Mother Jones Daily: War Watch
March 31, 2003
|
|
 | | | |||
| | | | ||
| | Truth Teller? Is Peter Arnett a courageous truth-teller, an unfortunte pawn, or a treasonous turncoat? Not surprisingly, it depends on who you ask. | | | |
| | | | ||
| | | |||
|  | | |||
| | | |||
| | | | ||
| |  Media Watch: When Telling the Truth Will Get You Fired (TomPaine.com) ; Arnett Firing Demonstrates Dilemma Facing Broadcasters (Canadian Press) ; Arnett Lost in the Spin Cycle (Alternet) ; Home of the Free: Arnett Joins the Mirror (The Mirror) ; No Honest Eyewitness (National Review)
| | | |
| | | | ||
| | | |||
| | | | | |
Spin Watch: 
Casualty Watch: 
Money Watch: 
On to Damascus? Might Washington hawks actually heed the war party pundits' call for another invasion?
Values in Wartime
The British frustration with Washington's belligerent approach is becoming impossible to hide.
Pentagon Planning and Peace
The Pentagon is scrambling to defend its plan for war. Should it really be planning the peace?
Who's Shocked?
Cartoon by Mark Fiore
The war's progress has left quite a few shocked and awed -- just not the Iraqis.
Like Benedict Arnold?
Today's entries in Washington's rolling redefinition of the English language: Treason and War Game. 
While peace activists in the US question a right-wing DJ's motives, antiwarriors in Hungary force their government to shift course. 
Is Clear Channel Rally Pro-Troops or Pro-War? (Tampa Tribune) Antiwar Sentiment Halts Hungary's Training of Iraqi Exiles (BBC) Teach-Ins Turn Into Anti-War Forum (The Oakland Tribune)
On to Damascus?
For months, even as Washington's hawks prepared for their long-sought war in Iraq, neoconservatives inside and outside the White House were eagerly speculating about which country would be next on the administration's list. Now, while US and British troops make their painstaking way across Iraq and toward an urban battle military leaders want desperately to avoid, war party pundits are eagerly speculating once more.
But this time, they are only writing about two countries: Syria and Iran. This week, in a speech to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee, the country's pre-eminent pro-Israel lobby group, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that Washington wanted to see "more responsible behavior" from Damascus. And he didn't stop there. Denouncing the Syrian government's harsh criticism of the US-led invasion of Iraq, Powell declared that Syria now "faces a critical choice." It was strong language reminiscent of the nuanced threats leveled at Iraq last year, and it was greeted by hearty applause from the AIPAC crowd.
But is the Bush administration, in a war that few still believe will be quick or simple, actually considering turning its military attention toward Damascus? Neoconservatives dearly hope so.
Just last year, most neocon pundits were bravely predicting that Iraqi forces would crumble at the first whiff of gunpowder, and that a swift victory over Saddam Hussein's despised regime would force other Arab governments to rapidly get in line or risk facing a similar onslaught. Their quick, clean war hasn't materialized, but the war party pundits are still pushing to keep the regime change express rolling. Like many of his hawkish colleagues, New York Daily News columnist Zev Chafets declares confidently that the war "won't end in Iraq." That's because, as far as Chafets is concerned, this isn't a war against Iraq or Saddam Hussein -- it's the first step in a global war against "armed Arab and Islamic fascism."
- "When Saddam goes, American forces will be sandwiched between two enemies. To the east, Iran, a charter member of the Axis of Evil. To the west, Syria, a new volunteer. Both will have to be defeated before this war is over.
...
Syria is an inviting target for the U.S. Taking down the Assad government would rid the Middle East of an aggressive, anti-American fascist regime and also end Syria's occupation of Lebanon. That, in turn, would enable American forces to go after Hezbollah camps in the Bekaa Valley, just as they went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Not only would that weaken international terrorism, but the U.S. hasn't forgotten that it was Hezbollah that murdered 241 American Marines in Beirut in 1983."
Just hopeful thinking on Chafets' part? If so, he's not alone. New Hampshire's Manchester Union-Leader, which boasts one of the country's most conservative editorial pages, similarly urges Washington to keep the war going.
- "America's failure to deal with organizers, sponsors and enablers of terrorism -- including Arafat, Syria, Iran and Iraq (and Afghanistan until the crushing of the Taliban) -- has cost thousands of lives and allowed the unchecked breeding of radical anti-Western hatred.
In light of clear evidence that terrorist organizations and some governments that harbor them are sending materiel and warriors to kill American troops, America can no longer pretend that these groups and governments are not in a state of active aggression against our interests and our people. Will this administration do as all previous ones and look the other way? Or will it deal with the situation as resolutely as it has dealt with the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?"
The Union-Leader doesn't bother to expound on the "clear evidence," but some Bush administration officials have been making similar accusations in recent days, and there is little doubt that many would enthusiastically welcome such a policy shift. For instance, as The Guardian notes, such a scenario could well be considered a dream-come-true for Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and other über-hawks. But the venerable British broadsheet has a warning: "These American delusions are dangerous."
- "Widening regional destabilisation was one of the reasons why so many people and nations opposed this foolish war. By issuing such provocative threats, even if they are essentially pre-emptive, the US behaves recklessly. The Iraqi regime must be delighted. It is already doing its level best to portray the conflict as one between the entire Arab 'nation' and the US, between Islam and the west, between the righteous and the 'Zionists'. Its call for Arab volunteers appears to be having some success. Its resort to suicide bombings, or 'martyrdom operations', creates an entirely deliberate, emotive association with the Palestinian intifada.
...
This steady radicalisation of Muslim opinion, this broadening polarisation and alienation of the Arab and western spheres is exactly what Tony Blair and others in Europe strove to prevent when the US 'war on terror' was launched after September 11. Pro-western, so-called moderate Arab regimes also greatly fear what may yet ensue, not least Saudi Arabia. Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, glumly predicts the war will produce '100 Bin Ladens'. He may well be right. The US could not find a clear link between Iraq and al-Qaida. Now by its own woeful blunderings, it is creating one."
As if to drive home the reckless nature of the hawkish dreaming, Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, declared that his government would have "nothing whatever" to do with military action against either Syria or Iran. As The Times of London reports, Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has been carefully working to improve relations with both countries, and isn't about to jettison that diplomatic effort simply because Washington's most vocal hawks are clamoring for a wider war.
Meanwhile, Syrian officials and Arab commentators have responded with predictable vigor, arguing that Damascus is simply expressing "the international consensus which has said no to aggression against Iraq." And, as Arab News reports, Syrian officials are taking pains to call attention to the venue for Powell's speech.
- "Noting that Powell was speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), [Syria] said he was clearly "affirming that all the actions of the US administration in the region serve Israeli interests and plans and satisfy Ariel Sharon," the Israeli prime minister. "The officials of this administration are thereby obtaining good conduct certificates from Israel and its supporters in the United States."
The editors of the Daily Star of Lebanon, surveying the region's Arabic-language press, declare that most commentators "see the outpouring of bellicose rhetoric from Washington as a shot across Syria's bows," largely because Damascus has emerged as the Arab world's most vocal critic of the US-led war in Iraq. But others worry that Syria is "being granted belated membership of America's 'axis of evil' and set up as its next prospective target after Iraq." The war expansion US hawks so deeply want to see, the Arab editors assert, would only serve "to further the administration's strategy for global dominance and the agenda and territorial designs of its right-wing allies in Israel."
The anti-Israeli rhetoric might be expected, particularly from Syria. But, in this case, Powell's choice of the AIPAC dinner is not the only connection. The evidence administration officials have cited in suggesting that Syria might be aiding Iraq seems to have come exclusively from Israeli sources. Most recently, an Israeli intelligence officer declared that his government suspects Saddam Hussein might have hidden chemical and biological weapons in Syria, along with long-range surface-to-surface missiles.
Values in Wartime
Straw's comments about Syria mark the first time since the war began that the British government has placed itself in direct opposition to its transatlantic allies. While there have been plenty of indications that the two governments disagree sharply over some aspects of the war -- and the reconstruction of Iraq following a war -- all have been papered over.
But the paper seems to be getting a little worn. British commanders in Iraq are reportedly frustrated by the overly aggressive approach adopted by some American officers. Even British hawks are taking up the refrain. And while their comments seems in part motivated by simple national pride, their criticisms are impossible to dismiss. Among the most convincing is Patrick Bishop of The Telegraph. While no dove, Bishop worries that American forces have become so convinced by their leadership's martial rhetoric that "anyone who is not in a uniform that they instantly recognise is seen as a threat."
| | ||||
 Wednesday, April 2 Tuesday, April 1 Monday, March 31 Friday, March 28 Thursday, March 27 | |||||
| | ||||
| | | | | |
- "Many, probably most, Iraqis are willing to be persuaded that the Americans are in their country as liberators, not invaders. To do that, American soldiers have to not only curb their trigger-happy ways, but also come out from behind their Ray-Bans. They must start to recognise when it is time to forget the rule book and think of local sensibilities. They should learn to do simple things like waving at the children and saying hello in Arabic to their elders. In short, they must work harder to show that they belong to the human race."
While Bishop worries that the Americans' shoot-first approach is undermining the effort to win hearts and minds, Jonathan Freedland is concerned more by the ideals the war is undermining. Among other things, Freedland, writing in the British Guardian, is convinced that the war is threatening the very values that define America. While many outside the US seem to believe that this war is "all too American," Freedland argues that such thinking does an injustice to the US and its history.
- "It assumes that the Bush administration represents all America, at all times, when in fact the opposite is true. For this administration, and this war, are not typical of the US. On the contrary, on almost every measure, they are exceptions to the American rule.
The US was, after all, a country founded in a rebellion against imperialism. Born in a war against a hated colonial oppressor, in the form of George III, it still sees itself as the instinctive friend of all who struggle to kick out a foreign occupier - and the last nation on earth to play the role of outside ruler.
For most of the last century, the US steered well clear of the institutions of formal empire (the Philipines was a lamentable exception). Responsibility was thrust upon it after 1945 in Germany and Japan. But as a matter of deliberate intent, America sought neither viceroys ruling over faraway lands nor a world map coloured with the stars and stripes. Influence, yes; puppets and proxies, yes. But formal imperial rule, never.
Until now. George Bush has cast off the restraint which held back America's 42 previous presidents - including his father. Now he is seeking, as an unashamed objective, to get into the empire business."
Thankfully, such arguments are not limited to the pages of British newspapers. Robert Scheer raises the very same historical red flag in his Los Angeles Times column, reminding us that America's revered revolutionaries were 'irregular' troops despised by the British for their flouting of accepted rules of warfare. But Scheer also warns that recent US history is one "of covert actions, political assassinations, special ops, anti-democratic coups and dirty tricks that are, even today, being used in Iraq." Sadly, to the extent that administration officials seem to believe that the ends of their policy "are so noble that even clearly illegal means, such as a preemptive invasion, are justified," this is a very American war, Scheer opines.
Pentagon Planning and Peace
With field commanders predicting a far longer and uglier war than many Washington hawks had promised, the Pentagon's civilian leaders are suddenly taking transparent pains to distance themselves from the much-criticized war plan. Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, for instance, is now telling reporters he cannot "take credit" for the plan, explaining that it was really all thought up by the military men.
Apparently, at the Pentagon, the buck doesn't quite get to the top. War Watch can't help but wonder if we'll hear Rumsfeld declining "credit" for another plan in the weeks and months after the war. Because the very men who planned the war -- led by Rumsfeld -- are fighting desperately to consolidate their control over running the peace.
Jim Lobe, writing in Asia Times, reports that top Pentagon civilians, especially Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, are trying to make sure that the State Department has little or no involvement in putting together the reconstruction team. Feith, Lobe reports "has supported Israel's Likud Party in the past and is said to consider some candidates to be too pro-Arab." And Rumsfeld is demanding that his choice to run the Pentagon's office of reconstruction and assistance, retired General Jay Garner, be given authority over all relief and aid work. And while Feith, Rumsfeld, and other Pentagon officials are fighting to keep the State Department on the margins, they're fighting even harder to keep the UN out of the picture entirely.
- "In testimony late last week, Feith insisted that as long as the situation on the ground is insecure, the military has to remain in control. "If things go well, we will be able to hand things over to the Iraqis so there would be no need for UN participation," he said."
But is the Pentagon -- even a Pentagon shown to be run by effective and insightful planners -- really the best choice for managing the reconstruction of a ravaged nation? Robert Wright doesn't think so. And, like plenty of others, Wright isn't too convinced by the planning of this particular Pentagon , which has allowed ideologically-motivated wishful thinking to take the place of judicious planning. Which does not bode well for the Pentagon's handling of such an ideologically-charged job as nation-building.
- "[S]ome of the plan's most influential advocates -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle -- are among those who most consistently understated the difficulty of war. Perle was egregious: 'Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.' Given the failure of this first step in Perle's master plan to unfold as guaranteed, I'm not feeling too good about the subsequent steps -- the part where Iraq's authoritarian neighbors yield to benign democracy through some magical process that has never been officially spelled out."
