This Week:

Quote of the Week

The "Liberal" Media Reviews Books on War

Not in the News I: War Costs Calculated

Not In The News II: Equality Is Good!
Not in the News III: Democracies DO Make War, Mr. Bush

Greetings,

Sometimes--often?--what is NOT in the news is more important than what is in the news.  That's sort of the theme of this week's Notes.  That's why it's important to read the media critically.  Not only should you think about what you see, but you should go to the media looking for what you want to see.  Then you'll be sure to notice when it's not there.  Then you go find it elsewhere.  And so forth.

In the second piece, the one about books, I thought about listing some important books about war, Iraq, U.S. empire, etc, that I would like to see reviewed in the mass media, but ran out of room.  If any of you would like to see such a list, let me know, and I'll try to publish it in a future issue.

That's all I have room for today.  Coming soon: A special issue on propaganda!  And more, of course.

Hasta la proxima,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

The New York Times on October 3 ran an article about ongoing U.S. military operations in the western part of Iraq.  The story told of how U.S. forces "continued to carry out airstrikes and ground raids against insurgent safe houses along the Syrian border."  The Times tells us that  "Residents say [the strategy] is killing civilians," but "American military officials have said they know of no civilian casualties..."  Two sides to every story!

Col. Stephen Davis, commander of Marine Regimental Combat Team 2, which is responsible for a vast area of western Iraq south of the Euphrates, promises that "we're going back to take these towns back and build bases inside for both Iraqi and American forces."

Using the odd, almost bizarre, sorts of euphemisms that characterize most reporting from Iraq, Times reporter Craig Smith uses phrases like this: "[Residents of the Iraqi city of] Rawa did not exactly send out the Welcome Wagon after the Stryker Brigade Combat Team from the Second Infantry Division arrived in late July."  And this: "Officers say they have received little cooperation from the town's residents..."  By which he means that U.S. forces were "hit by two dozen roadside bombs and eight suicide car bombs...in little more than a month..."

After describing one "recent operation," during which the U.S. forces "kicked in doors" and who-knows-what else, the Times reported on a speech given by Col. Davis and "his Iraqi counterpart."  After reporting what the Iraqi said, the Times went on as follows:

"Colonel Davis delivered a blunter message. 'We're not going anywhere,' he told the murmuring crowd, adding that as long as there were attacks against Iraqi or American troops the house searches and roadblocks and bridge closings would continue."

Then Colonel Davis uttered to the Iraqi crowd the "Quote" of the Week:

"Some of you are concerned about the attack helicopters and mortar fire from the base.  I will tell you this: those are the sounds of peace."

The "Liberal" Media Reviews Books on War

On October 27th the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!), in their new section "The World," ran capsule reviews of five books on Iraq, headlined "Provocative and Vivid Looks at U.S. Troops in War Zones."  The Star Trib has a reputation as a hopelessly liberal newspaper in many quarters. (Some in the state refer to it as "The Red Star Tribune.")  I don't think they're particularly liberal, and I think the five books they chose to highlight here back me up.  I'll just give each title, a few quotes from the Star Trib's review, and then I'll follow up with a few pithy comments from yours truly.  The five books were:

#1: "Just Another Soldier: A Year on the Ground in Iraq," by Jason Christopher Hartley "Hartley fleshes out the daily reports in the newspaper and on TV with observations of the National Guard troops with whom he served and the Iraqis he encountered."

#2: "A Devils Triangle: Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Construction, and Rogue States," by Peter Brookes.  "Brookes, a graduate of the US Naval Academy and the Naval war College... posits that North Korea poses the most serious threat to the United States" because it has "as many as eight nuclear weapons."  Brookes also "argues that [North Korea, Syria, and Iran] can be controlled, but only if the threat they pose is recognized and understood."

#3: "Imperial Grunts: the American Military on the Ground," by Robert D. Kaplan.  "It is a portrait from the boots up - from the point of view of the men and women, mid-level officers and enlisted personnel who operate from the Philippines to Central America, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq.  Kaplan went to seven countries and spent his time exclusively with the elite units of the Army and Marines who are fighting the war against terrorism..."

#4: "No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah." by Bing West.  "This searing portrait of the Americans alley-by-alley struggle with hard-core insurgents and ad hoc gangs of unemployed youths whipped into a frenzy by a handful of unscrupulous clerics and sheikhs.  Bing West, a former Marine and assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration ...is unstinting in his admiration of the Marines and soldiers..."

#5:  "A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq," edited by Thomas Cushman.    "[T]his collection of essays from a disparate group of intellectuals of the Left offers a refreshing tonic to the strident rhetoric of the day.  The contributors--scholars, activists, church leaders, and political figures--are members of that small but highly influential coterie of liberal internationalists who view the struggle in Iraq through the prism of human rights.  They argue that the war was and is morally justifiable because Saddam's régime posed a dire threat to world peace."

What a list!  One book features "observations of ...National Guard troops ... and the Iraqis he encountered," which--as far as I can tell--is just about all we get in the daily news reports.

The next book tells us how several sovereign states "can be controlled," presumably by the Navy and other U.S. forces from which the author comes.  And, about those "eight nuclear weapons" that "pose the most serious threat to the United States:" The U.S. currently has 10,656 nuclear weapons.

Book #3: I have long thought that the last place to look for insight into any war is the "grunts" fighting it.  Not that they aren't smart people, but their job is to follow orders, not to ponder where the orders come from.  Also, as the experience with embedded reporters has shown us, getting up close to combat makes it almost impossible to see the big picture.

Book #4: Here we have "a former Marine and assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration" talking about "gangs of unemployed youths whipped into a frenzy" and who is  "unstinting in his admiration of the Marines and soldiers."  Well, that would be one perspective.

Book #5: In summary: The unprovoked invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is a "struggle"?  And it is "morally justifiable"?   No wonder this group is "small."  The concluding two chapters in the book are written by British Prime Minister (and co-belligerent) Tony Blair, which should tell you all you need to know about how much a part of "the Left" these contributors are.  And, why this book (or #2, for that matter) is included in a list of "Vivid Looks at U.S. Troops in War Zones" is beyond me.

So, those are the recommendations of the "Red Star Tribune."  Pretty liberal, eh?  But then, I guess I'm in the business of providing "the strident rhetoric of the day."

Not in the News I: War Costs Calculated

On August 31st the Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy In Focus put out a major study called "The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops."  This 98-page report went essentially unreported in the U.S. media (all I could find was one 191-word brief on page 4 of the August 31st Los Angeles Times).  That's too bad, as it is chock-full of facts that should be common knowledge in this country, but are not.  The report claims that it is "the most comprehensive accounting of the mounting costs and consequences of the Iraq War on the United States, Iraq, and the world."  I don't know if that's true, but just in reading the seven pages of "Key Findings" in the beginning of the report, one comes across some simple and crucial facts like these:

• "According to current estimates, the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion.  In current dollars, the Vietnam War cost U.S. taxpayers $600 billion."
• "The U.S. controls 106 military bases across Iraq. Congress has budgeted $236 million for permanent base construction in Fiscal Year 2005."
• "The State Department reported that the number of 'significant' terrorist attacks [around the world] reached a record 655 in 2004, up from 175 in 2003."

The report includes sections on Human Costs, Security Costs, Economic Costs, Social Costs, Human Rights Costs, Sovereignty Costs, and more.  Significantly, the report includes sections on Costs To The U.S., Costs To Iraq, and Costs To The World.  The final section is a detailed proposal to "Bring the Troops Home and Internationalize the Peace," followed by 14 pages of endnotes.

It's a serious report.  Find it online at http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/

Not In The News II: Equality Is Good!

The 2006 version of another major report, the annual "World Development Report" put out by the World Bank, was released to the press on September 20th.  Much of the report argues against the straight-ahead, neo-liberal Market-Is-All agenda of the Bush administration.  You know, the one that says that economic growth is the be-all and end-all of economic policy.

For example, the World Bank in this report says that "Institutions and policies that promote a level playing field--where all members of society have similar chances to become socially active, politically influential, and economically productive--contribute to sustainable growth and development." This is startlingly hypocritical, since World Bank policies for decades have had a lot to do with concentrating wealth and increasing inequality, in line with the wishes of its main sponsor, the USA.  But this is why the report is newsworthy, y'see.  A major international development/banking organization is contradicting the propaganda of its main sponsor.  Stop the presses, right?

Wrong.  This major report went completely unreported in the nation's newspapers.  For that reason, I'll give just a hint here of what was in it, along with my rather emotional responses to what I read:

• Overview, Page 2: "There are many market failures in developing countries, notably in the markets for credit, insurance, land, and human capital."  Market failures!  Someone tell the President!
• Page 9: "The best policies for poverty reduction could involve redistributions of influence, advantage, or subsidies away from dominant groups."  Did you hear what I heard?  Specific redistributive policies to take privilege away from the haves and give to the have-nots?  Well, that's what it said...
• Page 10: "Equity-enhancing redistributions (of power, or access to government spending and markets) can often be efficiency-increasing."  Equality is efficient?  Says the World Bank?  Somebody pinch me.
• Page 16:  "Policy design can increase equity through the pursuit of countercyclical fiscal policy, building safety nets before a crisis, reducing risky lending, and supporting only smaller depositors in bailouts."  Building safety nets BEFORE a crisis?  Supporting only SMALLER depositors in bailouts?  How un-American!

I could go on, of course, but I'm out of room.  The report itself is rather deeply buried somewhere on the World Bank website, but if you want to read it, just Google "WDR 2006," and it should be the first hit to show up.

Not in the News III: Democracies DO Make War, Mr. Bush

On October 17th, the Human Security Centre in Vancouver, British Columbia, released a "comprehensive annual survey of trends in warfare, genocide, and human rights abuses," called the "Human Security Report."  There was a lot of good news in this report which, according to the authors, "shows how, after nearly five decades of inexorable increase, the number of genocides and violent conflicts dropped rapidly in the wake of the Cold War. [The Report] also reveals that wars are not only far less frequent today, but are also far less deadly."

One of the more interesting features of the report was "Figure 1.3: The countries that have experienced the highest number of international armed conflicts 1946-2003."  First on the list was the United Kingdom (a "democracy"), with 21 wars; France (a "democracy") with 19; the USA (you know) with 16.  In fact, of the most-warlike nations listed in the top 25, 14 are "democracies."  Or, to put it another way, 115 out of a total of 168 wars--that's 68 percent--fought in the 57-year period covered were waged by "democracies."

The reason I bring this up, and the reason that "democracy" appears in quotations, is that our "President," George W. Bush, wants us to believe that "democracies" don't make war.  Here's what he said, on August 28th, just the day before the CRS report was released, in a speech about hurricanes and war from his ranch in Crawford, Texas:

"I want to remind the American people, as the democracy unfolds in Iraq, not only will it help make America more secure, but it will affect the broader Middle East.  Democracies don't war with their neighbors; democracies don't become safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy innocent life."

On a related note...

The Congressional Research Service released a report called "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations" on August 29th, and it showed that the value of military weapons sales worldwide jumped in 2004 to the highest level since 2000.  The leading supplier of weapons to "developing nations"?  You guessed it: The U.S.A., whose arms sales have totaled more than $28 billion in the Bush era, far more than any other country.  And, by the way, 8 of the top eleven suppliers of weapons to "developing nations" are "democracies."

So, what was that about democracies not making war, Mr. Bush?