Beneficial righteous rage followed by action is the only thing that may save this tottering old republic and Justin Raimondo has it in spades. His recent comparison of the US tactics in Iraq to those used by the conquering Nazis, swings the harsh light directly on the US military’s conduct there. Raimondo is to be commended.
A year ago I penned a rhetorical column that drew wide reader response in the US and over the world ("Achtung, Nazi! – One Year Later"). Most of our longtime allies and admirers agreed we Americans were sliding dangerously close to the Third Reich, while employing some of the worst abuses of the Soviet Communists, which Justin has warned us against for years. US soldiers should ask themselves: how does my conduct reflect on my country? How does my conduct as a serviceman protect my country? How do my acts of brutality or oppression – that I would not tolerate in my own country – how do they spread the ideals of freedom?
Keep up the good work, Justin. Only a righteous rage against government abuse will prevent a complete totalitarian takeover – Raimondo and Antiwar.com are in the forefront of that resistance.
~ Douglas Herman, USAF veteran, Kodiak, Alaska
First of all, more of the same great coverage, in future. I always appreciate that you avoid stereotypes at all times.
Second, your thesis about the intended humiliation behind the propaganda seems to fit perfectly well with a well-known argument by Edward Said, in his book Orientalism (1975, with new afterword 1994), that the ‘belittlement of Arab society’ and the reduction of public policy to ideological platitudes about the MidEast has been going on for decades and decades among U.S. policy wonks. The nastiness of the present black propaganda is an extension of an endemic position within academia that the Arabs are ‘racially inferior’. Your links with 1930s Germany are to the point. …
All of this may seem too theoretical for what is going on in Iraq, but the sexual metaphor is dominant in this Orientalist ideology:
"[I]n each case the relation between the Middle East and the West is really defined as sexual…. The Middle East is resistant, as any virgin would be, but the male scholar wins the prize by bursting open, penetrating through the Gordian knot despite ‘the taxing task’. ‘Harmony’ is the result of the conquest of maidenly coyness; it is not by any means the coexistence of equals. The underlying power relation between scholar and subject matter is never once altered: it is uniformly favorable to the Orientalist. Study, understanding, knowledge, evaluation, masked as blandishments to ‘harmony’ [between East and West] are instruments of conquest." (p.309) All of this could be commentary on the pseudoscientific bigotry of the theory of "the Arab mind," by David Leo Gutmann.
Said also discusses the ‘class of civilizations’ thesis, "its lamentable jargon, its scarcely concealed racism, its paper-thin intellectual apparatus" (p.322). Like the neo-cons that you are doing such a good job of debunking, Said singled out "the symptomatic case of Paul Johnson, once a Left intellectual, now a retrograde social and political polemicist. In the April 18, 1993, issue of The New York Times Magazine, by no means a marginal publication, Johnson published an essay entitled "Colonialism’s Back – And not a Moment Too Soon," whose main idea was that the ‘civilized nations’ ought to take it upon themselves to re-colonize Third World colonies "where the most basic conditions of civilized life had broken down," and to do this by means of a system of imposed trusteeships. His model is explicitly a nineteenth century colonial one where, he says, in order for the Europeans to trade profitably they had to impose political order. Johnson’s argument has numerous subterranean echoes in the works of US policy-makers, the media, and of course US foreign policy itself, which remains interventionist in the Middle East." (p.348) Shouldn’t we be proclaiming Said as a prophet, i.e. for his prediction of the direction US foreign policy in the Mideast?
~ Dr. Tony P. Nuspl, Visiting Asst. Professor of European History
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater Campus
Abu Ghraib
It may be a break that US Citizens have seen these pictures at this stage of Bush’s America. Most German citizens were not shown evidence of Hitler’s torture and murder of prisoners until after World War II. Most Germans claimed they had no knowledge of the death camps. US citizens, after seeing these pictures of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and murdered and the 60 Minutes II broadcast, can’t claim they didn’t know what their government was doing. …
Americans should consider that if the Bush government is torturing and beating to death Iraqi prisoners now, what will happen to US citizens in the future that are arrested in the US in the name of "national security," if the US Supreme Court rules next month favoring Bush, that US Citizens can be arrested and detained forever without charges ever being filed when the US government deems someone to be a "national security threat."
The following link to pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners taken over a year ago demonstrates that the outrage of Abu Ghraib is no "isolated instance": "Vi tok klærne og brente dem før vi dyttet dem ut med ‘tjuv’ skrevet på brystet."
As investigations into rape, murder, and other alleged Geneva Convention violations by US military personnel in Iraq proceed, I think it is important that attention be paid to a recent apparent case of high-level intelligence community interference with military police operations.
In 2002, Brigadier General Rick Baccus of the Rhode Island National Guard, who commanded military police at Camp Delta, the US detention facility for suspected Taleban and Al-Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was sacked for allegedly being "too nice" to detainees. Among his supposed "wrongdoing" was authorizing the "putting up posters supplied by the International Committee of the Red Cross around the camp." In particular, Army Maj. Gen. Michael Dunlavey, in charge of interrogations at Camp Delta, is reported to have objected to Baccus’ alleged "too kind treatment."
For documentation, see "Army General Shamelessly Caters to Guantanamo Terrorists" by Washington Times reporters Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough.
See also the BBC News report, "’Too nice’ Guantanamo chief sacked" and the Guardian article, "‘Soft’ Guantanamo chief ousted."
The sacking of BG Baccus for doing precisely that which BG Janis Leigh Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade in Iraq, allegedly failed to do, set a very poor precedent.
Faye S.’s backtalk (May 11)
Actually, I no longer live in the US, I moved away because I found life there to be too tasteless (I wasn’t "sent back"). My comments about the natural greed and selfishness of Americans would understandably anger you. Living in many countries over the years and in my profession (I’m a doctor) you see the worst that society has to offer. Unfortunately, with Americans, they are so wrapped up in materialism and superficial nonsense that they have lost common human compassion. As I said before, there are exceptions, but generally that is the case. And hence, the prison abuses are no surprise. Though other countries and dictators torture and abuse far worse that what American troops do, no one gets such apparent joy out of it and takes photos of these abuses while smiling cheerfully into the camera.
I am quite happy to be living in my "home country where they don’t have this freedom of speech and where I am sure that will be life under a much, much worse form of government," but where I know a stranger at night will help me, not try to mug me.
Finally, the "downfall" of your country is certainly not because of people like me, but yourselves, your ignorance, and the governments you elect.
I would like to thank KP, the US Army soldier who reported on the positive comments he received from Iraqis he has contacted. Thank you, KP, foremost for defending the interests of the United States at the risk of your life; and thank you for engaging in the kind of free dialogue that makes democracy so worth promoting and defending.
I took the time to follow the link that this web site dismissively recommended to you. It failed to dissuade me that anything you wrote was inaccurate or misinformed.
The first half of the article attempted to show that Iraqis are unhappy with a foreign military presence in their country. According to the USA Today poll, 71% of Iraqis (81% if you disregard the Kurds for being too grateful, which USA Today did) are now inclined to call the US forces "occupiers" rather than "liberators." It also pointed out that more than half (is that 50.5%? 52%? with a +/- two point margin of error, and again, you have to ignore the opinion of the Kurds or the number becomes less than half) of the Iraqis believe that killing Americans is justified "in some cases."
Let’s consider how Americans might respond to a similar poll in a similar situation. Suppose an Iraqi force of any given size landed in the US with the stated objective of removing the criminals from our government and bringing us greater freedom. Would 29% of Americans be willing to call the Iraqi force "liberators" rather than "occupiers?" I don’t think so. In fact, I don’t think there would be any semantic hairsplitting at all. I think I can safely predict that 99.9% of Americans (especially if, as part of your methodology, you excluded the staff and loyal readership of this publication for being against violence no matter the context) would answer: "Occupiers get the hell out." In fact, the USA Today article acknowledges this very comparison. In the words of Mathew Leifi, a US Marine quoted in the article: "I can see their point of view – if anyone rolled up on my street, I’d be pissed, too."
And as far as the 50% +/- that would be willing to kill Americans "in some cases" – I can think of some cases where I would justify killing Americans, let alone a foreign invader. If they raped my wife; if they killed my children; if they attempted to destroy my home. I’m not suggesting that the US is in Iraq to do any of these things, but the question as posed by USA Today leaves only one logical answer: Yes, I would kill "in some cases." Frankly, I’m surprised that only half of the Iraqi people are willing to defend themselves.
Let’s face it, KP, your very presence in Iraq is an affront to Iraqi sovereignty, and should by any justification be an insult to every Iraqi. To a person, Iraqis should be demanding that you leave. (At this point, Antiwar.com fans are with me, I’m sure).
So why isn’t there more American blood on the streets? Why must USA Today stretch to shine a negative light on their (mis)interpretation of the statistics?
Because the fact is, you are doing the right thing, and the Iraqis with whom you spoke realize it just as plainly as you do. War is never pretty. It brings chaos, violence, death, and destruction. But in the case of this war, it is the lesser of two evils, and the Iraqis realize it just as you do.
Toward the end of the USA Today article, the writer admitted that in their poll, only seven percent of the respondents were basing their attitudes and opinions on first hand contact with US Forces. That means that ninety-three percent of respondents developed their opinions from exposure to Al-Jazeera and other anti-US Arab networks, or to "marketplace chatter." Among the seven percent who had contact with US Forces, the article didn’t specify whether their views were positively or negatively influenced by that contact. I would like to think that these people were positively affected by meeting people like you and my cousin, who recently returned from the war and reported findings identical to yours.
So keep up the good work, KP. You are the ultimate citizen of a democratic republic – the one who defends its interests with his life. The geopolitical interest of the United States lies in removing Saddam from power, and bringing democratic change and stability to the Middle East. These things are not easily won. But regardless of how USA Today or the dismissive editors of this site choose to interpret it, you are changing the course of history for the better.
Sam Koritz replies:
KP wrote: "I have taken every opportunity to talk to as many Iraqi people as I possibly can, and thus far I have yet to find one person who is not happy with the American involvement in their country." Yet the USA Today poll I referenced shows that even prior to the prison abuse photos and siege of Falluja "a solid majority" of Iraqis supported an immediate US pullout. (In a more recent, but still pre–prison photo scandal, poll, Iraqis selected US adversary Muqtada al-Sadr as their country’s second most-respected person.) I’d describe my reply as factual and relevant, rather than dismissive.
Also, Antiwar.com is not "against violence no matter the context." We oppose aggression, such as the current treaty-violating military aggression against a state that never attacked us, never threatened to attack us, and wasn’t capable of attacking us. The aggressors’ democratization rationalization is discrediting democracy.
Do Something
Thanks for having the site up and running and for your strength against the war. I remember back in my history class when studying about WWII. Did you know that over 40 million people died and 6 million Jews, including women and children were exterminated as if these human beings were worse than insects? I often wonder what would have happened if the world had interceded to defend those who were weaker. Everyone stood by not wanting to get involved, but as the Nazis gained power they wanted more and inevitably the world was at war because of one man’s zeal for domination and power. Somebody once said "for evil to triumph all that is needed is for good people to do nothing." Help me here, I am confused.
Sam Koritz replies:
The atrocities you mention were a combination of military aggression and the violation of civil liberties, two of the main things that Antiwar.com opposes. Good people who want to do something about these evils can learn about antiwar actions by clicking here and can make a tax-deductible donation to Antiwar.com here.
Although Mr. Becker might have expressed himself more diplomatically, I don’t think he deserved to be dismissed as "a fool."
The point he was trying to make, that America has been interventionist and militarist for as long as most people can remember, was a valid one. Certainly the neocon ideology that dominates U.S. foreign policy in recent years is a departure from the previous state of affairs. But as Mr. Becker correctly pointed out, the US has been an interventionist power, propping up thug regimes around the world, at least since FDR engineered our entry into WWII.
Antiwar.com has itself run other commentaries, by Murray Rothbard among others, arguing that the decisive shift toward interventionism and the perpetual warfare state occurred decades before anyone had ever heard of neoconservatism. Rothbard identified that shift with the defeat of the noninterventionist right of Taft by the New Right in the late ’40s.
If that is the case, it stands to reason that the neoconservative triumph of the past decade cannot represent a decisive break with an earlier noninterventionist tradition. That tradition had been dead for years.
Neoconservatism does represent a drastic change, in its increased virulence and willingness to commit US regular forces to direct intervention abroad. But it does not replace a mythical noninterventionist idyll of Old America. That America has been dormant since before most of us were born.
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
I don’t think that "Hate America" will do the antiwar movement any good. If Kevin Carson, like Bill Becker, cannot tell the difference between a Jacobin and a traditional American and cannot recognize the Jacobin coup underway, they would do well to read Claes Ryn’s new book, American the Virtuous.
As for the other reader’s comments, it makes no difference whatsoever to my point when "Deutschland Uber Alles" was written or for what purpose. As I made clear as day, I am speaking of its use by the National Socialists.
People should read things at least twice before they send in pointless comments.
The Truth About The Kent State Killings
During the aftermath of the shootings there certainly was an assumption that someday a scholar (or scholars) would diligently review the mountains of evidence deliberately preserved for posterity, sift fact from fiction, suggest reasonable answers as to what happened and why, and put facts and events into historical perspective. It is unfair to suggest that no one has already done this, or documented the sustained breakdown of justice in the courts. I already have, and I think you need to (a) develop more reliable sources, and (b) disabuse yourself of the idealistic notion that impartial historians "search for the truth" about historical controversies. In fact, when I watch how the university routinely changes the subject, and its scholars make us forget precisely what we are supposed to remember, I sometimes feel that my single greatest contribution was simply to undo the damage done by the professional scholars – and point them in the direction of the debate.
~ William A. Gordon, author, "Four Dead in Ohio: Was There A Conspiracy at Kent State?"
Murray Polner replies:
I did not mean to suggest that your book was not worthwhile and exacting. It is. However, the point of my piece was to urge others to go through old and new material again and see if anything about the case (not your book) was omitted, whether judgments should be revised, whether anything is new, etc. I also wanted to publish the piece so that Americans ought not forget what happened on May 4, 1970. Perhaps you might be able to persuade some filmmaker – even at this late date – to do something on the KSU killings.
Justin Raimondo’s reply to Jon Luker
First, I noticed the link was pulled. Thank you.
Second, I’m not sure what Justin considers overtly sexual content, but if a video loop of a man performing oral sex on another man does not fit that description, well, I’m just speechless. As for the flippant comment about being easily aroused, I can’t think of a better way to insult and repel your readership.
~ Jon Luker
