This Week:

Quote of the Week

Attacking Iraq, Attacking Democracy

The Engines of War

Ideas for Stopping War

Greetings,

September 11th is coming up, and we can expect an orgy of official events. Although the need to gather together on this sad anniversary is for many people a valid one, the unfortunate likelihood is that many (not all, I hope!) of the well-publicized events will be tainted by xenophobia, vengefulness, and the hateful sort of patriotism that is being promoted to fuel the endless War Against Terror (the WAT?!). Next week I will give information on a couple of commemorations here in Minnesota that aim to be more loving and peaceful.

By focusing this week on stopping the looming war against Iraq I don't mean to imply that we are not already at war with that country. The ongoing sanctions continue, and are causing the deaths of untold numbers of innocents, and U.S. and British planes have attacked Iraq several times this month alone, as they have for years. (For details see Nygaard Notes #107, "The U.S. Press And the Attack on Iraq.") Still, an all-out attack would be worse, and we need to oppose it.

As I did a couple of years ago, I will once again be leading a class at the Resource Center of the Americas in Minneapolis. The class is called "Looking at the World: How the Media Shapes Our Understanding of Foreign Affairs." Call Irma Rodríguez Merfeld, Community Education Coordinator, at (612) 276-0788, extension 23 for more information. I'll try to give some more details next week; I'm out of room this week.

OK, gotta go. See you next week. Peace,

‘Til next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

Here are the words of Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, speaking of the apparent differences of opinion among elites on the wisdom of attacking Iraq that we are increasingly seeing in the corporate media:

"This division in Washington has filtered down to mainstream journalists and producers, as well as policy-makers themselves. [They understand] that there's no one opinion on this and, in that moment, it means they are willing to hear other voices. That means that the importance of public voices—people calling their members of Congress, writing letters to the editor, sending faxes to their Senator—all of those things that we do all the time, have more importance than ever right now, because [elites are] divided.

"They're divided, and they've got the November elections in their minds. They're waiting to see: Are they going to pay a higher price for going to war, or a higher price for avoiding war? If they think they will pay a higher price for going to war, those troops will not be sent, Iraqi babies will not be slaughtered, the billions it would cost will stay here at home—things could be a lot better. It really matters what people do in the next several months."

Attacking Iraq, Attacking Democracy

My activist friends sometimes ask me why I pay any attention at all to the corporate media, since so many important things never appear there, and since what is there is often nothing but propaganda and misinformation. The answer has to do with democracy, power, and code-breaking. The following two tidbits from this past week will illustrate.

"Answers to YOUR Questions on Iraq"

National Public Radio's All Things Considered (Slogan: "A Title So Pompous We Don't Need a Slogan!") aired a segment on August 28th on a subject that, according to host Robert Siegel, "has dominated the headlines this summer." That subject is "speculation about a war with Iraq." The segment was long—13 minutes, an eternity in electronic media—but, since I was doing the dishes at the time, I decided to subject myself to the entire session, including the commercial that interrupted it (On public radio?! Yes.) I learned a lot.

Siegel began by saying, "Last week we asked YOU to phone in with your questions about Iraq." This week, two scholars were brought on to answer "our" questions. The scholars were Shibley Telhami from the Brookings Institution, and Phebe Marr (who had been an advisor to Bush I during the 1991 attack on Iraq, but was not identified as such.)

I don't know how many calls NPR actually received on this subject of Iraq, nor do I know how they decided which ones to put on the air. But the first question aired was introduced by Mr. Siegel as follows: "Let's start with the question that we got most frequently on our call-in line: Essentially, ‘Who replaces Saddam Hussein?'" The answer didn't interest me, but remember that this was the "most frequent" question asked by NPR's highly-educated listeners; I'll return to this question in a moment.

The most remarkable comment of the entire show was made by Mr. Telhami, toward the end of the report. Speaking about the inevitable U.S. occupation of Iraq that would follow the proposed U.S. coup (euphemistically referred to as "regime change" by the administration and all mainstream commentators), Mr. Telhami pointed out that such an occupation "would affect public opinion" in the region, "which is already anti-American." Then he said this: "The real question, obviously, is whether governments [such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt] are going to be able to resist public opinion. I think, by and large, they have proven that they can." He added, correctly, that if they succeed in this task—the active subversion of democracy, that is—"they can only do it by being more repressive. And that is the choice....If we think the outcome [of a U.S. invasion] is going to be the spread of democracy in the region, we don't understand the fundamental choices." He's correct. It is rare to hear such a frank assessment in the corporate media, "public" or otherwise. Good for NPR for giving Mr. Telhami a chance to say it to millions of people.

After listening to the entire segment, and reflecting on the "most frequent" question asked by listeners, the dismaying—though not entirely surprising—thing I noticed was something that was NOT said: No one asked about the morality or legality of the U.S. government attacking a sovereign nation that has never attacked us. Or, if they did, NPR did not find the question worthy of putting on the air. Either way, the fact that this question was not discussed shows that the assumption of imperial prerogative remains largely unchallenged in the media, as a report from the previous day's New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print") will demonstrate.

Affirming the Bush Doctrine

The August 27th Times published a transcript of a speech that "Vice-President" Dick Cheney made this week to a national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in Nashville. Mr. Cheney was apparently attempting to make the case that the U.S. would be justified in attacking Iraq, and the sooner the better. I say "apparently" because his speech was so full of misinformation and illogical statements that it should have served to undermine his argument. (For example, he must know that his remark that U.N. arms inspectors were "barred from the country" in 1998 is false. Yet he must also know that it is unlikely that any reporter will dare to challenge such statements, so he can boldly lie and suffer no repercussions.)

The most revealing statement that the "Vice-President" made appeared in paragraph 23 of the transcript. After pointing out, oddly, that "I know our president very well," he made a cryptic remark that reveals the fundamental issue at stake in the much-debated war against Iraq. Speaking of George W. he said, "I am confident that [Mr. Bush] will, as he has said he would, consult widely with the Congress, and with our friends and allies, before deciding on a course of action."

The assumption revealed here, which remains largely unchallenged and un-debated in the mainstream, is the same assumption apparently accepted by the callers to NPR: That the U.S. president has the right to "decide on a course of action" in violation of U.S. and international law, that will seriously damage democracy, and that will result in the deaths of who-knows-how-many innocent people. The right to make such decisions—which may or may not involve "consultation" with domestic or foreign leaders, or consideration of public opinion or relevant laws—is these days known as The Bush Doctrine. Testing, underlining, and asserting this right is at the heart of the current talk of war, as I discuss below.

The Engines of War

It's easy to see that the "official" reasons for attacking Iraq don't hold water. So, what are the "real" reasons? If we want to not only stop this war drive, but also discourage future ones, it's important to be clear on what are the real engines that drive the war machine. Here, then, are a few of what I think are the real engines driving the current Iraq war talk, more or less in ascending order of importance:

1. George W. Bush may well have a personal grudge against his father's arch-enemy, and be motivated in part by revenge. I doubt this is a major factor, but it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of personalities in war and politics. On a related note, to many in the military, the 1991 attack on Iraq feels like "unfinished business," and Saddam Hussein remains a symbol of that business.

2(a). Petty as it sounds, there are elections coming up, and people tend to support the president's party in a time of war. Don't think Mr. Bush is not aware of this.

2(b) Bush himself has seen a steady slide in his popularity ratings over the past few months (they are now down in the 60-odd percent range, from 90+ percent after September 11th. A "victory" in the War Against Terror (the WAT?!) would likely boost his ratings.

3. After World War II, the U.S. had overwhelming global power, economic, political, and military. It's dominance in the first two realms is being challenged by both Japan and the European Union, but militarily we are perhaps more dominant than ever. It is logical in this regard for the U.S. to resist a political solution, and push for a military "solution" (to any issue, not just Iraq).

4. The talk of "regime change" could be an elaborate trial balloon, intended to flex military muscle, test the political viability of the Bush Doctrine, and answer questions like, "Will the world accept our dominance? What are the limits to our power?" In this vein, it even possible that all the talk is nothing but an enormous smoke screen, intended to divert attention from plans to attack or occupy another population entirely.

5. The most important and basic reason for demonizing and attacking Saddam Hussein is that he is the only leader in the region who has any realistic chance (and apparent desire) to challenge Western control of the oil resources in the Persian Gulf. The threat of a leader taking a stance in defiance of U.S. strategic plans has long been sufficient to stir the U.S. to action. The threat of independence is the common characteristic of all of the various leaders that the U.S. has overthrown or caused to be overthrown since World War II—the list is long, I've talked about it many times—and Saddam Hussein is simply the latest threat to U.S. supremacy. The fact that Iraq is the 6th-largest source of U.S. oil imports, and is in the middle of the Persian Gulf region, makes it an even bigger target.

Ideas for Stopping War

As this week's "Quote" of the Week makes clear, NOW is the time to raise our voices in opposition to the threat of U.S. war against Iraq.Here are a few ideas for specific action you can take, as an individual, to tip the scales against war. Working collectively, through your union or by joining an existing anti-war group, is even more effective.

The simplest thing you can do is click on both of these links here: http://www.moveon.org/nowar/ and http://www.peacepledge.org/ and sign the petitions that you will find there. Those two petitions are specifically aimed at stopping the escalation of the attack on Iraq. To add your name to the list of United Statesians who are willing to stand up in resistance to the entire mentality that drives the War Against Terror (the WAT?!), go to the "Not In Our Name" website at http://www.notinourname.net/main.html. Both the brief "Pledge of Resistance" and the more lengthy "STATEMENT OF CONSCIENCE" are excellent. Please consider adding your name.

Better yet, write a letter of your own (feel free to plagiarize any of the above to make it easier) and send it to the newspaper, your elected representatives, and anybody else.

Common Dreams News Center has bumper stickers available that say: "Attack Iraq? NO!" Such public expressions are important to make dissent visible. Go to http://www.commondreams.org/orderstickers.htm to order.

Here is a list of groups, at some simply pro-peace, some anti-imperialist. Find one that works for you, and support it.

• The Education for Peace in Iraq Center at http://epic-usa.org/ or call (202) 543-6176.
• The International Action Center is at http://www.iacenter.org/ or call (212) 633-6646.
• Voices in the Wilderness has set up a special anti-war program (in addition to their ongoing solidarity work around sanctions) called the Iraq Peace Team. They are at http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org/ or call(773) 784-8065.
• The American Friends Service Committee has an Iraq Peacebuilding Program. Find them at http://www.afsc.org/iraqhome.htm or call (215) 241-7170
• The Iraq Action Coalition is at http://iraqaction.org/ or fax (no phone) to (919) 846-7422.
• Nonviolence Web has an Iraq section: http://www.nonviolence.org/ or call (215) 681-0783

OK, enough, already! Go do something.