Scott Kesterson's real life war story
Scott Kesterson posted this on Huffingtonpost's Fearless Voices, I referred to it in another thread.
Why I point it out is that it begins to unwind the present deep war frame and give the real war frame or a progressive war frame. It lays out natural consequences to real actions you and I are taking. I think it does a pretty fair job of not getting too esoteric, but trying to be more objective (maybe I can't be objective about that). He is an embedded photojournalist, you are spared the beautifulterrible photo of the family he first describes.
As mentioned before, it is not that we have to seek out the shocking or awesome aspects of war - we just need some truth. The truth is that most of the humans on this globe sit in cold darkness and/or hunger while we are tapping our thermostats up to 73 and scooting back to the couch in our fuzzy slippers to finish our ice cream. The truth is that we have perpetrated violence on two nations of people (at least) and none of us but the soldier's/families have to pay an actual price. We have to ask, what will this 'line of credit' purchase us? What has it so far?
It's harder to see red, seek domination, feel validated and be gung-ho for war when you really start to see the imbalance, the injustice of birthplace.
Scott Kesterson's piece follows:
Two years ago his sister was burned when she fell into the open cooking fire inside their mud hut. As he sat talking to the US Army Special Forces Medic, he pleaded for help. One of his sister's hands had been burned to stubs; her face left with visible scars. The young girl's eyelids were no longer able to close; her family would place a cloth over her face at night so that she could sleep. There was no medical care available at the time of her accident; and now the damage was so severe that there was nothing that the Medic could do for her. Her fate was sealed.
Back home a group of people sits around a table at a local pub. They talk about politics, the problems of the world, the problems of America even though most have never left the country. As the conversation continues it strays to the new car, the house they want to buy, the cost of day care and Johnny's private school. With the arrival of their food comes another round of beer as the conversations continue. At last the evening begins to wind down, as they pay their tab, say good night, and drive home to the comfort of a clean sheets, thermostatically controlled heat and the relaxing grip of a down filled pillow.
... the consequential politics of a spoiled nation.
The United States is currently in a period of doubt. We are asking the hard questions about our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, now that the threat of 9-11 seems a distant memory. We are quick to pass blame as a society, targeting the usual subjects of political and corporate figure-heads, while we fail to take a hard look at ourselves as citizens of a country, rather than individuals in a race to consume and hoard.
Wars begin by various motives, but are ultimately driven by economics. We live in a world of shrinking resources, and expanding global economies. The safety and security of the United States detaches us as a public from the hard truth that our consumptive lifestyle is not separate from conflict, but is in fact the very catalyst and principle driver. The hard truth is that there are consequences for consumption. We involve ourselves in countries militarily for economic reasons and we fortify our military might to ensure protection of our way of life. Soldiers are deployed directly by actions of our government and President, and indirectly by the consumptive actions of the 300 million citizens of the United States.
And while we continue to point the blame at the government it is not the problem, people are. After all, those in office are elected by the action or inaction of the vote. It's all too easy to target the President as the fault of things we don't like. It's all too difficult to accept that our way of life breeds enemies, breeds hate and contempt for what we have. When you live around people that scrape daily to survive, you realize how much we have and how fortunate we are. Given the option I doubt any American would choose to live a daily life of an Afghan. Sadly, passing the buck has become more than a trend, it has become a way of life in the United States. After all, we will change a presidency over the cost of gas, but continue to buy our SUVs.
From within our bubble of safety and idealistic visions of the world spring forth aberrations of truth that marginalize the harsh realities the exist outside of our boarders. No matter how much new age love is extended to the world, there are the many that will still hate you. They hate you for what you have, for what you represent, for what you deny them... and they seek only one thing... the total destruction and subjugation of the United States to the wills and ways of a vanguard of extremists leading this new era of fight.
As our debates rage on, they constantly emanate from the place where an obsessional fear of being hated is put in conflict with a fear of losing what we have. So the discussions lash out with misdirection taking target at the easy prey of soldiers, politicians, and government, while ignoring our responsibility as citizens. Face it, you can't have all that you have and want without consequences. If you want change, look no further than yourself,... it's a process that begins every morning when you look in the mirror.
Huffpoland
N/A
Not specified
collapse all
| Show as "new" comments posted within the last:
camping
- One of the more education things I have done is cold weather camping in the woods (especially when I was responsible for some kids who with me). The important things are food, warm clothes, dry socks, digging out the snow to put canvas shelter up for the night, and getting a fire going (and everything needed must be found or carried on one's back). A cup of hot tea is pure luxury. Also not getting hurt
- even a small cut is a big deal when you are in the middle of nowhere, in snow. "Survival" takes on a different meaning. One of the most important things is being able to act as a group and rely on others. If one person gets in trouble we are all in trouble: someone with a sprained ankle probably means everyone must abandon the trip and get back to civilization.
There are some very important lessons in being "liberal" learned in situations like that.
correct - the blame game part is total crap
It is interesting because I think you obviously got a different message than I did. I agree (and I hear) the blame game crap going on and that wasn't really what I was interested in (I just didn't want to chop up a short piece). Your last line hits me - framing us as the bad guys - because that is not how I see the piece, but your comment helps me see how others do see it that way. I see the piece as putting a cost on our responsibility or deferred responsibility to the world community.
Blame and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. The images conjured up in the piece are not what a 15 year old thinks about when he's thinking about cowboy rhetoric - dead or alive, torturing torturers, or some foreigner chanting evil things against God and America and little girls.
I don't mean to say that his whole piece is a progressive piece - I don't think it is. The fact that he is imbedded sort of contaminates the whole thing a bit anyway. What I think is refreshing is the lack of dazzle. There is no attempt to make someone a hero or villain, there is no mission accomplished or failed, there is just a world between two stark realities... and it is coming from an govt imbedded reporter! I think that says a lot. Though the message is mixed, the loud and clear part is wake up people - you are making a difference - is it good or bad?
I certainly don't buy into the pessimistic sentiment of 'people will always hate us 'cause they're jealous haters', but there is something to the idea of making your values apply to the world in real time real ways.
Sometimes we don't realize the miscommunications we are making - looks like I made one in posting this. It's not so much that I endorse the piece, I think it is interesting to see out there for mass consumption - my mother would take it as a liberal piece, find herself agreeing with the blame game crap and then think she's more liberal. I look at an article and see one aspect as being hopeful and my brain automatically filters out other parts - then pass the article along and assume others are looking from my brain's vantage point.
toward greater doses of reality
At least one comic pundit has observed that there seems to be a limit to the amount of reality that people are (currently) willing to accept.
Can we find an intermediate step in this case? How do we help First World consumer folks begin to accept larger doses of inconvenient truth?
blame = responsibility = power
- Yes the election was stolen
- but not by much; there a great number of people who did vote for Bush and continued to support him, many even now. Of course the media is largely at fault, and that's a critical problem we need to work on.
Yet, there is a silver lining to this: if the people are responible for the problems that means they have the power to solve the problems too. The corollary to making Bush and the right wing responsible for all problems is implicitely accepting, at least to some degree, that we are helpless to fix it.
There's an intersting article on Salon talking about how Bush is a failure as an excutive, listin criteria for a good CEO.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/02/22/ceo/print.html
"If the United States were a company, would George Bush be our CEO?
The first MBA president probably wouldn't keep his job if he had to face a board of directors. But short of impeachment, what can be done to rein him in?
By Warren Hellman
Feb. 22, 2007 | The president of the United States is the chief executive officer of the most powerful economic machine in the world, yet his performance is rarely evaluated from that perspective. In fact, President Bush is the first president to have earned a master's of business administration and run a company; in 2002 Time magazine called him "the CEO president," noting his Harvard MBA and business experience.
But if the United States were a company, it would be a troubled one. A disastrous war in Iraq; another war nearly won, now at risk in Afghanistan; massive budget deficits -- USA Inc. is beset by many crises. As the chairman of a private investment firm, I have assisted many boards of directors in determining whether the CEO of a struggling company should remain in that job. As a citizen and stakeholder in this great country, I found myself thinking: How would a board of directors evaluate President Bush?
[...]
Fiscal Responsibility
[...]
Strategic Decisions
[...]
Execution of Strategic Decisions
[...]
Personnel Choices
[...]
R&D for the Future of the Enterprise
[...]
Adherence to the Institution's Charter and Bylaws
[...]
And finally, we the people, the voters, have to use this valuable set of lessons in choosing our next chief executive. We have to learn to tune out the hyperbole surrounding a campaign and try to objectively evaluate the next president's ability to govern and administer, to discern his or her genuine aptitude to lead the country out of the troubles we find ourselves in after two terms of President Bush. We must remember that we the people are the stockholders; it is our company; it is our country, and those we elect are our employees -- and are responsible to us. We cannot afford another failure as CEO.
I like the way he characterizes the people as stockholders of the country, and more the notion that stockholders can fire the CEO and reset policy.
The article is a bit light on the idea of dealing with reality, although it mentions the faulty intelligence, but that idea does run through the piece as an undercurrent. This is something the Kesterson piece dwells on, however: that Americans are out of touch with the rest of the world and with the realities of physical existence in general, living in a bubble. We heard some of this in the form of the early and criticized question "why did they attack us? Why do they hate us?", which the right wing supplied a ready and false answer to -- that it's our freedom. There is a good point made, that much of the world resents us, and other advanced nations, because we are hogs about it while they have very little. That's a thing the American people have the power to change: we can share more, and stop exploiting other people.
I don't think taking the blame is so bad if We the People take the power that goes with responsibility as well.
New! Who's to Blame?
It's not clear what frame you're suggesting here. You imply that we as Americans should all take responsibility for the consequences of our lifestyle - particularly the waging of war for oil. In order for Americans to act responsibly, we must have a media that informs us of the truth. We largely do not have this. When the media goes along with the administration and frames things as a war on terror, they're using our fear to get us to support something that doesn't make us safer and is used to advance other, covert agendas, including oil deals beneficial to American corporations.
The article also implies that what benefits American corporations benefits all Americans. Also not so. The price of oil has gone up tremendously since Bush took office, raising the profits of oil corporations to record levels.
While I agree that Americans could use a reality check on the things we take for granted and expect on a daily basis, and that our often unreflecting consumptive lifestyle creates the market for some of the spoils of war, I don't buy into Scott Kesterson's blame game framing.
His statement, "And while we continue to point the blame at the government it is not the problem, people are. After all, those in office are elected by the action or inaction of the vote. It's all too easy to target the President as the fault of things we don't like," ignores the reality of stolen presidential and other elections; the reality of the extreme nature of this neo-conservative administration, which lied to the country to involve us in a never-ending war; the covert nature of much of what this and past administrations engaged in internationally regarding the manipulation and overthrow of legitimate governments (Central and South America as examples) for the benefit of corporate interests.
The list goes on, but the point is that while it could certainly do some good to wake people up to the harsh realities of much of the rest of the world, instilling compassion and empathy, and while it would also help for everyone to be much more conscious and responsible about what we consume, taking into consideration where it comes from and how it is made, framing us as the bad guys really misses it.
Arianna