Where's the “Us?”

Patriotism is never a bad thing in and of itself. Having pride in one's country and a sense of belonging to the nation in which one lives or originates from can be a very positive thing. It can denote a feeling of being part of the best qualities of a particular nation, and a kinship with the ideals borne out of a place. It has brought nations together at times when they needed it most. I was born in America, and am proud to be an American, for example.

Conversely, patriotism can be something used by people with less than honorable intentions. In Germany during WWII for example Hitler and the Nazis famously used it to round up Germany's people and their treasure to wage a campaign of hate and terror the extent of which was never seen again. It has been behind countless atrocities all across the globe. As George Washington admonished, one should, “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” Samuel Johnson more famously said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

When the Iraq War started up, or the extended military engagement, many of us drummed our hands on our kitchen tables to the rhythm the administration at the time struck up. They told us we were in danger from Saddam Hussein, because he had weapons of mass destruction to be used against us. Our hearts were full of powerful emotions a result of 9-11 and the sadness of the lives lost that day and the sustained sense of wanting to get justice for the attacks.

The war in Afghanistan was raging and the Bush administration sucked us into a war that ended up being sold to us on weak evidence. Evidence proving there were no weapons of mass destruction was ignored and hidden from us. At the top of the food chain, Vice President Cheney was the main culprit behind the public case for the link between 9-11 and Iraq.

Some of his statements regarding the false idea Saddam Hussein had connections to Al Qaeda included gems like, ”December 2, 2002: 'His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.'; January 30, 2003: 'His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.'; March 16, 2003: 'We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.'; September 14, 2003: 'We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons.'; October 10, 2003: 'He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda--providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.'; January 9, 2004: 'Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services...have worked together on a number of occasions.'; January 22, 2004: 'There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government'; June 18, 2004: 'There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.'” (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/remembering-why-amer...)

Of course well after we Invaded Iraq and were blowing taxpayer dollars by the billions, sending men and women into harm's way without adequate amounts of bullet proof jackets or adequately armored vehicles, did we hear the truth about no connection between Iraq and 9-11. President Bush himself admitted it flat out. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwbFzCvvSns) Vice President Cheney then tried denying ever having made the connections. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k)

Our shared sense of patriotism following the attacks on 9-11 was exploited to help make the case for the War in Iraq. It wasn't as bad as the Nazis, but that doesn't make it right. We were used by the Bush administration to attack a country with a bad and ruthless ruler no doubt, but it had no connection to 9-11 or any weapons of mass destruction. We just invaded, said oops and a whole slew of contractors got paid and oil companies got wealthier than they had been from our tax dollars.

The same principle is used when politicians make the case for a large military presence overseas in places like the Middle East where there are vast stores of oil, and for East and South East Asia where there are factories owned by American companies for their value as sources of cheap labor.

When people talk about why we should keep troop presence in those places we often hear it is to protect “our” national interests. In other words they are telling us our tax dollars are needed to protect things of interest and that are pertinent to “all Americans.” They also attempt to tell us that those things they are saying are of interest and pertinent to “all of us” would be threatened were our tax dollars steered away from those things.

Are oil fields owned by some wealthy corporation in one of the Persian Gulf nations “our” collective national interest? I can see how they are of interest to those wealthy corporations and their profit margins, but how are they of interest to the rest of us, the vast majority of us, and our tax dollars? The profits from those oil companies don't go to us. They don't go towards reimbursing the costs you and I foot for keeping US military bases in those countries, nor the costs of maintaining them in those places.

The oil companies barely even hire any Americans to work those places. They hire mostly foreign cheap labor, not even labor from those oil rich countries but brought in from poorer countries across the globe.

The price of oil isn't cheaper here because of those bases, it is cheaper because we have strong bargaining leverage as we are the world’s largest consumer of the product. Our purchasing power gives us clout. No company will just jack up the prices on us for fear they will lose our business and that we will speed up the process of finding alternative sources for energy be it from another nation or another product. That fear is what kept another oil embargo from happening. If one company or nation says no to us, we get the oil from another nation or company. If it were about patriotism and it benefitted us to have only American companies prosper, BP would never have gotten leases to drill off our shores. In the end it comes down to the bottom line – money, money, money.

All those bases are not just costing us for spartan military lifestyles. The foreign bases have become ways of life for many and some have taken advantage of it. There are golf courses on foreign bases costing well over a million dollars annually on maintenance fees alone. (http://www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com/golfcourses.html) How is that fair to us?

When those politicians and pundits most zealous about keeping those bases open pontificate about the why, patriotism is the thing they most often weave into the fabric of what they are saying. It underlies everything even if they never come out and say it. But since when is state sponsored security services in other nations for wealthy companies that don't benefit the average citizen paying the taxes enabling those services, an example of capitalism or free markets? In fact it sounds closer to communism.

And who is benefitting? In East Asia and Southeast Asia there are bases to protect factories supposedly in our national interests. But who profits from those bases? When is the last time you received a check from one of those corporations manufacturing products there? Those are not “our” factories. We don't work there. Shouldn't we really be reimbursed for all the money we spend? In actuality since we are a capitalist free market society, shouldn't they be paying their own way? This is billions of dollars per year we're talking.

Those corporations shipped jobs once ours to those nations. That started the process of the decline of the middle class and all the opportunities related to the middle class thereby provided. Why do they want us to pay for their protection? Since when is that an example of capitalism or free markets? Again, that sounds more like communism.

With rising gas prices it's pretty obvious those bases we pay for have nothing to do with prices for the consumer, let alone patriotism. Have our gas prices gone down while we needed the help during this recession? Has the recession ended – is that why gas prices are on the rise again? Did gas prices drop during the war to help the nation in a time of need? By their actions these corporations demonstrate they could care less about us. They just want our money. So why are we paying for our military to be cheapened as security guards for “their interests” - to further their lifestyles? Because they want us to?

When they say it is to protect us, they really need to explain the “us” in that because, though Democrats and Republicans support staying there no matter what they say, I can't see it. Glad I'm independent and so many are becoming of a like mind. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-...) This “us” thing doesn't really seem to be much of a team sport.

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.