CNN's Prisoner of War

Michael Ware in Iraq

Despite the anger and outrage many Americans are feeling from a wide array of issues ranging from the absurd concerns about how universal health care will turn America into an authoritative communist Stalinist regime to the warranted disgust from the excesses and corruption of Wall Street, we all need to remember that we still have thousands of Americans and foreign soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who have to deal with unimaginable daily pressures.  Considering the uncertainty many Americans have concerning the proper paths America should take to resolve these wars, we should at the very least aim to know and understand these pressures.  This is where Michael Ware comes in.

Michael Ware is one of CNN's foreign correspondents and has been stationed in Iraq since 2003.  He has been there so long that he has actually become a citizen.  Michael Ware is currently on leave from CNN to write a book, but many speculate that he is also suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Michael Ware is not a soldier, but he is the closest civilian representative.  He has been shot at, beaten, kidnapped and nearly executed, and many of these events he was able to film and at the very least write about.  He has lived many events alongside American soldiers in Iraq, but his weapons have been either a pen and paper or camera instead of a gun.  He provides a perspective that Americans need to see despite their reservations, and that is why the possibility that he is currently suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, carries such importance.

PTSD has often been viewed as a disease that stems from soldiers not being able to suffer the atrocities of war and be able to return to proper civilian life, but instead maybe it should be viewed as civilians not properly understanding what occurs during a war.  If a civilian remains oblivious to the events that occur during a war because they are more concerned with domestic affairs, I find it only logical that a soldier would have a problem adapting to the 'real' world.  If civilians knew more about war they may be more inclined to have fewer wars, and be more capable of addressing a returning soldiers needs.  When a civilian whose face we recognize and who provides us with the insightful news suffers this problem it puts a whole new perspective on not just the shocking horrors of war, but also the overlooked horrors of civilian life that exist from willful ignorance.  

Ware is a civilian that allegedly is dealing with one of the silent horrors of war.  Not seeing his face on CNN telecasts should be a stark reminder to all Americans of the physical and mental toll war inflicts on soldiers and civilians alike.

To get a better idea of Michael Ware's life in Iraq read this great Men's Journal article.

M.I.A. - "Born Free"

Here is the new video for M.I.A.'s latest single "Born Free" by director Romain Gavras.  The video is probably NSFW unless you happen to work for some sort of revolutionary establishment, yet I would say the video is important enough to risk a lunch break viewing. 

In nine minutes the video gives a graphic example of the lunacy and perils of military sponsored violence towards civilians in a society.  You may not identify specifically with any of the people in the video, but you should be able to understand how violence similar to that in the video has been acted out on countless numbers of groups with equal force and reasoning.  This video should make you think, and if it does not you need to think again.

M.I.A, Born Free from ROMAIN-GAVRAS on Vimeo.

Celebrating the Confederacy Shames America

Last week Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell declared April to be Confederate History Month in the state of Virginia, and the controversy quickly ensued.  Most of the angered Americans directed their frustrations at the fact that Gov. McDonnell failed to mention slavery as a part of the Confederacy, yet not at the fact that Virginia felt compelled to celebrate an institution that desired to destroy America.  In no way am I trying to down play the significance of slavery in the shaping of America, but focusing on slavery instead of current acts that undermine the foundation of America at present would be a disservice to America as a whole.  The Governor of Virginia last week declared that the citizens of Virginia celebrate a group that not only attempted to destroy America, but whose President Jefferson Davis was found guilty of treason.  Should states be allowed to celebrate treasonous institutions?

I have lived the vast majority of my life in Georgia, so I fully understand the sensitivity of this issue.  I understand the anger that the Confederacy invokes in African Americans, and I have also witnessed the pride with which Southerners revere the Confederacy.  The former still carries the scars from slavery, and the latter celebrates the fact that their ancestors fought for what they believed.  For the most part African Americans would prefer for White Americans to understand the pain that slavery has caused on our families, but realistically this request will constantly fall on deaf ears as long as so much pride is still attributed to the Confederacy.  When these conflicts begin the emotions on both sides become heightened and the chance for progress disappears, and this situation is a prime example.  America focuses on slavery instead of the Confederacy, and in response influential white Southerners like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barber defend the Confederate History Month proclamation by saying that the controversy surrounding slavery “doesn’t matter for diddly”.  (Southern vernacular never ceases to amaze me, and now I have to decide whether I should add ‘diddly’ as a word in Microsoft Word.)  However, despite ‘diddly’ hardly being a word, Gov. Barber does have a point.  The controversy over slavery does not matter nearly as much as the controversy that should surround celebrating the Confederacy.

By exploring the writings of Jefferson Davis, the first and only President of the Confederacy, you see a consistent theme of white supremacy throughout.  Davis regards slavery as a benevolent paternal system that spreads Christianity and benefits the economy by reducing the price of cotton, yet the most important aspect of his writings is that he states that the main benefit of slavery is to sustain the superiority, dignity, and equality of whites by reserving only menial positions for blacks.  As an African American I would never want to live in a society that advocated or celebrated beliefs such as these, and I would hope that most Americans would share this opinion, yet sadly this is a question that needs to be asked.  As a society does America want to favor one group of people over another based solely on race, and then reserve menial labor for all other races with the hope that their inexpensive backbreaking labor spurs the economy to increase the riches of the one favored race?  If you ask most Americans this question I bet most would disagree with this opinion, yet many of those who disagree may still favor a Confederate History Month.  This is where the inconsistencies arise, and this needs to be the focus of the controversy.

Focusing on slavery or calling someone a racist will not further the progress of America.  Those who embrace the Confederacy and omit slavery will only see the anger of others as a misunderstanding that can be fixed by acknowledging slavery, and they will only view calls of racism as misguided anger.  They will then be able to continue celebrating a rebellion that prioritized their race above all others and was very influential in creating the person they are today.  We instead should address the tenets of the Confederacy, and discover if those who support the Confederacy also support these beliefs.  If they agree with the beliefs of Jefferson Davis then it would be fair to call them a racist because they would have just admitted to being a racist, and that is obviously not something America can support.  If those who support celebrating the Confederacy do not support the beliefs of Jefferson Davis then we would need to find out exactly what they do support about the Confederacy, and if they feel that it would be possible to celebrate the areas that they feel are worth celebrating without accidentally celebrating the unsavory racist practices of the rebellion.  This forces people to address difficult questions, and requires them to be accountable for their actions.  These are attributes that are seriously lacking from our society.

When we address issues such as slavery and the Confederacy we need to understand that the people who are racists will not be inclined to view themselves as racists.  Being a racist is bad, and most people want to feel as if they are good, so they will form a logical reason for their negative acts.  A white person may agree with the idea of favoring a white person over a black person because he was brought up with the idea that blacks are inferior to whites.  To himself he is not a racist because he would be treating people properly.  He would treat the better race better than the other race, and this would be logical because it would make sense to give the best to the best.  A white person may favor his white friends over a person of another race because he is not comfortable around other races since he did not grow up with them.  This logic makes sense to many people, but the foundation of this logic resides in the idea that white people should initially be suspicious of other races because they are either dangerous or inferior.  If they viewed other races objectively and with curiosity then I doubt they would be as hesitant to engage with them.  Therefore, to counter racism you need to objectively show holes in the logic and reasoning of others.  Racists do not know that they are racists until you objectively show it to them.  Focusing in the emotional aspects of an issue quickly destroy the objectivity of all arguments, and therefore diminish the chance of progress.  The handling of Virginia’s Confederate History Month has only showed why America still has much room for improvement concerning the past, present, and future of race relations of this nation.

I will be continuing this discussion tonight on the blogtalk radio show Black America Rising tonight from 8:00 to 9:30PM.  You can listen to the show by calling (347) 237-4331 or by visiting the website.

Sanctioning or Opening Up to Iran?

On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, Brazil’s president warned that U.S.-proposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program could lead to war. "We don't want to repeat in Iran what happened in Iraq.  It's not prudent for the world, it's not prudent for Iran," Silva said, AP interview.

Iran has been under US sanctions for nearly 30 years dating back to the hostage-taking crisis.  Ever since various economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran were practiced by the US and many other countries.

The purpose of sanctions today is based on mistrust in the nuclear ambitions of Iran, and was intended to put further pressure on the Iranian regime. The sanctions ban various companies to have economic ties with Iran. Therefore, the imposed sanctions have had a lot in shaping today’s economy of Iran. The kind of shaping that has not necessarily made things better for a better future and a better relationship with the region. In fact, many today claim the opposite. If you get a hold of any young Iranian today who has recently left the country, it is unlikely that he doesn’t have a personal story of how hard or how much he tried to have his own business but could not succeed.

We are talking millions and millions of unemployed educated students who are looking for jobs in a country under the embargo. I, for one, tried several times to start businesses with the help of friends throughout my undergraduate and graduate life and have seen many others doing so in the mean time. Here is a small list of the problems we encountered. No foreign investors, no credit card of any kind, no ability to buy or sell any products abroad, no ability to open up international bank accounts. On many occasions communication or even correspondence was out of question. My understanding after living in a country under the embargo for so many years is that you can try to explore creative ideas and various markets but one thing stays the same, the money is always in the hands of the government. So, you end up with two choices, stay and work for the public sector under a compliant non-enthusiastic atmosphere, or leave the country. This is especially true if you do not come from a wealthy family.

The sanctions have frustrated people and limited their option in terms of living to working with or being linked to public sector, namely the government. And as much as I understand it, with limitations, come monopoly. Monopoly in economy, if not political power. It has actually hindered the trend for change rather than favored it.

On the other hand, uplifting certain sanctions, at least in terms of communication can be of great help for bringing about any constructive change. For instance, Reza Zia-Ebrahimi discusses how providing high-speed internet access by satellites can expose different sources of information and disrupt the monopoly of information currently practiced by the state-run media in Iran.

Roger Cohen also touches on the inefficiency of the sanction and how it is actually acting as an obstacle sometimes for democratic movements and the dialogs that are taking place within the country. For instance, it has been many months where the censorship Research Center has been trying to send the software Haystack, which makes it nearly impossible for censors to detect what Internet users are doing, to Iranian users. But thanks to sanctions, they cannot do so.

Uplifting certain sanctions against Iran can signal a more promising future for the US-Iran relations. In the mean time, it can make life easier for many young people who are struggling to bring about change in their country.

The following video is an interview with Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian peace prize laureate, on sanctions against Iran.



The Vice Guide to Liberia

The VBS, or Vice's broadcasting network, has just released an 8 part series on Liberia and it is remarkable.  To put Liberia in a nutshell you need to understand that it was colonized by freed American slaves in a back to Africa movement, and upon arrival on the continent the freed slaves started to enslave the native African population.  The country did not have the most peaceful start, and now the nation has just emerged from a series of civil wars.  Despite peace now existing in Liberia the nation is far from peaceful, and shows the signs of the many chaotic civil wars that have plagued this nation.  This 8 part series "The Vice Guide to Liberia" truly shows the depths of destruction and the chaos that can ensue during a people's bloody struggle for survival.

Gen. McChrystal Apologizes to Afghans for Civilian Deaths

Reportedly 27 Afghan civilians were killed in NATO's airstrike this past Sunday, and Gen. McChrystal apologized for the incident.  This is a remarkable attempt to regain Afghan trust, and I think it is commendable.  The Afghan civilians need to know that the military sees them as people and not merely as casualties of war or collateral damage.

The video of McChrystal's apology was translated into Dari and Pashto.

If you do not speak either Dari or Pashto here is the English transcript of his apology.

The Great People of Afghanistan, Salam Alaikum. Sunday morning, the International Security Assistance Force, while conducting a mission with Afghan Security Forces, launched an attack against what we believed to be a group of insurgents in Kotal Chawzar, in Southern Afghanistan. We now believe the attack killed and injured a number of Afghan citizens. I have spoken with President Karzai and apologized to him and the Afghan people. I have instituted a thorough investigation to prevent this from happening again. We are extremely saddened by this tragic loss of innocent lives. I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people. I pledge to strengthen our efforts to regain your trust to build a brighter future for all Afghans. Most importantly, I express my deepest, heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families. We all share in their grief and will keep them in our thoughts and prayers.

This is a step in the right direction.

The Sunday Knight - Terrorism in Reverse

Joseph Stack flew his airplane into this building and became a domestic suicide bomber

This has been a fascinating week concerning terror and the United States in that everything has been reversed yet no one knows how to feel about this reversal of fortune.  This past Thursday Texan Joe Stack flew his airplane into an Austin, TX building that housed a branch of the Internal Revenue Service.  Joe Stack was an American who disapproved of our tax codes and now he is an American suicide bomber.  At the same time that an American was bombing Americans, the U.S. military along with many allied forces was having their most successful raid on the Taliban.  The raids that the military has engaged in over the last week have reportedly captured three top ranking Taliban officials.  To finish off the week we have just gotten the news that the Secretary of the Defense Robert Gates wants to change the name of the war in Iraq from operation Iraqi Freedom to operation New Dawn.  All three of these events play a very large part in how Americans view their security and safety, and these new developments need to be examined further.

Click to read more ...

The Black Steve McQueen

Steve McQueen

Steve McQueen may have been an actor from a previous generation, and he may no longer be the definition of cool, but that should in no way ignore the fact that he was and still is cool.  From The Thomas Crown Affair to The Great Escape he made a lasting impression on American cinema, but sometimes actors are lucky enough to be more than actors.  People do not what to be their characters, but instead want to emulate the person.  Steve McQueen had this quality.

I remember wanting to be the Black Steve McQueen because I thought that would be cool, yet strangely that title has officially been taken.  Considering the President’s high level of coolness from attending college basketball games courtside and being photographed by Terry Richardson in addition to being the first Black President, one would think that he may be the new definition of cool, but he cannot be the Black Steve McQueen.  (Being President should be better than being cool.)  Jay-Z can also not be the Black Steve McQueen.  The new Black Steve McQueen is actually Steve McQueen and he is very cool.

He is a British film director and artist and he is quite good at both.  His latest film Hunger, which will be released by the Criterion Collection on February 16^th, depicts Bobby Sands’ hunger strike while in Northern Ireland’s Maze prison.  Sands went on strike because his fellow IRA members, himself included, were not being treated as political prisoners.  Additionally, he also has two exhibits on display at the Marian Goodman Gallery in New York through March 6^th.   His current project Queen and Country is a series of commemorative stamps for the British Postal Service that depict each of the British soldiers that were killed in the War in Iraq.  He has also won the coveted Turner Prize and the Camera d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival for Hunger.

Steve McQueen may no longer be a movie star, but he is still pretty cool.

Steve McQueen

I don't walk around with a label saying: "Oh, I'm an artist." I don't have a studio, and I don't know many artists. I just do what I do.

              Steve McQueen

That's cool.

Septuagenarians May Ruin America

John Oliver was not referring to these septuagenarians

The Daily Show’s John Oliver gave a very compelling argument concerning the absurdity of certain elderly Senator’s disapproval of overturning “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in our military.  Despite the desire of the President, high ranking military officials, and the majority of the American public these elderly Senators refuse to reconsider their stance.  If these Senators can stand in the way of the will of the American public on this issue, equal rights for all Americans, based on archaic notions of right and wrong, then they will be more inclined to impede Americans on a wide array of other issues ranging from health care, economic policy, civil liberties, and more.  America may have a new threat that is equally absurd as it is dangerous.

Watch the video below.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
A Few Gay Men & Women
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Ignorance and Hindsight are Essential for Judgment

Two statements could sum up today’s Iraq Inquiry cross-examination of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair:  Ignorance is bliss and hindsight is 20/20. 

When the former Prime Minister was pressed about the links between terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD’s, and if they posed a threat to the UK he replied with, “Yes, because for the reasons that I have given, if Saddam, freed from sanctions, was able to pursue WMD programs, I was very sure that at some point we were going to be involved in the consequences of that.”

This is good logic except that he in that logic gives an example of how the UK could minimize this threat.  Why would you decide to remove sanctions from Saddam Hussein that could allow him to pursue WMD programs?

However, we could review the logic of his decisions for days, but more importantly we should review his competency.  When he was asked, "You weren't aware yourself that you were overstating the intelligence?" he replied with, “Correct”.  The former Prime Minister of the UK basically stated that he had no idea what he was doing, and therefore since he did not know the difference between up and down he could not have lied.  Lying would consist of knowing that down was down, and then telling everyone that it was up.  Tony Blair however thought down was up, and told everyone that down was up.  That is not a lie, but instead just deadly ignorance and that should be regarded as a nearly equal crime.

Additionally, Mr. Blair also admitted that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein has been overstated, and that the threat did not increase after 9/11.  This is a conclusion he has now come to, but is not what he felt while he was Prime Minister.  Hindsight is 20/20.

The problem with these excuses is that they basically allow anyone to get away with anything.  Ignorance cannot be an excusable reason for committing crimes, and eventual education cannot be an excuse for not having to face punishment.  The public should be able to determine what a person should be able to know and that should justify the punishment.  The fact that Mr. Blair knows the error of his ways now, once he is in a position of less influence would imply that he should have known more while he was Prime Minister.

Tony Blair’s logic would be the same as driving your car at 110 mph and then protesting that you should not get a ticket because you were unaware of the speed limit since you were driving so fast that you could not see the signs, yet you currently realize that corrections could have been made and therefore will promise not do it again.  When nearly all of Britain protests your actions, and you have no explanation that proves the wisdom of your acts, then you have obviously done something wrong.  You may have been ignorant and you may know that now, but that should never be an excuse or justification for your actions.

You can read more about the Iraq Inquiry at the Times of London.

Update on Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 9:28AM by Barrett Holmes Pitner

Unrepentant, unforgiven, Blair says:  'I'd do it again'

Tony Blair was branded a liar and a murderer after his appearance at the Iraq Inquiry, and this is warranted.  Ignorance and poor judgment needs to be punished.

Read more at the Times

The Iraq Inquiry

Today former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will face a grueling six-hour cross-examination about the legality of sending British soldiers to fight and die in Iraq.  The British want to know when he decided to commit British soldiers to America’s folly.  They want to know if the reasons that Tony Blair delivered to the British public to explain his commitment to America’s cause were shrouded in lies.  For a country that never supported the war and a Labour Party that publicly expressed its disagreements with the Prime Minister, they both feel they need an explanation for Tony Blair’s acts.  The only person that should be able to give that answer is Tony Blair. 

I wish Americans had the gumption to hold their public officials accountable to a comparable level to the British.  Today, we still have people that will argue on the behalf of the former President and proclaim the benefits and necessity of invading Iraq.  People still bemoan the moments when liberals acknowledge that many of our present problems originated with the previous administration.  We need to become accustomed to holding people accountable for their actions, especially when those actions may have consisted of illegal acts and lies.

Tony Blair thus far has already acknowledged that he would have committed British soldiers to a war in Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or not.  Also he has argued that his “assessment” of Saddam Hussein changed after the attacks of 9/11.  Before Saddam Hussein was a defiant Middle Eastern leader that needed to be monitored.  In the post-9/11 world we could not longer take the risk of simply monitoring him, but instead needed to remove him.  That logic would have made sense if Saddam Hussein had any relationship with the attacks on 9/11, but he did not.  This logic would be the equivalent of al-Qaeda attacking Canada due to its association with the United States. 

Tony Blair will probably have a very rough six-hours, and this is warranted.  I will provide an update on the Inquiry once it has been completed.