Oregon's amputated Civil War memory

While Oregonians celebrate the coming of "The Civil War” football game on Saturday, we will continue to blindly forget that the words "Civil War" have chilling meaning.

In is now believed that some 700,000 Americans died in our American Civil War. That’s a number larger than the population of Portland. Imagine a city erased by death.

And yet we persist in calling a football game “The Civil War.”
 
For decades Americans and fought and died abroad in what were civil wars: in Korea, in Vietnam, in Iraq. Today they fight and die in Afghanistan. Tomorrow young Americans could join the civil war in Syria. As I write the fighting going is going on in Gaza, a battlefield in an endless, intermittent civil war between Palestinians and Israelis.

And yet we persist in calling a mere football game “The Civil War.”

To Duck and Beaver fans and other Oregon sports spectators, I commend reading THIS in today's New York Times:

The article closes with the following words:

Amputation was the most common Civil War surgical procedure. Union surgeons performed approximately 30,000 compared to just over 16,000 by American surgeons in World War II. One postwar British traveler noted that amputees were “everywhere in town and farm communities through the South.” The men who had survived the surgeon’s knife were a visible reminder of the Civil War for decades.
No longer. Today's veterans more often suffer from the torment of memory. The haunted have taken their own lives by the thousands.

Yet today, in Oregon, we and the media have amputated the darker meaning of “Civil War” from our minds. We are victims of our own ignorance and insensitivity.

Oregonians, it is well past time for us to come up with a joyful, playful name for our friendly, passionate rivalry — and to end our "Civil War."

Friends without enemies

The proverb “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” came to mind with the news that Iran (our “enemy”?) is giving bags full of money to Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan (our “friend”?)

First, let’s note that the terms “enemies” and “friends,” as applied to countries (which include land, animals, insects and people in addition to governments) is political short-hand and should not be taken at face value.

But if we accept these labels for the purposes of political discussion, what happens when an “enemy” (Iran) becomes the “friend” of a “friend” (Afghanistan)?

Could this be good news? Could this make our “enemy” less of an enemy? Would this not provide some kind of opening to friendship through a mutual “friend”?

Apparently not. Instead, the revelation seems to be having the effect of transforming Afghanistan into “the enemy.”

Perhaps this has always been the case and our government has simply refused to recognize it for geopolitical reasons, not the least of which has to do with natural resources.

The Karzai government (not “Afghanistan”) has always been duplicitous at best. Our own “bags of money” haven’t done much good, at least not for us.

I’m no expert but it seems to me that relationships in the Middle East and Central Asia aren’t defined in terms of “enemies” and “friends,” which are static, two-dimensional concepts. I’d go so far as to call them “Western.”

Relationships in Afghanistan and Iran are grounded in religion, culture, history and — opportunity. Those are things you can’t buy with bags of cash, weapons or boots on the ground.

To try to apply “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” or, in this case, “the friend of my friend is my friend,” simply doesn’t compute.

What’s needed throughout the world is a shared ethical culture and perspective. As long as we seek solutions through military force or bags of cash we will lose as a planetary people. We aren’t going to learn the values we share. To the contrary, we will ensure that we remain dangerously divided. For sale to highest bidder.

The good news is that all peoples know we share universal values. He have a “human perspective.” We need to start by naming, extolling and, finally, living by what we share. Doing so needs to extend consistently and rigorously from individual relationships to governmental relationships.

If we succeed, we will all be “friends” and the word “enemy” will disappear from our languages. Then, and only then, will absurd proverbs like “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” become, literally, meaningless.

The "Commander-in-Chief" chat

There must come a time in every presidency when the generals whisper to the president that they, not he, are in charge — whenever they choose to be.

Call it the “Commander-in-Chief” chat.

My guess is that seasoned presidential candidates probably get this hush-hush lecture long before they hit the campaign trail. Who knows, it could come with the assignment of the secret service detail.

And who knows what the consequences of bucking the generals (and the intelligence establishment) might be. Conspiracy theorists will tell you that JFK learned the hard way.

What we are getting now is the “soft” (or is it semi-soft?) way.

General David Petraeus, following in the footsteps of his predecessor, General Stanley McChrystal, has been publicly questioning President Obama’s withdrawal plans in Afghanistan. The general’s election-year timing is politically perfect to weaken the president.

Here’s a president who is reeling from domestic problems he didn’t create, and along comes Petraeus to question Obama’s military policy.

It’s a lose/lose situation for the president.

If Obama sticks with his stated July 2011 drawdown plan in Afghanistan, he can expect to suffer whatever the generals (and the spooks and the arms merchants) dole out.

If he goes along with them for the inevitable “quagmire” escalation and accompanying public protests, he can pull an LBJ and simply not run for a second term.

The problem with wars in fractured places like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is that once you get into them, you’re stuck — and end up making matters worse both here and there.

These are not words that generals, or presidents, like to hear.

Reframed news blames the messenger

The Obama Administration is reacting exactly the way the last Bush Administration would to WikiLeak's revelations, ("Afghan War Diaries, 2004-2010,").

What's happening in the current news cycle is "reframing" the news. The Administration's spinmeisters are shifting the media focus from message to messengers.

That's to be expected in a political, bureaucratic culture of deceit. Both administrations have been publicly embarrassed by the disasters they have created — Obama in Afghanistan and Bush in Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afghanistan).

The indignation of the White House and the Pentagon ("How dare the media tell the truth?") only underscores our problem. When our leaders wrap themselves in the flag of "national security," they only make us less secure.

Generals, politicians, pundits, think-tank defense "analysts" and administration "security officials" who describe the disclosures as a threat to the nation and the troops have it exactly upside down. These disclosures clearly show that the White House and the Pentagon are the real threats to our security.

Our government, to whom the military is supposed to answer (one wonders. . .), needs to be reminded that it is acting in our name. That's "we" as in "We, the people."

And "We, the people," are paying a heavy price for tragic, futile attempts at nation building far away.

In these troublesome times, the nation we should be building is our own.

So we should be grateful for the WikiLeaks disclosures. Particularly grateful should be the soldiers who suffer and die because of our failed policies.

Thank you to WikiLeaks and the media that amplified these revelations.

And shame on those who vilify the messengers of truth.

Afghanistan in my mind

I'm no expert on Afghanistan. Which probably means you're like me. What to do?

Afghanistan for me begins as a word. Then it takes a shape I've learned from maps.

In the newspaper, the maps are often the size of an envelope. In my atlas, the country is still a manageable size. Afghanistan is a page. Entirely conquerable, some might think.

So that’s “my” Afghanistan — a name and the after-image of a map.

To review my knowledge, I may even point to the map and say, “Ah, that’s Afghanistan.”

Who would argue? (Someone should!)

We can scan the map and “see” where various places are, Kabul, Kandahar, Mehtar Lam. But do we see them? Do we understand them?

Our exploration is a study of delusion. Afghanistan, the map, is pure deception. All maps are.

Afghanistan, the country, is something else. (I use the word “country” advisedly, especially if I equate it with other “countries” I have known, including our own.) It’s hard enough to comprehend any place even when we are there. Do I really understand Portland, Oregon?

As President Obama weighs his options in Afghanistan, and as we, as citizens, respond, we would do well to free ourselves of the Afghanistan in our minds.

Afghanistan in physical reality becomes a bit more clear when we superimpose its image on a map of the Pacific Northwest. Place Afghanistan’s western border (that would be the one with Iran) on the Willamette River. Then see where Afghanistan’s eastern border falls on our own map. (It reaches out like a finger to touch China at its eastern-most point.)

Any idea where the distance would take us here in the Northwest?

It turns out to be Billings, Montana, more or less. Billings is a long, long day’s drive from here — in the best of weather. Afghanistan has no equivalent to the interstate highway system. Traveling across the country is measured not in hours but days. And it's all up-hill, and I do mean up hill. Think the Himalayas as your destination.

So there’s the matter of topography. On our drive to Billings we climb mountains and admire the feats of engineering needed to build four-lane highways through them.

Yet on the maps, the Afghans' and ours, we can run our finger over mountains with equal ease. Theirs and ours are paper smooth.

As it turns out, Afghanistan's highest mountain, at 24,557 feet, is more than twice as high as our highest, Mount Hood, at 11,239 feet. (In terms of land mass, you could fit two and a half Oregons inside Afghanistan.)

No, the Afghanistan in my mind is of little help. Understanding begins by recognizing the inherent distortions of map and word. They are, after all, symbols.

We confuse symbols with reality at our peril.

The Audacity of Barack Obama

Though Barack Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope” was published only three years ago, it gives no hint of the Illinois senator’s aspirations to be president of the United States.

At our book club last week we asked ourselves what happened between the date of publication and his declaring his candidacy.

In the book, author Obama worries at length about spending time away from his family. Life in the Senate, while challenging and productive, is insane. Flying back and forth between legislative business in Washington (to say nothing of trips abroad and to fundraisers) and “home” in Chicago is wearing. He openly misses his young daughters who know how to push his paternal buttons. Moments of privacy dwindle.

And this is the man who chooses to seek the presidency?

A future book will no doubt tell us why and what happened to his familial yearnings.

Obama is a compelling writer who is at his best recounting stories: A trip to Iraq, recollections of his Indonesian childhood, exchanges with constituents, his courtship of Michelle.

His analysis of issues is clear, thorough but always carefully nuanced. In his lawyerly way, he presents his opponents’ side persuasively and then neatly and surgically dissects their arguments. His positions seem crafted for the next campaign, as if he is wondering whether he can live with these indelible words.

I’m voting for Obama but I’m already prepared to be disappointed by an Obama administration. The reasons are all too transparent in this book. His analysis of how the Bush Administration chose to invade Iraq never mentions oil and the Bush/Cheney bond to the Saudi Royal family and to the oil industry. Instead Obama seems to buy into the notion that faulty intelligence was to blame for the invasion.

Such thinking is itself faulty intelligence, which is surprising from one so intelligent.

There were, as Obama points out, plenty of other threatening dictatorial regimes Bush could have overthrown. North Korea and Burma come to mind. But, strangely, none of those dictatorships float on a sea of black gold. The fact escapes the senator.

Then there’s the little matter of Afghanistan, the chest-pounder of Obama's presidential campaign and his rationale for increasing military spending. The main problem with Iraq, he laments, is that the insurgency/occupation has pinned down troops that are desperately needed in Afghanistan.

Before Obama is elected and starts moving the armed pawns and knights to the east, I’d like him to meet a few hundred thousand Russian veterans for a chat about Afghanistan, a quagmire that makes Iraq look like a sits bath.

The book also seems to be storing political chits for future use. Then again, perhaps Obama is simply being gracious. In any case, he lavishes praise on the lions of the Senate. Robert Bird, Richard Lugar and Ted Kennedy. Bill Clinton wins more than his share of kudos. There’s even a tip of the hat to one John McCain.

In retrospect, this is a campaign book without ever admitting it. In politics, timing is everything. Perhaps an admission that the White House was in Obama's plans for 2008 would have been premature.

As good as the book is, it is a better, more intriguing one because of when it was written and all that has happened since.