James M. Redwine

Middle East

The First Casualty

by Leave a Comment

When our son, Jim, served in the Gulf War in 1990-91 and the Iraq War in 2006-07 and briefly in the Afghanistan War in 2007 he observed one of war’s most vital premises: our country should never fall behind the curve of military superiority. America was fortunate to recover from Pearl Harbor in time to help the Allies survive World War II. In the age of nuclear and cyber warfare we might not be able to survive World War III with outdated technology. The United States must remain vigilant. Vigilance does not call for aggression. In fact, our Constitution demands defense, not offense. However, we have been in an offensive mode militarily since we unwisely intervened in Viet Nam after France was driven out in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Beginning in 1956 America saw fit to emulate the errors of the French and we have been intervening militarily in numerous countries ever since.

One thing we Americans thought we had learned from the discovery that our government had misled us into the Viet Nam War was the old truism that in war the first casualty is truth. This adage is often attributed to Aeschylus (525-456 BCE) but it probably has been noted by many observers of peoples drawn into wars by their leaders. By the way, those leaders have almost always not been the ones to do the fighting.

Such examples as King David sending Uriah to die in battle to hide David’s seduction of Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, Second Samuel, chapter 11, or perhaps President George W. Bush’s false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or now our government’s claims about our war in Afghanistan may illustrate this ancient principle.

Just this month Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko testified before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee that America’s war in Afghanistan, our longest war ever, was conducted on a basis of lies to get and maintain Congressional political and funding support. The Washington Post newspaper published reports that Douglas Lute, former White House Afghan War official under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, had testified America invaded Afghanistan in 2001 without a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan or what America planned to accomplish there.

Of course, Americans are no longer surprised that our government misleads us into wars. Unfortunately we have become inured to it. That is the danger. It is as frightening as the old story of the boy who cried wolf. If our government continues to mislead us into unnecessary wars, will we citizens respond appropriately when, and it could happen some day, we are asked to sacrifice our lives and treasure for a just cause such as our country’s survival?

Absolutes

by 2 Comments

We begin 2020 with the death of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. President Trump ordered the drone/air strike. The President said:

“The attack was necessary because Soleimani was planning massive attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.”

America has been heavily involved in the Middle East since World War II. Our role until 1990 was mainly diplomatic with some force of arms as a threat. In 1990 we invaded Iraq and re-invaded Iraq in 2003 although we have not completely disengaged since our first incursion.

After the 911 attacks of 2001 we invaded Afghanistan in the hopes of quelling further attacks by Al-Qaeda members who were using Afghanistan to plan operations in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. In 2014 America intervened militarily and diplomatically in the Syrian Civil War.

Iranian college students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran in 1979 and held 52 American hostages until 1981. All were released. The U.S. has had a prickly relationship with Iran since but it has been almost totally a war of words and sanctions.

If we point to 1990 as the metaphorical “Firing on Fort Sumter”, we have been engaged in military actions in the Middle East for 30 years. The strike on Soleimani may expand and extend our involvement. A calculation of costs and benefits of our 30 years of war is far beyond my knowledge. How does one evaluate the lives lost when there is no accounting for them? Did we eliminate terrorists or innocents, a future dictator or someone who might find a cure for cancer? We cannot know. We surely have expended trillions of dollars of national treasure, but would we have spent it any more wisely at home?

Over the last 30 years what have we done with our lives and treasure within our own country? More particularly what have we, and I mean me too, accomplished in our system of criminal justice? If America seeks to punish foreigners for transgressions and seeks to force other countries to behave as we think best, what are we doing and how have we done on imposing justice upon and modifying the behavior of our fellow citizens whom we convict of crimes? These issues, while always at play, rise up as salient as the New Year ensues.

Instead of war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran can we think about the legal system and Chris, Danny, Jackie and Jason? Is it logical to compare the behavior of countries to the behavior of individuals? Is it relevant? Is it meaningful or just another method of hoping instead of helping?

Each of the people named were at one time considered by our legal system to be in need of rehabilitation, much as America thinks of those named Middle Eastern countries. And while I have dealt with thousands of our fellow citizens in our legal system as lawyer, prosecutor and judge, this New Year season I have been musing about these four above-named survivors of my attempts at punishment and rehabilitation. In essence these four were given the opportunity to modify their own behavior and they did. Each is now a productive citizen and of more import to me, each is now my friend. Do I deserve any credit; no. Do they; yes.

But if society had continued to demand a pound of flesh from these, and so many others who have turned their lives around, each of them might have returned our slings and arrows with ballistic behavior. Yes, society held each to account just as we must do with other countries. But giving individuals and nations an opportunity for redemption might be worth contemplating.

Gulf of Tonkin, Weapons of Mass Destruction or Tankers in the Persian Gulf, Each a First Casualty of War

by 1 Comment

Aeschylus (c. 525-455 BC) is the earliest sage credited with the ironic observation that, “The first casualty of war is truth”. However, it does not require an ancient Greek playwright to point out such an obvious truism. Whatever the times, whichever the country and whoever the politicians, gossamer justifications for attacking other nations is de rigueur.

Sixty thousand Americans were killed in the Vietnam War that was escalated by President Johnson from a failed CIA coup to a full blown war based on the false premise of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. President George W. Bush took America to war against Afghanistan and Iraq recklessly and wrongly alleging Iraq had “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Now we have such luminaries as John Bolton salivating to send American soldiers maybe to die or kill Iranians while Bolton precipitously declares Iran attacked a Japanese oil tanker and a Norwegian oil tanker near the Persian Gulf. Of course, the Iranians are the only Persians over there. Why the United States has any right or obligation to intercede for Norway or Japan against Iran is a mystery advanced by Bolton and Mike Pompeo but debunked by even Japan and Norway along with most of the international community.

As we near the celebration of our nation’s independence from Great Britain we might want to examine whose blood and treasure is once again being so cavalierly wagered by some of our politicians. I am fairly confident President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and presidential advisor John Bolton do not plan to do any of the actual fighting. And it will be our tax money not their personal funds expended. The clamor for war is akin to why we revolted against England. Taxation without representation is analogous to a declaration of war without Congress. Maybe we should dump some tea into the Potomac.

Rattling Sabres

by Leave a Comment

Folk singer Phil Ochs (1940-1976) wrote a ballad about old people, mainly politicians, giving young people orders on how they should behave and believe. The closing verse is:

“So keep right on a talking
And tell us what to do.
If nobody listens,
My apologies to you.
And I know that you were younger once
‘Cause you sure are older now,
So when I got something to say, Sir,
I’m going to say it now.”

Ochs applied his sarcastic insight to the United States as well. In a song he wrote about American incursions from South America to Southeast Asia he criticized our government for interfering militarily when a country elected a leader we did not like and could not control:

“We’ll find you a leader
You can elect.”

Just based on media reports of our current actions in Venezuela and Iran, among others, Ochs’ message has had little resonance for our contemporary leaders. And hearing people on all sides of the military intervention issue from President Trump to each of the twenty-one 2020 presidential hopefuls and everyday folks from Maine to Monterey, perhaps Ochs might agree with Yogi Berra (1925-2015): “It’s deja vu all over again.”

That is not to say either Ochs or Berra or anyone else should encourage America to cease vigilantly preparing for danger. As our son, Jim Redwine, learned from personal experience while fighting on the front lines of the 1990-1991 Gulf War and in 2006-2007 in the Iraq War, we must not allow ourselves to fall behind the curve of military technology. Iraq’s military technology simply could not compare to ours. America must not allow itself to be on the weak side of the military equation.

What that concern does not require though is our penchant as the world’s preeminent military power to “Keep right on telling others what to do and whom they should elect.” Our power should remain potentially dominant but our desire to dominate other countries should remain in check. Our Constitution calls for “national defense”, not aggression.

With our current yearly national debt standing at 104.1% of our total gross national product it might behoove us to look to the source of this imbalance between production and debt. It began when we decided to drive the old Soviet Union into financial collapse via its military spending. Unfortunately our own spending rapidly increased from 30.9% of debt to GNP in 1981 mainly through our own massive military spending to where we are today. That is spending a lot of money we do not have. And it is always a good idea to learn from the mistakes of others. We do not want to become a broke and crumbling version of the old Soviet Union due to our own overspending on unnecessary world-wide military incursions.

Perhaps we should do what Russia should have done fifty years ago and concentrate on our domestic needs such as infrastructure, health care, global warming and our environment while continuing to keep pace, but not be profligate, with our national defense. A reasonable first step might be a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries as long as they return the favor.

I know we often get legitimately upset with the behaviors and cultures of other countries. But countries are made up of people and we may want to step back from the dangerous and expensive practice of telling others how to behave and believe. It is analogous to how many of us view Freedom of Speech. We will allow others to say whatever they want and behave as they see fit as long as they say and do what we agree with. As that wise Hoosier war correspondent Ernest T. Pyle (1900-1945) observed during WWII:

“When you have lived with the unnatural mass cruelty that mankind is capable of inflicting on itself, you find yourself dispossessed
of the faculty for blaming one poor man for the triviality of his faults.”

We might want to consider a similar thought for other countries and other peoples.

Merry Christmas to Us

by Leave a Comment

If the message of Christmas were simply gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, etc., etc., it would have died out about as unceremoniously as the current stock market. Therefore, we should probably consider if there are other possibilities.

When the Jews were conquered by the Romans they reacted as most oppressed people would. Their cultural myths concentrated on deliverance. In general, deliverance from an omnipotent force can take three approaches: armed rebellion; assimilation; and/or peaceful coexistence.

To some of the Hebrews their hoped-for messiah would be a warrior who would throw off the Roman rule. To others the approach was more of total capitulation. But for many the thought was a Prince of Peace would provide the best hope. To fight Rome, as the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. showed, was to court annihilation. As the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius chronicled, revolt by the Jews brought total devastation to their society.

On the other hand, the Romans and Jews of that time did not appear to be interested in peaceful coexistence except upon terms set by Rome. That left real deliverance from bondage for the Jewish people to be more metaphysical, that is, through philosophy not armed resistance. And it took 2,000 years, the horrors of WWII and the benevolence of the world’s new Rome, the United States of America, before Jewish self-determination could be realized. Still true peace as called for by Jesus is elusive. The Middle East continues to be an area where armed rebellion is both ubiquitous and futile.

Perhaps we should give the true message of Christmas a chance. I know President Trump has his faults and I carry no brief for much of what our government does in our name. However, to withdraw from foreign conflicts that simply kill thousands, destroy cultures and cost trillions appears to me to be the course Jesus would call for. Merry Christmas and welcome home to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else we are engulfed in endless counterproductive conflicts. And if we really are the new Rome maybe we should learn from the military fiascoes of that ancient one.

The debacle on Wall Street might best be addressed not by quarrelling over interest rates but by investing our treasure in ourselves instead of squandering it in the vain pursuit of a Pax Americana.

Oh To Be An Egyptian Judge

by Leave a Comment

Some of you may have noticed I have been a judge for awhile. And, although I know it may surprise you, not everyone of my thousands of decisions has been met with universal acclaim. Occasionally someone may actually disagree with my fair and objective legal analysis and have the bad form to say so. Well, my friends, not if we were in Egypt.

According to a report in the Palm Beach, Florida Sun Sentinel of Sunday, December 31, 2017 a court in Cairo convicted 19 people of making public statements, “[t]he court found to be inciting and expressing contempt toward the court and the judiciary”. If you are wondering why I was reading the Palm Beach paper in sweltering 80 degree weather while some of you may have been enjoying a cool and exhilarating Indiana Christmas season there is no truth to the rumor it was because Peg and I felt compelled to be near President Trump’s Mar-A-Lago winter White House. We did not even receive an invitation to his $750 per person New Year’s Eve party. It may have been lost due to the holiday rush at the post office. Anyway, back to Egypt and the injured dignity of the judiciary.

The newspaper reported that the heinous criminals insulted the judges by making statements that were aired on TV, radio, social media or in other disfavored publications. Now the court did not deign to ignore these demeaning comments or to call for the miscreants to tug vigorously on their forelocks. Oh no. The defendants received 3 years in prison and were fined up to one million Egyptian pounds ($56,270 US).

Each defendant was also ordered to pay one million Egyptian pounds to each of the judges of the powerful union known as The Judges Club. Now I would never advocate for such a response against anyone who had the temerity to publicly disagree with my rulings. However, a few hours in the stocks on the courthouse campus might be considered or parading around the courthouse wearing sackcloth and ashes or maybe a few public recitations of “Judge Redwine is Solomon” or, well, you get the idea.

Actually, it is events such as those in Egypt that truly show what a blessing it is to be in a country where CNN, MSNBC, The NY Times, The Washington Post, FOX News, Breitbart and many other publications can spew their invective against anyone from the Supreme Court to even a court in Posey County, Indiana without fear of being jailed.

Instead of just worrying about the current protestors in our enemy Iran perhaps we should address the draconian pronouncements of offended judges in countries such as our friends in Egypt and elsewhere. The injured sensibilities of some pompous plutocrat may lead to far greater harm to the public than their unfair judgments that get publicly condemned.