Blog

Antiwar Pivot: No Peace in Afrin

From March to June 2017 I was the Team Turkey Commander, having replaced what, until that point, had been a Special Forces Company mission with a company headquarters, three Special Forces teams, and some addition support personal. Once the company moved to Syria, it became the job of three other Green Berets from my team, a translator, a cook, and myself to take on the mission. I would be reporting directly to the 5th Special Forces Group and CJSOTF-Syria Commander, skipping my boss and his boss.

We were partnered with several Free Syrian Army units, one of which was Liwa al-Hamza, or the Hamza Division. When I came across that name in the first line of an article by Lindsey Snell from The Gray Zone, I had to keep reading. The article was eerily depressing because I found myself feeling terrible for these mercenaries, simply because we had worked together, even though they were led by Syrian warlords. It’s a weird dilemma I often find myself in. As a fairly recent convert to the antiwar movement, having spent nearly a decade working for the Empire, I am often torn between past accomplishments and the realization that what I was doing was terrible, morally and strategically.

As I continued to read the article titled “No one cares if we die”, I realized that I should absolutely care if they die, just as I care when innocent women and children are being killed. These people, not unlike my former self, are being used like pawns to maintain those in power. This is my effort to shed a sliver of light on the situation and allow people to pivot towards the antiwar movement, without losing who they are in the process.

One of the worst things to read in the article was how, just 9 months after I left, Turkey captured and occupied Afrin. I already knew this, but having it reframed with my now antiwar perspective, it stung as if I was learning it for the first time. Especially because one of our partner forces, the Mu’tasim Brigade, had frequently pushed for a peace deal centered around Afrin.

Afrin was in the center of a section of northern Syria that had recently been cleared of ISIS by the FSA with US Special Forces. To the east and west was Kurdish territory. The Turks wanted to keep them separated as much as possible. These partner forces were Arab, but the area had previously been occupied by the Kurds. The Mu’tasim Brigade commander wanted to discuss returning the displaced people to their homes in Afrin. He certainly wanted to leverage a peace deal to build up his own power within the FSA coalition and there is no guarantee any of these “peace talks” would have amounted to anything. But being willing to have the discussion is the first step. Having learned our lesson on exit strategies from Iraq War II, a sustained peace and way out was always on my mind within our Area of Operation.

I brought up Mu’tasim’s intent to have peace talks during a CJSOTF-Syria Commander’s Update Brief. He brushed it off and quickly moved on to the next briefer. It didn’t seem like a big deal at the time. He had a lot on his plate and it would always be something we could come back to if needed. Immediately after the briefing, the CJSOTF Operations Officer calls me to chew me out for having brought that up in a meeting when the Turks were present. The Turks were apparently flipping out because someone might be discussing peace on their southern border! He told me that if I was ever unsure of something I should ask him first. Well, if I had thought that was necessary, I would have.

I didn’t know it at the time, but this was one of my many pivots that led me toward the antiwar movement. Seeing how just the mere idea of peace made people in the military recoil was disturbing. This certainly was not going to be the deal that saved the region, but to never even discuss it meant that nothing like that would ever be discussed. Had we not learned our lesson from Iraq War II? Maybe forever war really was the plan, if not through any intentional political strategy, but from the bumbling around of military leaders constantly looking for their next mission, purpose, and promotion.

Sgt. Dan McKnight Testifies for “Defend the Guard” Legislation in South Dakota

On Monday, Chairman Dan McKnight of BringOurTroopsHome.US traveled to Pierre, South Dakota to testify in front of the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in favor of the “Defend the Guard” bill introduced by State Rep. Aaron Aylward (R-Harrisburg). This legislation would prohibit the deployment of the South Dakota National Guard without an official declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.

Watch his opening testimony HERE.

Who’s On Left?

Countless times over the past year I’ve been in conversation with friends or family and the point has been raised that it seemed, in casual observation, that the Left was acting like the Right and vice versa. Amid the myriad points laid before me I routinely had to agree.

In so many ways right now, culturally, the Left is now the Right and the Right is now the Left.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this and exploring potential causalities. There’s no shortage of them of course.

At its core, as far as I can tell, is the dogmatism with which humans are conditioned to approach their narrative driven experience of life. I routinely make the point in my writings that religion hasn’t left our species, it’s simply mutated into the most opportunistic form of desired consumption. Namely, in our time, national governments and more and more, the institution of Science itself are the new Religions of many.

Now that the Left, at large, has a religion to which it can adhere, it suddenly becomes vigilant in its interpretations and desire for conformity. They now find themselves in the historically Right position of conserving established institutions and lashing out at those who would be so brash as to question their beliefs or have independent thought.

To take this a step deeper it’s important to understand the conservative mind, psychologically.

Many often interpret that conservatism finds it roots in fear. Fear of openness. Fear of change. Fear of the unknown.

This is the wrong diagnosis. Fear does not drive conservatism. Disgust does.

The conservative mind has a high disgust sensitivity to disorderliness. Most of those who naturally lean toward Conservatism are also high in conscientiousness and are attracted to order. When they encounter disorder, uncleanliness, chaos, it’s not fear they experience, it’s disgust.

Those who lean naturally toward Liberalism, are generally high in openness and find themselves invigorated by chaos as it’s the appropriate canvas to which they can apply their inherent creativity.

Naturally, all people are not in one of these camps or the other. It’s an environment of irreducible complexity and nearly all people experience some traits across both spectrums throughout their lives. It’s a moving target. For this reason, you can find tremendous hypocrisy on both sides of the Right/Left paradigm and that same hypocrisy manifests amongst individuals as well.

So, what is aggravating this balance so greatly this year?

I read this amazing study from some years ago. It really should get more attention.

Please read if you have the time. If you don’t, it basically states that the higher the prevalence of infectious diseases within a given population the higher the probability of totalitarian political attitudes.

Amazing right? It makes sense though, doesn’t it?

When you perceive a threat to yourself and your loved ones your natural response is to put borders around everything. To protect them. You have evolved to behave in this precise way.

Now suddenly, legislator’s totalitarian strategies to mitigate pathogen risks are not only justified to them personally, but they are willfully consumed by those upon which they thrust them, even when there is no empirical evidence to suggest that those strategies are doing any good. Even when there IS empirical evidence to demonstrate that those strategies are causing harm.

We need to guard ourselves from these tendencies. Push against them before they devolve into barbarity, which historically has often been the outcome.

We have no lack of historical examples of what happens when we adopt totalitarian attitudes.

Nazi Germany is the classic example though there are so many others. There’s a brilliant lesson in the Nazi experience.

Germany, in the 1930s was at the height of civility. It wasn’t from the depths of a chaotic Hell from which that nightmare was conceived.

A high degree of conscientiousness leads to civilized societies. Most wouldn’t argue that.

However, follow that psychological path we explored above and see where it leads you.

High conscientiousness leads to civilized societies.

Civilized societies lead to high degrees of order.

Excess order leads to a high degree of disgust when things become disorderly.

Barbarity is just as likely to result of excess civility and order as it is to result from a lack there of.

Now that’s a terrifying thought.

Podcasts

scotthortonshow logosq

coi banner sq2@0.5x

liberty weekly thumbnail

Don't Tread on Anyone Logo

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

Pin It on Pinterest