| Number 107 | February 23, 2001 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, This is a special edition of Nygaard Notes, devoted entirely to the recent bombing of Iraq. The Nygaard Notes that I had already written for this week will appear next week, unless something better comes along. Why a special issue? First of all, the horror of the attack itself demands comment. And the fact that this major act of aggression made the front pages of our newspapers for only one day, and dropped out of the news almost completely within four days, speaks volumes about how far we have come in our acceptance of the militaristic and imperialistic character of the United States of America in the 21st Century. Even the "left" press has little to say about this outrage. I hope my comments can add just a little weight on the side of justice. Yours in peace, Nygaard |
- "President" Bush, in his press conference of February 16th, attempting to explain what the Pentagon called "the biggest blow against Saddam Hussein's military in more than two years." |
|
There are numerous groups working to stop the relentless attacks against Iraq. Here are three of the best places to go, on the web or by phone, to find out what you can do:
|
|
At least two Iraqi civilians were killed in last week's bombing attack against Iraq, with numerous casualties beyond that. The domestic newspapers faithfully reported the twin justifications given by official U.S. and British sources for the attack, which the Pentagon called "the biggest blow against Saddam Hussein's military in more than two years." Both of the official justifications are ridiculous, and would be laughable if they were not so tragic. "President" Bush stated in his January 16th press conference that this attack was "a routine mission conducted to enforce the no-fly zone," adding that "we will continue to enforce the no-fly zone until the world is told otherwise." This rationale was widely reported, uncritically, in the mainstream press. Not a single report that I saw in the mass media bothered to point out that these "no-fly zones" are illegal. Although the Associated Press did mention that "Iraq does not accept the legitimacy of the no-fly zones," neither the AP nor anyone else bothered to take a look around "the world" to sample the global response to the U.S. position. If they had, they would have found that hardly anyone outside of the United States "accepts the legitimacy" of the "no-fly zones" because they are illegal. Dissident voices within the United States regularly express this elementary truth, although readers of the corporate press would be hard-pressed to know this. A rare exception appeared as a letter to the editor published in USA Today a little over two years ago. Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee pointed out that at that time that
Mr. Ibish's points are well-known in most countries on the planet, with the exception of the Land of the Free. The second rationale for the U.S.-British attack was neatly summarized in the first paragraph of a report in the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) on February 18th, which was drawn from "News Services," and read as follows: "Two dozen U.S. and British warplanes blasted Iraqi air defense targets around Baghdad, Iraq, on Friday in response to what military officials said were heightened and more accurate attacks on planes patrolling a no-flight zone over the southern part of the country." These "military officials" included Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who used the ludicrous phrase "self-defense measure" to describe the actions of the U.S. and British aggressors. The contemptible British Prime Minister Tony Blair actually said on Saturday, "Operations such as the one last night would not be needed if Saddam stopped attacking us." This Orwellian comment passed unremarked in the press. If the illegality of the "no-fly zones" had been reported, the absurdity of the "self-defense" argument would be self-evident. The "heightened and more accurate attacks" by Iraq which supposedly justified the U.S. bombings of Baghdad were, after all, mounted against U.S. and British warplanes flying over IRAQ. Iraq's actions would thus be accurately characterized as "self-defense," the right to which is clearly spelled out in international law. Behind the specific official reasons for this attack, or any other of the hundreds of U.S. attacks against Iraq, is the belief that Saddam Hussein is somehow a threat to everything we hold dear ("the most dangerous man anywhere in the world," as Tony Blair stated this week). While Hussein is certainly a tyrannical despot, he's not that much of a threat at this point. Barely two weeks ago our own Secretary of State, Colin Powell (hardly without knowledge of the Iraqi regime) said this on the national television show Face the Nation:
As if we are concerned about "his neighbors." If that were the case, the bombers would have long since attacked other countries which pose real threats to human rights and international law. Turkey comes to mind, since they routinely abuse their own Kurdish population. Israel, the largest recipient of U.S. aid in the world, not only regularly invades Lebanon, but occupied a portion of that country for many years in direct violation of a UN Security Council resolution. If the official reasons are not true, then why did the United States attack Iraq last week? Because Saddam represents a threat to our control of the region. As in the case of Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada, Colombia, or any of countless countries attacked by the United States in recent years, Saddam Hussein represents the threat of independence from U.S. domination. That cannot be tolerated. |
|
Last week United States and British warplanes carried out "the biggest blow against Saddam Hussein's military in more than two years and involved two dozen attack planes armed with precision-guided missiles." This assessment comes from the Pentagon, which doubtless explains why it is described as a "blow against Saddam Hussein's military" with no mention of the numerous civilian casualties. For 10 years now the United States has been engaged in a merciless war against the small country of Iraq, a country that is now incapable of posing any serious threat to the United States, if indeed it ever did pose a threat, itself a doubtful proposition. For 10 years the weapons have included the horrendous "sanctions," which have resulted in the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians and has been condemned by France, India, Jordan, Russia, and others. The weapons also include innumerable military attacks on the country since 1991, with over 300 people killed since 1998 alone. The attacks have become so commonplace that they are usually not even reported in the domestic press, although you can see reports in the foreign press quite regularly. It is in this context that last week's attack occurred. This major (and illegal, as I explain in a separate article in this week's Nygaard Notes) attack against a country with which we are not at war seems newsworthy to me, yet, as I write this just four days after the attack, not a word appeared today in the news columns of the New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print"). The Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) saw fit only to run a shameless Associated Press article headlined "Iraq Strikes Timed To Avoid Workers," in which the U.S. military tried to paint itself as a kinder, gentler pillaging force. Here are the first two paragraphs from the AP article:
The right to national defense is guaranteed in international law, as I point out elsewhere in this issue.
You wouldn't have to go further than my own neighborhood to find many, many people who would offer up excellent quotes pointing out how amazingly cynical and dishonest this man – who hasn't even got the guts to identify himself – really is, but neither the AP nor the Star Trib bothered to ask anyone. It's worth noting that the sources for this military PR story failed to include any voices opposed to U.S. policy toward Iraq. Indeed, the only sources were U.S. government officials, following the well-known pattern. It wouldn't have been difficult for the Associated Press to find another point of view. An honorable example would be Matthew Rothschild, writing in The Progressive two days before the AP story was published. Rothschild stated the views of many Americans and others around the world when he said, "This was not some routine mission, but an act of barbarism, an act of war, on George W. Bush's part. It was unconstitutional, and against international law." The War As Told By the Aggressors The Times reported that Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain actually stated that Iraq has been "attacking us." General Newbold called our attack "self-defense." In the real world, WE have been attacking THEM, and they have been defending themselves (a defense which itself is a right guaranteed in international law, as I have said). Perhaps this extreme chauvinism has something to do with the sources that the media uses in reporting the "news," I thought. So I took it upon myself to analyze those sources. I looked at 13 major reports in the national newspaper of record, the NY Times (7 articles) and the regional newspaper of record, the Star Tribune (6) that appeared in the four days following the U.S./British attack. Here's what I found: Outside of an article in the Star Trib on the response within Iraq, there was only a single note of disagreement to be found in all the reports, and that was from the Russian Defense Ministry. Not a single dissident voice from inside the United States was ever quoted, or even acknowledged, outside of a photograph of a local demonstration held here in Minneapolis against the bombing. (Hats off to the several hundred souls who braved the elements on less than 24-hour notice to make this important statement!) Just for the record, here are ALL of the sources for our "news" about the attacks (and I give names wherever there were any to be found):
Some other comments were heard, but none in dissent. There was an editorial from the hawkish Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) entitled "No Choice but to Strike." Newly-elected Democratic Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton, a "liberal," was quoted as supporting the attack. "Ultra-liberal," or "radical" Democratic Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone "took a wait-and-see approach." Someone named Charles Duelfer, identified as "deputy of the former U.N. weapons inspection agency," said, "The Iraqis got a good message." Judith Kipper, a Mideast scholar at CSIS, was quoted as saying that "We need to keep ahead of [the Iraqis]. Better to be safe than sorry." Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution, took no position at all. The imperial position was stated most clearly by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. In his column of February 2oth, Friedman proposed that the U.S. "explore a whole new approach to Iraq," suggesting that this country "resume full diplomatic relations with Iraq, and lift economic sanctions," but only if Iraq agrees that "all U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq will be resumed." And not only should they be resumed, but Friedman suggests that they be resumed "with a twist. All the weapons inspectors will be from the United States and the United States alone -- no Russians, no French, no Indians, nobody else. Our strategic interest is to ensure that Iraq cannot develop and is not developing weapons of mass destruction, and we will not entrust anyone else with that mission. We have to do it ourselves, and we have to do it as long as is necessary to ensure that Iraq remains free of nuclear weapons and delivery systems." What we have seen in the past week is a major military action against a nation with whom we are not at war, which appears to have been in violation of international law, which was condemned by numerous nations and prominent individuals the world over, and which was directed against a nation that is not a threat to our own. Our leaders call it "self-defense," and nary a dissenting voice is heard in the United States of America. Isn't it great to have a Free Press? |