Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. Cockburn’s rules on how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC
 Day 19

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….)

pp1

or
cp-store

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 Bush Could Learn from the Shade of Achilles

Winning

by DIANE CHRISTIAN

When President Bush says we must make war in Iraq to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here, he’s saying each one of us is menaced by distant murderers and each one is protected by fighting over there. He is appealing to self-defense, saving our individual skin—an often compelling justification. Some people buy the rationale, though most see its radical oversimplification and historical distortion. The Iraquis had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. It was our attack and occupation of Iraq that brought Al Qaeda into Iraq. There is colossal callousness too—we devastate faraway cities and citizens and culture to protect our safety and comfort, all the while pronouncing that we’re protecting and liberating them.

Many US citizens know this and deplore our war, recognizing that we are war criminals by legal international standards. Passing laws to legitimize our behavior and insisting on our noble motives—as Blake might say “A Pretence of Liberty to Destroy Liberty”/“A Pretence of Love to Destroy Love”—only intensifies our culpability.
Yet public discourse still speaks of ‘winning’ as the only acceptable outcome—as though brutal warfare was a sports event and the myth of us as number one the only story that matters.

In the decline of the Vietnam War some people said cynically ‘declare victory and withdraw.’ They recognized the US need to ‘win.’Senator McCain, prisoner of war, says the military cannot afford to lose. When death and destruction, the means of war, are the action, the gameplan, the sacrificed soldiers and families have to have a worthy story, a good ending. They have to win somehow.

Many Americans love “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” line “as he died to make men holy let us die to make men free.” The Civil War Union soldiers are compared to Christ; they are noble for dying in a good cause. Christ of course was not a soldier; he did not smite in self-defense. He chose not to fight though he said he could command legions. Christ was in fact a victim of soldiers. He not only didn’t intone “Onward Christian Soldiers,” he instructed his followers not to resist evil with evil. When struck, he said, turn the other cheek. He ‘won’ not by inflicting death but by returning to life.

The Battle Hymn collapses the distinction and says death itself brings heroic life. War songs and war stories need to collapse the distinction to make a good winning story. Plato writes that poets must be banned from the ideal republic because they tell dangerous stories, losing not winning stories. Homer shows warrior Achilles in the land of the dead disparaging his heroic death. When Odysseus tells him all the world sings his warrior praises, Achilles says he’d rather be a live slave than a dead hero. Plato says this kind of talk will dissuade young men from fighting. It must not be allowed. Say instead that death is life; persuade young men to fight argues the philosopher who would be king.

The philosopher moves by abstraction, turning men into ideas and means to an end. Each one is sacrificed to the state. That entity which should safeguard each one becomes the entity for which the individual is sacrificed.

The poet understands not by abstraction but by embodiment, he sees the human form. So for Blake “the hapless Soldier’s sigh/ Runs in blood down Palace walls.”

The words about winning are not just vain boast, nor fuel for our dominating drives. They are also desperate attempts to recast death as life and by this spell save us from death and loss and ignominy.

Saying cannot make it so.

DIANE CHRISTIAN is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at University at Buffalo and author of the new book Blood Sacrifice. She can be reached at: engdc@acsu.buffalo.edu