By Murray Dobbin,
TheTyee.ca
Aug 27, 2009

“History repeats itself,  first as tragedy, second as farce.” — Karl Marx

The Afghan presidential election will prove to be simply irrelevant. The U.S., whose imperial hubris renders it ignorant of other cultures and societies, invaded Afghanistan with the stated purpose eliminating Al Qaeda (remember them, the few hundred armed followers of Osama bin what’s-his-name?). In doing so, they repeated the same blind arrogance of their imperial predecessors, the British and the Soviets.

Getting in was easy. Getting out on their own terms — with a credible pro-Western government in place — is proving almost impossible.

Ironically (and imperialists tend to lack a sense of irony), the U.S. made their defeat in Afghanistan a virtual certainty by their previous meddling which featured the creation of the mujhideen as an anti-Soviet proxy fighting force. In doing so, the U.S. elevated to political and cultural primacy the kind of oppressive and violent Islamic fundamentalism that until then had never been a dominant feature of life in Afghanistan.

In their zeal to rid the region of Soviet influence, the U.S. created in Afghanistan a country overflowing with arms and weapons where bullets rule and ballots are a joke. The U.S. has slowly awakened to the grotesque morass they have entered, and the presidential election was supposed to be key to an exit strategy it desperately needs. But this is sheer fantasy. There is no exit strategy, unless you visualize the last U.S. helicopter, with desperate Afghanis clamouring to get aboard, lifting off from the roof of the U.S. embassy. That was the eventual U.S. exit “strategy” in Vietnam. And it may be the only one available here.

If you’re having trouble with that image, take into account the fact that the humiliating retreat from Vietnam began with a dramatic decrease in public support for the war — exactly what is happening in the U.S. Two recent polls reveal that a majority of Americans now think the war is not worth fighting. Almost twice as many want a troop decrease as support Obama’s commitment to an increase. By a two to one margin, Americans do not believe the election will result in “effective government.” Almost as many think the U.S. is losing the war as believe it is winning, despite media complicity in the White House public relations spin.

FULL ARTICLE

“No nation can donate liberation to another nation. Liberation should be achieved in a country by the people themselves.”

Malalai Joya, Member, Afghan House of the People

The U.S. imperial project in Afghanistan has faltered. The government created by the United States lacks credibility and legitimacy. The vast majority of the people remain poor. The drug economy is dominant. Despite an increase in NATO military forces, the armed resistance led by the Taliban is increasing in strength. So what should Canada’s response be?

The public debate on Afghanistan has had a very narrow focus in this country. The primary concern has been the role of the Canadian Forces in the counter-insurgency war: How many more Canadians will be killed? How long will our forces remain in Kandahar province? What will the United States think if Canada withdraws from the southern conflict zone? If Canada pulls its forces out of Afghanistan, will there be chaos? Meanwhile, the occupation grinds on and the hopes for peace in Afghanistan recede into the distance.

It is time for Canadians to ask what the Afghan people want. At the top of the list would certainly be an end to the death, destruction and despair of the current occupation (the real “three Ds” that Afghans have inherited from Canada’s “development, diplomacy and defence” state-building strategy). The polls all show that a large majority of Afghans want a negotiated settlement and an end to the war. The majority do not want to see the return of the Taliban to government. The fact that the Afghan public supports negotiation with the Taliban insurgents is an indication of how far they are willing to go to end the violence. The current U.S.-NATO policy, supported by the Canadian government, however, only perpetuates the war.

The Afghan people also want their sovereignty, their right to self-determination and their democratic rights. Since October 2001 the United States, its allies and United Nations agencies have directed political, military and economic policy in the country. Afghanistan has been treated like a 19th-century colony.

Beginning with the Bonn conference in 2001, the U.S. government has imposed a political structure of its own making on Afghanistan. They installed Hamid Karzai, their key agent from the 1979-92 anti-Soviet proxy war, as president. They dictated the basic structure of the new constitution. The Afghan people had wanted to restore the democratically instated 1964 constitution after the removal of the Taliban government. Instead, the U.S. government and its allies, including Canada, manipulated the process to impose an Islamist constitution on them. This Islamist constitution, demanded by the jihadist allies of the U.S. government, has proven to be a major barrier to the development of democratic parties and movements in Afghanistan. Many parties and political groups did not want a highly centralized government with enormous powers given to the president, but rather a federal system with a balance of powers and election by proportional representation. Given the democratic freedom of choice, the Afghan people would most likely choose a political system different from the one imposed upon them.

All surveys of Afghan public opinion indicate that a strong majority wants warlords, commanders and criminals banned from the government and legislature. This demand was blocked by the U.S. government and its allies, including Canada.

Public opinion polls also show a large majority wants to see war criminals brought before war crimes tribunals. But the U.S. government and its allies have systematically blocked this process. Most of these war criminals were supported by the U.S. government at one time or another over the past three decades; some hold prominent positions in the Karzai government and many are in the legislature.

A very narrow, neo-liberal economic development policy has been imposed on the Afghan people by the U.S. government, their allies who are providing economic assistance and international aid agencies like the World Bank, the UN Development Programme and the Asian Development Bank. The Afghan people and even their government have had no say in this matter. The neo-liberal model represents a repudiation of the policy direction developed by Afghan governments throughout the 20th century. There is no indication that this model has the support of the Afghan population.

Indeed, the imposition of neo-liberalism is only exacerbating the problems that average Afghans face. Almost every analysis of the situation in Afghanistan today reports the persistence of poverty: there are food shortages, unemployment, a lack of housing, electricity, heating and medical care, and a weak educational system. A major part of the problem is the fact that international assistance is largely outside the control of the Afghan government, provided by international lending institutions, foreign governments and a myriad of non-governmental organizations. Even the Karzai government has asked that international aid be funnelled through the Afghan government.

The present government, widely denounced by the Afghan people for its corruption and ineffectiveness, is weak because it has no legitimacy. Defenders of U.S. policy often state that Afghans today are better off than they were under the Taliban. That is a vast misconception. The large majority of Afghans are far worse off today than they were in the 1970s.

Beyond the Manley report: Real alternatives for Canada

The Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan, headed by John Manley, released its report in January 2008. This report summarized the position of the Canadian political and military establishment and the economic ruling classes. There is no alternative, the panel argued, to supporting the U.S. position in Afghanistan. There is no alternative to participation in a long counter-insurgency war.

At the same time there were two major studies released in the United States that contrast strikingly with the Manley report. The Atlantic Council of the United States, chaired by retired General James L. Jones, former commander of NATO, concluded, “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.” The January 2008 report by the Afghanistan Study Group reached a similar conclusion and stressed the “growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about the future direction of their country.” Both identified the “stark poverty” faced by most Afghans and the steady increase in violence.

Meanwhile, the panel headed by John Manley recommended the assignment of more NATO forces to Kandahar province and more equipment for the Canadian Forces. But this is no solution. Extending the war into Pakistan, as proposed by some U.S. and Canadian politicians, and hinted at in the Manley report, will only make the situation worse.

Looking at possible alternatives, the Manley panel argued that if the Canadian Forces were to move to another province to reduce exposure to conflict and loss of life it “would inevitably waste a large part of Canada’s human and financial investment in Kandahar.” They also argued that “Canadian interests and values, and Canadian lives, are now invested in Afghanistan.” Echoing the “support our troops” faction in the Canadian public, the panel stated that “[t]he sacrifices made there, by Canadians and their families, must be respected.” This suggests that in order to honour those who have lost their lives, Canada must keep fighting and lose even more lives. This is a ridiculous argument. All wars eventually come to an end, usually by a negotiated agreement. What the Manley panel seems to be saying is that not enough people have yet been killed to warrant an end to this war.

One clear option for the Canadian government would be to withdraw our military forces from Afghanistan, propose a ceasefire and make a strong commitment to finding a peaceful solution. Contrary to the view of the Manley panel, Canada’s world reputation and influence is not a product of fighting counter-insurgency wars in support of U.S. policy but of our historical role in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Canada could take on a leadership position, constructed with those countries in the United Nations which are not committed to the U.S. war policy. This would necessitate bypassing the Security Council, where the U.S. and the U.K. have the veto, and going directly to the UN General Assembly. Of course, this would require Canada to pursue a foreign policy initiative independent of the U.S. government.

What is needed is a broad regional peace settlement that includes Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries. Such an approach has been formally proposed to NATO by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), but was flatly rejected by the United States. The other NATO governments have remained silent. An SCO-brokered settlement would be based on the revival of the Six-Plus-Two negotiations on Afghanistan (1997-2001) which were hosted by the United Nations and which consisted of the six countries that border on Afghanistan, plus the United States and Russia. The SCO has recommended that NATO be formally added to this group. Afghanistan is already an official observer to the SCO and has sought full membership.

Following such an international settlement, the United Nations could create a real peacekeeping operation. It would have to be completely separate from the United States, NATO and the “coalition of the willing.” The largest contributors to UN peacekeeping forces today are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal and the Organization of African Unity.

Investing in Afghan-centred development

The Senlis Council (an NGO with many years experience operating in Afghanistan) and many others have criticized the Canadian government for allocating 90 per cent of its budget for Afghanistan to military forces and only 10 per cent to humanitarian assistance. They have called for a radical change that would put the bulk of our resources into economic and social development. This is an obvious policy alternative, in line with the Canadian public’s strong support for humanitarian assistance.

Canada could make a significant impact if it would concentrate its funding on health, housing, food and agriculture. As the Senlis Council has repeatedly stressed, there is a real need for emergency food assistance. The Canadian government could choose to bypass the international aid organizations like the World Bank and direct its spending to the most needy areas. This would have to be done with the support of the Afghan government.

The United States and international aid organizations have determined that the health system in Afghanistan shall be run on free-market principles. Canada could demonstrate that a public-health approach is better. Our government could begin by financing community health clinics open to all.

The Canadian government would also win a great deal of support in Afghanistan if it directly provided major funding to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and other human rights organizations. The legal system is hardly functioning in Afghanistan. Canada could provide significant help in this area, especially in the development of a legal aid program. The educational system is still in need of schools and teachers. Official Canadian aid could be funnelled to the Afghan government for this purpose.

What can we do in the area of food and agriculture? No poor, underdeveloped country can make progress towards social justice unless it can feed its people. Food security requires a rejection of the free-trade and free-market model of agricultural development.

The Afghan economy depends on food and agriculture; these account for over 50 per cent of the gross domestic product. Added to this is the poppy economy, which is estimated to be 35 per cent of the total GDP. Afghan agriculture is characterized by many small- and medium-sized farms with very few large operators. In this context Canada has a great deal to offer from our own history. Canadian farmers have expertise in the development of farm organizations, farmer-controlled co-operatives, credit unions and marketing agencies. Afghan farmers need help in developing transportation and marketing. As in many European countries, farmer co-operatives can expand into food processing, wholesaling and retailing.

Canada could readily provide assistance in this area. But it would mean rejecting the neo-liberal model imposed on Afghanistan that promotes the free market and foreign corporate agribusiness. The “Food First” model of self-reliance and egalitarian development as promoted by the Institute for Food and Development Policy, supported by many Canadian non-governmental and ethical organizations, is the obvious alternative.

Afghanistan has relied on two state-owned banks, but they are now being privatized. Through political mobilization Canadian farmers were able to establish the Farm Credit Corporation to provide long-term, low-interest mortgages. The People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan government of 1978-1992 was establishing similar credit programs. The Canadian model would be welcomed by Afghan farmers who are now victims of local money lenders and drug lords.

Afghanistan has very little industrial development; this is one of the main reasons why it is one of the poorest countries in the world. It has natural resources and good potential for mining, oil and natural gas. The current model for development, set by the United States with the support of the Canadian government, places emphasis on attracting investment from foreign-controlled transnational corporations. The previous state-owned enterprises are being abolished or privatized.

It is most important for Afghanistan to establish state ownership and control over natural resources, including the creation of state-owned enterprises. This is the only way that a less-developed country can capture high economic rents from natural resource extraction. In the Middle East all of the Muslim states maintain state-owned corporations for the development of the oil and gas industry. These states could provide the technical assistance to create this model. Assistance could also come from the central Asian countries who are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They are all developing oil, natural gas and other resource extraction through their own state-owned corporations, working in partnership with transnational corporations.

Of course, such a pronounced change in policy will be difficult for any Canadian government to realize. Since the 1980s our major political parties and federal and provincial governments have developed a commitment to the free market and foreign-ownership model of resource development. Prior to 2001, however, the Afghan government was developing its resource and energy sectors using state-owned enterprises. Canadian governments must recognize the right to self-determination and democracy. If the people of Afghanistan want to pursue a different road, we must accept that and provide assistance.

There are many policy options that are different from those being pursued by the U.S. and Canadian governments. If the alternative policy approaches outlined above were presented to the Canadian public there is a very good chance that they would receive majority support.

From counter-insurgency to peacemaking

The immediate goal of any Canadian movement for a new policy direction in Afghanistan must be to pressure the political parties in Parliament to respect the sovereignty and democratic rights of the people of Afghanistan. This would include an end to the Canadian government’s commitment to a large-scale deployment of military forces in Afghanistan in support of the U.S. counter-insurgency war. Instead, Canada should take on the role of peacemaker.

The second goal would be to convince the Canadian government there should be a major budget shift from the military role in Afghanistan to economic and social development. If the people of Afghanistan were given the right to self-determination and democracy, it is doubtful they would choose the neo-liberal agenda that is being imposed upon them.

Recent public-opinion polls indicate that around 50 per cent of the Canadian public want to see the government withdraw from the counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan. Over 60 per cent took the position that Canada should not continue a counter-insurgency military role beyond February 2009. Polls regularly show that 70 per cent choose UN peacekeeping over a combat role. Several polls report that a large majority, around 80 per cent, is pleased that Canada is not officially involved in the war in Iraq.

So what can those of us wanting to act on these sentiments do to directly aid Afghanistan? In the 1970s and 1980s Canadians formed local organizations across Canada to help the people of Guatemala and El Salvador resist and survive the horrors of their right-wing dictatorships, backed by the U.S. government. People mobilized in support of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, under attack from the Contras who were backed by the Reagan administration and the CIA’s narco-empire. Canadians can do that again.

There are quite a few parties of the left in Afghanistan, constantly undergoing change. There is also a group of younger parties, referred to as “new democrats,” which have a strong commitment to human rights, secularism and broad-based democracy. In her visit to Canada in November 2007, Malalai Joya, the embattled and determined advocate from the Afghan parliament, urged Canadians to give direct support to the “freedom-loving democratic parties” that need so much support. She also urged organizations in Canada to give assistance to the established non-governmental organizations doing good work in her country that cannot complete their projects because of lack of funds. There is a great need for the formation of Canadian solidarity organizations to go to Afghanistan to build alliances with political and non-governmental groups. There is a need for Canada’s alternate media organizations to do the same thing.

In the past Canadians have undertaken international solidarity activities that were in direct opposition to the policy positions taken by their government. They were willing to stand up and defy the policies of the U.S. government. Because our government shares responsibility for the tragic situation that now exists in Afghanistan, it is even more important for Canadians to take action today.

John W. Warnock is the author of The Politics of Hunger: The Global Food System; Free Trade and the New Right Agenda; The Other Mexico: The North American Triangle Completed and most recently Creating a Failed State: The U.S. and Canada in Afghanistan (Fernwood Publishing), from which this article is excerpted.

Order this issue.

Subscribe to Briarpatch.

“Let them demonstrate, just as long as
they continue to pay their taxes.”

-Alexander Haig

If you feel strongly that it is wrong to pay for war and militarism, then you are a conscientious objector to military taxation. If you act on those beliefs by redirecting the military portion of your taxes towards a peace tax trust fund that invests in non-violent programs, then you are an active conscientious objector to military taxation.

In times of conscription, many governments recognize the rights of conscientious objectors-people whose ethics or religious beliefs forbid them from killing people during a war-to refuse military service. During the Second World War, for instance, Canada had about 10,000 conscientious objectors to military service. Instead of participating in killing, they were given alternate duties in agriculture, industry or other work.

In Canada’s current war in Afghanistan, however, most Canadians’ participation in the war is limited to the tax dollars they pay towards it. This makes it much more difficult for conscientious objectors to remain true to their convictions. A small but growing movement is seeking to change that.

Today, fewer than 300 Canadians are actively involved in conscientious objection to military taxation. One reason for the low numbers of objectors is the lack of any formal, government-sanctioned “alternate service” option for military taxes. Indeed, Canada does not yet have a law to enable conscientious objectors to military taxation to redirect a portion of their tax dollars towards non-violent programs.

Conscience Canada, a group that advocates for the rights of conscientious objectors, has been working for almost 30 years to obtain such a law. Over the years, many Canadians have withheld the military portion of their taxes and some have even gone to court to try to prove that the government is obliged-by virtue of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by historic precedent-to respect the rights of conscientious objectors to military taxation.

Many people have their taxes deducted by their employer, however, so it is logistically cumbersome for them to withhold the military portion of their taxes. But even if a conscientious objector to military taxation can’t withhold the military portion of their taxes, they can still let the government know that they want their taxes spent on non-violent security-building measures rather than the military by completing the Peace Tax Return that Conscience Canada publishes each year at tax time.

As Justice Thomas Berger once stated, we live in “an era in which citizens’ taxes, rather than their bodies, are conscripted.” Indeed, conscientious objectors to military taxation argue that taxpayers have a key role to play in building a culture of non-violence. Edith Adamson, one of the founders of Conscience Canada, once remarked that, “War now depends more on money than on personnel; it only took 12 men to drop the bomb over Hiroshima, but it took millions, perhaps billions, of taxpayers’ dollars in Canada, Britain and the United States to develop that bomb.”

Why object to military taxation?

It is surely even more objectionable for those whose scruples forbid participating in war to pay others to participate rather than to enlist themselves. And refusing to pay war taxes can be a very powerful act. This simple act of refusal raises awareness about the role our taxes and our government’s foreign policy play in fostering militarism, and constitutes an important counterbalance to such policies. Former U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig made the significance of war taxes explicit when he said, while watching a large anti-war demonstration, “Let them demonstrate, just as long as they continue to pay their taxes.”

Dedicating our financial resources towards a peace fund enables us to begin thinking strategically about all the things that could be achieved if the resources currently being devoted to war were redirected towards meeting fundamental needs. The impact of this shift would be monumental: the World Game Institute has tallied up the cost of funding 17 programs for “what the world wants,” including removing land mines, eliminating starvation, providing clean, safe energy through efficiency and renewables, providing health care and addressing the AIDS epidemic, stopping deforestation and soil erosion, and more. The total comes to less than one-third of the $1 trillion the world currently squanders on militarism.

Conscientious objection and the war economy

Our economic system is set up like a Monopoly game, with wealth inevitably concentrating into fewer and fewer hands as the game progresses. Like a cancer, this concentration of wealth and power requires endless growth, fuelled by the exploitation of economic peripheries and marginalized populations. As we progress into the “Monopoly End Game,” however, it becomes increasingly difficult to find new ways to feed the cancerous economy. War is essential at this stage, as Mike Nickerson explains in his book Life, Money & Illusion: “The ‘War on Terror’ has helped keep money circulating. It is an ultimate make-work program that provides huge growth opportunities in the manufacture of massively destructive weapons and then doubles those opportunities through contracts to reconstruct the things those weapons destroy.”

By refusing to pay for war, we are objecting to the economic system we have created and increasing the political pressure to implement a new system. In the francophone world this connection has been made clear through the creation of a new movement for “objectors to growth” (objecteurs de croissance) which is a pun on the French term for conscientious objector, objecteur de conscience. Indeed, in Quebec many of the same people who have been involved in the peace tax movement are currently involved in the movement for voluntary simplicity. And throughout the world, groups and individuals advocating conscientious objection have traditionally also advocated reduced consumption and support for local economies.

Two common objections to the peace tax movement

1. “But we’re a peacekeeping nation”

Some people who object to the peace tax movement cite Canada’s traditional role on the world stage as a peacekeeping nation. And indeed, Canada was once among the top 10 contributors to UN peacekeeping missions. Now, however, of the 60,000 UN peacekeepers currently deployed, only 60 are Canadians. By way of contrast, Canada currently has 2,800 military personnel deployed to Afghanistan as part of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force.

And indeed, while some conscientious objectors object to any use of weapons, many would willingly contribute to peacekeeping missions, even if weapons were involved, as long as those missions were acting to uphold the law and protect human rights. It would be necessary to thoroughly rethink the way peacekeeping forces are trained and deployed in order to meet these criteria.

2. Isn’t this just a way to avoid paying taxes?

When some people first learn of the peace tax movement, they may suspect that conscientious objectors to military taxation are motivated by greed-keeping more of their tax dollars for themselves rather than paying their fair share to the government.

But this is no tax scam. Through Conscience Canada and the Quebec-based group Nos impôts pour la paix (Our Taxes For Peace), Canadians can withhold the military portion of their taxes and invest it instead in “peace tax” funds maintained by these groups. Those deposits will be returned to the depositor on request. For instance, if Revenue Canada were to seize money from a conscientious objector’s bank account in order to obtain the full amount of taxes owed, the objector would probably want their deposit returned.

Knowing that some of the most horrible crimes ever committed were “legal” reminds us that it is our duty to follow the dictates of our conscience, even when these principles conflict with what is legally permissible. Current and former parliamentarians from all of Canada’s major political parties support the passage of peace tax legislation. Indeed, the most recent parliamentary introduction of the Conscientious Objection Act was on June 13, 2007, when NDP Member of Parliament Bill Siksay introduced Bill C-460, the most up-to-date version of the bill. Many people who are not themselves conscientious objectors may still want to support this bill, because its passage would, as Siksay has pointed out, help bring our policies more closely into line with our purported values. Canada’s constitution, for instance, is based on the principles of “peace, order and good government,” yet militarism systematically undermines those values.

One of Canada’s most influential conscientious objectors to military taxation is Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth: “I am one of these Canadians who for some years has withheld from my income tax payment the percentage of the military budget. I have put that money on deposit with the peace tax fund held by Conscience Canada. I encourage you to do so too.”

The promise of “alternative service” for tax dollars

The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change argues that it would cost citizens of the world’s richest countries $430 per person per year to prevent the most disastrous effects of climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, Canadians spent more than that-about $546 per person-on the military. And many would argue that cutting greenhouse gas emissions would promote true security, whereas joining in the so-called “war on terror” actually undermines our security.

Since there is a real need for humanitarian intervention to protect vulnerable populations in many places in the world, many conscientious objectors to military taxation already support or participate in non-violent peace force missions such as those organized by Peace Brigades International, the Christian Peacemaker Teams and the International Solidarity Movement. Imagine how much more effective these efforts could be if these groups had access to infrastructure and resources on par with those currently allocated to our armed forces.

Jan Slakov has been a member of Conscience Canada and its predecessor for over 25 years. She lives on Salt Spring Island.

Order this issue.

Subscribe to Briarpatch.

By David MacKinnon, Battleford, Saskatchewan

In farmers’ fields the poppies blow
between the soldiers row on row
marked in their place, their place to die
The vultures so confidently fly
not seen amid the guns below
There will be dead, short days ago
Youth lived, saw dawn, saw sunset glow
Loved and were loved, whose blood is shed
in Afghan fields

Take your offering to the foe.
To you whom power is bestowed
The branch: be yours to hold it high
If ye break the faith to those who die
they shall not sleep, though poppies grow
in Afghan Fields

But there were visible signs his audience, which crowded around the podium and sat atop armoured vehicles parked behind Harper for the benefit of the cameras, was decidedly non-partisan.

Scores of soldiers began filing out the moment the prime minister finished speaking. An officer stopped them and said: “The prime minister is still here - so that means we’re still here. Get back inside.”

War Resisters Brandi and Josh Keys speak with Tyler McCreary about life and death in the US army, the war in Iraq, and the War Resisters Support Campaign

Can history repeat itself? In 1969, when Canada opened its border to deserters and draft dodgers from the US war on Vietnam, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared that “those who make the conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war… have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism.”

It’s difficult to imagine the accommodationist Paul Martin making such a declaration today, but substantial pressure is building for precisely that. More and more US soldiers are going AWOL, and many have fled north seeking refuge from the same militarism that sent their parents’ generation off to Vietnam. And with the looming spectre of another military draft, a brave few resisters and deserters are seeking a provision for themselves and those who follow to live in peace.

Tyler McCreary: What does it mean to be a war resister?

Brandi Key: We are resisting participation in the Iraq war. My husband went and served for eight months, and based on what he saw, he decided he could no longer participate in the war.

Josh Key: Actually, I guess you’d consider me an American deserter, because I deserted. I went to war, and then I left.

Tyler: So why did you originally join the US military?

Josh: I was working as a welder in 2002. We had two kids at the time; I was making about $7.25 an hour, and it wasn’t paying the bills. So I did what the billboards and commercials say: go join something bigger than yourself and make a good life.

Tyler: So did you join with the intent of going to Iraq?

Josh: No. They told me that because I was the head of a family, I’d be assigned to a regiment that would never be sent overseas.

Tyler: When did you learn that you were going to Iraq?

Josh: April 1, 2003.

Tyler: What was your reaction?

Josh: I was ready to go and fight a war. For the protection of my family, my country. And to get rid of the evil tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

Tyler: So what did you think about Saddam Hussein when you first went over?

Josh: I thought he was a madman who has killed millions of his people. We were told he’s a mass murderer, he’s killed his own people. He has weapons of mass destruction with the capability to hit the US. We were told there were links between him and Al Qaeda, which was the reason for 9/11.

Tyler: At what point did this story start to come apart for you?

Josh: It started with the things I had to do there. I saw nothing but death, destruction and chaos on our behalf. I felt like I was there more to antagonize the Iraqi people rather than for any purpose.

Tyler: So what did you do while you were in Iraq? What was your position?

Josh: I conducted raids, did traffic control, and I patrolled the streets. I was a combat engineer. I specialized in landmines and explosives.

Tyler: The news, by the time it gets to us, is very filtered -.embedded reporters, press conferences from the green zone, and so on. But you served most of your time in the Sunni Triangle, in the red zone. What was it like there?

Josh: They had us going non-stop, all the time. We’d get maybe two or three hours of sleep a night if we were lucky. Every night they would shoot illumination rounds over the city, so it was like daytime all the time. And every two seconds you’d hear tank fire. And Apache helicopters are the loudest, most vicious things I’ve ever heard in my life. All night long they would circle the cities. They would drive us so crazy because we couldn’t sleep. Twenty-four hours a day, tanks running up and down the streets. And you know, tanks are so heavy that the houses start rocking. You’ve got Apaches in the air. You’ve got F-16s flying over all the time. I don’t know how Iraqis could sleep. I couldn’t even sleep and I was a soldier there.

Tyler: What was the reaction of the Iraqis to the American troops? When we first saw the Americans go in, we saw crowds swarming the troops.

Josh: They did that a lot, especially at first. You’d go down the street, and it was like you were getting a parade everywhere you went. I talked to an Iraqi professor about that, and he said it was something Saddam Hussein instilled in people when he was in power. If they did not come out to greet the military, the soldiers could go in and rough up their families, rape, pillage, whatever. So they weren’t actually glad to see us; they were just scared we were going to do the same thing.

Tyler: So the American military presence isn’t bringing a sense of security to the people of Iraq. Did you see the US presence as able to protect Iraqis from crime?

Josh: Actually I didn’t. There’s no law there.

Tyler: Any kind of order? They’ve been setting up checkpoints and trying to defend areas. What kind of order do you think that’s instilling?

Josh: Martial law. After nine o’ clock, there could be nobody on the streets. If they’re on the streets, you kill them. That was the procedure. That’s what they told us. If you’re pulling guard and somebody’s walking across that street after nine, you don’t have the option to do nothing. You’re supposed to shoot him on sight. That’s not democracy, and you’re not promoting it.

Tyler: What do you think the long-term effects of all this will be?

Josh: Catastrophic. For myself, I know that for eight months I just antagonized them. I completely destroyed their homes. For what? I don’t know. I was supposed to be there to promote democracy. Those children, the babies, the next generation of Iraqis - does America think they’re going to love us for bringing democracy to them? After all that killing and pillaging, people actually think there aren’t going to be worse terrorists later on than there are now?

That actually terrifies me, because, you know, I was there and I had to do it and we all participated in it. And all those kids, the faces I saw, kids with guns held to their heads….

I was in a raid in Habbaniya, a little village outside of Fallujah - I don’t even know why the hell we were there. We ran the gate down with the tank. We ran up and blew the door off. As always, I was the first person in. There were two males sitting on the floor. And they didn’t respond to anything; they didn’t even hear the explosion. The other guys came in and started kicking and beating them, and I said, “hey, y’all, there’s something wrong with these guys.” But they kept on, they kept on. Turns out both guys were mentally retarded. And I said, “are you guys happy with yourselves? You just beat up two mentally retarded guys - for what? You wouldn’t even take a second to see if something was wrong with them.”

And that same day, one of my friends accidentally shot a little girl down the street. It drove him nuts. He didn’t mean to. Basically, he got trigger-happy. He said, “I thought I saw somebody throw a grenade,” when actually somebody probably threw a pebble.

Tyler: The occupation has been brutal for the people of Iraq, and also for the soldiers stationed there. Were there any casualties in your company?

Josh: We didn’t have any casualties in my company while I was there, but my brigade was in the Second Squadron, and the Second Squadron had lots. Numerous friends of mine went home with blown-off legs, or had their eyes punched out by explosions, or were ripped to shreds in attacks on Humvees. Over forty thousand soldiers have been maimed in Iraq. They’re flown in after nightfall so nobody sees how many wounded get off the planes.

One of my friends had his legs blown off. He was seventeen years old. His parents signed the papers for him to join the military. When he arrived at Fort Carson three days before we left to go to Iraq, I thought, “There’s no way they’re going to send this guy.” He didn’t know anything. We had all done a lot of training with explosives and landmines and things. They sent him over three months later, and he went home with his leg blown off. He’ll never be the same.

Tyler: People are beginning to raise questions about the effects of being in the military on the soldiers themselves. Just because you’ve come home without being wounded doesn’t mean that you’re not affected.

Josh: I always tell people that my problem was that I was never a killing machine. I was trained to kill to keep myself alive, but I’m not a person who can kill and just not think about it. I have a conscience. That’s where I messed up.

After our first fire-fight, our superiors laughed and said “now you’ll be in the army forever.” Because how can you be integrated back into civilian life, knowing you killed people? You’ve got to stay where you can always kill. That’s how they keep people. Myself, I was like, “okay, whatever, you’re crazier than hell here.” But some guys just feed on it. They know that the army’s the only thing they’re going to have, and they’re the yes-people who do whatever they’re told. And they’ll kill and kill and kill, and won’t even think about it until they’re fifty years old and have a nervous breakdown and kill themselves.

Tyler: You must have seen some terrible things in Iraq. Were there particular events that stand out for you?

Josh: Yes. There was one incident in Ramadi, Iraq. I was on a “quick reaction force” - you’re like the SWAT team for the military. We got the call, we went, it was on the banks of the Euphrates River. We took a sharp right turn, and I saw heads on one side and bodies on the other. At that time, I was the lowest-ranking individual in my squad, so I was told to get out and find evidence of a fire-fight. When I turned to get out of the hatch, there were two American soldiers kicking the head around like a soccer ball. At that time I sat back inside of the tank and said, “I won’t be part of this.” And that’s when it started touching me that we could do anything we wanted. Nobody was regulating anything. It was just death, destruction, and chaos.

My squad leader once said that if we could, we’d set down our weapons now and say, “No, we’re not going to participate in this any longer.” What would happen then? He pointed at me, another guy in my squad that was married, and himself. And he said, “They would put us in military prison, not pay our families, and how would our families make it?”

Two weeks later, I saw that happen. The colonel came to visit, at which point we were told, “you’re not authorized to ask him a question.” We were still wearing Vietnam-style flight vests. And a guy in my platoon asked the question, “Why haven’t we received the new ones?” Well, the colonel didn’t respond. The next day, my friend got pulled into the commanding officer’s tent. He had half his pay taken for six months for asking that question. That’s when you realize you really can’t resist, or your family would pay the price. You can’t do anything except what you’re told to do.

Tyler: What was the situation for families back home? Brandi, you were living on base, weren’t you?

Brandi: Yes, I was living at Fort Carson in Colorado. Before Josh left, they held a community meeting to tell us about all the different ways they were going to support us while our spouses were away. And at first they told me he would only be gone six months, so I decided to stay at Fort Carson. But of course none of the promises they had made came true, so there I was with three kids, by myself, and they kept telling me that he was going to come home, but he never did.

[Pause] I’m sorry, I haven’t talked about this in a long time. Nobody usually asks this question.

Any time something would happen to their platoon or their squadron, there’s a “family readiness group” of loved ones and spouses of the soldiers that would let us know what was going on. So they would call and tell us, “they got mortar attacked,” like the time when three guys each lost a leg. So they say “three guys have lost a leg,” but they can’t tell you who it is until their family members have been notified. So you don’t know if you’re waiting to get notified, or what’s going on. This happened at least three times, and I finally told them, “Don’t. I don’t even want to know anymore.” One time it took two days to find out, before they’d notified the family members. So for two days, you’re sitting there not wanting to answer your door, because that’s how they notify you. It was really bad. I mean, it was really bad.

Tyler: So when Josh returned on leave, you started discussing other options?

Josh: Yes. On November 15, 2003, they gave me a two-week leave. They told me I could come home and see my wife and kids for two weeks, and then I had to return to Baghdad for an undisclosed amount of time. When I came home, I didn’t know what I was going to do. I know I wanted to talk to my wife.

While on base, I made a phone call to the military lawyer, and I asked him, “Is there anything we can do? Could you give me a job working on base so I don’t have to return to Iraq? I could just stay on base and finish my time. He told me I had two options. Either I get back on the plane and go to Iraq, or I go to prison. We had to decide what we were going to do. We thought about it for a few days. You have to think hard about something like that. You have to wager the consequences. If you’re going to do it, do it for the right reasons and what you really believe. And that’s what we did.

Brandi: So they gave us the two options, but we found out later that there’s a GI hotline, there’s Conscientious Objector status, there are other things that he was supposed to have told us.

Tyler: So the military was not making you aware of all the options, not following their own rules?

Josh: From what I’ve been told, there are a lot more options that we weren’t aware of, that the lawyer failed to mentioned to us. They’re not doing what the military is supposed to do. A lot of people are staying in for way longer than what they’re supposed to, people are getting called back in, it’s a pretty faulty situation right now. There was a forty-seven year old man, his son was in his low thirties. His son was in the Marines and was sent to Iraq. Well, his father got a letter from the military telling him to get his bags packed - you’re going to Iraq with your son. And this guy’s been retired for years.

I know of another story. The brother of the people we lived with in Toronto is a US citizen. When he was younger, he signed up with the National Guard and learned how to be a doctor. He has been retired for numerous years, and they called him up and now he’s in Iraq too.

Brandi: And he’s in his fifties; he owns his own practice, and they called him back. And another war resister broke his back and his hand in basic training, and they were still sending him to Iraq, saying “Well, you’ll recover while you’re there. And somebody else can carry your gun.”

Josh: It’s getting outrageous, you know? There are guys in prison in the US right now for being cowards. That’s what they’ve labeled them, because they won’t go back to Iraq. Not because they have post-traumatic stress or mental illness, because they can’t function as regular civilians anymore. No, they put them in prison and call them cowards.

Tyler: Are lots of people going to prison for refusing to serve?

Brandi: I think most people just go underground. I don’t think many people actually try to fight it, because no one, as far as I know, has ever won a case about leaving the Iraqi war.

Josh: I’d say there are probably ten or less sitting in prison for cowardice. But over 8,000 are in hiding.

Tyler: And you were in hiding in Philadelphia for fourteen months?

Brandi: Yes. We were living in motels, moving from motel to motel with three kids, and then I got pregnant again. Josh was working, and he had to use his social security card and driver’s license because he couldn’t get a job otherwise. And it came to tax time, and we were just going crazy because we were always thinking, “they’re coming to get us.”

Tyler: And you came to Canada in March?

Josh: We came across at Niagara Falls. My lawyer said it would be best if we came to the city and claimed refugee status, rather than doing it at the border.

Tyler: Have other people gone through this process before you?

Brandi: Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey have already gone to hearings. Jeremy Hinzman was denied, and is appealing. Brandon is still waiting to hear the verdict. But Josh is the only one who went to Iraq. That might make a difference, as he can actually testify to the things he saw. But getting refugee status for an American is a hard thing; that’s why we are trying to get a provision for all war resisters to come to Canada as a class.

Tyler: This would be similar to what happened with US draft dodgers coming to Canada during the Vietnam war?

Josh: Yes. We were on Saltspring Island about a week ago, and I met a man who was one of the first twelve who came in the Vietnam era. And he had to do the same thing we’re doing now. They had to fight it and fight it, until more and more people came and they finally made a provision for it.

Tyler: How many American war resisters have come to Canada so far?

Josh: There are sixteen that are here now, claiming refugee status.

Brandi: At one of our talks, we met a war resister who has been here underground, who didn’t know he had help.

Josh: And he said that he knew a lot of other guys that are here underground. But they’re not going to come out until they’ve got some concrete assurance. And what can I say to that? I can’t tell them to go through everything I’m having to go through. If you really want your concrete assurance, then just stay where you are, don’t get yourself in trouble, and wait until it comes. That’s all I can tell them.

Brandi: If you want to fight it, then you have to go through what we’re going through. But we’re doing it for all war resisters, both the ones who didn’t go to Iraq - they’re the smart ones, we like to call them - and the ones who did, and are suffering from it. They all should be able to come to Canada and live normal lives, peacefully, without persecution for making the decision to resist.

Josh: You know, it’s a shame what we’ve had to do, but we’ve all been pushed into it. And our country thinks badly of us. There are only a few of us who know the real deal. And we’re all justified in being here. Everybody should have the chance to be in a place where they don’t have to go commit war crimes if they don’t want to. Those who have a conscience and know they’re going to have to live with it the rest of their lives should have a place to come.

Brandi and Josh Key and their four children live on Gabriola Island, BC. Josh’s refugee hearing, scheduled for September 2, was indefinitely postponed at the last minute after a federal government intervention. Visit the War Resisters’ Support Campaign at to learn more.

- Stan Goff

On a greyhound bus from Texas to Saskatchewan in April 2004, I met an ex-soldier named Mike. Mike had just retired from the military after 16 years of service, much of it overseas. His wife, who was recovering from breast cancer, had recently convinced him to retire from the military. He was going out of his head trying to figure out what to do with his newfound freedom. “What do you do with your spare time?” was a question he asked everyone he met, as if he were compiling a list he could refer to later.

Mike could inflict seven lethal wounds (he told me) with a set of keys in under three seconds, and was struggling with the fact that there was no place for his skills in civilian life. He wanted nothing more than to feel useful, productive. He was staunchly right-wing, and deeply indoctrinated, but smart, too - smart enough that the deteriorating situation in Iraq was forcing him to finally confront some uncomfortable questions about US motives, and the way the military was being used by the Bush administration. Mike still had close friends fighting in Iraq, and the downward spiral of the occupation was hitting him pretty hard.

Mike was experiencing a serious conflict between his beliefs on the one hand, and a growing awareness that the real world did not conform to his beliefs on the other. There must be thousands of people just like Mike in the US military - and their numbers will only swell as more soldiers return home from Iraq, battered and beaten, and begin to reflect upon the experience. I wish I knew Mike’s address, because I would love to send him Stan Goff ’s Full Spectrum Disorder: The Military in the New American Century.

Stan Goff is the US military’s worst nightmare: a retired career soldier turned anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and pro-feminist writer, activist, and strategist. He’s articulate, compassionate, and relentless - and he’s on a mission to bring down the beast that trained him.

Goff is good precisely where the left has traditionally been so very, very bad: knowing the difference between tactics, strategies, and goals, and integrating the three into a cohesive, flexible approach to organizing the sort of resistance to the “global state of war” that might ultimately overthrow it.

Full Spectrum Disorder is structured as a collection of dispatches from the hotspots of this war - Haiti, Columbia, Somalia, Iraq - interspersed with analyses of imperial overreach, guerrilla warfare, geopolitical imperatives, peak oil, and more. His analysis is informed by a conviction “that we are now certainly entering a very dark period of human history within which there are, with equal certainty, historic opportunities for human emancipation. They are times that will require our deepest compassion and our most dispassionate - and sometimes ruthless - cunning.”

Goff is writing for two very distinct audiences (leftists and soldiers) who, he argues, will need to start talking to one another if anything is going to change for the better. At this critical juncture, with US power at once so manifest and so vulnerable, with dissent within and beyond the ranks growing by the day, “it’s time,” Goff urges, “we thought about organizing with the military.”

Goff’s work is an essential reference for anyone involved in, or supportive of, anti-imperialist struggles. As he shows, US military overreach and economic collapse are blooming (and terribly destructive) realities that will shape left struggles around the world - and indeed, many aspects of all our lives - in incalculable ways in coming years. Whether it’s for better or for worse, Goff stresses, depends significantly on the left’s willingness and ability to confront the rapidly changing situation with creativity, agility, and audacity.

-Dave Oswald Mitchell