thedrifter
03-19-03, 07:00 AM
"The Voice of the Grunt"
03-18-2003
A Vietnam Veteran Defends the Protesters
By Ralph Omholt
As a Vietnam veteran, I have long had mixed emotions about anti-war protests. I swore an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution, including the rights of Americans to protest. That is what makes America great: We honor the basic rights of all, as being sacred, even as soldiers.
Americans also have the right to vote, thus national consensus – as a form of protest – is also available.
Yet, to be in a combat zone - Vietnam in my case - it is disconcerting as hell to hear of American war protestors, since they do give some form of aid and comfort to the enemy. That is unfortunately the “bad” that traditionally comes with the greater good. In Vietnam, we fought on. In the end, it was for nothing, for all intents and purposes. The 58,000 dead, and the related casualties, left their mark on America. They haven’t been forgotten.
Now, we face another war with a remarkable number of protestors, given that the combat phase of the standoff has not yet occurred. And the protestors generally carry an interesting political message. In my observation, the protestors have stuck to arguing the lack of compelling reasons for war with Iraq, and have not betrayed their cause by coming off as “anti-American.”
*Moreover, the current protestors are not randomly protesting “war” in the traditional pacifist sense; rather, they protest the unnecessary prosecution of the proverbial “hell” of war. Their case grows, interestingly, stronger by the day. The allegations against Iraq are rapidly fading and many of the official U.S. rationales for combat have been challenged, even as the revived U.N. inspections appeared to make progress.
But President Bush has now dismissed the United Nations as a viable forum for disarming Iraq. Worse, to prosecute a “preventative war” with no viable threat violates the U.N. charter and even the Nuremberg precedents established after World War II. This is a strange development, coming from the United States – famous for upholding humanitarian causes and the rule of law.
The allegations of a direct Iraqi threat to the United States are still unconfirmed. In an unbelievable twist, the U.S. now proposes to defy the U.N. charter on the assertion that Saddam is not complying with the Security Council’s mandates. It just doesn’t make sense!
The U.S. government leadership claims to be protecting Americans from terror – claims to protect. Yet, we see the Mexican border left wide open, even as Iraq’s borders are sealed shut. We’re told of the massive hunt for the vile terrorist, Osama bin Laden, while the history lingers of the “royalty” treatment his American family members received in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when they were evacuated to safety from the United States to Saudi Arabia – not held as material witnesses, or even investigated.
We are told of the massive effort to “protect” America – as the Constitution is gutted with such laws as the “USA Patriot Act” and the horrendous profit-making “Homeland Security Act.” The proposed “Patriot Act II” – an even more harsh set of security measures – remains a threat to our civil liberties. The Saddam Husseins of the world have no hope of doing to America what our own leadership has done.
The protestors oppose these drastic steps. Are they correct to do so?
The Internet-based political forums make for a great barometer. Those against the Bush efforts are commonly labeled as “traitors” or “leftists.” Yet most of those same “traitors” and “leftists” who are passionately opposed to the war on Iraq, appear to be in favor of military action against communist North Korea. That is not the stance of the old “blame America first” crowd.
The open threats and capabilities of North Korea do pose an interesting political and military enigma, contrasted with the accusations against Iraq. Washington’s near-silence on North Korea is almost unnerving.
The supposed “declaration of war” against Iraq, itself was a bizarre delegation of congressional power to the president. That vote contravened the traditional constitutional “checks-and-balances” between the legislative and executive branches of government – a tradition dear to American democracy. A war declaration is an act of Congress – not an arbitrary option of the president, who for months now has operated under that indefinite and convenient vote of confidence.
The Iraq war controversy is even breathing life into one of the more extreme theories, that this war is a function of the “New World Order” (NOW) announced by then-President, George H.W. Bush in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. The NWO is quite commonly referred to in various political and academic circles, yet that entity remains poorly defined.
By all appearances, the NWO is the end-result of a virtual corporate “global congress” controlled by U.S. corporate interests. In essence, it seems to be the global counterpart to the American tradition of corporate capitalism. However extreme the NWO concept may appear, there is a consistent logic that follows.
Under this thesis, the architects of the NWO spotted the emerging European Union – the “United States of Europe,” to some – as the only global commercial competition to the United States. Various news media reports have also cited France and Germany as holding post-sanction Iraqi re-construction contracts, and Saddam is reported to have converted his personal fortune into Eurodollars.
Thus, it can be argued that the Iraq war has far more to do with commercial U.S. enterprise, than physical threats to American security. Under the same theory, British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s support of the United States, even in the face of strong public opposition, reflects his nation’s traditional estrangement from the continental governments of Europe.
If the NWO proposition is true, Iraq becomes a unique political and economic target. Controlling Iraq could bring an end to the OPEC cartel, and even cripple the European Union before it becomes a serious political and economic threat to the United States. However extreme the theory may sound, the logic deserves serious consideration.
Which brings us back to the question of the hour: “Do the anti-war protestors have it right? Are they taking the correct stance even if for all the wrong reasons?”
I believe that the demonstrators, in general, are standing up for traditional American values. This is a critical time for clear thinking – not just reacting.
Ralph Omholt is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at skydrifter@attbi.com.
Sempers,
Roger
03-18-2003
A Vietnam Veteran Defends the Protesters
By Ralph Omholt
As a Vietnam veteran, I have long had mixed emotions about anti-war protests. I swore an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution, including the rights of Americans to protest. That is what makes America great: We honor the basic rights of all, as being sacred, even as soldiers.
Americans also have the right to vote, thus national consensus – as a form of protest – is also available.
Yet, to be in a combat zone - Vietnam in my case - it is disconcerting as hell to hear of American war protestors, since they do give some form of aid and comfort to the enemy. That is unfortunately the “bad” that traditionally comes with the greater good. In Vietnam, we fought on. In the end, it was for nothing, for all intents and purposes. The 58,000 dead, and the related casualties, left their mark on America. They haven’t been forgotten.
Now, we face another war with a remarkable number of protestors, given that the combat phase of the standoff has not yet occurred. And the protestors generally carry an interesting political message. In my observation, the protestors have stuck to arguing the lack of compelling reasons for war with Iraq, and have not betrayed their cause by coming off as “anti-American.”
*Moreover, the current protestors are not randomly protesting “war” in the traditional pacifist sense; rather, they protest the unnecessary prosecution of the proverbial “hell” of war. Their case grows, interestingly, stronger by the day. The allegations against Iraq are rapidly fading and many of the official U.S. rationales for combat have been challenged, even as the revived U.N. inspections appeared to make progress.
But President Bush has now dismissed the United Nations as a viable forum for disarming Iraq. Worse, to prosecute a “preventative war” with no viable threat violates the U.N. charter and even the Nuremberg precedents established after World War II. This is a strange development, coming from the United States – famous for upholding humanitarian causes and the rule of law.
The allegations of a direct Iraqi threat to the United States are still unconfirmed. In an unbelievable twist, the U.S. now proposes to defy the U.N. charter on the assertion that Saddam is not complying with the Security Council’s mandates. It just doesn’t make sense!
The U.S. government leadership claims to be protecting Americans from terror – claims to protect. Yet, we see the Mexican border left wide open, even as Iraq’s borders are sealed shut. We’re told of the massive hunt for the vile terrorist, Osama bin Laden, while the history lingers of the “royalty” treatment his American family members received in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when they were evacuated to safety from the United States to Saudi Arabia – not held as material witnesses, or even investigated.
We are told of the massive effort to “protect” America – as the Constitution is gutted with such laws as the “USA Patriot Act” and the horrendous profit-making “Homeland Security Act.” The proposed “Patriot Act II” – an even more harsh set of security measures – remains a threat to our civil liberties. The Saddam Husseins of the world have no hope of doing to America what our own leadership has done.
The protestors oppose these drastic steps. Are they correct to do so?
The Internet-based political forums make for a great barometer. Those against the Bush efforts are commonly labeled as “traitors” or “leftists.” Yet most of those same “traitors” and “leftists” who are passionately opposed to the war on Iraq, appear to be in favor of military action against communist North Korea. That is not the stance of the old “blame America first” crowd.
The open threats and capabilities of North Korea do pose an interesting political and military enigma, contrasted with the accusations against Iraq. Washington’s near-silence on North Korea is almost unnerving.
The supposed “declaration of war” against Iraq, itself was a bizarre delegation of congressional power to the president. That vote contravened the traditional constitutional “checks-and-balances” between the legislative and executive branches of government – a tradition dear to American democracy. A war declaration is an act of Congress – not an arbitrary option of the president, who for months now has operated under that indefinite and convenient vote of confidence.
The Iraq war controversy is even breathing life into one of the more extreme theories, that this war is a function of the “New World Order” (NOW) announced by then-President, George H.W. Bush in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. The NWO is quite commonly referred to in various political and academic circles, yet that entity remains poorly defined.
By all appearances, the NWO is the end-result of a virtual corporate “global congress” controlled by U.S. corporate interests. In essence, it seems to be the global counterpart to the American tradition of corporate capitalism. However extreme the NWO concept may appear, there is a consistent logic that follows.
Under this thesis, the architects of the NWO spotted the emerging European Union – the “United States of Europe,” to some – as the only global commercial competition to the United States. Various news media reports have also cited France and Germany as holding post-sanction Iraqi re-construction contracts, and Saddam is reported to have converted his personal fortune into Eurodollars.
Thus, it can be argued that the Iraq war has far more to do with commercial U.S. enterprise, than physical threats to American security. Under the same theory, British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s support of the United States, even in the face of strong public opposition, reflects his nation’s traditional estrangement from the continental governments of Europe.
If the NWO proposition is true, Iraq becomes a unique political and economic target. Controlling Iraq could bring an end to the OPEC cartel, and even cripple the European Union before it becomes a serious political and economic threat to the United States. However extreme the theory may sound, the logic deserves serious consideration.
Which brings us back to the question of the hour: “Do the anti-war protestors have it right? Are they taking the correct stance even if for all the wrong reasons?”
I believe that the demonstrators, in general, are standing up for traditional American values. This is a critical time for clear thinking – not just reacting.
Ralph Omholt is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at skydrifter@attbi.com.
Sempers,
Roger