I couldn’t believe it when a friend told me the news. In the wake of four coordinated suicide attacks in iraq that killed 30 and injured 200, President George Bush claimed that the “attacks were merely a mark of how successfully the U.S. Occupation is going”:www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/27/sprj.irq.main/index.html :
bq. “There are terrorists in iraq who are willing to kill anybody in order to stop our progress. The more success we have on the ground, the more these killers will react — and our job is to find them and bring them to justice.”
This is really his way of explaining away all opposition to the U.S.: people must be jealous of all we have and all we do. But maybe iraqis continue to be angry that we invaded their country; maybe they’re angry that we’ve only reinstalled many of their generals and many of Saddam’s henchmen. Maybe they’re waiting for a democratically-elected council. I’m sure many iraqi’s condemn yesterday’s bombings. But it’s still way too early to declare victory in the war of iraqi public opinion.
Quaker Ranter
A Weekly Newsletter and Blog from Martin Kelley
Tag Archives ⇒ iraq
Where’s the grassroots contemporary nonviolence movement?
October 17, 2003
I’ve long noticed there are few active, online peace sites or communities that have the grassroots depth I see occurring elsewhere on the net. It’s a problem for Nonviolence.org [update: a project since laid down], as it makes it harder to find a diversity of stories.
I have two types of sources for Nonviolence.org. The first is mainstream news. I search through Google News, Technorati current events, then maybe the New York Times, The Guardian, and the Washington Post.
There are lots of interesting articles on the war in iraq, but there’s always a political spin somewhere, especially in timing. Most big news stories have broken in one month, died down, and then become huge news three months later (e.g., Wilson’s CIA wife being exposed, which was first reported on Nonviolence.org on July 22 but became headlines in early October). These news cycles are driven by domestic party politics, and at times I feel all my links make Nonviolence.org sound like an apparatchik of the Democratic Party USA.
But it’s not just the tone that makes mainstream news articles a problem – it’s also the general subject matter. There’s a lot more to nonviolence than antiwar exposes, yet the news rarely covers anything about the culture of peace. “If it bleeds it leads” is an old newspaper slogan and you will never learn about the wider scope of nonviolence by reading the papers.
My second source is peace movement websites
And these are, by-and-large, uninteresting. Often they’re not updated frequently. But even when they are, the pieces on them can be shallow. You’ll see the self-serving press release (“as a peace organization we protest war actions”) and you’ll see the exclamatory all-caps screed (“eND THe OCCUPATION NOW!!!”). These are fine as long as you’re already a member of said organization or already have decided you’re against the war, but there’s little persuasion or dialogue possible in this style of writing and organizing.
There are few people in the larger peace movement who regularly write pieces that are interesting to those outside our narrow circles. David McReynolds and Geov Parrish are two of those exceptions. It takes an ability to sometimes question your own group’s consensus and to acknowledge when nonviolence orthodoxy sometimes just doesn’t have an answer.
And what of peace bloggers? I really admire Joshua Micah Marshall, but he’s not a pacifist. There’s the excellent Gutless Pacifist (who’s led me to some very interesting websites over the last year), Bill Connelly/Thoughts on the eve, Stand Down/No War Blog, and a new one for me, The Picket Line. But most of us are all pointing to the same mainstream news articles, with the same Iraq War focus.
If the web had started in the early 1970s, there would have been lots of interesting publishing projects and blogs growing out the activist communities. Younger people today are using the internet to sponsor interesting gatherings and using sites like Meetup to build connections, but I don’t see communities built around peace the way they did in the early 1970s. There are few people building a life – hope, friends, work – around pacifism.
Has “pacifism” become ossified as its own in-group dogma of a certain generation of activists? What links can we build with current movements? How can we deepen and expand what we mean by nonviolence so that it relates to the world outside our tiny organizations?
Scandal du Jour: Vice President leaking CIA Names
October 2, 2003
In the last year scandals seem to follow a curious pattern: they rise up, get a lot of talk in Washington but little elsewhere and then disappear, only to come back three months later as massive public news.
Back in July, we posted a number of entries about White House dirty tricks against a whistleblower’s wife. For those who missed the story, diplomat Joseph Wilson had traveled to the African nation of Niger to investigate the story that that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from it. Wilson easily determined that the story was a hoax and reported this information back to Washington. Despite the debunking, President Bush used the allegation in his State of the Union address and Wilson later came out and told reporters the President knew the information was false. A short time later someone in the White House let a conservative columnist know that Wilson was married to an operative for the Central Intelligence Agency, exposing her name and endangering both her mission and the lives of those helping her.
We called this a treasonable offense but the news blew over and few people outside Washington seemed to follow the story. Last week it blew up big again and it’s been creating headlines. Rumor has it that the White House leak came from very high up in the Vice President’s office and the questions have mounted:
- who leaked the information?
- what did the Vice President know?
- what did the President know?
- did the President and his advisors know the Niger story was false when he addressed the nation and use it to call for war in Iraq?
The in’s and out’s of the renewed scandal are being ably tallied by Joshua Michal Marshall’s Talking Points Memo. He’s situating the leak in the backdrop of an ongoing war between the Vice President’s office and the CIA. As we’ve been documenting for a year now, the Vice President has been pressuring the CIA to skew their findings to suit the political needs of Administration. Most of the pre-war reports from the CIA found no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, for example, which made Vice President Dick Cheney furious and he was somewhat sucessful in getting them to rewrite their story. Now of course we know the CIA was right, and that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction.
We have independent intelligence services precisely so we will have the best information possible when making decisions of national security. To politicize these services to serve the agendas of a pro-war Administration (who salivated over an Iraq invasion long before the 9/11 bombings) is wrong. It’s the kind of thing a banana republic dictator does. It’s not something that the American people can afford.
Big Lies & Mass Hysteria
September 11, 2003
It was Adolf Hitler, the world’s most notrious dictator, who told us that The great mass of people … will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
And it is in the vein that I will pass along the latest poll by MS-NBC, that has found that 70% of American people think Hussein and 9/11 are linked. This is perhaps the biggest lie of my lifetime. I fear for the very soul of my nation, that so many of my fellow Americans would deny all evidence to allow themselves to go along with this myth. There has been no evidence of any connection. Most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals, opposed to the U.S.-backed ruling Saudi family. Al Qaeda is a group of religious fundamentalists trained in part with CIA money who have always been opposed to the secular socialist regime of Saddam Hussein. There’s no mystery who the hijackers were or why they chose the U.S. as their target. Conspiracy theories aren’t needed to explain the events of two years ago.
So why then do we believe Saddam blew up the World Trade Center towers? Maybe there are too many of us who love our lives of convenience, who love our big cars, our big homes, our opulent lifestyles and maybe we know that deep down our lifestyle is based on control of Middle East oil. Or perhaps Saddam Hussein has become the demon we pour all our worldly fears and guilt into, so that we think all the world’s troubles must come from him.
Whatever the reason, the results are a kind of mass hysteria. Seven our of ten Americans believe in a conspiracy theory so divorced from any evidence that history surely prepares to mock us. Every so often I’ll read of the outlandish conspiracy theories running through the Arab world — like the one that the planes were manned by Israelies and that all the Jews who worked in the towers were warned not to come to work — and I’ll wonder how a people could live in such a state of unreality. But then I see American’s myths: just as incredible, just as based on our own demons. We have based a war and a foreign policy on the boogie-men of our subconsciences. We have killed for our fears. What if we were to wake up to reality: could we still justify the war and occupation of Iraq with the imperiousness and surety that we’ve shown so far?
Weapons? no. Program? no. Scientists? no. High School Calc? A‑ha!
September 5, 2003
Okay, so the justification for the war on Iraq was the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had ready to use against the U.S.. The U.S. knew where the weapons were and a war would find them. Well, the war came and no weapons were found. So the story changed. The U.S. attacked Iraq because Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, which he would then surely use against the U.S. The U.S. knew where the weapons were being developed and they would be uncovered any day now. But five months of inspectors combing Iraq have found nothing.
So now a new story. The U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control tells us that whether Hussein had the weapons “isn’t really the issue.” But the war is still justified because Saddam had scientists who might someday work on a weapons program that might someday build a weapon that might someday be used against the U.S. or one of its allies
Bolton said that Saddam kept “a coterie” of scientists he was preserving for the day when he could build nuclear weapons unhindered by international constraints.
I’m personally just waiting for the next level of Bush Administration retreat. Wait for Bolton to announce next month that it didn’t matter if Saddam didn’t actually have any trained nuclear scientists, as occupation inspectors had uncovered evidence that North Badgdad High taught calculus for its eleventh graders. “They might go on to work on a weapons program someday, we had to invade before Saddam could teach them Calc II.”
The excuses just get more pathetic as the truth becomes harder to ignore: the Bush Administration lied to the American people. The only winners in this war are the energy companies rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure with U.S. taxpayer dollars. It’s time to connect the dots, to stop paying investigators to comb Iraq for the non-existant weapons. The inspectors should be recalled to Washington to investigate the very real bamboozle (dare I say “conspiracy”?) that foisted a war on the American people. We’ve been played for chumps.
Pacifism and the Congo Dilemma
August 25, 2003
From the War Resisters League’s Judith Mahoney Pasternak, “an honest look at the challenge pacifism faces in places like the Congo”:www.warresisters.org/nva0703‑1.htm:
bq. There are those who challenge the pacifist position with such questions as, “A man with a gun is aiming it at your mother. You have a gun in your hand. What nonviolent action do you take?” Our usual answer is, “I’m a pacifist. I don’t have a gun in my hand. Next question.” But at least once in every generation — more frequently, alas, in these violence-ridden years — the challenge is a harder one to shrug off with a flip answer.
The answer of course is to stop wars before they start, by stopping the arms trade, the dictatorships, and the crushing economic reforms demanded by Western banks _before_ these forces all combine and erupt into war. Pasternak outlines four parts to a blueprint that could end much of the violence in the Congo.
I’ve always been impressed that the folks at War Resisters are willing to talk about the limits of nonviolence (see David McReynolds seven-part “Philosophy of Nonviolence”:www.nonviolence.org/issues/philosophy-nonviolence.php). While war is never the only option (and arguably never the best one), it’s much more effective to stop wars ten years before the bullets start flying. In each of the wars the U.S. has fought recently, we can see past U.S. policies setting up the conflict ten, twenty and thirty years ago.
The largest peace marches in the world can rarely prevent a war once the troops ships have set sail. If U.S. policy and aid hadn’t supported the “wrong” side in Iraq and Afghanistan twenty years ago, I don’t think we would have fought these current wars. Pacifists and their kin need to start asking the tough questions about the current repressive regimes the U.S. is supporting – places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – and we need to demand that building democracy is our country’s number one goal in the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations (yes, prioritize it _over_ security, so that we “don’t replace Saddam Hussein with equally repressive thugs”:www.nonviolence.org/articles/000130.php.
U.S. taking on Hussein Strongman Role
August 24, 2003
It shouldn’t be a surprise but it makes me sick anyway. The _Washington Post_ reports that the “U.S. occupation is hiring Saddam Hussein’s ex-spies”:www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37331-2003Aug23.html.
It must be a good job market for mid-level Saddam Hussein loyalists. Back in June, we learned that the U.S. had put “ex-Iraqi generals in charge of many Iraq cities”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000027.php (at the same time the U.S. canceled promised elections). The U.S. trumpets capture of big-name Iraqi leaders like “Chemical Ali”:www.msnbc.com/news/955391.asp?vts=082120030615 but then quietly hires their assistants. The majority of the new U.S. intelligence recruits come from Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat, an agency whose name is said to inspire dread among Iraqis.
The infrastructure of Saddam Hussein’s repression apparatus is being rebuilt as a U.S. repression apparatus. The statues of Saddam Hussein go down, the “playing card” Iraqi figureheads get caught, but not much changes.
The article says that the new spy hiring is “covert” but it’s apparently no secret in Iraq. even the Iraqi Governing Council, a dummy representative body handpicked by U.S. forces, has expressed “adamant objections” to the recruitment campaign:
bq. “We’ve always criticized the procedure of recruiting from the old regime’s officers. We think it is a mistake,” Mahdi said. “We’ve told them you have some bad people in your security apparatus.”
No, the “covert” audience is the U.S. public, who might start feeling quesy about the Iraq War if they knew how easily the U.S. was slipping into Saddam Hussein’s shoes.
Pentagon Movie- and Myth-Making
August 20, 2003
There’s an interesting conversation over at TalkLeft about the Pentagon’s vetting of movie scripts. One of the next movies they’re working on is a dramatization of the the already highly-embellished story of the “rescue” of Private Jessica Lynch in Iraq (one’s tempted to ask whether a movie about her could even say “Based on a True Story”).