ON WITH THE MOTLEY
As we wait by the tickertape machine for word that the tanks are on the move, we crave a little common sense in a world run by drivelling idiots. Here in the UK the newspapers have finally aligned themselves. The Sun - a journal you wouldn't use to line your cat litter tray - is ready with the kind of gung-ho headlines that so endeared them to the thinking British public during the Falklands War. They're off the blocks with "Let's Roll!". Predictably Genghis Khan's favourite read The Daily Mail is rattling sabres with the best of them - although Blair can't get it right by them. Which is going to test their leader writers to the limit over the next few weeks. Sadly, The Observer, usually a haven for a word or two of liberal/left wing sanity, is falling in behind the belligerents, though wringing its hands the while. Only The Independent (broadsheet) & The Daily Mirror (tabloid) remain obdurately opposed to the conflict, now only days away.
Thus the newspapers. We can confidently expect a significant number of those Labour MPs currently so vocal in their denunciation of Blair & his tiny band of fellow adventurers to swing in behind the leader when the call comes. Pragmatism will, as ever, rule in these days of ideology free politics. For me the truest words & bravest deeds always come from those who take a stand outside the common arena. The renegade priest who defies othodoxy & seeks God on his own; the acerbic journalist whose moral anger shines through the weary irony & ostensible disengagement; the articulate anarchist who defies the mockery of those truly naive idealists, the politicians who believe that a rotten system, state-ordained or free enterprise, can be made to work for all.
I found this Michael Albert interview with Noam Chomsky on the huge & entirely admirable Z-net site. It's from August 29th 2002 when what we are about to receive was backstage rumbling & the real deal was the imminent apprehension of Bin Laden.
Has Saddam Hussein been as evil as mainstream media says? Domestically? Internationally?
He is as evil as they come, ranking with Suharto and other monsters of the modern era. No one would want to be within his reach. But fortunately, his reach does not extend very far.
Internationally, Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support), and when that war was going badly turned to chemical weapons (also with Western support). He invaded Kuwait and was quickly driven out. A major concern in Washington right after the invasion was that Saddam would quickly withdraw, putting "his puppet in [and] everyone in the Arab world will be happy" (Colin Powell, then Chief of Staff). President Bush was concerned that Saudi Arabia might "bug out at the last minute and accept a puppet regime in Kuwait" unless the US prevented Iraqi withdrawal. The concern, in brief, was that Saddam would pretty much duplicate what the US had just done in Panama (except that Latin Americans were anything but happy). From the first moment the US sought to avert this "nightmare scenario." A story that should be looked at with some care.
Saddam's worst crimes, by far, have been domestic, including the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late 80s, barbaric torture, and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are at the top of the list of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned, rightly. It's useful to ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and eloquent expressions of outrage are accompanied by three little words: "with our help."
The crimes were well known at once, but of no particular concern to the West. Saddam received some mild reprimands; harsh congressional condemnation was considered too extreme by prominent commentators. The Reaganites and Bush 1 continued to welcome the monster as an ally and valued trading partner right through his worst atrocities and well beyond. Bush authorized loan guarantees and sale of advanced technology with clear applications for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day of the Kuwait invasion, sometimes overriding congressional efforts to prevent what he was doing. Britain was still authorizing export of military equipment and radioactive materials a few days after the invasion. When ABC correspondent and now ZNet Commentator Charles Glass discovered biological weapons facilities (using commercial satellites and defector testimony), his revelations were immediately denied by the Pentagon and the story disappeared. It was resurrected when Saddam committed his first real crime, disobeying US orders (or perhaps misinterpreting them) by invading Kuwait, and switched instantly from friend to reincarnation of Attila the Hun. The same facilities were then used to demonstrate his innately evil nature. When Bush 1 announced new gifts to his friend in December 1989 (also gifts to US agribusiness and industry), it was considered too insignificant even to report, though one could read about it in Z magazine at the time, maybe nowhere else. A few months later, shortly before he invaded Kuwait, a high-level Senate delegation, headed by (later) Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, visited Saddam, conveying the President's greetings and assuring the brutal mass murderer that he should disregard the criticism he hears from maverick reporters here. Saddam had even been able to get away with attacking a US naval vessel, the USS Stark, killing several dozen crewmen. That is a mark of real esteem. The only other country to have been granted that privilege was Israel, in 1967. In deference to Saddam, the State Department banned all contacts with the Iraqi democratic opposition, maintaining this policy even after the Gulf war, while Washington effectively authorized Saddam to crush a Shi'ite rebellion that might well have overthrown him -- in the interest of preserving "stability," the press explained, nodding sagely.
That he's a major criminal is not in doubt. That's not changed by the fact that the US and Britain regarded his major atrocities as insignificant in the light of higher "reasons of state," before the Gulf war and even after -- facts best forgotten.
Looking into the future, is Saddam Hussein as dangerous as mainstream media says?
The world would be better off if he weren't there, no doubt about that. Surely Iraqis would. But he can't be anywhere near as dangerous as he was when the US and Britain were supporting him, even providing him with dual-use technology that he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons development, as he presumably did. 10 years ago the Senate Banking Committee hearings revealed that the Bush administration was granting licences for dual use technology and "materials which were later utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and chemical purposes." Later hearings added more, and there are press reports and a mainstream scholarly literature on the topic (as well as dissident literature).
The 1991 war was extremely destructive, and since then Iraq has been devastated by a decade of sanctions, which probably strengthened Saddam himself (by weakening possible resistance in a shattered society), but surely reduced very significantly his capacity for war-making or support for terror. Furthermore, since 1991 his regime has been constrained by "no fly zones," regular overflights and bombing, and very tight surveillance. Chances are that the events of Sept. 11 weakened him still further. If there are any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, they would be far more difficult to maintain now because of the sharply intensified surveillance and controls. That aside, links are not very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, nothing has been found, which is not too surprising. Saddam and bin Laden were bitter enemies, and there's no particular reason to suppose that there have been any changes in that regard.
The rational conclusion is that Saddam is probably less of a danger now than before 9-11, and far less of a threat than when he was enjoying substantial support from the US-UK (and many others). That raises a few questions. If Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn't that true a year ago? And much more dramatically, in early 1990?
Some advocates of war have suggested that if the economic sanctions on Iraq are as horrible as the left claims, then a war, even a war that killed 100,000 civilians, would be a humanitarian blessing, since, presumably, after a U.S. victory there would be no more sanctions. How do you answer this argument?
I've heard some zany arguments in the past, but this must break some new records. I suspect it was offered tongue in cheek. Note first the conception of "the left": the UN's humanitarian coordinators (Denis Halliday, Hans van Sponeck) who know more about the country than anyone else, UNICEF, etc. It's a bit like saying that the left is concerned about global warming -- and tells us something about where those who question "the claim" place themselves on the political spectrum.
But that aside, the argument does have appeal. For example, we could offer Iran assistance in conquering Israel and carrying out appropriate "regime change," so that suicide bombings would stop. Since the war advocates doubtless regard suicide bombing as atrocious, they should be calling for that. Or, we could help Russia grind Chechnya to dust, so that Chechens would no longer have to suffer Russian terror and atrocities. The possibilities are endless.
What will the implications of war be in the Middle East, and also other parts of the world? Do U.S. elites care?
Elites of course care, though the small group that holds the reins of power currently may not care very much. They evidently believe that they have such overwhelming force at their command that it doesn't really matter much what others think: if they don't go along, they'll be dismissed, or if they are in the way, pulverized. The thinking in high places was made pretty clear when Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia visited the US in April to urge the administration to pay some attention to the reaction in the Arab world to its strong support for Israeli terror and repression. He was told, in effect, that the US did not care what he or other Arabs think. A high official explained that "if he thought we were strong in Desert Storm, we're 10 times as strong today. This was to give him some idea what Afghanistan demonstrated about our capabilities." A senior defense analyst gave a simple gloss: others will "respect us for our toughness and won't mess with us." That stand has precedents that need not be mentioned. But in the post-9/11 world it gains new force. Are they right? Could be. Or maybe the world will blow up in their face, perhaps after a "decent interval," as it's called in diplomacy. Again, resort to large-scale violence has highly unpredictable consequences, as history reveals and common sense should tell us anyway. That's why sane people avoid it, in personal relations or international affairs, unless a very powerful argument is offered to overcome "the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force" (to borrow the phrase of Reaganite intellectual Norman Podhoretz, paraphrasing Goebbels).
Still waiting for that "very powerful argument"...
11:50:04 PM 
|
|
