Thursday, March 06, 2003
I know some smart Republicans
I know some smart Republicans so it should not be a contradiction to talk of their intellectual rigor. But it is quite amazing how the subjects of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation empire all succumb eventually to the tabloid disease of facile, flippant, and utterly pathetic 'analysis', passing it off all the while as something worthy of consideration. I append below the words of one of the US's pre-eminent conservative journalists; the material in italics is the NUN's 'common sense' responses to his uncommonly insensible comments….B. Shuai, Editor, The Non-Union News
The Peacenik Top 10
A look at the ten most popular objections to war and some common-sense responses to them.
by Fred Barnes, executive editor, The Weekly Standard, 03/06/2003
THOSE OPPOSED to military action in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the 24 million Iraqi citizens under his control cite at least 10 objections to going to war now. These objections range from the arguable to the totally absurd. Let's examine them.
(1) Rush to war. This is a favorite of congressional Democrats. But the rush is more like a baby crawl. Iraq has been in material breach of United Nations resolutions since a few weeks after the Gulf War ended in 1991. New resolutions have been approved, inspectors ousted, and the United Nations made to look impotent. President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.
Constructing his argument carefully, Mr Barnes ignores the fact that the 'rush to war' refers to the sudden passion for war that Bush discovered last summer and the indecent alacrity with which he has pursued that goal since that time. Until he had Paul Wolfowitz whispering in his ear, Bush had been content to address the Iraq issue by following Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice's recommendation of reforming the sanctions regime. Of course this is also a slippery criticism of the George I who was president when these material breaches started and did nothing about them; OF COURSE Bill Clinton did nothing, which is why George II was raised up by the Lord to smite these evil-doers.
(2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.
Poppycock of the first order; it is true that there are those who simplistically equate American thirst for oil and its push for war, and Mr Barnes would love it if that was all there was to it. Nonetheless, if the world's second largest oil reserves were under Greenland instead of Iraq no US president would give a hoot who was ruling Iraq or who they were gassing. And the Danes would be either the uneasy friend or the implacable enemy of the US much as the nations around the Persian Gulf now are. But let's get real here; the 'war for oil' objection is generated by the Bush administration's own absurd insistence on claiming that its motive is the removal of a repressive regime for moral reasons as if oil had nothing to do with the calculation at all. Since I myself have lived in a country where the oppression is more long-lived and the 'evil' more brutal (Burma) than it is in Iraq, this claim only begs the question of 'Why Iraq? Why not draw up a list of such nations and start at the top rather than the middle?' Well, the answer, very simply, is oil; not necessarily as a source of wealth for Friends of Bush, but as a strategic commodity whose safe supply is the key to the stability of markets and the economic health of important allies. In this scheme Iraq is merely conveniently low-hanging fruit in the battle against 'evil', but is a prime target in the essential struggle to secure world energy supplies. Mr Barnes is simply lying in what he regards as an amusing manner.
(3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan. Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.
This is so obviously nonsensical that it strikes me as unquestionable proof of Mr Barne's imbecility. He need only go inquire of the Israelis what victory in the Six Day War (and the subsequent decision to hold on to the West Bank and allow or encourage fanatics of several religions to set up shop there) has brought them over the last 35 years to know that it is not a speculation but a certainty that war, victorious or otherwise, will only increase terrorism. Whether or not this is a sufficient reason not to go to war is another argument altogether. I would argue that the expectation that US action will increase terrorist activity would not be a good reason to stop the push for war if war were the best solution to begin with (which it is clearly not). BUT, there is no question, no matter where you stand on the war, that lying about its likely results is a dangerous and foolish tactic. Even Rev Ashcroft (recently in Davos) said that stopping the existing terrorist threat was simply beyond the capabilities of any security apparatus. He and 'homeland' security czar Ridge are absolutely sure that war will bring more terrorism and are planning accordingly.
(4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street. So far, only the American street has erupted--against the French and Germans.
Mr Barnes clearly does not look out of his own window in Washington or take a gander at the streets of cities across America and around the world. Of course vocal opponents of the Bush policies, no matter which 'street' they inhabit have been summarily dismissed as the sort of 'focus group' that Bush simply refuses to recognize as having the right to provide input on his high councils. The Prince of Darkness himself (Defense Advisory Board head Richard Perle) has recently said unequivocally that public policy cannot be made on the basis of how many people are in the street opposing or supporting a particular line. The selective historical blindness of people like Mr Perle makes it impossible for them to remember even as far back as the 70s (Vietnam, the Women's Movement), or the 50s (the Civil Rights Movement) for examples of the undeniable power on policy making of VOTERS marching for their beliefs. Indeed, the Bush administration itself is keenly responsive to the public protest activities of the anti-reproductive rights people. I am sure that Karl Rove could explain this to Mr Barnes. The problem is that the 'might makes right' calculations of Mr Barnes et al leads them to believe that it does not matter what anyone thinks as long as America is victorious. Only a child, and a petulant and particularly stupid one, would believe this.
(5) Bush is doing it for his dad. President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the Gulf war and to this day believes he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full disarmament. Also, consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.
Ha ha, very funny. Bush himself made this admission and trying to cover it up with Hollywood bashing is pretty darn lame. What WOULD be a valid counter would be that certainly Bush is not going to war only because Saddam tried to kill his father, or even that Saddam had the temerity to outlast George I in office.
(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.
I will grant the possible relevance of this point if Mr Barnes were not again misstating the position. We must always remember that the Bush claim, made most recently in his faux press conference of March 5, that Iraq represents a direct and imminent threat to the US, has been COMPLETELY refuted by the acceptance by the Bush administration of the need to consult the US Congress and receive backing from the UN Security Council. Both entities unequivocally recognize the right of the United States to attack a foe to defend from an imminent rather than an actual attack. All the claims that going to the United Nations would represent an unacceptable 'veto' by an international body on the actions of a soveriegn state are hogwash. No such mechanism exists were there anything approaching a demonstrable threat, which, despite all the earnest demonstrations, still has not been demonstrated. It is precisely the function of both the US 'War Powers Act' (no matter its questionable but untested constitutionality) and the United Nations' conflict resolution mechanism to prevent unsubstantiated claims of threat from being acted upon.
(7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat.
Not only is containment working, but now that the US government is really on board with it, providing it the unquestionable advantage of being backed up by enormous military force, it is working better than ever. The real problem with Mr Barnes and all the other people hectoring about the "WMDs being passed on to non-state actors/terrorists is that if the US is supposed to worry about this and make it the basis of immediate action then it is as plain as the pretzel in Bush's throat that the entire US military apparatus should today be switched to the Korean peninsula to deal with the leader voted most likely to do something as insane as equipping terrorists with real WMDs. (yes, please note that chemical and biological weapons are not true WMDs and the conceit that they are is a purely strategic contention by the US, the reality of this language shift just another casualty of the rhetorical 'shock and awe' practiced so expertly by the Bush administration.) The incessant conflation by Bush administration officials (again, most recently by Bush himself in his faux press conference of 5 March) of state and non-state actors in the terrorism game is impressive but still erroneous. The chance that a control-junky like Saddam would pass to people outside his sphere of influence weapons which would be used in ways other than those he personally chooses is virtually nil. The same could not be said of Kim Jong-il, unfortunately.
(8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? No. And despite what Democrats like Howard Dean say, a war with Iraq would not be "unilateral," which would mean the United States would be acting alone.
Yes, I see US allies or at least the ones they can buy on short notice swarming around offering their support, and most conspicuous among them are America's three most important friends, the governments of the United Kingdom, England, and Great Britain. But again Barnes misstates the objection so he can attempt to refute it; it is not about the number of allies. The point is that those countries (i.e., peoples) whose values and interests have traditionally been aligned with the US's are, even when their governments have been squeezed into supporting the war effort, overwhelmingly opposed to the US plan to invade Iraq. If nothing else such opposition might give a reasonable person cause for reflection rather than reactionary rejection. But the real issue ought to be what allies the US needs to keep itself safe or to advance that part of its global agenda which cannot be advanced solely by military force. I realize that back there the cheap seats there are those shouting "Hobbesian dynamics will bring the US all the 'allies' it requires", but that is one really marvelous world that the Bushites will have created if that is all the US can depend on.
(9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.
Again, Mr Barnes neglects to note that this is in fact Bush's own oft-stated desire unless he is admitting what most reasonable people could see long ago, that this stance was nothing more than a cynical pose on the part of Bush to deflect criticism that he is a war monger.
(10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. This is a favorite accusation of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the man who once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice. I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said.
Mmmmnnnn. Well that is very pretty, and would were it really true. The US push for war against Iraq is not just an element in, but is the keystone of, a bold policy agenda with the goal of permanent US world hegemony established not by a set of democratic values or even the persuasive logic of the free market but by the raw application of naked military might. Paranoid fantasy you say? Nonsense. The originators of this agenda are mostly former members of the previous Bush administration who have returned to power and influence with the younger Bush and they are completely unashamed by their plans and don't care who knows it. Their credo is best embodied in the National Security Policy promulgated last September. That document as well as other statements of the so-called 'vulcans' (also known as the 'chickenhawks') can be found on their website, the Project for the New American Century.
No doubt opponents are capable of coming up with new arguments against war with Iraq. They'd better do so soon because so far they haven't convinced anyone outside the reflexively anti-Bush crowd.
I hope Mr Barnes believes this because a person so thoroughly self-deluded is probably in deep need of comfort. The much more tragic truth is that a critique of the Bush administration's policies is virtually impossible to find in the mainstream commercial press. And what a surprise that is. After all, despite the traditional canard of the liberal prejudice of the press, the public airwaves and newsprint are almost completely dominated by the right and their supporters.
One of the most curious aspects of that fact is the discovery by, of all people, Rupert Murdoch, that facile, flippant, and utterly disinformative 'analysis' such as that trumpeted by The Weekly Standard and perfected on the Fox News outlets, SELLS. It sells mostly because it uses juvenile humor and perfectly mirrors the viewer/reader's own solipsistic and self-satisfied views on almost everything, and congratulates the narrow, the reactionary, and the insipid in all of us. The reason that there is no 'liberal Rush Limbaugh' is that it seems that so-called liberals find it hard to accept the value of turning any and all significant issues and the debates that revolve around them into mere entertainment depending on the sort of perception and wit normally associated with adolescent boys.
The Peacenik Top 10
A look at the ten most popular objections to war and some common-sense responses to them.
by Fred Barnes, executive editor, The Weekly Standard, 03/06/2003
THOSE OPPOSED to military action in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the 24 million Iraqi citizens under his control cite at least 10 objections to going to war now. These objections range from the arguable to the totally absurd. Let's examine them.
(1) Rush to war. This is a favorite of congressional Democrats. But the rush is more like a baby crawl. Iraq has been in material breach of United Nations resolutions since a few weeks after the Gulf War ended in 1991. New resolutions have been approved, inspectors ousted, and the United Nations made to look impotent. President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.
Constructing his argument carefully, Mr Barnes ignores the fact that the 'rush to war' refers to the sudden passion for war that Bush discovered last summer and the indecent alacrity with which he has pursued that goal since that time. Until he had Paul Wolfowitz whispering in his ear, Bush had been content to address the Iraq issue by following Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice's recommendation of reforming the sanctions regime. Of course this is also a slippery criticism of the George I who was president when these material breaches started and did nothing about them; OF COURSE Bill Clinton did nothing, which is why George II was raised up by the Lord to smite these evil-doers.
(2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.
Poppycock of the first order; it is true that there are those who simplistically equate American thirst for oil and its push for war, and Mr Barnes would love it if that was all there was to it. Nonetheless, if the world's second largest oil reserves were under Greenland instead of Iraq no US president would give a hoot who was ruling Iraq or who they were gassing. And the Danes would be either the uneasy friend or the implacable enemy of the US much as the nations around the Persian Gulf now are. But let's get real here; the 'war for oil' objection is generated by the Bush administration's own absurd insistence on claiming that its motive is the removal of a repressive regime for moral reasons as if oil had nothing to do with the calculation at all. Since I myself have lived in a country where the oppression is more long-lived and the 'evil' more brutal (Burma) than it is in Iraq, this claim only begs the question of 'Why Iraq? Why not draw up a list of such nations and start at the top rather than the middle?' Well, the answer, very simply, is oil; not necessarily as a source of wealth for Friends of Bush, but as a strategic commodity whose safe supply is the key to the stability of markets and the economic health of important allies. In this scheme Iraq is merely conveniently low-hanging fruit in the battle against 'evil', but is a prime target in the essential struggle to secure world energy supplies. Mr Barnes is simply lying in what he regards as an amusing manner.
(3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan. Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.
This is so obviously nonsensical that it strikes me as unquestionable proof of Mr Barne's imbecility. He need only go inquire of the Israelis what victory in the Six Day War (and the subsequent decision to hold on to the West Bank and allow or encourage fanatics of several religions to set up shop there) has brought them over the last 35 years to know that it is not a speculation but a certainty that war, victorious or otherwise, will only increase terrorism. Whether or not this is a sufficient reason not to go to war is another argument altogether. I would argue that the expectation that US action will increase terrorist activity would not be a good reason to stop the push for war if war were the best solution to begin with (which it is clearly not). BUT, there is no question, no matter where you stand on the war, that lying about its likely results is a dangerous and foolish tactic. Even Rev Ashcroft (recently in Davos) said that stopping the existing terrorist threat was simply beyond the capabilities of any security apparatus. He and 'homeland' security czar Ridge are absolutely sure that war will bring more terrorism and are planning accordingly.
(4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street. So far, only the American street has erupted--against the French and Germans.
Mr Barnes clearly does not look out of his own window in Washington or take a gander at the streets of cities across America and around the world. Of course vocal opponents of the Bush policies, no matter which 'street' they inhabit have been summarily dismissed as the sort of 'focus group' that Bush simply refuses to recognize as having the right to provide input on his high councils. The Prince of Darkness himself (Defense Advisory Board head Richard Perle) has recently said unequivocally that public policy cannot be made on the basis of how many people are in the street opposing or supporting a particular line. The selective historical blindness of people like Mr Perle makes it impossible for them to remember even as far back as the 70s (Vietnam, the Women's Movement), or the 50s (the Civil Rights Movement) for examples of the undeniable power on policy making of VOTERS marching for their beliefs. Indeed, the Bush administration itself is keenly responsive to the public protest activities of the anti-reproductive rights people. I am sure that Karl Rove could explain this to Mr Barnes. The problem is that the 'might makes right' calculations of Mr Barnes et al leads them to believe that it does not matter what anyone thinks as long as America is victorious. Only a child, and a petulant and particularly stupid one, would believe this.
(5) Bush is doing it for his dad. President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the Gulf war and to this day believes he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full disarmament. Also, consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.
Ha ha, very funny. Bush himself made this admission and trying to cover it up with Hollywood bashing is pretty darn lame. What WOULD be a valid counter would be that certainly Bush is not going to war only because Saddam tried to kill his father, or even that Saddam had the temerity to outlast George I in office.
(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.
I will grant the possible relevance of this point if Mr Barnes were not again misstating the position. We must always remember that the Bush claim, made most recently in his faux press conference of March 5, that Iraq represents a direct and imminent threat to the US, has been COMPLETELY refuted by the acceptance by the Bush administration of the need to consult the US Congress and receive backing from the UN Security Council. Both entities unequivocally recognize the right of the United States to attack a foe to defend from an imminent rather than an actual attack. All the claims that going to the United Nations would represent an unacceptable 'veto' by an international body on the actions of a soveriegn state are hogwash. No such mechanism exists were there anything approaching a demonstrable threat, which, despite all the earnest demonstrations, still has not been demonstrated. It is precisely the function of both the US 'War Powers Act' (no matter its questionable but untested constitutionality) and the United Nations' conflict resolution mechanism to prevent unsubstantiated claims of threat from being acted upon.
(7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat.
Not only is containment working, but now that the US government is really on board with it, providing it the unquestionable advantage of being backed up by enormous military force, it is working better than ever. The real problem with Mr Barnes and all the other people hectoring about the "WMDs being passed on to non-state actors/terrorists is that if the US is supposed to worry about this and make it the basis of immediate action then it is as plain as the pretzel in Bush's throat that the entire US military apparatus should today be switched to the Korean peninsula to deal with the leader voted most likely to do something as insane as equipping terrorists with real WMDs. (yes, please note that chemical and biological weapons are not true WMDs and the conceit that they are is a purely strategic contention by the US, the reality of this language shift just another casualty of the rhetorical 'shock and awe' practiced so expertly by the Bush administration.) The incessant conflation by Bush administration officials (again, most recently by Bush himself in his faux press conference of 5 March) of state and non-state actors in the terrorism game is impressive but still erroneous. The chance that a control-junky like Saddam would pass to people outside his sphere of influence weapons which would be used in ways other than those he personally chooses is virtually nil. The same could not be said of Kim Jong-il, unfortunately.
(8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? No. And despite what Democrats like Howard Dean say, a war with Iraq would not be "unilateral," which would mean the United States would be acting alone.
Yes, I see US allies or at least the ones they can buy on short notice swarming around offering their support, and most conspicuous among them are America's three most important friends, the governments of the United Kingdom, England, and Great Britain. But again Barnes misstates the objection so he can attempt to refute it; it is not about the number of allies. The point is that those countries (i.e., peoples) whose values and interests have traditionally been aligned with the US's are, even when their governments have been squeezed into supporting the war effort, overwhelmingly opposed to the US plan to invade Iraq. If nothing else such opposition might give a reasonable person cause for reflection rather than reactionary rejection. But the real issue ought to be what allies the US needs to keep itself safe or to advance that part of its global agenda which cannot be advanced solely by military force. I realize that back there the cheap seats there are those shouting "Hobbesian dynamics will bring the US all the 'allies' it requires", but that is one really marvelous world that the Bushites will have created if that is all the US can depend on.
(9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.
Again, Mr Barnes neglects to note that this is in fact Bush's own oft-stated desire unless he is admitting what most reasonable people could see long ago, that this stance was nothing more than a cynical pose on the part of Bush to deflect criticism that he is a war monger.
(10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. This is a favorite accusation of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the man who once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice. I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said.
Mmmmnnnn. Well that is very pretty, and would were it really true. The US push for war against Iraq is not just an element in, but is the keystone of, a bold policy agenda with the goal of permanent US world hegemony established not by a set of democratic values or even the persuasive logic of the free market but by the raw application of naked military might. Paranoid fantasy you say? Nonsense. The originators of this agenda are mostly former members of the previous Bush administration who have returned to power and influence with the younger Bush and they are completely unashamed by their plans and don't care who knows it. Their credo is best embodied in the National Security Policy promulgated last September. That document as well as other statements of the so-called 'vulcans' (also known as the 'chickenhawks') can be found on their website, the Project for the New American Century.
No doubt opponents are capable of coming up with new arguments against war with Iraq. They'd better do so soon because so far they haven't convinced anyone outside the reflexively anti-Bush crowd.
I hope Mr Barnes believes this because a person so thoroughly self-deluded is probably in deep need of comfort. The much more tragic truth is that a critique of the Bush administration's policies is virtually impossible to find in the mainstream commercial press. And what a surprise that is. After all, despite the traditional canard of the liberal prejudice of the press, the public airwaves and newsprint are almost completely dominated by the right and their supporters.
One of the most curious aspects of that fact is the discovery by, of all people, Rupert Murdoch, that facile, flippant, and utterly disinformative 'analysis' such as that trumpeted by The Weekly Standard and perfected on the Fox News outlets, SELLS. It sells mostly because it uses juvenile humor and perfectly mirrors the viewer/reader's own solipsistic and self-satisfied views on almost everything, and congratulates the narrow, the reactionary, and the insipid in all of us. The reason that there is no 'liberal Rush Limbaugh' is that it seems that so-called liberals find it hard to accept the value of turning any and all significant issues and the debates that revolve around them into mere entertainment depending on the sort of perception and wit normally associated with adolescent boys.
