Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
What defines conduct unbecoming an officer?
Major General Thomas Fiscus, judge advocate general of the Air Force, opposed the harsh interrogation techniques approved and later rescinded by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for use on Guantanamo prisoners. Subsequently, General Fiscus has been reprimanded for a dozen sexual affairs during the last decade and may face disbarment proceedings.
As the affairs were consensual with civilian and military women, one doesn’t know whether the general is being punished for sticking up for human rights or whether the US military thinks abstinence is a requirement of general officers, with sexual license left to the Dominitrix of Abu Ghraib.
Punishing a general for sex is inconsistent with the macho "burn, kill and destroy" image being cultivated by the US military in Iraq. Can an imperial army be commanded by saints?
Gen. Fiscus’ punishment is unlikely to stifle sex in the military. His punishment can, however, be defended as an attempt to uphold rules against fraternization and conduct unbecoming an officer. However impractical these old rules might be in a military integrated with women and homosexuals, it these rules are not enforced, other rules will go by the wayside, and the rot of demoralization will take hold.
What jumps out from this reasoning is the extent to which the US military, which abandoned the Geneva Conventions against prisoner torture and the US War Crimes Act of 1996, is being a stickler at enforcing its rules against sexual affairs. Is the military clutching the rule against fraternization closely to its breast because it is the only rule the military has left?
Alas, such may indeed be the case. White House Counsel and Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush in January 2002 that all laws and conventions against torture could be swept away simply by declaring detainees to be outside the protection of law and international agreements. Gonzales advised President Bush to turn his back on the "obsolete" and "quaint" requirements in the Geneva Conventions for the humane treatment of prisoners. A year later a Pentagon task force reasoned that the president had the authority to approve any policy needed to protect the nation’s security.
These are the "moralists" who are compelling General Fiscus to retire at a lower rank because he misbehaved with a dozen women.
Numerous reports, including reports from the FBI, have made it clear that torture of prisoners is more widespread than the White House has admitted. Numerous reports have made it clear that US troops, whether from confusion, fear, or sport have slaughtered Iraqi civilians. Marines destroyed the city of Fallujah, and the commander on the scene claimed no Iraqi civilians were killed.
But General Fiscus has behaved unbecomingly.
President Bush, VP Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and being involved with the September 11 terrorist attack on the US. The consequences of these lies: tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians and countless others wounded, Iraq’s infrastructure in ruins, 1,325 dead US troops and another 21,000 maimed and wounded and the toll is mounting, 150,000 US troops tied down by a few thousand ragtag insurgents, US alliances and reputation in tatters, and America roundly hated throughout the Middle East.
But General Fiscus behaved unbecomingly for an officer.
Yes, he did. And President Bush behaved unbecomingly for a commander in chief. Dick Cheney behaved unbecomingly for a Vice President. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz behaved unbecomingly for civilian leaders of the military.
But no one is being held accountable except General Fiscus.
Is this right? Is this what Americans want? Do we want to punish General Fiscus for violating "obsolete and quaint" rules against consensual sex but not punish government leaders who tell us lies about Iraq and get our sons, fathers, husbands, brothers, and daughters killed as a consequence? Do Americans really want to be led by people who believe in the efficacy of torture, military might and propagandistic manipulation of an unsuspecting public?
If so, where is the virtue that neoconservatives claim justifies American hegemony?
PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.