War discussion

national | miscellaneous | news report

Monday April 21, 2003 13:49

by E. Goldstein - Airstripone.com

goldstein at SPAMKILLERairstripone dot com

What it says on the tin

Most normal people tend to take a position on something like the War based on their unspoken values or prejudices, then try to rationalise that position post-facto. Most normal people, unfortunately, also take rational criticism of such a position as a direct attack on their egos. And in fairness, most normal people also get a kick out of insulting their opponents, especially in an anonymous forum such as this (mea culpa). This article is not meant to start a pissing contest between pro- and ant-war people; I would genuinely like these topics argued about intelligently and honestly by all.

(Sources at bottom):
1. The US administration actively aided and abetted Saddam & Co. during the '80s - is it not a contradiction to now be moralising antiwar people about being "soft" on Saddam, especially when many of these people (myself included) were being ignored or being accused of being "soft" on Iran when we spoke of this during the 80's?
Yes, you can argue that we should now therefore be supporting his ouster militarily anyway, but only if you honestly accept that your "side" was aiding and abetting this tyrant for years.
2. Iraq's administration did indeed launch a war of agression against Kuwait. But, this was with the apparent acceptance of a US ambassador in conversation with an Iraqi official who raised the possibility, before the war began.
3. The Axis power of Japan committed a first strike, and thence initiated agression against, the United States during WWII. That situation is not analogous to that of Iraq.
4. The US administration has supported, and continues to support, many regimes with Human Rights' records as dubious as that of Saddam's. We are not talking about accepting them neutrally; we are talking about active aid and support.
5. The United States has a venerable Constitution whose entire philosophy and attitude embodies a skepticism of Government coercion as a means of achieving social good; which clearly shows a justifiable fear of military power as a danger to the Common Good domestically. To paraphrase Mark Twain: How can America maintain an Empire abroad, yet remain a Republic at home?
6. Containment was NOT working, at least in the form of sanctions, which mainly seemed to just kill children.
7. The justifications for this War seem to be as mercurial as Irish weather: Surely, if you are going to kill lots of people, you ought to be absolutely sure of why you are doing it?
8. Many of the arguments seem to revolve around an unspoken axis (no pun intended) of "left-Liberal" vs. "Neoconservative" or "pro-Bush" vs. "anti-Bush", or even, regrettably "America the Beautiful!" vs. "Imperialist pigs!". Instead of circling the ideological wagons, please let's try to communicate with the other uncivilsed tribes, in their own languages.
9. The "Jew thing": Yes, some anti-jewish types are using this conflict for there own ends, however:
a) Criticism of the Israeli administration, or its apologists and war-hawks in Washington DC, is not equivalent to anti-semitism - any more than criticism of the US administration constitutes disloyalty for Americans.
b) There is a difference between the world religion of Judaism, which is 5000 years old, and Right-wing or extreme-zionism, which dates from the 20th century - a time when survival itself became the ultimate value for some Jews, to the detriment perhaps of their total humanist morality.
c) "Semite" also generally refers to the arabic-speaking-peoples (not all of whom are muslim, either). Worth bearing in mind when we make condenscending remarks about "liberating" the arabs who are "incapable" of doing it themselves - are we "Taking up the White Man's burden" once more?
10. Oil is important in this war (honestly, would it be happening if Iraq's main national resource was turnips?) However, it is an over simplification and a detraction of the anti-war argument to focus excessively on it. More is going on here than Oil.
a) Do not underestimate the shocking, horrifying effect that 9/11 had on many Americans' sense of national-esteem. The desire to strike out at an identifiable enemy - any enemy - and defeat it, and then remake it in America's "image" is a powerful psychological motivation for attacking Iraq. Iraq was the (latest) stand in. You don't regain your super-power's sense of self-worth by defeating a bunch of ragged tribesmen.
b) The Neoconservative Ascendency in the US, displays a Spartan-like attachment to military "leadership" and intervention, almost as a civic-virtue in itself. The "Neocons" - which include many of Bush's administration - have been waiting for this opportunity for years. They don't simply see it as a way to dominate (in their parlance: "to show leadership" in) the rest of the world, *but to remake their own Republic*.
c) With reference to a) and b), the language and motivation of the Neocons is similar to that of a Mafia Don: We must show them who's who, we must not appear weak - force is the only thing these people understand, We must not appear to be indecisive. The very things that are supposed to be indicative of Civilisation - self-reflection, debate and criticism, the use of minimal-force - are to them vices and weaknesses.
11.) What exactly, WOULD the antiwar people suggest as a solution to this sort of challenge? Are you always anti-war? In all situations? What would be your justification for war, and is it actually sensible?
12.) Since the Pro-war people are in favour of "Liberation", may we take it they will offer their support the Palestinians' desire for Self-determination now? (Among others?)

Can the pro-war people actually make a morally-consistent, historically-noncontradictory argument? Can they *ever* admit that their favourite leaders were/are clearly, morally wrong to support people like Saddam?
And can the anti-war people show a little more imagination than the persistent mantra of anti-capitalism, and even anti-Americanism?

Must we all stay rooted in our own little valleys, worshipping always our own political totem-leaders?

Sources/Notes:
=====================================
1.)

U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.
Saddam key in early CIA plot
Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
April 10, 2003
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

In the 1980s, Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally, largely because he was at war with Iran, a U.S. enemy. Washington chose to see Hussein then as a potential force for good in the Middle East. Ronald Reagan thus took Iraq off the terrorism list. That made it possible for Reagan and his successor, George H.W. Bush, to authorize American corporations to sell Hussein materials for his early chemical and biological weapons, such as the anthrax virus. Bush's son, George W. Bush, now says these weapons are among the prime reasons our armed forces must besiege and occupy Iraq.
Monsters of the Moment - From Saddam to Osama, America Creates Its Own Nightmares
Sydney Schanberg
March 12 - 18, 2003
THE VILLAGE VOICE
URL: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0311/schanberg.php

Back in the 1980s Ronald Reagan recruited Rumsfeld, who had by then served as Gerald Ford's secretary of defense and was chair of the powerful international pharmaceutical firm G.D. Searle & Co., to be his special envoy to Saddam Hussein. The accounts of these visits suggest that Rummy got along famously with Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister, and cozied up to Saddam himself, whom the U.S. was encouraging to make a good show against the Iranians. In reports of Rummy's chats with Saddam, the special envoy makes no mention of torture. There are no ruminations about an unhappy, suppressed populace.
Rummy's Love Affair With Iraq - Big Buddies With 'Many Common Interests'
by James Ridgeway
March 11th, 2003
THE VILLAGE VOICE
URL: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0311/mondo2.php

DECLASSIFIED U.S. DOCUMENTS have revealed the extent to which Washington did not merely look away but actually provided intelligence and logistical support to Iraq at a time when it was giving shelter to wanted terrorists and using weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Sinister irony
THE HINDU
Tuesday, Jan 07, 2003
URL: http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/01/07/stories/2003010700581000.htm

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
February 25, 2003

2.)

Still searching for the source. Will update.

3.)

You really need a source for this one?

4.)

E.g.
Powell Regrets 1973 U.S. Actions in Chile
Associate Press
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Powell-Chile.html

5.)

See e.g.
American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.aclu.org

"Guilty until proven innocent"
Declan McCullogh
C|Net
http://news.com.com/2010-1071-996625.html

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. "
-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Charles Hammond [1821]

"Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."
-- James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865)

6.)

Murderous 'Containment'
John Balzar
LA Times
March 30, 2003
"But in the heat of battle, can we spare a sober moment for self-doubt? Many of those who have taken to the streets in angry demonstrations argue that the U.S. was immoral in choosing invasion over "containment" and weapons inspections. Implicit in this contention is that things were working, so why choose to kill? Forgotten in the argument is that the world was killing Iraqis all along, just without the bang of cordite."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-war-oebalzar30mar30,1,6043508.column?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsuncomment

7.)

"..after three weeks of war, after the capture of Baghdad and the collapse of the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction those weapons that President Bush, on the eve of hostilities, said were a direct threat to the people of the United States have still to be identified...
...On day two of the war, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction was the invading force's number two priority after toppling Saddam Hussein itself a reversal of the argument presented at the UN Security Council.
A week later, Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokeswoman, pushed the issue further down the list, behind capturing and evicting "terrorists sheltered in Iraq" and collecting intelligence on "terrorist networks". Now we are told that hunting for weapons is something we can expect once the fighting is over, and that it might go on for months before yielding significant results. "It's hard work," a plaintive Ms Clarke said last week...
In his State of the Union address in early February, President Bush was quite specific about the materials he believed Saddam was hiding...These days, he does not mention weapons of mass destruction at all, focusing instead on the liberation of the Iraqi people as if liberation, not disarmament, had been the project all along."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=396733
America targeted 14,000 sites. So where are the weapons of mass destruction?
By Andrew Gumbel
13 April 2003

8.)

For mixed arguments - including Liberals in favour of war:
The New republic
http://www.tnr.com

A devout Christian from Texas, against the war:

"...Our Founding Fathers... knew that the history of humanity is replete with the rotting carcasses of world empires.
Yet America now has military forces stationed in more than 100 countries. Our military budget is more than those of the next 27 countries combined...
We go where we are not invited, or we go where one side invites us to join their civil war against another. And when we fight, we descend as far down the ladder of human decency as necessary to win.
...this is not just about Iraq -- it is about Sand Creek, the Philippines of 1909, Dresden, Nagasaki, unnumbered villages in Vietnam, and buses and hospitals and apartment buildings in Serbia.
Yes, the reasons are always good... for all of history's expanding empires as they dragged their trusting subjects into central government domination, confiscatory taxation, moral breakdown, multiplied foreign enemies and, finally, slaughter and sorrow and widowhood and orphanhood."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/editorial/5577465.htm
Mon, Apr. 07, 2003
How can this be a just war?
John J. Dwyer
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Norman Mailer (Left-wing Novelist and former Anarchist-candidate for Mayor of New York) in dialogue with Antiwar US Conservatives:

* "I Am Not For World Empire"
A conversation with Norman Mailer about Iraq, Israel, the perils of technology and why he is a Left-Conservative.
Taki, Kara Hopkins, and Scott McConnell
The American Conservative
[Norman Mailer:] "We are going to occupy Iraq and occupy it for a long time. Then it all does begin to make its own kind of sense. Because that means we are inaugurating the commencement of the American World Empire. Right there is the subtext. Incidentally, the political seat from which I speak is as a Left-Conservative...
... Until the Left and that part of the Right loyal to its old values can come to recognize that with all their differences, they also have one profound value they might look to protect in common - the vulnerable dignity of the human creation - we are all obliged to travel passively into the vain and surrealistic land of corporate hegemony with its basic notion that democracy is a nutrient to be injected into any country anywhere-a totally oppressive misconception of the delicate promise of democracy which relies on the organic need to grow out of itself and learn from its own human errors."
URL: http://www.amconmag.com/12_2/mailer.html

9.)

See "The Tikkun Community"
http://www.tikkun.org
Rabbi Michael Lerner, one of the founders of this group, has written a very balanced book called
"Healing Israel/Palestine"

10.)

"An introduction to Neocon Doublethink"
Airstripone.com
http://www.airstripone.com

The Wraps Come Off Bush's Colonialist Agenda
Right-wing hawks have been calling the shots all along.
Robert Scheer
LA Times
25 March 2003
"The post-Hussein strategy, formed by a neoconservative clique close to the White House, is another indicator that this is in no way a war "to disarm Iraq."
... there is ample evidence that "regime change" and redrawing the map of the Mideast were the goals of the Bush administration's neoconservative core all along.
The Carnegie Endowment (www.ceip.org) last week published "Origins of Regime Change in Iraq," a thorough portrait of this "textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views."
... Bush already refers to warlord-controlled Afghanistan as "democratic," so perhaps an Iraq run by an American general -- for the profit of Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton and other defense contractors -- will justify for Bush the war that spinmeisters are calling "Operation Iraqi Freedom." "
URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/
la-war-oescheer25mar25,1,1683587.story

"This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran."
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/29/02 ]
The president's real goal in Iraq
Jay Bookman
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html