Iraq Veteran on US Bases in Bulgaria, by Val Todorov

The allies of Eastern Europe are nothing more than puppet governments under the control of US hegemony... The Pentagon sees a strategic advantage in using Bulgaria as a staging ground to deploy troops and equipment not only to Iraq, but possibly even Iran or Syria in the near future. In this case, Bulgaria would have more to fear than just terrorism. Bulgaria would then be a strategic target for conventional or nuclear strikes from neighboring enemies as well.

This interview was provoked by several articles on Indymedia Bulgaria under the heading "In the Periphery of Empire of Bases and Secret Prisons". The Iraq veteran J.D. Englehart was so kind to answer my questions about the plans for stationing of US military bases in Bulgaria. Seeing combat in Fallujah, he became an antiwar activist for Iraq Veterans Against War. He has given several interviews for the mainstream press and also to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! His blog Fight To Survive is well-known among the global antiwar movement.

J.D. knows firsthand not only the live of a soldier in Iraq but also on the US bases in Germany and Kosovo. He did visit even Bulgaria while stationed in Kosovo in 2003, so the Balkans with their specific mentality and special role in the Pentagon's plans are not an unfamiliar territory for him. Although the context of the questions and my previous articles are critical towards the US militarism in general and the plans for US military bases in Bulgaria in particular, I'd like to emphasize that I feel nothing but respect to J.D. Englehart and his friends from Iraq Veterans Against War. People like him are always welcome to our hospitable country. Unlike the military outposts of Empire.

First, would you introduce yourself?

I am J.D. Englehart, (Former) Specialist, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. I joined the United States army just prior to September 11, 2001. After basic training in Ft. Knox, KY as a cavalry reconnaissance scout, I was stationed in Vilseck, Germany, just outside of Grafenwoehr Training Area. Throughout my service from 2001 to 2005, I was involved with Task Force Falcon IV - a Kosovo peace keeping mission - in 2003, and Operation Iraqi Freedom II during the year of February 2004 to February 2005. Upon being released from active duty in May 2005, I rejoined the civilian sector in the United States and am currently working as an activist for such groups as Iraq Veterans Against War, Veterans For Peace, SeptemberACTION, and various other affinity groups dedicated to ending war and oppression worldwide.

Chalmers Johnson wrote, "The Pentagon always imposes on countries in which it deploys our forces so-called Status of Forces Agreements, which usually exempt the US from cleaning up or paying for the environmental damage it causes". How would you comment?

I would have to agree with Chalmers Johnson's concern that US forces neglect the environmental responsibilities of a hosting country. I have seen both sides of the US military's behavior in regards to environmental concerns. For instance, while I was stationed at the enormous training ground in Grafenwoehr, Germany, our forces were held to very strict environmental protection guidelines. The restrictions that our forces abided by were largely enforced by local German environmental authorities. These agencies were highly efficient in ensuring that US forces were keeping a good, clean order in their country. For example, although our military equipment was not regulated for bad exhaust emissions, it was a German law that running equipment be turned off if not actually in the process of moving.

Furthermore, a US military regulation required that all military vehicles, while parked stationary, were to have a "drip-can" placed under any leaking parts of the vehicle. If in the event of an oil spill on the ground, German law required that US personnel dig the tainted soil, remove any contamination, and replace the damaged area with fresh soil. It is very common during field exercises to see German environmental authorities conducting inspections to see that US forces are engaged in clean environmental usage-ranging anywhere from proper equipment cleanups to the safe removal of all trash and garbage.

However, these strict environmental guidelines are only in place because a respected country such as Germany is the host nation. Where other US operations were held, such as the Czech Republic, Kosovo, and Iraq, I saw firsthand the environmental damage a war machine was capable of. In areas of Eastern Europe, where we conducted training missions and peace-keeping missions, it was more than common for our tanks and heavy track vehicles to rip and plow the earth, rendering once green and fertile farm lands into quagmires of soupy mud. Paved streets were also heavily damaged during tank movements, leaving craterous pot-holes in their wake. Road signs, fences, and even civilian vehicles were sometimes damaged as large equipment would traverse through narrow streets.

These countries had no environmental guidelines to abide by and thus oil spills, garbage accumulation, vehicle emissions and general wear-and-tear of the area were usually ignored. In Iraq it is still a common practice for US forces to traverse through farm fields in tanks and armored trucks, conduct deforestation of palm trees for tactical purposes, and burn garbage in huge piles on base camps (sending plumes of toxic smoke from used oil and plastics into the air).

In all fairness to the US military, however, its armed forces do attempt to keep its surroundings clean and free from pollution. The US army, for example, enforces strict standards on its troops in maintaining the cleanest surroundings as possible and respecting the host country's environment. Although these rules are set place internally, it is impossible to maintain a military with such industrial might as the US without running into environmental damage. Most of these missions are conducted in developing or 3rd world countries where such practices as environmental protection are simply not in place…

…which is why I believe the US Pentagon would jump at opportunities to erect bases in Eastern Europe. It's simply cost efficient. With an ever-growing spread of US imperialism across the globe and a fruitless war on terror, expenditures for such aggression is placing the American tax-payer in a difficult bind. Furthermore, as seen recently in Germany, many US bases are closing down and relocating due east to avoid the high costs that the German government places on the US presence. By placing bases in the Balkans, for example, the US could easily take advantage of the relaxed environmental laws and dispose of waste without paying the already subservient host countries high prices for waste disposal and environmental contamination. Money, in these cases, is always a concern. The bottom line is by having military bases in Eastern Europe the US can coerce desperate governments into an "anything goes" mentality while cheaply exploiting acres of beautiful countryside and townships through the use of landfills and training grounds.

He also wrote, "Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America's version of the colony is the military base." Do you agree with that?

I certainly agree that one could gauge America's military empire by the vast number of overseas bases it has. The United States government seems inclined to spread western stylized capitalism across the globe. Military bases are needed by American empire to enforce US economic hegemony worldwide, as well as for strategic proximity to countries who wish to oppose its interests.

In my opinion, American overseas bases are undeniable proof of global empire. There are over 700 US bases in the world as well as thirteen naval task force units monitoring the waters outside US territory. And with the latest nuisance of the Bush administration, this worldwide stranglehold is being pursued to greater extents. Through wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, monetary backing of brutal dictatorships, the use of torturing and imprisoning at random, unwarranted surveillance of citizens, the proliferation of fear and misinformation, and complete disregard for the environment, Bush's agenda seems to be that of an Orwellian dystopia. This is not only greed and empire; this is ambitions for a totalitarian New World Order.

Do you know anything about keeping and using depleted uranium (DU) on the American bases?

Based off my experience in the army, I would have to conclude that anywhere US forces are, depleted uranium rounds and munitions can be found. Depleted uranium (DU) is a very common weapon in the US military arsenal. It is used specifically as an armor piercing warhead that can be fired by tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets and cruise missiles.

In most cases, DU is not used on training grounds or firing ranges. However, as these rounds are very common in the US arsenal, the negligent usage of DU can occur. Recently at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, several environmental groups accused the US army of firing DU during training exercises. It was reported that"fifteen tail assemblies from spotting rounds made of D-38 uranium alloy, also called depleted uranium, were recovered in August by Zapata Engineering, a contractor hired by the military to clear the Schofield Barracks' range impact area of unexploded ordnance and scrap metal," according to a news release from the 25th Infantry Division. What this clean-up effort concludes is that DU was in fact used on a US installation, in the United States nonetheless. If such a round could be used so carelessly in the United States, one would have to wonder where else it is used and in what capacity?

Obviously, in war zones such as Iraq the use of DU is very frequent. While I was in Iraq, it was common knowledge that DU was fired at everything from insurgent bunkers to clay-brick buildings to cars and trucks. Since the initial ground war in March 2003 thousands of tons of DU rounds have been fired in Iraq, and are continuously being used today.

Depleted uranium rounds were also used during the US intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990's. Because of the longtime contaminating effects of DU, the health concerns of such usage are still a major issue. Even after these conflicts were over, US forces engaged in peace keeping missions built firing ranges to practice on. While there is not much evidence to prove whether or not DU rounds were fired on these ranges, the possibility of their usage may have occurred. What is important to realize is that wherever a US military base is built, depleted uranium rounds will follow. One would have to assume that not only are DU rounds stockpiled there, but could also be used for whatever reason the military deems necessary.

What do you think about the secret American jails in Eastern Europe and the practice of extraordinary rendition and torture?

The use of torture should be banned unconditionally. Not only is this atrocious practice completely inhumane, its use to extract information from suspects proves useless. A country such as the United States, who should be held to the highest standards of due process and human rights, should never stoop to the level of Saddam Hussein in order to wage war on terrorism. Torture in this sense is completely counter-productive. The unfortunate scandal of Abu Gharib not only placed US torture in the international spotlight, but was horribly detrimental in building relationships with Iraqi hearts and minds. The use of torture and extraordinary rendition will only lead to complete failure in the pretentious "War on Terrorism"; a war much better waged through diplomacy and humanitarian practices. Furthermore, any country that is willing to harbor US political gulags will most likely begin to see terrorist attacks themselves. This is the natural process of terrorism. Dr. Noam Chomsky once said, "The best way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it."

What is your opinion about the war in Iraq and the role of the so called Allies from Eastern Europe?

I believe that the war in Iraq is wrong. I believe that the reasons which were stated by the Bush administration for invading Iraq were based on lies. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Lie. Saddam Hussein was days away from launching a nuclear strike. Lie. Al Qaida was helping Saddam plan the attacks of September 11th. Lie. It was only after these false accusations were brought to light that the neo-conservatives in Washington opted to credit the war in Iraq to democracy in the Middle East. This concept of freedom and democracy has been force-fed to the American people in order to support a continued US occupation of Iraq. Although as of now 58% of Americans disapprove with the war in Iraq, the war rages on everyday.

But I believe the war in Iraq is wrong for a more simple reason: that being the unjustified and inane bloodshed happening everyday. Aside from coalition deaths, the real victims of this war are the Iraqi civilians, now estimated anywhere from 50 to 100 thousand. I would like to believe that this war is producing a democratic society for the Iraqis, but the facts simply prove otherwise. Already there is corruption and instability in their new democracy that shows no signs of improving. Iraqi insurgents, fighting against an illegal occupation, are predominately Iraqi, not foreign.

While I was in Iraq, our forces fought local farmers and shop-keeps who decided to take up arms against the occupier. The Iraqi insurgents have been fighting for three years now. Insurgent attacks are increasing dramatically. Insurgent attacks are better coordinated and constantly improving. The US military insists on using conventional methods in fighting a guerilla war, but seems to be losing. In the end, I believe the US will have no other option that to remove its forces from Iraq. This step should be taken immediately to prevent more senseless violence and more lives lost.

The real reasons for the occupation of Iraq can be debated all day, but I think the reasons are rather simple. War is money, oil is becoming scarce, and an empire needs to flex its muscle to remind other countries who is in charge. Again, a tyrannical New World Order.

The allies of Eastern Europe are nothing more than puppet governments under the control of US hegemony. It appears that these countries are involved with the war despite much opposition from their own people. However, these governments seem to jump at the opportunity to please the United States in order to receive fringe benefits in the form of trade agreements and monetary donations. This seems to be the case in Bulgaria, where US bases will be erected without properly weighing the pros and cons of such an action.

Having American bases on Bulgarian territory turns the country into a frontline in the USA War on Terror. Won't this increase the risk of terrorist attacks in Bulgaria?

I would say that having US military bases, either in the form of military installations or secret prisons, would make Bulgaria a very possible target for terrorist attacks. Bulgarian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is already placing Bulgarian citizens in a potentially dangerous environment on their own soil. With the edition of US bases in Bulgaria, and its close proximity to Arab nations, Bulgarian citizens suddenly find themselves on the frontline in the "War on Terror".

One could even argue that the Pentagon sees a strategic advantage in using Bulgaria as a staging ground to deploy troops and equipment not only to Iraq, but possibly even Iran or Syria in the near future. In this case, Bulgaria would have more to fear than just terrorism. Bulgaria would then be a strategic target for conventional or nuclear strikes from neighboring enemies as well.

How would you comment on the culture of "anything goes" and sexual aggression at the US bases? "Between 1972 and 1995, U.S servicemen were implicated in 4,716 crimes, nearly one per day, according to the Nihon Keizai Shimbun, a conservative Japanese newspaper."

I think the main issue with sexual aggression in the military is that the military is inherently very aggressive. Soldiers, especially those in the combat arms field, are molded from the very beginning to be outwardly hostile. Soldiers are primarily trained in two frames of mind: To follow orders and destroy the enemy. Self-restraint and control are only enforced by redundant rules and regulations, usually amounting in a slap on the wrist for the accused.

During my time in the army, I happened to be in an all-male combat unit, so sexual assault against women was not a huge issue. However, this outward aggression could be seen through physical violence against rival units, or even against civilians outside of base. The leadership's handling of this type of behavior was one of "just don't get caught". I do remember several instances when male soldiers would suddenly be accused of domestically abusing their spouse, or single soldiers being charged for raping women, both female soldiers and civilians alike. While I do not know how many of these cases turned out, I do know that sometimes, if the guilty was a high ranking sergeant or officer, the case would end up swept under the rug. That is not to say that military law neglected all of these cases, especially if the case was full-blown public. However, based from hard-line statistics and the behavior of soldiers in general, one would have to assume that sexual aggression does happen.

One has to imagine the paradigm in which soldiers are bred and conformed; the environment in which soldiers live and participate socially. First of all, soldiers live amongst themselves much of the time. Since a majority of the military is male anyways, it is common for soldiers in concert with each other to behave lewd and aggressive. This may be viewed as "boys will be boys", especially when understanding that a soldier's society is much different than that in a civilian world. It almost compares to a football locker room or college frat-boy party.

The concept of womanhood is not always respected, and many soldiers stand strongly opposed to women in the military in the first place. When these types of soldiers are turned loose onto a night of drinking and partying in a civilian sector, the behaviors of military elitism, chauvinism, misogyny and general disrespect can easily occur. This problem compounds itself if a soldier feels that he is above civilian law. None of this should be viewed as an excuse to dismiss violent behavior, but in all actuality the real responsibility should be placed on the chain of command for tolerating it.

How would you comment on the rape of a 22-year-old woman at the US Navy's former Subic Bay base in Manila?

I am not going to comment on whether or not I think that the six US servicemen are guilty. I firmly believe that everyone deserves due process and is innocent until proven guilty. However, as I mentioned above, given the type of training soldiers receive and the social environments in which they live, it is very possible that sexual aggression could be a serious problem at Subic Bay. Of course, with the amount of evidence surrounding the case, the six accused should be tried under fair proceedings by both military and Filipino law. Under no circumstances should the accused be given immunity and dealt with solely by US jurisdiction. In any case, there seems to be a major problem with sexual aggression in the military today. There have been several thousand implications in the military since the '70s. That is a very hard fact to turn your back on. Serious investigations should be conducted and military leaders should be held responsible for ensuring fair and equitable treatment of not only service members, but also for civilians in host nations as well.

What do you think may the externalities of the US bases be for the hosting country?

Externalities in the economical sense? Some may say that having US bases in Bulgaria would boost the local economy. While it is true that in other areas of the world US bases are a staple of local economies, it doesn't mean that it will boost the economy of an entire country. In Germany for instance, towns whose businesses enjoy US presence do not necessarily suffer after a US pullout. However, when we began to dismantle bases in Kosovo, it left hundreds of Kosovars (employed by Halliburton) unemployed and with no job prospects. Of course much of this depends on a country's overall stability, but from what I can tell the only businesses who prosper from US presence are the ones who offer specific services to GI's.

I am not an economist. But when considering the interests of soldiers, I do have a good idea of what they want. For example, if you have a base in a small coastal town, the general entertainment sector will prosper greatly. These soldiers would most likely dump their hard-earned money into restaurants and food vendors, night clubs and bars, the black market - for various products, including prescription drugs and narcotics, - and even the prostitution racket. Spending dollars in Bulgaria will be a welcome change for soldiers where the exchange rate plays in their favor. This may encourage a soldier to spend more of his money.

Of course, one would have to consider that US bases will surely hire Bulgarian citizens for various tasks. This would include everything from technological services, carpentry, store clerks, base maintenance, and janitorial cleaning. Many jobs will be available to persons who are hired by defense contractors. Then again, wages will most likely reflect that of the local economy, and not in US dollars.

So there are pros and cons to this debate. Sure, money will be put into an economy, but who profits? I figure organized crime will surely profit more than the average person, but I could be wrong. Most likely, anyone involved with entertaining a soldier will see profits. But I do not see how a US bases (stationed in small towns, as will most likely happen) can lift the economy of an entire country. That being said, not every Bulgarian citizen will see more money or more jobs. The fact that US bases can stimulate an economy can be misleading if all the facts are not weighed properly.

What do you think about the global anti-war movement?

I think that the world peace movement is, while sometimes gaining ground still faced with major problems of enormous proportions. Our three biggest adversaries are never-ending war (obviously!), global neofascism, and perhaps the most dangerous…outright apathy!

When I returned home and involved myself in activism, it was apathy that seemed to be the most prevalent sickness in America. People have a hard time breaking out of their shells, their "comfort zones", when weighing consciousness on the problems that face humanity today. Most people become too involved with themselves, their friends and family, or their jobs to look on the horizon and see a dark and foreboding future. But this apathy is not just common in America. While traveling Europe, I noticed it there as well. So the apathy is not just a problem in my home, but in all social fabrics of the world.

I feel that the worldwide spread of ultra-capitalism is infecting human beings like a virus. It breeds gross consumerism, materialism, and a jaded sense of what is inherently important in our lives. As a result, our environment is being destroyed as our social consciousness is lobotomized. Future generations are spinning into a dark unknown while human blood continues to fill the void.

Apathy is the most dangerous villain we have to confront. Some individuals resort to it after they realize the world is fucked, but feel nothing can be done to prevent the growing catastrophe. When global antiwar demonstrations were held just prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was an enormous voice of dissent that was completely ignored by the sadistic powers who orchestrate war. It was a serious blow for individuals who honestly care. However, just six years into the new millennium, it is now extremely important that we do not give up.

The pendulum now seems to be swinging the other way. The Bush administration is being exposed for the liars and criminals that they are. George Bush's impeachment is being openly discussed in America. While this may seem to be quite inefficient in light of the horrible travesties committed against humanity and true freedom, it is a huge step in the right direction. It means that people all over the world are beginning to awake from their slumber and place guilty parties responsible.

At this crucial time the antiwar movement has never been more important. Our solidarity must exceed national boundaries. We must continue to stand opposed to war and global oppression. Through peace and civil disobedience we can demand a more rational society. It is no longer a matter of fighting for a utopia of ideas, but rather a fight for survival as human beings.

Do you know who is Ken Nichols O'Keefe and what do you think about his struggle?

Ken O'Keefe is truly an amazing person and an icon in the struggle for human equality. His story is absolutely fascinating: An ex-marine and a combat veteran from the 1991 Gulf War. O'Keefe renounces his US citizenship and becomes a lawful citizen of a stateless World Government. Not only does he set a revolutionary example through ideas and wisdom, but he shows it in peaceful direct action. In addition to many other environmental and social actions in which he was instrumental, he also organized human shield demonstrations in Iraq (before the invasion) and relief works in Palestine. O'Keefe has been labeled "un-American" and accused of treason. He has been harassed by both domestic and international law for petty violations and renouncing his citizenship. He stands opposed to human oppression, environmental destruction, and belligerent racism. In short, Ken O'Keefe is the complete antithesis of everything that he is accused of and should instead be viewed as a leader for social change in the 21st century.

Thank you very much and you're always welcome to Bulgaria!