[Peace-discuss] Chomsky arguments.

[C. G. Estabrook]

You're right, Mort: one should not be too sanguine (nor bloody-minded)
about what the American people believe. One should be accurate.  A
majority of Americans do *not* accept what the administration has been
parroting.  The most recent CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll shows as other polls
have that a clear majority of Americans say that it was a mistake to send
troops to Iraq. Of course the Administration insists strenuously (as we'll
hear again in the State of the Union address) that it was not a mistake
but a splendid triumph in the Global War on Terrorism.  But Americans know
it isn't so. Only those who mindlessly accept what the corporate media
have been parroting about Americans think that they support this war.

We have to distinguish the information that Americans think they know
about the war from the principles they hold.  The latter are remarkably
resistant to the corruption of the former by the corporate media.  How
many trillions of dollars are spent each year in the greatest propaganda
system in history ("marketing")? It's hardly surprising that such a system
can produce programmatic ignorance about the war -- the existence of WMD,
the connection between Iraq and 911, that Iraq was in a "threat," etc.
(But of course the US *is* trying to bring democracy to Iraq, if you
define your terms right...). What's amazing is that Americans' political
principles endure under such a media barrage.

A *large majority* of the public believe that the US should accept the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court, sign
the Kyoto protocols, allow the UN to take the lead in international
crises, and rely on diplomatic and economic measures more than military
ones in the "war on terror." Similar majorities believe the US should
resort to force only if there is "strong evidence that the country is in
imminent danger of being attacked," thus rejecting the bipartisan
consensus on "pre-emptive war" and adopting a rather conventional
interpretation of the UN Charter. A majority even favor giving up the
Security Council veto, hence following the UN lead even if it is not the
preference of US state managers.

On the eve of the 2004 elections, "three quarters of Americans say that
the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not
providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the
right decision" (Stephen Kull, reporting the PIPA study he directs). But
this is not a contradiction, Kull points out.  Despite the quasi-official
Kay and Duelfer reports undermining the claims, the decision to go to war
"is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq
provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major
WMD program," and thus see the invasion as defense against an imminent
severe threat.  Much earlier PIPA studies had shown that a large majority
believe that the UN, not the US, should take the lead in matters of
security, reconstruction, and political transition in Iraq.

Last March, Spanish voters were bitterly condemned for appeasing terror
when they voted out of office the government that had gone to war over the
objections of about 90% of the population, taking its orders from
Crawford, Texas, and winning plaudits for its leadership in the "New
Europe" that is the hope of democracy.  Few if any commentators noted that
Spanish voters last March were taking about the same position as the large
majority of Americans: voting for removing Spanish troops unless they were
under UN direction.  The major differences between the two countries are
that in Spain, public opinion was known, while here it takes an individual
research project to discover it; and in Spain the issue came to a vote,
almost unimaginable in the deteriorating formal democracy here.

With the US media overwhelmingly trumpeting the Kerry-Bush interpretation
of the Iraq/GWOT, nevertheless 70% of Americans did not vote for George
Bush in November.  It's unfortunate of course that the American political
system is so corrupt that there wasn't an alternative, but then we never
accepted one-party elections in eastern Europe a generation ago as an
indication of the will of the people.  Nor should we now. It's better to
listen to people and talk about what they really think. That's what I
think Chomsky's doing, the appropriate source of his sanguineness, if
that's what it is.

[Paragraphs 3-5 above are lifted directly from Chomsky, with emphasis
added, and draw on surveys by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
(CCFR) and the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the U. of
Maryland (PIPA). Chomsky follows them immediately with the observation,
"These results indicate that activists have not done their job
effectively."  That, it seems to me, should be a vademecum for AWARE.]

Regards, Carl


On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Morton K.Brussel wrote:

> 
> No real disagreement here, but one should not be too sanguine, as
> Chomsky tends to be, about the American people. After all a majority
> does, mindlessly, accept what the administration has been parroting.  
> About 40% (a large proportion in any case) or more still believe that
> WMD's existed in Iraq in 2003 and that Iraq WAS a real threat to the
> U.S. ; moreover that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, and that the
> USA is trying to bring "democracy" to Iraq. So, despite reservations
> about the Iraq disaster, a majority are still not ready to resist
> current policies.
> 
> The Germans in WWII also had their reservations about Hitler and his
> policies, but went along. In a sense, living under a dictatorship,
> they had more excuse.
> 
> The world wanted a repudiation of the Bush cabal in the election, and
> can't comprehend that it didn't happen, no matter how
> bad/wimpy/haughty was Kerry. They saw the issues clearly, yet
> Americans couldn't. Why?  Ignorance? Indifference? Misguided sense of
> nationalism/patriotism?  Insecurity? 
? Their mass news sources were
> almost as bad as ours. As several have remarked, for the first time
> majorities around the world are now assimilating Bush government
> attitudes and actions with American attitudes. Simplistic of course,
> but understandable.
> 
> mkb
>