[Peace-discuss] Rewording

[C. G. Estabrook]

A bit of intellectually dishonest red-baiting.  Are you going to refuse
to make true statements about American politics (e.g., "America
shouldn't be killing people in Vietnam") because they might be said by
"a Marxist"?

The US and Israel, its principal client and "local cop on the beat" (in
the words of the Nixon administration), are responsible for several
recent wars and occupations in the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon,
Afghanistan, and the Occupied Territories) in pursuit of the
long-standing US policy of controlling Middle East energy resources.
It's a mistake to treat them separately (as the administration wants us
to), since they are the result of that common policy.

As was The First Gulf War.  Either misunderstanding US orders or with
covert US approval, Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990 over a dispute
about the control of oil.  The Bush I administration refused Iraq's
offer to negotiate and launched its own attack. Many in the US
recognized how problematic the war was:  Congressional votes 
"authorizing the use of military force" in January of 1991 passed
by the closest margins on war votes since the War of 1812.  (The 9-11
attacks gave the Bush II administration an unparalleled excuse to finish
the job.)

Do you remember the "Nightmare Scenario"?  That was the Bush I
administration's term for their fear in the fall of 1990 that Iraq would
do in Kuwait what the US had just done in Panama ("Operation Just
Cause," 1989) -- invade, establish a government to its liking, and
remove the invading force.  The Bush I administration was in a frenzy to
get its "coalition" into war before that happened, so it characterizing
Saddam as a "Hitler" and demanded he withdraw. Saddam agreed to do so in
December, accepting terms presented by separate delegations from the
USSR and France, so the administration had to move quickly.  The US
attacked on January 17, 1991.

Although they are of course important matters, I don't see much reason
to have included specific references to Iran and the defense industry
(or accept the euphemism), since they were included implicitly (in
"criminal wars" and "the corporate economy," respectively).  And the
speculative tone ("but there may be a longer-term profit") seems to me
inappropriate: future historians will have no trouble recognizing the
settled policy that is the source of US killing in the Middle East,
despite the administration's propaganda (think of the kumquats).  That's
what we're trying to make people AWARE of, right?


Bob Illyes wrote:

> I'm not sure how to reword it, Carl, but I'll give it a stab. The 
> first sentence is the biggest problem in my opinion. For example, 
> what wars and occupations? To make occupation plural you have to 
> consider Israel our proxy. This is arguable. To make war plural you 
> have to include Desert Storm as an improper war (unless you consider 
> Israel our proxy again). This is also arguable- we freed an occupied 
> country. The entire sentence is problematic. Consider this:
> 
> Who would say "the corporate economy drives America's criminal wars"?
>  A Marxist.
> 
> Would a lot of readers notice this? Yes.
> 
> Can AWARE be effective as an antiwar group if it promotes Marxist 
> ideology? No.
> 
> QED
> 
> I'd do something like:
> 
> The corporate economy drives America's criminal war and occupation of
>  Iraq, and threatens Iran. The profitability of war to the defense 
> industry is the obvious reason for this, but there may be a 
> longer-term profit. Both Democratic and Republican administrations 
> have demanded that the US control Middle East energy resources, even 
> though we import very little oil from the Middle East for use in the 
> US. This would not benefit the American people, but would give US 
> corporations considerable control over America's principal economic 
> competitors, Europe and northeast Asia (China, South Korea and 
> Japan).
> 
> I should say that I did not mean to imply that you are a Marxist, 
> Carl, but only suggest that many readers would associate the position
>  with Marx...
>