||||||||||||||||||| Feature Article for the Soul .............................
Fahrenheit 9/11
Is it Treason?
By David A. Morehouse, Ph.D.
This article is written as a general response to an email received from a veteran’s organization of which I am a member. The comments are my opinions, and they are not directed at any one person or organization—and, my opinion is at best, just another version of the story.
“The first casualty when war comes is truth”, Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917. To begin, no one should comment on this film unless he or she has personally viewed it; to do otherwise is to blindly accept another’s version of what it is and what it is not, which is an ignorant stance. The populist agitator Michael Moore’s film is indeed controversial, it is a new kind of political entertainment, and it does not cast a brilliant happy light on this war and those who promote it; it casts doubt on the patriotic fervor, or more appropriately, what was for a time, the national fever. While I do not agree with the director’s portrayal of all points in the film, I will defend his right to portray them with every word I speak. To deny this right is to as Barbara J. Lee (D) from California said, “To become the very evil we deplore”.
I am grateful that I live in a country where such freedoms exist. My son fights a young soldier in Afghanistan for those freedoms. I fought for eighteen years for those freedoms. My father fought for twenty-four years for those freedoms. My grandfather fought for those freedoms, as did my great grandfather, as did the millions of other immigrants and builders of this nation who have stood vigil over her literal shores and ideals upon which she was built. When Americans use and stand behind the term “patriotism” to stir up their own particular brand of destruction, it disappoints me. It disappoints me when Americans conjure up their own particular versions of the world, displaying a willingness to bear their own bedrock down home versions of hatred and intolerance as truth furled in a banner of patriotism. Patriotism, of this variety is a thinly veiled form of collective self-worship, celebrating our goodness, our ideals, our mercy and bemoans the perfidiousness of those who hate us. We define ourselves. All other definitions do not count.
War exposes a side of human nature that is usually masked by the unacknowledged coercion and social constraints that glue us together—you call it patriotism—I call it an illusion of what we think we are. Our cultivated conventions and little lies of civility lull us into an idealistic view of ourselves, and this film asks us to take a look at ourselves from another angle—why does that strike fear in you? This film has a political agenda, but according to Moore, in his July interview with Time magazine, “I don’t like this film being reduced to Bush vs. Kerry. The issues in it are larger than that… When Clinton was President, I went after him. And if Kerry is President, on day two I’ll be on him.” As such, this film’s reach makes it the hottest, most provocative information being projected on screens across the planet—why does that anger you? No one has with any degree of credibility addressed, refuted, or disproved the claims made in the film—why do you not demand answers from those exposed rather than attack the messenger, the motive of the messenger, or worse, the rights of the messenger to present the message?
According to the Army Times, The Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AFEES)nicole@newsforthesoul.com contracted for the rights to show the film in all of its theatres, in all of its installations—globally. So, why do you attempt to make it sound like some subversive element is smuggling in bootleg copies of the film to show to our troops in order to destroy their morale? Nothing of the sort is happening. Might our young troops be disturbed by what they see in this film? These young troops, whom we consider old enough to send to war to do our bidding, to kill for us, and to be killed for us. These same young men and women we collectively feel are not responsible enough to purchase a beer when in garrison until the age of twenty-one, or vote for or against those who might send them into this human fury called war? You bet they will be disturbed, and they should be—it is after all, their life that is on the line. I assure you, knowing another version of the story does not make it any more or less dangerous being there.
How dare you think you are luminous enough to take away their right to see and hear another version of the story of why they are in harms way. How dare you think they want or need your mythic campaign, your nationalist rhetoric, which is designed only to invoke pity for yourself. These young men and women are entitled to every version of the story that can be brought to them, and that is what freedom of speech is all about—it is not about your rhetoric of bile—it is not about your movement. As Hannah Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, “the principle of the movement is whoever is not included is excluded, whoever is not with me is against me, and so the people lose all the nuances and pluralistic aspects that have become too confusing for the masses”. Is this what you “patriots” suggest?
In his Treatise on Human Nature, David Hume wrote, “When our own nation is at war with any other, we detest them under the character of cruel, perfidious, unjust and violent. But, always esteem ourselves as able, moderate, and merciful. If the general of our enemies were successful, it is with difficulty we allow him the figure and character of a man. He is a sorcerer, he communicates with demons; as is reported of Oliver Cromwell, and the Duke of Luxembourg: he is bloody minded, and takes a pleasure in death and destruction. However, if the success were on our side, our commander has all the opposite good qualities, and is a matter of virtue, as well of courage and conduct. His treachery we call policy, his cruelty is an evil inseparable from war. In short, every one of his faults we either endeavor to extenuate, or dignify it with the name of that virtue, which approaches it. It is evident the same method of thinking runs through common life.” Thus, what are you “patriots” who cry “treason” and demand justice, even the removal of freedoms, when a version of the story forces a new perspective? What have you become?
For example, if a few speak out against the film, you applaud them, publish their articles, call them patriots and heroes, brave men and women of great character who should be heard. However, when another, even when he wears a uniform, like Army Captain Oscar Estrada speaks his mind in a well-written article for the Washington Post, he is knocked down, ostracized, and forced to spend his own money to defend himself against charges of being “a traitor to the cause”. Commanders at all levels speak against the young officer, dehumanizing him, portraying him as less than professional, and more. When Senior Air Force Master Sergeant Mark Diorio decided to speak out against the current administration, he had to retire from the military to do it. When dozens of marines see the film in Twenty-nine Palms, California and write letters to Moore thanking him for the truth, you say nothing of it, pretending it did not happen. When an internet movie poll indicates that thousands, 64%, give the movie an “A” rating and only 30% give it an “F” you ignore the shifting tide and seek to castigate the messenger.
On the other hand, when a young Army Specialist or a civilian speaks out against a film like Moore’s, you give them front page, you give them your stamp of credibility, and not one commander steps in and says, “Wait a minute! Nobody, but nobody has a military right to say anything about anything while they are in uniform.” If this were to happen, I could appreciate the consistency—but it does not happen and thus we have hypocrisy in play… we have the origins of totalitarianism.
Lawrence LeShan in the Psychology of War differentiates between your “patriotism” as brand of patriotism that calls for the elimination of freedoms as the difference between the “mythic reality” and the “sensory reality” in wartime. In sensory reality, we see events for what they are. Our young troops, fighting and dieing over there exist in sensory reality, they cannot sustain the mythic reality, the mythic perception of war; and they would not survive if they did. Wars that lose their mythic stature for the public and those warriors, such as did Korea and Vietnam, are doomed for failure, for war is then exposed for what it is. However, in mythic war, we imbue events with meanings they do not have. We see defeats as signposts on the road to ultimate victory. We demonize the enemy so that our opponent is no longer human to the masses. We view ourselves, our people, as the embodiment of absolute goodness, and we are not. We lose all ability to take courage, look in the mirror, and do what is morally right.
War never creates the security or the harmony we desire, or that we mythologize for our people. Thus, the desire to control the wisdom of the masses, the knowledge of the crowd becomes a national spectacle again wrapped in the banner of patriotism. With the advent of the press, the camera, and the microphone in war, the intoxication of power and the ability to sustain the lie of the myth began to erode. Many self-proclaimed “patriots” cried “treason” thirty years ago as well; and in years gone by, we as a people, as a Nation, look back to say “thank you” to the messengers for their courage, for their desire to give us all that they discovered. We thank them almost unanimously for endowing us with other versions of the story, versions that may have ended the myth of war far sooner than planned. True patriots served and then exercised their right to question; other patriots honored those who served while exercising their right to question; thus, patriotism is not defined by sightless adherence to the executive tide of this nation.
The lie in war is almost always a lie of omission. The blunders and the senseless slaughter by our generals, the execution of prisoners, the abuses, the slaughter of innocents, and the horror of wounds are rarely disclosed, at least during a mythic war, to the public. Not three months ago, photos of the dead in flag draped caskets were not allowed to be shown to the public for fear that the mythic illusion of war might be punctured. You know that you were not shown the photos of the Iraqi dead, the dead children, their mothers and fathers, just as you were not shown the photos of the American dead—to do so would surely puncture the mythic campaign. But it is only when the myth is punctured that the story told is a sensory story and not a mythic one. The public is now pulling away from the myth, and that scares those of you still immersed in the myth of war, Michael Moore’s film is a sensory film, and depending on which side of the fence you are on, it rightly or wrongly, is reacting to a public that has changed its perception of war once again.
Publications exist like “The Nation”, “The Economist”, and others, which question the credibility and actions of the administration; are they treasonous as well? Are we to initiate a state run propaganda elimination machine with brown shirted police running into homes and businesses in the dark of night to whisk away dissenters, those who would dare question or criticize the leaders of this nation? Shall we imprison all who disagree with us? Shall we give still more credence to, and honor more deeply, the great lie that all we do, we do in the interest of the national security of the United States, and therefore, any means is justified by the illusionary end? Is this what we are proposing? You have every right to question Michael Moore’s film, to not like it, to protest it, even to boycott it; but you are far beyond your rights to call it treason, or to suggest trial, imprisonment, or as some extremists have… suggest execution. Thank God, all you are doing is posturing, and that the greatness of a democracy would never allow your political agendas, your own Jihads in the name of “patriotism” to come to fruition.
There are indeed Patriots in this world, and there are heroes; but those who avow treason and choose by their own volition to re-establish the boundaries of free speech from often limited and uninformed perspectives, are neither. The sophistry of your arguments equals those of our enemies and serves nothing but to undermine the literal fabric of our constitution and all documents promulgated by our founding fathers. When Ernie Pyle, the American war correspondent in World War II, was killed on the Pacific island of le Shima in 1945, a rough draft of a column was found on his body. He was preparing it for release after the end of the war in Europe. He had done much to promote the myth of the warrior and the heroism of soldiering, but by the end, he seemed to tire of it all. He wrote:
“But there are many of the living who have burned into their brains forever the unnatural sight of cold dead men scattered over the hillsides and in the ditches along the high rows of hedge throughout the world. Dead men by mass production—in one country after another—month after month and year after year. Dead men in winter and dead men in summer. Dead men in such familiar promiscuity that they become monotonous. Dead men in such monotonous infinity that you come almost to hate them. These are the things that you at home need not even try to understand. To you at home they are columns of figures, or he is a near one who went away and just didn’t come back. You didn’t see him lying so grotesque and pasty beside the gravel road in France. We saw him; saw him by the multiple thousands. That is the difference.”
Pyle now writes on the sensory war, as is the primary motivation behind Moore’s film. Moore, as Pyle, is against the war, against war in general and against those who sent us to war stating one set of reasons, in his mind mythic reasons, and he is telling his version of the sensory story. You can argue his motives are counter to the mythic resolves those who sponsor war, who profit from war, and who are intoxicated by the drug of war, and are engaged in a nihilistic relativism. However, you cannot argue honorably and legitimately his right to do this. His right to do this is what this country’s “freedom” is all about, even when you don’t like what you hear.
Moore’s film attempts to dissect the cause of war, this war, and failure to do this only leaves us open to the next installment. The case for this war is deflating rapidly, and the American public is quickly spinning out of the mythic version. When a cause is exhausted (as is this war), or no longer needed, it can only be invalidated in direct proportion to the invalidation of the opposing cause. This is the scourge of war. We can deflate our own cause but must deflate the cause of the other as well. Have the courage to question the causes of war without seeking to deflate the causes of others instead. Look to why we are there and what we are accomplishing and to the global stir of which we are now the catalyst.
Stop the fantasy. Both facts and opinions become a celebration of ignorance, and more ominously, a refusal to discredit the cause that has eaten away at one’s moral conscience. The moral certitude of the state in wartime is a kind of fundamentalism. This dangerous messianic brand of patriotic religion, one where self-doubt is minimal, has come increasingly to color our newfound brand of American Patriotism. If you want to strike up a cause, let it be a cause to honor the dead, and to make way for the survivors of this war.
While you waste time vilifying Michael Moore, the Commander and Chief has cut veteran’s programs by hundreds of millions of dollars. Bed after bed in veterans hospitals are disappearing for lack of funding—where is your patriotic calling on this issue? Men were court marshaled for refusing to be inoculated with the anthrax prophylactic drugs, as were those who refused to take the anti-malarial drug “Lariam”, which was found to be the vehicle in the degraded performance of Army Staff Sergeant Grorge Pogany. Sergeant Pogany was charged with cowardice and would have been successfully prosecuted were it not for the testimony of one Army doctor who found the drug, which was untested before being given to our troops, was causing oxotoxicity, resulting in hallucinations and feelings of pending doom in dozens of soldiers. Where is your patriotic fervor with this issue? Who among you will take up this cause? Whom has sent a letter to this young soldier just to say, “We are sorry for what happened?” Not one of you.
The Army is 9.4 billion dollars in the hole and counting, the Air Force 1.4 billion, the Navy and Marine Corps 1.5 billion (together), and the war itself has topped $126 trillion dollars—and counting. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” The prophetic words of warrior statesman, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in April 16, 1953. Where do all of you “patriots” stand on this issue? According to the Army Times and Defense News the military is going to lose at least 49,074 new housing units that were set to house soldiers, sailors and airmen on 28 military bases around the world. What is your action on this? How can an administration so set on war, keep cutting the benefits of those who are asked to fight it?
What of the reservist and National Guard pay problems? Did you know that thousands of them have not received any pay for their time served in battle; that many families have had to sell property and homes in order to survive? Many have had to move out of their towns, to live in lesser and often inadequate conditions only because their service member is deployed, constituting a loss of civilian income exacerbated by the fact that the military has not solved their pay problems. Thus, they lose their civilian pay and the military has not paid their families for months and in many cases for well over a year. What say you about this kind of problem? Is there anyone willing to step in and charge this windmill on behalf of those fighting and dieing for Michael Moore’s right to say whatever he wants to say about the current administration? Come on, there must be someone out there, some “patriot” willing to weigh in and stop the hypocrisy of a system cheering a war, labeling the warriors as heroes, and then jerking the carpet from under them at every turn.
If you want a cause, do not make it Michael Moore and his version of the world, make it the cause of those who need it most. Volunteer to help veterans, join your local chapter of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Air Force Association or any other such organization. Pay your dues, write you elected leadership, get involved in a positive way, donate your time, donate your resources—but stop looking for a reason to be offended by people like Michael Moore. Find out who in your state is working to take care of veterans when they come home. It is cheap and easy to complain, to draw conclusions, and make judgments about others—it requires little energy on your part.
I love the position of California Democratic Representative Linda Sanchez, who recently said, “The measure of our patriotism is not just about ‘rah, rah’ and cheering the troops while they are in war, in theatre… it is how we treat those same men and women when they come home and need us.” Representative Sanchez is working with a political group dedicating their time to pushing for increases in state and federal spending for veterans programs. If you really want a cause—how about this one? You might begin by asking why Representative Sanchez would need to ‘push for spending increases for veterans’? She is right, a plastic flag to pin to your car costs about $5.95, how much more are you willing to spend to be a patriot of quality?
I fly often in my work, and the other day the flight attendant made special recognition of a group of young men on their way to the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD), in San Diego, asking the entire plane to thank these young men for their decision to serve their country. The entire plane erupted into applause and I am certain those young men will never forget that—it was a good thing. But when one of them comes home without legs and arms, who will give him a job with equal pay and benefits? Who will allow him to miss work for rehabilitation or other amputee complications? Do not tell me you will… because the facts do not support the position. Far too many young service members come home and find it difficult if not impossible to return to their old pre-war jobs, and still others never find productive work and are forced to live on disability for the rest of their lives. It is true that some persevere, and even succeed in spite of their injuries, but that is not often the case. While failure is a choice, when confronted with a system averse to assistance, failure becomes a bitter pill that is swallowed all too readily.
My mind shot instantly to a conversation I recently had with a business colleague whom I respect tremendously. I was explaining the work I was doing with veterans in San Francisco, and venting on some of the challenges and obstacles others and I were encountering. I expressed these situations as unfair tragedies that should not be present, when my colleague stopped me mid-sentence and matter-of-factly asked, “What is it exactly, that you think the rest of us owe these people?” I was stunned, and while I was reliving the experience, I apparently, was not applauding with as much vigor as my seatmate up front expected. The well-dressed man sitting next to me looked somewhat disgruntled by my lack of notice. Later in the flight, we got to talking about unrelated issues of business, and family, when the subject of my son serving in Afghanistan came up. He mentioned that I did not seem to support the young lads in the back, and he felt this was odd given I had a son in uniform.
I explained to the man that support came in many forms. I explained that I was reflecting as the flight attendant did what she did, about just how many of those applauding, would be willing to offer up another chunk of their paychecks to build and fund indefinitely five or six new veterans hospitals to take care of the hundreds of thousands of new veterans we as a country were producing. I said, I was speculating in the midst of all this revelry, who in the cabin would be interested in knowing that the national cemeteries in which we bury these young warriors (and our old warriors), are filling up and shutting down, and that there is no plan or funding to remedy that situation. I was wondering if these good people know that when a young mother of five loses her husband in combat that she is given a few hundred dollars with which to bury him. I was wondering if all those cheering would be willing to anti up and vote for a survivor benefit plan that could actually take care of a young family after the husband was killed in combat.
I was wondering if they knew that after payment of any insurance he had (which most young soldiers have very little, if any), that she and her children would be paid only for the number of days the soldier was alive that month. Further, that if this young mother was over paid by a few days, that the military finance and accounting office would pursue her ruthlessly to collect the money the military paid her dead husband, when he was in fact dead, and not on the job; and that they would use the IRS to do it if necessary. I was wondering if all those applauding, knew that this young mother would then be given no time to grieve, but would be given 14 days to clear military quarters (assuming they had quarters as many young enlisted do not), and that she would be charged for each day she and her children resided in those quarters. That she would have to oversee the packing of her belongings, clean the quarters to a spotless condition and that the quarters would be inspected before she could take her children, collect her final payment for her husband’s service, and then begin life again somewhere else. I was wondering if all those cheering on the plane knew that when most people are presented with these kinds of facts about military life, respond quickly with, “Well, they volunteered didn’t they… nobody made them go… there isn’t a draft.” Okay, there isn’t a draft.
I looked at the man and said, ‘I am opposed to war, and all its trappings. I am opposed to cheerleading war, and those who cheerlead it but know nothing of it, which was Pyle’s position. But I am always for the support of those who fight them for us; and more importantly, I am for supporting them long term, not just in the moment, and especially not just because it is sheik.’ ‘Therefore’, I asked, ‘how much of your time will you give? If everything is as it is alleged to be, then a “war administration” a “war President” should be self-motivated toward pushing Congress for increased money for veterans programs—check the docket—it isn’t. Ask yourself, “How can I help?”’ The man ordered a bourbon and water, and we spoke no more.
Three hours later, as the plane parked at the gate and we walked off, our eyes met for a brief moment as we both checked the monitors for our next flights.
He said, “I understand what you mean, but I don’t know what to do”.
“Are you a veteran?” I asked.
“No.” he replied.
“But you are a businessman, and you are capable. Look in the phone book for a veteran’s organization in Dallas, then call them up and ask if there is anything you can do for them… you might be surprised what you hear.”
“I will…” he said, “and hey, thanks”.
We shook hands and parted ways. Now I ask you, do you think he will… get involved?
Therefore, my bottom line is this, if you want to cry foul and if you want to use a word like “treason”, you had better be qualified to use the word in the first place. That means you better have served somewhere, some place, and at some time in a military or civic capacity; and then you will know the cost of freedom and the price that was paid to protect our right to question the motives of our “elected” or “appointed” leaders. In the second place, you had better get your ducks in a row, do your homework, see the film, form your own opinions and do not get caught using the opinions of others. Most important of all—think about what you are saying when you use the word treason, when you start advocating imprisonment and death because someone is telling their version of the story.
Michael Moore did not give away nuclear launch codes, he did not sell the names of the graduating class of the FBI or the CIA to some foreign agency, he did not attempt to blow something up, he simply criticized the American President. So what? If you cannot understand why your take on this film and its director is so bad, then look over your shoulder to yesterday. If you support the “regime change” in Baghdad, that is fine… now ask yourself what Saddam would have done to Michael Moore had his name been Abdul Moore, and his film criticized the Saddam administration. Even if all you are doing is humoring yourself and friends with patriotic brio, framing a dialogue using terms like “firing squads”, or “imprisonment” and other such rubbish—you should take a moment to think about whom you sound like, and whom you are emulating.
In World War II, German citizens who questioned the methods, the motives and the actions of the Nazi regime were charged with treason, using much the same definition some American “patriots” are now displaying as case points in their attack of Michael Moore, and others. Literally, the German high command encouraged citizens of the Reich to turn in their neighbors for spreading rumors of lost battles, casualty counts, and anything pertaining to the holocaust. Again, this was the state sponsored mythic campaign. For questioning the myth, for telling the truth about what they knew or found out via their own investigations, German citizens were imprisoned, tortured, and for some, abruptly executed. Why? Because they dared to question the myth, because they asked for proof, they asked for information, for reasons—they challenged the status quo. When it was all over, the “patriot” citizens and soldiers of the Third Reich who never asked a question, who followed blindly to protect the sovereignty of the cause used every manner of excuse available to explain away their “ignorance” of the initiatives of their elected and appointed leadership. In the former Soviet Union, with which we fought the cold war, the same conditions applied. Is that what you want this country to represent? I think not, which is why you must tread lightly on these imaginary lines you draw across the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens.
I could go on for pages more, but I have other work to do. Do something good for a veteran today… otherwise all you are doing is talking and gesturing, which means nothing in the end. Michael Moore and his film opinions are just versions of the world, and in his mind, he is doing a good work, he is presenting a side of the story you would not otherwise hear, and he is trying to get this war ended—and yes promote a regime change in America. Why is that a bad thing? Whatever you think, vote your conscience, but do not cry treason. Late one night not too long ago, I picked up Shakespeare’s Macbeth. I had read it before, but in another life as a college student, and this night it seemed to stare at me from the bookshelf. I turned to Macduff’s wife’s speech made when the murderers, sent by Macbeth, arrived to kill her and her small children: “Whither should I fly?” she asks, “I have done no harm. But I remember now I am in this earthly world—where to do harm is often laudable, and to do good sometimes is accounted as dangerous folly.”
With respect,
David Morehouse
Send feedback about this article >
Recommended Reading List
For those who want to know more
1. *Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, edited by Peter Paret, 1986, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
2. *Home From The War: Vietnam Veterans Neither Victims nor Executioners, by Robert Jay Lifton, 1973, Simon & Schuester, New York.
3. Street Without Joy, by Bernard B. Fall, 1964, Schocken Books, New York.
4. *War In European History, by Michael Howard1976, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
5. America at War, by Brian Brick, 1992, Scholastic, Inc., New York.
6. *Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, by Michael Waltzer, 1977, Basic Books, a Division of Harper Collins Publishers, New York.
7. Weakness and Deceit: US Policy and El Salvador, by Raymond Bonner, 1984, Times Books, New York.
8. *Insurgency & Terrorism: Inside Modern Revolutionary Warfare, by Bard E. O’Neill, 1990, Brassey’s (US) Inc., Maxwell Macmillian Pergamon Publishing Group, New York.
9. *National Security: Enduring Problems of U.S. Defense Policy, by Donald M. Snow, 1987, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
10. Reinventing Politics, by Vladimir Tismaneanu, 1992, The Free Press, a division of Macmillan, Inc., New York.
11. *Polarity and War: The Changing Structure of International Conflict, edited by Alan Ned Sabrosky, 1985, Westview Press, Boulder and London.
12. Human Variation, by Bleibtreu and Downs, 1971, Glencoe Press, Collier Macmillan Limited, London.
13. *Perspectives on Terrorism, Vetter and Perlstein, 1991, Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, California.
14. The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us From Violence, by Gavin de Brecker, 1997, Little, Brown and Company, New York.
15. War on the Mind: The Military Uses and Abuses of Psychology, by Peter Watson, 1978, Basic Books, Inc., a division of Harper Collins Publishers, New York.
16. Truth: A History and a Guide for the Perplexed, by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, 1997, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
17. A Diplomatic History of the United States, by Samuel, Flagg & Bemis, 1951, Henry Holt and Company, New York.
18. America in Our Time-1896 to 1946, by Dwight L. Drumond, 1947, Henry holt and Company, New York.
19. *History & Strategy, by Marc Trachtenberg, 1991, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
20. *On War, by Carl Von Clausewitz, 1976, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
21. *Triumph Without Victory: The Unreported History of the Persian Gulf War, by U.S. News & World Report, 1992, Times Books & Random House, New York.
22. *On Aggression, by Marjorie Kerr Wilson, a Kurt Wolff Book, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., New York.
23. The Essential Koran: The Heart of Islam, by Thomas Cleary, 1993, Castle Books, Edison, new Jersey. Note: From my perspective, this book is not the best available. I would recommend older books on the Koran that have not been adjusted to leave out or alter content in any way. A better book is listed below, but may be difficult to find.
24. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran: An Explanatory Translation, by Mohammed Pickthall, 1959, Mentor Books, The New American Library of World Literature, New York.
25. Combating Catastrophic Terrorism, by Ashton Carter, John Deutch and Philip Zelikow, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1998, Vol. 77, No. 6, New York.
26. Sidelined on Human Rights, by Kenneth Roth, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1998, Vol. 77, No. 2, New York.
(*) Indicates selections from the United States Army Command and General Staff College and from the United States Army War College.
\
......pr...............
"We must transcend all fear, hate and anger." David Morehouse
