Who Killed Ted Westhusing?
by Wilton D. Alston
by Wilton D. Alston
DIGG THIS
One of the
interesting – and completely unexpected – outcomes from my essay
on Pat Tillman
was all the information I received about other suspect occurrences
in Iraq. As anyone who has read my pieces can attest, I’m not one
to be bashful in my open distrust of the state in general, and by
extension, any group fundamentally enabled by the state, such as
the military. That said, and even though it might be called, "old
news" at this point in time, the case of Colonel Theodore ‘Ted’
S. Westhusing still caught me by surprise.
As a recovering
TV-holic, I’ve seen more than my share of weird who-dunits involving
convenient suicide notes, disputed testimony, and obvious cover-ups.
This case is just screaming for a visit from the criminologists
from one of the 7 or 8 CSI television shows. (Horatio Caine in Iraq
just seems to fit. Hell, he’s already driving a Hummer and he wears
sunglasses all the time, apparently in homage to George Clinton
and Parliament. Make my funk the P-Funk!) Caine (David Caruso) is
probably better outfitted than a few of our fighting men anyway.
The amount
of reporting about Westhusing’s death is both hard-hitting and plentiful.
I offer a smattering below, with commentary on the more general
topic of liberty (in some cases), just to set the table for what
I will say later. As we are now caught in the afterglow of the Army’s
official statements about Pat Tillman’s death, including an admission
that he died in a fratricide,
it seems germane to examine not just the Tillman case or the Westhusing
case individually, but the larger matter of why these obviously
needless deaths will continue to happen.
All emphasis
shown below is mine.
"Westhusing’s
credentials as an officer were impeccable. As well as considerable
operations and administrative experience within the Army, he held
a doctorate in philosophy and was an instructor at West Point
in English, philosophy and, most importantly given what he
would later claim to have encountered in Iraq, ethics."
"Westhusing
volunteered to go to the war in the autumn of 2004, feeling,
as Miller outlined, that it would help better serve the teaching
of his cadets, and he took over the administration of an aspect
of the United States’ ongoing training of the Iraqi security forces.
More specifically, he was in charge of the oversight of a large
American security company, USIS of Virginia, who (sic) had been
contracted to carry out the actual training."
From the
audio, T. Christian Miller of the Los Angeles Times says,
"It was evident from my reporting that ethics and morality
were very important to him." (Note: The Cud article
above provides a poor man’s transcript of this interview with
Miller.)
"However,
the enlistment of private firms in Iraq represents one of the
most ambitious and possibly disturbing – developments in post
Cold-War conflict. For the U.S. administration, private armies
offer advantages. Their casualties are not generally reported
in the U.S. death toll, which reduces the political fallout of
war. Equally, because they are not governed by military rules,
they can be used for 'dirty deeds.' Not surprisingly, private
security firms showed up in the investigation into the Abu Ghraib
prison scandal."
"Separated
from his family by thousands of miles, living in a moral universe
he couldn't understand, Colonel Westhusing took his own life.
He held the gun, but it was the Bush regime, acting on behalf
of the amoral Power Elite that it serves, that pulled the trigger.
And the regime's enablers (yes that includes you, Hannity) served
as accessories in the death of Colonel Westhusing."
"Westhusing
was very highly educated, holding an incredible three separate
doctorate degrees. His degrees were in philosophy, Russian
and military strategy. I do not think I have ever heard of
any American getting three doctorates before!"
"Articles
about Ted’s unbelievable achievements, transcripts of his talks
and presentations, and articles about him in general are here.
Ted served as a consultant for the Discovery Channel’s program
on the Greek Trojan Horse. He also consulted on the movie ‘Troy’."
"The
Army looked into the allegations of corruption that had been of
noticeable concern to Colonel Westhusing, and (surprise!) found
nothing to write home about. A government official (speaking
anonymously!) had this to say, "As is typical, there may be a
wisp of truth in each of the allegations." A
wisp of truth, but not enough, never ever enough, to change
what we are doing, of course."
"Iraq
(and Saddam Hussein) is no worse and no greater danger than many,
many other places. It has apparently committed no foreign aggression
and its alleged Al Qaeda connection is mere say-so. A war against
Iraq would thus be a purely preemptive strike and hence set
an extremely dangerous precedent. In light of this, it is difficult
to dismiss the suspicion that in both the war against the Taliban
and against Saddam Hussein matters of pipeline and oil concessions
(rather than humanitarian concerns) actually play(ed) a dominant
role."
"Indeed,
one may even ask if it is not the U.S. (and Bush) that constitutes
the greatest danger to world peace. The U.S. commands more weapons
of mass destruction than anyone else, they have not hesitated
to gas their own population (in Waco), they engage in economic
embargoes (against Cuba as well as Iraq) which harm especially
the civilian population and which, because of this, have been
traditionally considered particularly shameful forms of war, and
spurred on by the neoconservatives and evangelic fundamentalist
the U.S. is driven by an almost religious – and self-righteous
– zeal to make the old Wilsonian dream come true and make the
world safe for democracy."
What Is
Obvious
One doesn’t
need to dig too deeply into any of the information linked above
to deduce a few things. In fact, a few things should be pretty obvious
to almost anyone.
- The likelihood
of winning the war in Iraq is low, at best. Given the lack of
threat posed by Saddam before the attacks, the fact that we are
now mortally locked in a war with no obvious end in sight is the
clearest example of the insanity of an all-powerful state that
one can possibly find. (More on this below.)
- Westhusing
(ironically just like Tillman) volunteered to go
to Iraq. The psychological power of the propaganda supporting
continued U.S. imperialism cannot be overestimated.
- Even though
a rather large number of Americans (now) think the war in Iraq
was a mistake, nothing precludes the same process from
being used – now or in the future – to start another war with
some other country. (Only the fact that we’re basically out of
bodies precludes many more troops already being deployed to Iraq.)
- Following
such an incident, the U.S. Army – the same organization that lied
about Pat Tillman’s death for several years – cannot rationally
be expected to report the truth, particularly if anything unusual
happened. Why would they? (Frankly, if you were in their place,
would you?)
I noticed that
Tillman’s family isn’t buying what the U.S. military is selling
regarding his death. Good for them! We should all take a cue from
them, if we haven’t already. As an aside, I witnessed a particularly
asinine episode of "Real
Time with Bill Maher" the other night. The guests, both
liberal and conservative, actually said that the Army’s only real
mistake in the Tillman case was just not admitting to fratricide
initially, since either way, Tillman’s death was still
a noble one. Huh? What? (That kind of imperialism-is-good, Kool-Aid
induced stupidity deserves its own essay. Maybe I’ll get to it after
this season of Heroes is over!)
What Is
(Still Apparently) Not Obvious
It occurs to
me, particularly as I recall some of the correspondence I got after
my Tillman piece, that the most important and far-reaching consequences
of any study of events like Colonel Westhusing’s death are (apparently)
easy to miss. To-wit:
- The U.S.
almost never preemptively attacks any country that poses a legitimate
threat. This is simple logic. Why would U.S. leaders have thought
they could invade Iraq and be done so quickly if Iraq really
posed a legitimate threat to the national security of the United
States? It is laughable that people continue to buy that kind
of justification. (Then again, we are talking about Congress,
right?)
- No matter
how we select the locales we invade, one unassailable fact remains:
invading places you think might invade or otherwise harm
you constitutes the behavior of a bully, not the informed foreign
policy of a world leader. Look at it this way. If your neighbor
comes over to your house and punches you in the mouth because
he anticipates that you might be ill-mannered to his wife at some
point in the future, he’s guilty of assault, not protecting the
honor of the love of his life.
- The fact
that a man as learned as Ted Westhusing still felt it was appropriate
to volunteer to serve in Iraq lays bare the true nature
of U.S. military propaganda. While one might be inclined to opine,
"Even a devoutly Catholic ethicist felt that killing Iraqis
was justified!" it is really more complex than that. Still,
can we really be that surprised when teen-agers think shooting
their classmates is appropriate behavior? Violence cannot be used
as a tool of peace abroad without being seen as the tool of choice
at home.
One of my fellow
posters on Stefan Molyneux’s Freedomain
Radio Discussion Board, "John,"
said it best, "a society ignorant of the fact that
violence is only capable of generating evil will accept the expansion
of violence as the ‘logical’ remedy for the failure of violence."
Indeed.
Conclusion
So who killed
Ted Westhusing? The article linked from the John Birch Society provides
a hint, but I’d go one better. We did. Every person who displays
a "support the troops" magnet on their car killed him.
Every person who stands around the water cooler (or posts on "the
internets") about the desperate need for Amerikan intervention
to stop the spread of heinous "Islamo-Fascists" killed
him. Every school official who allows the U.S. military to recruit
new killers-for-hire on school grounds killed him. Every person
who is not absolutely certain that a standing army has no purpose
but aggression and imperialism killed him.
He
pulled the trigger, but we loaded the bullet. When we allow active-duty-dodging
chickenhawks to determine the foreign policy of the U.S. – while
we partake of important debates such as the effects of allowing
Sanjaya to remain on American Idol – we cock the gun. (Notice that
Westhusing volunteering to go to Iraq illustrates conclusively that
he was willing to put his money where his mouth was. Not so for
those who got us into the conflict during which he died!) When we
listen to the vapid, if entertaining, debates over how much it may
or may not matter if Barack Obama’s ancestor’s owned slaves, we
take careful aim.
I am certain
that no one wants to die in a terrorist bombing. I am also sure
no one wants to die from a bomb dropped because they live where
terrorists supposedly come from.
April
11, 2007
Wilt
Alston [send him
mail] lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three
children. When he’s not training for a marathon or furthering his
part-time study of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal
research scientist in transportation safety, focusing primarily
on the safety of subway and freight train control systems.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Wilton
D. Alston Archives
|