TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

War veteran: Afghanistan fight is 'charade'



Edward Everts of Charlotte discusses the decision to deploy 1,500 National Guard troops to Afghanistan in the coming weeks. Everts, a retired officer, a veteran of World War II and a member of Veterans for Peace, opposes the war in Afghanistan.

Toolbox

By DENNIS JENSEN
Staff Writer - Published: December 6, 2009

CHARLOTTE — Edward Everts spent three days drifting in the Pacific Ocean in a raft among swirling sharks after his plane went down during World War II.

He was on board a bomber, dropping tons of bombs with the U.S. Army Air Corps (today's Air Force) when his plane crash-landed into the ocean.

Three days later he and the seven other survivors were rescued by a Navy destroyer. Four men perished in the crash.

Today, the 90-year-old Everts is engaged in a more protracted battle. The California native is a member of Veterans for Peace and says he believes the war in Afghanistan — like the war in Iraq — is an immoral foreign-policy blunder, pushed by those who profit from war.

Calling the fighting an "Afghanistan slaughter, where innocent civilians by the thousands are dying," he said, "I don't think any of the troops belong there because they were lied to."

The U.S. war effort in Afghanistan was born out of "deception and misinformation," just like the war in Iraq, Everts said during a two-hour interview at his country home.

"I'm against it," he said of the war in Afghanistan. "The whole thing is a charade to show that we are a military power. There's always money to be made in war."

About 1,500 Vermont National Guard troops will be deployed to Afghanistan early in 2010, the largest deployment of Green Mountain Guard soldiers since World War II.



'Obama's war'

Everts belongs to a chapter of Veterans for Peace out of Burlington. He said the group has about 70 members, with some six to 12 members meeting once a month.

Drafted into the Army Air Force in 1942, Everts served as a weather forecaster in the Pacific Theater.

A mechanical problem after a bombing run over Japan forced the crash landing at sea.

"We floated in a leaky raft for three days with sharks all around," he said. Upon being rescued, several of the men were taken away in stretchers, but "I walked off," Everts said.

After President Obama approved a plan to add 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Everts said what was once Bush's war "becomes Obama's war."

President Obama is looking more and more like Lyndon Johnson as the former president escalated the war in Vietnam, Everts said.

"I think he's painting himself into a corner and he won't be able to get out of it," Everts said of Obama.

A retired lieutenant colonel, Everts has traveled to Vietnam and Iraq as a peace representative. He went to Iraq in 2000 with the Veterans for Peace to help establish a water purification project. In 1980, he traveled to Vietnam with a group of peace proponents, staging "the first demonstration for peace" by Americans in that country, he said.

A retired film director, Everts obtained a degree in chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley. He has lived in Vermont since 1972.



Dual addictions

Everts said both wars in Iraq were about America's dependence on oil, to prop up a friendly regime as a guarantee that plenty of oil will continue to find its way to the States.

"I'm against any of our troops being sent to the Mideast," he said. "The whole thing was a rigged affair to get oil."

Describing the war in Afghanistan as "an occupation," Everts said the fight there is only another in a long list of unwinnable, "immoral" wars.

Lacking a military draft, the United States can continue to wage war with impunity, Everts said, because the vast majority of Americans are untouched by the consequences of war.

The government, he said, is "quite clever" about running two wars "without stirring up the American people."

But with the current economic crisis hurting so many Americans, Everts said he believes the time will come when Americans will grow tired of sending troops abroad to places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I think there will be more resistance to the wars," he said. "The wars are going to break us."

Everts said he believes that the American "war machine" is driven by the Pentagon and by those corporations that manufacture arms, munitions and goods used for warfare.

Every state has companies under contract by the Pentagon, Everts said, "so every state has an addiction to war."

The United States has grown into an empire, with military bases located throughout the world, Everts said.

"We have 700 bases of one kind or another around the world," he said. "We've had some military force being applied somewhere since the 1880s."

Military force should be used only as a last resort, according to Everts.

"I'm against committing our troops anywhere, except for protecting our shores," he said.



dennis.jensen@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


War profiteers are the ones making $$ from this war and every other one throughout history. Governments ( you and I as taxpayers ) only pay for wars or in this case put it on the credit card. I am sorry if you misunderstood this. The only ones making money from this are those supplying the tools of war. Oh, and Oil. OIL...
-- Posted by None None2.1 on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, 5:34 pm EST

report this comment



Your post was not that broad. But we'll play it your way. Do you really think most of the people in america do NOT know someone in the service? I highly doubt that.
As for hiding the pressure and loss of war, yes indeed that was true during the bush regime, it has ended. The president does let people see the death toll that's coming home in coffins, so they understand it's still happening, lives are being lost to protect our security. That was something that never should have been hidden all these years.

What money are we making by going into afghanistan, please enlighten me?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, 1:31 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa B - I am not questioning your bona fides nor your commitment to patriotic jewelery. When I point out that 'people' don't have a connection to this conflict I am speaking in broader terms than the Times Argus readers' comment contributors. My guess is in Vermont the # with a connection is higher mostly because those deployed/in the service is a higher percentage.

If more people had a connection to the service, even as small as the slight possibility they could be called on to serve ( draft ), the conversation would become more honest.

There was a choice made to conduct the war in Afghanistan the way it has been. The president is making choices this very minute that dictate how the war will be conducted in the future. If more people had something at stake they might influence those choices in a possitive way. Most americans are able to distance themselves from the war as something other people are doing for them. There is money to be made by having that $1million/soldier a year spent waging this war. Leaving the discussion up to those reaping the bennifits and buffering most americans from the devestation of war has been an unspoken goal of the profiteers. It's about the money. Sick and true.
-- Posted by None None2.1 on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, 1:04 pm EST

report this comment



2.1, I was merely answering your post, you brought it up. I still wager most people on these forums that are in this discussion, which you mentioned by the way, do know people in these wars.

Have you really done the research on why it's necessary for us not to back out on afghanistan again? Why we can't leave them high and dry again, and why it really does benefit us to get al quaida and to bring down the taliban, and to make their army secure enough to battle in the future any other insurgents?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, 11:13 am EST

report this comment



None None 2.1, thank you for the information about the Draft changes and that student deferments are very brief (complete current semester or finish year if a senior).

More info here for anyone else that wants to know about other types of deferments:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm

I was intrigued they even have "Fat Camp" of sorts (by another name). Yep, you can be held to be made skinny enough to be drafted, unless you are really resistant to losing weight. (I wonder if you are allowed any time away to consume extra calories and sabotage the efforts.)
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, 12:00 am EST

report this comment



Patrick - I understand when you say the military in wouldn't want to be forced to deal with draftees. It's logical that a willing participant has a better chance of success in that environment. The professional military that we have is all well and good... to a point. When the military and military "families" are a breed apart from the everyday citizen in a class of their own how much easier to abuse them. Whatever happened to the idea of a citizen soldier the minute man or the local militia. Our current abuse of our military is a shame.... The last people to complain about it will be those in uniform.

Melissa B - pointing out that you know someone in the military/deployed doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there are far more people out there who are content to have wars fought for then by people they don't know and couldn't give two sh*ts about.
-- Posted by None None2.1 on Tue, Dec 8, 2009, 4:33 pm EST

report this comment



"If they knew even one person involved in the military there would be a lot less of the bravado displayed in this letter and some of the responses it has recieved."

I would wager all of us know someone that has been to the war in the middle east or is in the military 2.1. I, myself, know both. I wear a yellow wrist band that says support our troops, I've worn it for 3 years and was given to me by a soldier, I decided to wear it until they all come home.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Dec 8, 2009, 4:09 pm EST

report this comment



While in a way I can understand the motivation for advocating a draft, it would be a disaster for our military effectiveness and standards. Regardless of what many would prefer to believe enlistment standards remain high, higher than the standards maintained by most American teenagers. Contrary to the frequently repeated theme that in some way the military preys upon the poor and disadvantaged Congressional Research Service studies have shown the average enlistee is better educated, from a better economic background, and with far fewer disciplinary problems than their civilian "peers". The GAO reviewed FY 2008 estimate from the Department of Defense was that well over half of the available youth population could not apply for military service due to deficiencies in health, education, aptitude or other requirements. An interesting breakdown of the factual demographics vice the myths many would prefer to believe is readily available in the GAO reviewed mandatory annual report to Congress title "Population Representation in the Military Services". Forcing the military to baby sit unsuitable draftees who are just not worth the effort would become an all consuming mission and result in lower performance, vastly increased discipline problems, and ultimately unnecessary deaths on the battlefield.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Tue, Dec 8, 2009, 4:06 pm EST

report this comment



or 9/10/01 for that matter
-- Posted by None None2.1 on Tue, Dec 8, 2009, 1:56 pm EST

report this comment



The draft is much changed from the time of the Vietnam war. The deferment scheme that was so tilted in favor of those with conections or money is gone. The requirement is military service or domestic service if you can obtain CO status.

The draft puts everyones family into the game. It's too easy to say someone else should go kill, mame, and die.... think about it being your son, daughter, cousin.... Maybe our leaders wouldn't be so quick to commit our forces. There are plenty of people in this country not thinking about this issue at all. If they knew even one person involved in the military there would be a lot less of the bravado displayed in this letter and some of the responses it has recieved.

The cost of engaging in these conflicts in the way we have been is not worth the results. No one is safer here than we were on 9/10/09 and our military is now in the line of fire every day.
-- Posted by None None2.1 on Tue, Dec 8, 2009, 1:54 pm EST

report this comment



That's not true coydog.. the people in pakistan and afghanistan are working to stop the criminals in their countries.


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56940

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2009/1209_afghanbuildup/
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Dec 8, 2009, 1:08 pm EST

report this comment



Bennett: Perhaps if you expanded your world beyond Montpelier and the false nonsense of Obama's apologist, timid, and ignorant naivete of humble hugs and kisses toward Islama-fascists and realize these people will never respond to rational non-violent conflict resolution. A very good case can be made for American withdrawal from Afghanistan rather than the purely hypocritical politically based policy of a community organizer who is completely unequipped to successfully prosecute a war and is more interested in damage control toward his far left base than success on the battlefield.

JA I know it must be difficult to accept given your pathological hate but Bush and Cheney are gone. You can get over it. Look at the Viet Nam draft protesters. They've found other causes. Life doesn't end. How about Anti nukes (except for the freedom loving mullahs of Iran) or Ice challenged polar bears ? Or you can re-evaluate neo -con US foreign policy as it is practiced by peace loving progressives.
-- Posted by coydog on Tue, Dec 8, 2009, 1:06 pm EST

report this comment



RGC writes: "Melissa, the war in Afghanistan has resulted in the deaths of over 800 more Americans, and over 4,500 wounded with no end in sight. Osama bin Laden is still out there"

According to what Benazir Bhutto told David Frost a month before she was killed, OBL was murdered in Dec., 2001. by Omar Sheik Mohammed, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ&feature=player_embedded". She makes the statement about 6min 17sec into the video.
-- Posted by Gary Murphy on Tue, Dec 8, 2009, 8:47 am EST

report this comment



None None2.1: "Until the draft is back we will have a military made up only of the willing and the economically disadvantaged. . ..How quick would our leaders Dirty Liberal or otherwize go to war if their own children had to go. I am in favor of the Draft. War ruins humans - beveryone should have a chance."

What??? The chance to join the Texas Air National Guard and then go AWOL for a political campaign? Plus, didn't people in college get educational deferments for Vietnam? So the moneyed can get their PhDs and wait it out. Heck, they could get their PhDs (or vacations) in Switzerland or Asia--or anywhere outside the US--but the front line.

Didn't Shooter himself get out of the Draft?

"Cheney accepted a series of student and family-related draft deferments. Cheney's unself-consciousness about this is (or at least was) so pronounced that in 1989 he told George C. Wilson of the Washington Post, 'I had other priorities in the '60s than military service.'"

http://www.slate.com/id/2097365/
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 11:10 pm EST

report this comment



No progress in Afghanistan? I suggest you ask these women about that.

http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=LTNaSnVUcWuRpZEtLTzQ&the-progress-of-afghan-women-women-s-rights-in-afghanistan=

You might also checkout how access to clean drinking water, new healthcare centers, and improved communications have increased the standard of living dramatically and driven down the percentage of infant mortality. Add to that the new dialogue between Afghanistan and Pakistan that is totally US driven and dependent and it's quite evident how much has been accomplished. Those who don't see any progress simply haven't looked.
-- Posted by T.K. None on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 6:38 pm EST

report this comment



borders, not boarders- sorry.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 6:09 pm EST

report this comment



Paul Giacherio,

I very much appreciate your nephew's courage and service to our country. I think that Mr. Evans' point is that he doesn't see any evidence that the war in Afghanistan has made anyone any safer. And that's because there isn't any. There's no way of knowing the differences between the situation the way it is now, and the situation that might have been if we have never invaded Afghanistan. I mean, except that we know that the more than 800 Americans who have died there up until this point would probably still be alive, and we know that we probably could have spent the $233,379,560,000 (that's billions) that we've spent there on other stuff we've needed (like protecting our boarders,) and seeing as how the folks who attacked us aren't there anymore, anyway- well, I kinda understand Mr. Evans' perspective.

And Mr. Giacherio- not supporting the war IS A VERY DIFFERENT thing from not supporting the troops. Why do you assume that Mr. Evans is not in support of the troops? Don't you think that not wanting the troops to be MISUSED (which is what Mr. Evans believes is happening) is showing support for them? Why should those Americans who disagree with the war on principle ask our bravest and finest young people to go fight when they believe the cause is unjust and misguided?

My best wishes to you and your family this holiday season. May your nephew return to you safe and sound and none the worse for wear.



"Couldn't this have been done some other way than to invade and occupy two countries on each side of Iran so that now they have to defend themselves by developing nuclear weapons to keep us from invading them too?"

Coydog,

I see you're calling J.A.'s point drivel... but I don't hear you refuting any facts. The point ISN'T that Iran is in any danger from us- only that they can ARGUE that they ARE in danger from us, and it "looks" true. J.A.'s just asking(sic) the question "Is there a way we might have pursued our foreign policy so that we didn't "look" so aggressive?" Don't you think its a valid question? Or do you think when it comes to winning hearts and minds that strategy is irrelevant?
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 6:08 pm EST

report this comment



"All the people that are against this war, I have to ask, when you are attacked in your home, on your property, do you just say, it's been to long now, we should just let it go and not worry about the people that hurt us? Because by not wanting to get al quaida and bin laden, that's exactly what you're saying... and those words are.. let the criminals go its okay now.."
-- Posted by Melissa B.

Melissa, the war in Afghanistan has resulted in the deaths of over 800 more Americans, and over 4,500 wounded with no end in sight. Osama bin Laden is still out there, and Al Qaeda and other militant organizations are stronger than ever. I support our troops and applaud their bravery, and the problem has nothing to do with them. The problem was that we rushed into a war without taking time to plan a long-term strategy. I realize hindsight is 20/20, but it's been almost a decade and America is still fighting the Taliban while anti-American sentiment continues to grow in the region. I won't even get into the problems of going to war with Iraq, but Afghanistan is a quagmire. The government there is built on corruption, and it has turned into another Vietnam. The only reason we haven't withdrawn already is because many conservatives would blame us "losing the war" on Obama. I guarantee you that we will not win within another decade.

One last point: We haven't known the whereabouts of bin Laden in years, this could be in large part to the distractions of Iraq, but if a criminal provides no solid leads for several years, you don't continue spending billions of dollars occupying a country when the criminal is probably long gone.
-- Posted by RGC None on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 5:58 pm EST

report this comment



Until the draft is back we will have a military made up only of the willing and the economically disadvantaged. Their poor families will have to rally and steel themselves to every deployment... hoping for the best and making themselves sick thinking of the worst. How quick would our leaders Dirty Liberal or otherwize go to war if their own children had to go. I am in favor of the Draft. War ruins humans - beveryone should have a chance.

Wars have always been about resources and money. The industry built around war in this country is huge. This industry makes money and WE pay it to them. So yes, it's about OIL and bullets and socks and airplanes and chicken sandwiches and ****** oil filters.

When peace breaks out and the war bubble breaks do you think we should bail-out haliburton, general dinamics and raythion?
-- Posted by None None2.1 on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 3:39 pm EST

report this comment



Half Dog, the imperialist acts of bombing, invading and now occupying Afghanistan and Iraq were done long before Obama and Clinton even became candidates for high office. Check it out; it was in all the papers.

Seems to me the imperialist dreams of the neocons was attempted under those GOPs we know and despise: President-in-fact Shooter Cheney and his Stan Laurel-like pal, Dubya.

Try to keep up ...
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 3:28 pm EST

report this comment



I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR COURAGE AND SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY-- BUT -WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE FIGHT ON OUR SOIL? MY NEPHEW - HE IS BOTH FATHER AND HUSBAND- IS GOING TO WAR IN JANUARY . HE IS GOING THERE RISKING HIS LIFE FOR ME ,YOU, AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO DONT WANT ANOTHER 911 .THE LAST THING HE NEEDS IS SOMEONE SAYING ITS ABOUT OIL. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE NEWS ON IRAQ? NO - BECAUSE THE MEDIA DOESNT MAKE PRINT ,WHEN THINGS ARE GOING WELL. I AM VERY PROUD OF MY NEPHEW AND SUPPORT HIM 100% . MAYBE YOU COULD BACK HIM JUST A LITTLE? HIS RISK KEEPS YOU SAFE A NIGHT.HIS NAME IS BRIAN ESTIVILLE. HE LIKE THOUSANDS OF OTHER DESERVE YOURS AND EVERYONES SUPPORT
THANK YOU BRIAN !
LOVE UNCLE EDDIE

-- Posted by PAUL GIACHERIO

I am in complete agreement Paul, God bless our men and women in uniform!!!
-- Posted by Mary Larson on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 1:37 pm EST

report this comment



" Couldn't this have been done some other way than to invade and occupy two countries on each side of Iran so that now they have to defend themselves by developing nuclear weapons to keep us from invading them too?"

I can't help wondering how many anti American crackpot progressives would agree with this drivel. I know I've always suspected President Obama and Secretary Clinton of being closet imperialists.
-- Posted by coydog on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 11:55 am EST

report this comment



More than 8 years in two major wars, thousands dead, hundreds of thousands injured for life, billions spent and we still don't have OBL and his band of murderers. The price we've paid for vengeance is too high. Is the answer to keep losing more young people to the wish for vengeance? Is it worth the billions we've spent on this misadventure? Couldn't this have been done some other way than to invade and occupy two countries on each side of Iran so that now they have to defend themselves by developing nuclear wepons to keep us from invading them too? Could we possibly have made a greater mess of this ... like we did in Vietnam? Will we never learn?
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 10:57 am EST

report this comment



It ends when we get the guy responsible. That was the original purpose. Although I do think it has been very skewed. I'm not thinking in terms eye for an eye as the point you made all the lives lost out weighs ours. They indeed do, but the war on Iraq was a detour we should not have allowed. I don't think of people in terms of collateral damage, never have never will, my heart breaks for the people in the middle of this war.

Can we honestly just say let them go though(al quaida, bin laden? Can we? Would we for any criminal up the street from us that has created such major terror on us and our neighbors, would we just throw up fences and guards to protect our selves but not get the guys? The answer from my perspective is absolutely not, we wouldn't, we couldn't and we shouldn't.

I do agree we need to up our security here, we are no safer now on our borders then we were before 9/11, Bush opened up the door your talking about for semi's to come across with not enough resources to check them all out of mexico, he knew about the drug cartels and how dangerous it would be but he did it anyway. But for some reason, some people keep saying he did so much to protect us, he didn't, and Obama better pick up that slack and fix that error!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 9:11 pm EST

report this comment



I don't he contradicted himself, Melissa B.

Money out--collected as taxes (heard how the Dems would like this continuing appropriation separated out as a war tax?) to fund paying salaries and equipping and feeding soldiers, transport of troops and equipment, high-tech munitions, increased VA outlays when those who would have died in prior eras, who are now surviving but can need lots of medical care and adaptive equipment

Money in--to corporations, which make the items used for war, including General Dynamics. Money in--to state and Federal coffers for providing taxable wages to the locals.

As far as fighting them here or over there, why not use the money to strengthen known and exposed lapses in our security here? Money spent here to build and strengthen the United States for protection builds out economy. Are only two percent of container trucks being searched as exposed on "60 Minutes" some time ago?

You are aware that we are long past the break-even point of death on US soil on 9-11 and US soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It looks like on icasualties.org that we at almost twice the number of dead soldiers compared to the number of people who died on 9-11. When does it end?
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 8:19 pm EST

report this comment



So which is it, wars make money, or they break us.. in the beginning of this article he states we went to war to make money, not to protect ourselves, as far as Iraq that may have been the case, but it didn't make money for america, only the racketeers made money, then at the end of this article, he states the war is going to break us.. contradict yourself much sir?

All the people that are against this war, I have to ask, when you are attacked in your home, on your property, do you just say, it's been to long now, we should just let it go and not worry about the people that hurt us? Because by not wanting to get al quaida and bin laden, that's exactly what you're saying... and those words are.. let the criminals go its okay now..
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 1:43 pm EST

report this comment



I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR COURAGE AND SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY-- BUT -WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE FIGHT ON OUR SOIL? MY NEPHEW - HE IS BOTH FATHER AND HUSBAND- IS GOING TO WAR IN JANUARY . HE IS GOING THERE RISKING HIS LIFE FOR ME ,YOU, AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO DONT WANT ANOTHER 911 .THE LAST THING HE NEEDS IS SOMEONE SAYING ITS ABOUT OIL. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE NEWS ON IRAQ? NO - BECAUSE THE MEDIA DOESNT MAKE PRINT ,WHEN THINGS ARE GOING WELL. I AM VERY PROUD OF MY NEPHEW AND SUPPORT HIM 100% . MAYBE YOU COULD BACK HIM JUST A LITTLE? HIS RISK KEEPS YOU SAFE A NIGHT.HIS NAME IS BRIAN ESTIVILLE. HE LIKE THOUSANDS OF OTHER DESERVE YOURS AND EVERYONES SUPPORT
THANK YOU BRIAN !
LOVE UNCLE EDDIE
-- Posted by PAUL GIACHERIO on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 9:31 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout