Confessions 1--The Nightshift

"I must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque!"

Wrap my soul in bandages.
I'm tired of this war.
Go ahead and cut me.
I can't even feel it anymore. 

TRENT REZNOR
"Ringfinger' from Pretty Hate Machine






It's 2 a.m. I'm sitting in my library on my "day" off. It's not a fancy library, it's just hundreds of books that I've read and collected over four decades. Of course, there are the scattered first editions of books I've never read sitting next to the worn paperbacks of those I've read over and over again. References. No, not just references, definitive references. Math, chemistry, business. The list goes on. Books I thoughtfully accumulated assuming if I ever needed them, I'd have them. I'd share them. I did both.

The internet was supposed to makes books obsolete. Bullshit!  the book industry is on the ropes but the real need for books is undiminished. What bookstores that remain operate on such thin margins, they buy a complete works of Shakespeare for a buck so they can sell it for two. But the value of a book is not the price, somewhat arbitrarily assigned in my opinion. The value is in the contents. If you use books like I do, you already know that what you can find on the internet for free is a far cry from the global repository of all knowledge we were promised. There's more porn than knowledge out there and the trending topics of the masses involve more celebrity scandal than schematics. I use books, I know. And more often than not, the "mundane" information you need is in chapter one of a text, not in the contents of a search engine. Information that is USEFUL is locked up in paid subscriptions to niche sites which still may have 1 billion documents...but not what you need.

I love my library, but it's time is short. What I have spent a lifetime putting together will vanish to the winds in a few short weeks. Why? Well, it started with me losing my job. Again. Unable to afford the modest accommodations which house my library, my wife, our bird and until a few days ago, our dog, are no longer within reach of my economic means. Simple as that. We find ourselves at a crossroads with a bucket of woe in all directions. We even had to scrap together $53 in 1976 Kennedy 50 cents pieces, two dollar bills and loose change to put our 17 year old dog out of her misery. We've always given to animal charities. Play it forward, you say? That's a myth.

If you are are a sterotypical member of society reading this right now, you've got two stereotypical trains of thought going on. One is that of a snotty, well-to-do book-nerd sipping cognac, going on and on about books, surrounded by the smell of leather volumes in immaculate condition bitching about falling on hard times. The other is that of an inept, problem employee who reads all the time and can't seem to hold down a job. You'd be wrong on both counts. Don't fucking judge me!

What I am is a floor cleaner for a large supermarket chain. Graveyard shift. I work with the unseen employment ranks, laboring when most of society is asleep. We serve you the burgers at Jack-in-the-Box when you stay up past your bedtime. On the other hand, they serve us food they would think of serving in the day time, just because they're the only place open when we eat. We guard the storage units, clean the office buildings, flip the switches on the technology you depend on when no one is watching. We work with the sad, the lonely, the freaks and the refuse relegated to the darkness because society doesn't like to look at them in the harsh daylight. Nightshift is the last refuge of the lost and rejected. It's purgatory without a dress code. The hardworking rejects operate right next to the idle slackers just like a classic hardback sits along side a cheap romance novel in a dark storage shed of unwanted books, gathering dust.

Some are the people the day-timers don't want to look at or talk to. The person with the knife scar across the face doesn't 'fit-in' to the office decorum. The awkward deaf dude who doesn't get your jokes gets the 3rd shift. It's pathetic that the "Chatty Cathy" on days who wastes everybody's time with her personal issues simply cannot tolerate "Prison Patty on days, even if Patty has truly learned the value of just doing her job and shutting the hell up. Introvert? Nightshift. Minority? Nightshift. Lazy-eye? Working on the nightshift. "I do not tolerate laziness in any form.You'd better get both of those eyes working, mister, else I'll cut your pay in half. Of course, you do have the option of quitting." Nightshift is the Pliocene Exile of a modern society, the only country for old men these days.

One would be in error to assume the majority of night-workers are druggies. Actually, most people working nights can't even afford drugs. Plus druggies seem to prefer days...so they can party all night and harass the waitresses working at the 24 hour diner. They catch up on their sleep during their day jobs. Nights are where the undesirable and unfortunate meet the totally normal. Much like the blending of late night and early morning shifts at 3:00 a.m., it's not where you are now, it's where you started that defines you. Every person who works at night is a book with a story to tell that no one reads because it's dark.

I clean up the discarded chicken bones and empty soda bottles carefully stowed in the corners of aisles by people who like to consume while shopping. They are not always the stereotypical poor or meandering derelicts one might assume. Some are the entitled, filling baskets with their goods while they cheerfully consume beverages and candy they are simply too lazy to pay for.  Maybe they try something new for the first time before stashing it in my janitorial cart if it's not to their liking. Night crews draw suspicion of larceny like a lightning rod, so thanks for that, asshole! I wish I could say they wear diamond rings, fur coats and drive off in Cadillacs but that would be as big a fairy tale as the stories about welfare queens using food stamps. Fairy tales are for those with weak arguments and no facts.No, these freeloaders look like everyone else and drive ordinary cars, albeit looking a a little bit better fed than the homeless, who do a similar supermarket buffet shuffle. At least the homeless are sneaky about it rather than so goddamned arrogant. And security never seems to follow them around the store like they do the blacks and the Hispanics so no wonder they consume with confidence.

I wasn't always a floor sweeper, though. Once, I was somebody else. Not a "somebody". Never a somebody, just someone else. All that I have done, seen and experienced has brought me to this particular vanishing point. If you've come this far, you might be curious how I came to be here, too. I'll tell you, but maybe not in the conventional way. I'd personally prefer satire, but satire is sometimes not about what I think, it's about what I make other people think. But this is a confession of sorts. It's all about my perspective, a subjective view of the lack of objectivity in others. It's a forensic examination of an entire career spanning three decades, one that brought me here despite my destination. I will take you back, step by step to the point of origin. Or maybe just a point of origin. There were many permutations along the way, so who knows exactly where things went awry. Still, I think it is reasonable to start not at the the very beginning, but rather a time preceding this one. Three weeks ago, it was 8:00 a.m. and I was just a chemist...

                                                 Epilog:

   "Just Get Through The Night" by Styx--Written by Tommy Shaw--Kilroy was Here

This could be the longest night in recorded history.
And as for sleep, you might as well just cross it off the list of possibilities.
Now I'm as brave as the next man. I won't turn and run from a fight.

And I could last a million years if I just get through this night.

I could be a novelist, tell secrets never heard.
Pour my soul into each and every sentence, but I just can't find the words.
Still I know that you're out there, and you can relate to it all.
And I could bear the cold and stormy winter, if I just get through this fall.

Don't you know there's no place on this earth where you can run to escape the pain of a broken heart.
It's useless to spend the time it takes you try. But can't you see that I'm here and I'm looking just the same. And I don't know why...

I could be a movie star, the King of Hollywood.
Make them cry, dramatically pretending to keep romance alive.
And I would humbly thank my director, and everyone involved from the start.
I could blow them all away, if I'd only find the the part.
If I just get through this night
If I just get through this night

Phoebe

The clicking on her little paws on the floor at night,
will soon be silenced forever as we give up the fight
to keep her here and close at hand. That war cannot be won.
It's 2 am, I keep the watch until the deed is done.
Her 16 year old body has bounced back many times before.
But the chronic cough that rakes it now takes her closer to death's door.

No words need decribe the agony of losing such a friend.
A faithful companion going away without a humane end.
No money and no mercy from the vets or SPCA.
Inept and heartbroken a day before, we failed to put her away.
The sudden surprise, the hope of a sign when she awoke once more,
gave way to melancholy. Just an extra day of war.

No miracle appeared this day. The evening came again.
Waiting on this death watch knowing it's not "if" but "when".
Today's the day she goes away. Many know how that feels.
Unable to take the pain from her, no miracle that heals.
I wait for God here in the darkness, but still  I see no light
to illuminate the mercy some say lies in the darkest night.

Phoebe-Full sized Chihuahua
Born: 12/29/1996
Died: Today

The Boxer

As a young man, my aspirations had me retired as a millionaire by now. Not being cut from job after job for nebulous reasons, always my fault. Not because I am pushing 60. Not because the skills I gained from a lifetime of meaningful employment has made me more savvy than the college grad who takes my job. Or the good-ole-boy who is a better 'fit' for the boss. Not out of fear that I have the experience to do my boss' s job, even without the desire to do so.

What the younger version of myself didn't understand while he was struggling through school, learning everything he thought he'd need to retire comfortably...The Road doesn't end. It narrows to a single lane, goes to gravel, then dirt. The dirt road snakes through the darkness, leading to the oblivion somewhere over the hill where falling trees make no sound.  Only there does The Road finally disappear in silence. Paul Simon says it best in "The Boxer".

In the clearing stands a boxer,
And a fighter by his trade
And he carries the reminders
Of ev'ry glove that laid him down
Or cut him till he cried out
In his anger and his shame,
"I am leaving, I am leaving."
But the fighter still remains

It Seems to Me...About the Iraqi War

Article from Hackwriters 2004, originating from Letter to the Editor 2003

 

I read Joseph Perkins’ article in the San Diego Union-Tribune entitled, "Why Were The War Critics So Wrong?" last year with great amusement. For weeks, it’s been a battle of rhetoric between those labeled’ Pro-War’ (translation: ‘Pro-Administration), and those labeled ‘Anti-War (translation: Anti-Administration).
I really do not want to get into that primarily because most persons involved in the debate on both sides treat it less like the philosophical, global issue it should be and more like a political football to further sub-divide the country into a new category of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’.

Joseph Perkins’ editorial is no better or worst than any of the other diatribes out there on both sides. What made me think twice about Mr. Perkins’ article, however, was the lead in, praising the troops and expressing how proud he was of them. That’s a good start. After you get past the first paragraph, the other 99% of the article proceeded to demand the equivalent of an explanation from those who disagreed with the ‘War Plan’, so to speak. Most of the editorial referred to journalists who criticized the war in some way, and Mr. Perkins challenged their contentions. No problem, this is exactly what you expect journalists to do. But, one could easily infer from the piece that Mr. Perkins’ opinions were not limited to journalists, and the global aspect of his own criticism suggested that some of Mr. Perkins own contentions be challenged as well. While I do not think criticism is any reason to lead anyone across the Bridge of Sighs into political purgatory, what is important here involves using troop support as a prop for what ultimately ends up being just another run-of-the-mill political perspective. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy reading diverse opinions, even if Mr. Perkins does not. But Mr. Perkins did hit on a very real issue that I’d like a little clarification on. Were the war critics really so wrong?

First of all, the critics were not limited to the persons referenced in Mr. Perkins’ editorial, so to dismiss the ‘critics’ as represented by the few and insignificant ones he addressed by name is a misrepresentation of the entire issue. The question of, ‘Why were the war critics so wrong?’ can be rephrased to, ‘Who made this Saddam Hussein out to be Godzilla in the first place?’ To me, it appears some of the ‘critics’ believed all the press about Hussein, and expected the worst as a result. This man was a threat to our country, a mad dictator with WMD and a military that demanded around the clock bombing and creation of the MOAB (Mother of All Bombs). That’s a pretty serious threat. 

If the critics really were wrong, it sounds like the old’ garbage in, garbage out’ syndrome. The essence of Mr. Perkins’ editorial, as I see it, involves praising those who were accused of shortsighted planning, and risky deployment, while giving a brief  ‘atta-boy’ to those men and women in the field who actually pulled it off. I’m waiting for the facts before I decide, but what really concerns me about this entire editorial is that I get no real facts, just some generalizations and some thinly veiled personal attacks. Furthermore, labeling war critics as ‘wrong’ in such a dismissive, global manner implies that there are no details worth debating in the criticism, just the criticism itself. I must respectfully disagree.

In fact, it is illogical to assume that everyone who ‘criticized’ the war was either unpatriotic (Mr. Perkins never said that) or wrong. Also, the implicit assumption that critics of the war were ever concerned with being proven ‘right’ is depraved reasoning in itself. The bottom-line: we won. We should all be thankful for that, regardless of your position before the war started. I know I am. The one thing both sides agreed on was the need to win and minimize casualties.

But, let’s categorize some of the critics. Some denounce war in principle. So what’s new about that? Since when did this position invite such derision and disrespect? Then there were the ‘critics’ of The Plan, not the war. And this is the target group for Mr. Perkins’ editorial, I believe. Everyone has the right to his or her opinion, of course, especially a distinguished editorial writer such as Mr. Perkins. But what is exhibited here resembles a grave disrespect for those such as General McCaffrey and others in positions of advisement who thought:

1) There, maybe, should be more troops
2) There, maybe, could be more casualties
3) There, maybe, would not be ‘flowers and kisses’ greeting troops when they arrived.

This is where I think a clarification is in order from Mr. Perkins and his ilk . First of all, since when does a career officer who happened to disagree with deployment specifics owe you an explanation for their opinion? Oh, yes, I know of Mr. Perkins’ tenure on Quayle’s staff as a deputy assistant. I’m sure he obtained a good view of the inner workings of a political apparatus, especially on the domestic policy front…but did he get ‘Basic War Planning’ insight out of that? That’s not a snide remark, I really want to know, because it may allow me to put some of his remarks in better perspective. Of course, Mr. Perkins does not owe me an explanation, but I am just following his lead. I may be mistaken, but my perception of military advisors involves people who tell you the bad news, to help you make up your mind. These are not infallible oracles, they are people with experience and insight…and opinions. That’s why we have military advisors, to give us the ‘worst case scenario’. So what’s all the fuss and attitude about? Sounds to me like the advisors did their job. Criticism of ‘The Plan’ was not limited to journalists and talking heads as Mr. Perkins would lead us to believe, but other unnamed individuals directly involved.

Furthermore, to praise the Administration collectively for succeeding in spite of some criticism ignores a fundamental possibility: perhaps some of the criticisms were legitimate. The speed at which the troops moved through Iraq to Baghdad was impressive. But, we are ignoring something (at least in the war I watched). The ‘mass surrenders’ did not occur as rapidly as planned. Resistance was greater than expected (or at least greater than we, the public, were lead to believe while this war was being sold). As a result, we were unable to simply by-pass the southern cities as planned, and forced to battle combatants in urban areas we did not desire to. As a result, we took greater resources to protect the supply-line to the north than we had planned. Also, as a result, we had fewer troops to spare for such mundane duties as ‘order’ in Baghdad and securing the city to the satisfaction of retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the U.S.-appointed head of a transitional administration. So, by implying that the critics were ‘so wrong’, does it infer that the Administration was ‘right’ all along? They are not oracles either, and to imply that there was no ‘adjustment’ of the Plan is as ‘wrong’ as Arnett and his ilk are accused of being.

In one particularly amusing passage, Mr. Perkins’ described watching Iraqis ‘dancing in the streets’, to refute the notion that critics actually had the audacity to question just how much support we’d get from the Iraqis. I really cannot address if he is delusional or not (his suggested possibility). I am well aware how the power to television can give credence to almost anything, but that is hardly a convincing argument. Most ‘life’ takes place off-camera. For every bit of footage showing a dancing Iraqi, there’s more footage showing a guy in blue make-up dancing in the stands of a Dallas Cowboy football game. Does that imply dancing in Greenbay? Not hardly. And let’s look at some other issues that took place ‘off-camera’. Saudi Arabia would not allow us to use their territory as a base to launch into southern Iraq (but they sold us some fuel), Turkey would not allow us to use their territory as a base to launch action into northern Iraq (but they moved some of their troops in to keep an eye on the Kurds). Got footage? Nope. One would be foolish NOT to assume that many, many Iraqis welcome liberation. But, toss in the ‘Sunni-minority’ factor and there is reason to believe that many may not, so the ‘global’ assumption of gleeful Iraqis tossing roses (and where did they get those flags anyway?) is just not substantiated. That point is still not resolved, regardless of which devil named a tune, and who had to dance.

Mr. Perkins mentioned the low casualty count (thank goodness) as another example of the critics’ ineptitude. Obviously, greater minds than mine will be evaluating the pros and cons of this war for years to come. However, a mere month after the start of the war, to begin the dishing out of ‘triumphalism’ as Mr. Perkins referred to it is not only short-sighted, but smacks of partisan politics with a bit of hubris thrown in for emphasis. Need I remind Mr. Perkins that some of the largest numbers of casualties occurred mere days before the end of the first Gulf War, and it could be said that his remarks regarding casualty counts are both irresponsible and premature. But that would be misinterpreting what he meant by taking it out of context. Mr. Perkins should be extended that courtesy, though I question if he has done likewise.
 

In fact, as described by Mr. Perkins: "…before we close the books on operation Iraqi Freedom, let us call into account the naysayers who were most critical of the coalition’s prosecution of the war, the doom-mongers who warned that the war would yield disaster." Excuse me whilst I step out of character but, "Say what?" Call what into account? Where? Why? Are you going to call into account Secretary Colin Powell for his cautious, diplomatic approach to resolving this as a ‘naysayer’?

In a society that ascribes liability to fast food chains for making people fat, and cigarette companies for neglecting to mention that cigarettes may be addictive, we’re playing fast and loose with the concept of providing a reasonable margin of safety in war-planning, don’t you think? What’s wrong with more troops? Would you fly on a plane that carried only the exact amount of fuel it took to complete the trip, worked on by mechanics that used repair parts that just marginally made the specification? How about flown by a pilot that is just barely under the legal limit for alcohol? No, I didn’t think so. We demand more assurances that our burgers are fresh than we credit these ‘critics’ with trying to provide for the troops. Mr. Perkins’ premise acts as if caution were a bad thing we have to ‘call into account’?

Since when in this country is it un-American to voice ones opposition to anything, especially when the well being of others is at stake? Last time I checked, this was not a Stalinist regime but a democracy.
In praising the Administration collectively, while ignoring those professional soldiers who advised the Administration, those that commanded in the field and the soldiers who actually pulled it off in spite of any theoretical short-comings, those most involved get limited credit; we do the equivalent of praising a company CEO for NOT going bankrupt in spite of some possible accounting irregularities, because the middle managers and employees managed to pull it all together in time to avert disaster. Well, that probably happens more than we think, but that’s an issue for debate later. Bottom line is, aside from passing lip service and routine accolades, these soldiers are going to get next to nothing out of this success. Why? There’s too much debate about who was ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ instead of the larger issue of the needs of those who got the job done.

Many will still live on food stamps, watch their retirement benefits dwindle away, before most of them are even eligible. Was Rumsfeld right when he explained away his reluctance to provide vets with disability pay on top of retirement pay because it would take away resources from their fight on terrorism? Yet, we have just signed a wartime spending bill for $80 billion dollars, with $3 billion of that allocated to the slumping airlines industry. Would you care to go on record and give us your opinion of this? Yes, we are all ‘darn proud’ of the troops but a little short on cash for the disabled ones. What about the ‘heroes’ of the last Gulf War? How long did it take for acknowledgement of Gulf War Syndrome as real? What of their family lives as our reluctance for military conflict fades due to this stellar performance, and the opportunities for disability and death increase as the world destabilizes further? After making the most from the least and still getting the job done, those that looked out for them by pointing out ‘possibilities’ and ‘dangers’ are be raked over the coals as ‘doom-mongers’.

Meanwhile, the political non-participants sing the praises of their political superiority and reward themselves. Hollywood will lick its wounds and wait to fight another issue, another day. In many cases, it’s less about loving the troops than hating the president. Not all, of course. And like the Anti-War lobby in Hollywood, the Pro-War journalistic groupies will be invited to the Washington After-Party, sip wine, and discuss the next, great adventure. Outside looking in the window at both parties are our troops. Praised then forgotten, they will not be remembered again until there is a need for a pawn in yet another a political struggle that has less to do with them than an issue being kicked around by the power brokers. Either that, or to put their lives at risk while their standard of living erodes further. Will people from both sides of this ‘Iraqi War’ issue remember the troops after the dust settles, when they are asking for support in their attempts to keep the benefits they have from disappearing altogether? Who will be ‘embedded’ with them then?

In conclusion, Mr. Perkins, those who advised Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush by assuming more risk than actually has appeared (to date) need not explain themselves to you. While you can demand an explanation from your journalistic peers, General McCaffrey does not have to answer to you and me over his opinions anymore than you should have to answer to him and me for your editorials. After all, there are still guerrillas in the midst, and no more U.S. troops going in. This is not over…for them. For you, it sounds like it is because you’re already counting cookies. If the military advisers were overly cautious (‘wrong’, as Mr. Perkins labeled it), then there is no problem. No problem at all. So what if a bunch of journalists shot off their mouth and were wrong? I mean, really. How many journalists touted the Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter ‘s testimony about ‘Iraqi troops taking incubators’ in the first Gulf War as evidence to go to war? I do not recall an accounting of those responsible for spreading that ‘fiction’ as ‘fact’. Believe me, most informed Americans know to take all of you with a grain of salt. This is a matter to be taken up among the journalists themselves regarding their code of conduct. 

The only problem I would see is if the Administration ignored good advice from their over cautious advisers and made this thing harder than it needed to be. We do not know if that is the case or not, but if journalists insist on defining who was ‘right’ and who was ‘wrong’, then let’s go all the way and get down to it. Rather than wishing to silence Mr. Perkins, even though I disagree with aspects of his opinion in this case, I’d like to hear fewer accusations, and more details about these issues, from him as well as from Arnett, Kristof and Geraldo, too. But recently, there’s been a lot less dialog and a lot more rhetoric. For those of us still craving discussion and debate, so we can make up our own minds (not having someone presume to tell us how to think) there is always ‘The McLaughlin Group’. You owe the public that much. For those more interested in punishing opposing views, there’s ‘Tough Crowd’. God bless America.

Hackwriters   © J. Lee Fredric 2004

Alternate Ending to ABC's 'Lost": The Island Isn't Real, It's a Near Death Hallucination

The theory that events in LOST are simply the hallucinations of one of the characters is virtually universally despised and rejected as a possibility. First of all, it would fly in the face of a vast fan base that has invested years in watching individual character development, only to discover it was just the imagination of the same autistic child of "St Elsewhere" fame. Even Bobby Ewing would prefer to wait out that backlash in the shower. This is why demonstrating the plausibility is such wicked fun!

With apologies to Rod Serling, I submit for your consideration a short story first published in 1890 by Ambrose Bierce entitled, "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge". In addition to being a "Twilight Zone" classic, it has also been referenced in LOST, specifically the episode entitled "The Long Con". This short, but poignant tale describes what happens to a man condemned to hang in the instant between the fall and the end of the rope (http://extend.unb.ca/wss/1145demo/owl2.htm). Ironically, it was Locke looking through this particular book in the episode, a bit eerie given his ultimate fate.

The concept that the human mind can construct intricate designs bordering on reality lends credence to the theory, especially when supported by the oftentimes incredible coincidences that surround the characters. Could the ghostly encounters with people who couldn't possibly be on the Island, the ancient architecture and the Smoke Monster, be the final, collective hallucinations of dozens of people dying in the aftermath of a plane crash? Another book adds support to the possibility, plus a few other connections to LOST.

"The Third Policeman" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Policeman), written under the pseudonym Flann O'Brien around 1940, was not published until 1967 and has also shown up in the background of LOST. Without giving away the story itself, there are some interesting parallels between this tale and LOST. There is a vast underground chamber where time stands still, significant numbers, and an anything box from which anything you desire can be produced. While these parallels may be intentional "red herrings", the state of mind of the narrator begs the question, What exactly is reality if not what we directly observe and experience? Is THAT what the open eye at the beginning of many episodes implies?

Then who's doing the hallucinating? Hurley would be hardly the twist we're looking for, so it would have to be more intricately unexpected. One possibility is psychic Miles as part of a recovery team, trying to salvage the final thoughts of the corpses to determine what actually happened to the plane. "Get anything?" asks another team member who looks mysteriously like Richard. "Nothing, just gibberish...," The camera pans away from the open eye of Jack.

The War Child Against the World

The children of war-torn countries actually fighting the war is certainly not a new phenomena. The mass graves discovered in Kosovo at the conclusion of that civil conflict are a testimony to the overall brutality of war, thrust upon men, women and children alike. It's not unreasonable to assume that children also ended up participating in much the fighting. During the bloody Iraq-Iran War of the 80's, Iran is reputed to have sent children through Iraqi minefields in order to clear them ahead of advances by Revolutionary Guards. The lives of the unskilled, ill-trained children were weighed against the lives of the highly trained, elite Revolutionary Guards, and found expendable. In fact, from the first time marauders descended upon a peaceful village, raping, pillaging and killing, children have likely been thrust into the role of child soldiers. However, the potential global consequences are probably unparalleled in modern history. Thanks to the ease of international travel, the same teen soldier calmly cutting the hands off a villager today can be robbing you of your "blood diamonds" tomorrow. Is that, perhaps, overly dramatic or is it a real cause for concern?

It is doubtful in even the most desperate circumstances that any parent would easily cast their 8-year old son as front-line soldier. The problem: it is not the parents doing the casting. And this issue of child conscription did not just "suddenly appear" overnight. One recent example of the pervasive practice involves a civilian auxiliary organization in Iran called the Basij. The Basij were responsible for the human wave attacks against Iraqi positions as well as the religious conscription of teenagers to be used in them. However, sending the children into minefields created carnage of such magnitude, even the Basij were compelled to change their practices.

Disillusioned with pieces of bodies, charred flesh and bits of bone that remained after contact with a mine, the Basiji changed their tactics. As reported in the Iranian newspaper, The Ettelaat: "Before entering the minefields, the children wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves." As we tackle the same concept more than 20 years later and wax poetic about the barbaric practice of child conscription, this example reminds us of where the rubber really meets the road, and how long the drive has been.

But let us back up a bit and define the larger issue. The world does have a certain responsibility in tragedies such as this, but defining the limits of that responsibility remains a Gordian Knot of international law, national sovereignty and confusing legalese. When the United States becomes either directly or indirectly involved in armed conflicts where the majority of the violence takes place within the geographical boundaries of other countries, is there is a responsibility for the rehabilitation of those caught up in the violence? Morally, yes, but legally it's still a little vague.

At the very least, this is a hard commitment to sell once the military objectives have been achieved. But there is a moral obligation and practical reason for not abandoning "social reconstruction" in favor of simply rebuilding the infrastructure and leaving. So, the follow up question and subject of this topic can be paraphrased as, "What responsibility does the world have when we're not even involved?"

War is violent and riddled with collateral damage and casualties. But, to call war "violent" is akin to calling fire hot, restating the obvious. When those involved are not only active combatants, but also children, the imperative to do what we can to rehabilitate and equip these children to lead normal lives becomes paramount. Some argue that nothing can be done for these damaged children and most certainly it is a huge problem. But, beyond the moral obligation to the youngest victims of violence, hundreds or thousands of miles removed from our day-to-day lives, there remains a practical reason to act. But first, let us introduce the major players.

Children are coveted as soldiers primarily because they are easily intimidated and can be brain-washed into obedient soldiers a lot easier than adults. The break-down of the family unit in a war-zone makes it easier to recruit or even kidnap children seeking a surrogate family, food and shelter. But, the psychological damage from violence is more pervasive in a developing psyche, creating amoral monsters that pragmatically see violence as a legitimate means to an end. Even well-adjusted adult soldiers returning from war may have a difficult time readjusting to their former lives. Imagine a child soldier whose earliest memories are of torture and death. There is no "default" position of normalcy to revert to, no "happy place".

The obstacles to their reintegration into society would be massive, but any successful methodology to rehabilitate the "war child" would reap benefits in our own increasingly violence prone society. The roots of violence may be varied, but the expressions of violence are universal. Developing an arsenal of options to identify and deal with children who have killed or have the potential to do so is a socially strategic necessity.
From the rubble of an African civil war in Liberia, scattered amidst the pieces of shattered familial units, the enigmatic figure of a child with an automatic weapon and teddy bear strapped to his back staggers the imagination.

Often drugged and forced to commit atrocities, their minds become warped by a sinister combination of antisocial conditioning and altered brain development. What means do we have of reversing such mental, possibly physical, brain-damage and "re-humanizing" these children? When one realizes that between 100,000 and 200,000 children in more than 20 countries are children soldiers, the magnitude of this tragedy becomes even clearer. It's a perverse adaptation of "A Clockworks Orange" starring hundreds of thousands in the role of "Alex". And it's coming to a theater near you eventually. As the escalating ethnic violence in formerly peaceful Kenya demonstrates, even stable countries are capable of plunging into the abyss of uncontrollable violence. Here in America, peaceful college campuses are no longer exempt from sudden, massive acts of violence and there's NO civil war going on.

How long can any peace last without first removing the stimulus for violence? We've already seen "children fighting wars" in our own streets in the form of gang warfare. We've also seen how rapidly societies can descend into violence, so better understanding the children of "real" warfare in other countries will directly help us to confront variants of that same problem in our own. While Liberia represents an extreme case in of the type of violence that plagues the West, solutions procured from this extreme environment can help in the future rehabilitation of violent gang-members, war veterans and nebulous masses of other disenfranchised and violence-prone youth. It is entirely realistic and pragmatic to assume that if it works on those poisoned by violence in places like Liberia, it can help in the treatment and assimilation of those similarly affected by violence and living just next door. So not only is it a moral imperative to help these war-scarred children, it has practical application in places less torn asunder.

A critical first step towards stabilizing the child combatant issue is to identify countries that use children as soldiers. While not directly confronting the problem, it does identify the potential victims. What the use of children soldiers has given the world is a huge number of hosts by which to export more violence. Violence and war gave us the Taliban and young men willing to kill themselves in order to kill and maim others. The violence of a civil war in El Salvador has exported Latino gang members to L.A. where they perpetuate a violent lifestyle that eclipses even traditional gang violence.

The anarchy that creates children of war metastasizes, spilling the violence beyond international boundaries in the form of jihadists, narco-terrorists and criminal gangs. Many are without futures, skills, education and hope, parlaying their only skill...violence without remorse...into the only career prospects they have: crime or war. It is prudent to try and eliminate those as options.

Recently, child advocate groups have expressed concerns about the possibility of the illegal trafficking of Liberian children after 7 children were sneaked out and into America. While aged ten months to 5 years and spared the fate of the conscripted child, this incident exemplifies the ease by which other children can be ushered out of Liberia, perhaps into fates other than freedom. And the implicit threat that "older, experienced" child soldiers might be exploited internationally for their deadly skill is a legitimate concern. If the fact that Al Qaeda is currently training children as gunmen doesn't drive home the seriousness of this problem, then no real solutions will be soon forthcoming.

Sooner or later, we may have to deal with these war children, all grown up and without stable jobs or empathy. But, there are many opportunities for people with skills such as theirs. By determining now what combination of therapy and education makes them productive citizens, not only might we preempt a possibly violent confrontation over a fence line somewhere, but we also deny an immoral enemy an endless supply of soldiers without pity or conscious. Then we can set about inoculating our own society. If we can somehow help these children soldiers reconnect with their humanity, we can apply it to ourselves and pull out of this spiral of violence. Otherwise, we run the risk of descending into the very same pit of anarchy that consumed those children's souls in the first place.