Neo-Conned! Again

by D Liam O'Huallachain

  This war by domestic and international standards is without question illegal. Therefore any order that is complicit in carrying out the execution of this war is irrefutably illegal. The same government that, at Nuremburg, prosecuted individuals for carrying out unlawful orders in an illegal war1should not only tolerate but in fact expect and demand that its military personnel object to and defy illegal orders. My actions of December 6, 2004, were not only the actions of a human being endowed with a conscience, but in fact were my duty as a member of the United States Navy.

  LID: That's all very clear to you, but a shocking number of your fellow Servicemen and women don't see it that way. Has your insight into these things always been so clear and decisive? If not, what brought you to this clarity of vision in this case?

  PP: My thoughts on our country's involvement in foreign relations weren't always as clear as I feel they are now. Until age 18, I was the typical American kid. I could name every player in the National Basketball Association; I could easily identify every hip-hop artist; I spent a considerable amount of my life playing video games; but I couldn't for the life of me tell you anything about the situation in the Middle East or even the history of my own Latin America. None of these things made me odd among my peers. In fact, to some extent my interest in my own culture and heritage made me a little more aware than the average American teenager. Then at 18 I decided college was for the wealthy and my options were limited to the workforce and the military. I saw the military as a bridge to an education.

  My first two years in the military did not serve to change my perspective much at all. However, at the two-year mark, I received orders to Yokosuka, Japan. Thus began a new education for me. I found myself often surrounded by foreigners who were very interested in the perspective of an American sailor. I found myself being asked to take part in countless discussions, the subjects of which I was quite ignorant. The shame of this ignorance led me to devour every piece of literature I could find on subjects ranging from U.S. foreign policy to Latin American history to political science. This sudden urge led to an enormous increase in awareness on my part of the numerous aspects of the current political landscape. From this point of view I can't really see an alternative to concluding that this war is immoral, illegal, and a crime against humanity.

  Realizing that it took me a considerable amount of time in a foreign country in order to develop my own understanding of politics and history, I then began to wonder, what was it about the U.S. of A. that kept me from developing this kind of awareness before. Figuring this out became my new drive. One thing I slowly became aware of was what corporate power is, and how it can affect a society. A corporation has a duty only to its shareholders to produce and to generate profit. In practice corporations put obedience to this duty even ahead of their obligation to obey the law.

  Once I came to realize that these are the very specific aims of a corporation, and that every means of readily available, mass-media information in this country is essentially dependent upon a corporation for its existence, it becomes crystal clear that the information the average American absorbs is that which corresponds, ultimately, to the economic needs of the corporate entity by which that information is produced and disseminated. Taking all of this into account, along with the sheer size of the military-industrial complex, I arrived at the conclusion that it is nearly impossible for the mainstream media to objectively report on a range of issues, including the war in Iraq. This was my conclusion in searching for an understanding of why my perspective as an American was initially so limited.

  So, in answer to your question, I had the opportunity – rare for an American – to consume alternative, non-privatized forms of information and news while I was overseas. I think that this is what gave me the ability today to see this war as so clearly, clearly illegal.

  LID: Why do you think others haven't followed your course of action? Lack of courage?

  PP: Well, to believe that a lack of courage is at the root of people's willingness to participate in the war assumes that they thoroughly understand the geo-political climate and the underlying economic influences that drive it. I would venture to say that as these truths become clear to the American public, the dissent will multiply.

  In the military, there is a significant amount of closet dissent. Rather than judge those who, for whatever reason, cannot publicly denounce the war, I call on those who dissent and who do not feel hampered to be a voice for themselves and those who cannot speak out.

  LID: As you are aware, the U.S. Government does not recognize a “selective” right of Conscientious Objection. In other words, someone who claims conscientious objection has to believe that all war is wrong, and not just this or that particular war. Do you think the law should be changed to allow a soldier/sailor/airman/marine to object to and not participate in a war that is obviously unjust?

  PP: “Obviously” unjust would still, ultimately, be a matter of opinion. In one man's opinion every war is obviously unjust; in someone else's opinion all but one war may have been unjust in the past; in still another's opinion, all wars have been just except for the one in Iraq. The point is that, practically speaking, I don't think the military can afford to allow a service member to choose, based on his opinion, which war to participate in. As for “official” conscientious objection, the way CO guidelines are currently formulated, they apply to only a very select number of people; there are many that it should not and does not include. But in theory, regardless of how “practically” difficult it is, it would seem reasonable and necessary to make an allowance for anyone who has a grave conflict of conscience – one that he cannot ignore – to request such status and to have the right to make his case.

  Don't forget, though, that beyond conscientious objection there are other military provisions that are applicable to this kind of situation, at least in theory (if not in practice). I mean the duty of a service member to disobey unlawful orders. The fundamental problem is, of course, proving an order is unlawful, as apposed to simply saying that a service member felt the order was unlawful. No doubt the military would rarely feel an order to be unlawful; so what it or a service member feels should probably be irrelevant. What should matter is whether the service member had sufficient reason to believe it was unlawful. In this way a service member aware of the Geneva Conventions could protest an Abu-Ghraib type order without worry. And a service member aware of the UN charter, as well as basic notions of international law, could protest any order linked to the current war in Iraq without fear of being convicted of disobeying an order that in the military's opinion is lawful.

  LID: Notwithstanding your own clear views on the subject, you have been called a deserter and a disgrace. But it's hard for us to not have respect for someone like yourself who risks everything to follow his conscience. Do you think that you are doing anything that you should be punished for, or do you think rather that the law should support what you are doing?

  PP: Sadly, it is our commander in chief who is doing something he should be punished for. Our government has deserted democracy and the rule of law. The massacre of however many thousands of people in Iraq is the disgrace. These are all crimes worthy of prosecution. I have chosen to refuse to participate in them. I don't see any reason for punishing anyone who acts on his conscience, especially when that conscience is backed up by law and fact.

  Besides, the law does support what I am doing. It says that no country can make preemptive war without the backing of the UN Security Council. Military law says no service member should obey an unlawful order. The implementation and interpretation of law may work against me, and I may be labeled things like “deserter” and “felon,” but history will speak differently of actions like Camilo Mejia's1 and mine.

  I know that calling a spade a spade is unpopular, and it can have serious repercussions in today's society. But it is the only way I can live with myself. It is the only way I can one day face my children and grandchildren and dare to tell them about right and wrong and to t
each them how a man should lead his life. Beyond my personally vested interest, it is necessary for those in positions like mine to take advantage of them in a united assault on the institutions and accepted ideologies that have created this war on Iraq, as well as the aggression played out against Afghanistan and the countless attacks that might follow suit. If rank and file individuals won't sacrifice a little for the end of oppression by military means, then that end will never come. The exiles and political prisoners of the Vietnam resistance era are tribute to this theory.

  LID: People have said that it's “disloyal” of you to leave your fellow sailors and soldiers behind to get shot at while you sit out the war. That you take yourself out of harm's way only to leave your comrades in it. What do you say to that?

  PP: There is no man or woman doing my job in today's Navy who will be shot at or bombed. My trade was one of the safest jobs I have ever had. My co-workers will be working on electronics, without me, in an air conditioned space, far from the acts of war that go on in Iraq. They will not hold M-16's or dig trenches or throw grenades. I think this is very important. The easiest way to discredit my protest is to say that I was afraid for my own safety, that I am a coward, or that I abandoned my fellows on the battlefield. This plays on the misconception that many people have that all branches and jobs within the military are some kind of infantry. The fact is, infantry is one of many jobs, and the Navy doesn't have an infantry. The marines and the army conduct ground warfare, while the navy sails ships and provides naval support, whether it be transport or radar detection or a platform from which to send aircraft, etc. I worked on a missile system which was created to defend my ship in case of an air strike, whether incoming aircraft or missiles. This system has been in our Navy over 30 years and has yet to be used in any way other than in practice. Not to mention that the Iraqi insurgents are hardly an aerial threat. This further illustrates how safe my job was.

  One thing that is not common knowledge is that there are incredible benefits to being on a ship deployed to the gulf for six months. The lowest ranking sailor can take home around ten thousand dollars, thanks to special pay and the absence of taxes on pay in a war zone. I think it is important for people to know this, so that they are aware that my decision is one that not only cannot be attributed to cowardice, but in fact takes a willingness to sacrifice major benefits, and a preparedness to face possible courts-martial, conviction, and confinement.

  There are also infantrymen who feel that this war is unjust and who do not want to loose their souls doing something they know to be criminal. To say that if these men decide to follow their conscience, they are “disloyal,” is nothing but propaganda.

  LID: Anything that you'd like to add? Anything you want to say that we didn't cover?

  Before there were political parties, and a left and right side of the political spectrum, there was humanity. After this trend in history, which has led to so much violence, I hope there will still be a human race left. I hope that we as members of the human race can realize that life is more important than anything that party politics can offer. Ultimately, Life should be the most important issue in all of our hearts. Whether it belong to “Our Troops,” Iraqi civilians, Iraqi resistance forces, Palestinians. South East Asians, Africans, Central American, Cuban, or any of the oppressed whom I have not studied enough to be aware of, must always be the most valuable and protected possession of humanity.

  1. See the interesting references to Nuremberg's condemnation of wars of aggression – or “crimes against the peace” – by Prof. Chomsky, Dr. Hickson, and Dr. Doebbler on pp. 43–59, 209–220, and 797–817, respectively, of the present volume.

  1. See the short letter of former Army Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia in the companion to the present volume, Neo-CONNED!, on pp. 375–377, detailing generally his reasons for attempting to become a recognized conscientious objector in response to the war in Iraq.

  THE EDITORS' GLOSS: Al Lorentz may be just a “simple soldier,” but he is a perceptive one. He accurately pins the ultimate blame for the Iraq fiasco on the Bush administration which is, as he says, “more concerned with its image than it is with reality.” Would to God that all our so-called military “scholars” were as perceptive.

  Andrew Bacevich, a Boston University professor and West Point graduate, is the author of a critique entitled The New American Militarism. Word is his book is a fair one, but if the logic it contains is anything like that in his recent column (Washington Post, June 28, 2005), it leaves much to be desired. In his piece he lambastes Lt. Gen. Sanchez, former ground commander in Iraq, for having left the “insurgency” stronger than it was before he took command. Sanchez used the wrong tactics, he says. We are not Sanchez apologists, especially since he bears much of the responsibility for Abu Ghraib, but it's hard to find fault with his approach to Iraq. He vowed in December 2003, as Bacevich notes, to use “whatever combat power is necessary to win.” Being a combat officer trained in armor, one would expect him to take that approach. Sanchez is not a diplomat, nor does his job description, as commander of the Army's V Corps, demand that he be one. Bacevich complains, though, that, “rather than winning Iraqi hearts and minds, [Sanchez] alienated them.” Bacevich then claims to take the non-politically correct hard line of firm military accountability: Sanchez should retire in disgrace; he didn't “accomplish the mission.”

  You'd think the “scholar” Bacevich would know better. But this is safe politically “incorrect” territory. It pretends to talk tough while swallowing the insane Bush-administration Iraqproject. If Bacevich really wanted to talk tough, he should have skewered Sanchez – or Dick Myers and Tommy Franks, more appropriately – for accepting a mission that was inappropriate for “combat power.” Soldiers, as members of the Defense Department, are trained to fight and, ideally, win; but they win wars, not hearts and minds. If Bush was looking to contract an outfit to persuade Iraqis that they should “gladly” support the overthrow of their recognized government through foreign invasion, and turn their country over to Shiite terrorists and Kurdish separatists, he should have hired the spin doctors at the Rendon Group (see Chapter 34), not the U.S. Army. It's a scandal that our young men and women were put in this situation, and that their senior leaders were complicit in putting them there. It's no less of one when our long-gray-line of “professional” military thinkers push this nonsense and let the culprit politicians off the hook.

  CHAPTER

  16

  introduction

  The Case of Staff Sgt. Al Lorentz

  ………

  Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, USAF (ret.)

  ALLORENTZ IS a non-commissioned officer in the Army Reserves, who in September 2004 was serving in Iraq. At that time he decided that somebody ought to say something about what was really happening there. And so he wrote a crystal-clear, succinct article on Iraq that was published on LewRockwell.com. Within days it had traveled across America and around the world. And back.

  In the eyes of the Pentagon and the White House, writing that article was his first mistake. Entitling it “Why We Cannot Win” was his second. Al's article was simply his factual, personal assessment of what was - and as of this writing still is – happening in Iraq. He revealed no classified information. Far more detail on tactical and strategic challenges had already been provided by retired military officers like Marine Gen. Tony Zinni and Army Gen. Eric Shinseki, and former director of the NSA, William Odom. Al certainly wrote nothing more damning than what was previously released and published in part by the CIA as well as the U.S. House and Senate regarding conditions and future possibilities in Iraq.

  For writing this article, Lorentz was isolated, reprimanded, and threatened by the chain of command with jail time for violation of U.S. Code, Title 18, §2388 – “willfully causing or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military forces of the U.S.”; and for violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice - “making a statement with the intent to promo
te disloyalty or disaffection toward the U.S. by any member of the Armed forces.”

  He became the target of a Department of Defense-wide smear campaign that I heard about via emails from active duty soldiers and officers from Iraq to Alabama. They had “heard things” about Al – nasty things – that they just “thought I should know.” And the Pentagon also threatened to charge Al with conducting partisan political activity, as if standing up against bad judgment, creative mendacity, and sheer idiocy in foreign policy is “partisan.”

  But while Al was being punished directly by the military and indirectly through the orchestrated military public affairs smear campaign, something happened. Retired generals of the likes of Joseph Hoar and Brent Scowcroft; commentators from the left, right and center; and even members of the hand picked Iraqi governing council in Baghdad, all began to voice much the same kinds of concerns that Al had raised.

  And six months after Al's article, even many of the neoconservatives who had dreamed up the deceits and deceptions for the Iraq war, and who, with George W. Bush's help, turned it into a real live disaster, began criticizing the administration on these same counts.