The True Story of War

The following poem was written in 2017 when the U.S. was bombing ISIS targets in Afghanistan. I re-post it today to remind us of the struggle in Ukraine and the seemingly neverending plight of refugees in this world. - CK

A Ukrainian family crosses into Slovakia (Peter Lazar, Getty Images)

The True Story of War
 
Refugees tell the true story
of leaders’ declarations of might.
After seeking shelter
from bombs and marauders,
they leave desolation behind
hoping to carry on.
 
What hopes do they carry
with the few things gathered in their bags?
Will children play?
Will the ground be steady?
Will families reunite in foreign lands?
Or will they simply survive
to look for hope on another day?
 
Refugees tell the true story
of a world where life struggles to maintain
amid the rubble scattered
by presidents and generals
who live in opulence and greed;
who trade in proud speeches and intrigue.
 
Those who find peace
avoid the brutal boot heels of victory,
or find shelter and sustenance
from kind souls who do the penance
for a nation at war.
 
Even now
refugees wait,
stranded as it were,
between desolation and hope
while egocentric heads of state
test new bombs
that may swell the ranks
of refugees who tell
the true story of war.
 
                                      ~ Charles Kinnaird

-

Bearing Witness to the Times: The Why of Daffodils

Photo by Lars Kasper

The Why of Daffodils

This week

The daffodils began to bloom,

The first few opening up

Across the lawn.

In some way

I know why –

I planted the bulbs myself

A few years ago.

They will continue to rise and bloom with the season

Long after I have left this place.

Whoever comes to live here after I'm gone,

Whether they live in strife or bliss,

Will witness the bright yellow flowers

That show themselves each spring

Like the crimson poppies in Flanders fields

Where soldiers fell,

Or the lilacs of lavender that bloom in the dooryard

In spite of grief over a slain hero.

It is that tenacious and enduring "why"

To which I confess no knowledge,

And claim no understanding.

Why are we comforted

By such recurrent beauty

In the presence of our sorrows?

Does nature’s hand

Speak soft reminders

In the wake of every tragedy

To bind us to some grander purpose?

When politicians speak madness

And armies pound cities to rubble

Will springtime daffodils

Call hearts to the essence

Of a life lived in beauty?

Do I really know why there are daffodils in my yard

Even when hate divides a nation?

Can we join with lilacs and poppies

To hold that poignant hope

Found even in war-torn communities?

   

Can those wounded in body and spirit

Open their eyes to see

The natural rhythm of spring

When blossoms break forth?

In as much as they turn our minds

To the underlying wholeness of being

The daffodils evoke

Thankful hearts

Even when reason

Evades the mind.

Perhaps this is the why of daffodils –

That in the midst

Of our inflicting pain upon one another

And our bringing desolation upon the land,

The earth is ever nudging us

Toward an unspeakable gratitude.

                                              ~ Charles Kinnaird

CNN Photo

"Airstrike at Syrian refugee camp kills at least 28"

*    *    *    *

From my introductory post:

The best thing that poets can do is to bear witness to the times – articulate what is happening in the moment; speak to the real life experiences of your people.  I am setting myself a goal to write a poem each week that reflects what I see and experience in the life of our nation... if I can write one poem a week there will be some chronicle of our sacred/tested/doubtful union.

-

Rumors of War

From the U.S. Department of State

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on draft resolution

to authorize the use of military force against ISIL at the White House

 on February 11, 2015.

Last week we got a look at how our policy in the Middle East seems to be unfolding:

ISIS is a big problem. It is a problem that resulted from U.S. military intervention in Iraq which destabilized the region and has caused a generation of young people to grow up in Iraq knowing nothing but war and societal dysfunction. After a decade of military action, we were unable to establish any kind of stability in the region. Now with ISIS ascending, we have decided to try… what? A new campaign of military intervention. I suppose because it “worked so well” the first time. 

A Severe Lack of Imagination

The problem is that virtually every military campaign and military offensive the U.S. has launched in my lifetime has done more harm than good. I becomes obvious that, one, we don't understand any culture other than our own (and even that is questionable); and two, we seem to always think that military intervention is the best and only option, even while claiming it is a last resort.

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning president approves of new military action and has sent a resolution to congress to authorize the use of military force. Most people, when asked, say they don’t see what else can be done in this situation. Our problem is not in lack of strength.  Our problem is a severe lack of imagination as to how to engage other countries and other cultures.

The big problem with everyone saying, "I'm not sure what else we can do," is that nothing but warfare gets done, and societies are made dysfunctional and our own soldiers are wounded at every level. Just look at the PTSD, suicides, unemployed veterans, families bearing the burden for our claims for "fighting for freedom" when we are in actuality just doing the bidding of corporations. Moreover, there would not be the mess that needs fixing if we had not intervened in the first place. 

We didn't know what we were starting when we invaded Iraq, and now we don't know how to stop it. We are Empire, and our footsteps carry mostly destruction.

Re-imagining the World

If the 20th century taught us anything, it should have been that war is no longer a viable option for a workable society. Our world is too small, and our weapons are too large. Europe was devastated when modern nations tried to settle their differences the way leaders settled them in the past - by launching military offensives. The problem was that it was no longer kings sending out soldiers and knights on horseback with spears, swords, and lances to fight in some field outside the city gates, with the occasional crashing of the city gates. The modern army had tanks and artillery, planes and bombs, that immediately brought unspeakable devastation to civilian populations. We need a way to re-imagine conflict. we need a new way to settle our differences.

Historically, since the mid 17th century, the Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) have shown the world a radical way of living that does not include war and violence. While most Christian churches through the years have backed their national governments in matters of war and other violent acts such as the death penalty, The Quakers have made it their Christian witness to stand against violence, war and oppression. The American Friends Service Committee has a strong track record in the area of non-violent alternatives. Thankfully, others have followed their lead and today we have a number of organizations helping the cause for peace and helping us all to rethink our courses of action.

The American Friends Service Committee The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that promotes lasting peace with justice, as a practical expression of faith in action. Drawing on continuing spiritual insights and working with people of many backgrounds, we nurture the seeds of change and respect for human life that transform social relations and systems.

            See their website at http://afsc.org/about

Although the Catholic Church has been criticized for historically standing on the side of emperors and empire, Catholic social teaching based upon the New Testament Gospel and the Old Testament prophets has spawned a number of groups seeking to bring about a more just, equitable and peaceful society. Pax Christi is one example:

Pax Christi USA Grounded in the Gospel and Catholic social teaching, Pax Christi USA (PCUSA) is a membership organization that rejects war, preparation for war, every form of violence and domination, and personal and systemic racism.

            Check out their website at  http://paxchristiusa.org/about/our-vision/

There are also many non-religious, secular-based groups that are effectively supporting peace and justice in the world. Peace Direct is just one of those groups:

Peace Direct – Supporting local action against conflict

We believe that local people have the power to find their own solutions to conflict – and to build their own better futures. Our mission is to help them make this happen. We are an international charity dedicated to supporting local peacebuilding.

In the world’s most fragile countries, we seek out local peacebuilders who are making a real difference – building peace from the grassroots up, preventing conflict in the places where it starts – locally.

They are disarming rebels, resettling refugees, healing communities, reviving economies. They work at great personal risk on crucial problems like child soldiers, women and conflict, youth and peace, political violence. They are the key to preventing conflicts and creating a lasting peace.

We find them, fund them, and promote their work to those in the wider world who can help with finance or influence.

            You can read more about Peace Direct at http://www.peacedirect.org/us/about/

For those who say, "I don't see what else we can do," these are just three examples of groups that are willing to re-imagine a world where peace and justice are possible – a world that is not dominated by empires that know only war and aggression. There are other organizations as well that are involved in the cause of peace and justice. Please take some time to look into some of these groups that are doing so much to advance peace and justice while our governments and empires flail about, crushing many innocents and uprooting whole communities in their unimaginative attempts to govern.

-

The Peace of Jerusalem?

[The following is a repeat post that was first featured on August 6, 2010. With the current tragedies taking place in the Holy Land, the poem continues to be tragically current.]

On the liturgical calendar, August 6 marks the Feast of the Transfiguration, celebrating the event witnessed by Peter, James and John of Jesus' transformation into a being of light. Since WWII, it has also been Hiroshima Day. It was the juxtaposition of these two commemorations on the same day that inspired the following poem.

Jerusalem and Hiroshima:

Legacies of Concentrated Effort

We are told to pray for the peace of Jerusalem,

But the peace of Jerusalem

I would wish upon no one.

Centuries of placing our noblest causes

and highest callings

In one geographical area

Has produced, not the heavenly city,

But rather a wasteland of unending struggle.

In Hiroshima, they do not just pray for peace.

They demand it.

It was there that our greatest minds with our human nature

Brought hell on earth in our fight for freedom.

Let us keep Jerusalem,

And let us embrace Hiroshima

To remind us not to try such things again.

    ~ CK

__________________________
Photos:

• The A-bomb dome building in Hiroshima
• A view of the Western Wall in Jerusalem with the Dome of the Rock in the background

-

Let's Be Honest about War

"Guernica" by Pablo Picaso

     "Anyone who advocates for war should 

first take into account what war truly entails"

Amazingly, there are voices in the news media who are once again drumming up a case for U.S. military action in Iraq. Iraq should be “Exhibit A” in the case against war. Military invasion resulted in chaos, the loss of thousands of lives, and the destruction of social infrastructure. At a cost of over 2 trillion dollars and  4,800 American lives (plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths), the result is continued misery and increased instability in the Middle East. We as a country were drawn into military conflict on decisions based upon fear. The public was still fearful and uneasy following the 911 attack in 2001, and the politicians who authorized military involvement in Iraq were fearful that they would not get votes back home if they did not go along with the drums of war being sounded by the chief executive. Today, with Iraq once again in turmoil, some are suggesting the need for more military action. Before entering into a new war, we need to be completely honest about all of the details. 

First, we should be clear about why Iraq and the Middle East are “vital to U.S. interests.” It is not a desire to “spread democracy,” it was never about “weapons of mass destruction,” and it is not even about the security of Israel. The reason we have a vital interest in the region is oil, which even President George W. Bush admitted we have an addiction to. Back in 1973 our country experienced an oil crisis. Some astute leaders said that it was time to invest in alternative energy sources. If we had launched such a national effort then, we would not be nearly so concerned about the Middle East region now. There would be little question that they should just work out their differences among themselves – without U.S. interference. There were, in fact, many who questioned invasion of Iraq at the outset, saying back in 2003 that there should be no blood for oil. Almost half the country, in fact, were opposed to entering into war.

Second, and most important, we must be honest about the nature of war. We have a long history of glorifying war and making it seem noble and honorable on national holidays. We look to World War II as the grand example of a justified war. Even with that war to end an evil regime, few people then or now could grasp the true horror that is unleashed in wartime.

Perhaps the two arguments most often heard to justify military action are national security and the just war theory. These arguments overlap, as one could claim both arguments in a situation of national defense. In reading modern justifications for armed conflict, I notice that not many people are referring to the just war theory, but for some it is important to use that concept to measure the need for military action. My own view is that war is never a moral choice and that we must find other means for settling our differences. Too often, the just war theory is simply one more attempt to justify war. If one is to make the argument for war, however, it is crucial to acknowledge the full reality of the nature of war.

Realities of War

On the occasion of the 50^th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, Paul Fussell wrote a piece for The Atlantic Monthly titled, “The Real War.” In that article, Fussell made the case that most Americans have no notion of the true horrors of war. When we were engaged in WWII, reporters had an unwritten understanding that the true nature of war would not be stated for the sake of keeping people back home optimistic as well as for the purpose of not jeopardizing the war effort. Such a widespread lack of understanding about what front line troops were facing, Fussell points out, led to immense cynicism on the part of American military personnel reflected verbally in such acronyms as SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR.

No one wrote about conditions on the front line where soldiers had no latrines, lived in filth, saw the internal organs of their buddies scattered about, and faced the growing knowledge that they would likely not make it out alive. Fussell quotes General Eisenhower who wrote a rare explicit passage on the carnage of war in Crusade in Europe, describing the battlefield at the Falaise Pocket: "It was literally possible to walk for hundreds of yards at a time, stepping on nothing but dead and decaying flesh." Fussell goes on to tell of why the public was so unaware of the realities or WWII:

How is it that these data are commonplaces only to the small number who had some direct experience of them? One reason is the normal human talent for looking on the bright side, for not receiving information likely to cause distress or to occasion a major overhaul of normal ethical, political, or psychological assumptions. But the more important reason is that the news correspondents, radio broadcasters, and film people who perceived these horrors kept quiet about them on behalf of the war effort, and so the large wartime audience never knew these things. As John Steinbeck finally confessed in 1958, "We were all part of the War Effort. We went along with it, and not only that, we abetted it. . . . I don't mean that the correspondents were liars. . . . It is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies." By not mentioning a lot of things, a correspondent could give the audience at home the impression that there were no cowards in the service, no thieves or rapists or looters, no cruel or stupid commanders. It is true, Steinbeck was aware, that most military operations are examples of "disorganized insanity," but the morale of the home front could not be jeopardized by an eyewitness's saying so. And even if a correspondent wanted to deliver the noisome truth, patriotism would join censorship in stopping his mouth. As Steinbeck noted in Once There Was a War, "The foolish reporter who broke the rules would not be printed at home and in addition would be put out of the theater by the command.”

Anyone who advocates for war should first take into account what war truly entails. “The Real War,” by Paul Fussell is one excellent source, describing conventional war in stark and unromantic terms (that article can be found here). Those religious leaders and politicians who support national military action must make themselves aware of the “disorganized insanity” of battle. They must acknowledge the practices of rape, mayhem, bodily dismemberment, civilian death, and community destruction that are unleashed in wartime. We as a people must acknowledge that many soldiers we send into battle will return badly damaged in body and spirit. They will never overcome the personal horror they witnessed, to which we are blithely oblivious. We as a nation must realize the immense destruction that we leave in our wake when we choose war, as evidenced most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a result of more than a decade at war in the Middle East, we have brought debt to ourselves as well as our children and grandchildren. We have also brought about the destruction of infrastructure and the impossibility of a normal life to hundreds of thousands of people. We have made new enemies and bought at least another generation of ill will. We have forgotten about being a country that welcomes “the tired, the poor and the weary” and have focused on being an empire protecting energy sources. The democracy we pretend to be trying to export is becoming less and less recognizable here at home. In short, our military actions in recent years have brought horror to people abroad and a poverty of national purpose at home. These are only a few reasons why continued military action would be ill advised. The public has little appetite for more war, and if we truly saw the realities of war, most of us would be absolutely repulsed by the notion.

“A Defeat for Humanity”

I cannot get out of my mind the dissonant voices that were heard at the outset of the Iraq War, which was dubbed, “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Pope John Paul II urged restraint from the U.S. stating that war in Iraq would be a defeat for humanity. To me, that was a true prophetic voice from the community of faith, yet there were others from that same community of faith that were easily justifying military action. One example came from George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the official biographer of Pope John Paul II. Weigel wrote editorials stating why war in Iraq was justified. I know that Weigel is an intelligent man and a faithful Catholic, yet on the matter of war, he seemed to bend intellectual theory like a contortionist to make Operation Iraqi Freedom comply with the just war theory. On the one hand, his words sounded clean, antiseptic, intellectual and distant when he argued for military action. On the other hand, I wonder if George Weigel, like many others at the time, was speaking as an American living in fear rather than looking to the standards set by a community of faith. Or perhaps he just put the ideals of empire ahead of the ideals of faith.

The scandal at Abu Ghraib demonstrated how quickly military action can degenerate into unspeakable acts of inhumanity. Any time we advocate for military action, we must be willing to face the harsh realities, the inhumanity, and even the evil that is unleashed in wartime. Perhaps the difference between Pope John Paul II and George Weigel is that the Pope lived through the horrors of war in Poland while in Weigel's case the concept of war is discussed from the halls of academia, far removed from the realities of war. That is the problem that most of us Americans face when war is discussed – we are far removed from the bombing, maiming, and desolation of war.

When Pope John Paul II warned against war in Iraq, he was speaking from a long standing view toward peace. In his message at the celebration of the World Day of Peace in January of 2000, he stated:

The twentieth century bequeaths to us above all else a warning: wars are often the cause of further wars because they fuel deep hatreds, create situations of injustice and trample upon people's dignity and rights. Wars generally do not resolve the problems for which they are fought and therefore, in addition to causing horrendous damage, they prove ultimately futile. War is a defeat for humanity. Only in peace and through peace can respect for human dignity and its inalienable rights be guaranteed.

My hope is that we may come to realize that peace is gained through peace and that war will always be a defeat for humanity.

-

On the Waging of War

Predator drone (U.S. Air Force photo)

I have a problem with drone warfare.  Recently Bill Moyers gave an editorial comment (“When We Kill without Caring”) on Moyers & Company speaking out against the use of drones. The issue sparked a conversation among some of my colleagues and me about the whole question of drone warfare. Some were in favor of using drones. They saw it as more efficient war technology which was better than sending our sons and daughters into battle with troops on the ground. Some saw it as no different from the use of bombers in warfare, except there was no danger of the pilot losing his life.  There was some attraction to the clean, efficient use of technology in prosecuting a war at a distance so that our own troops did not come into harm’s way. 

I, on the other hand have a problem with all of the above. My issue with drone warfare is a matter of asking the ethical question. Just because a “new technology” is in place, does not mean that every use of that technology is ethical, however clean and efficient that technology may appear to be. It is up to those within society who see these ethical issues to raise them rather than to acquiesce just because science and technology have made something “better” (ever read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World?).

 

The issue is not just technology. The issue is the expanded use of drones to the point that there is the dangerous precedent that would lead to no temporal or geographic limits to warfare. I have a big problem with using drones to fire upon suspects in a region where we have not even declared war, and in which innocent civilians are killed, while the operator of said drone sits in a comfortable air-conditioned office somewhere. Furthermore, it is questionable how effective military force is against terrorism. Some of us hold to the ethic of “swords into plowshares” rather than militaristic solutions to every conceivable fear. We can easily get used to technology, but this is a matter of ethics. Science and technology must always be subject to ethics. As long as there is human activity, it is appropriate to raise ethical questions.

In the matter of war, my position is that war is never an ethical choice. It is easy to forgo serious examination of any specific war by saying, “We had no other choice.”  

Modern Warfare and Increasing Brutality

Throughout the modern era,  war has become more scientifically advanced and I would argue, more immoral. During World War II, both Germany and the United States upped the ante of formalized declared war by taking the fighting beyond the battlefield and into the civilian population. Germany did it in London with the aerial bombing of the city, including residential and business areas. The United States did the same thing with the flattening of the city of Dresden in aerial attacks. This was an immoral extension of war because it brought the horror of battle to private citizens.  The U.S. did the ultimate upping of the ante by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It can be argued, and has, that these strategies were necessary, but the immorality of war cannot be so easily be dismissed. 

Today, the use of drones in warfare brings a new layer to the questions about conduct in war. The argument that using a drone in Pakistan is a better option than sending our own sons and daughters into the conflict is inadequate. We are not just talking about our sons and daughters. There are other sons and daughters (as well as wives and husbands) on the receiving end of those drone attacks.

Since the Enlightenment Period, and especially during the 20^th century, we have had this notion that humans are becoming more civilized and enlightened, yet this has coincided with ever increasing use of death-making technology and human torture.  The sad truth is that long as we humans continue to justify war, and think it is better for them to die than us, we won’t make it to any sort of “enlightenment.”

A Foundational Stand against War

We all know the saying of Jesus, “You have heard it said, and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you love your enemies and bless them that curse you.” As a rabbi, Jesus could have said, “You have heard it said, and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and that is a nobler way because you really shouldn’t go overboard in exacting revenge.” He would have been in line with the extent of the enlightenment of his day, and he would have been justified in saying that according to rabbinical teaching. But, of course, Jesus didn’t say that. He chose to offer another way.

The stand I take in opposing war (and refusing to say it is okay if necessary and if we use highly technical and sophisticated gadgets) is not because I want to sit in the Oval Office and make crucial decisions. It is because that in spite of the atrocities we continue to inflict upon one another, there must continue to be a voice that gives witness to a better way. The Quakers have bravely stood by such a witness. In the past, I have been part of peace & justice groups within mainline churches that offered such a witness.  

Whose Sons and Daughters Do We Send to Fight?

And back to the notion of “sending our sons and daughters to war,” that is another part of our country’s problem. We no longer send “our sons and daughters.” There is no longer any draft and no required national service.  We have a “volunteer” professional army that we send instead.  In other words, we harvest recruits – many of whom are from the lower socioeconomic strata of society – with promises of seeing the world and personal development. These are the young people whom society has offered no better option. They are the ones we send off to fight for freedom, when it is not even freedom that is in danger – it is the coffers of our oil barons and multinational conglomerates that are threatened. We just tell our young people who are pumped with patriotism and testosterone that they are fighting for freedom when they are actually fodder for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. If all our sons and daughters, including those of the politicians, were part of a national service, maybe we wouldn’t be so quick to go to war. Maybe then we would actually sit down and weigh the ethics of wartime situations.  

We sit in ease discussing this, but there are shattered lives all around us coming back from our current wars. They will never be alright, and to me, that is simply not okay. Recently I was talking to a patient at the hospital where I work as a nurse. We ask every patient upon admission if they have had suicidal thoughts in the last two weeks. The man looked at me with exasperation and said, “What do you think? I’m a Viet Nam vet! You just ask any vet, they’ll tell you – of course I have those thoughts, but no, I am not going to act on them.” 

What is the Alternative?

Having lived through the protests over the Viet Nam War, I have often been nonplussed by our country’s acceptance of war over the past twenty years. I think that acceptance has been based upon three things:  fear, an unwillingness to entertain a change in our affluent lifestyles, and the lack of a draft.  War does not demand much from most people in our society these days. As a result, we seem to be at a loss for visualizing other approaches to outside threats such as terrorism.

In the case of drone warfare, doing nothing is a better alternative. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are reducing the threat of terrorism by drone warfare. So we may kill someone who was on somebody's terrorist list. We also kill other local people. We fan the flames that lead to more terrorist activity. Taking ourselves out of that situation would do more to cool the cause of terrorism. The strength of Empire only furthers the terrorists cause.  Furthermore, the use of drones makes killing easier and in the short run less painful for us - therefore in increases the likelihood of our starting the next war. 

Iraq War Vets protesting the war in 2007
(photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

In the case of Iraq, that was wrongheaded from the start. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism on our shores, neither was there an Al Qaeda connection.  But there was oil. And the only fight we knew how to wage was with military action – except you can't fight terrorist with a conventional army. But you can fight a country with a conventional army. Thus the case was made for fighting in Iraq. It had a ruthless ruler, it had Muslims whom we had demonized, and it had oil. We couldn't resist the temptation. We were mad and we had to break something if we couldn't find the terrorists. Our engagement there cost billions of dollars, untold loss of life, and furthered the cause of the terrorists. 

In the case of Afghanistan, we've been there too long already. We punched Al-Qaeda, we made our point.  We do ourselves a greater favor if we leave and stop breaking things.

Most important, I repeat: drones make killing easier and increase the likelihood that we will use war rather than diplomacy in the future. If we have any faith in the potential of humanity, there comes a point where we must say, enough. Those who oppose war seldom win the argument, but they leave a record that it is possible to call upon the better angels of our nature. That is where I prefer to stake my claim. 

We have Sat too Long in Comfort – and Fear

As long as we sit in comfort and support technological gadgets of war and continue to parrot the notions of “terrorism in Islamabad” that have been fed to us by the warmongers to stoke our fears, there will never be any other way except the path of war that we have chosen for too long.  That is why I will continue to say, as did Bill Moyers, it is not acceptable for our country to “kill without caring.” Collateral damage in the form of women, children and civilians in Pakistan in order to “keep terrorism at bay” is no more acceptable than seeing my own neighbor’s bodies littering the street.  (And furthermore, drone attacks will not keep terrorism at bay.)

These are some of the reasons I do not support drone warfare as it is being practiced by our country. Others may disagree if they are coming from a different point of view or a different value system, but these are some of the reasons why I take the stand I take.

                                                                                                                ~ Charles Kinnaird

*   *   *  

Related Posts:

• Why Do Men Fight?
• The Atrocities of War
• Charlie Madison’s War
• Memorial Day Thoughts
• Make Commerce, not War
• When Freedom Becomes another Word for Empire

*