[Peace-discuss] Fwd: <no subject>

[manni at snafu.de]

Forwarded Message:
> To: <manni at snafu.de>
> From: chris mann <chrisman at rcn.com>
> Subject: <no subject>
> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:26:42 -0800
> -----
> Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates
> 
> How many children, in how many classrooms, over how many 
centuries, have
> hang-glided through the past, transported on the wings of these words? 
And
> now the bombs are falling, incinerating and humiliating that ancient
> civilisation 
> 
> Arundhati Roy
> Wednesday April 2, 2003
> The Guardian 
> 
> On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers 
scrawl
> colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from the Fat 
Boy
> Posse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a 
boy.
> A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles.
> 
> On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their 
illegal
> invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent 
interviewed
> an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Private
> AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."
> 
> To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did 
sort
> of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the
> Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his 
teenage
> tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well that stuff's
> way over my head," he said.
> 
> According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the 
American
> public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the
> September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. 
And an ABC
> news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam 
Hussein
> directly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces
> believe these fabrications is anybody's guess.
> 
> It is unlikely that British and American troops fighting in Iraq are aware
> that their governments supported Saddam Hussein both politically and
> financially through his worst excesses.
> 
> But why should poor AJ and his fellow soldiers be burdened with these
> details? It does not matter any more, does it? Hundreds of thousands of 
men,
> tanks, ships, choppers, bombs, ammunition, gas masks, high-protein 
food,
> whole aircrafts ferrying toilet paper, insect repellent, vitamins and
> bottled mineral water, are on the move. The phenomenal logistics of
> Operation Iraqi Freedom make it a universe unto itself. It doesn't need to
> justify its existence any more. It exists. It is.
> 
> President George W Bush, commander in chief of the US army, navy, 
airforce
> and marines has issued clear instructions: "Iraq. Will. Be. Liberated."
> (Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are killed, their 
souls
> will be liberated.) American and British citizens owe it to the supreme
> commander to forsake thought and rally behind their troops. Their 
countries
> are at war. And what a war it is.
> 
> After using the "good offices" of UN diplomacy (economic sanctions and
> weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its knees, its
> people starved, half a million of its children killed, its infrastructure
> severely damaged, after making sure that most of its weapons have 
been
> destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely be unrivalled in 
history,
> the "Allies"/"Coalition of the Willing"(better known as the Coalition of the
> Bullied and Bought) - sent in an invading army!
> 
> Operation Iraqi Freedom? I don't think so. It's more like Operation Let's
> Run a Race, but First Let Me Break Your Knees.
> 
> So far the Iraqi army, with its hungry, ill-equipped soldiers, its old guns
> and ageing tanks, has somehow managed to temporarily confound and
> occasionally even outmanoeuvre the "Allies". Faced with the richest,
> best-equipped, most powerful armed forces the world has ever seen, 
Iraq has
> shown spectacular courage and has even managed to put up what 
actually
> amounts to a defence. A defence which the Bush/Blair Pair have 
immediately
> denounced as deceitful and cowardly. (But then deceit is an old tradition
> with us natives. When we are invaded/ colonised/occupied and stripped 
of all
> dignity, we turn to guile and opportunism.)
> 
> Even allowing for the fact that Iraq and the "Allies" are at war, the extent
> to which the "Allies" and their media cohorts are prepared to go is
> astounding to the point of being counterproductive to their own 
objectives.
> 
> When Saddam Hussein appeared on national TV to address the Iraqi 
people
> after the failure of the most elaborate assassination attempt in history -
> "Operation Decapitation" - we had Geoff Hoon, the British defence 
secretary,
> deriding him for not having the courage to stand up and be killed, calling
> him a coward who hides in trenches. We then had a flurry of Coalition
> speculation - Was it really Saddam, was it his double? Or was it Osama 
with
> a shave? Was it pre-recorded? Was it a speech? Was it black magic? 
Will it
> turn into a pumpkin if we really, really want it to?
> 
> After dropping not hundreds, but thousands of bombs on Baghdad, 
when a
> marketplace was mistakenly blown up and civilians killed - a US army
> spokesman implied that the Iraqis were blowing themselves up! 
"They're using
> very old stock. Their missiles go up and come down."
> 
> If so, may we ask how this squares with the accusation that the Iraqi 
regime
> is a paid-up member of the Axis of Evil and a threat to world peace?
> 
> When the Arab TV station al-Jazeera shows civilian casualties it's 
denounced
> as "emotive" Arab propaganda aimed at orchestrating hostility towards 
the
> "Allies", as though Iraqis are dying only in order to make the "Allies" look
> bad. Even French television has come in for some stick for similar 
reasons.
> But the awed, breathless footage of aircraft carriers, stealth bombers 
and
> cruise missiles arcing across the desert sky on American and British TV 
is
> described as the "terrible beauty" of war.
> 
> When invading American soldiers (from the army "that's only here to 
help")
> are taken prisoner and shown on Iraqi TV, George Bush says it violates 
the
> Geneva convention and "exposes the evil at the heart of the regime". But 
it
> is entirely acceptable for US television stations to show the hundreds of
> prisoners being held by the US government in Guantanamo Bay, 
kneeling on the
> ground with their hands tied behind their backs, blinded with opaque 
goggles
> and with earphones clamped on their ears, to ensure complete visual 
and
> aural deprivation. When questioned about the treatment of these 
prisoners,
> US Government officials don't deny that they're being being ill-treated.
> They deny that they're "prisoners of war"! They call them "unlawful
> combatants", implying that their ill-treatment is legitimate! (So what's the
> party line on the massacre of prisoners in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan?
> Forgive and forget? And what of the prisoner tortured to death by the
> special forces at the Bagram airforce base? Doctors have formally 
called it
> homicide.) 
> 
> When the "Allies" bombed the Iraqi television station (also, incidentally, 
a
> contravention of the Geneva convention), there was vulgar jubilation in 
the
> American media. In fact Fox TV had been lobbying for the attack for a 
while.
> It was seen as a righteous blow against Arab propaganda. But 
mainstream
> American and British TV continue to advertise themselves as "balanced" 
when
> their propaganda has achieved hallucinatory levels.
> 
> Why should propaganda be the exclusive preserve of the western 
media? Just
> because they do it better? Western journalists "embedded" with troops 
are
> given the status of heroes reporting from the frontlines of war.
> Non-"embedded" journalists (such as the BBC's Rageh Omaar, 
reporting from
> besieged and bombed Baghdad, witnessing, and clearly affected by the 
sight
> of bodies of burned children and wounded people) are undermined 
even before
> they begin their reportage: "We have to tell you that he is being 
monitored
> by the Iraqi authorities."
> 
> Increasingly, on British and American TV, Iraqi soldiers are being 
referred
> to as "militia" (ie: rabble). One BBC correspondent portentously referred 
to
> them as "quasi-terrorists". Iraqi defence is "resistance" or worse still,
> "pockets of resistance", Iraqi military strategy is deceit. (The US
> government bugging the phone lines of UN security council delegates,
> reported by the Observer, is hard-headed pragmatism.) Clearly for the
> "Allies", the only morally acceptable strategy the Iraqi army can pursue is
> to march out into the desert and be bombed by B-52s or be mowed 
down by
> machine-gun fire. Anything short of that is cheating.
> 
> And now we have the siege of Basra. About a million and a half people, 
40
> per cent of them children. Without clean water, and with very little food.
> We're still waiting for the legendary Shia "uprising", for the happy hordes
> to stream out of the city and rain roses and hosannahs on the 
"liberating"
> army. Where are the hordes? Don't they know that television productions 
work
> to tight schedules? (It may well be that if Saddam's regime falls there 
will
> be dancing on the streets of Basra. But then, if the Bush regime were to
> fall, there would be dancing on the streets the world over.)
> 
> After days of enforcing hunger and thirst on the citizens of Basra, the
> "Allies" have brought in a few trucks of food and water and positioned 
them
> tantalisingly on the outskirts of the city. Desperate people flock to the
> trucks and fight each other for food. (The water we hear, is being sold. 
To
> revitalise the dying economy, you understand.) On top of the trucks,
> desperate photographers fought each other to get pictures of desperate
> people fighting each other for food. Those pictures will go out through
> photo agencies to newspapers and glossy magazines that pay 
extremely well.
> Their message: The messiahs are at hand, distributing fishes and 
loaves.
> 
> As of July last year the delivery of $5.4bn worth of supplies to Iraq was
> blocked by the Bush/Blair Pair. It didn't really make the news. But now
> under the loving caress of live TV, 450 tonnes of humanitarian aid - a
> minuscule fraction of what's actually needed (call it a script prop) -
> arrived on a British ship, the "Sir Galahad". Its arrival in the port of Umm
> Qasr merited a whole day of live TV broadcasts. Barf bag, anyone?
> 
> Nick Guttmann, head of emergencies for Christian Aid, writing for the
> Independent on Sunday said that it would take 32 Sir Galahad's a day to
> match the amount of food Iraq was receiving before the bombing began.
> 
> We oughtn't to be surprised though. It's old tactics. They've been at it for
> years. Consider this moderate proposal by John McNaughton from the 
Pentagon
> Papers, published during the Vietnam war: "Strikes at population targets
> (per se) are likely not only to create a counterproductive wave of 
revulsion
> abroad and at home, but greatly to increase the risk of enlarging the war
> with China or the Soviet Union. Destruction of locks and dams, however 
- if
> handled right - might ... offer promise. It should be studied. Such
> destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it
> leads after time to widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless 
food
> is provided - which we could offer to do 'at the conference table'."
> 
> Times haven't changed very much. The technique has evolved into a 
doctrine.
> It's called "Winning Hearts and Minds".
> 
> So, here's the moral maths as it stands: 200,000 Iraqis estimated to 
have
> been killed in the first Gulf war. Hundreds of thousands dead because 
of the
> economic sanctions. (At least that lot has been saved from Saddam 
Hussein.)
> More being killed every day. Tens of thousands of US soldiers who 
fought the
> 1991 war officially declared "disabled" by a disease called the Gulf war
> syndrome, believed in part to be caused by exposure to depleted 
uranium. It
> hasn't stopped the "Allies" from continuing to use depleted uranium.
> 
> And now this talk of bringing the UN back into the picture. But that old 
UN
> girl - it turns out that she just ain't what she was cracked up to be. She's
> been demoted (although she retains her high salary). Now she's the 
world's
> janitor. She's the Philippino cleaning lady, the Indian jamadarni, the
> postal bride from Thailand, the Mexican household help, the Jamaican 
au
> pair. She's employed to clean other peoples' shit. She's used and 
abused at
> will. 
> 
> Despite Blair's earnest submissions, and all his fawning, Bush has 
made it
> clear that the UN will play no independent part in the administration of
> postwar Iraq. The US will decide who gets those juicy "reconstruction"
> contracts. But Bush has appealed to the international community not to
> "politicise" the issue of humanitarian aid. On the March 28, after Bush
> called for the immediate resumption of the UN's oil for food programme, 
the
> UN security council voted unanimously for the resolution. This means 
that
> everybody agrees that Iraqi money (from the sale of Iraqi oil) should be
> used to feed Iraqi people who are starving because of US led sanctions 
and
> the illegal US-led war.
> 
> Contracts for the "reconstruction" of Iraq we're told, in discussions on 
the
> business news, could jump-start the world economy. It's funny how the
> interests of American corporations are so often, so successfully and so
> deliberately confused with the interests of the world economy. While the
> American people will end up paying for the war, oil companies, 
weapons
> manufacturers, arms dealers, and corporations involved in 
"reconstruction"
> work will make direct gains from the war. Many of them are old friends 
and
> former employers of the Bush/ Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice cabal. Bush has 
already
> asked Congress for $75bn. Contracts for "re-construction" are already 
being
> negotiated. The news doesn't hit the stands because much of the US 
corporate
> media is owned and managed by the same interests.
> 
> Operation Iraqi Freedom, Tony Blair assures us is about returning Iraqi 
oil
> to the Iraqi people. That is, returning Iraqi oil to the Iraqi people via
> corporate multinationals. Like Shell, like Chevron, like Halliburton. Or 
are
> we missing the plot here? Perhaps Halliburton is actually an Iraqi 
company?
> Perhaps US vice-president Dick Cheney (who is a former director of
> Halliburton) is a closet Iraqi?
> 
> As the rift between Europe and America deepens, there are signs that 
the
> world could be entering a new era of economic boycotts. CNN reported 
that
> Americans are emptying French wine into gutters, chanting, "We don't 
want
> your stinking wine." We've heard about the re-baptism of French fries.
> Freedom fries they're called now. There's news trickling in about 
Americans
> boycotting German goods. The thing is that if the fallout of the war takes
> this turn, it is the US who will suffer the most. Its homeland may be
> defended by border patrols and nuclear weapons, but its economy is 
strung
> out across the globe. Its economic outposts are exposed and 
vulnerable to
> attack in every direction. Already the internet is buzzing with elaborate
> lists of American and British government products and companies that 
should
> be boycotted. Apart from the usual targets, Coke, Pepsi and McDonald's 
-
> government agencies such as USAID, the British department for 
international
> development, British and American banks, Arthur Anderson, Merrill 
Lynch,
> American Express, corporations such as Bechtel, General Electric, and
> companies such as Reebok, Nike and Gap - could find themselves 
under siege.
> These lists are being honed and re fined by activists across the world. 
They
> could become a practical guide that directs and channels the 
amorphous, but
> growing fury in the world. Suddenly, the "inevitability" of the project of
> corporate globalisation is beginning to seem more than a little evitable.
> 
> It's become clear that the war against terror is not really about terror,
> and the war on Iraq not only about oil. It's about a superpower's
> self-destructive impulse towards supremacy, stranglehold, global 
hegemony.
> The argument is being made that the people of Argentina and Iraq have 
both
> been decimated by the same process. Only the weapons used against 
them
> differ: In one case it's an IMF chequebook. In the other, cruise missiles.
> 
> Finally, there's the matter of Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass
> destruction. (Oops, nearly forgot about those!)
> 
> In the fog of war - one thing's for sure - if Saddam 's regime indeed has
> weapons of mass destruction, it is showing an astonishing degree of
> responsibility and restraint in the teeth of extreme provocation. Under
> similar circumstances, (say if Iraqi troops were bombing New York and 
laying
> siege to Washington DC) could we expect the same of the Bush 
regime? Would
> it keep its thousands of nuclear warheads in their wrapping paper? 
What
> about its chemical and biological weapons? Its stocks of anthrax, 
smallpox
> and nerve gas? Would it?
> 
> Excuse me while I laugh.
> 
> In the fog of war we're forced to speculate: Either Saddam is an 
extremely
> responsible tyrant. Or - he simply does not possess weapons of mass
> destruction. Either way, regardless of what happens next, Iraq comes 
out of
> the argument smelling sweeter than the US government.
> 
> So here's Iraq - rogue state, grave threat to world peace, paid-up 
member of
> the Axis of Evil. Here's Iraq, invaded, bombed, besieged, bullied, its
> sovereignty shat upon, its children killed by cancers, its people blown up
> on the streets. And here's all of us watching. CNN-BBC, BBC-CNN late 
into
> the night. Here's all of us, enduring the horror of the war, enduring the
> horror of the propaganda and enduring the slaughter of language as we 
know
> and understand it. Freedom now means mass murder (or, in the US, 
fried
> potatoes). When someone says "humanitarian aid" we automatically go 
looking
> for induced starvation. "Embedded" I have to admit, is a great find. It's
> what it sounds like. And what about "arsenal of tactics?" Nice!
> 
> In most parts of the world, the invasion of Iraq is being seen as a racist
> war. The real danger of a racist war unleashed by racist regimes is that 
it
> engenders racism in everybody - perpetrators, victims, spectators. It 
sets
> the parameters for the debate, it lays out a grid for a particular way of
> thinking. There is a tidal wave of hatred for the US rising from the 
ancient
> heart of the world. In Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, Australia. I
> encounter it every day. Sometimes it comes from the most unlikely 
sources.
> Bankers, businessmen, yuppie students, and they bring to it all the
> crassness of their conservative, illiberal politics. That absurd inability
> to separate governments from people: America is a nation of morons, a 
nation
> of murderers, they say, (with the same carelessness with which they 
say,
> "All Muslims are terrorists"). Even in the grotesque universe of racist
> insult, the British make their entry as add-ons. Arse-lickers, they're
> called. 
> 
> Suddenly, I, who have been vilified for being "anti-American" and
> "anti-west", find myself in the extraordinary position of defending the
> people of America. And Britain.
> 
> Those who descend so easily into the pit of racist abuse would do well 
to
> remember the hundreds of thousands of American and British citizens 
who
> protested against their country's stockpile of nuclear weapons. And the
> thousands of American war resisters who forced their government to 
withdraw
> from Vietnam. They should know that the most scholarly, scathing, 
hilarious
> critiques of the US government and the "American way of life" comes 
from
> American citizens. And that the funniest, most bitter condemnation of 
their
> prime minister comes from the British media. Finally they should 
remember
> that right now, hundreds of thousands of British and American citizens 
are
> on the streets protesting the war. The Coalition of the Bullied and 
Bought
> consists of governments, not people. More than one third of America's
> citizens have survived the relentless propaganda they've been subjected 
to,
> and many thousands are actively fighting their own government. In the
> ultra-patriotic climate that prevails in the US, that's as brave as any
> Iraqi fighting for his or her homeland.
> 
> While the "Allies" wait in the desert for an uprising of Shia Muslims on 
the
> streets of Basra, the real uprising is taking place in hundreds of cities
> across the world. It has been the most spectacular display of public
> morality ever seen.
> 
> Most courageous of all, are the hundreds of thousands of American 
people on
> the streets of America's great cities - Washington, New York, Chicago, 
San
> Francisco. The fact is that the only institution in the world today that is
> more powerful than the American government, is American civil society.
> American citizens have a huge responsibility riding on their shoulders. 
How
> can we not salute and support those who not only acknowledge but act 
upon
> that responsibility? They are our allies, our friends.
> 
> At the end of it all, it remains to be said that dictators like Saddam
> Hussein, and all the other despots in the Middle East, in the central 
Asian
> republics, in Africa and Latin America, many of them installed, 
supported
> and financed by the US government, are a menace to their own people. 
Other
> than strengthening the hand of civil society (instead of weakening it as 
has
> been done in the case of Iraq), there is no easy, pristine way of dealing
> with them. (It's odd how those who dismiss the peace movement as 
utopian,
> don't hesitate to proffer the most absurdly dreamy reasons for going to 
war:
> to stamp out terrorism, install democracy, eliminate fascism, and most
> entertainingly, to "rid the world of evil-doers".)
> 
> Regardless of what the propaganda machine tells us, these tin-pot 
dictators
> are not the greatest threat to the world. The real and pressing danger, 
the
> greatest threat of all is the locomotive force that drives the political and
> economic engine of the US government, currently piloted by George 
Bush.
> Bush-bashing is fun, because he makes such an easy, sumptuous 
target. It's
> true that he is a dangerous, almost suicidal pilot, but the machine he
> handles is far more dangerous than the man himself.
> 
> Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over us today, I'd like to file a
> cautious plea for hope: in times of war, one wants one's weakest enemy 
at
> the helm of his forces. And President George W Bush is certainly that. 
Any
> other even averagely intelligent US president would have probably done 
the
> very same things, but would have managed to smoke-up the glass and 
confuse
> the opposition. Perhaps even carry the UN with him. Bush's tactless
> imprudence and his brazen belief that he can run the world with his riot
> squad, has done the opposite. He has achieved what writers, activists 
and
> scholars have striven to achieve for decades. He has exposed the 
ducts. He
> has placed on full public view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of 
the
> apocalyptic apparatus of the American empire.
> 
> Now that the blueprint (The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire) has 
been put
> into mass circulation, it could be disabled quicker than the pundits
> predicted. 
> 
> Bring on the spanners.
>