The freedom myth and those who pay the price

"Little Patriots" by Nina Berman from Homeland series

There is an axiom in the modern American psyche that states "freedom isn't free."

The cost of being free, as most Americans define it, is paid most dearly, by innocent civilians in far off places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan whose lives are taken as we claim to promote "freedom and democracy" while defending "American interests" abroad.

Secondly, that cost is paid by American soldiers on behalf of all of us. Their sacrifice - physical, mental, spiritual - is what ensures us the freedom we enjoy day in, day out, no matter what those soldiers are doing. At least that is the belief as it is commonly held.

The idea that American freedom stems directly from U.S. troops at home and abroad is generally not open for debate. It is, in fact, more like a rudimentary principle that one dare not even question. Just as one plus one equals two, most people in this country would probably agree with the equation American military might = American freedom. This notion is the air we breathe and the water we drink; to suggest otherwise is to doubt the very laws of physics.

And so even when Americans criticize U.S. foreign policy or our latest military adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan, the overwhelming majority are very quick to add, "...but of course, I support the troops. I am against the war(s), but I support the troops." To suggest anything less would be to open oneself up to vicious charges of sedition, perhaps even treason.

Injured American soldier photo by Peter van Agtmael

But at the risk of questioning the unquestionable, let me ask if America's liberal use of its military, particularly in foreign countries, and its ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, is really protecting our freedom or is it imperiling it?

If America had not invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 and then Iraq on March 20, 2003, and if we didn't continue these wars and foreign occupations today, would we be any less free or any less safe than we are now?

During the Bush presidency, Americans were told time and again that our military was "taking the fight to the enemy, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." But are we to believe that insurgents (who were not insurgents prior to our invasion) or the followers of radical Shiite clerics or Afghan war lords, or the Taliban would rush into the United States and take away our freedom unless we invaded their countries?

Our enormous military might around the world prior to September 11, 2001 didn't prevent the terrible events of that day. Those hijackers booked their airline tickets and walked right onto the planes. Our military wasn't able to stop Sgt. John Russell from going on a shooting rampage against his fellow American soldiers outside Camp Liberty last May in Baghdad (he killed five fellow soldiers). Nor were our soldiers able to prevent the killing of 13 at Ft. Hood by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Could it be that America's unprecedented human and financial investment in its own military actually helped set in place the circumstances that led to 9/11 or the violent outbursts by Russell and Hasan?

Instead of making us "freer" or "safer" or improving the lives of Americans in general, could it be that our own soldiers are being misused in a way that is actually chipping away at our freedom and making us less safe? And are America's unfathomable expenditures on the military and war-making actually doing great harm to our nation?

Despite what may be good intentions, are our own forces unwittingly contributing to the long-term detriment of the United States? Uncomfortable questions for most people, yes, I know.

Think of the last time you went through security at the airport or sent a package at the post office. Now think about that same experience ten or 15 years ago. Do you feel freer now than you did then? If not, where is that freedom and security that is supposed to come from our use of military might?

Think about your personal communications today - the emails you send, the blogs you post, your FaceBook, your Twitter, the Internet or telephone communications you conduct today compared with communications ten years ago. Freer? Safer?

Think of your rights under the law not to be arrested or imprisoned without charge. Think of the practice of extraordinary rendition, of black sites and widespread and openly acknowledged use of torture, even on American (and Canadian) citizens who were later proven innocent, but had no recourse to American law. Freer? Safer?

Think about civil and social services in the U.S. today -- from public schools and universities, hospitals and health care. Think about this nation's infrastructure from its bridges and highways, to its levees, dams and large buildings. Freer? Safer?

What about television news, print media and radio broadcasting in 2009 compared with 1999? In 2002, America's Freedom Press Index ranking was #17. In 2006 it fell to #53. In 2009 it is at #20.

How about taking part in a political demonstration, trying to attend a political rally or wearing a political slogan on an article of clothing? Have things changed for the better under nearly a decade of war and occupation? Freer and safer?

Everywhere we look, we can easily find evidence of our country falling deeper and deeper into a state of neglect, disrepair or dysfunction. Everything is being underfunded or cut out of the budget except for the military.

Talk to America's new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and ask them if they feel they have helped successfully made America freer and safer. What do they tell you?

Step back for a moment and unpeel your eyes from Reality TV. Look at the state of our soldiers. Returning after two, three or four tours of duty, many against their will, they come back to America with broken bodies, broken minds and broken spirits. Their marriages and relationships are in shambles, their children are strangers, their job prospects are bleak and the country, it seems, couldn't care less. Military suicide rates, even when grossly under-reported, are spiking, as soldiers come back from hell to a country drunk on ignorance, apathy and distraction.

Even our so-called "liberal" president who was, and in some circles still is, painted as a radical-left wing peacenik, seems to be doing his best to dislodge much needed American troops from Iraq ("been there, done that") only so that they can be sent over to Afghanistan.

In the coming days or weeks, it appears President Obama will tell us he has a plan for Afghanistan. The man is smart, but he will offer us the same stupid argument that "our resolve is unshakable" and that "losing this war is not an option." To placate the critics, he will invoke the courage and honor and valor of "our brave young men and women." Case closed. For once he brings the question of more war and more death down to "our brave young men and women," that will be it. Americans will shut up and take it. After all, freedom isn't free, right?

Obama, like both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan and others before, knows that as long as he liberally uses the F-word (freedom) and the S-word (security), no one will argue with him.

But judging by what we got from eight years of Ronald Reagan and four years of George H. W. Bush (unpredictable Afghan forces well-trained to fight against occupying armies and widespread Muslim resentment of U.S. foreign policy [esp. in Saudi Arabia]), it seems reasonable to expect that we have some extreme unpleasantness to look forward to in the next few decades as we reap what we have sown under Bush-Cheney and now Obama. Future blowback conceived in the 2000s will perhaps make September 11 look like a Sunday picnic.

And as we watch our already grossly bloated military budget swell as it binge-feeds on ungodly amounts of money, the wars we are waging continue to create literally tens of thousands of ticking human time bombs (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere) and, of course, here in the United States as our own soldiers come back unable to recover from the horrors we have sent them to carry out.

We continue to set policies that create enemies where there were none, or at least fewer, before. Meanwhile we all like to bleat that we "support the troops" with hollow slogans, cliches and easy-to-remove bumper magnets. We aren't supporting them - we are misusing them and bankrupting our own nation, even as we destroy others. The massive foreign deployments we maintain around the world in over 700 foreign U.S. bases are not making us freer, safer, or better off in any way.

Instead, we are using our own citizens (volunteer soldiers) as a kind of invisible, disposable fantasy of what we'd like to think makes America strong, free and safe.

But if we really wanted these things for our country, and if we really "supported the troops," we wouldn't be sending them to Iraq or Afghanistan at all.

-------

Perhaps if we all saw images like this more often,
there would be a lot more vocal opposition to America's war making.

Photo by Peter van Agtmael

Most Americans would probably rather not think about Iraq or Afghanistan, except as a kind of vague, cliche example of American bravery, determination and grit. Saying "I support the troops" is an easy way to show off one's "patriotism."

The new video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, estimated to have grossed $550 million worldwide in the first five days after its release, is another example of American's perverse disconnect with war. For a much more realistic and unpleasant look at what our troops are experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan, I strongly urge you to view the photography of freelance photojournalist Peter van Agtmael http://www.petervanagtmael.com/ . Go to this site and spend some time looking at all the photos listed under the heading American Wars. Note that many of these photos have extensive, detailed captions by clicking on the word "info" in the upper right-hand corner of the thumbnails. The bathroom stall graffitti written by American troops and photographed by van Agtmael is in itself very revealing.