Posted October 31, 2002

Accountability

Regarding "Destroying the Hostages to Save Them?" by Alan Bock:

Alan Bock writes:

"But the Russians, at the very least, miscalculated badly and tragically about what the effects of that gas would be on people who were generally dehydrated and had been forced to stay virtually immobile for about 58 hours. Whether they deserve to be invaded or not – the analogy does serve to point up the subjectivity of so much of the case for invading Iraq, which is potentially useful – they deserve to be held to account for incompetence, carelessness or worse."

And pray tell Mr. Bock who was held "to account" for Waco? Please be bold enough to compare the number of survivors from Waco to that of the Sharikopodshipnik Theater and then honestly comment on what, in your opinion, is a successful operation. And while you're at it, perhaps you could name the people held "to account" for the Waco massacre, or Kent State, Three Mile Island, Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Nicaragua, Contragate, etc. -- the list does go on, doesn't it, Mr. Bock?

People who live in glass houses Mr. Bock should not be hurling indiscriminate opinions, let alone stones.

~ Daniel Dostanic, Toronto, Canada

Alan Bock replies:

Well, let's see. I wrote a book about Ruby Ridge. I wrote half a dozen columns about Waco during the time the federal siege was ongoing, as well as a couple of magazine articles afterward, all calling for U.S. officials to be held to account. I put together a Waco book outline that never sold and I gave Mike McNulty a teeny bit of help on his Waco films. I was still in college when Kent State happened and not writing for media at Three Mile Island. But I've written editorials and columns about the importance of officials being held to account over all the other events D. Dostanic mentions. Just writing might not be much. I haven't gone on a spree or led demonstrations. But I've been pretty consistent over the years that government officials in every country should be held accountable for the outrages they perform -- as most of them seem to do sooner or later. I probably have glass-house issues here and there, but I don't think this is one of them.

Keep Marching

Regarding "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore" by Justin Raimondo:

Congratulations, Justin, for getting off your keyboard and getting out in the streets.

It is perhaps too bad that the leaders of the antiwar movement tend to be the same people with the same old, somewhat shopworn slogans that have been around since the '30s. Perhaps what we need is a new breed of movement leadership: I nominate Justin Raimondo!

But at least someone is doing something -- a year ago there was nothing at all, even though the thugs were taking over. Whoever it is that gets the people mobilized, I am thankful they are doing it. Something has to stop this mad march to the abyss. If you can do it better, Justin, go for it -- I'm with you all the way.

If not, I hope you will continue to throw in with the pathetic few who are willing to get out in the streets and be seen, and give the international thug cartel something to aim at. Keep Marching! And keep writing -- we are listening, while we march.

You said it well. The real issue is to stop the war. No free economy can prosper until the threat of war has been repulsed. And if they really get going with the nukes and the gas and the biological cluster bombs, then we might just as well kiss civilization good-bye. Just because the leadership is obsessed with chiliastic delusions does not make the delusions any more real. Jesus will decide when to come back -- he doesn't need any help from George.

~ Tom Duncan, Astoria, Oregon

'Red-Baiting'

Regarding "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore" by Justin Raimondo:

Why is it "red-baiting" when Tod Gitlin discusses the Stalinoid politics of groups like the Workers World Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party, but not when you do? (with such humor and accuracy, I would add). It's important to alert newcomers to the antiwar movement about the extreme politics of these groups before they learn about them the hard way. The major disagreement between you and Gitlin on these sects appears to be that he thinks they can discredit the movement and you think they are trivial and inconsequential. Reasonable people can disagree about that, so why the name calling? The charge of "red-baiting" is used these days primarily by the far left to dodge a frank discussion of political sects and their front groups.

~ David W.

The 'Antiwar' Crowd

Regarding "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore" by Justin Raimondo:

Many thanks to Justin Raimondo for pointing out how the antiwar "leaders" discredit the movement, much to the joy of the media and the War Party who wish to brand the entire antiwar movement as "kooks." I was frustrated by the same thing in 1999 when there was a small antiwar demonstration in Minneapolis over the impending Kosovo war (which began two days later). I skipped that demonstration, made my own sign, and went to the federal building myself at a different time in suit and tie. There were several people who came up to me and asked my reasons for opposing it, and they actually thought about it and discussed it instead of dismissing me like they do most of the antiwar protesters of the ilk that Justin refers to in his column. Perhaps we need to start our own antiwar movement and not allow speakers that discredit us to blur the message. There are so many other people out there who are against this war that it shouldn't be too hard to accomplish. Some may cry censorship, but this would be self-censorship, getting rid of the loons with a different cause and an irrelevant ax to grind. I am not sure how this would be accomplished, but I like the idea of an antiwar demonstration without the loons who hog the headlines when it's reported on. Justin is doing a yeoman's job at exposing it and we do need some alternative to these idiots making the antiwar movement look like a bunch of recycled reds.

~ M. Avery, California

True Patriots Needed

Regarding "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore" by Justin Raimondo:

I have identified myself as being on the Left for most of my life. To this day, I still consider myself broadly marxian/anarchist/socialist. In the 1980s, I was very active in the Central America solidarity and antiapartheid movements. I remember well that we always had to deal with the sectarian loonies crashing our demos with their leaflets and retrograde language. We just learned to deal with them and didn't let them derail us from the job we had to do.

One of the things that is so frustrating about these people is that they turn perfectly credible, real concepts like "imperialism" and "justice" into cartoonish language that can be easily dismissed by our opponents. My family in Brazil suffered directly from the affects of US imperialism in the aftermath of the US-supported coup there in 1964. The word means something real to millions of people all over the world but when put in the mouths of the sectarian jerks of the Left, it becomes something out of a Soviet propaganda film.

I was at the demonstration in D.C. on Saturday. Like Justin in San Francisco, I had a lot of fun. But I too was upset with the idiots who controlled the stage. More than upset -- I was incredibly angry, and still am. I saw several people with signs like "Republicans Against the War" and "Conservative Patriots Refuse Bush's Empire." Naively, I had thought that the roster of speakers would reflect people like Ron Paul and folks holding up those signs. At least a businessman got to speak -- Ben Cohen -- but that's hardly enough compensation for the total domination on stage by people from International ANSWER.

I don't mind listening to Jesse Jackson and Ramsey Clark. I'm not a supporter of Jackson's but I did like his speech -- he urged us all to reject bigotries of all kinds and to come together to stop the war. That was a fair message. I know Clark is not popular but he always speaks with the same moral outrage that I feel toward the victims of US foreign policy and so that is enough for me tolerate him. Susan Sarandon delivered a very thoughtful, sincere speech condemning all fundamentalisms that could be embraced by everyone there.

However, there was a string of ANSWER folks whose speeches were thoroughly meaningless and idiotic. I kept thinking "God, I hope those antiwar Republicans don't give up on their activism because of these morons." I know it's ridiculous, but as someone on the anti-imperialist Left, I was embarrassed and furious. Just because I don't agree with Justin Raimondo on the free market doesn't mean I don't want to hear from him on any issue (including the aforementioned free market!). I would've preferred to listen to a string of Ron Pauls, Justin Raimondos, Pat Buchanans than the ANSWER creeps.

I have never been able to understand these sectarians. I have strong Left impulses on a number of issues and I used to dismiss Pat Buchanan as a raving racist like a lot of my co-religionists. But after spending some time actually reading the man's work (something that almost none of his Left critics have or ever will do), I realized that his positions are much more complicated than I had mindlessly assumed. Upon discovering this, I realized that I now had to keep my more moderate views on Buchanan to myself. Otherwise, I'd be branded an apologist for Adolf Hitler by my liberal and Left friends and colleagues (and certainly by the neoconservative Right).

It is precisely because, over time, I have learned that I have to keep silent about so many things that I've become more and more alienated from so many liberals and leftists. I have always been a feminist and have always strongly supported movements for gay and lesbian rights. I have not changed my general views on these struggles. But, like Alexander Cockburn, I have grown thoroughly disgusted by the rigid orthodoxy that came to pollute these movements. Try explaining to a bunch of feminists at a MS magazine gathering that Latin American women do not prioritize abortion and prefer to talk to western feminists about structural adjustment policies imposed on them by the IMF that destroy their jobs and communities. And I won't even get into the repulsive bigotry toward the third world that western gay/les and feminist groups constantly and proudly demonstrate.

But Justin, the fact is that these ANSWER folks have all this energy and momentum to organize these huge demonstrations. I would dearly love to see others wrest control from these obscurantist ideologues. But how can this be done? At least in small local demonstrations where sectarians have no real presence, groups that are much broader and authentic control the proceedings. But what can be done at these larger protests? It's all very frustrating.

Still, I do wish you would not stop marching, Justin. There is at least one leftie here in New York who would dearly love to see you and everyone at Antiwar.com have a much stronger, more powerful presence at these demonstrations. The struggle simply cannot advance without you true patriots.

~ Jaelle Sims, Brooklyn, New York

The Chickenhawks' Boast

The British Empire previously were the leading killers of barefooted people around the world before Washington created its own empire by duplicating similar policies. One famous ditty when the British Tommies were gunning down Zulus was: "We care not how many Zulus they have got; We have the Gatling gun and they have not." Despite some 400,000 people demonstrating in London against attacking Iraq Tony Blair will soon join Bush's war. There were similar large demonstrations here in the US plus a deluge of mail sent to Washington opposing this war but congress still voted to give Mr. Bush a blank check to attack not only Iraq but anyone, anywhere on earth. So allow me to update the old British Zulu ditty: "The chickenhawks care not how many demonstrators the antiwar movement has got; they have control of the US Congress and its military and we do not."

~ World War II Vet For Peace

Massacre and Propaganda

A quick set of comments -- much more can be said -- on Carl Savich's reply to my criticism of over-defense of Serbian nationalism and his allegation that the Racak massacre was a "hoax" [Backtalk, October 28].

Some things can be true even if Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke say they are true.

As to the one allegation that the Finnish forensic team found that there was no massacre there, I suggest asking its leader, Dr. Ranta (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/990317-racak.htm):

Dr. Ranta: "Among those autopsied, there were several elderly men and only one woman....There were no indications of the people being other than unarmed civilians."

The Finnish team did not find "no massacre," they merely determined that such a conlcusion was beyond their competence as it was a legal conclusion. Dr. Ranta has elsewhere called her findings over Racak the study of a "crime against humanity" without assigning guilt, leaving that to a broader investigation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/298131.stm (a source
otherwise regularly linked by Antiwar.com).

So Mr. Savich's assertion regarding the Finnish investigation is demonstrably false.

Also: How one can believe that 40 or so allegedly KLA dead in one small village, in one or two places, with little if any reported wounded KLA, and also few casualties on the part of the Serbian police is anything but a massacre and not a battle is beyond me. Or how after a losing battle, losers at night can heave dozens of 100-200 lb. bodies and arrange them with appropriate bloodstains. Or coerce everyone in a village to assert a common falsehood without someone whispering the truth eslewhere.

Even if CNN (with its overt anti-Serbian bias), William Walker, and Bill Clinton said it was a massacre, it nevertheless and obviously was.

It is normal that our judgment tends to be at the mercy of our desires, but I have never understood why any of the bigoted neanderthal tribalisms that constitute modern ex-Yugoslavia fit anyone's desires. Nor do I relate to the desire for global "hegemony" among America's War Party and the desire of the USA to be Great White Hunter in the Yugoslav jungle of "Greater Serbia," Arkan, "Greater Albania," Izetbegovic, Turjoman, UMRO, KLA, etc.

~ Matt Hogan

Carl Savich replies:

The great beauty of propaganda and propaganda of the deed is that the truth is irrelevant. I think you missed my whole point. Whether it is true is not relevant. The Iraqi incubator hoax was totally untrue but Mr. Hogan says nothing about that. If they can lie about the Incubators, they can lie about Racak. Mr. Hogan is so trusting of these exact same people! But my article was not about Racak.

But as Hitler pointed out about propaganda, if you throw enough mud some of it will stick. Propaganda is a win win situation. That is why it is still being used extensively by US. It works, thank you.

But as Mr. Hogan points out, the Finnish team did not conclude that a "massacre" had occurred. Hogan also leaves out the fact that gunpowder residue was found on most of the bodies, i.e., they were KLA terrorists trying to kill Serbian and Albanian civilians and police. This is not to defend the Yugoslav forces. I am sure they stormed the village and killed civilians as well, what we would call "collateral damage." I am sure the KLA was in the houses using the civilians as shields. The more civilians and elderly and babies were killed, so much the better for their propaganda. But most of the bodies were of men in their 20s or 30s with gunpowder on their bodies. They looked like KLA troops. In fact, that is what they were. Why were most of the victims military age men who looked exactly like the type of persons who would engage the Yugoslav forces?

Mr. Hogan forgets that the KLA occupied the town and drove out the Yugoslav police. That is when they moved the bodies. Hogan says it is odd that Yugoslav troops could cause that many KLA casualties. But I remember when armed KLA troops crossed from Albania into Kosovo and Yugoslav border troops had a gun battle with them and killed about 30 or 40. Remember that? The KLA then had a revenge murder by murdering 6 Serbian teens in Pec. Also, when the Yugo police fought the Jashari terrorists, I think that killed over 50 crack KLA troops and destroyed the terrorist campaign in '98. Remember that? So this is not strange. But the KLA was fighting out of houses and homes. When you can't win a war with guns, you use propaganda.

But the Finnish report was "delayed" for a very very long time by the US/NATO. When it came out, it didn't show a "massacre." Usually when there is a real massacre, it is very obvious. I think that is clear. The wounds were suffered in a gun battle, there was gunpowder, etc.

But also, the OSCE monitors were right there with the Yugo forces. How the hell did they miss a "massacre"? These people were all CIA-types and spooks who obviously would have spotted a massacre if they saw one. Also, the French and other media was there right in the town. They never saw a "massacre." And they talked to Albanian residents of Racak: The residents didn't know of any massacre. They went about their business. It was the KLA and the US government that concocted the "massacre." But I refer Mr. Hogan to my article "Propaganda of the Deed" on the Serbianna.com site. There was a similar "massacre" that occurred in Kosovo just months before Racak. Only problem was it was a phony US propaganda sham. The US alleged 200 Albanians were killed and more. It was totally absurd and insane. Most people have forgotten about it. Please read the article above for an analysis of, I believe it was, the Orahovac Massacre. Please read about the Orahovac Massacre of 1998 in Kosovo. That was a dress-rehearsal for Racak.

The great beauty of propaganda is that if you throw enough mud some of it will stick. The German Army in Belgium in 1914 did kill Belgian civilians. They faced sabotage and guerrilla activity. No occupation army is ever really very nice. War is never a nice thing. But propaganda is about something else. It is about manipulating us and treating us like non-humans to get us to hate and to kill an "enemy" and to justify our cause. So propaganda is perhaps even worse than war itself because it seeks to kill our humanity. This is really the point of my article. As Laughland said, "If Milosevic is guilty, where is all the evidence?" Why resort to dead babies propaganda? Why resort to massacres?

But Mr. Hogan, you point out why propaganda always works. It is difficult to challenge it because as the propagandist knows, Might makes it right. That is what this whole conflict in the former Yugoslavia was about. It was about US power. That is why the US hated Milosevic more than Osama bin Laden. Milosevic rejected the US and NATO -- but Osama accepted the US as an enemy of my enemy is my friend. But it was always about just raw power in the Balkans. I think the US is totally responsible for the conflict. All the US had to do was get the parties to a negotiating table. But instead, the US decided: We will use our vast information/propaganda machine to destroy all who oppose us. That is the point of my article. It is really just about power. But I suggest you look over my article "Propaganda of the Deed: Racak Massacre Exposed as US/Media Hoax" on Serbianna.com. But let us just ignore Racak for a second. What about the Iraqi incubator massacre and the Kosovo Orahovac Massacre of 1998? Were those real massacres or just US propaganda stunts? That is a no brainer. And if they can do it here, then they can do it with Racak and elsewhere. The MO is the same.