Families Seeking Help For Their Veterans Find It… Thank God

I felt a great wave of relief upon reading Tom Ricks blog entry, A soldier’s mother wanting to help her son, which draws attention to a remarkable exchange of ideas and suggestions in response to a mother’s request for help with her veteran son’s impending homecoming.

The new issue of Army contains a thoughtful set of exchanges from the CompanyCommand website between a mother wanting to help her son as leaves active duty and others who have been through similar experiences.

The mother, whose name is just given as Judy, said that after her son’s tour in Iraq, she found him “cold,” and “filled with hate for the Iraqis.” He shook when other cars on the road were came close. She asked, “Can we help him?”

While not a combat vet, I can sympathize with her question and the situation she was in. I am happy to see support networks of varying degrees existent to help meet the needs of returning soliders.

My own limited experience with such matters is highlighted by the return of a shipmate who went on an “Individual Augmentee” deployment in support of OIF. When he returned, he exhibited significant changes, largely for the negative.  Matters reached a boiling point when his wife ran to a young Ensign riding his bike to the Exchange one afternoon after liberty call. Her husband slammed the car door on her arm in a rush to get her out of their vehicle because he felt there was about to be an impending attack from a Japanese dockworker’s slow-moving transport van.

Austin got the help he needed after that, but his marriage and work life were put under unnecessary strain for the first five weeks or so back because people missed the signs he was having difficulty readjusting to peacetime life and his own struggles with his experience in conflict.

Kudos to those reaching out to these families in their time of greatest challenge: the homecoming. Our combat veterans and those who love them deserve no less.

Thoughts On Obama And Honduras

Obviously, things have not worked out the way the patriotic opposition in Honduras expected.

They face a world united in outrage at what is widely perceived in the global and regional media as a “coup”, in a region where the military has a sickening reputation well-earned for brutality, skulduggery and greed.

They have an external enemy (Chavez) who has masterfully outplayed them in every aspect save the physical acquisition of power. He likely has stirred up a near majority opposition to the removal of Zelaya, forcing the opposition leaders to take protective measures like banning protests and restricting the media (acts which further discredit them on the world/regional stage, irrespective of their utility).

President Obama faced a tough choice when Zelaya was removed from power and deported to Costa Rica. His policy goals in the Americas likely consist of letting Chavez discredit himself rather than engaging him in tit for tats the way Bush did (in a manner which consistently made the US look worse for wear and hypocritical among the region’s inhabitants), building enough momentum to enact serious changes in Cuba policy and restoring America’s image in the region.

Forgotten amid outrage (most of it rightful) about Obama’s swift denunciation of Zelaya’s ouster is the US track record in the region, even as recent as 2002 when it supported an unlawful coup against the THEN democratically elected Chavez in Venezuela. Now that Chavez has given up all pretensions to respecting democratic institutions or norms, this seems like a tragic mistake, but in the region, US support for the coup attempt against him only further discredited the US.

It is widely seen and portrayed in the regional media as a source for Latin American problems, from insatiable American drug appetites, hypocritical trade policies (which Obama certainly is continuing), constant interference in Latin American countries’ internal affairs and even elitist racism from certain political and social figures.

So what was Obama to do? If he does the right thing and supports the opposition’s ouster of the increasingly dictatorial Zelaya, US interests in the region would likely significantly suffer. Indeed, the US would be in the odd position of perhaps being the only country in the world supporting the new Honduran government. Ostensible democracies and US allies in the region (Mexico, Columbia, Costa Rica, Brazil and Chile to a lesser extent) had already swiftly condemned what took place, leaving Obama no political cover. Heaven knows the field day (month!) Chavez would have had with the US supporting what was already shaped in the media as an “anti-democratic” action.

Were he to hedge his bets and be non-committal on the ouster, the US would still be widely vilified by its opponents in the region and his leadership would be called into question by both sides, weakening the US position in the region further by “voting present” on the most important issue of the year.

Now, perhaps Obama is the leftist, anti-democratic loving fan of Chavez some regularly highly intelligent and insightful people are claiming this week. Or maybe he is a reactionary leftist less interested in US interests and more in his own cult of personality and popularity. More likely, what if he may very well be the incompetent “Status O” that can’t stop the economy’s slide, let alone Chavez’s ruinous march of autocratic rule disguised as democracy?

I posit an alternative. What if Obama and his team

(a) could care less about Honduras in the grand scheme of Latin American policy (his eyes being focused on the prize of Cuba, fixing the immigration problem in America and treating Chavez as a petulant child who ruins everything he touches but represents no long term threat to US interests) and is not willing to risk a solid body blow to the US image in the region to save its already failing democracy for now?
(b) Perceived the need for a middleman role in negotiating and arranging a peace until the presidential elections later this year in Honduras where Zelaya returns to power, returns to face trial or returns in a coalition role w/ his opponents where international pressure and attention compels them to play nice for now?
(c) are trying to cut off Chavez from being the momentum builder and kingmaker by inserting the US into what would normally be Chavez’s role of Zelaya’s defender and marginalizing Chavez over time on the issue by letting him portray himself to the region and the world as the scheming hothead he is?
(d) Recognized the serious potential for civil war that existed before Zelaya’s ouster with the influx of Venezuelan weapons, the rising anger and fear of the upper class at Zelaya’s beneficial policies towards the poor and the sense by Zelaya’s supporters that their chance at a better life was slipping away with growing elite opposition to Zelaya’s policies.

All of these may be plausible or may be totally wrong. Maybe Obama is some mixture of many of the claims made about him. Maybe the leftists in the State Dept. are back in the saddle and showing their disturbing affinity for Chavezismo. At this point though, I don’t see the short-term or long-term benefits for the US to have declared its support for what the new Honduran government did. So I’m left looking for alternative rationales, much like far better informed and thoughtful people:

Chirol @ Coming Anarchy
ZenPundit
TDAXP
Catholicgauze
Jonathan @ Chicago Boyz

Anthropologists Run Amok

This comment frightens me in the sense that some people with far more education and alleged experience than I would nod their heads in agreement with it:

Lorenz, this is very alarming! I am reading all this as if the air had been sucked out of me. It is so brutally frank, so extremely anti-immigrant, and “civilizational war” in tone, that I wonder if the wider populace of NATO countries understand that they have signed on to a war without end, with a genocidal dimension. That academics should participate in this is…well, a torrent of verbal fire will spew forth, so I will stop here and take some time to digest this.

What inspired this hateful drivel is a Danish university’s plans for a center to study radical Islam and its relationship with governments and movements.

The Centre for Studies in Islamism and Radicalisation will assemble anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists and theologians, who can contribute to the understanding of what happens when Islam becomes a political ideology with the objective of overthrowing Governments.

The hysteria with which some anthropologists have treated the US Government’s failed Human Terrain System and subsequent Minerva Project frankly scares the hell out of me. Whatever the sins of omission and commission with which the US military and its counterparts have shed blood over the years, could not all agree that if war happens and conflict erupts, it would be best for people to best understand the environment they operate in so as to minimize unnecessary bloodshed, hardship and destruction?

Then you realize the political views of these people with talk of neo-liberal conspiracies and various US evils, and you wonder why you even bother reading them. Well, they happen to appear to be talented and thoughtful anthropologists, with many posts of a compelling enough nature that you want to read to learn more about your field of study.Yet their personal views are so abhorrent to your value set and insulting to your intelligence that you just have to cut them off. After that latest bout of hatred pouring from the fangs of Maximilian Forte, I just have to do that.