers: Healing the bonds destroyed by war

Photobucket Photobucket

Crossposted at Huffington Post. Tomorrow is independent journalist Dahr Jamail. – Christian

The bonds established between mothers and children are sacred.  Mothers provide unconditional love, caring and support, and they teach their children to live in the world with a sense of purpose.  But life circumstances oftentimes get in the way of relationships and affect the outcomes for better or for worse.  In times of war, the bonds between mothers and children can change in the blink of an eye.  Strong relationships that took years to develop can be wiped out when a loved one is killed by enemy fire and other circumstances beyond their control. Many families in America have experienced this.  So have many others in the Mideast.

Susan Galleymore is the author of Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak About War & Terror. Galleymore, co-founder of Courage to Resist, made international headlines as she traveled to Iraq to visit her son stationed in the Sunni Triangle.  The more Galleymore learned about the military, the more she learned about how war affects mothers at home and mothers in Iraq.  Her journey continued as she met with mothers in other war zones such as Israel and the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan and the U.S..  I spoke with Galleymore about her new book and how war affects mothers and children, communities and cultures, veterans, and current service members.

Full interview after the break.

 

They say time and time again that “information is power”‘ and books can be used as an effective tool for social change.  Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” are two good examples.  What role do you believe books play in effecting social change?  Do you see “Long Time Passing: Mothers speak out About War & Terror” as a book to be used in the same means as Sinclair’s or Carson’s?

Galleymore: The goal of the book is to create a larger story around the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It’s not just something that’s happening here in the U.S. but that the ripple effects are occurring all over the world and we are really interdependent.  I think Rachel Carson was trying to get at that as well.  There are interdependencies that we’re not really recognizing.  If anything, my book is trying to do something like that by using a story format.  In this case, every single story is exactly the way it was told to me.  I didn’t impose my own cultural values or understandings on it.  So I’m trying show these human beings have stories that are really enrichening to not only people in the United States, but to the larger picture of what war does.

What life-changing experiences did you have in your travels to the Mideast? What myths were shattered?

Well, I come from another country where we’ve seen the effects of war.  My grandparents were immigrants after the Second World War to South Africa and we experienced a war against the indigenous people, if you could call it that.  I came to the United States as a young woman and had my son born here the first year I arrived.  I never understood how the American military works but I also think it has changed, certainly in the last 30 years.  I never understood there was such a push to recruit young people.  That’s particularly true now that we have a volunteer military. There’s a lot about how things function in American culture that I, as an outsider, didn’t know.  But I’ve come to realize that people who actually live in this country for generations don’t understand either how the American military works.  That was a huge learning experience.

Once I realized that my son had been sucked up into the military, believing all the cultural values from the movies, such as what a hero is, what a man is, etc., I had this urge that I had to talk with him about it.  Once I got to Iraq, I recognized that this was a much larger story.  The first Iraqi woman I talked to said  her whole family was essentially wiped out by American troops on a couple of Humvees.  They just shot up the whole car, killing her husband and three kids.  She survived, she was pregnant, and her eight year-old daughter survived.  So there was a story to be told.  We can’t imagine being in America and having that happen.

I also lived in Israel during the mid-1970s and I came from apartheid South Africa.  So I was very comfortable in Israel at the time because it reflected a lot of the values that I came from.  Of course it is an apartheid system (in Israel).  Anyone who knows anything about how systems function realize that Israel is an apartheid system.  

One of the things I learned about Israeli and Palestinian boys is Israelis are socialized to join the military to defend the homeland.  Palestinian boys are pigeonholed to be suicide bombers because they’ll be seen as martyrs.  Did you encounter this in your travels? How difficult is it for Israeli and Palestinian boys not to go down this path? Are there any efforts being done to raise boys not to pick up a gun or strap on explosives? What roles do mothers play in shaping their sons?

One of the mothers I interviewed lost her son in a suicide bombing while two other of her sons were in the Israeli Defense Forces.  Now this is a family that came from a ‘left perspective’ and her sons have become Refusniks and they are very active in a group called Combatants for Peace.  Combatants for Peace works with former Israeli soldiers working with former Palestinian prisoners.  They always work together, they make joint statements, and there were many other groups in Israel doing joint work.  It was fascinating because sometimes I would talk to people who say ‘I’m a Zionist and I work in this particular group’ (not necessarily for Combatants for Peace).  But there’s a lot of complexities in these issues.  It’s fascinating because it’s kicking up the level of thinking. Americans need to do about how complex the situation is.

It’s also hard to be a man, especially in American culture.  There’s no ritual for it.  I think that’s partly what brings a young man into the U.S. military, but in Israel there is (a ritual).  In Palestine, it’s much more of a male dominated society and the ritual there has been so disturbed by the Israeli invasion of the culture.  Everything is on shaky ground there and people are really struggling to hold on to their culture.  

In the book, you try to understand the tension between individualist American culture and the complex communities of family and residence that typify much of the Middle East. What were some of  the things you learned when two different cultures came face to face like this?

It’s interesting.  In America, we’re taught that the best thing you can do is become independent and self-sufficient as soon as possible.  In the Middle East, that’s not the case.  It’s a collectivist-based culture.  What I find is, unless you understand that the basic assumptions are very different, you’re going to have conversations that are meaningless.  A person from an individualist culture who is talking to a person from a collectivist culture are going to have a conversation that’s not grounded in a similar reality.  It’s very difficult for Americans to understand that people in the Middle East (if I can generalize) don’t want to be Americans.  They’re proud of their culture, history and heritage.  Americans tend to think everyone wants to be like us, because we’ve been told “we’re the greatest, the best, the most powerful”, etc.  It’s very difficult for people to conceptualize that it may not be the case.  I think we’re seeing that in Afghanistan right now.  The Afghan people are saying “leave us alone! We don’t want you or your democracy!” The Afghans have their own traditions of democracy and we’re not allowing them to surface very much.  

I know current service members have told me time and time again “we don’t get to choose which wars we get to fight in.  We go where our president and Congress wants us to go to.”  But they do have voices.  They should speak and think for themselves.

Another discussion that needs to happen is what is a volunteer?  We often say, “these soliders volunteered to do this.”  Well, they didn’t volunteer to go off and kill Iraqi and Afghani civilians.  They went out to promote what they heard was the message of their country, which is, “we are about freedom and democracy.”  When they get over there, they discover it’s about opening corporate markets.  There’s a tremendous element (of) trauma they begin to feel.  What are the troops going over there to do?  What does a volunteer actually mean and what rights do they have?  If you’re a volunteer, it should also mean you should be able to not be a volunteer when you’ve had enough or when you’ve decided  to get out.  That’s not the case.

Today is Veterans’ Day. What do your book and your experiences  add to this national holiday? What did you learn about our soldiers and the wars they fight in, that would be appropriate for people to know on this holiday?

The stories of the troops are extremely important to hear and to make connections with other war or combat events the U.S. has perpetrated.  There are books on Vietnam where atrocities were par for the course.  We need to recognize that atrocities are par for the course in war, no matter which one.  If you put a young person who’s 18- or 19-years old in situations that are completely terrifying they’re not at all like the movies.  I hear a lot of that from the troops.  Then you bring them back home and you do not allow  them to tell their stories.  As long as we shut our troops and veterans up, as long as we do not want to hear what they have to say, we’re going to continue to have the devastation of our young people that we’re seeing.  There is battle fatigue, shell shock, and general trauma.  That is the result of war and that is what our veterans are going to deal with.  We, as their families, need to understand what we’re asking them to do and we need to respect what they tell us.

Every Memorial and Veteran’s Day, it’s very difficult for groups like Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and others to have their voices heard.  What kinds of obstacles are they up against in order to be heard?

That’s a good question.  The average American is very resistant to know what is being done in their name.  There is a lot of resistance to know what our veterans bring back to our country when they return from war.  Veterans trying to speak out about atrocities, the immoral wars, etc. are shut up by other veterans.  It’s this thing that if we talk about the kinds of things we are generally silent about, then what does it mean about who I am? What does it mean about what I did over there? What does it mean about who we are as a country?  It’s not just accepting some new information.  It’s really reconfiguring your whole reality and that’s a very difficult thing to do.  That’s what needs to happen and I think that’s why there’s so much resistance.  You’ll see the Veterans for Peace or the IVAW with antiwar banners, and you really see other veterans coming down really heavily on them!  It’s about that, “don’t share the secret, don’t tell!”  We saw what happened to John Kerry when he ran for president.  He was swift-boated.  What was that about?  That was about not wanting to hear the reality of war and I think some of that has to do with the enormous profits made in war.

You mentioned the stigma and attacks soldiers face from other soldiers for speaking up against war and occupations.  Could you elaborate on that?

I think the most commonly known example of this is the Swift Boat Veterans’ effort to discredit John Kerry during his presidential bid. As you know, Kerry came out against the Vietnam conflict, supposedly throwing his medal over the White House fence after participating in the very first Winter Soldier Hearings.  It turned out it was really only his ribbons, not the actual medals.  As you probably recall the Swift Boat Vets piled on Kerry, denigrating his service, his courage, etc.  These days, when groups such as Veterans for Peace or IVAW parade (or even apply to participate) they are often roundly scorned from the sidelines or refused permission to participate officially.  I see this as stemming from a complex set of issues: an inability to distinguish between “the war” and “the warrior”; a refusal to admit how terrifying and confusing combat is, for “we” are “men” and so don’t admit fear etc. If “we” talk about what happens in war, we’ll let the cat out of the bag and have to re-examine some basic cultural concepts and if one decent person (say a service person) admits to war atrocities, it raises the spectre of other decent people being capable of the same- the “we’re all painted with the same brush” syndrome when something shameful comes to light.  These are the sorts of complexities inherent in how war is sold and consumed.

Despite all the trauma mothers experience and share in the book, you said that despite it all “the basic humanity of people shine through.”  What examples stand out for you the most?

What has become much clearer to me is that the human heart is a vibrant living entity and that underneath all the collective and individualist categories we have, that the human heart wants to reach out and make contact.  I found tiny villages in south Lebanon where people would say ‘Oh, you’re an American.  Weren’t those people hostile to you?’  That was never the case.  It was more, “Come in!  Who are you?  Yes, we can share our story with you.  Yes, please tell people about us.”  I would say my faith in human beings has become much deeper and become more determined to surface; that reality that we want to make contact with one another.