Google Ads

Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 12, 2022

Assembly of the Peoples of the Caribbean Calls for Caribbean Solidarity

The Caribbean Meeting of Solidarity with Cuba denounces the intensification of the blockade and the destabilizing actions of the United States against Cuba, as well as the ratification that the island has not been and is not alone in its struggle of more than 60 years

Cuba will never fail his brother peoples

Caribbean voices demanded the elimination of the U.S. blockade against the island

By  | palomares@granma.cu


Caribbean People Unite
Santiago de Cuba– The denunciation of the intensification of the blockade and the destabilizing actions of the United States against Cuba, as well as the ratification that the island has not been and is not alone in its struggle of more than 60 years, stand out in the final declaration of the Caribbean Meeting of Solidarity with Cuba, in the framework of the 9th Assembly of the Peoples of the Caribbean, which was held in this city.


The text proposes the formation of an anti-imperialist united front to respond quickly and forcefully to any action against Cuba or other peoples of the continent.


It also calls for a Caribbean solidarity event next year in Santiago de Cuba, in salute to the 70th anniversary of the Moncada heroic deed and the 50th anniversary of the constitution of Caricom.  It conveys its solidarity support to the Haitian people in the solution of its internal problems, and to the struggle of Puerto Rico for its full independence.


Danniel Sanó, in his message on behalf of Haiti, called for the development of concrete actions to prevent the imperium's attempts to asphyxiate the Island and assured that raising that flag for the Cuban Revolution is to raise, at the same time, the flag of hope of the oppressed peoples to be truly free, like Fidel's Cuba.


The Hero of the Republic of Cuba and president of the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, Fernando Gonzalez Llort, thanked the support for the strengthening of the network of solidarity with Cuba, and affirmed that this island will never fail its brother peoples of the region.


Also present at the Salón de los Vitrales, in the Plaza Mayor General Antonio Maceo, was Ángel Arzuaga Reyes, vice chief and coordinator of the Department of International Relations of the Central Committee of the Party.


Source

Monday, March 21, 2022

U.S. Imperialism Keeps The Fire Burning

U.S. imperialism adds fuel to the fire, but from afar


Economic, commercial and financial sanctions, as a means to exert pressure on a country, do not solve the current crisis, but rather add fuel to the fire and aggravate the international economic situation


By  | informacion@granmai.cu


Economic, commercial and financial sanctions keep the fire alive
Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez Communist Party of Cuba Central Committee First Secretary and President of the Republic cited three elements that are sustaining and aggravating the world’s current difficulties, during his closing remarks at the Ministry of Culture’s annual review for the year 2021, held at José Martí National Library.

The tightened United States’ economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba; the aggressiveness of the United States internationally; and the uncertainty created by covid-19 were the three issues impacting the current situation he emphasized.


With regard to the blockade, the President said that we are now experiencing a different moment, a particular feature of recent years, "Things began to get very complicated in the second half of 2019, when the Trump administration adopted more than 240 measures that cut off our sources of financing.  They placed us on their list of countries that allegedly support terrorism.  And all this has been maintained under Joe Biden's administration," he explained.


The blockade, he recalled, has caused shortages, financial persecution, persecution of fuel suppliers, in particular, and to this was added the even greater aggressiveness of the U.S. government against Cuba, with a broad media campaign demonizing our country, in an attempt to discredit all elements of the Cuban Revolution, seeking to construct the appearance of total failure, that everything is wrong and everything the country does to mitigate current conditions does nothing to solve the problems, he stated.


The President pointed out that this aggressiveness can be seen in the way the events of July 11 were addressed and the way a play was staged, announcing to the world that on November 15 the Cuban Revolution would collapse, and now they are attempting to distort Cuba's position with respect to the current events in Europe.  This imperialist hostility is not only directed toward Cuba; it is evident at a global level, he noted.


He called for reflection on the fact that we live in a world that needs peace more than ever, at a time when more than twenty countries have not yet been able to vaccinate even 10% of their populations and do not know when they will be able to do so, reminding those present that only 61% of the population worldwide has been fully vaccinated.  We know, he said, that until the planet’s population is immunized, the pandemic will continue.


It is never the time to be starting wars, the President said, adding, "They have mounted this aggressive media campaign, attempting to distort the essences.  I understand very well that our people are following the current military conflict in Europe and the regrettable loss of human lives, in addition to the material damage and the general threat to peace and regional and international security, but Cuba has expressed itself clearly, firmly and repeatedly, in strict adherence to our foreign policy that is based on the principles of the Revolution, with careful and rigorous analysis of the facts from all angles," he said.


And this is a serious matter, of extreme complexity, with historical roots, including those of recent history, which cannot be ignored, just as the conditions that have led to this situation cannot be ignored, he said.  "Cuba firmly and consistently defends international law, the United Nations Charter and the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace," he reaffirmed, assuring that, "We defend peace under all circumstances and unambiguously oppose the use of force against any state."


As a small country we understand this better than anyone, besieged for more than 60 years.  Under constant threat, we have suffered state terrorism, military aggression, biological warfare and a brutal blockade, and we are absolutely clear about the value of the principles of international law that serve as protection against unilateralism, imperialism, hegemonic policies and attempts to dominate developing countries.  These are principles and norms that we have defended firmly and consistently in all scenarios.  On this occasion, we have denounced political manipulation and double standards, and we have spoken the truth, he said.


An offensive military encirclement has been established around Russia, he said, condemning the fact that, for decades, the U.S. government has progressively expanded its hegemony and military presence in the region, with the continued expansion of NATO in Eastern European countries, ignoring commitments made by U.S., European and Soviet leaders in the 1990s, after the unification of Germany and the disintegration of the USSR, he recalled.


This conflict could have been avoided if the Russian Federation's well-founded demands for security guarantee had been seriously and respectfully addressed, he said.


Díaz-Canel noted, "To think that Russia should remain passive in the face of NATO's offensive military encirclement is irresponsible, to say the least.  They have taken that country to an extreme situation," he said, pointing out that the continued use of economic, commercial and financial sanctions as a means to exert pressure on a country, does not solve the current crisis, but rather adds fuel to the fire and aggravates the international economic situation, which has been severely affected by these two difficult years of pandemic, he added.


U.S. imperialism is adding fuel to the fire, he said, but from afar, using European countries as its backyard.  Cuba has made this point regularly in different international events, he stated, and recalled the speech delivered by Army General Raúl Castro, on February 22, 2014, in which he emphatically addressed this issue.


As we have reiterated, we will continue to advocate for a serious and constructive diplomatic solution to the current crisis in Europe, advocating peaceful means that guarantee the security and sovereignty of all, as well as regional and international peace, stability and security, he stated.  Cuba has been obliged to confront the pandemic under the brutal economic, commercial and financial U.S. blockade, which has been qualitatively escalated since 2019 to an even more damaging level, he noted.


We will have the opportunity to review these highly sensitive issues in greater depth and trust that the people will continue to keep an eye on these events and make the effort required to distinguish truth from manipulation, he stated.


Source

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Rapprochement Between the United States and Cuba and Sanctions Against Venezuela

By WILLIAM CAMACARO and FREDERICK B. MILLS:




In a historic address on December 17, 2014 on “Cuba policy changes” President Barack Obama declared, “our shift in policy towards Cuba comes at a moment of renewed leadership in the Americas.” This “renewed leadership,” in our view, seeks to gradually undermine socialism in Cuba, check waning U.S. influence in the region, and inhibit a growing continental Bolivarian movement towards Latin American liberation, integration, and sovereignty. To be sure, normalization of relations with Cuba and the release of Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino and Antonio Guerrero were long overdue, and the reunification of Alan Gross with his family was an important and welcome gesture. The rapprochement between the United States and Cuba and the simultaneous imposition of a new round of sanctions by the U.S. against Venezuela, however, do not signal a change in overall U.S. strategy but only a change in tactics. As President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro remarked in a letter to President Raul Castro “there is still a long road to travel in order to arrive at the point that Washington recognizes we are no longer its back yard…” (December 20, 2014).

From Embargo to Deployment of U.S. Soft Power in Cuba

The Obama gambit arguably seeks to move Cuba as far as possible towards market oriented economic reforms, help build the political community of dissidents on the island, and improve U.S. standing in the region, and indeed in the world. In a Miami Herald op-ed piece (December 22, 2014), John Kerry (Secretary of State), Penny Pritzker (Secretary of Commerce) and Jacob J. Lew (Treasury Secretary) wrote that normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba will “increase the ability of Americans to provide business training and other support for Cuba’s nascent private sector” and that this will “put American businesses on a more equal footing.” Presumably the op-ed is referring to “equal footing” with other nations that have been doing business for years with Cuba despite the embargo. The essay also indicates that the U.S. will continue its “strong support for improved human-rights conditions and democratic reforms in Cuba” by “empowering civil society and supporting the freedom of individuals to exercise their freedoms of speech and assembly.” Such a version of “empowering civil society” is probably consistent with decades of U.S. clandestine attempts to subvert the Cuban government, documented by Jon Elliston in Psy War on Cuba: The declassified history of U.S. anti-Castro propaganda (Ocean Press: 1999). It is also in line with more recent efforts, through USAID funded social media (phony Cuban Twitter) and a four year project to promote “Cuban rap music” both of which ended in 2012, designed to build dissident movements inside Cuba. In December 2014, Matt Herrick, spokesman for USAID, defended the latter unsuccessful covert program saying, “It seemed like a good idea to support civil society” and that “it’s not something we are embarrassed about in any way.” Moreover, a fact sheet on normalization published by the U.S. Department of State mentions that funding for “democracy programming” will continue and that “our efforts are aimed at promoting the independence of the Cuban people so they do not need to rely on the Cuban state” (December 17, 2014). The Cuban government, though, has a different take on the meaning of “independence of the Cuban people.” They emphasize “sovereign equality,” “national independence,” and “self determination.” In an address on normalization, Raul Castro insisted on maintaining Cuban sovereignty and stated “we have embarked on the task of updating our economic model in order to build a prosperous and sustainable Socialism” (December 17, 2014). Obviously the ideological differences between Washington and Havana will shape the course of economic and political engagement between these two nations in the months and years ahead.

Rapprochement Between the U.S. and U.S. Isolation in Latin America

Through normalization of relations with Cuba, the U.S. also seeks to end its increasing isolation in the region. Secretary of State John Kerry, in his Announcement of Cuba Policy Changes, remarked that “not only has this policy [embargo] failed to advance America’s goals, it has actually isolated the United States instead of isolating Cuba” (December 17, 2014). In October 2014, the United Nations General Assembly voted against the U.S. Cuba embargo for the 23rd year in a row, with only the U.S. and Israel voting in favor. The inclusion of Cuba in the political and, to a certain degree, economic life of Latin America, has also been part of a larger expression of Latin American solidarity that clearly repudiates regional subordination to Washington. Since the sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena (April 2012), the U.S. has been on very clear notice by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) that there will be no seventh Summit of the Americas in Panama in April without Cuba, a condition to which Washington has ceded.

The flip side of Washington’s growing “isolation” has been the critically important regional diversification of diplomatic and commercial relations between Latin America and the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the construction of alternative development banks and currency reserves to gradually replace the historically onerous terms of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The financial powerhouse of the BRICS nations is China. Over the past year, China has sent high level delegations to visit CELAC nations and in some cases these meetings have resulted in significant commercial agreements. As a follow up, there will be a CELAC–China forum in Beijing in January 2015 whose main objective, reports Prensa Latina, “is exchange and dialogue in politics, trade, economy and culture.” These ties with BRICS and other nations are consistent with the Chavista goal that the Patria Grande ought to contribute to building a multi-polar world and resist subordination to any power block on the planet. By bringing a halt to its growing isolation, Washington would be in a better position to increase its participation in regional commerce. The terms of economic engagement with most of Latin America, however, will no longer be determined by a Washington consensus, but by a North—South consensus. The Obama gambit, though, appears to be trading one source of alienation (embargo against Cuba) for another (sanctions against Venezuela).

Obama’s Gambit: Pushing Back the Bolivarian Cause at its Front Line–Venezuela

The Obama administration’s move to normalize relations with Cuba, while a welcome change of course, can be seen as a modification in tactics to advance the neoliberal agenda as far as possible in Havana while ending a policy that only serves to further erode U.S. influence in the region. Such diplomacy is in line with what appears to be a major U.S. policy objective of ultimately rolling back the ‘pink tide’, that is, the establishment, by democratic procedures, of left and center left regimes in two thirds of Latin American nations. It is this tide that has achieved some measure of progress in liberating much of Latin America from the structural inequality, social antagonism, and subordination to transnational corporate interests intrinsic to neoliberal politics and economics. And it is the continental Bolivarian emphasis on independence, integration, and sovereignty that has fortified the social movements behind this tide.

The Obama gambit, from a hemispheric point of view, constitutes a tactical shift away from the failed U.S. attempt to isolate and bring the Cuban revolution to its knees through coercion, to an intensification of its fifteen year effort to isolate and promote regime change in Venezuela. The reason for this tactical shift is that Venezuela, as the front line in the struggle for the Bolivarian cause of an increasingly integrated and sovereign Latin America, has become the biggest obstacle to the restoration of U.S. hegemony and the rehabilitation of the neoliberal regime in the Americas.

If this interpretation of U.S. hemispheric policy is near the mark, Obama’s grand executive gesture towards Cuba is immediately related to the context of Washington’s unrelenting antagonism towards Chavismo and, in particular, to the latest imposition of sanctions against Caracas. The reason for this is quite transparent. It has been Venezuela, more than Cuba, during the past fifteen years, that has played the leading role in the change of the balance of forces in the region on the side of sovereignty for the peoples of the Americas, especially through its leadership role in ALBA, CELAC, UNASUR and MERCOSUR, associations that do not include the U.S. and Canada. Argentine sociologist Atilio Boron, in an interview with Katu Arkonada of Rebelión (June 24, 2014), points out, “It is no accident…that Venezuela in particular is in the cross hairs of the empire, and for this reason we must be clear that the battle of Venezuela is our Stalingrad. If Venezuela succumbs before the brutal counter offensive of the United States…the rest of the processes of change underway on the continent, whether very radical or very moderate, will end with the same fate.” The latest U.S. sanctions against Venezuela can be viewed as one component of this counter offensive. It is to a closer look at the sanctions bill, signed into law by the president on December 18, 2014, that we now turn.

The “Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014” (S 2142) not only targets Venezuelan officials whom U.S. authorities accuse of being linked to human rights abuses by freezing their assets and revoking their travel visas (Sec. 5 (b) (1) (A) (B)), it also promises to step up U.S. political intervention in Venezuela by continuing “to support the development of democratic political processes and independent civil society in Venezuela” (section 4 (4)) and by reviewing the effectiveness of “broadcasting, information distribution, and circumvention technology distribution in Venezuela” (section 6). One of the instruments of this support for “democratic political processes” has been the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Sociologist Kim Scipes argues that, “the NED and its institutes are not active in Venezuela to help promote democracy, as they claim, but in fact, to act against popular democracy in an effort to restore the rule of the elite, top-down democracy” (February 28 – March 2, 2014). Independent journalist Garry Leech, in his article entitled “Agents of Destabilization: Washington Seeks Regime Change in Venezuela,” (March 4, 2014) examines Wikileaks cables that indicate similar efforts have been carried out in Venezuela by USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) during the past decade. Hannah Dreier (July 18, 2014), reported that “the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy, a government-funded nonprofit organization, together budgeted about $7.6 million to support Venezuelan groups last year alone, according to public documents reviewed by AP.” The sanctions bill (S 2142), then, in light of these precedents, contains provisions that suggest an imminent escalation in the use of soft power to support the political opposition to Chavismo in Venezuela, though such funding has been banned by Caracas.

The current U.S. sanctions against Caracas are consistent with fifteen years of U.S. antagonism against the Bolivarian revolution. The measures send a clear signal of increased support for a Venezuelan political opposition that has suffered division and discord in the aftermath of their failed “salida ya” (exit now) strategy of the first quarter of 2014. The sanctions also undermine any near term movement towards normalization of relations between the U.S. and Venezuela. It is no surprise that provisions of the law that targets Venezuelan officials accused of human rights violations have gotten some limited traction inside this South American nation, with the executive secretary of the Venezuelan opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), Jesús Torrealba, openly supporting this measure. This is probably not going to get the MUD a lot of votes. According to a Hinterlaces poll taken in May, a majority of Venezuelans are opposed to U.S. sanctions. There has also been a swift repudiation of sanctions by the Maduro administration and the popular sectors. On December 15, 2014, in one of the largest and most enthusiastic gatherings of Chavistas in the streets of Caracas since the death of Hugo Chavez, marchers celebrated the fifteenth year anniversary of the passage by referendum of a new constitution (December 15, 1999) and vigorously protested against U.S. intervention in their country. Even dissident Chavistas appear to be toning down their rhetoric and circling the wagons in the face of Washington’s bid to assert “renewed leadership” in the region.

There is no doubt that the Maduro administration is under tremendous pressure, from left Chavistas as well as from the right wing opposition, to reform and improve public security and deal effectively with an economic crisis that is being exacerbated by falling petroleum prices. What the government of Venezuela calls an “economic war” against the country has domestic and well as international dimensions. Although there is no smoking gun at this time that exposes a conspiracy, some analysts interpret the recent fall in oil prices as part of a campaign to put severe economic pressure on Iran, Russia and Venezuela, countries whose fiscal soundness relies a great deal on petroleum revenues. For example, Venezuelan independent journalist, Jesus Silva R., in his essay entitled “The Government of Saudi Arabia is the Worst Commercial Enemy of Venezuela,” argues that the Saudis and Washington are complicit in the “economic strangulation, planned from the outside, against Venezuela” (December 22, 2014). Whatever the cause of falling petroleum prices and despite the domestic challenges facing Caracas, it will most probably be the Venezuelan electorate that decides, through upcoming legislative elections, whether to give Chavismo a vote of confidence, not outside intervention or a fresh round of guarimbas and terrorist attacks perpetrated by the ultra right. For the large majority of Venezuelans reject violence and favor constitutional means of resolving political contests.

U.S. Sanctions Against Venezuela Evoke Latin American Solidarity with Caracas

The good will generated by rapprochement between the U.S. and Cuba has already been tempered by the almost simultaneous new round of sanctions imposed by Washington against Venezuela. It is important to recall, perhaps with some irony, that it was precisely the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s establishment of fraternal ties with a formerly isolated Cuba that drew, in particular, the ire of Washington and the virulent antagonism of the right wing Venezuelan opposition. Now it is Latin American and to a significant extent, international solidarity with Venezuela that may prove to be a thorn in Washington’s side. On December 12, 2014, ALBA issued a strong statement against the Senate passage of the sanctions bill, expressing its “most energetic rejection of these interventionist actions [sanctions] against the people and government of the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela.” The statement also warned “that the legislation constitutes an incitement towards the destabilization of…Venezuela and opens the doors to anticonstitutional actions against the legal government and legitimately elected President Nicolas Maduro Moros.” The communiqué also expressed solidarity with Venezuela adding that the countries of ALBA “desire to emphasize that they will not permit the use of old practices already applied to countries in the region, directed at bringing about political regime change, as has occurred in other regions of the world.” MERCOSUR issued a statement on December 17, 2014 that “the application of unilateral sanctions…violate the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States and does not contribute to the stability, social peace and democracy in Venezuela.” On December 22, the G77 plus China countries expressed solidarity and support for the government of Venezuela in the face of “violations of international law that in no way contributes to the spirit of political and economic dialogue between the two countries.” On December 23, the Movement of Non-Aligned Nations stated that it “categorically rejects the decision of the United States Government to impose unilateral coercive measures against the Republic of Venezuela…with the purpose of weakening its sovereignty, political independence and its right to the self determination, in clear violation of International Law.” It is also important to recall that n October 16, 2014 the UN General Assembly elected Venezuela (by a vote of 181 out of 193 members) to a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council with unanimous regional support, even crossing ideological lines. This UN vote came as a grave disappointment to opponents of the Bolivarian revolution and reinforced Venezuelan standing in CELAC. In yet another diplomatic victory, as of September 2015, Venezuela will assume the presidency of the Movement of Non-Aligned Nations for a three year term. Clearly, it is Washington, not Venezuela that has already become an outlier as the Obama administration launches its “renewed leadership in the Americas.” If these immediate expressions of solidarity with the first post-Chavez Bolivarian government in Venezuela are an indicator of a persistent and growing trend, then by the time of the upcoming seventh Summit of the Americas, April 10 – 11, 2015 in Panama, President Obama can expect approbation for Washington’s opening to Havana, but he will also face a united front against U.S. intervention in Venezuela and anywhere else in the region.

Note: Translations by the authors from Spanish to English of government documents are unofficial. Where citations are not present in the text, hyperlinks provide the source.

William Camacaro MFA. is a Senior Analyst at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and a member of the Bolivarian Circle of New York “Alberto Lovera.”

Frederick B. Mills, Ph.D. is Professor of Philosophy at Bowie State University and Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
 
Source: CounterPunch
 
January 06, 2015
 

Friday, July 9, 2004

A Bahamian Soldier's Iraq War Experience

Bahamian Soldier, Raquel Smith on going to War in Iraq



Home From War A Soldier’s Story



09/07/2004


A lot has changed since 26-year-old Raquel Smith went to work at a local McDonald’s Restaurant after graduating from St. John’s College in 1994.


What she has seen since then would probably make many grown men shiver and back away.

 

Growing up in The Bahamas where the thought of going to war was unfathomable, it seems unlikely that she would have ended up joining the U.S. Army, much less fighting a war from which many hundreds of soldiers never made it home.


But the little girl who dreamed one day of becoming a lawyer is now content on being a career soldier.  If she could do it all over again, she says she would not do anything differently.


“I think I like the direction I went,” Ms. Smith says.


She served on the frontlines driving a truck, taking supplies back and forth.  She had only learnt to drive a truck when she was sent to Kuwait just before the U.S.-led war in Iraq last year.


“We carried supplies, anything from Kuwait to Iraq,” says Ms. Smith, who would probably have been among the more petite soldiers, driving a truck that looked more like a small hotel.


But it worked, since anything goes on the streets of Iraq, she says.


One time, she was a part of a convoy driving at night when there was a knock on the truck during a rest stop.


“They told us we had to get ready to shoot because the Americans and the Iraqis were fighting and the Americans were driving the Iraqis our way,” she recalls.  “They told us to get on the ground and anything we see running toward us to shoot.  We were about to shoot them, but we got backup.  So we didn’t have to shoot, they had to shoot.”


The fact that she served in Iraq for nearly a year easily makes her a national hero, not just in the United States, but also in The Bahamas.


But Ms. Smith says in reflection, “I didn’t do anything heroic, when it was time to go, I just did my job and I came back.”


She was only a few miles away from where U.S. soldiers captured ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who was found crouched in a tiny cellar at a farmhouse last December near his hometown Tikrit.


It was good news for soldiers, she says.  But it was also bad news because there was the realization that his supporters might retaliate, she adds.


Ms. Smith is home this week, just in time for Independence Day before she travels to Hawaii for a four-year engagement, but there’s no telling when she could be called to action again.


While admitting that she felt a bit out of place being back home, she reminds, “I am a Bahamian.  This is where I live.”


It’s not hard to see why other soldiers were puzzled over why she left The Bahamas to join the U.S. Army and fight in a war.


The story of Ms. Smith’s military experience started when she came to the realization that “my life wasn’t going anywhere.”


Watching television one day, she says she saw a U.S. Army commercial and decided to dial the number to make inquiries.


“I asked them what are the qualifications of joining the army and they told me,” she says. “I told my mother ‘I’m thinking of going in the army.’  And she said ‘are you sure?’ I said, ‘Yes, I’m sure.’  She said it was my decision.”


In October 2000, Ms. Smith, who was born in Miami, Florida, enlisted and underwent rigorous training.  She learnt to fire a weapon.


But she could not have imagined going to war, at least not that soon.  She was, however, prepared.


“I said if I have to go, I have to go because that’s what I signed up to do,” she says.  “I signed on the dotted line that I would defend the United States.  I was scared, I was surprised, but I said I had a job to do and I went to do it.”


She was told to be on alert.  No matter where she was, she had to be ready to go “at the drop of a hat.”


And she was.


She arrived in Iraq about two weeks before the war started last March.


“I was scared,” Ms. Smith says. “When it first started, we had a couple of close calls.  We could have been killed, but fortunately we weren’t.  I was real scared in the beginning, but after a while it started to become natural.”


She says she soon grew accustomed to the sound of gunfire and explosions.  Although the fear never completely subsided, Ms. Smith soon settled into the realization that this was her new life, her calling.


Apart from the realization that the chances of getting killed are heightened during a war, the day-to-day living in Iraq was difficult.


“Sometimes we had no water,” Ms. Smith recalls.  “Sometimes we had no heat.  We had no air condition…we had no ice, no freezers…we didn’t have regular toilets.  Sometimes we didn’t take showers for weeks.  We had to use baby wipes.  We had to make do with what we had.  The food really wasn’t that great either.  We slept on cots, we didn’t sleep on beds.”


She slept on the floor of the kitchen at one of Saddam Hussein’s former military bases.


“I have pleasant memories and I have bad memories,” Ms. Smith says.  “When I was with my unit we were all so close and we took care of each other.  We made sure that everybody came back, nobody died.  We prayed before we went out.  We prayed after we came back.  We were a close unit.”


A lot of the females got urinary tract infections because they had to sometimes go for long periods without urinating, she recalls.


“It really wasn’t that sanitary,” Ms. Smith adds.  “It was really hard for us [females].”


But the women in her unit came from war without getting pregnant.  She points out that five of the women in a nearby unit got pregnant, reportedly for American soldiers.


Although things were tough, she says going to war “made me appreciate life more.”


“Sometimes when we watched the news, we would hear ‘four soldiers got killed today’.  Almost 900 people didn’t come back, but I came back and I am so grateful.  I appreciate water more because we sure didn’t have a lot of water.


“I don’t take anything for granted anymore.”


The army has taken her to many destinations since she left Nassau.  Her first duty station was in Korea.  She ended up going to Germany, The Czech Republic, Poland and many other places.


But it’s always good to be home, she quickly adds with a dancing smile.


Ms. Smith also has a few words for young people who may now be feeling like their life is directionless.


“Don’t give up,” she says. “If your life took a bad turn, God probably has something planned for you.  You may just do not know it yet.  Keep on believing.  Just don’t give up.”