Why Bush Isn’t Bringing the Majority of the Troops Home
Yes, it’s true, some of the naval force and some pilots have returned home to America and a few of the wounded. But have you noticed, the bulk of our marines and soldiers have not returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. It may be that America has trained a new group of killers that it is afraid to bring home for fear of the havoc they might raise on American soil.
Of course, as of today, it is apparent that Bush wants to attack Iran, and having the troops nearby would make that easier; but, aside from that possibility, which I will cover in another article, there are other more important reasons the troops aren’t being brought home. The first has to do with what happened after some of our troops returned from Afghanistan to Fort Bragg–the killing of several wives of the troops, and the beatings of several others when the men came home. There is a fear of a repeat of this scenario. Up to this point, the government isn’t sure it has solved the problem. As a friend of mine, Dr. Simon Lesser, a retired Psychiatrist, told me, and I paraphrase, it appears to him that our men are being taught to be killers more than disciplined soldiers and that killer instinct has been so ingrained in our men that they can’t turn it off once they’ve begun killing in combat. This was reinforced recently by Mr. Ambrose Lane, a commentator on WPFW-FM of Pacifica Radio in Washington, DC when he spoke of a soldier who told him that he and his buddies didn’t belong in police work in Afghanistan or Iraq because they "were taught to kill, not to handle peace missions."
Another reason has to do with the brutality that some of our men are dishing out to the Afghans and the Iraqis, soldiers and civilians. Just last week we read of four Afghan soldiers being killed by an American compound just because they were getting their weapons out to go on patrol. We have heard in San Diego, from Afghans who hear the news in Dari, by short wave radio, of constant killings by American troops of people they "suspect" of being the enemy–at times they may be the enemy, but often they are men loyal to President Karzai who are armed, or men who do not immediately obey an order to stop or lay down their weapons–who are then shot. The problem was that the men did not speak English and the American troops did not speak Peshtu or Dari!
The brutality of our troops in Iraq is now infamous–the making Iraqis run naked, the beating of civilians (documented by independent reporters and Al Jazeera) and the killing of people who do not respond immediately to English orders to "stop" or "lay down your arms"; once again, it may be a language barrier or it may be a new policy of brutality our men are using.
In all these cases, and in the case of Private Jessica Lynch, none of these soldiers returning are allowed to talk with the media. After Senator Byrd returned from having talked with Ms. Lynch, he seemed even more firm in his resolve to condemn the attack in Iraq and condemned Bush even further. I’m sure, from what I heard in scuttlebutt on the hill that he may have heard the truth from Ms. Lynch, not the dispelled myths that the Bush team keeps trying to spin out for the public about her "heroic" fight and her "valiant" rescue!
As a veteran of two wars, I believe there is a fear that our troops, just as with those who returned from Viet Nam, that the truth will come out and it will cause an uproar in America.
The public will see that our men have become killers, not longer the respecters of human life, of democracy or the humanity of others. I feel echoes of My Lai, and other countless incidents in Viet Nam, Korea, Cambodia and Laos; our men did not act according to our American humane standards (not that they did with the Native Americans, etc.)–at least as our public perceives them to be.
Of course, the military leaders want this covered up as well. It is time for our congress to begin asking questions about how our men are trained and what their killing orders are. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld and company have so buffaloed the congress that they can’t get a straight answer from him, so they finally put their tails between their legs and thank him as he saunters off into another plan for another war, wars without end, troops, as was the case with the Roman legions and Napoleon’s troops, most of whom were never meant to return to their homeland for fear of the stories they would tell and the hell they would wreak on the "peace" in their homelands.
Thus, I believe that Bush must keep our troops out of the country and away from independent newsmen for fear that they will spill the beans on what we’re actually doing in these foreign climes. So, yes, they may invade Iran and then on to Syria and Lebanon, just to keep them busy, out of the country and to keep them from creating further scandals by returning home to kill, maim or wound their wives, other family members or friends.
And yes, there is that other possibility, that some when discharged, might decide to get together and once again "go out on patrol" and start taking down dissidents, "unpatriotic people," corrupt politicians, and even, if they are upset about not having jobs or whatever, the president himself.
Yes, these men that have trained to be killers, special operatives, a law unto themselves, upon returning to America, might just start taking the law into their own hands–and then all hell would break loose and not even the king’s horses, or the king’s men could stop them.
SAM HAMOD is an expert on world affairs, especially the Arab and Muslim worlds, former editor of THIRD WORLD NEWS (in Wash, DC), a former professor at Princeton University, former Director of The National Islamic Center of Washington, DC, an advisor to the US State Department and author of ISLAM IN THE WORLD TODAY. He is the editor of www.todaysalternativenews.com, and may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org