Listening to the Victims of U.S. Wars

I find a number of perplexing contrasts between the US war from 1961 to 1975 (to the Vietnamese people it was the "American" war, and to us the "Vietnam war") and the wars the U.S. is fighting now in the Middle East.

One is the quality of news coverage.  Starting in the mid 1960s, though there was much less news coverage, you could reliably get some coverage of the war.  Even though L.B.J. saw "light at the end of the tunnel" and Nixon could lie well too, reporters on U.S. networks often said enough that you could learn to read between the lines. The images of Vietnamese civilians' suffering and of American casualties were seared into our consciousness.  45 years later, with constant "news" generated, you can find hardly any mention of the most extensive occupation carried out since 1945 -- the American war against Iraq.

Another paradox: it was incredibly difficult to communicate with the Vietnamese peoples' resistance then.  I remember a women's conference in Toronto in the early 70s where women from Vietnam came to speak.  Friends drove across this country to get there. It was extremely difficult to get into North Vietnam; not because their government didn't want visitors from the anti-war movement, but because of travel restrictions on this side.  Jane Fonda did it famously" and some people still want to kill her for it.  Joe Urgo -- who will be marching with us Saturday at the White House -- was the first Vietnam war veteran to get there on a peace mission.  But they were exceptional.  It was difficult for us to get to know people our government was killing.

This time around, quiet as it's kept by major media, there are visits to Afghanistan and Iraq by peace groups.  It's quite possible, with an internet connection, to "meet" the victims of the war.  For example, Voices for Creative Non-Violence has the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers project "Live Without Wars." Over New Year's weekend, they had a Global Listening Project where one could Skype or call in to speak with the volunteers" something we could never do in 1968.

The paradox is that people living in this country are now more ignorant, all the way around, of what this country is doing in its wars.

Two women I know have been listening to the people in Afghanistan.  What they say applies to the U.S. wars on Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia as well.

Kate Kirwin may be making her first visit to Afghanistan this week.  She recently spoke to a Afghan friend there, a conversation which prompted her to write An Open Letter to Obama:

Our phone connection was not clear, but I thought I heard him say something akin to: I never thought I would hear myself say that the Afghan people need hope now more than they need peace. What I know I did hear him say clearly shortly thereafter was: "The people have nothing to lose now. They are being killed anyway."

Kate, an international human rights attorney, finished her message to Obama with:

Your only possible contribution to peace in Afghanistan can be to get out of the way of the only people capable of creating peace there. Simply get out of the way, for peace will never come. choices can never be made" while you murder and maim, while you occupy, destroy and desecrate a people whose hope you have stolen.

The other woman is a Westerner who has lived in Afghanistan for 8 years, trying to represent a different face to the Afghan people than the military.  She writes to me about the change in her thinking as the occupation has escalated.  She no longer thinks that U.S. forces can do good there.

Afghans are an incredibly hospitable nation, you have to really make an effort to make them hate you enough to wish to kill you. In most other countries, all our sanctimonious throats would have been slit already a long time ago, unless our governments had managed to evacuate us beforehand.

Their "hearts and minds' originally were open to us. Of course since then, our armies have done absolutely everything under the sun to destroy that positive attitude by systematically intimidating the innocent civilian population and labeling all Muslims as "terrorists', while on the whole, we could learn a lot from most of them in the way of forgiveness and willingness to reconcile.

But for that it takes two (at least) while our side evidently lacks true commitment. Numerous Afghans of course have also plenty killing to account for, particularly during the civil war, but that can never ever justify our compounding that tragedy by continuously deepening local rifts instead of helping to mend them.

One of the most frequently asked questions we in World Can't Wait get asked is, "but if the U.S. pulls its troops out of [Iraq] [Afghanistan] won't things just get worse?"  My correspondent has grappled with this, and concludes:

With what is going on now in the way of escalation, cover-ups and doing absolutely everything to stop this country from recovering while instead plunging it deeper and deeper into tragic turmoil, I now have come to the point where I truly think that the quicker those military 'stabilizers' leave, the better. A new civil war seems rather inevitable, but as the "average Afghan' is thoroughly fed-up with war and aspires to peace and quiet more than anything else, there might be hope that the conflict would be mitigated by that.