Re: [casi] We Went Into Iraq Because We Knew We Could

[H Sutter <citext@DELETETHISchebucto.ns.ca>]

Dear Muhamad and List,

> I urge you to read this article, especially the
> last two paragraphs. I feel it vindicates my
> pre-war prognosis as shown in my analysis at the time.

Yes, Muhamad, I remember it well that article of yours,
especially since you sent a copy to me personally. So
your reminder now gives me a chance to comment on it.
(Re: [casi] ... And why I will not, Thu, 13 Mar 2003.)

As intro, you said: "... I have written a long article
on the analysis of it to help others making an informed
opinion." An "informed opinion", it seemed, on 'to war
or not to war' - you were in favour.

This came as a bit of a surprise since in that discussion
I hadn't expressed an opinion against war - merely an
opinion against medical doctors lobbying for war.
That is, I had agreed with Hazim who pointed out that
it would be "unethical" for a medical doctor to do so.

(Guardian article by one Dr B Khalaf, "... And why I
will not", February 14, 2003. Dr. Khalaf's opener was:
"I write "this to protest against all those people who
oppose the war against Saddam Hussein...")

I couldn't tell if you meant to challenge the
'unethical-for-a-doctor' assertion. But you did
say, "In other words, the end justifies the means."
So perhaps you felt a war lobbyist's profession
was irrelevant as long as he/she promotes war.
You are entitled to your opinion, naturally.

> my pre-war prognosis as shown in my analysis
> at the time.

More like a justification for war, than a prognosis,
it seems. Consider your opener:

"It is said that war is simply diplomacy by other
means."

Few people would call cruise missiles a means of
"diplomacy" - not even the inimitable Clausewitz
himself. And unless you are misquoting him for an
ironical purpose, the phrase is "... _politics_
by other means". No doubt, he was right.

But peace proponents are not challenging the
efficacy of war. Rather, they deplore the killing,
the devastation, the displacement, and the trauma
that war causes. It's for these reasons that they
advocate 'diplomacy'.

Only with Iraq, 'diplomacy' seemed superfluous
since there was no conflict. There was only the
a superpower's lust to destroy a weak, devastated
country so they could 'remove' its leader - and
take possession of its wealth and geostrategic
location.

Keep in mind also that peace proponents had no
illusions about the merits or demerits of this
particular leader. What they advocated all along
was for the brutal sanctions to be lifted so that
the Iraqis and their economy could recover. Once
recovered, it would have been up to the Iraqis to
bring about a 'removal' of their leader, if they
so wished. Revolutions, peaceful or otherwise,
have always come from within a country.

--- "Embarrassment"

In your attempt to generate "informed opinion",
you equate peace proponents with anti-imperialists,
and lefties. Those are fine labels - Mark Twain
was a proud anti-imperialist - but they don't
fit everyone. And it's a bit hard to see why you
would attribute "embarrassment" to peace
proponents:

     "Embarrassment is the reason behind the anti-war
     and anti-sanctions stance of the Iraqi and world
     left movements.... But this school of thought
     ignores the basic facts that Iraqis not like
     Vietnam, the Iraqi regime is not the former
     Allende government of Chile..."

You are right about Vietnam and Chile. Certainly,
there is no comparison - despite similarities in
Chilean/Iraqi social reforms and nationalization
of vital industries.

But evoking Chile's Allende seems an unfortunate
move for one promoting an "informed opinion".

Dr. Allende was no dictator, just a leftist.
And he was murdered precisely so the US could
install a brutal but 'friendly' dictator:
Augusto Pinochet, who left behind one of the
bloodiest pages in Latin American history. In
this 'changeover' tens of thousands of Chileans
'disappeared', were imprisoned, or killed outright.

In 1990 mass graves were discovered and in 1991
a commission reported on the victims. Pinochet
was later charged with crimes against humanity
by Judge Baltasar Garzon of Spain.

But right away (in 1974) dictator Pinochet issued
a Declaration of Principles - favourable to American
business: it promoted a laissez-faire economic
orientation, reversed nationalization, and banned
Marxism in any form.

So, as you might say, _the end justified the means_
in Pinochet's Chile - for US business at least.
But that's probably not what you meant when evoking
Allende.

Your references to Yugoslavia/Kosovo, East Timor
(Indonesia), Afghanistan, and so on, are equally
unfortunate, not to say cynical. Take Indonesia:

The US-paid-for toppling of Indonesia's Sukarno
(1965) in favour of right-wing dictator Suharto
resulted in the murder of 500,000 to one million
suspected Indonese communists. About 750,000
were taken political prisoners. This was fine, as
Howard Federspiel, the State Department's Indonesian
expert explained: "No one cared, as long as they
were Communists, that they were being butchered."[1]

(Today that brute teaches Indonesia and Comparative
Islamic Politics in political science.)

But the new repressive Suharto regime started a
'liberal' (pro-US) capitalist development - away
from China. Multinationals were free to help
themselves to Indonesia's oil and other natural
resources. So when Suharto decided to invade East
Timor in 1975, he had Gerald Ford's and Kissinger's
blessing.

About 200,000 East Timorese got murdered out of a
population of 700,000 - according to an AI estimate.
And the then US Ambassador to the UN was proud that
he could prevent the UN from stopping the slaughter:

"The United States wished things to turn out as they
did, and worked to bring this about. The Department
of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly
ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This
task was given to me, and I carried it forward with
no inconsiderable success."[2]

Today, Indonesian workers have the opportunity to
produce textiles and tennis shoes for Western
markets - for pennies an hour. But they know that
these shirts or sneakers will be worn by guardians
of democracy. So, as you might say, the end justified
the means.

--- "Conclusion"

In your conclusion, Muhamad, you say this:

     "A once proud and industrious people of the
     cradle of civilisation have been reduced by
     their rulers to paupers with the cap in one
     hand and the begging bowl in the other. Let
     us restore dignity to the Iraqi people."

You may have forgotten certain parts of Iraq's
history: Remember, it was the 13-year-long
sanctions regime that finished off the economy - and
reduced Iraqis to "paupers". That was after Iraq
had been bombed back into a pre-industrial age
in 1991 by the present occupiers.

And last, your analogy with war as a "bitter pill":

     "The Iraqi people are chronic patients of an
     epidemic of Saddamitis.

     "War may be a bitter pill to swallow, but will
     cure them of the dictatorship. The threat of
     war will ease their pain and may cure them of
     the dictatorship."

Fortunately, you didn't get to taste your prescribed
medicine. And now Iraqis are "cured", you could say.
You may be right. But I keep thinking of Ali, and
thousands of other children and adults killed, maimed,
made homeless, and traumatized. And I keep thinking
of the broken-hearted survivors wandering through
the ruins of devastated Iraq - no water, electricity,
communication, or security... epidemic diseases
looming. To say nothing about a pay cheque for
rent and food.

And when I think of all this, Muhamad, I have to
agree with Chris: this the-end-justifies-the-means
principle is an obscene concept. Your own view may
differ, of course.

> I urge you to read this article.... I feel it
> vindicates my pre-war prognosis as shown in my
> analysis at the time.

This would be one war guy _vindicating_ another
war guy's justifications for war! Friedman used to
explain on _Good Morning America_, "My motto is
very simple: Give war a chance".[3]

Friedman was also a bombing advocate: "bombing Iraq,
over and over and over again", he advised in 1998.
Or this: "Blow up a different power station in Iraq
every week, so no one knows when the lights will go
off or who's in charge." Ibid

Nice guy, Friedman.

And Friedman would go no doubt go along with your
maxim that the end justifies the means. Friedman's
end are corporate profits, as he makes clear in his
book _The Lexus and the Olive Tree_:

     "The hidden hand of the market will never work
     without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish
     without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the
     U.S. Air Force F-15. And the hidden fist that
     keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's
     technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army,
     Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."

In his "Because We Knew We Could" article, Friedman
Friedman camouflages his baser motives with the
excuse of a "terrorism bubble"... a real threat to
the open societies of the West".

Likewise, his bits about "having Muslim preachers
say it was OK...", radical Muslims", and "young
[Arab] people who hate America" is just plain
Islamophobia - and justification for his war lust.
Of course, most citizens of the world loathe
(political) America, myself included. Who would
want to love those brutes? Or kiss the "hidden" fist?

But you are right: His last words match yours:

Muhamad:
"...resolve the issue once and for all in the
interests of the Iraqi people, regional stability
and world peace. It can be done."

Friedman:
"America's future, and the future of the Mideast,
rides on our building a different Iraq."

But given the historical background, and all those
USUK lies, these words won't cut any ice.

Besides, you stated your ulterior motives quite
clearly: "... the American current stance on the
Iraqi regime... happens to coincide with our
permanent stance".

In this case, why the need for vindication?

Best regards,
Elga Sutter


Notes:
[1] "U.S. Criminal History in Indonesia" by
S. Brian Willson, 1999.
http://www.brianwillson.com/awolcrimhist.html

[2] Ibid
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then-U.S. Ambassador
to the United Nations, in a cable to Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger on Jan. 23, 1976 muting U.N.
opposition to Indonesia's Dec. 7, 1975 invasion of
East Timor.

[3] "A Pulitzer for Tom Friedman, the 'Give War a
Chance' Guy", By Norman Solomon, February 22, 2002
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12465


------------Original Message------------
Re: [casi] We Went Into Iraq Because We Knew We Could

To: <casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk>
From: "Mohammed Ali" <mali@gw.hackney.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: [casi] We Went Into Iraq Because We Knew We Could
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:03:23 +0100


Dear list members,

I urge you to read this article, especially the last two paragraphs. I
feel it
vindicates my pre-war prognosis as shown in my analysis at the time.
Regards,


Muhamad

[...]



_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk