Wars all over the world reflect on the global economy. People who trade with option robot noticed that when a conflict appears, specific stock and commodity prices go up or down as an effect. This could do so the traders to become either rich or broke while people die. That’s why we have started a research on the economic effects of wars. The study is to be published in the following months.

Project Red Hand Members Jake Bridge and Cian Westmoreland speak on Al Jazeera about being veterans of conscience.
By BAE Systems Australia http://fairchild-mil.libguides.com/Network_Centric_Warfare
When you think of a precision airstrike, what normally comes to mind?

Better yet allow me to ask a series of other questions…

Who do you think makes the decisions? How many people and processes do you think are involved in conducting these strikes? Who is ultimately responsible for the end result? What is a weapons system?

Once you begin asking yourself some of these questions, you’ll be on the right track. But if you are at this time under the impression that pilots, planes, and bombs are the answer to all of these questions, then prepare to be enlightened.

This working paper will attempt to provide you with some understanding to answer some of these questions, and will hopefully give you an insight into some potential ethical problems with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and perhaps even an insight into how atrocities such as the bombing of civilians without soldiers and airmen challenging the system can happen. In doing so, this paper also seeks to help further a more comprehensive dialogue toward the understanding of warfare and societies at a human level. These are my reflections as I go, and I hope that people will feel compelled to participate in the development of this project in a critical way, whether that be of my writings or in order to add to them.

Words on the diffusion of responsibility and desensitization to conflict

When I was opening up to a good friend to explain why I felt a personal responsibility for my work in Afghanistan and how it still affects me, she told me another much more relatable example of a problem that plagues our society today. H&M, a store we’ve all shopped at some point is a store that actively uses sweatshop labor for the production of its goods. She said that if she shopped there, she’d be guilty of perpetuating that system of labor. But if she didn’t and ran a campaign that stopped people from shopping there, then perhaps one of these sweatshops will close, but leave many people on the streets, or worse, it may burn down with everyone trapped inside. This she said was one of her reasons to pursue politics. We currently live in a system that is blind and desensitized to the ingredients that facilitate our way of life. Knowingly and unknowingly, we support systems of cruelty around the world with our every purchasing decision. If you ever bought a cellphone, quite likely you indirectly paid a person who actively uses slave labor. If you eat meat, you more than certainly contribute to millions of pigs, chickens, and cows living in factory-like conditions that are subject to unimaginable cruelty every year. Perhaps a person against their own interests exposed a corrupt and anti-constitutional system of spying on their own citizens. In our society, there seems to be five approaches to this.

Willful ignorance and/ or apathy.
Abolition of self responsibility by rationalizing oneself out of the decision-making process.
Mistrust of negative information, while blindly supporting the views of the authority figures.
Vocal outrage while still persisting their purchase of said product, albeit guiltily so.
Absolute rejection of the system, while actively looking to change it.
Guess which four pathways most people choose? What do you do when confronted with issues such as these? Well, you might ask what one person changing their habits could do to change an entire system? Maybe you try to rationalize it into a general acceptance of cruelty as a fact of life. Maybe you just ignore it. We are surrounded by interconnecting systems of injustice just asking to to be revealed, but as a civilization we are perpetually concerned with our own self comfort, and are hard pressed to look outside ourselves and relate to the cycles of suffering we help to exist globally. Our brains are wired to interact with communities of no more than 300 people. Within that group of 300, altruism is often quite prevalent. We will spend great sums of time and money to save a puppy from being euthanized for instance, while at the same time pass a homeless woman with her children on the street without batting an eye. Maybe we’ll say to ourselves, “she’s probably a scam artist”, or “someone else is supposed to help her, where is the state?”, it’s “Somebody Else’s Problem”. If enough people stand idly by, we are anti-conformist if we act. This is called the “bystander effect.” It is therefore no stretch to say that this problem persists in the military and politics as well.

In 1961, the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram devised an experiment three months after the start of the trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. It sought to answer the questions “ Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” The results of these experiments were quite stunning. Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, “The Perils of Obedience”, writing:

“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.”

Six years later – at the height of the Vietnam War – one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress:

While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority… To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority’s demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself… I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience…

Milgram’s experiment revealed something unwelcoming about human nature, something most people would emphatically deny. We humans are pragmatic creatures who believe themselves to be principled in times of calm, but are more often than not weak in the face of gross injustice when in the presence of authority; whether it be institutionalized or of a majority of peers.

A separate but equally important experiment was conducted by the Stanford Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. This experiment would come to be known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners as mentioned at https://www.defense.gov/. In the experiment, twenty four students were selected to take on randomly assigned roles as prisoner and guards in a mock prison. Well beyond the expectations of Zimbardo, the guards actually became authoritarian in nature and began subjecting prisoners to psychological torture. Several prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse, and consented to the requests of guards by harassing prisoners who attempted to prevent it. Zimbardo himself, acting as the superintendent found himself conforming to his role, exhibiting sadistic tendencies as well. This ultimately cause him to terminate the experiment, as it began to spiral out of control. The conclusion to this experiment favored situational attribution to behavior. Zimbardo argued that the results of the experiment demonstrated the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.

The results of both experiments are both mutually reinforcing, it shows that people conform to roles in the best way they know how, and are by and large eager to do so. What does this say about human nature and the structures which persist in our society, and how does this relate to the diffusion of responsibility

No one person in the Nazi party claimed responsibility for the millions of people killed in concentration camps. The hierarchical nature of the party allowed minor bureaucrats to say that they were just following orders, and minor supervisors to say that they only issued commands but did not actually commit the deeds. When one pilfers through archives of confessions, this might be the common arguments one would expect to find. Concentration camps and their transportation networks were designed in manner which created separation between the operators and the prisoners themselves. From cultural indoctrination, they were taught to hate the Jews and see them as lesser beings. Linguistically, Nazis developed official words that were used in common language to make genocide more palatable. A concentration camp official might write home bragging about the “units” he processed that day to his wife, while in the same paragraph telling her how proud he is of his daughter’s grades. Language being our principal means for constructing our reality, is, and has always been used to manipulate perceptions. With each label and each choice of verbiage, it will determine whether we view an action as justifiable or unacceptable, authoritative or subversive. In today’s society, politically loaded words are thrown around constantly, and people are often left unaware of their own emotional manipulation. The military institutionalized this into their vocabulary with the use of emotionally neutral words to describe often controversial topics, and acronyms to describe complex interactions in order to speed up communication and obscure information to non- military ears. It also unofficially uses slang to refer to “others” in a derogatory manner. The culture of the military is often seen from the outside and internally as an exclusive group. Below are a list of terms used, that could be said to have a hold on the US military/ public image of military’s mindset:

Shake and Bake : a combination barrage of White Phosphorus and explosive artillery shells. Also an American side dish of potatoes.
Haji: used to describe any person with a brownish skin-tone. Often it is use derogatorily. Actual meaning is someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca. In practice, it conflates race with the Muslim faith, and is a label used to identify and “other”. It could also conflate religion with belligerent actors.
Target: used to describe anything of potential military threat.
Potential Enemy Combatant: used most in reports or official documents to describe people who were killed who they suspect of being a combatant, but lack adequate evidence
Suspected Insurgent: Man of military age brought in or killed nearby, or suspected to be linked to insurgent activities.
KIA: Killed in action. Typically used in referring to friendly forces who are killed in combat. Acronym obscures the emotional response one would have to the word “kill”
Optics: The public eye (opinion)/ the perception of the man in the street. It is used to obscure text which refers to public opinion
Collateral Damage: Destruction of unintended infrastructure or the killing of non-combatants (ie. women and children)
Enemy assets: Roads, bridges, weapons, communication networks, guarded information, and soldiers/ suspected insurgents
Deconflicted/ Attrited/ Degraded: words that are used in place of “killed”, typically for the purpose of awards packages, EPRs, or other official military documents.
To Attrit: Means to blow into smithereens; sanitization of destruction
Fog of War: A term used to justify mistakes or atrocities committed during combat
Embedded Journalists: Journalists who travel with soldiers and report favorably on the US war effort
PBIED: Person Borne Improvised Explosive Device; meaning suicide bomber; used in order to not provoke offense
GWOT: Global War on Terror; refers to all operations, including clandestine operations conducted in the effort to stop terrorism
EIT: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques; this refers to coercive interrogation tactics such as but not limited to waterboarding and sleep deprivation
Black Site: locations where they are neutral non-signatory to any torture prohibition treaties. Metaphor used to make it sound more acceptable.
HVT: High valued target; used for people on terrorist watch lists or those who are valued for their information
EPW: Enemy Prisoner of War
Illegal Combatants: Term that replaced EPW to avoid conditions protocols in the Geneva Convention
Renditions: Removal of EPWs to countries where use of torture in interrogation is condoned. Used to make it sound more acceptable
Surge: Refers to the deployment of troops; originally called an “escalation” then changed to “augmentation”.
WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction; reduced to an acronym to demote after claims of Nuclear Weapons
Friendly Fire: Used to describe shootings of soldiers belonging to the same side; the purpose is to avoid reality and neutralize emotions on killing people
CW: Chemical Weapons; acronym that sanitizes death
Smart Bomb: Refers to precision guided munitions (missiles); this is used to connote to the public that they are extremely accurate and are a good military option; sanitizes death
Cluster Bomb: these are “dumb” bombs which are released indiscriminately over a targeted area, that often don’t explode and litter populated areas; it does not represent reality
Daisy Cutter: a bomb called a Blu-82 which is used to flatten areas for helicopter landing and as anti-personnel/ intimidation weapon due to its large lethal radius; name used to sanitize death.
As one can see, there are clearly many ways that are used on the military and the public to suppress or drum up certain emotions. Words and phrases such as these work to create a certain lexicon of speech peculiar to the military.

Once one is put through the process of basic military training which entails the breaking down of an individual and the building up through the image of the military, s/he is taught to follow orders with extreme attention to detail, s/he is bound and made accountable to their fellow servicemen, and are thus effectively made able to perform as an individual whose actions and inactions have consequences for an entire system in a very short amount of time.

Words such as those listed above, as well as acronyms become a peculiar part of his or her vocabulary and mode of thought. The military therefore has multiple ways it can make the action of killing human beings easier and more effective.

A system of hierarchy is etched into the minds of every recruit, one that requires a soldier to answer to his officers so that they do not answer for him. It makes Non Commissioned Officers and Commissioned Officers alike responsible for the welfare and the good conduct of their troops.

Once a civilian signs his contract and swears his oath, he is no longer his own property, but that of the government of the United States of America. From then on, they have the authorization to send you where they wish, and make you do what they wish. Applying for Conscientious Objector status at this point becomes less credible, and requires one to go through a great deal of humiliation and legal work. For disobeying orders on the basis of negligence or disagreement, one is potentially subject to career ending punitive paperwork that could ruin ones chances at promotion or worse, their chances of employment as a civilian.

Concerning the diffusion of responsibility, I have outlined several contributing factors one must take into consideration as I explain how a modern air strike may be conducted. It is important to consider the human psychological elements of submission to authority, conformity to roles within different social contexts, the use of language as a program for thought in the US military, hierarchical command structures, and the repercussions for disobedience when explaining the environment this diffusion of responsibility takes place. The last linkage to make of course is how modern technology itself, as well as the specialization of roles contribute to this diffusion. To do this, I will offer my brief interpretation on the historical progression of technological causes, as well as structural causes for the diffusion of responsibility over time, in which I will eventually come to describe modern conflict.

Progression of the diffusion of responsibility

Up until the invention of gunpowder, there was primarily only one way for soldiers to kill people, and that was to do so directly with whatever weapon they had at their disposal. Be it a sword, a mace, a bow and arrow, or a trebuchet; the kill decision was in the hands of the soldiers. The soldier and his weapon was effectively a weapons system. But even then, he was trained for combat by his superiors, he had a commander to take orders from lest he risk severe punishment or death, and he had very little say over what battles he’d fight. Moreover, without people making his weapons he was ineffective, and without armor he was vulnerable. Arguably, the first example of the technical diffusion of responsibility was through weapons like the trebuchet, as it often required a team to operate. No single man was responsible, but all men were needed to ratchet the pulley back, load it, point the machine, and then release the triggering mechanism. These machines were mostly used as siege weapons and the soldiers operating them were often dual use (as in they also served as infantry), but from this point warfare evolved.

Warfare in those days was brutal, just imagine marching onto a field knowing good and well that you would most likely be killed, watching the men beside you being filled with arrows while you continue toward a storm of blood, flesh, and metal. History depicts these battles as glorious meta-events, but it rarely focused on the effects it had on the soldiers themselves. It’s true that these men must have been more hardened and/or desensitized to this kind of violence as a result of their training and societal upbringing, but these events were moments of absolute trauma, adrenaline, and fear. In such instances, desensitization to this level of violence was crucial to an army’s success, as those who were not, most likely perished.

Physical distance is also emotional distance. The advent of gunpowder made it so that human beings could kill each other more easily, without the years of training it took to create professional soldiers. Numbers rather than skill became the most effective measure for an army’s success or failure. One only needed to instill the discipline to stand there and be fired upon while having the ability to reload, fire and point his rifle. During this time, these men were constantly aware of the fact that if they did not fight, they would be lanced in the back by their officer in charge. It was therefore hopeless either way, and one was just lucky to make it out alive. Morally, the choice to kill was merely an option of choosing to live or die. But even so, PTSD  existed during such times. In the American Civil War, it was called Soldier’s Heart and was treated as the name implies, as a heart condition. War was still extremely brutal at this point too, once armies exhausted their ammunition, they were expected to charge with bayonets. Nevertheless, there was never a question of who was responsible, it was clearly officers, soldiers were just helpless pawns.

World War I saw countless new advances in diffusionary weapons systems. Tanks, landmines artillery, airplanes, and chemical weapons all made killing more simple and required less personal accountability. They were also vastly inaccurate, but absolute destruction was the objective. Rather than counting deaths in the hundreds or thousands, this war was counted by millions. Shell shock became a new term to describe those who were traumatized by the violence. Rather than standing in rows, individual soldiers regained their individual importance on the battlefield to an extent. Trench warfare introduced prolonged engagements and a new level of uncertainty, it caused men to endure siege conditions on either side on a daily basis who were not trained to do so in the least. Under these conditions, morale was difficult to enforce, and thus men were left fighting their own battles to survive. It was unclear for them why they fought, and time spent in those trenches gave way to thought, which ultimately contributed to a humanization of the individual soldier in literature and in popular culture. Conversely, while brutality was broadly existent on the receiving end, the artillerymen, the tanks, and the bombers in the aircraft normally attacked from a great distance, and were not exposed to the destruction they were inflicting.

World War II was as much a war of propaganda as it was one of new advances in weaponry. Soldiers became more valued as individuals, and the painting of the “other” was as much for soldiers as it was for entire populations. Commanders and officers could distance themselves from the battlefield with radio technology, and logistics became more structured and consistent with the advances in transportation and communications. Warfare began to take on a more systematic quality and specialization became a means of making battlefield operations more efficient. Air warfare was itself able to begin diffusing its responsibilities with the introduction of several new technologies, particularly the radio and the radar. As in all standard aircraft, bombers had a pilot and a flight engineer who acted as the copilot. There was a navigator, who navigated. But then there were radar operators who scanned the ground for targets, bombardiers that calculated trajectories and released bombs on the targets that were selected by the radar operators, wireless operators that communicated with the ground/ scanned for enemy aircraft/ jammed enemy aircraft signals, and gunners were responsible for protecting the plane while in flight. Together they were all essential for the mission to succeed, but ultimately the flightpath, the target selection, and the kill decision was restricted to those on board the aircraft. General orders were given to the crew by a commanding officer, and those on board acted under radio silence autonomously, a measure used because of poor cryptography. This weapons system was less concerned with collateral damage as it was out of the hands of control of the operators. Technology simply did not exist at the time to effectively avoid it. It was responsible for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nevertheless, in that time, questions of responsibility weighed on the shoulders of the crew of the Enola Gay and the Bockscar, regardless of the absence of regret for doing so as they viewed it as necessary, but were still confounded. Being a bomber at that time was one of the most dangerous jobs in aviation. Additionally, they had their country behind them. The media influence sufficiently dehumanized the enemy to the point where such measures were seen as an acceptable outcome. This isn’t to say that the enemy did not demonize themselves on their own, but it certainly acted as a powerful force in extinguishing the ethical question over such uses of force.

The American war in Vietnam was a turning point in the public eye, from being a liberator to being a policing force. Unlike the Korean war and those before it, it was viewed as entirely unnecessary and asymmetrical. The free media in the absence of a looming direct threat; once employed to inform and rally its citizens around the use of force for its own good, became a liability to the powers at be. War reporting revealed the massive abuses of American power, the same vacuums in morale as the Great War were created and exaggerated, and people were cynically killing others out of fatigue and angst. Search and Destroy missions was code for slash, kill and burn everything that stands. The dense jungles, the absence of clear military and/ or political objectives, and use of guerrilla warfare by the enemy wore down the Americans as much as the trench warfare did almost half a century prior. The jungles hid an invisible enemy, much like the inaccurate bombardment and gassing it presented a deadly force impossible to defend against. It brought back close quarters combat, the kind in which soldiers half a millennia prior where trained years for to withstand. With sheer brute force and hatred, the American military used its advanced weapons of war to annihilate and demoralize the enemy into surrender, but it didn’t work. Moral superiority was not on the American side. As in the previous wars, the revered and respected American soldiers on the ground were conscripts, they were not volunteers. They were less disciplined than today’s soldiers, and they were unsupported by their own population. They fought their fear with violence, and came home bastardized, bitter, guilt ridden and traumatized. On a similar but different token, pilots and aerial gunners on average were responsible for the greatest atrocities: dropping cluster munitions of which still remains today, agent orange which burned entire forests, and gunning down entire villages of civilians. Yet in the midst of all this, they felt the least amount of connection to their actions. One reason for this was their command structure. Rather than all airstrikes being ordered by a single commander, requests for airstrikes originated with the 2nd Air Division and Task Force 77 in Vietnam and then proceeded to CINCPAC, who in turn reported to his superiors, the Joint Chiefs, at the Pentagon. After input from the State Department and the CIA, the requests then proceeded to the White House, where the President and his “Tuesday Cabinet” made decisions on the strike requests on a weekly basis. In addition to this complex command structure which diffused the decision-making process, precision guided munitions were newly introduced into common use, and required it’s own technical crew behind it. Targets were painted with white phosphorous smoke by Forward Air Controllers in small prop driven planes. Then bombers were radioed over to the general coordinates and they dropped their payload of whatever bomb was available.

When I went to Afghanistan in 2009, in simple words, my squadron set up the system which offered Battlefield Command and Control. We connected the soldiers on the ground to the battlefield commander, and the planes which were to deliver their payloads.

In less simple words, that I am aware of, our system maintained 250 +/- nautical miles  of persistent data, radar, and radio transmissions between radar operators, battlespace managers,  Tactical Air Control Parties, Joint Tactical Air Controllers, UAVs, satellites, imagery analysts, pilots (both UAV and manned), sensor operators, troops in contact, the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node, the Air Support Operations Center, and various individuals located at the Combined Air Operations Center in Al Udeid.

As this was happening, I would often sit inside the Radio Control Unit and imagine the airstrikes as they were being conducted while I’d perform diagnostics on all of the equipment. It was difficult for me to fathom how instrumental the radios I put there and programmed were to the entire war effort in Afghanistan.  With addition to airstrikes, they enable reconnaissance, airlifting cargo and supplies, and medical emergency transport. On the one hand, I knew that this mission enabled new capabilities which morphed the way warfare would be conducted in the future, hopefully improving the safety of troops. It was a movement into the realms of Network Centric Warfare. But within this realization, I also realized that we offered a key instrument for UAVs to conduct their missions. I questioned where responsibility lay in such a new form of warfare. Was it with the battlespace commander? Was it the pilot? Was it the intelligence analyst choosing targets based on reconnaissance imagery? Was it the JTAC talking to the plane, or the TACP coordinating with the ASOC? Am I  responsible for building the network to facilitate all of this as was Oppenheimer for building his H-bomb?

Here I stood, only 21 years of age after my NCOIC called us over to our equipment to congratulate us on a job well done and to tell us we were killing bad guys now. Trying to maintain my composure in front of everyone else, it dawned on me what my place was in this war. War being something I never truly felt an affinity for, I always believed that we are what we are, based on what we do. Something within me rose, and I experienced a moment terror for what I had just participated in. If we are what we do, then what did that make me? My ambition to leave the military without harming anyone left out the window with my innocence. I sat in that RCU often, torturing myself with my own imagination as I pictured strike after strike. I wondered who it was at the receiving end. Was it Taliban, an angry father whose home was bombed killing his whole family, or was there a child there?

For a month until I left, a sense of dread lay for what my Enlisted Performance Report would say. Ultimately the day arrived after a month or so of being home, the work this system my unit built supported 2,400 Close Air Support Missions and 200+ enemy kills.  That night, by way of the internet I cross referenced this report with the report by the UN’s Annual Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. I waited until early 2010 to see what it said:

“UNAMA HR recorded 359 civilians killed due to aerial attacks, which constitutes 61% of the number of civilian deaths attributed to pro-Government forces. This is 15% of the total number of civilians killed in the armed conflict during 2009.” page 17.

It was all that mattered for me… My nightmares began in Afghanistan, where we had experienced rocket attacks almost nightly, with the threat of a ground attack which ultimately resulted in a suicide bombing weeks later, and with knowledge of a mortar landing close to me. I’d wake up throughout the night, sometimes rolling onto the floor with the assumption that we were under attack. But after this system went online, these nightmares morphed into ones where I was standing in a village being bombed with full knowledge of my role in it, while I’d desperately try to help save people. Upon returning home I’d wake up with nightmares of a child standing next to an ash covered body looking at me as if I had done it. I’d reach down and frantically try to revive the corpse to no avail, and the child would just continue to stare at me as if all hope had left her body. Sometimes I would dream of the reverse happening, a mother and father with a dead baby in the mother’s arms, screaming in grief.

I never needed to see the horrors of war, my imagination already haunts me. I feel the weight of my responsibility for my actions there, even if the majority of my peers don’t seem to. This weight continues to grow with each passing day, as the death toll rises. I can’t help that. Knowing what I know, I can’t in good conscience keep pretending everything is ok.

At my going away party, a joke about burning my uniform turned into an action which left a few former colleagues feeling uneasy. Ruining my boss’s grill was a regrettable way to try to separate myself from my experience, but it didn’t seem to work. Temporarily it did, on my post Air Force travels, until my trip lead me to the Republic of Georgia to a town called Gori, a place I visited as a tween while my father worked in Armenia as a US Defense Attache. Two years prior to my revisiting in 2010, the Russians bombed the town killing over 60 people. I suffered a near nervous breakdown in front of a bombed out apartment building and bawled my eyes out in the square next to the Stalin museum. From that moment, I’d say I was lost, trying to find my way toward redemption. I needed to connect with something that would give me back a purpose, so for a time I was determined to return to Afghanistan and apologize to anyone that would hear me. But I was stopped by a Russian Afghan war vet I met in Kazakhstan who assured me that my answer was not there. He himself tried to go back to reconcile with his actions, and he showed me his gunshot scar to prove it. So I decided to heed his advice and go to school, studying International Relations instead. Of course, when you feel like you have blood on your hands and bare a tremendous sense of guilt for that blood, the subject matter of international relations has an easy way of whittling you away. Till last summer, I didn’t know how to deal with my past. I broke down as my life seemed to be falling apart, but as a result I have managed to regain composure and come out of it. Hopefully, in a more useful capacity.

Being the person I am, I was never afforded the luxury of being content with causing pain to others. I yearned for a way to channel my experience into something beneficial for humanity. It’s incredibly difficult not to dwell on it now, as I view my own life in the context of a deficit I owe to those people who’s lives I helped ruin. As this deficit builds, so too does my motivation to do something positive. Honestly, so does my guilt sometimes, but I’m working on that. Terminating myself isn’t the answer, and I’m not supporting that mindset. I’m simply calling for awareness, dialogue and a new way of thinking.

Network Centric Warfare and Full Spectrum Dominance

Network Centric Warfare (NCW) is a military doctrine and a theory of war that was conceived in the 1990’s. It was first mentioned in a paper called “Copernicus: C4ISR for the 21st Century” in describing the US Navy’s approach to the information age.

A commander’s greatest challenge is to maintain situational awareness on the ground on the location of his own forces. There are various systems that were developed to support this technologically, among them being the Global Positioning System (GPS). GPS effectively allows combat troops on the ground to locate themselves on the battlefield, but does not create an automated/ integrated system for reporting that information.

To build a theoretical model for how this works in practice, I will use the example of a Marine Air to Ground Task Force (MAGTF). In order to progress, there are two assumptions one must make. First, the Marines on the ground as well as the attack aircraft know their own location with GPS. Second, they possess communications platforms to transmit this data. By automating this process, the MAGTF now has the ability to know the location of every Marine, as it is provided a database that can be manipulated and analyzed either locally or remotely.

The next stage is to provide this data to every weapons system that provides automated firing solutions ie. artillery, naval gunfire, aircraft. These weapons system can now avoid “friendly fire” by using the positional information made available to them across this network platform. Going one step further, it will provide all units with target identification and designation by automatically feeding this information into this network. By doing this, it provides both air and ground based automated weapons systems the ability to conduct a battle in real time, while avoiding friendlies on the ground and to hit their designated targets with near-pinpoint accuracy. With the information provided in this network, the Direct Air Support Center (DACS) can assist in coordinating Close Air Support (CAS) by making the network aware of all available aircraft and armament in the area. By connecting other systems, this network can be provided with an infinite platform for information.

Once the ground, air and naval fire support elements, the ground units, and the coordination agencies have been integrated into the network, this system is now able to coordinate and provide fire support at the speed of a radio signal. By giving all of this information to every weapons platform, the network, with sufficient computing power can identify every element. The network can therefore compute the most effective firing solution, and either a human or the network itself will be able to select the appropriate system.

Future, if not already existent uses of this network centric approach are exponentially numerous if applied to every sector of the Department of Defense. Planners envisage real time coordination with medical systems, medical diagnostic feedback with individual soldiers, and real time status updates on ammo usage, thus allowing for the network to provide instantaneous resupply of ammo or arrangement of medical evacuation (MEDVAC).

NCW is the coming together of three elements: the sensor plane, the shooter grid, and the information grid. It is our current state, and it is the future of warfare. This system is integral to the US military’s other objective of Full Spectrum Dominance (FSD). FSD is a doctrine which one might consider, the practical implementation of George Bush’s declaration of global American hegemony in the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003. FSD is essentially the vision of total dominance in naval (surface and submarine), air, space, ground, electronic, and informational warfare. Whether or not this can be achieved is a valuable question to ask. With ubiquitous collection of information across every platform interconnected by a thinking network, it’s clear that the United States has the distinct advantage. But the United States is not the only power with the ability to create such a system. It also does not consider the asymmetrical tactics which will be developed and employed to combat it. Nevertheless, this network is instrumental in the further employment of UAVs and other automated weapons platforms and encourages further diffusion of individual responsibility for killing. At this point I find my greatest disconnect with how modern warfare is conducted.

The foretold advantages of NCW is that it will ultimately help prevent friendly fire and will improve battlefield logistics. But the potential repercussions of this system is that decisionmaking is taken up and diffused by the network itself, thus eliminating what should be the difficult decision to use deadly force. Already within the US military, soldiers are psychologically pre-conditioned by traditional hierarchy, social roles, specialization, fear of disobeying or lack thereof for exceeding expectation, social acceptance, and linguistic manipulation to be less sympathetic toward the use of structured violence. Through the use of UAV technology, pilots are no longer even put into harm’s way. With the prevalence of military video games utilizing methods of killing such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 that are identical to images one would see in their combat missions, it is easy to understand where several disconnects with reality might lie. By diffusing the process further, and/or pushing toward further autonomy with weapons system as seen with the US Navy’s newest addition the X-47B, how can ethics or the Geneva Convention for that matter be upheld? Assuming there ever is a day when culturally acceptable, who will be held responsible for war crimes committed?

A modern air strike works as follows, although these scenarios are fictional and may include some inaccuracies. This is more to illustrate the complexity of aerial operations than to provide operational details.

Location: 40 km north-west outside Gereshk, Helmand Province, Afghanistan

Situation: 12 man Army reconnaissance team are ambushed by what appears to be at least 30 anti-coalition militants from the side of a mountain sitting directly at their 2 o’clock position. They are sustaining heavy gunfire and artillery bombardment.

Airstrike type: Dynamic Targeting ( Time sensitive), friendlies in the area

Scenario 1:

Team Without Forward Air Controller:

Soldier switches his Land Mobile Radio to a special frequency, calling for artillery bombardment and air support.
Signal is intercepted by Battlefield Airborne Communications Node, it is transmitted to the 73 EACS where it is interlinked with radar and data and sent to the Battlefield Command and Control Center Al Udeid, it is also relayed to the Air Support Operations Center (ASOC) for authorization.
The signal is also intercepted by a nearby Fire Support Officer who controls artillery stands by for coordinates and authorization
GPS coordinates are instantly made available to the network, and the soldier approximates the distance and direction of where the fire is coming from in relation to his location.
Through BACN and the 73 EACS platform, the operators in Al Udeid and Kandahar coordinate to send the closest available attack aircraft in the area.
The selected aircraft diverts its flight path and goes enroute to the location, then first does a flyover.
Sensors and video footage are fed into the network and targets are selected by operators
Coordinates are shared with the Fire Support Coordinator (FSCOORD) who coordinates with the Corps Artillery (Corps ARTY), Division Artillery (DIV ARTY), and the Field Artillery (FA BN) units to
This data is at the same time sent from the Air Support Operations Center ( ASOC ) to the Combined Air and Space Operations Center (CAOC in Al Udeid) for approval by the JFACC
Approval is granted.
The pilot loops around and does a second flyover, this time he presses the button releasing the munitions.
The FSCOORD then provides authorization to commence with artillery bombardment of the area
Another flyby is done to assessing the damage, and to ensure that all militants have been killed.
Scenario 2:

Team with Forward Air Controller:

Forward Air Controller (JTAC) or TACP gets on PRC-117 ( a combat net radio enabled for satellite communication and dual command and control) and sends a request for Close Air Support (CAS) to the Air Support Operations Center.
The radio itself is interoperable with all flight radios, thus all pilots in the area are alerted to this.
BACN also intercepts this signal, then relays it to all ground commanding officers in the area
The TACP in the meantime sets up a data link with the satellite and prepares the sensors for operation.
The network already picks up their GPS coordinates, so all weapons systems are instantly alerted to this.
The TACP then directed the sensor at the intended targets, and this data is uploaded onto the network.
This information is analyzed by intelligence officers, and targets are selected.
In the meantime, the TACP keeps the sensor on the targets and updates the network to their movements.
The ASOC reports the situation directly to the CAOC, then it is approved by the JFACC, if s/he is not present it goes to next in charge.
An aircraft is designated by the air control operators in the CAOC, then it is diverted to the location.
The TACP or JTAC is linked to the pilot and to the ASOC, and the TACP guides the pilot on the best method of approach.
The missiles are already pre-programmed on the targets to attack, intelligence officers watch the live video feed coming from aircraft, listen to the TACP, and match that information with his sensor data.
As the pilot makes his approach, he deploys the guided missiles and they hit the preselected targets
The TACP reports on the damage, then the pilot makes another pass to provide an overview for assessment of the intelligence officers, and to scan for further threats
If successful and all human targets are killed, the team of soldiers will then visit the site of the air strike and visually inspect the casualties.
Location: 70 km north-west of Wana, Pakistan, 20 km before the Afghan-Pakistani border

Situation: MQ-1B Predator armed reconnaissance drone spots 120 heavily armed men moving southeast on foot heading toward the border of Pakistan presumably to Wana. Based on recent intelligence in the area, these men are suspected to have been responsible for recent attacks on coalition troops.

Airstrike type: Unmanned Air Interdiction Mission, Dynamic Targeting ( Time sensitive)

Drone spots a cluster of moving targets travelling in a single direction toward Pakistani border.
Drone pilot begins to circle overhead fixing its sensors on the suspected militants
The sensor identifies 120 men armed with AK-47s, 20 of which also carry RPG-7 Rocket Launchers.
This information is sent directly in real-time to the satellite which is being used for flight and redirected down to the satellite receiver-transmitter at the 73rd EACS in Kandahar Air Field and Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
The signal is diverted in real time to the CAOC and the Intelligence Officer/ Imagery Analyst who identifies and confirms that the selected targets are in fact anti-coalition forces by zooming in and visually inspecting them.
Across the network, he also verifies that these men are not friendly militias by requesting verification from ground commanders.
Once this is confirmed, a request for an airstrike is given, then it is rapidly authorized by the commander due to the time sensitive nature of the event. ( If the militants are allowed to cross the border, then the military commander will technically have to request entry from the Pakistani Government, which by the time it goes through, it will be too late.)
Due to the drone’s limited supply of firepower, an A-10 is also called in for backup support instead of the drone using its two Hellfire missiles, which would be too little firepower to kill every militant, and would risk some escaping.
The Predator continues to circle maintaining visuals on the cluster of militants at all times.
This information is shared with the ASOC, who then directs the A-10 pilot on his initial approach.
On the first approach, the pilot releases 5 of its 10 Maverick Air to Surface missiles to pinpoint locations on the row of militants to cause maximum casualties.
In the meantime the drone continues to circle in order to give Intelligence and the Commander a situational overview. Its heat and motion sensors detect that all but 10 of the men were killed.
The A-10 is then directed to make a second approach in which it employs its 30mm cannon to kill the remaining men.
Once complete, a ground based assessment team is called into the location to inspect the bodies.
Location: Sangin, Helmand Province, Afghanistan

Situation: Local intelligence sources state that a High Value Target (HVT) who is major drug trafficker working with the Taliban is currently held up in a large house near the outskirts of Sangin. He controls a violent local militia who are positioned within the house and the surrounding neighborhood, making it too hazardous to send in troops. In addition, the drug kingpin is expected to have an significant arms and ammo cache in his home, making the home itself strategically important to anti-coalition activity in the region.

Airstrike type: Manned Air Interdiction Mission, Preplanned

A surveillance drone is sent to the area in order to provide a persistent situational overview for planners to assess their intended target.
The planning team builds up a list of targets based on the local intelligence given and uses the imagery to assess the potential for collateral damage ie. infrastructure and civilians that might be harmed unintentionally.
This information is then used to designate aim points for the aircraft.
The risk for high levels of civilian casualties is low, but it is expected that there will be some. Therefore it must be pre-approved by a higher ranking commander.
Another a weapons planning team reviews the targets, and determines the best weapons to be used and the amount. It also determines the amount of aircraft needed, as well as the number of sorties needed for the mission.
Next, this goes to a team that develops a Master Attack Plan.
This plan then goes for approval to the commander who then weighs the military necessity of destroying this compound against the potential for civilian casualties and a fallout with the local population. With a ground based attack of the compound being ruled out due to the potential for suffering heavy loss, the commander considers the large scale anti-coalition presence in the area and the coming opium harvest in May. He determines that out of strategic necessity, the compound had to be destroyed, and the kingpin had to be killed with it, for the impact it would have on Taliban/ anti-coalition operations.
This operation is then scheduled to take place the following morning
In this case, it was determined that only two bombs would be used and only one aircraft/ sortie would be needed to collapse the building.
The weapons are loaded onto the aircraft, and it sets off toward its intended drop zone
Communications between the aircraft and the CAOC is managed via the satellite link between Qatar and Afghanistan via the 73 EACS. Operators manage air traffic in the area directing and tracking the movement of the aircraft to the bombing target. Information is shared with the ASOC.
As the plane flies over, the bombs are dropped on the target’s compound, which results in a much larger explosion than was originally anticipated. The resulting blast effectively flattens every home within a 150 meter radius.
Radio chatter between the CAOC, the pilot, and ASOC increase significantly as they try to discover what happened.
The surveillance drone flying overhead detects people on the ground frantically running around trying to save people who survived the blast.
The pilot inquires whether or not another pass would be necessary, to which the commander replies that he should get back to base.
The next day, the mayor of the town contacts the governor of the region claiming that the strike resulted in over 50 civilian casualties
The commander of the operation is alerted to this, then apologizes to the mayor and the governor and arranges for reparations in the form of payment.
The area is still considered too hostile to assess what happened, but the commander suspected that the home was a decoy filled with explosives.
In the official report, due to the inability for the military to send in a damage assessment team to gain first-hand evidence, it is stated that 50 potential enemy combatants were attrited (killed)
Expeditionary Air Control Squadron (CRC/CRE): EACS

Detection, identification, and classification of all aircraft and missiles within the area of responsibility.
Track management of each aircraft, missile, and ship.
Data transmission, reception, and forwarding with other agencies
Evaluation of the threat potential of enemy aircraft and missiles, and the selection and assignment of weapons to engage hostile threats
Engagement control of friendly interceptor aircraft and surface-to-air missiles against enemy threats
Control of airspace and air traffic within the area of responsibility
Integration with BACN
Battlefield Air Communications Node: BACN:

The purpose of this system is to extend the radar, data, and radio coverage to remote areas that are inaccessible to ground based systems such as those which are operated and maintained by the 73rd Expeditionary Air Control Squadron. One issue with radios, is that different platforms use different interfaces, and often come into compatibility conflicts. BACN acts as an untethered platform which provides a cross systems interface that allows all weapons systems to communicate. Information that is transferred through a BACN system is then sent and received directly to through the 73rd EACS infrastructure, and is integrated with long-haul communication between Afghanistan and Qatar via satellite. In addition, it offers “knowledge based intelligence” which automatically senses different waveforms characteristics of different senders and receiver, and routes traffic to the appropriate locations. Traditionally, the BACN system was mounted into Bombardier Global Express Aircraft and operated by private contractors from Northrop Grumman (top right/bottom). However, more recently BACN systems are being mounted into EQ-B4 Global Hawk UAVs (top left). While already automated in terms of purpose, this will eliminate the need for pilots and standby operators. Global Hawks are able to fly at higher altitudes able to stay in flight 24/7. Eventually BACN UAVs will be autonomously flown, eliminating the need for operators altogether.

Combined Air and Space Operations Center: CAOC:

The (C)AOC is the senior Tactical Air Control System’s (TACS) agency responsible for the centralized control and decentralized execution of airpower in support of the Joint Force Commander. It acts as the “nerve center” for aerial missions for Operation Enduring Freedom and Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa. It provides real-time air command and control over Afghanistan for thousands of sorties daily. It was linked with Afghanistan in 2009 by the 73rd EACS who built the necessary infrastructure in both Kandahar and Al Udeid Air Base.

Air Support Operations Center


The Air Support Operations Center (ASOC) is an element of the Ground Theater Air Control System (GTACS) which coordinated with the senior Army maneuver unit in theater and is directly subordinate to the Combined Air Operations Center. Organizationally, ASOCs are Air Support Operations Squadrons organized and equipped as an ASOC.

ASOCs are commanded by an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, it manages allotted air resources and executes missions supporting its aligned Army units. TACPs assigned to an ASOC fill the role of receiving air support requests from forward deployed JTACs. Once an air support request is received, the air support request is either approved or disapproved by the ground commander’s land component chain of command. The following outlines the Air Support Requesting procedures for each decision:

Approved (urgent):  Immediate requests to support urgent, troops-in-contact situations may result in strike aircraft being sent by the ASOC to the JTACs location for terminal control of immediate close air support.

Approved (non-urgent): Air support requests submitted after the cut-off time for inclusion on the next Air Tasking Order (ATO), or 24 hour sortie cycle managed by the JFACC, will become scheduled missions on the subsequent ATO.

Disapproved: The disapproved request should be sent back to the requesting unit with reasons for disapproval. It is important to understand that approval and disapproval authority of air support requests is the responsibility of the Army / Land Component being supported.

UAV Sensors:

In 2004, the U.S. drone fleet produced 71 hours of video surveillance for analysis. By 2011, that figure was 300,000 hours annually, and today in 2015 it is in the millions. Cameras such as the Gorgon Stare produce so much footage no human could possibly review it all. This has pushed the US military toward programming and using visual intelligence software to review it. Technology exists today with the basic ability to recognize and reason about activity in full motion video. Currently, it is “known” that UAVs can sense movement, heat signatures, gunfire on the ground, and mark it for analysis. The next step is technology like the “Mind’s Eye” (DARPA), which will not only be able to identify and mark potential target, but it will be able to interpret their actions, and alert operators to suspicious activity. The creator once said that targets themselves are the “nouns” on the battlefield, this system seeks to identify the “verbs”. The latest information states that there are currently 48-60 verbs that the system can identify. The following are the tasks this system is programmed to perform.

Recognition: VI systems will be expected to judge whether one or more verbs is present or absent in a given video
Description: VI systems will be expected to produce one or more sentences describing a short video suitable for human-machine communication
Gap-filling: VI systems will be expected to resolve spatiotemporal gaps in video, predict what will happen next, or suggest what might have come before
Anomaly detection: VI systems will be expected to learn what is normal in longer-duration video, and detect anomalous events.
As a result of the sheer volume of surveillance data currently being processed with sensors such as the Gorgon Stare, it is anticipated that programmes like the Mind’s Eye will be choosing targets for operators themselves. Now I want you to dwell on this thought for a minute…

Back to the Questions:

With everything that I previously mentioned, I want you to ask yourself the same questions I put forth at the beginning of this article.

Who do you think makes the decisions?Commanders?
Intelligence Officers?
The TACP/JTAC on the ground?
The soldier requesting air support?
The pilot that drops the bombs?
The team that assembled the bomb and instilled the firing mechanism?
The network itself?
All of the above?
How many people and processes do you think are involved in conducting these strikes?
Who is ultimately responsible for the end result?The soldier who requests the airstrike?
The commander who provides authorization for the airstrike?
The pilot who pushed the button that dropped the bombs?
The intelligence officer that reviewed the footage and marked the targets?
The people who built and maintained the infrastructure for the network that made any of this even possible?
Nobody entirely?
All of the five listed above?
What is a weapons system?Is it the vehicle?
Is it person commanding the vehicle?
Is it the person who selects the targets?
Is the sensors that mark targets?
Is it the bombs, or is that merely ammunition?
Is it all of the above and the network itself?
Then I want you to ask yourself a few more questions…

Who will be responsible for making kill decisions in the future?The Secretary of Defense?
The President?
Will it be commanders?
Will it be soldiers on the ground?
Will it be intelligence officers that review decisions that computer programs have made?
Or will autonomous weapons system be trusted to the point in which they will be authorized for making the final kill decision?
Who will feel responsible for fatalities?Everyone entirely?
Everyone somewhat?
Knowledge of roles, but void of feeling of responsibility?
What effect does diffusion of responsibility have on warfare?
How will network centric warfare, and lethal autonomy affect the future of warfare?
What affect will this movement have on political decisionmaking?How will it affect their decision to use military assets?
How will the structural use of deadly force be perceived by the public?
Who will be making the decisions? Private enterprise or Public institutions?
These are just some of the questions that confound me when thinking of what my role actually was in Afghanistan…


Modern warfare will be described in books as intrastate and asymmetrical, and most assuredly, much will be said about the actual revolutions in the weapons themselves. But what will likely go unnoticed is what the violence actually means to individuals within these modern militaries in relation to the roles they played. Popular culture will continue to focus on the machines of war and less on the networks that structure and support it. The diffusion of responsibility is the nature of modern warfare. This begins with impressionable people who are taught obedience to authority and are provided a legitimizing ideology with social and institutional support. It is further enhanced by linguistic manipulation by the institution to neutralize emotional words, obfuscate processes with acronyms, and rouse feelings that would contribute to desirable outcomes. Furthermore, enlisted servicemen are then taught to respect hierarchies which put command responsibility in the hands of officers. Then the responsibility of the welfare and behavior of the subordinates are put in the hands of the officers. Most of all, the system of punishment for disobedience has evolved from corporal means to administrative means, potentially extending the repercussions over lifetimes, enhanced by social exile. If combined with weapons systems that are coordinated over large distances and require a network of highly specialized operators, sensors, and machine programming just to function properly, then how connected can any “involved” individual be to the use of deadly force on the the ground?

I wrote this paper to hopefully open your eyes to some of the realities of war today. If you hadn’t thought deeply about the things that I mentioned already, then it was the objective of my paper to get you to do so. It has been nearly ten years since I signed the contract binding me to the US military. I was property of the US government until April 18th, 2014. The issues I have discussed affect me greatly. It was my intention to share with you why. It is human curiosity to inquire with those who have participated in war if they have ever killed anybody. If one says no, then the interest often fades. If one says yes, then the inquisitor will often be satisfied with nothing less than a story of horrific conditions, gunfire and explosions. The truth is that many people who said no, may be as equally instrumental in an airstrike as the person that dropped the bomb, we were just too far removed from our actions to feel our part in it. I was a technician, and without what I did, the concept of Network Centric Warfare would still be a concept.

The Ground Theater Air Control System is complicated structure of machines, signals, and humans that span in coverage across the Middle East and Central Asia, but by offering a platform that allows it to operate I would argue that it can and should be considered a weapons system in itself. All parties involved in it are responsible for everything it does. To say otherwise would mean that nobody is responsible, and that the act of killing people in an airstrike is devoid of moral reflection. This is not a world I am willing to live in, and for this reason I refuse to avert my attention from my role in this machine of death and ruined lives. Many would point to the lives this system has saved. Yet I do not view this as any redemption, but rather question the system that made their lives need saving.  For every civilian killed, for every man driven to violence as the result of his loved one’s death, for every life it has ruined I understand my place in it. To refuse a system where men and women are diffused of feeling responsibility for the horrors they are complicit with, is to recognize one’s role in this system and to extract oneself from it. The negative emotions which come with it in the beginning overwhelm the senses, fatigue will set in, one will find himself passing through the stages of grief, but in time one begins to understand that guilt has its purpose, through it one becomes more human. From facing it and not suppressing it, we grow as individuals and societies…

The airstrike as I see it, is a metaphor for how our globalized society functions, as we are all facilitators within a great network of injustices around the world. The ethical faults of the United States military are not our own, but they are based on roles we play in social constructs that are sculpted by many processes that reduce our capacities to feel empathy and act accordingly. Similar systems exist all around us and it is our duty to identify them. For this reason, we must all come to terms with who we are in relation to what we do and are complicit with, then sever ourselves from the unseen evils in how we live. Only then can we become more human, and only then can we hope to have a better future than our past.
Project Red Hand is a growing group of veterans and concerned citizens working together to increase transparency, awareness, and foster understanding on all issues ranging from the ‘War on Terror’ , open access to the Internet, and the future of the next generation. Combining knowledge, witnessed accounts, and reaching out to those specialized in separate fields, we hope to foster civic engagement and increase the public discourse.

Articles by Author:

Brandon Bryant – Founder – US Air Force veteran and former drone operator – @backavar

Cian Westmoreland – Nomad – US Air Force veteran who helped build on all communications systems – @CianMW

Michelle Segal – Kraken – International law and human rights radical, civilian activist and writer – @mhsegal

Space Man – Marine Corp Officer applying for Conscientious Objector Status

The Doctor – Concerned active member of the Armed Forces

We are still new and growing. Crafting campaigns and building as we go, so make sure to check back. Any ideas, concerns, or collaborative notions? Don’t hesitate to contact us.
The first Veteran’s Day I spent in the military happened in 2005.  I was at Goodfellow AFB in the super (ironically) independent, nationally militaristic, pro-war, anti-humanitarian, Christian state of Texas. Made me proud to be a military member. I was only four months into my service.

A year later, I was finishing up my drone training at Creech AFB, 40 minutes north of the Las Vegas city limits.  I was dealing with a failing relationship, professional drama, and enough personal qualms to not really appreciate the appreciation for my service. Some of my former peers had gone out in uniform to get their pats on the head like good boys and girls, eager to sit down in a fancy restaurant for a free meal.  I stayed home and read a book.

Three weeks later, I watched as an American Convoy hit an IED.  As far as I knew, all the people inside the vehicle had been killed. Those Veterans were not coming home in anything but coffins with an American Flag draped over to honor their sacrifice for their country.

But for what did they die?

Every year, on Veteran’s Day, I think about those soldiers.  I think about their families. Their possible futures.  Their alternate realities if we had not created this mess of a war.

I not only think of American Veterans, I spend time reflecting on the losses that our allies have suffered.  Our enemies.

I mourn at the destruction we have created for profit at the expense of my generation and the next. Yet as a country we excuse war so long as none of our brave soldiers come home in a casket. Our politicians tout drone warfare as “not putting American lives in danger.” That “we are killing the enemy before they can kill us.” Rationale of that sort states with no other meaning: violence is okay, peace is not an option when we are safe, and American lives are worth more than any others.

We refuse to think of the inverse as possible because of our exceptionality. When confronted with a Red Dawn imaginary scenario we respond in a violent manner for the defense of our people and land not realizing the irony of our reality as that invading force.

Our consumerist mentality has turned a solemn, sacred day of humbling ourselves in the horrific reality that we send our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives to war, killing in our name.  The more comfortable we are with our lives, the less we value those that suffer.

It is time we change this.  Over the next year we will be facing some very real pains.  Those freedoms that our soldiers have spilt unknowable amounts of blood to protect are slowly being taken away.  It is time that we take responsibility for our actions, as a people, a country, humanity as a whole.  It is time we truly love our enemies outside of the plague that has become our Sunday school Christian mentality.

This time we do it for real.

I’m not saying that it will be easy.  Nothing is easy. Being spiteful, hateful, cynical is easy because it allows you to respond in kind to all the negativity that pervades our world.  And if you don’t trust in our world, trust in me.  Trust that there are human beings fighting to keep back the darkness.  Trust that first step and join us in creating a better world.

All our hands are red in blood and misery. I believe it is time we wash them clean.

Written by Brandon Bryant
Tuesday, November 11th is Veterans Day. It’s a day to reflect upon those who have served our country. Not to be confused with Memorial Day. This is a day where many stores and restaurants offer up free meals or appetizers to those with a military ID card to thank those who have served or are serving. But this isn’t really a way of helping veterans even though it is a nice gesture. What if I told you we could actually help vets returning from war? What if I told you more and more veterans returning from war and being diagnosed with PTSD, or may have PTSD but aren’t seeking help for it? If you’re able to find it, Pivot is airing a documentary about PTSD on 11 November titled That Which I Love Destroys Me. I haven’t seen it, but will try to find it.

PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, is something that seriously needs greater attention. The American Psychological Association (APA) refers to PTSD as “an anxiety problem that develops in some people after extremely traumatic events, such as combat, crime, an accident or natural disaster,” . War isn’t the only traumatic experience that would give someone PTSD. It’s normal to feel afraid when in danger. This is generally when your fight-or-flight response kicks in to either prepare to defend against the danger, or avoid it . Back in 1980, the APA added PTSD to it’s third edition of it’s Diagnostic  and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) and trauma was considered something as a catastrophic stressor beyond the normal realm of usual human experience. Such catastrophic stressors considered were war, torture, rape, natural disasters, Nazi Holocaust which are very different from stressors like divorce, failure, or even a serious illness .

I’m not writing this to inform you what PTSD is, but rather writing this to show the lack of care the military seems to have for those returning home from war that have been diagnosed with PTSD. Let’s look at some numbers. Back in 2012 the government spent around $3 billion to treat veterans with PTSD and $294 million on service members and they have no evidence to show it’s working. It has been estimated that somewhere between 7-20% of veterans of recent wars have suffered from PTSD at some point. Oregon did a study and found that male veterans aged 18 years to 24 years old had a suicide rate eight times higher than citizens in the same age group. There is a correlation although not 100% of the time, that those with PTSD commit suicide while not every suicide is PTSD related.

The U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs showed that OIF/OEF veterans diagnosed with PTSD has been a risk factor for suicidal ideation. While I’ve seen reports upwards of 30 veterans a day commit suicide, the VA reports an estimated 22 veterans a day commit suicide. There are triggers that those diagnosed with PTSD get that may cause them to commit suicide. Some of these include night terrors and flashbacks. What if I told you that many may actually value human life and that’s why they may have developed PTSD to begin with, because they took another human life? This is very different from someone who is a psychopath or serial killer as they do not value human life, they don’t have that ability to do so and therefore are unaffected by taking lives. While many return, there are some that transition to civilian life while others do remain active duty or guard/reservists. Not enough is being done to help them transition back to the states after being at war. Military members spend months training and preparing to deploy but the same care is not spent on members coming back. When I came back from a deployment, I had two meetings with the mental health clinic. Two…that’s it. They asked me some standard questions and sent me on my way. Six months later I was back for round two of the same questions. It’s very easy to lie. Luckily for me, while I did spend time on a base that was getting attacked, I felt I came back unscathed. Nothing was ever really truly close enough to make me feel like I was in danger with the exception of some overhead rockets as I stumbled out of my hut in a half asleep stumble to the restroom.

The point is this. Our military members need to know people are there to help them even if the Department of Veteran Affairs severely lacks in this ability. There are programs out there for those whether they are remaining in service or transitioning to civilian life. I stumbled across Operation:  I.V. in writing this article (operationiv.org). I understand some are afraid to reach out due to having the stigma of a mental disorder so they’d rather keep quiet. Please know this, if someone discusses suicide, please do not leave their side. Seek immediate medical help or call 911. The VA does have a 24/7 hotline (1-800-273-8255, opt. 1), and a website to reach out. If you know someone who may be experiencing PTSD like symptoms, please encourage them to seek help. Let’s take care of our vets the way they do for us overseas whether or not you agree with the war.

Written by The Doctor

Hand outstretched somewhere on the side of the road in southern Kyrgyzstan, I was on my way to Osh. Osh was a city that was known for being a major trading post along the silkroad, but it was also the site of a bloody massacre of Uzbeks just a few months prior. It was said by locals that there were over 2000 people killed over the span of a couple of weeks there, and over 100,000 people displaced. Official estimates only say there were around 420 deaths, but those were just in hospitals. This event was mostly overshadowed by other news, partially due to the US and Russian air bases that sit in Bishkek, so not many of my loved ones were aware of the fact that I was on my way to a city full of potential genocidaires. They most certainly had no idea that my plan was to re-enter Afghanistan through Tajikistan and travel to Kandahar, just as one of my personal heroes Rory Stewart had chronicled in his book “The Places in Between” on his journey from Herat to Kabul. I had an English- Dari dictionary that I picked up in Bishkek, and a list of phrases. Against the advice of a former Russian soldier I had met in Karaganda, who fought in the Russian- Afghan war, I was still going to brave it. I was under the naïve impression that all my fears I had of people were unfounded, and to reaffirm my beliefs that most people were essentially good. My journey thus far was living proof of this. After months of testing this by riding with complete strangers across countries I had been told were dangerous and that I would surely be knifed down, I was treated mostly with respect except for a few corrupt policemen trying to get money out of me. But I didn’t carry it to give. While I cannot speak for the general nature of humankind, I can speak for my experience.

My experience was… that I had been to Kandahar before, in the United States Air Force. I was with a squadron whose main purpose was to set up a site that would designate all communication between aircraft in Afghanistan to their respective parties around the globe to be directed and controlled. We had a hand to play in everything from medivac to the Beast of Kandahar, a formerly classified surveillance aircraft that made international headlines when it was grounded over Iran. Initially, I proudly worked on what I knew to be something that was going to save lives by making communications more reliable for people in danger. It was the first time in US history that a system had been set up of this sort to allow for warfare to be directed over a network in the way we did it. We had worked tirelessly to get this system up and running, and with each rocket attack, it re-confirmed to me the value of this mission, a part of me was worried that it would never work… Then one day it did… and I will never forget when my boss proudly announced the fact that we were now killing bad guys.

Truthfully, I was not prepared for those words… I wanted to believe that we were so far removed from what was happening there, that it was not my fault for what happened on the other end. But I couldn’t help imagining airstrikes as they went down in my head. Transfixed, I must have stared at those radios for over an hour, just staring. What was connected to those green blinking lights, I knew were the electrical extension of whatever happened on the ground.

Moreover, I had no idea what the Battlefield Airborne Communication Node (BACN) did, or who they worked with. They had connected with us, and we were not allowed to touch their equipment. As far as we were told, they flew an unmarked private jet with equipment that served as a signal amplifier and universal translator for radio and data frequencies over remote areas. It relayed its messages through us so that we could transmit it long haul to places such as, but not limited to the Combined Air Operations Center in Al Udeid Air Base. What I found troubling was the priority these people had. I would only later learn why.

After everything was set up, we had very little to do except for maintenance checks, our programs, and building up the work tents. Each time a soldier would die in Southern Afghanistan, we would go to the flight line and salute their caskets as they were carried away to the C-130. Soldiers, airmen, and marines from around the world would drop what they were doing if it wasn’t critical and we would show our respect. The first one was… emotional. I stood in the front row, and I watched grown men carrying caskets trying their best to hold back their bitter tears. I’d see men standing across from me with tears in their eyes while we all saluted and the bagpipes played. When the Chaplain read the eulogy, a more detached part of me felt like I was experiencing history. It was an honor I thought to die for your country. As days and weeks went by, I realized that there is no honor to be had. Honor was just a way to help people cope. What I was watching was broken families… I was seeing the preview to the worst phone call a mother could receive… It was a father regretting his decision to support his son becoming a soldier. It was a son or daughter who wouldn’t have a parent anymore. I was watching soldiers who would one day put rifles in their mouths, and blow their brains out. There were over fifty coffins taken away that I stood and saluted. Whatever my system did, I was not seeing less people getting taken to those airplanes. It was a time of a 30,000 man troop build-up, so people were pushing further out…  Then I thought about the unseen… I was not seeing the families ruined by the machine I helped build. I was not seeing the child crying over the bodies of her family. I was not seeing the father and husband who lost his wife and child, embittered by what we called a miscalculation or a mistake due to faulty information.

These realizations were more than a source of anxiety for me. I’d watch my radios and imagine all the suffering they caused. The single significant act of my life was this system. It was something to help pilots and operators drop bombs on people. Each time a mortar dropped, I thought about the fear it must create when we blew up their houses. In bathrooms around base back in Germany, we had posters with statistics on the capabilities of aircraft. Some like the Global Hawk were able to fly so high, a person would not even be able to see them. While I have long abandoned the thought of a Christian God as we knew him in the church I used to frequent back home, in my dreams, it was like he was showing me the killer that I was.

When we returned home, we all received an Enlisted Performance Report dictating the impact of our work in Afghanistan. Everyone received a line saying that we supported 200+ enemy kills in our time there. Most of the time, EPR reports are usually fluffed up, but this was true. I was meant to be proud of this… What it didn’t say was that we also supported over 400 civilian deaths since it was installed according to the United Nations. It didn’t say anything about the specifications for what classifies as an enemy in this statistic. Neither did it say anything about the fact that BACN was being used to fly over Pakistan, and that it was using our systems to route UAV traffic. I remember sitting in our office in Germany and watching everyone jump when we heard a car backfire outside. We laughed… But I never talked about my dreams of bombed villages or the people who would never let me sleep. It’s usually seen as a career ender to seek psychological help, so I didn’t. I just put my thoughts into escaping, of travelling the world.

When I quit the military, I burned my uniform in my bosses grill at my going away party. It was as if to say that I am no longer part of this. But it was always a part of me, I could never shake it.

All people I’ve met who travel a long time go either to escape something or to find something. I needed answers. I needed to know why I had blood on my hands, and why I can never forgive myself. In the time I travelled, I only learned of our common humanity through a myriad of different cultural representations. I talked about my life to everyone who would listen, even the unsavory parts. I always expected a conflict, but I think they understood me better than I did myself. When I went to Osh, I had the full expectations of going back to Afghanistan. But as I entered the city, I saw burned out buildings with melted televisions and rain damaged teddy bears inside. I saw the same thousand yards stares I had seen before while I was deployed, and the agitation. I met an owner of a guesthouse who was keeping some Peace Corps volunteers that stopped some men with axes from killing the Uzbeks he was hiding in his house. They came to the door and said if there were any Uzbeks in there, to tell them, or they would go in and kill everyone inside. He told them they weren’t from there and they had no right to come in. They went away. In this action, I saw true honor.

By then my decision to go back to Afghanistan was overshadowed by the Russian veteran I had met a month earlier, who I had shared a beer with in a BBQ stall in the middle of an open market. He spoke for hours about his experiences of gunning down a family because he was ordered to. After I told him what I did and what I planned to do, he took off his sunglasses and looked at me in the eyes.  His words probably saved my life, he said: “I know the Americans gave weapons to fight us. I saw many friends die, and we killed a lot of people. There are things I will unfortunately never forget. But we were just soldiers, just as you were. I don’t hate you, because I am you. That’s what happens when you’ve had time to reflect… I see you in myself, and I’m telling you, you will never be able to come to terms with the knowledge of what you did, it will always be with you. You will just go there and get yourself killed, and then what good are you? You’ll be just one more death, a statistic. In America, people listen to the little man. Go back, get an education, and try to change things, just don’t be evil” It shook me to hear a Russian veteran say this to me. Because I knew that for the longest time they were as afraid of us, as we were of them.

The situation in Osh was said to be a product of instability bleeding over from Afghanistan. Some suggested the Mayor was seeking a reason to create an autonomous zone so that they could traffic weapons and drugs in and out of Afghanistan from Tajikistan. In the man I met there, I saw someone who under threat of being killed by axes, stood up for what was right in that moment. A trip into Afghanistan no longer felt like the only course of action. Instead I went into Xinjiang China. The first thing I saw in Kashgar was a group of Chinese soldiers late at night, taking positions and breaking down a door down in an alleyway, out of the window of the car I was in. This was something I was unprepared for, but under the same auspices of eradicating terrorism from their borders, the first event I experienced in China was their troops exerting their power to take control of a region that technically belonged to them, but they never controlled until they decided to develop it for mineral extraction. I was told by a local tour guide who picked me up on the side of the road that right after 9-11, nine hundred political prisoners disappeared from Urumchi. And on my journey throughout China, nobody was aware of this, nor did they think that the Uygher people were anything more than bloodthirsty killers. Their attitude was all too familiar.

It made me think of our own media, of fear caused by ignorance and transmitted to the people of America. I saw a state run media that prohibited social networking sites outside of the state sanctioned Chinese ones. They couldn’t know, unless they were awake to what else was out there. Their minds were programmed that way. But I never judged them, because in many similar ways, we have been becoming them. At current, we have four companies that control 90% media in the United States. Most Americans currently get their information from these four. While espousing different views on cultural and social issues, on matters of foreign policy, they bandwagon behind views that are the most hard lined whenever there is a moment of shock. When there are only a handful of companies competing for the attention of the majority of people, they tend to adopt whatever is the most attention grabbing topic is and run with it. This is what happened during 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq. The net effect was the same. It still produced a xenophobic reaction toward Islamic people, which in turn was used as recruiting material for extremists. It was fuel to be exploited by those who sought to profit on the pain of others.

When we see other countries on the television, we often wonder why people don’t just do what we would do. Why are they so prone to violence, why do they support evil people in power, and how could they be so ignorant of the goodness our way of life has to offer? We see our own soldiers fighting just wars in movies and assume we are the good guys. As access to the internet proliferates we are beginning to see other, more confusing realities that contain a long list of truths we are often too proud to acknowledge and digest. These other truths are revealing. The nationalism and our insular sense of reality, that protected us from the wickedness of life on earth, flew in our face and exposed our ignorance and our pettiness.. This inward- out perspective on politics insulates us from the truth that there is in fact only you and me sitting here. There is no “other”. Bear with me, and try to imagine that instead of killing Afghans, we were killing Americans. Once you can do that you know how I feel. I’ve travelled to over forty countries and there is nothing that makes an American more superior than anyone else. We are all just people trying to make it on this earth. In war, there are only people killing people for reasons neither side fully understands, and those who profit from it. There are defensive wars, but Afghanistan was not one of them, and neither was Iraq. It was a reaction, but it was not the right one. By the time we are set to leave Afghanistan, we will have occupied it longer than some empires owned colonies. It will be the most expensive war in our history, and it will not make our world any safer. Empires controlled territories in the middle-east much longer and still people fought. As most colonial powers have in the past, we are making the same mistake of believing we are liberators from backwards and brutal cultures. But as they have compelled us to become what we most feared – a country resembling an Orwellian state through superior technology – they have formed their own, and a religion of peace grew gnarled fangs. But in the end, we are merely people belonging to a civilization who wish to defend what is most dear to us. Our losses will burn in our memories and our transgressions will be mere statistics, a means to an end.

Statistics however are representative, they are symbols for people, events, and actions so vast and incomprehensible that we would not have the time in our lives to think about in any sufficient detail. Evil hides behind statistics. But I will not, my hands touched the lives of thousands of people. Many say that if it wasn’t me, it would have been someone else. That is just a way to cope, it’s a lie we tell ourselves. The fact is that there is only one reality and there is no what ifs. There is only us and what we choose to do in our short time we have here. We could be the man in the guesthouse, or we can be the man who killed a whole family out of fear for what authority might do to him if he didn’t. This was the decision I had to make in my life, I am not alone, but I chose fear and white lies to protect myself from the awful truth of my life’s work. White lies like I saved lives with what I did when I know good and well that these were lives that wouldn’t need saving, if we never reacted like a giant who had his eye poked out…  But it was also my choice to sit at this computer, to take this position, and hope someone out there understands.

In my life, I have always been a traveler. For a time, I joined a military that relies on this sense that there are other people out there that would do us harm. But this is true and this is not true. The truth is that there is someone out there that is being told the same thing about us, and up till now, we have done more harm than good. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

From someone who’s lived there for awhile, this is my warning, my plea, and this is the only advice I can give to you as a person. Travel. Learn how to think critically. Experience life as if it was the first day you stepped foot on this Earth and have patience for what is different. When the day comes when I belong to a nation that chooses to understand rather than hate that which harms us, I will come home for good. Until that day, I will make no ties, and I will only stay for a while.

Written by Cian Westmoreland , The Nomad
A veteran’s cemetery outside of New Mexico
I remember the time I began to question what we are really doing overseas. It was September 2009. Let me start from the beginning. I fix things. It’s my nature. At this particular time I was a C-130 maintainer. I was tasked for my first deployment to Afghanistan. In fact, I was a week out from leaving. Then, the next day I came in I found out I was leaving in eight hours. Our deployment manager sent the wrong personnel to replace someone from a different base and so they decided to yank me that night.

The problem was I had already had my deployment readiness training scheduled for the entire next week. Everything from self aid & buddy care to CPR to M-16 qualification and Afghanistan cultural awareness training which is a really dry computer based training requirement. Then, during this training my flight chief was trying to get everything I needed for my deployment bags. He was constantly calling me asking my sizes for extra uniforms and such. My commander was upset because our deployment manager dropped the ball and the other base didn’t care, I had to pay the price. This meant training for 9 hours, head home for a quick shower, pack, and a quick goodbye to my wife and son (I only had one at this time).

I remember it being sort of emotionally upsetting as I’m sure it would be for anyone rushing for their first deployment because I couldn’t even have dinner with my family. I spent 9 hours running around then hurry up and hop on a plane. I do have to say though that my shop and commander did do everything they could to help me out and make sure I had what I needed. This deployment wasn’t like most where you have a few months notice. It went from being a week notice to I was being told the next day I was leaving that night. To skip forward I bit, we flew to the next base and picked up more personnel and flew for what seemed like days. I didn’t see a bed for the next 24 hours. By this point I caught a small nap on the plane.

We eventually arrived in Qatar. I just remember stepping off the 747 into blistering heat. We were rushed to a sort of in-processing. There was a lieutenant going over some briefings while we were in an air conditioned tent. I had no idea what to do at this point. The co-worker I arrived with got put into another group and I didn’t see her the rest of the time we were in Qatar. No one seemed to really be able to tell me where to go, I had to figure everything out and eventually located the lieutenant that had been giving the briefings. I explained to him I was last minute, my name wasn’t on any paperwork at any place I needed to go to in order to properly in-processed and we eventually got everything straightened out.

About two days later took a C-17 into Afghanistan. This was really where my life changed. We worked 7 days a week, 12 hour shifts. Once I arrived I barely had enough time to unpack in the hut my room was in, grab some food, and be rushed off to work. I remember sitting at the meeting place where the buses would come to shuffle us to and from work that first night when a mortar attack happened. I remember my heart racing but not so much out of fear, but not knowing what was going on and just seeing a bright explosion in the distance. Within seconds the sirens were blaring and then it was over. We didn’t even have time to get in the bunkers known as C-bunkers. These are basically cement arch bunkers surrounded by sandbags. When we arrived at our hangar, it was explained to us what had happened. In fact, we received weekly intel briefings about the attacks on our base.

As the weeks went by, we had a fair amount of attacks on our base from rockets to mortars to even “Taliban” members, or whatever they were being referred to at the time, storming the front gate with guns. We had to carry our weapons with us wherever we went with the exception of our compound. We’d leave our weapons in our rooms. If we wanted to visit the Base Exchange, or grab chow, we had to take our M-16’s with us. Everywhere we went, when we stored our guns, we had to clear them using the clearing chambers located at areas to include the dining facilities and even the hangar at work. This just sort of became your everyday normal. Come in to work, clear my gun, check out tools, and go to work out on the flight line.

We did have local nationals that worked on base. They did everything from construction around base to working at the dining facilities and even on each of the compounds collecting garbage. We had what was referred to as LN duty where people would be scheduled to chaperon them around making sure they weren’t doing things they weren’t supposed to. Shortly before I arrived we did have an incident where one was suspected of relaying coordinates to some off base for a pinpoint strike where unfortunately two people died. They suggested we didn’t interact with the local nationals. They never gave an actual reason, they just suggested we didn’t. I’d see people go out of their way to purposely plow through them and cuss them out for no reason. Whether or not they could understand me, I’d walk over and apologize for their actions. It’s easy to discard a person when you know nothing about them and fighting them. These people, however, were only there for a paycheck. They have families to support and aren’t necessarily involved in the war.

I remember one night waking up about an hour or so before I had to start getting ready for work. I had to relieve myself badly due to the amount of water I had drank. In my half awake stumble out to the bathroom trailers I heard this loud rushing noise. I looked up to notice rockets flying overhead and hitting maybe 100 yards away. It certainly woke me up. There was another night a plane was bringing back some alleged enemy combatants. I remember stepping up into the plane not even knowing they were coming back. I began going about my business and happened to turn back and look at the cargo compartment. I noticed dozens of, what I would assume were, Afghani fighters with their hands zip-tied behind their back sitting Indian style on the floor chained to the cargo floor with blindfolds on and vomit bags around their neck. We weren’t ever told who they were or what they had supposedly done. See that, that right there. We weren’t even allowed to know. Why not? What did they do? I thought to myself, did these guys even do anything? Were they running away from people in the woods? Were they even armed?

I get it, I do. There are enemy combatants, but do they actually threaten our way of life all the way over in the U.S.? Why were we over there making these people our enemies? Because here’s a little fact, actually it’s quite big rather, I did not learn until years later. Not one person involved in the Attacks of 9/11 were even Afghani…not. a. single. one. Mohammad Atta – Egypt, Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Saeed al Ghamdi, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al Hamzi, Salem al Hazmi, Ahmad al Nami, Khalid al Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Abdul Aziz al Omari, Mohand al Shehri, Wail al Shehri, Waleed al Shehri, and Satam al Suqami – Saudi Arabia, Fayez Banihammad, and Marwan al Shehhi – United Arab Emirates, and lastly Ziad Jarrah – Lebanon. Don’t believe me? I’m not a huge fan of CNN, but here:  http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11th-hijackers-fast-facts/ . I learned of this information during Airman Leadership School. Maybe it’s something I should have dug into earlier but you don’t think about these things. When leaders give speeches, they immediately make everyone not us to be the bad guy and we need to go over there and blow shit up! I found out later Bin Laden had actually been advised by his Al Qaeda brethren not to attack the U.S. but he did anyways. I believe I picked up that tidbit of information in a PBS documentary I watched online years ago. It was a Pakistani journalist embedded with the Taliban. They were discussing IED’s and just kept saying they want to be left alone. They just want us to leave Afghanistan. They have no desire to come over and attack us. They don’t want to be a part of our western culture. So why were we in Afghanistan? To this day I’m still confused. Did it start because the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden without actual proof linking him to 9/11? Could it be to the vast amount of Lithium deposits? Or, is it simply the big money behind war and the military-industrial complex?

After months of attacks and no days off and tense relationships with other personnel, it was finally time to come home. I decided to do more research on Afghanistan. I looked at some of their cultural beliefs and did a lot of photo searching through Flickr. I’m a visual person and wanted to see more of the country. This is how I learned about how long Afghanistan had been at war. I also learned just how beautiful Afghanistan is. I simply pulled up the site and typed in Afghanistan and browsed through the thousands upon thousands of photos.

Sometime later I decided I wanted to begin my bachelor’s program. I chose to get a degree in social and criminal justice with the idea of possibly running for a local government position one day. I got so tired of seeing people’s rights stepped on and the direction our government was going. I ended up discovering Ron Paul and, while some of his ideas like getting rid of the 3 letter agencies and getting rid of the Department of Education are way out there, he made a lot of good points about our foreign policy and discussed 9/11 being blow back for things we’ve done to other countries.
I stopped really keeping up with world events and focused on schoolwork. I didn’t complete my degree until this past June and have been contemplating what my next move will be. That’s when Brandon approached me about Project RED HAND. We discussed the mission of the group and I was introduced to those he wanted to bring on board. I’ve never worked with activists and knew I wanted to help people. I had a desire to find a way to hold or government accountable for not just it’s misuse of drones but everything including it’s overreach into our personal lives with the NSA and the like. I decided to hop on board. So here I am. I hope to help make a difference.

Written by The Doctor