This Week:

Quote of the Week

The Case Against War, In Retrospect

Embedding, Plus!

Responding to the “Blaming America First” Charge
The “Liberation” of Iraq: “A Perfectly Choreographed Event”

Greetings,

It’s late, I’m crabby, I’m out of room, it’s another double issue already. That’s why there are only two sentences in this week’s editor’s column. OK, three sentences: Gotta say WELCOME to the new readers this week. Glad you’re here! (OK, five sentences.)

Peace, and good night.

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

From the lead editorial in the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of April 2 (Headline: “Winning in Iraq. It's Not an Option; It's a Must”):

“If the perception of America as a muscle-bound, ineffectual warrior is allowed to grow, the United States will find its ability to influence events around the world compromised...”

(They were saying that such compromise would be a bad thing, by the way.) This is the newspaper that is considered so liberal that many people in Minnesota refer to it as the “Red Star.” Seriously.

The Case Against War, In Retrospect

It seems a little early to evaluate the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, doesn’t it? But it’s become very common in the past couple of days to read letters to the editor, and hear news commentators, as they crow to the now-cowering dissenters—something along the lines of “Well, whaddaya say NOW? Those Iraqis LOVE us Americans, don’t you watch the TV?”

This odd rhetoric seems to be based on the assumption that a military “victory” by the U.S. somehow, retroactively, justifies the decision to attack another nation, and a far weaker one, because they might someday do something horrendous. So I thought it might be a good time to re-consider—ever so briefly— the “Eight Reasons Why We Should Not Invade Iraq” that I published back in July of 2002 in Nygaard Notes #165. Here are the Eight Reasons, each one followed by an early assessment of its validity:

REASON 1. It cannot be justified. There has been no attack on the US and Iraq has not been linked to 9/11. ASSESSMENT: Was and remains true.

REASON 2. The CIA confirmed that it has “no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the US in nearly a decade and the agency is also convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al-Qaida or related terrorist groups.” (NY Times report)
ASSESSMENT: Still true. I think it’s safe to say that we would have seen definitive evidence by now if the U.S. had it. In any case, if evidence is eventually found, it cannot be used to justify—after the fact—a decision that was taken without that evidence.

REASON 3. It would cost tens of billions of dollars and thousands of people would be killed.
ASSESSMENT: Exactly right. $80 billion so far (officially). The bombing has “certainly left thousands of soldiers dead, perhaps tens of thousands,” said the New York Times on April 10th, in an article headlined, “Number of Iraqi Dead May Be Unknowable.” No mention of civilians.

REASON 4. It would require a long-term military occupation and undermine international cooperation.
ASSESSMENT: Second part seems accurate so far. First part remains to be seen.

REASON 5. It could result in the destabilization of Iraq and the whole of the Middle East.
ASSESSMENT: Remains to be seen.

REASON 6. It would stir up more anti-American feeling, which could cause more suicide bombings.
ASSESSMENT: Pretty likely, but this, too, remains to be seen.

REASON 7. Use of the doctrine of preemption (attack them before they attack us) would set a very dangerous precedent.
ASSESSMENT: True, and the truth of this likely will increase proportional to the degree that the U.S. operation is perceived as a “success.”

REASON 8. Such an attack would be a breach of international law and would undermine the UN Charter.
ASSESSMENT: Was and remains true.

So, the score on the Eight Reasons stands at: Five-and-a-half true, two-and-a-half remain to be seen. This could end up as an 8-0 shutout in favor of the peaceniks. I don’t think a record like this should cause anti-war activists to hang their heads.

Embedding, Plus!

Everyone knows that all divisions of “coalition” military forces have journalists “embedded” in their ranks. Few know, however, that one “public relations officer” has also been embedded for each 8-10 journalists. It’s the job of the PR flaks to “keep tabs on” the journalists, according to “a Pentagon official” quoted in the industry journal PR Week of March 31.

“The Pentagon also maintains the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Kuwait, a base of operations for public affairs officers not traveling with troops,” the report tells us. PR Week adds that “one of the CPIC's most vital roles is to discourage ‘rogue’ journalists from venturing into dangerous areas by providing the information they might otherwise attempt to get on their own.”

Responding to the “Blaming America First” Charge

Since I came of age many years ago during the so-called Vietnam War, I have watched my country attack many countries, each one small and ineffectual in relation to the United States of America. The USA has been, for my entire life, the militarily-most-powerful nation in the world. From the direct and open military attacks on such hapless nations as Grenada and Panama, to the indirect and secret attacks on El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor, Haiti, Angola, Colombia (the list goes on and on and on), our government has been a real “rogue nation.” The history of the immoral misuse of our power started long before I came of age.

Lately I have been hearing a lot of criticism of my anti-war allies around the world that accuses people like me of “blaming America first” for all the world’s problems. It’s said to be “a posture that's more reflex than rational.” Former SDS’er and now darling of the Free Market crowd Todd Gitlin says that the “Blame America First” position is a “knee-jerk” stance of the “left” and is “a position that is both immoral and a childish impediment to the grown up debate we need to have” about the decision to go to war. The charges are often leveled against academia and the media so, being a small part of the media, I thought I should take a moment to respond.

It is true that I focus most of my criticism, in the current crisis as well as more generally, on the U.S. But that’s not a “reflex.” There are two basic reasons for it, ones that I think I share with many U.S. activists, and we’ve thought about them long and hard. In contrast to Mr. Gitlin’s view, my main reason is a moral one, with the other being practical.

The Practical Reason

First, the practical reason to focus on the U.S.: This country is, without any serious doubt, the single most powerful nation in the world. Its combination of military power, economic power, and political power arguably make the U.S. the most dominant nation in the history of the world. Our nation’s influence is such that no major decision with global implications can have a good chance of success if the U.S. opposes it, and that’s true whether the decision is being made by a multinational corporation, by the United Nations (as so vividly being illustrated at the moment), or by the international financial institutions. Conversely, any initiative with the full support of the United States has a huge running start on the road to success.

So, if one wants to affect the nature of the world order, it makes practical sense to focus one’s efforts on the country that calls the shots. If one thinks that the world order is fundamentally fair and just, then one will probably praise the United States to the heavens. By the same token, if one thinks there are serious problems in the current international system, then one will likely “blame” (that is, assign primary responsibility to) the United States. With great power comes great responsibility so, since our country has great power, it is the duty of its citizens to attempt to see that it is used responsibly. (And, ultimately, to have a world order that does not allow for such an imbalance of power. That’s another subject, and is not what the “Blame America First” accusers are talking about.)

Protests against the current Anglo-American invasion of Iraq that occur in other countries may have a different moral dimension than those that occur here, but as a practical matter they have to acknowledge the importance of changing the policies of The World’s Only Superpower. That’s why you so often see anti-U.S. placards at foreign peace demonstrations; it’s not that this country has any “special” moral obligations; it’s simply that this is the one country with the actual power to affect the most change.

Bank robber Willie Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks, supposedly replied, “Because that's where the money is.” He didn’t actually say that (some reporter made it up), but no matter. It’s still a good quotation to keep in mind in case you are asked “If you’re so unhappy with the way the whole world works, why do you always talk about the United States?” The answer, for dissenters both here and abroad, is: Because that’s where the power is.

The Moral Reason

The moral dimension is fairly straightforward. When one sees a problem, one’s first moral responsibility is to assess one’s own responsibility for the problem and address it. If an individual has no responsibility for creating a problem, and no power to change it, then there is no moral issue involved. So, if there is an earthquake in California, I may have all sorts of responses to it—indeed, I may see a moral obligation to respond after the fact—but I bear no blame for causing the problem. On the other extreme, if I see a crime about to be committed and I do have the power to stop it, then my moral responsibility is clear.

There are all sorts of gradations in between these extremes but, in the moral sense, they all come back to my power to cause, prevent, or alleviate suffering and injustice. The more my power to do so, the more my moral responsibility to do so.

Meanwhile, back to the issue of war. In the international arena, my primary MORAL responsibility is for the country whose policies I can most directly affect. That is, my own country. In the case of the United States, in which citizens have the legal right (and some power) to influence the behavior of the government, my moral responsibility is far more clear than for those who live under a dictatorship, where they arguably have far less power to change things. Furthermore, compared to a country like, say, Colombia, where dissent can and does cost activists their lives, the costs of dissent in the U.S. are still relatively low.

As a U.S. citizen, then, I am morally required to “blame America first” if to “blame” means to assign the highest degree of responsibility to the country with the most power and which I am in the best position to influence. If that’s childish and immoral, as Mr. Gitlin and his ilk believe, then I guess I’d like my lollipop back before I’m sent to hell.

The “Liberation” of Iraq: “A Perfectly Choreographed Event”

As I was putting together this issue of Nygaard Notes, a member of a peace group whose email list I am on sent along the following question that I think may resonate with many of us who have been, and remain, opposed to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq:

“How do people who were vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq respond to the fact that American troops seem to be being welcomed as liberators? I am writing an article for a newspaper on this issue and would appreciate your responses.”

Here, then, is my response.

A Mixed Collage of Items That Paint a Picture

The New York Times (“All The News That’s Fit To Print”) reported on February 19th 2002 that the Pentagon had hired the Rendon Group, a Washington-based public relations firm run by John W. Rendon Jr., shortly after 9/11/01. The Rendon Group is being paid $100,000 a month for duties that neither the Pentagon nor Rendon are willing to specify.

Now, here’s a story that I told in Nygaard Notes #197: John Rendon spoke a few years ago to an audience of cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy. He reminded them of 1991, when victorious U.S. troops rolled into Kuwait City and were greeted by hundreds of Kuwaitis waving American flags. The scene, flashed around the world again and again on CNN, left little doubt that the U.S. Marines were welcome in Kuwait. “Did you ever stop to wonder,” Rendon asked the cadets, “how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American, and for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries? Well you now know the answer: That was one of my jobs then.”

I did a database search of the Times and the local paper the Star Tribune on April 11th, and it turned up not a single mention of the Rendon Group since the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq began on March 20th. No one appears to know what Rendon has been doing for the Pentagon to earn its $100,000 per month for the past year-and-a-half. But...

...Paul Reynolds, BBC News Online world affairs correspondent, wrote the following about the April 9th “liberation” of Iraq in his report filed that day:

“There has not been one moment of victory—or defeat—in Iraq but a new type of rolling victory. . .But if you had to choose a symbolic moment, it would have to be when a US Marine Corps armoured recovery vehicle, at the urging of local people, toppled a giant statue of Saddam Hussein outside the Palestine Hotel. It was a perfectly choreographed event, right outside the hotel where the international media is based, a meeting of media and military.”

Get it? “Perfectly choreographed” and “Rendon.” Wink, wink.

Thus armed with my suspicion of media manipulation, I tuned in the BBC News on the evening of April 9th and saw the very scene to which Mr. Reynolds refers. I then flipped the channel and saw the same footage on Fox, this time accompanied by very heroic-sounding music. Like Reynolds and many other commentators, I agree that this image is likely to become the enduring image of the “liberation” of Iraq in the American consciousness. However, as a journalist who has made a habit over the years of estimating crowd size, I couldn’t help but notice as I watched the scene that there appeared to be only a couple of hundred people in Al-Fardus (Paradise) Square, where the event occurred.

“Still” photos (from a camera, not TV) from the BBC found on their website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/2933629.stm) indicate that my guess about the crowd size was about right. A wide-angle photo put on the web by the New York City Indymedia folks confirms that the crowd was, indeed, much smaller than the U.S. media footage would have us believe. (Find that photo at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm).

Now let’s go back a couple of hundred years for some perspective: Howard Zinn, speaking about the revolutionary war in the United States in the 1770s in his “People’s History of the United States,” makes the point that “general enthusiasm for the war was not strong” among the American colonists. This statement is supported by none other than John Adams, revolutionary leader and the second president of the United States of America, who estimated in 1776 that, among the colonists, there were “a third opposed, a third in support, a third neutral” about the War of Independence. (People’s History, page 76)

The nation known as “Iraq”—like many nations in the region—is a colonial creation, with borders imposed from without after World War I, and encompassing large populations of Kurds as well as Arabs. Although 97 percent Muslim, there is a serious split among those Muslims, between Shiite and Sunni. “Iraq has been lead by an authoritarian Sunni-led minority regime since its inception, starting with the Hashemite monarchy imposed by Great Britain, which was followed by a Sunni-led Baath party apparatus and its series of military strongmen,” [the most recent of which is Saddam], according to scholar James Russel of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in California. Russell adds that “The Sunni minority has been openly hostile to the Shiites and the Kurds virtually since the inception of the Iraqi state.”

Knowing this, would one not expect the greatest celebrations to come from the Kurds and the Shia Muslim part of the population? It’s too early as I write this to tell about the Kurds, but here is journalist Robert Fisk, in a report filed from Baghdad on April 10th:

“As tens of thousands of Shia Muslim poor from the vast slums of Saddam City poured into the centre of Baghdad to smash their way into shops, offices and government ministries—an epic version of the same orgy of theft and mass destruction that the British did so little to prevent in Basra—US Marines watched from only a few hundred yards away as looters made off with cars, rugs, hoards of money, computers, desks, sofas, even door-frames.”

How About That Democracy?

Confusion about the meaning of the word “democracy” is everywhere evident in the discussion about Iraq in the U.S. For example, one of the favorite candidates of many in the Pentagon for the position as “the head of a transitional authority replacing Saddam” is Ahmed Chalabi. A recent Los Angeles Times story on the recent delivery by the U.S. military of Chalabi into southern Iraq pointed out that “Supporters say Chalabi shares with the Bush administration a common vision for a democratic, secular Iraq that encourages free enterprise, eschews extremism, and is pro-Western.”

Likewise, the April 3rd NY Times stated that allies of super-hawk Paul Wolfowitz in the Bush administration “are thought to be particularly fervent about trying to remake Iraq as a beacon of democracy and a country with a tilt toward Israel.”

If it is true that the Bush administration has these views, a good journalist might be able to find someone to quote who would point out that a “democratic” Iraq may choose to “tilt” away from Israel, may reject “free enterprise,” may embrace what Mr. Bush would consider “extremism,” and may well decide to behave in a way the might be seen as “anti-Western.” Certainly some Middle Eastern scholar could point out to the media audience these elementary truths about how democracy works.

Part of the reason the U.S. is so distrusted in the region is that the U.S. has a history of supporting anti-democratic regimes like Saudi Arabia precisely because their leaders are “pro-Western”—in ways that the U.S. empire demands—in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of their people.

Indeed, this is a large part of the reason why Saddam Hussein was supported by the United States throughout the 1980s. Saddam the Sunni was seen as a bulwark against the largely Shiite Iran, widely seen as “anti-western” after the demise of the monstrous Shah in Iran. The Shah had also been supported by the United States, which everyone in the region well remembers and almost no United Statesian does. This illuminates the grain of truth in this slogan I saw recently: “They hate us because we don’t know why they hate us.”

Finally, as regards the U.S. interest in “liberating” Iraq, here is national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, as quoted in the Star Tribune of January 14th, 2001, just after George W. Bush was appointed president:

“American foreign policy in a Republican administration should refocus the United States on the national interest...There is nothing wrong with doing something that benefits all humanity, but that is, in a sense, a second-order effect.”

In summary, then, here’s how I “respond to the fact that American troops seem to be being welcomed as liberators:”

What we saw on television on April 9th was a small number of Iraqis, most likely from the Shiite Muslim majority, whose understandable jubilation was indeed a joy to behold. However, their happiness was not the goal of the United States invasion, but only a pleasant side-effect, nearly irrelevant to the real goals, except in the public relations sense. Time will tell, but our nation’s history, as well as current and recent statements of the U.S. leadership, makes a “liberation” motive seem unlikely. Far more likely is that the U.S. will attempt to install a compliant regime that will serve U.S. geopolitical interests in the region. The same reasons for opposing the war that applied before the “success” of the recent (current?) campaign are as true today as they were before the attack started, as I discuss elsewhere in this issue.