Where to begin: Wage peace

Americans opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are more than merely frustrated with their lack of success. They are disillusioned.

Although they converged from divergent origins in 2006 to change the control of Congress, no progress toward World peace has resulted. To the contrary, torture, unlawful detentions and surveillance have been added to the war crimes committed by American leadership. And, things are getting worse. The Congress has under consideration a domestic anti-terrorism law that will limit the right of Americans to protest these heinous actions. Before that law is enacted, those who are for peace must rally to defeat the war monger candidates for Federal office at the polls in 2008.

At present, the chances to accomplish that result are slim. The two anti-war, public first candidates for President, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, are way behind in the polls. To overcome the military industrial complex and big media combination that keep the pro war candidates in front requires aggressive efforts on the part of “Wage Peace”, as suggested by Scott Ritter in his recent book, advocates. The questions asked of the candidates must be directed toward the wrongs committed by government that the media and candidates will allow.

As should be obvious to all, questions to place blame for 9/11 on the American government are not permitted. When former President Clinton was asked if he thought 9/11 was an inside job, he responded with a “How dare you” (sic ask that question). At least, to his credit, he did not attempt to defend the ridiculous 9/11 Commission report.

Rather than push the 9/11 issues in the face of superior opposition, those who wish to “Wage Peace”, must ask questions that emphasize that our government has a long history of violent behavior. For example, “Does the candidate support the refusal by the Department of Interior to provide an accurate accounting and payment of trust fund obligations to American Indians?” Any candidate opposed to fair treatment or would say they need to study the issue would be properly branded as pro unreasonable government behavior.

For example, how could Hillary Clinton claim to be for fair treatment of the American Indian when she has done nothing to promote that view in her role as a United States Senator? How could Rudolph Giuliani claim he is for integrity in government after he supervised the destruction of evidence at the 9/11 disaster site? Once integrity in government is the main topic of discussion, the election of the President will shift from those like Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani who are expected to perpetuate the wars in the Middle East to candidates like Kucinich and Paul.

As preparation for this shift, those interested in peace must learn the history of the treatment of the indigenous people of the United States. The primer for this subject is Chapter 1 of Howard Zinn’s book “A People’s History of the United States”. The American government came into existence, in part, by use of violence and breach of treaties with the American Indian. The facts regarding America’s treatment of its Indians are not clearly taught in most American schools. This deficiency must be overcome.

By change of focus from the current wars in the Middle East to this violent past, it will be possible to get the majority of Americans to understand that we have never been a peaceful people. And, if we are to become peaceful, we must begin by making peace with the American Indian.

Currently, we continue to wage war against the American Indian by refusal to accurately account for their trust fund money. This deplorable conduct is the subject of a lawsuit brought as a class action by the American Indians before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia styled a