Giving Peace a Chance The war critics were rightânot in the way they expected. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 1:10 PM PT So it turns out that all the slogans of the anti-war movement were right after all. And their demands were just. "No War on Iraq," they saidâand there wasn't a war on Iraq. Indeed, there was barely a "war" at all. "No Blood for Oil," they cried, and the oil wealth of Iraq has been duly rescued from attempted sabotage with scarcely a drop spilled. Of the nine oil wells set ablaze by the few desperadoes who obeyed the order, only one is still burning and the rest have been capped and doused without casualties. "Stop the War" was the call. And the "war" is indeed stopping. That's not such a bad record. An earlier anti-war demandâ"Give the Inspectors More Time"âwas also very prescient and is also about to be fulfilled in exquisite detail. So I'm glad to extend the hand of friendship to my former antagonists and to begin the long healing process. Perhaps one might start by meeting another of their demands and lifting the sanctions? Now the inspectors are well and truly in, there's no further need for an embargo. I noticed that Kofi Annan this week announced that the Iraqi people should be the ones to decide their own government and future. I don't mind that he never said this before: It's enough that he says it now. What else? Oh yes, the Arab street did finally detonate, just as the peace movement said it would. You can see the Baghdad and Basra and Karbala streets filling up like anything, just by snapping on your television. And the confrontation with Saddam Hussein did lead to a surge in terrorism, with suicide bombers and a black-shirted youth movement answering his call. As could also have been predicted, those determined to die are now dead. We were told that Baghdad would become another Stalingradâwhich it has. Just as in Stalingrad in 1953, all the statues and portraits of the heroic leader have been torn down. Some other predictions, it is true, didn't fare so well. Saddam Hussein didn't manage to fire any poisons into Israel (where they would also have slaughtered the Palestinians), and the Israeli government didn't seize the chance to expel the population of the occupied territories. Nor did the Turks manage to annex Iraqi Kurdistan. Osama Bin Laden, or one of his ghostwriters, did admittedly call for a jihad. But then, he always does that. Meanwhile, the Muslim world and its clerics seem decidedly undecided about whether or not Saddam really was a great Saladin after all. The Sunni Kurds and the Shiite slum-dwellers, who fought against Saddam and who rebelled against him the first chance they got, would appear on the face of it to have as good a claim to be Muslim as anybody else. But these are mere quibbles. We should celebrate our common ground as well as the gorgeous mosaic of our diversity. The next mass mobilization called by International ANSWER and the stop-the-war coalition is only a few days away. I already have my calendar ringed for the date. This time, I am really going to be there. It is not a time to keep silent. Let our voices be heard. All of this has been done in my name, and I feel like bearing witness. http://slate.msn.com/id/2081326/
Spoils of War By BOB HERBERT Follow the money. Former Secretary of State George Shultz is on the board of directors of the Bechtel Group, the largest contractor in the U.S. and one of the finalists in the competition to land a fat contract to help in the rebuilding of Iraq. He is also the chairman of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a fiercely pro-war group with close ties to the White House. The committee, formed last year, made it clear from the beginning that it sought more than the ouster of Saddam's regime. It was committed, among other things, "to work beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy." War is a tragedy for some and a boon for others. I asked Mr. Shultz if the fact that he was an advocate of the war while sitting on the board of a company that would benefit from it left him concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest. "I don't know that Bechtel would particularly benefit from it," he said. "But if there's work that's needed to be done, Bechtel is the type of company that could do it. But nobody looks at it as something you benefit from." Jack Sheehan, a retired Marine Corps general, is a senior vice president at Bechtel. He's also a member of the Defense Policy Board, a government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon on major defense issues. Its members are selected by the under secretary of defense for policy, currently Douglas Feith, and approved by the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Most Americans have never heard of the Defense Policy Group. Its meetings are classified. The members disclose their business interests to the Pentagon, but that information is not available to the public. The Center for Public Integrity, a private watchdog group in Washington, recently disclosed that of the 30 members of the board, at least 9 are linked to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. Richard Perle was the chairman of the board until just a few weeks ago, when he resigned the chairmanship amid allegations of a conflict of interest. He is still on the board. Another member is the former C.I.A. director, James Woolsey. He's also a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, a venture capital firm that, as the Center for Public Integrity noted, is soliciting investments for companies that specialize in domestic security. Mr. Woolsey is also a member of the Committee to Liberate Iraq and is reported to be in line to play a role in the postwar occupation. The war against Iraq has become one of the clearest examples ever of the influence of the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against so eloquently in his farewell address in 1961. This iron web of relationships among powerful individuals inside and outside the government operates with very little public scrutiny and is saturated with conflicts of interest. Their goals may or may not coincide with the best interests of the American people. Think of the divergence of interests, for example, between the grunts who are actually fighting this war, who have been eating sand and spilling their blood in the desert, and the power brokers who fought like crazy to make the war happen and are profiting from it every step of the way. There aren't a lot of rich kids in that desert. The U.S. military is largely working-class. The power brokers homing in on $100 billion worth of postwar reconstruction contracts are not. The Pentagon and its allies are close to achieving what they wanted all along, control of the nation of Iraq and its bounty, which is the wealth and myriad forms of power that flow from control of the world's second-largest oil reserves. The transitional government of Iraq is to be headed by a retired Army lieutenant general, Jay Garner. His career path was typical. He moved effortlessly from his military career to the presidency of SYColeman, a defense contractor that helped Israel develop its Arrow missile-defense system. The iron web. Those who dreamt of a flowering of democracy in Iraq are advised to consider the skepticism of Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush. He asked: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely not going to let them take over."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from Madison: China is at least as evil a regime as Iraq was. they put people in dungeons for practicing the wrong religion. they execute children without a trial. they've occupied and murdered thousands of Tibetians. etc. -- do you support a war, today, with China? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is another strident example of the pathetic ignorance about other countries. How much do you really know about China? China is in fact going capitalist, and its citizens have far more freedoms today than it was ten years ago. The government claims to be communist, but if you just care to follow China's development, they hardly practice its ideology. And they are starting to experiment some form of tripartite political system beginning in southern China. Besides, do you know that intermarriage between the Chinese and the Tibetans is quite common? If you don't believe me, go visit China yourself. You'll realize that you won't find the same China five years from now. You are poisoned by the mainline media here in the States with their lopsided, sensational reporting. BBC does a far better job in terms of impartial reporting.
Like Alfonso, I find this type of personal bashing to be unworthy of response. But since I teach philosophy, I don't want to exchange emotional insults and am committed to using arguments instead to make my case. Bush waged this war in the name of basically two things: (1) eliminating a threat from Iraq with their so-called arsenal of WMD (2) liberating Iraqi people from a dictator. For (1), we still haven't found that supposed arsenal of WMD, and Iraq never posed a "clear and present danger" to the U. S., which is necessary for any justification of a war--unlike Nazi Germany or Japan during WWII, which did pose a "clear and present danger" to the U. S. To wage war on some surmised threat is a very lame justification. If that is the case, India has more reason to level Pakistan to the ground because Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal poses far greater threat to it than Iraq to the U. S. Or vice versa. (2) is also a lame justification for war on its own. We don't live in the 19th century colonialist world. We cannot justify bombing our enemy into submission and then give them our so-called freedoms. By "liberating" Iraq, the U. S. is reliving 19th century colonialism--economic colonialism if not political colonialism. Don't tell me that the U. S. doesn't care about Iraq's oil. Go to msnbc. There is a coverage on the so-called secret war--the war on oil. In international politics, national interests count more than noble moral ideals, which are only presented as public relations ploys. If the U. S. is so keen on liberating people from oppression, why not go to Africa? There are so many countries over there with dictators. The truth of the matter is: there are no markets and no oil to exploit over there for the U. S. I know it's pretty much useless to argue at this point because U. S. is the only superpower, and I am dealing with world-class egos on this board left and right. FYI, I did not object to the war on the Afghan Taliban, because it was a just one. Don't assume that people opposing this war are anti-war all across the board.
Let´s talk about 1979 to 1990 ! How come that the US supported Saddam Hussein (someone like "Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Ceausescu") ???
A very well written and well thought out post. While Fruity has been thumping his chest about how great this thread is, I am really quite surprised how generally weak the thread really is. I expect nothing but "cut and paste" from msfe/wild, but it seems that this thread has brought out less thinking and more quoting than perhaps any other thread I can recall. Why bother? Can't we all read our own newspapers? As delighted as I am at the apparent outcome of what has so far turned out to be this "war of liberation", I can fully understand the points made as to the issue of "liberation" not having been our original, or even legal objective. While I cannot say, or even believe that we will not find WMD's, so far we have not. Are they hidden away in Syria? Still in Iraq? Do they exist at all? I am sure we will find out in time. I just hope not too much time. Has this war served a greater good? I believe it has. If it, as stated in the Jerusalem Post (another cut and paste), brought the point home to the Arab world that their propaganda continues to be the unbelievable, then that is a victory for truth. And a possible future reduction in the willingness for suicide bombers to be so eager to serve in a losing cause can be a truly great side benefit of this entire episode. Has the deposing of Saddam been a good consequence of this conflict? Who can argue this? But as also stated in this thread, do unjust, harsh and otherwise distasteful (to us) regimes all give cause for us to intervene and destroy? How many evil little dictatorships and how many countries are there in which the majority of people are oppressed by the very few? Why are we not at war with these nations? While China was mentioned, and then explained away as "it's getting better", does that mean our policy should be "give them 60 years, and then we will let you know"? Korea? And those African nations? I guess oil at least may come into the equation. (Look at the composition of our administration). And of course, as was pointed out, George Shultz and his company's enormous financial interests. It is indeed good to have friends in high places. Now please, don't take me wrong. I could not be happier about the outcome of this war. While Saddam was certainly not a "clear and present danger", his seemingly obvious goal was to become just that. But even here, we do not imprison anyone for their aspirations. This is not the movie "Minority Report". It is crime first, followed by punishment. Not the other way around. I hope that somehow a democracy will rise from the ashes of the Arab area most recently called Iraq. But only time will tell. So far there is not a single democracy in the arab world. If this is the first, and if it leads to others, then our efforts, justified or not, will have paid off. But this all remains to be seen, and history so far seems to have the odds stacked against us. But that does not mean we should not hold out our hope. We absolutely should. As to the title of this thread.....I can only guess that Fruity Pebble was again either intoxicated or is just a very angry guy. Were there "anti-war" sentiments expressed on ET leading up to what is now seemingly (hopefully) a quick and relatively easy conclusion? Yes, we all know there were. Was there USA "Bashing"? Not that I am aware of unless you consider msfe/wild and Alfonso as counting. But none that I was aware of by Americans. The fact is, as to the posts of msfe and Alphonso, and other non US citizens, the US is not trying to win popularity contests with these guys, so who cares? Leave our countrymen out of the vote, and the truth is, we are not universally loved. And that is fine. We are however, and should be both respected and feared. And at this point, it comes with the territory of being the world's only superpower. The world's people, not necessarily all the world's governments, should be grateful that we use our power to defend freedom and democracy. If there is to be only one super power, it's a damn good thing it is us, and not the old USSR, or China, or any of the other 20th century "wannabe" regimes that have come and gone. Hitler's Germany comes to mind rather quickly and obviously. As does pre- WWII Japan. We are called "imperialists" by msfe/wild....I wonder what he would call those countries? Not to mention the oldies but goodies like Spain, Holland, France, etc. (Hell, Vietnam wasn't even Vietnam when the French were there, it was "French Indochina". And of course they occupied Manchuria, a good part of China, and went after the Dutch East Indies" (Dutch??). In truth, virtually every nation in Europe was at one time or another "imperialistic". Look at the Caribbean even today. Look at a map of Africa from the 1950's.....unrecognizable when compared to a modern map. Belgian Congo? Belgium? Everyone enjoyed the party I guess. The 19th century was all about that. (Still....Belgium? "Antwerp Warriors"? has no ring to it....and Holland?) Even Sweden colonized some places. I know they had St. Barts until the French kicked them out (found a foe they could vanquish). Bottom line is that there has never been an American conquest, occupation, and re-naming of any place we have fought. And there will not be a place called "American Iraq". So really, who cares about the ravings of wild/msfe, and the more thoughtful but misplaced (to us) attitudes of Alphonso? (who is certainly entitled to his opinions, and at least, unlike wild/msfe, has the apparent ability to think for himself and express his own thoughts). But the anger, and the gloating seems all so uncalled for. Yes, it is a great military victory for us. And it is a righteous thing to have deposed Saddam. But until and unless we really do find the WMD's, we must ask ourselves if it was really justified. There is a HUGE difference between voicing dissent, and "sedition" (contrary to our resident Constitutional lawyer, MondoTrader). So, in my attempt to be impartial (I was in favor of this action, and as always, 100% behind our brave young soldiers, who do their jobs, and do them superbly, whether their cause is "justified" of not..."not" as in Vietnam IMO), it galls me to hear Fruitcake Pebble call those who opposed, or expressed dissent (to paraphrase) "USA Bashing MFERS", because it just isn't so. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to question policy is WHAT WE WERE FIGHTING FOR!!!!! Why do Fruity and Maxi, MondoTrader and some of the others not get that their attitudes are closer to Saddam's than to the ideals we fight for and die for? Saddam got 100% of the vote in the last Iraqi election. If Mondo were in charge of "State Security", Bush will get 100% of the votes in 2004. But thankfully, we live in the "real" USA, not Mondo's very bizarre version of what he thinks it should be. Rs7