by Brad Balfour

G21 Contributing Editor

To read this article in Deutsch, Francaise, Italiano, Portuguese, Espanol, Korean, Japanese, Chinese and Russian, copy and paste the complete URL("http://www.g21.net/nystate10.htm") and enter it in the box after you click through.

NEW YORK, NY, USA - While this president tries as hard as he can to present the image of our immutable moral superiority in invading and occupying Iraq, numerous other voices have other opinions. Certainly, the Arab world and Western European citizenry sees this administration, not Saddam, as the problem.

The voices of both the left and the paleoconservatives (see lewrockwell.com) have trouble with Bush's warmonger style of nation-building. The patriotic atmosphere purveying the country's mood had precluded such a critique until those 16 words that flowed from Bush's lips in his January State of the Union address: "...The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" suggesting that he lied and opening the field for criticism, now flowing in from many directions, including from the troops themselves.

As the Associated Press recently reported, "Senior American officials are sending a message that violence against U.S. soldiers in Iraq is increasingly the work of foreign fighters", by implication, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

But Iraqis and American officers on the ground say the evidence is stronger that Iraqis angry at American occupation and Saddam Hussein loyalists are behind most attacks.

The U.S. officers blamed the persistent resistance on disgruntled Iraqis or officials of Saddam's Baath Party who lost out when his regime crumbled. Iraqis say American heavy-handedness in conducting searches and making arrests were recruiting local people to the insurgency.

Part of the debate involves who shall be the caretakers for post-invasion Iraq. Witness these comments from the Washington Post:

Winning wars is not enough. We must also be able to maintain the peace globally and win the peace after the battles have been fought. It is clear that we don't have sufficient troops on the ground in Afghanistan; we don't have sufficient combat troops in reserve to handle a serious conflict on the Korean Peninsula; we are running around the world trying to pry troops from any and all countries we can to fill out deployments to Iraq; and we are deploying our reserve forces at unprecedented levels.

Instead of addressing the problem, Rumsfeld's team will be studying how to "privatize" base security and non-combat jobs now performed by uniformed troops. They will soon discover, however, that only a small percentage of these non-combat jobs can be safely given over to non-military personnel and that the rest are not civilian-jobs-in-the-making but tasks military personnel carry out for good reason - and, as such, require a military chain of command.

Like any large bureaucracy, the Pentagon undoubtedly does not operate in the most efficient manner possible. And, to the extent one can, gross inefficiencies need to be addressed. Besides specific analyses of America's political motives, its military behavior during previous occupations is being spotlighted - although it was suppressed until recently.

Now Miramax has released Australian director Gregor Jordan's searing indictment of the American military, "Buffalo Soldiers", based on Robert O'Connor's book. Premiering at the Toronto Film Festival on Sept. 9, 2001, the film got sandbagged. Once the Pandora's box of criticism toward the Bush administration really kicked in, the film got released. And whether it builds an audience or not, it has certainly stirred media response.

Under the header "Is the Military Above Negative Portrayals?" USA Today's Aug. 6 "The Forum" writer Patricia Pearson cited conservative Brent Bozell as calling the film "...flamboyantly unpatriotic fare."

In response, she wrote,

"...We should be extremely wary of calls to patriotism that denounce Americans who ask questions or choose to tell a darker tale."

Though not an American, Jordan offers relevant insights into an institution that embraces mediocrity and opportunities for corruption because of its bloated nature.

Surprised by the vehemence of the reaction to the film, the young filmmaker told me, "The whole current sociopolitical environment is about democracy being threatened. The military conflicts that have been undergone are [supposed to be] about protecting democratic principles and democratic rights. I think it's really bizarre and really hypocritical that people are advocating censorship and saying people should keep their mouth shut.

"The foundation of any democracy is freedom of speech. It's your right in this country and all Western countries to say what you want. [Voltaire] said, 'I may not like what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.' That's what this country was built on.

"So that idea that people should shut their mouths and not speak out [and] not even ask questions is really foreign to me. If you look at this film and take offense to it, it says more about you than it does about the actual film."

THE PREVIOUS NEW YORK STATE | THE NEXT NEW YORK STATE |