Written by Miguel Jimenez   

This week marked the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq; what eventually became one of the most controversial wars in our country’s history. From the pre-invasion period through the prolonged war, there were plenty of people in the U.S. who opposed the invasion, but there was also a large percentage who felt that it was necessary to prevent another 9/11 catastrophe. The latter, for the most part, adhered to the notion that Saddam, with his alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and association with Osama Bin Laden, had to be stopped. However, many of them would eventually recant their support when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was never any type of association between the secular Saddam Hussein and the Islamist extremist Osama Bin Laden. Although the war devastated the lives of countless Iraqi civilians and thousands of service men and women, there must have been a glimpse of hope for those who believed that such an unnecessary war would never occur again. In other words, we would never launch another pre-emptive strike against a country that had not harmed us; especially, since the war led to so much bloodshed and destruction. But, can this level of consciousness really be effective when we find similar levels of injustice within our own borders? After all, special interest groups, fear, and racism, as was evident with the “justification” of invading Iraq, were also relevant factors that contributed to the cold blooded murder of Travon Martin.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, it was almost impossible to find a critical perspective, in the mainstream media, about the potential invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq, and the mainstream media did not have a problem cheerleading for the administration. To put it bluntly, many main stream liberal journalists failed to their job, and many of them would eventually reach the same conclusion when they realized that they failed to critically challenge the “pundits” or “experts” who were calling for an immediate invasion of Iraq (1). Although the media did perpetuate the fear necessary to gain mass support for the invasion, we also have to take into consideration how special interest played a role in causing the war.

Since we spend more money on our military than the next 25 nations with the biggest military budgets (2), we have the capacity to devastate any country our government deems necessary. However, the question is, why do we spend so much money on our military when the people who attacked us on 9/11 were armed with box cutters?

During his farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation when he stated, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex (MIC). The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist” (3). Unfortunately, it appears that his speech fell on deaf ears because we have had a permanent war industry since WWII (3).

During the Cold War, our massive military spending was “justified” because of the so called Soviet threat. However, when the Berlin Wall fell, so did the Pentagon’s budget, albeit not by much, but 9/11 must have been seen as a Godsend for munitions companies because even though our new enemies, Islamic terrorists, did not have the capacity to fight us in a conventional war, that did not stop the MIC from making huge profits selling armament that would have been better suited fighting against a conventional army, but not against terrorists or insurgents (4).

As was evident during the Cold War and our never ending war against terrorism, special interest groups have utilized the media for their own benefit. The following explains why the media is an effective tool for those who profit from war:

“Media companies are typically large conglomerates which may belong to even larger parent corporations such as General Electric (owners of NBC)…General Electric and Westinghouse, for example, are huge multinational corporations heavily involved in weapons production” (1).

Furthermore, when we take into consideration the murder of Travon Martin, there is a definite similarity between the special interest groups that designed Stand Your Ground Laws, and those that lobby for the MIC; they are both complicit in the indiscriminate killing of innocent people.

For instance, in states such as Florida, the National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council were able to pass Stand Your Ground Laws (SYGL) though the incorporation of fear. For example, they claimed that without the aforementioned law, law abiding citizens would never stand a chance against the so called increasing crime wave. Although the following is from a speech given by Wayne La Pierre (Executive Vice President of the NRA) following Martin’s murder, it provides an example of the fear-rhetoric that these organizations espouse to gain favorable gun legislation, “By the time I finish this speech, two Americans will be slain, six women will be raped, 27 of us will be robbed, and 50 more will be beaten. That is the harsh reality we face every day” (5).

Unfortunately for Martin, the SYGL has a sense of irony because it provided a legal means—there is a chance that SYGL may exonerate Zimmerman—for a vigilante to kill an innocent adolescent who was minding his own business. And what astounds me, is that even after realizing the hazard that SYGL poses to innocent people, there were polls taken after Martin’s death where half of Florida’s voters believed that the law was appropriate (5). If the people who support SYGL are anything like Zimmerman, than it is understandable why they want to carry weapons at all times, they probably cannot fight. I have been in plenty of fights throughout my life; sometimes I won, and sometimes I lost, but I never pulled out a weapon when I was losing. Where I come from we have a term for such people; they are called punks. To supporters of SYGL, it is obviously considered self-defense when you bring a gun to a fist fight.

But then again, let us call it for what it is—good old fashion racism. The fact that an unarmed African American adolescent was killed by a White adult who was half Latino—just in case for those of you who do not know, there are plenty of White people in Latin America too—reminds me of a scene from the movie A Time to kill (1996), where a lawyer, played by Matthew McConaughey, is able to prevent his African American client (Samuel Jackson) from spending the rest of his life in jail. The lawyer, in a desperate attempt to save his client—he knows that the odds are stacked against his client because the trial is taking place in the south, the jury is all White, and the African American defendant is standing trial for killing two White males who raped his daughter—cleverly convinces an all White jury, during his closing argument, to close their eyes and listen to brutal details of how the defendant’s daughter was raped. Then right before he finishes describing the details associated with the horrendous crime, he tells the jury, “now imagine she’s White.”

In the movie, the aforementioned phrase proved effective; the defendant was exonerated. In Florida, many people have argued that race was not an issue because if an African American would have killed a White person in the same manner, the killer would have received the same treatment. However, I find this hard to believe; especially when we live in a society that racializes crime. For example, I find it really hard to believe that Zimmerman would have harassed a White stranger walking through his neighborhood. This whole incident could have been avoided if Zimmerman would have been clever enough to realize that Martin’s phenotype was not synonymous with crime.

Overall, special interest groups have made it possible or more feasible, through the exploitation of fear, for tragedies like the Iraq War and the murder of Travon Martin to occur. When we take these tragedies into account, racism is definitely involved because indifference and dehumanization are evident. For instance, when most people in the U.S. think about racism, they think about slavery and/or the Civil Rights Movement. In reference to the former, was not the dehumanization of African Americans the means by which slavery was “justified?” They were, after all, only considered 3/5 human. And when we are indifferent to the suffering of a certain group, is not that also the foundation of racism? I recall that in Iraq, there were Marines who thought that it was perfectly fine to kill and/or shoot at Iraqi civilians. What they did care; they were merely “rag-heads” or “camel jockeys.” And in this same manner, there are plenty of people in the U.S. who have been indifferent about Martin’s murder because they have dismissed the tragedy by dehumanizing him—portraying him as typical thug. In other words he got what he deserved because he was a “dangerous” African American youth; he had it coming. Nevertheless, former Vietnam veteran Don Duncan provides an example from his experience in Vietnam that can eloquently explain our country’s problem with racism:

Our whole system is based on the system of racism. To believe that you have the right to go into another country and take from that country, at an advantage to you and a disadvantage to them, you first of all have to believe that those people are something less than you are. Otherwise you’d be guilty of something. And, of course, we’re not guilty of anything. Because they are lesser people. When we got tired of the Indians, and there weren’t too many to exploit, we went and did it to somebody else. The move westward in this country has moved to Asia (6).

Unfortunately, for a young African adolescent, it was not his land or possessions that were taken, but his life. And the apathy that so many Floridians displayed for this tragedy can be understood through Duncan’s words because maybe there are people who still view people like Martin as “lesser people.” Maybe a lot of these people should close their eyes, and really ponder with the idea of “now imagine [he’s] white.”

References
(1) Edward, D. & Cromwell, D. (2006). Guardians of power: The myth of the liberal media. London: Pluto Press.

(2) Andreas, J. (2004). Addicted to war: Why the U.S. can’t kick militarism. Canada: AK Press.

(3) Smith, J. (2006). The military-industrial complex: The farewell address of President Eisenhower.Lacey: Basementia Publications.

(4) Scheer, R. (2008). The pornography of power: How defense hawks hijacked 9/11 and weakened America. New York: Hachette Book Group USA.

(5) Weinstein, A. (2012). How the NRA and its allies helped spread a radical gun law Nationwide. Mother Jones.

(6) Vietnam Veterans Against the War. (1972).The winter soldier investigation: An inquiry into American war crimes. Toronto: Beacon Press.