OK, so I just talked to Jonn. Or rather, Doped up Jonn, who is in the recovery room at Walter Reed and he said I should throw this up. It is from Christopher Raissi, who I don’t know much about except that he was a Marine, and served in Iraq. He’s also incredibly humorous from his facebook comments. I believe I heard at one time he is a libertarian who lives in Atlanta, but I may be making that up. Anyway, as a service to all IVAW members scrambling for the nearest life rafts, we once again offer you a place to vent your frustrations. Chris, welcome my friend, and hope you start commenting here. We might not agree with you, and the readers may be rough from time to time, but you are always welcome here.<\/p>\n
Resignation letter after the jump. (I haven’t even read it yet, so this is a breaking story.)
\n<\/p>\n
Following Sholom, Kris, and Casey on the “abandon IVAW bandwagon”:<\/p>\n Much has been said by others on this subject, so I will not go into beating a dead horse. What I will do is stress some points that are extremely relevant to my personal reasons for leaving and that that I think need to be revisited by me in order to get things off my chest. Most people that know me realize that I have a penchant for hyperbole, so bear that in mind while reading my words.<\/p>\n Many of the decisions made regarding IVAW have not been made with the best interests of the organization at heart. In debates at the national convention last year, both among small groups of members and among folks participating in panels, the focus was always on the abstract entity known as \u201cthe movement.\u201d Two key areas where an interest in preserving \u201cthe movement\u201d has harmed IVAW are in reference to membership requirements and an official policy regarding Afghanistan. Both of those decisions had a direct negative impact on our credibility.<\/p>\n Membership: The primary rationalization is that there are people in military hospitals in CONUS, and OCONUS but outside of the AOR, treating those wounded in Iraq. There are also intelligence personnel translating and processing intelligence gathered in Iraq who may themselves be physically removed from the area of operations. Someone could reasonably argue that those people should be permitted to join, as their service was clearly given in support of that war. Alex Bacon doesn\u2019t fit into either of those categories. He was a member of the Department of Transportation who went UA before 9\/11. He has absolutely zero credibility as it relates to calling himself in \u201cIraq veteran.\u201d<\/p>\n Evidence of the broad membership criteria being a part of \u201cthe movement\u201d circle jerk is apparent to anyone who has read his bio. He is a member of the organization because he is willing to be active. He is the Executive Director because he is an experienced organizer. At no point did credibility as an Iraq veteran come into consideration. In defense of his appointment, all I have heard is that no other Iraq veterans had applied for the position. That is hardly a defense. As I\u2019ve said before, I don\u2019t care if this clown has the community organizing skills of Martin Luther King Jr., since he is not an Iraq veteran he should not be the Executive Director of Iraq Veterans Against the War. (Personally, I don\u2019t even think he should be a member of the organization in the first place.)<\/p>\n It is on this issue alone that have decided to leave IVAW. Everything else just confirms that I have made the right decision.<\/p>\n Afghanistan: With regard to that issue, things turned out in a mediocre way. We didn\u2019t change the points of unity, but we came out with a policy on which the active majority of the membership had levied a yea vote. What is most relevant about the issue is the debate. There is a clear split in the membership between ISO members who see themselves and IVAW as a part of the revolution, and more reformist members who love their country but would like to see it returned on its rightful path. \u201cAfghanistance,\u201d as Jason Lemieux calls it, is one example of that rift.<\/p>\n Sit-Rep: Circle Jerk: I joined IVAW because I wanted to reach out to other socially conservative libertarians, people who are neutral or possibly even passive supporters. I didn’t join the organization so I could spend my time getting kudos from people who already agree with me. Sure, fundraising and building a base is a part of organizing, but in the year I’ve been with IVAW we haven’t don’t anything else. Based on the fact that the expressed desire of a lot of progressives in the org is always to remain relevant to “the movement” rather than to accomplish our objectives and move on, I have no basis for expecting anything to change. <\/p>\n I’ve been trying to oppose a mini-Naval Academy being set up here in Atlanta. Everyone else has been MIA. Clearly, people from all sides should oppose this thing. Conservatives: Last month you congregated in Atlanta wearing 18th century outfits talking about our founders and their principles. Those guys opposed standing armies because they’re the enemies of liberty. You think they would support 13 year olds in a mini service academy? If you do, you’re an idiot. Progressives: I don’t need to explain this one. In 2007 I got run out of town by every black person below the poverty level in six counties all over middle Georgia. “Fuck dat, I ain’t gonna go fight no Gawg Bush’s war.” Now they’re all about some militarism and war since their Obama is in office.<\/p>\n This should be a no brainer. After all, this is something that has a direct affect on the community, something where we could actually make a difference. Yet I’m working with AFSC on this, and IVAW is MIA. Circle jerk march? Cool, let’s get some visibility. Stopping an indoctrination camp in our community? Uh, you handle that one, Chris.<\/p>\n As much as I disagree with the war and occupation of Iraq, as much as I think that America is the proud owner of a de facto empire operated by a military-industrial complex of the kind warned against by Eisenhower in his farewell address, and as much as I\u2019d like to continue to be a member of IVAW and be vocal about my opinions, I simply can\u2019t. I cannot identify myself as a member of an organization called \u201cIraq Veterans Against the War\u201d that led by a fake vet who went UA before 9\/11, and tolerates the membership subversive communists who want to use the organization to help with the revolution.<\/p>\n See you later, IVAW. I hope you change your course, but it won’t be me tossing the coal into the boiler. <\/p>\n Finally, the people I have worked with here in Atlanta have been great, so hopefully I can continue to be active as an Iraq war veteran unaffiliated with any organization.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nEver since discovering that anyone who had served after 9\/11 could join, I started having problems with the policy. Kris said it really well when he wrote that any three year old reading our shirt would infer that we are a group of Iraq veterans. In spite of the half assed rationalizations that I have heard, the decision to open up membership to this broad definition of veterans was clearly motivated by an attempt to increase member numbers. The appointment of Alex Bacon as Executive Director explicitly refutes those half assed rationalizations while confirming \u201cthe movement\u201d circle jerk nature of the decision.<\/p>\n
\nThroughout the entire national convention, it was clear that the membership was not together on the issue. A large portion of the membership is not from the ultra-pacifist progressive\/socialist left. Many of us are libertarians who oppose the war in Iraq for myriad political and ethical reasons, but do not desire to venture into the treacherous territory of Afghanistan. There are various opinions among the membership regarding Afghanistan, but the one opinion that appeared to be driving the issue was that in order to stay relevant to \u201cthe movement,\u201d IVAW would have to take on Afghanistan. They went so far as to demand a change to the points of unity, a move that many members expressed would result in their immediate resignation. Those concerns were ignored by \u201cthe movement\u201d circle jerkers. They were busy getting off together on the notion of IVAW being the tip of the spear of \u201cthe movement\u201d even after the end of the war\/occupation in Iraq.<\/p>\n
\nSit-Rep the another. While at the national convention, Shalom was trying to rally support for the excellent pamphlet he was editing. After he made his pitch, some Erykah Badu looking woman said she has a problem with Sit-Rep being an organizational publication because she has never felt any patriotism for or devotion to the United States of America. At that point, the publication died. So now the rest of the membership is in a position where passive aggressive ISO members have pushed out any patriotic reform talk, yet the rest of us are expected to rally in front of people carrying revolutionary socialist nonsense.
\nFurther evidence of this rift, and the indefensible loose membership requirements, is a conversation I had with Jacob Flom. This birth control goggle wearing clown was in the Air Force for a little while after 9\/11, never served in Iraq, and is a communist. He explicitly told me that he wants to use IVAW as a way to grab disaffected veterans and radicalize them to his communist ideology. Why is he a member of this organization? A quick google search will give you the answer: He\u2019s a chapter president (good at organizing!) and very active. When I pointed out that I\u2019m a libertarian, a member of the NRA, and that you don\u2019t see me trying to recruit people for my political causes, he looked at me like I was some ignorant redneck from the South. So I have to be tolerant of communists using IVAW to recruit, and yet I\u2019m loathed for not being a pacifist hippy. I expected IVAW to be different, but it is apparently another progressive organization where multiculturalism and tolerance doesn\u2019t extend to people who practice traditional American culture.<\/p>\n
\nI use the term circle jerk a lot. The reason why is that most of the “organizing” we do is just jerking each other off. One group organizes a panel, folks from other groups that already agree come, listen, and give donations. Next week, one of those other groups holds a protest march. People from other groups that already agree come, listen, and give donations. The cycle continues on ad infinitum. We’re doing shit just to be doing shit.<\/p>\n