An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,613
An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms

A memorial day classic, from an Army veteran.



An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms

by Jacob G. Hornberger

May 31, 2011

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/open-letter-troops-defending-freedoms/

Dear Troops:

Yesterday — Memorial Day — some people asserted, once again, that you are “defending our freedoms” overseas.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those people are just repeating tired old mantras. The reality is that you are not defending our freedoms with your actions overseas. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Your actions overseas are placing our freedoms here at home in ever-greater jeopardy.

Consider your occupation of Iraq, a country that, as you know, never attacked the United States, making it the defender in the war and the United States the aggressor. Think about that: Every single person that the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Yet, the countless victims of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have friends and relatives, many of whom have become filled with anger and rage and who now would stop at nothing to retaliate with terrorist attacks against Americans.

Pray tell: How does that constitute defending our freedoms?

It was no different prior to 9/11. At the end of the Persian Gulf War, the troops intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water and sewage facilities after a Pentagon study showed that this would help spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people.

It worked. For 11 years after that, the troops enforced the cruel and brutal sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. (See “America’s Peacetime Crimes against Iraq” by Anthony Gregory.) You’ll recall U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.”

By “it” she meant the attempted ouster of Saddam Hussein from power. You will recall that he was a dictator who was the U.S. government’s ally and partner during the 1980s, when the United States was furnishing him with those infamous WMDs that U.S. officials later used to excite the American people into supporting your invasion of Iraq.

The truth is that 9/11 furnished U.S. officials with the excuse to do what their sanctions (and the deaths of all those Iraqi children) had failed to accomplish: ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a U.S-approved regime.

That’s what your post-9/11 invasion of Iraq was all about — to achieve the regime change that the pre-9/11 deadly sanctions that killed all those children had failed to achieve.

No, not mushroom clouds, not freedom, not democracy, and certainly not defending our freedoms here at home. Just plain old regime change.

In the process, all that you — the troops — have done with your invasion and occupation of Iraq is produce even more enmity toward the United States by people in the Middle East, especially those Iraqis who have lost loved ones or friends in the process or simply watched their country be destroyed.

In principle, it’s no different with Afghanistan. I’d estimate that 99 percent of the people the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in that country had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Why did you invade Afghanistan or, more precisely, why did President Bush order you to do so?

No, not because the Taliban participated in the 9/11 attacks and, no, not because the Taliban were even aware that the attacks were going to take place

President Bush ordered the troops to invade Afghanistan — and, of course, kill Afghan citizens in the process — because the Afghan government – the Taliban — refused to comply with his unconditional extradition demand. You will recall that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to an independent tribunal to stand trial upon the receipt of evidence from the United States indicating his complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Bush responded to the Taliban’s offer by issuing his order to the troops to invade Afghanistan, kill Afghans, and occupy the country. In the process, U.S. officials installed one of the most crooked, corrupt, and dictatorial rulers it could find to govern the country, one who is so incompetent he cannot even hide the manifest fraud by which he has supposedly been elected to office.

In the process of installing and defending the Karzai regime, the troops have killed brides, grooms, children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, and countrymen, most of whom never attacked the United States on 9/11 or at any other time. They simply became “collateral damage” or “bad guys” for having the audacity to oppose the invasion and occupation of their country by a foreign regime. (It should be noted for the record that U.S. officials considered these types of “bad guys,” as well as Osama bin Laden and other fundamentalist Muslims, to be “good guys” when they were trying to oust Soviet troops from Afghanistan.)

Was there another way to bring bin Laden to justice? Yes, the criminal-justice route, which was the route used after the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

That’s right. Same target, different date. In fact, the accused terrorists — Ramzi Yousef in 1993 and Osama bin Laden in 2001 — were ultimately located in the same country, Pakistan.

In Yousef’s case, he was arrested some three years after the attack, brought back to the United States, prosecuted, and convicted in federal district court. He’s now serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary.

No invasions, no bombings, no occupations, no killing of countless innocent people, no torture, no war on terrorism, and no anger and rage that such actions inevitably would have produced among the victims, their families, and friends.

In bin Laden’s case, we instead got a military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, where the troops have killed, maimed, tortured, and hurt countless people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

How in the world have your invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq defended our freedoms here at home? Indeed, how have the assassinations and bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else defended our freedoms?

All these things have accomplished is keeping foreigners angry at us, thereby subjecting us to the constant and ever-growing threat of terrorist retaliation here at home. As I have pointed out before, the U.S. military — that is, you, the troops — have become the biggest terrorist-producing machine in history. Every time you kill some Iraqi or Afghan citizen, even when accidental, ten more offer to take his place out of anger and rage.

That’s the same thing that was happening prior to 9/11. In fact, there were some, including those of us here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, who were warning prior to 9/11 that unless the U.S. Empire stopped what it was doing to people in the Middle East (including the deadly sanctions on Iraq, the support of Middle East dictators, the stationing of U.S. troops near Islamic holy lands, and the unconditional money and armaments to the Israeli regime), Americans would be increasingly subject to terrorist attacks. On 9/11, we were proven right, unfortunately. (See Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson.)

How does the constant threat of terrorist retaliation arising from your actions in Iraq and Afghanistan make us freer here at home, especially when you — the troops — are responsible for engendering the anger and rage that culminates in such threats, owing to what you are doing to people over there?

Consider also what the U.S. government does to our freedoms here at home as a direct consequence of the terrorist threat that you, the troops, are producing over there. It uses that threat of terrorism to infringe upon our freedoms here at home! You know what I mean — the fondling at the airports, the 10-year-old Patriot Act, the illegal spying on Americans, the indefinite detention, the torture, the kangaroo tribunals, Gitmo, and the entire war on terrorism — all necessary, they tell us, to keep us safe from the terrorists — that is, the people you all are producing with your actions over there.

In other words, if you all weren’t producing an endless stream of terrorists with your invasions, occupations, torture, assassinations, bombings, and Gitmo, the U.S. government — the entity you are working for — would no longer have that excuse for taking away our freedoms.

This past Sunday, the Washington Post carried an article about American wives who were recently greeting their husbands on their return from Afghanistan. Newlywed Anne Krolicki, 24, commented to her husband on the death of one of her friends’ husband: “It’s a pointless war,” she said.

That lady has her head on straight. She’s has a grip on reality, doesn’t deal in tired old mantras, and speaks the truth. Every U.S. soldier who dies in Iraq and Afghanistan dies for nothing, which was the same thing that some 58,000 men of my generation died for in Vietnam.

Please don’t write me to tell me that you all are good people or that you’re “patriots” for simply following whatever orders you are given. All that is irrelevant. What matters is what you are doing over there. And what you are doing is not defending our freedoms, you are jeopardizing them

Sincerely,

Jacob G. Hornberger

President

The Future of Freedom Foundation
 
Last edited:
A random response...


If You Can't Face the Truth then Just Curse and Swear

Posted by Laurence Vance on May 24, 2013 05:42 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/138048.html

Someone posted something by Army veteran Jacob Hornberger ("An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms") on a forum to offer a contrary view of Memorial Day and this is the response he received:


From the 101st Airborne during Korea, F__k you ____. You disgust me with your whole thought process. I hope the mods leave this thread here so the whole forum can see what a f__ktard you really are. This has NOTHING to do with honoring our fallen heroes. Instead, you spit on them. F__K YOU! Since you obviously hate America, and despise anyone who defends it, please PACK YOUR S__T and GET THE F__K OUT!

Get ready for the Memorial Day "support the troops" orgy. Hornberger's "open letter" is a good way to present the truth out of the mouth of a veteran.
 
Since you obviously hate America, and despise anyone who defends it, please PACK YOUR S__T and GET THE F__K OUT!

You have to be able to get a passport for that. I don't despise anyone who defends it, but to pretend that our military is currently doing the right thing indicates a very sad state that we are in. To pretend that our occupation of foreign land is wanted, to pretend that we aren't an empire on a rampage is just delusional.
 
Great article! This weekend in churches across America, liberal and conservative, democratic and republican, pro war and anti war pastors of all denominations will join in the "Thank you for protecting our freedoms" mantra. I've got nothing against the military. I do believe, however, that it is being misused in ways that in no way protect our freedoms.
 
Great article! This weekend in churches across America, liberal and conservative, democratic and republican, pro war and anti war pastors of all denominations will join in the "Thank you for protecting our freedoms" mantra. I've got nothing against the military. I do believe, however, that it is being misused in ways that in no way protect our freedoms.

I don't have a problem with A military, nor do I have any personal disrespect toward individual soldiers (At least, not the normal soldiers, I HATE military recruiters, I honestly do, I have nothing but disgust for them since they are liars for the warfare state and they're tricking my peers in High School into dying for the regime) but I have a problem with the US Military.

Of course, Jacob Hornberger and Laurence Vance continue to ACTUALLY defend our freedom by speaking the truth.

My dad is the pastor of my church, to my understanding he won't be glorifying this nonsense TOO much [He's not as anti-war as I am but he understands where I'm coming from and he's NOT an apologist for the obviously immoral war in Iraq.... He's probably about where Rand Paul is at politically when it all comes down to it], but most likely someone else will end up praying at some point and I'll still have to deal with it...

As an act of protest I'll be praying for the noble* Afghan troops who are defending THEIR national soveregnty.


*Yes, as an intellectual issue I'm aware that all government's suck. However, I see a HUGE difference between defending one's own and imperialism. I also said "National soveregnty" and not "Freedom" for a reason.
 
I HATE military recruiters, I honestly do, I have nothing but disgust for them since they are liars for the warfare state and they're tricking my peers in High School into dying for the regime)

Have you talked with many recruiters? I have good friends who are recruiters, and you have just made one of the most gross generalizations I've ever seen. The average recruiter isn't spouting off lies to get people to enlist. Quite the contrary, the military is trying to downsize at the moment and recruiters aren't struggling to meet their quotas. There is no need to lie anymore, because the information is readily available online and elsewhere. Every recruiter I've ever met has been very matter-of-fact, and just answered the potential recruit's questions. The only slight exception to this is the Marine Corps, whose recruiters tend to use a "glory and honor" type approach. Most recruiters hate to get anywhere near the philosophical questions and foreign policy aspects, mainly because they work 12+ hours a day and just don't have time for that kind of BS with every person that walks through the door.

If your peers in high school join the military, it's because THEY made the decision. Nobody is tricking them into it. Nobody is getting them to accidentally sign a contract. The amount of red tape you have to go through just to get to the point where you can sign a contract is tremendous, and nobody does that without some form of personal dedication to that goal. Don't blame recruiters, blame your friends for making a decision you disagree with.
 
Last edited:
Have you talked with many recruiters? I have good friends who are recruiters, and you have just made one of the most gross generalizations I've ever seen. The average recruiter isn't spouting off lies to get people to enlist. Quite the contrary, the military is trying to downsize at the moment and recruiters aren't struggling to meet their quotas. There is no need to lie anymore, because the information is readily available online and elsewhere. Every recruiter I've ever met has been very matter-of-fact, and just answered the potential recruit's questions. The only slight exception to this is the Marine Corps, whose recruiters tend to use a "glory and honor" type approach. Most recruiters hate to get anywhere near the philosophical questions and foreign policy aspects, mainly because they work 12+ hours a day and just don't have time for that kind of BS with every person that walks through the door.

Most of what I've seen has actually been marines IIRC. They're in my school fairly regularly so I seriously question that they AREN'T looking for people.

The entire system is screwed up, and yeah, I blame my peers for not being better informed as well. People need to be infomred as to what the crap they're doing when they deal with government...
 
Nobody is getting them to accidentally sign a contract. The amount of red tape you have to go through just to get to the point where you can sign a contract is tremendous, and nobody does that without some form of personal dedication to that goal. Don't blame recruiters, blame your friends for making a decision you disagree with.

If people like your friends did not step up the plate to go and recruit at high schools, there would be less kids being fed to the military industrial complex/economic hole digging/slaughter. But of course, it is all the dumb 18 year old's fault who can't even balance a check book, let alone sign over his life to a corrupt fascist state. No hard feelings, but I suggest you get some new friends. You can defend it all day, but when push comes to shove, the system can not operate without these yes men in place.
 
Recruiters absolutely DO lie. My son toyed with enlisting and after he scored a 98 on the ASVAB they descended on us like vultures promising all sorts of higher education. Every time I asked to see something in writing they said they couldn't until he and I signed. I refused and the recruiter said to my son , we'll call you on your 18 th birthday then you can make the smart decision for your future. Maggots.
 
While some recruiters probably do lie, not all are that way. When I started talking to the recruiters I went in and told them that I wanted to go infantry. They begged and pleaded me to take another course every step of the way as they told me it sucks, its hard and with my ASVAB I could do anything in the USMC I wanted.

To say they are all bad is dishonest. The USMC is a different animal when it comes to recruiting. If recruiters are in your school its because they are looking for those that can hack it. Not everybody can.
 
At this point the military is just a career for people that can't get a decent job. Since getting a decent job is nearly impossible being a mercenary is a good idea.

Defending our freedoms? Nah. Respect the job? Yeah. Does this job help make the world a safer place? Hell no!
 
They're in my school fairly regularly so I seriously question that they AREN'T looking for people.

It is mostly the Marine Corps that does the high school recruiting. A lot of that is just maintaining an image actually. Even when recruitment quotas were literally zero, my USMC recruiter friend still had to attend public events, speak to people at schools, etc. It's almost considered a PR event. Also from the recruiter's standpoint, if quotas suddenly rise and they fail to meet them it's going to be hard to explain that to a commanding officer when you say that you didn't do any external recruiting efforts.

If people like your friends did not step up the plate to go and recruit at high schools, there would be less kids being fed to the military industrial complex/economic hole digging/slaughter. But of course, it is all the dumb 18 year old's fault who can't even balance a check book, let alone sign over his life to a corrupt fascist state. No hard feelings, but I suggest you get some new friends. You can defend it all day, but when push comes to shove, the system can not operate without these yes men in place.

No hard feelings at all, but I still place the responsibility on the 18 year old. I spent 6 months analyzing my decision to join the military, and as an 18 year old I was definitely able to balance a checkbook. Plenty of high school students make stupid impulsive decisions at a recruiter's office, but like I've said already there is a LOT of red tape you have to go through to actually get signed up. You have PLENTY of time to rethink your decision even after you've signed on the dotted line. Would there be fewer people joining if recruiters weren't doing outreach work? Probably. Most people that join are people whose first interaction with the recruiter was after they walked into the office, though.

I'll stick with my current friends :) You can't judge a man/woman simply on their profession alone.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with A military...

Thomas Jefferson had a problem with A military:

"a bill of rights [must] secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, [and] freedom from a permanent military..." --Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Hopkinson (March 13, 1789)

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl75.php

A permanent military is prohibited by the federal bill of rights and article 1 section 8 and its also outlawed by nearly all of the state constitutions.

Many of the founders like Jefferson may have been slave rapists but they were smart enough to realize that you can't trust the government with guns.

So when the liberals and conservatives tell you that they're not against the right to bear arms, but we need to make sure that crazed lunatics don't get their hands on guns, the proper response is that our constitutions already bar crazed lunatics (i.e., government employees) from getting their hands on guns.
 
We criticize past empires for trying to "bring civilization" to the foreign lands, and yet we can't seem to do the same for the present government.
 
It is mostly the Marine Corps that does the high school recruiting. A lot of that is just maintaining an image actually. Even when recruitment quotas were literally zero, my USMC recruiter friend still had to attend public events, speak to people at schools, etc. It's almost considered a PR event. Also from the recruiter's standpoint, if quotas suddenly rise and they fail to meet them it's going to be hard to explain that to a commanding officer when you say that you didn't do any external recruiting efforts.

You know what? I don't give a crap. Quit. Anyone who tries to get 18 year olds to ruin their own lives and commit murder is a horrible person.




No hard feelings at all, but I still place the responsibility on the 18 year old. I spent 6 months analyzing my decision to join the military, and as an 18 year old I was definitely able to balance a checkbook. Plenty of high school students make stupid impulsive decisions at a recruiter's office, but like I've said already there is a LOT of red tape you have to go through to actually get signed up. You have PLENTY of time to rethink your decision even after you've signed on the dotted line. Would there be fewer people joining if recruiters weren't doing outreach work? Probably. Most people that join are people whose first interaction with the recruiter was after they walked into the office, though.

I'll stick with my current friends :) You can't judge a man/woman simply on their profession alone.

I don't think the 18 year olds are free of blame either, but hiring a killer is just as bad as being one. Worse if the killer THINKS he'll actually be defending his country's freedom. There may be mitigating factors in his case, but the recruiters know better.

So I'll stick with my original comment. Recruiters are evil...
Thomas Jefferson had a problem with A military:



A permanent military is prohibited by the federal bill of rights and article 1 section 8 and its also outlawed by nearly all of the state constitutions.

Many of the founders like Jefferson may have been slave rapists but they were smart enough to realize that you can't trust the government with guns.

So when the liberals and conservatives tell you that they're not against the right to bear arms, but we need to make sure that crazed lunatics don't get their hands on guns, the proper response is that our constitutions already bar crazed lunatics (i.e., government employees) from getting their hands on guns.

You're right about "Liberals and conservatives." I got this vibe from a conservative who's a cop and attends my church. He's a nice person and one of the strongest Christians that I know, but he's definitely biased by his career (And no, I don't know much about what he does but I know I don't really like the police force and would not encourage anyone to join it.) "Keeping the crazy from getting weapons." I mean, its not entirely untrue, but I agree with what James Madison (The poster, in this case, not the actual James Madison) said when he said something along the lines of: If you're too dangerous to have a gun, aren't you too dangerous to be out of prison?

Where is a permanent military actually forbidden by the Bill of Rights or Article 1 Section 8? I honestly didn't know that if that's the case.
 
Well, we had our Sunday service this morning, it actually wasn't THAT bad. They played a video about a man who went off to fight and left a daughter at home. While the message of the video was technically "These people sacrifice a lot": Honestly if you were really paying attention and actually THINKING you should question war because of a video like that. We had a thing about memorial day on a whiteboard in the hall but it thanked those who FOUGHT for our freedoms, not "Are Fighting" so I just made a mental note that all of those people have been dead for over a century. And we did have a moment of silent prayer for our troops, and as always I prayed that they would be brought home. But it wasn't TOO bad. There were no patriotic songs in church or the kind of absolute glorification that Laurence Vance correctly bashes all the time.

Any of you guys who went to church today... how bad was it?
 
It is mostly the Marine Corps that does the high school recruiting. A lot of that is just maintaining an image actually. Even when recruitment quotas were literally zero, my USMC recruiter friend still had to attend public events, speak to people at schools, etc. It's almost considered a PR event. Also from the recruiter's standpoint, if quotas suddenly rise and they fail to meet them it's going to be hard to explain that to a commanding officer when you say that you didn't do any external recruiting efforts.



No hard feelings at all, but I still place the responsibility on the 18 year old. I spent 6 months analyzing my decision to join the military, and as an 18 year old I was definitely able to balance a checkbook. Plenty of high school students make stupid impulsive decisions at a recruiter's office, but like I've said already there is a LOT of red tape you have to go through to actually get signed up. You have PLENTY of time to rethink your decision even after you've signed on the dotted line. Would there be fewer people joining if recruiters weren't doing outreach work? Probably. Most people that join are people whose first interaction with the recruiter was after they walked into the office, though.

I'll stick with my current friends :) You can't judge a man/woman simply on their profession alone.

What's the difference between being in the military and being a welfare queen? I guess welfare queen is better because at least doesn't endanger us the way troops do?
 
You know what? I don't give a crap. Quit. Anyone who tries to get 18 year olds to ruin their own lives and commit murder is a horrible person.

Where is a permanent military actually forbidden by the Bill of Rights or Article 1 Section 8? I honestly didn't know that if that's the case.

Article I, Section 8. Under the defined powers of Congress.

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;"

I think anyways. The NDAA each year is what is used to bypass this though. Many or perhaps most of the Founders were against standing armies, due to their experiences with the Redcoats.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top