Category: Political

Categories
Political

Elegant despair

Jonathon writes:

Dave adds: �I just hope we�re up to this challenge. With the right leadership, I�m sure we could be. I�m not at all confident we have the right leadership.”

We don�t have the right leadership. To put it bluntly, we�re fucked.

Unless the anti-war/peace movement can come up with something more sophisticated and useful than red-daubed faces, drumming, banal chants, puerile street theater, trite placards, histrionics, self-indulgent moralizing, and wishful thinking.

Before this war started in Iraq, there was a growing number of anti-war protests happening in the world. Aside from a very few occurrances, these were peaceful and they were impressive. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, marched peacefully.

However, we went to war anyway and it’s easy to sit back and say, we failed, but that’s defeatist because we didn’t fail. At a minimum, we forced Bush and Blair to realize that this is not a universally popular war, this is not a unversally accepted method of dealing with one person in one country. We forced them to be aware that we are watching them. Who knows how bloody this fight would be without this?

So I am disappointed to see Jonathon mock those who have marched for peace, who continue to march for peace. Who continue to let Bush and Blair know that we are still watching, even though in this country we now face riot police, pepper spray, and being called terrorists.

Dave Rogers writes:

All that being said, folks should be prepared for this to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better. And that means we’re going to have to gut it out and win this thing. None of this “peace with honor” crap. The Battle of Baghdad is going to be as bloody as anything from WW II. I know it’s kind of hard to grasp that sometimes the right thing to do in the face of death and destruction is to cause more death and destruction, but that’s the unpalatable truth. If we fail at this, we’ve dishonored ourselves and the sacrifice of all who have already given their lives in this debacle; and failure will only guarantee far more death and destruction in the years to come. We have to win this thing, and leave something in our wake that means something. The dead in this war are an enormous down payment on something, let’s make sure it’s something worth what they’ve paid.

Dave is, in some ways, representative of what’s happening in the US now – well, we’re in war now, we might as well finish it and not say anything because to do so shows the military we don’t respect them. Let’s just get this thing over with and move on. No offense Dave, but that’s about the most passive-aggressive pro-war statement I’ve seen among the weblogs.

What Dave and Jonathon don’t realize, or seem to realize, is that Rumsfield and Colin Powell are already setting the stage for the next war in Syria and Iran. That our blind ’support the troops at all costs’ attitude is, bluntly, giving them a green light to continue a policy of aggression that can only result in further hostilities.

Dorothea wrote in response to Jonathon’s post:

Ah. Well, that pretty much leaves me out, ignorant and impotent fool that I am. And since Jonathon presents no useful alternatives, I’d do what? Despair, I guess. If someone were to make a case for a given action as being more useful than what I’ve done, I’d do it. I’ve read cases for public demonstration, and I’ve demonstrated publicly. I’ve read cases for contacting elected officials, and I’ve done that.

So. Despair. I can do that, sure. I’ve been very close to it for some time now.

Was that the intent, Jonathon?

Elegant despair is as supportive of Bush, of Blair, of Howard, as more vocal pro-war statements. It says we can do nothing – why try?

It is so easy to stop protest – you just tell the protestors that their effort is sending a message to the soldiers you don’t support them. You tell the protestors that their effort is silly, trite, self-indulgent moralizing. And when all voices in dissent are quiet, what then? What is the message that you send to Bush, and Blair, and Howard? That whatever they wish to do, you support it, not by choice, but by despair?

I and others know that this ‘war’ will not stop until the US is in nominal control of Iraq. But if we don’t speak out, Bush and Rumsfield will continue with a policy of US domination in that country as well as a continued rejection of UN and Arab League and EU suggestions. They will continue their dismissal of world concerns that are now being heard as far away as North Korea. If we do not speak out now, suppression of freedom of speech and even freedom of religion will continue to grow in my country. If we do not speak out now, all the world will hear from the United States is the arrogance and the beligerance of the Bush Administration.

So, we continue to speak out, amidst our pictures of daffodils and stories of youth and gentle teasing of each other. We link to alternative news sources, and we watch for and make note of oppression. We demand unbiased news reporting. We point out lies and inconsistencies and we march in the streets and tell the world that support for the troops and the administration are not the same. What else can we do? Give up?

Categories
Political

Being intellectually divorced

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I spent the day today talking about the war in Iraq and possible solutions, about protests and voices. But behind all of this has been the disappointment of hearing people chastise the peace movement — dismissive statements about self-indulgent moralizing.

Once, not long ago, before the invasion of Iraq, I wrote that it was important to respect those people who choose not to protest:

 

I think one thing we’ve learned since the last major global anti-war demonstration is that these demonstrations aren’t for everyone; neither is some or even all aspects of the anti-war movement. We must remember to respect each other’s beliefs and choices, if what we say in these demonstrations means anything at all.

We’re heading into tense, difficult times. Regardless of what each of us believes, we have to keep in mind our respect for each other. Our service people in the Middle East deserve our respect. So do the people of Iraq. It just breaks my heart to see two groups who deserve respect having to kill each other because a few men, deserving of no respect, have demanded it in their arrogance.

It’s difficult, then, to see people deny me, and others who have been part of the movement, that same respect.

Kottke came out with a posting on the war, the first and only time he’s made a statement about it. He wrote:

It’s all much more complicated than this. All the arguments out there for and against are necessarily shallow. We’re getting very small pieces of the whole story from TV reports, newspaper articles, weblog postings, and magazine pieces. No one has the time to read or write a complete analysis of the situation (which would be a social, political, religious, scientific and economic history of the world from 5000 B.C. up until 2 minutes ago…basically all human knowledge).

Summing up, Bush bad, war bad, this war not so bad even though bad Bush reasons also bad.

Rather than provide a solution, or an alternative, he basically calls all sides the joker and dusts his hands off from any further discussion. Back to blogging as usual, he’s made his stand and his statement. He’s done his part. And oh, the praise that came in when this posting was published.

Yet, what did Kottke say — that the pro-war and the anti-war sides are all idiots, but he’s neither so he’s intellectually superior to both?

Demands have been made of the peace movement: what are our solutions? What is our strategy? Good questions, and ones we should look at answering. I’ve tried to start this discussion, though I realize that the Kottkes of the world will consider it to be trite and ineffectual and it most likely would be laughed out of any number of erudite gatherings in New York and San Francisco.

What those who would disdain what I say miss, though, is that for all of its simplicity and idealism, it comes from the heart and I am at least doing something. It comes because I genuinely want to make a difference. Because I’m doing the best I can.

Kottke says:

Just as unconvincing as Bush’s flimsy arguments for war have been the arguments from the other side for peace. Talk about preaching to the choir. Your “blood for oil” and “give peace a chance” signs are as ridiculous and unconvincing as Bush’s “well, they’re evil” argument. War is bad. Duh. Any ideas as to alternatives? Praying, marching, and hoping for peace isn’t going to get it done alone. Bush and the peaceniks are both equally at fault for not working hard enough at having a meaningful dialogue on Iraq, each side settling for lobbing rhetoric over the wall. Bush looks like a chimp. Great…now tell me what the fuck that has to do with anything. Blech.

 

By demeaning both sides of the equation, Kottke is indulging in an intellectual divorce from the issue. But can a person do this? This conflict isn’t happening on someone else’s world.

You see, the war is happening. People are dying. Chaos is increasing, and there will be deeper and heavier prices to pay on this issue before this is over. To condemn both sides with a pithy chi-chi clever dismissal doesn’t absolve Kottke, or anyone else, of responsibility. Doesn’t make them superior to we who made our simple statements either for or against this war.

Dave Rogers would have us shut down the protests and fund organizations and people such as Blair and develop thinktanks and have conferences as a solution to Iraq. He wrote:

 

What would it take? There are already probably some organizations who have some thoughts on these things, maybe sponsor some kind of international conference of these various groups. Outline an agenda for what the immediate needs are likely to be for post-war Iraq. What will be the security arrangements? How will the oil be sold and what will be done with the revenues? What is the state of the health and education infrastructures within the nation? What are the real problems with ethnic animosities among the various groups? What kind of reconciliation efforts will there people? Does South Africa have a model that may help? What about the environmental issues? It seems to me we have an opportunity to really help the people of Iraq and the entire region if we can get our act together before Bush declares victory.

My only possible answer to Dave is that we had the organization. It’s called the UN. What he asks for is what the UN is supposed to do. But it does no good if the UN is disregarded by the US and other members of the coalition. Creating a new UN like infrastructure won’t be any more successful.

I can respect what Dave’s saying, but it seems to me — just my own opinion — that what might be happening is that he, and others, are being overwhelmed by the emotion on both sides and they just want it to stop. They want to war to reach its conclusion and the fighting to stop, and for those who protest the war to stop and to give everyone peace, which in this case is silence. Or perhaps not silence, but the absence of emotion.

Normalcy. A return to normalcy.

The peace movement, or whatever we call it, does need to focus, and I think this conversation now is a good one and I’m appreciative that it’s started. But I also think there’s a deep disappointment underlying some of the pushback against the movement. Ultimately, we failed people — we didn’t stop the war and we didn’t come up with a alternative that would stop this war in time. Now, the coalition of Bush and Blair and Howard have invaded Iraq and we’re in for some nasty, nasty times. We failed the world by not stopping this. So now, we’re being asked, what are we going to do about it?

Categories
Political

To whom it concerns

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

To: Beth Davis, Vice-President and General Manager, Y98
Smokey Rivers, Director of Programming

Dear Ms. Davis, Mr. Rivers:

I have enjoyed your radio station, and the mix of music you play for some time now. It is with a great deal of regret that I must tell you I can no longer listen to your station, not while your station is demonstrating such a strong political bias as regards the current war in Iraq. Tonight when I listened to your station, I was increasingly unhappy to hear quotes from the President’s pro-war speeches in between the songs, as well as exhortations to attend a pro-war rally. This not to mention so much emphasis on what I can only refer to as ‘patriotism at all costs’. I have to wonder, and already know the answer, do you give as much air time to those who speak out in dissent against this war?

I love this country, and I care very much for the service people who are in harms way. They are one of the reasons I am so against this war – a belief that our service people have been put in harms way for reasons having little to do with the security of this country. I also believe in freedom of speech and as such I would support your decisions to air news of the rally and President Bush’s speech, if you were also willing to provide equal time for those in the community that are deeply concerned about the war and about the lack of unbiased news Americans are getting. In particular, do you give voice to those who are concerned that we are losing our freedom to speak out against the war?

Not long ago, I held a candle for peace only to have a person call me a traitor. Is this the America we want? Is this the America we want our service people to die for?

Being against this war does not mean we’re against our service people, or against this country. It does mean that we believe Americans have a duty to see with both eyes, and to listen with both ears. When the media in the country only plays one song, tells only one story, shows only one viewpoint, no matter how hard Americans strain to see and to hear the truth, they’ll never find that which is kept hidden and silenced.

Again, yours is a wonderful station, and I have appreciated the many hours of good music you’ve shared with me. Perhaps at some time in the future we’ll have the peace to share a love of music together again.

Sincerely

Shelley Powers

Categories
Political

World threat?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

This is my last posting on Iraq. I cannot effect change with this weblog. The only change I can effect is on the street and in the ballot, though with the complacent smugness and arrogance of the American people, I doubt I will ever be able to effect change. As for elections, I have little faith in the electoral process after the election of Bush.

I don’t know how to make a difference in this country now.

I watched the bombing of Iraq today. Worse, I listened to the bombing of Iraq today. I watched the so-called journalists mouth the words given to them by the US government, spending all their time focusing on the flag and the yellow ribbons back home. They’re so sold on Bush and the invasion that I feel I have walked into my worst science fiction scenario – group think and group speak from journalists more concerned about their ratings then the story.

(Hmmm. Sounds like some webloggers I know.)

As for the UN, and the Secretary General of the UN, Annan – I agree with the Iraqi ambassador to the UN today, Annan should resign. Rather than condemn the United States, Annan basically says, well the past is past, let’s move on. If he is afraid of the US, he should quit, and go home. It would seem that the only ones with any guts left are Russia, France, Germany, and those others that have not been bought out or scared into compliance by the US and Britain.

Today’s best Irony: The US tells Turkey not to invade into North Iraq. They do so anyway. Who is the US to say to one country or another that they can or cannot invade? We’re the ultimate thief in the night.

The two worst scenarios for the US in this battle with Iraq is that the war is too hard, or the war is too easy. Too hard, and you risk too many civilian deaths, as well as deaths of US and British soldiers. This will anger the world and the folks back home. However, too easy a victory, and the US has basically proven that Iraq is not a threat, and never had the capability of being an imminent danger to the US or any of its allies.

Regardless of whatever we call this battle, this “Iraqi Freedom” campaign, we justified our invasion on Iraqi’s non-compliance with exposing weapons of mass destruction. If the only ones that surface are the pathetically useless missles that have been fired, no matter how light the casualities the world will be angered at the “American bully”. If not, and thousands of civilians are killed, the world will still be angered. And we’ll be sitting in control of a country right in the middle of a community that will see us as an aggressor only biding time until we invade their countries, too.

We’ve seen American reports from the battlefield, but the rest of the world hears reports such as this from the Sydney Morning Herald. Reports of dropping napalm on an Iraqi observation post, and “bodies everywhere” – especially since the US has been careful not to give an Iraqi soldier body count – are only going to fuel the anger against us.

Yet, rather than work with the international community to diffuse this anger, we continue making enormous blunders.

The US expelled Iraq diplomats yesterday, giving them an ultimatum: defect or face the consequences when we enter Baghdad. The US also demanded yesterday that other countries expel Iraqi diplomats, so that, according to the Boucher from the State Department:

Once an interim new government takes over in Baghdad, it will name diplomats who “truly represent the interests of the Iraqi people, rather than represent a corrupt and ruthless regime”.

We have no justification based in international law to make these demands, and to make these determinations for another country. It was highly inappropriate of us to ask that Iraqi diplomats be expelled from other countries, particularly those not involved in this military operation. It is especially inappropriate to make these assertions now, on behalf of the ‘interim’ government, when we know that this government will be controlled by the US military.

In addition, we have no justification to make demands for all Iraqi assets, supposedly to be held in trust by us for the Iraqi people. According to this article:

(Treasury Secretary) Snow said his department could “take countermeasures and sanctions against any institution that does not comply with these international objectives, including cutting off access to the U.S. financial system.”

All of this courtesy of that abysmal Patriot Act our Congress was so foolish to pass. All assetts are to be wired to the Federal Reserve in New York for safekeeping. A question then arises – why not have the money wired to a trust fund managed by the UN, rather than a US bank? What happened to Tony Blair’s promised UN Trust Fund?

Today’s second irony: all of this so-called ‘blood money’ that we’re so eager to freeze was money paid to Iraq and Saddam Hussein for oil by American and British oil companies. By companies such as BP and Chevron.

These actions only add to the growing distrust of this country and its motives. When one considers that the only companies being allowed to bid on the so-called rebuilding of Iraq are American firms, including our old friend Halliburton, what is the story we’re telling the world? Well whatever it is, it’s a story that the American people seem to be incapable of hearing.

You cannot speak out in this country, now. If you do, you’re considered unpatriotic, and a traitor. Worse, and this is insidious, if you speak out, you’re letting down the soldiers. And to make this point, the news focused tonight on the families of the dead soldiers, playing their recorded words against a backdrop of the bombing of Baghdad.

A survey taken in St. Louis reported that 22% of the respondents feel we have no right to question the war now. 56% said it’s okay to question the war, but only 23% believes it’s okay to protest the war.

Well, with all due respect St. Louis, to hell with you. Don’t you all have an arch to polish or something?

Today the President’s outrageous and fiscally irresponsible tax cut was passed in Congress. This during a war, and this with the worst projected deficit in US history. Do you know why Congress passed it, other than having no courage? Because they have been assured that the Iraqi assets will be used to pay for this war and the aftermath. Does this sound familiar? Think back: when was the last time you heard of a powerful country invading a less powerful one, and then taking their assets to pay for the invasion?

France came out today and said that the US and Britain should not be allowed to help re-build Iraq, since we’re the one responsible for much of its destruction. If we didn’t have intentions of profiting from this war, we would bow out, and gladly. But after the last few days, I no longer have any faith in the government. We are true thiefs in the night.

Categories
Political

The normalcy

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I wasn’t surprised to hear about the bombing of Baghdad, or even that the first strike was light, and specific. With the whole world watching, waiting to condemn, the US was not going to go in and drop 2000 missiles all at once on Baghdad. In prime time news hour no less. Besides, what did one former general say last night on TV? Something along the lines of, “We can’t use all our missiles in this conflict. We have to save some for the next war.”

What did surprise me was the live video shots of Baghdad just after day break. The city had just been bombed, the people awoken by the sounds of anti-aircraft guns, the war has started – but here was a street with cars on it, street lights changing green to red, and the cars were obeying the lights. They were using their signals and signaling turns. It was all so normal. The picture looked like it could be a live shot of St. Louis.

A reporter with a US Army unit that will be one of the first to enter Iraq reported on the activity of the soldiers just after news came of the start of the war. He was struck by the normalcy of the camp: one man was using a truck mirror to shave, another was doing pushups, others chatting quietly, heading into breakfast. There was no visible indication that the war had started among those who would be the first to fight it on the ground.

It’s interesting reading the weblogs this morning. Many have written that they won’t write about the war in their weblogs. Others won’t even mention it and carry on as if the war hasn’t happened. Some of the warbloggers I gather went out and bought new coffee pots so they could weblog the body count all night long.

For the first time last night, on NBC news, the word ‘weblog’ was used, when they interviewed the creator of MovedOn and the author of Smart Mobs about the difference the online community has made on the anti-war movement. We’re in the big time now, boys and girls. Time to clean up your act, and put away the cat pictures. The world is watching, waiting for us to Make a Difference.

The war has started. Everything is different now.

Still, there’s that picture in my mind of the Iraqi driver, stopping at the stop light, using his turn signal, checking carefully before taking a free right. At that moment, I really liked the people of Baghdad. Still do.

DD asks in my comments as he asks before, demands to know really: is there any circumstances in which I would support a war. I have answered, but not in a way that DD understands, apparently. I have a feeling I’m going to continue to frustrate him, because I’m going to continue to give the same answer, and in the same manner.

The war has started, but life goes on.