Ruminations and Reflections
Tom E M of Crofton MD USA

2003 Dec 25: Holiday Terror Alert

A terror alert at Christmas certainly serves well to highlight the religious undertones of our current terrorist worries. But in the heart of the Bluegrass, a Bible Belt preacher is rallying people to political action around what he calls "basic religious values." Think you can describe his politics? Think again. This man of the cloth wants "regime change" in Washington. The Rev. Albert Pennybacker, a Lexington, Ky.-based pastor, is head of the Clergy Leadership Network, a new, cross-denominational group of liberal and moderate religious leaders seeking to counter the influence of the religious right and to mobilize voters to change leadership in Washington." It's refreshing to see that religious thought can take the direction of opposition to the war in Iraq.

A recent WashPost Op-Ed captures the essence of practical-minded opposition to the war in Iraq (as opposed to moral or legal opposition). How do we fight a movement? Is this the way? Is doing something always better than doing nothing? Yes, but that's not saying much. Is this the best approach available? Doubtful. Should we wring our hands instead? No, our gray matter is much more effective! Who has good ideas? That's what the election should be about, it seems to me...

Meanwhile, an interesting-sounding, if overwhelmingly huge, encyclopedia of human violence has appeared on the market. A review in the WashPost gives a nice introduction: "Twenty years ago, novelist William T. Vollmann set out to answer a [similar] deceptively simple question: When is violence justified? Most people have a stock response. Never, says the pacifist. Only in self-defense or wartime, many would say. Whenever anyone looks at me funny, a bully would say. Whenever I'm doing God's work, a religious fanatic would say."

Too bad the general approach is still "moral". I would argue that violence is justified to the degree that it helps us survive and prosper; that this is a question of self-interest and not "morality". Or perhaps I'm really arguing that morality should be defined in terms of self-interest of civilization. Capital punishment can be seen in a positive light, when taking the life of a single individual can save the lives of many future victims. Similarly, all violence and war should be considered in the light of a "moral calculus" that computes the advantage to civilization, rather than the advantage to a particular administration. Bill Vollman has reporedly set down such a calculus, and I would very much like to read it. At seven volumes, it seems unlikely that I will, but perhaps that last summary volume will become available at my library.

2003 Sept 5: Heroes on the Right

Two conservative writers have distinguished themselves this summer by taking stands that must be exceedingly unpopular with their "neoconservative" colleagues. George Will went on record earlier this summer with a piece in which he noted that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is or will eventually become a sizeable problem for the administration. Paul Craig Roberts appeared my radar screen for the second time (see earlier article below) in an article assessing the Iraqi war entitled "The Neocons Have Blown It". Both Will and Roberts have so demonstrated that, despite their solid conservative credentials, they have the objectivity and open mindedness to go against the current neoconservative party line. Will, for example, states, "Until WMD are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done." Roberts comes to the conclusion that: "Somebody needs to call a halt to this. It will not be the neocon press or Fox News that does it. These folks hide behind superpatriotism, but their real motive is to make the Middle East safe for Israel."

That much had become clear to me from prolonged discussions with folks who support this war. They like to change the subject to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the likely impact of the war on that conflict. It's pretty clear to me that Roberts has hit the nail squarely on the head here. I wish Israelis no ill will whatsoever, but their troubles are nowhere nearly of such importance to US interests as to justify what we've done and are doing in Iraq. I heartily endorse Roberts' bottom line: "Many people much smarter than neocons gave these warnings in response to the neocons' promise of a 'cakewalk.' It is time Bush replaced his delusional neocon advisers with wise people of integrity."

2003 Sept 3: Rewriting History

We'd all like to be able to predict the future, or at least anticipate where things are going in general terms. Gary Kamiya of Salon.com has taken the tack of looking back at the history of our last unpopular war, in Vietnam, for clues about current prospects. In particular, he has looked at the Pentagon Papers affair and asked what might transpire in the present era if similar forces come to bear. He asks if the press of today would be as aggressive about publishing leaked papers from the current administration, if they led to a deeply focused critique of its behavior during the 9/11 aftermath and buildup to the Iraq war. Recall that the Pentagon Papers revealed the self-delusion of the Nixon administration concerning the war, setting in motion a chain of events that led to its demise.

Now we hear from the neoconservative base of support for the Iraqi war that the administration must be planning an ambush of the Democratic opposition. The ambush involves keeping certain crucial facts about real WMD and al Qaeda ties secret until the Democrats complete their orgy of scoffing at the supposed rationales for this war. At which point, the crucial facts will be revealed and the Democrats will look like fools while the neoconservatives will appear to the American public as the wise men they truly are (?). In spite of the likelihood that this story is a neoconservative fantasy with little basis in reality, please consider the possibility that it is true, and that a deliberate sandbagging of the truth is in progress, with the aim of embarassing the Democrats. Assuming there is dated documentation of this situation, there would seem to be an excellent parallel with the Pentagon Papers, combined with the dirty tricks of the 1972 campaign, which together should be more than sufficient to bring down any adminstration displaying so little respect for the truth.

But the moral of the Pentagon Papers episode in American history is, in Kamiya's words: "that constant vigilance in defense of the First Amendment is necessary -- all the more so, as Chief Justice Hughes wrote many years ago, in time of war. The six justices who stood up to a sitting administration during wartime were the last line of defense against the unwarranted use of governmental power. There were powerful forces pulling at them: the siren songs of flag and war, the power of the presidency. But, though divided, they did not abandon their posts. And by so doing, they provided a signpost and a beacon for all Americans, who, in an age of fear, need to be reminded that presidents come and go, wars come and go, but the right of the press to publish, and the people to know, must not be allowed to perish."

2003 June 27: I Remember These Misstatements About Iraq

Some would prefer to call these "lies"....

1. Iraq bought tubes for nucular centrifuges.
2. Iraq bought nucular material from Africa.
3. Iraq's nucular weapons program has produced weapons.
4. Iraq has worked with al Quaeda for over a decade.
5. Iraq trained al Qaeda members.
6. Iraq has unpiloted aerial vehicles for chemical and bioweapon deployment.
7. Iraq is prepared to deploy chemical and bioweapons.
8. Iraq has a stockpile of 100-500 tons of chemcial weapons, enough for 16,000 rockets.
9. We know where the WMDs are, around Tikrit and Baghdad.
10. We found a biological laboratory prohibited by the UN.

See the rebuttals at Alternet.org .

2003 June 10: The Real Reason We Went To War

The Post had an article recently on all the folks who've agreed that Iraq had WMD for the past several years, extending back through the Clinton administration. But shouldn't we have paid attention to the best intelligence available just prior to the war, rather than what was said years before by whomever? The administration's own intelligence agencies are disclaiming proof of WMD in their reports. And some of the more important Powell documents were apparent fabrications. The fact that they were credible in light of suspicions from years before may have made them very useful, but it doesn't excuse a lapse of critical thinking, nor does our inability to account for the lack of WMD in our intelligence reports.

Sorry, but being "really, really sure" that there "used to be" WMD is no explanation for having exaggerated and fabricated our way through a war buildup, when that could not be proven with real evidence. It's a classic case of insisting on our own facts as well as our own opinion.

Damn, doesn't anyone object to the falsification of evidence!? Perhaps when we end up in court someday, and our future depends on them, we will have occasion to appreciate the standards for legal evidence. Bush and Rumsfeld may learn to appreciate them before it is over. They deserve the benefit of the doubt that they may conceivably have just flunked critical thinking, rather than being bad guys. But no more than that.

Just recall those U2 photos of missile launchers in Cuba. Now THAT's real evidence that will stand up in court. And we didn't even go to war over that.

2003 April 29: Grampa's midnight visit

Baghdad Bait and Switch
By Richard Cohen
Washington Post, Tuesday, April 29, 2003; Page A23

It happened again.
As always, it was the middle of the night and I was sound asleep. I was awakened by the sound of the bedroom window being opened and the clump of two feet hitting the floor. I felt the usual breeze on my face. My long-dead grandfather was paying me yet another visit.
"So, nu , where is it?" he yelled.
"Grandpa, is that you?" I asked.
"You were expecting maybe Chemical Ali?"
"Where's what?" I asked.
"The weapons from mass destruction. The chemical stuff and the biological stuff that could make you sick and the atomic stuff that could make you dead. Where are they, college boy? You wrote that this is why you supported the war."
"We'll find them," I said. "Iraq is a big country, the size of --
"I know. California. You think maybe you got snookered?"
"Oh, no, Grandpa. I talked to experts. I went to briefings. They all said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."
"This the same group of hotshots who said Saddam had a nuclear program that could produce a bomb in six months?"
"Yes."
"Not true, though, right?"
"Looks that way."
"And they said there was some sort of link between Saddam and the terrorists. One guy knew another guy and someone had been in Baghdad and someone else had sent a cake to someone in Brooklyn. You know what this reminds me of? How you could go to a union rally in the old days and pretty soon the FBI had you linked to Joseph Stalin."
"Well, I admit they haven't come up with much proof," I said.
"Much proof? For this your mother sent you to college? How about no proof? Nothing. This poor Gen. Vince Brooks, this guy they had talking like a ventriloquist's dummy, a regular Charlie McCarthy, he had to make a big deal about the capture of Abu Abbas in Baghdad. The New York Times found Abbas in Baghdad last November and interviewed him. Next they're going to find Soupy Sales. For this you fight a war?"
"Okay, but Saddam Hussein was a beast. It was a good thing to get rid of him. He was like another Hitler."
"I read that column where you said that. All my friends said, 'This is your grandson, the hotshot columnist? This is the guy people read so that they should know what to think?' Hitler? Hitler was a threat to the world. Saddam threatened only his own people. He fought for only 26 days. I had longer fights with your grandmother."
"I remember, Grandpa," I said. "But now we're going to have a new government in Iraq and it will be a model for the entire Arab world. When Saddam's statue was toppled, it was like when the Berlin Wall went down."
"When the Berlin Wall went down, the Germans took pieces of it. When the statue went down, the Iraqis took pieces of hospitals and museums."
"You've got a point."
"Hoo-ha! I got a point. Of course I got a point."
"You don't understand, Grandpa. Now we have a chance to transform the Middle East. A democratic Iraq will be an example for the entire region."
"Really? Who says? There is already a democracy in the Middle East. It's called Israel. How come it's never an example, but instead something to be destroyed?"
"It's not an Islamic country."
"I've noticed. Still, the Arabs could see it worked. It's free. It's prosperous. The people make a nice living. What does it matter if it's run by Jews, Irishmen or whirling dervishes?"
"Because . . . I don't know."
"Now we're cooking with gas. There's so much you don't know. First you wanted a war because of terrorism, then because Iraq had a nuclear program. Then you wanted a war because it has poison gas and little crawling things you can't see. Now you want to bring democracy to the Middle East. You know what we use to call this when I was in retail?"
"No, what?
"Bait and switch."
"I still believe we did the right thing," I insisted. "I still think it'll turn out all right."
"From your mouth to God's ear," he said.
"You could help," I said. "You're embedded."
"It doesn't work like that."
Then I heard the window open and felt the breeze on my face. "I hope everything turns out hunky-dory, like you've been writing," he said. "Otherwise, you should have been an accountant and made some money so you could take care of your parents." He looked at me, tenderly.
"Give them my love, boychick."
With that, the window closed, the breeze ceased and I went back to sleep. I had a nightmare that I was an accountant.

2003 Apr 13: Imposing Democratic Self-Government

Much is being made of the celebrations of the Iraqis, liberated from the despot Saddam Hussein in an impressive rout by our coalition. Christopher Hitchens, among others, is in full gloat. He says that there was "No War on Iraq", i.e. hardly any war at all, making him one of the "cakewalk" cabal, who evidently think that the practice of colonial missionary work for democracy is apparently worth any price in resources and lives. He says we are about to "give the inspectors more time" in a really big way, that the "Arab street really did detonate", with celebration; that there has been a "surge in terrorism", with those determined to die now dead, and the relevant statues torn down. He says he will let his voice be heard, that all of this has been done in his name, and he feels like bearing witness to it. Whew! It's amazing what hubris a week of victory can bring.

But now we get down to the business of "imposing a democracy", an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. And, if those diverse Iraqi ethnic groups and tribes can't figure out how to exercise self-determination, we'll just have to do it for them, won't we!? It would be entertaining, if it weren't so tragic to see us engaged in this effort to present invasion as liberation.

But perhaps, having declared victory, we will leave this scene as quickly as we have left Afghanistan behind to it's own descent back into chaos.

2003 Mar 30: What is Patriotism?

This question is raised by Jan Herman in his MSNBC column, called "The Juice: Arts and Culture News, with Attitude", which I've just discovered.

Why should world citizenship be "an invitation to exile from the comforts of patriotism"? World citizenship from the point of view of the US is no different than US citizenship from the point of view of a state, or state citizenship from the point of view of a county or a municipality within that state. Excepting that the UN is the planetary level of government, and there is no other political life in the universe beyond our planet.

To pursue a vigilante action against perceived outlaw terrorists, the US has scorned the UN as ineffective and declared itself better able to deal with outlaws on its own terms, skipping the niceties of legal due process. In so doing, we have rejected the representative form of government we ostensibly seek to install in place of the outlaw regime. We have essentially "seceded from the union." Living in the south, one learns that the Civil War was a dispute over states rights, not slavery. Knowing that, it seems "altogether fitting and proper" that a former southern governor should bring this approach to the White House.

Where does that leave us? We must return, hat in hand, to the UN, for a planetary level solution. If we do not, we invite the approbation of the entire world, and the attentions of some future "Lincoln for the planet", who will, after yet more war and strife, "with malice toward none, and charity for all, ...bind up our wounds and care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

2003 March 21: Two Wrongs Do Not Make A Right

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945.

This is primarily a family-oriented web site, but war has begun, and can no longer be argued or wished away. On the whole, the American people support the war, according to the polls, and this is a democracy, so we all are culpable for what this war brings us. Within this family, we have mixed feelings, and friends whose loved ones are in Iraq, fighting. Yet, who can escape the sense that we have collectively seized on the reality of terrorism as an excuse for vindictively settling an old score in a arrogant and bullying way? Do we really believe we have the right to attack any county that might be a threat to us in five years ("By Whose Authority")? Will we continue to file forgeries in support of our actions ("A Reckless Path")? Are we prepared to take on the rest of the world, rather than lead it? Time will tell, but when even administration supporters are concerned about parallels with fascist Nazi behavior, something is seriously amiss.

About the best we can hope for now is that American arrogance will be forgiven or overlooked if we succeed in bringing democracy and a measure of justice ("See no evil") to the new government of Iraq. Two wrongs plus a right might possibly be a net gain.

2003 Mar 20: Inflamed by War

Found this quote from Herman Goering on the web today, and it echoes a Carol Lay cartoon that appeared a few days ago at Salon.com. I'm extremely inflamed by the actual beginning of this war, and irritable with folks who fail to see through the haze of government disinformation and fearmongering. I wrote the following to a good friend today, with some regrets:

C'mon yourself. That article "Fallacies and War" had nothing to do with Saddam's or anyone else's history. It had to do with strategies that are used by governments to mold public opinion. Frankly, I think you and a lot of Americans are suckers for vicarious military adventures and big displays of fireworks on the evening news, and willing to accept almost any flimsey, idealistic-sounding justification for them.

Written by a guy who hasn't carefully studied Saddam's history. There's a gazillion articles out there which refute or cast doubt on the fuzzy premises and themes of this article.

Gotta get to work....

© 2003 Tom E M, Moore Family, Inc. ™