|
|||||||||
Posted May 16, 2003
Regarding "The Anti-Americans" by Justin Raimondo:
I am a regular reader of your site and have contributed to your efforts. I always appreciate Justin's columns, even when I disagree with them, or when I believe he gets on "tinfoil hat" rants about the "one-world government".
But my complaint is really with his characterization of CommonDreams.org as "commie dreams" – first of all, I read and contribute financially to that site as well – I am not a f#@!ing communist, and most of the people linked to from that site aren't either (in fact, many of the same authors are linked from both sites – does that imply that Antiwar.com is communist as well?). Perhaps I'm not as aware of the communist menace in America as Justin and David Horowitz are, hell, I don't even know what term means anymore, but I think that characterization is just plain ridiculous. In my opinion, that type of vitriol should be spared for the people in power driving our world towards oblivion (and I don't think Rahul is one of them – even with his bizarre, unprincipled article).
Also, I would like Justin's definition of the term "anti-Americanism" – I know what the mouth breathers (ok, my own vitriol) over at freerepublic think it means, but what the hell does it really mean? (the term seems Soviet-esque in its nature – for example, do other democracies have that term, 'anti-Canadian' 'anti-British' – I have always felt that the term is a form of crude propaganda).
Thank you and keep up the good work,
~ Gil Gillman, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Justin Raimondo replies:
The "Commie Dreams" riff was meant as a joke. Anti-Americanism is the mistaken idea that America (not just the American government, but America per se) is the root of all – or even most – evil in the world.
Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of today, and the issue of UN sanctions against Iraq: my reaction to the column was that it produced a lot of heat, but not a lot of light.
Whatever the sanctions were previous to the invasion, they are now an obstacle to American occupation of Iraq, and that is why our government desires to end them. Other countries oppose lifting sanctions because it will retroactively legitimize the invasion and current occupation. True or false?
I wish Mr. Raimondo had addressed these issues instead of simply fuming and fussing. I enjoy your site, but we need more analysis and less emotion.
~ Ted Dibble, Honesdale, Pennsylvania
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
The sanctions continue to kill innocent Iraqis. All of the prewar arguments against sanctions continue to be true today. Sanctions are preventing the Iraqi water supply from being repaired. Sanctions prevented ex-pat Iraqis from sending money to their relatives at home. Sanctions prevent Iraqi schoolchildren from obtaining pencils.
If you think that keeping Halliburton from making money off Iraq is more important than saving the lives of innocent Iraqis and allowing them to obtain needed goods, than you should continue to support sanctions.
Antiwar.com opposes all sanctions in all circumstances. Government should never be allowed to prevent the ability of individuals to obtain the goods needed to live, regardless of your or anyone else's political agenda.
Just a note to thank you for noting, in your response to Rajul, that Voices in the Wilderness favors lifting the sanctions. I imagine many people were hopping mad over Rajul's writing, but I can also easily imagine that he'll think hard about the responses and might change his mind.
~ Kathy Kelly, Voices in the Wilderness, Chicago, Illinois
Justin Raimondo's column labeling Rahul Mahajan anti-American was disappointing and unjustified. Mahajan is a socialist while I am a libertarian but his point is well taken. Lifting the sanctions AT THIS POINT would merely justify postfactually an illegitimate invasion and provide cover for the US to pose cheaply as a benefactor of the Iraqi people whereas in fact most of the oil would be used to foot the war bill and pay the war profiteers. Mahajan, like the rest of the world, says no thanks to such a PR coup.
For precisely the same reason, one of your readers astutely refuted Ron Paul's argument that the US should leave the UN immediately. One does not have to like the UN in order to see that such a move would be a blow against national sovereignty and thus devolution of power and subsidiarity which in the international system constitute principles that ought to trump some projected social good (here, the welfare of the Iraqis) for any libertarian.
To leave the American fox with so many chickens on its breath in charge of the Iraqi coop would be foolish indeed.
Moreover, it was Von Mises himself who argued that market socialism is to be preferred to criminal capitalism, which is precisely Mahajan's point in debating the prudence of a US privatisation of Iraq's state-run oil industry. In many countries, notably India immediately after independence, the corrupt monopoly of certain industries had to be broken by nationalization before it was possible further down the road for true free enterprise to come in later, as it now has. In any case – it is not up to the US to forcibly and oxymoronically impose libertarianism on any sovereign state.
American conservative libertarians need to read some world history before assuming that a perception of events from a different point of view must necessarily be an attack on some essentialist notion of America. Mahajan's article was well argued, low-key, and moderate in tone. It was Justin's piece that seemed thoughtless and a tad hysterical especially following an earlier one on the so-called barbarity of the Middle East and by imputation, Islam, which quite justifiably received wide criticism from your readership. I, for one, would suggest that people read Michael Neumann's excellent article in the May 13 Counterpunch issue which demolishes this facile and false association of Islam with poverty, oppression, and state sponsored violence.
Attacks on US foreign policy (please note – NOT on America) preponderate over criticism of other more egregious regimes only because the US is also a hegemon of unprecedented military and economic might that has vocally adopted a policy of uninstigated aggression. Activists know that a Robert Mugabe or a Saddam Hussein pose threats only to their native populations and perhaps immediate neighbors and can easily be checked by regional or international action. This is not the case with the US with its long history of neo-imperial (and this is Rothbard's own term) and bloody interventionism coupled with a sometimes naive and sometimes hypocritical assumption of exceptional innocence and benevolence.
Justin should temper the xenophobic strain that sometimes frequents his writing as it does that of some other paleoconservatives and recall that Mahajan is merely acting on an observation about the corruption inherent in absolute power made most famously by someone who was neither an anti-American nor a knee-jerk socialist – the conservative Lord Acton.
...Many will never be satisfied unless the giant America is toppled one way or another. Assaulting us in every spectrum of our society, political, religious, economic or otherwise. All anti-Americans are united in their cause, whether they hide behind the democratic mask, the antiwar mask, antiglobalism mask, or any other mask from behind which they can lob mortars from relative security.
This is not random. It is deliberate. It is an attack on a fabric of America and that is real. It is not what we have done right. It is not that we make mistakes along the way. It is not that we are still evolving as a nation. It is that we have been more successful at the game. No nation is willing to point the finger at itself more than the US. How about giving us some breathing room? If someone is more successful they have more. Then it's a given that because they have more they are evil. Isn't that simple. BS!
No nation has done more GOOD for others. Yes we did some things wrong. But we have also done good. No other empire let alone small nation has defeated a foe and given them back their sovereignty. Not the British or French empires, nor the Roman empire, the Chinese, Japanese, Huns, Mongols, Greeks or any others. Only the US has done so. Sorry that in a non-perfect world we are not a perfect nation. But look at who is complaining! What I would love to know has anyone else done better?
Kudos for yet another solid editorial – I consider you one of the only consistently rational voices commenting on world affairs and American policy. But I disagree with the concluding paragraph.
First, I'm not yet willing to declare that the net effect of the American invasion/ occupation/ puppet-installation actually benefits the average Iraqi. As sickening as it sounds, I'm not sure we're going to do a whole lot better than Saddam, what with the tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, the complete physical destruction of the civilian infrastructure, the total anarchy of the past few weeks (which I expect will continue for at least a couple months), and the lovely radiation presents we've left sprinkled around various population centers. To say nothing of our less-than-stellar record of installing governments beneficial to ordinary citizens, especially considering how many dollars are at stake in this most recent nation-building exercise.
Which brings me to point 2: Your statement that nothing good for the US can come of this war is misleading. Obviously this war has to benefit some Americans, otherwise we wouldn't have prosecuted it. The big winners: the folks that provide the infrastructure for empire – missiles, cluster bombs, oil pipelines, glitzy propaganda, surveillance systems, etc. In the long run, yes, the house of cards has to collapse, and the Empire Party's wet dreams of a glorious World War IV will be shattered. But their short term gains of profit and power will indeed be dizzying, and this will induce waves of ordinary Americans to jump on their bandwagon, hoping to grab some of the crumbs to maintain their standard of living in a flailing economy riddled with debt and deceit.
An open invitation to Mr. Raimondo: please read the following article available on Antiwar.com: "U.S. won't push peace map on Sharon" By Nicholas Kralev, THE WASHINGTON TIMES.
A lot of people theorized that the timing of producing the "roadmap" was just a flimsy attempt at misdirection, and the above article bears this theory out. I am not at all surprised that the US will not push Israel to follow the roadmap. ...
Mr. Rahul Mahajan doesn't sound so crazy after all, it is you who sounds gullible if you buy into the rationale that you are defending.
I think the point here is that right now the Iraqi people will continue to suffer whether the sanctions are lifted or not.
If the sanctions remain in place,the oil cannot be sold and used for imports that will benefit the Iraqi people as has been the case for the last 12 years.
But if the sanctions are lifted while a US military government of occupation is ruling Iraq the oil will be sold to profit US corporations and still not to provide the Iraqi people with the imports that they need to relieve the deprivation that they have suffered from sanctions.
The left's temporary objection to lifting the sanctions is neither anti-Americanism nor anti-capitalism but rather anti-thievery and an awareness that lifting the sanctions now, given the current reality of the situation in Iraq, will not benefit the Iraqi people now and will, in the long run, leave them more impoverished for having their primary source of wealth stolen from them.
Please consider the question from this perspective.
~ Robert Backas, a non-leftist admirer of and monetary contributor to Antiwar.com
I've pretty much agreed with your column up till now. I just wonder what you are thinking now. I don't think that many people including yourself realize how this Iraq thing is going down. The people in power in the US don't give a damn about the people of Iraq. Lifting sanctions is just about picking Iraqis' pockets. And as far as damage to the country of Iraq. I live in the North West US. And the comparison to Iraq would be for, say, the Chinese to come over and take over Washington state and use our salmon to finance the reconstruction of the NW. That would be f#@%ed up.
The rules say: you break, you pay. Maybe I don't really understand the situation, but anything that is bought and payed for and brought into Iraq should be there on the dime of the US. The oil money should just be cream for education etc.
Iraq is nasty business and it breaks down to this:
1) They
(the cabal) want to give oil contracts to their buddies.
2) They want to have permanent bases in Iraq (read Gitmo).
3) They want to f@#& OPEC.
4) Let the people kill each other if they want.
5) Spawning terrorist camps and terrorist in Iraq just means more contracts
for their buddies.
When thinking about Iraq, you don't need your thinking cap; you need your evil cap.
Iraq
will be put to sleep with drugs! Already drugs
are flowing in. What is now required is to allow the Iraqis, who are
the leaders, to become wealthy through drug traffic and stop non-USA supporters
from being dealers. The US military needs to announce where they will
be constructing their bases so the merchants in prostitution can start
constructing their military service stations.
Yes Iraq will become Americanized.
...Your argument goes like this: Osama would blow Bush's ranch in Crawford to smithereens and then insist that his construction company rebuild it using Dubya's oil money! I am positive that you're going to get many more negative comments ... and [by] other people better spoken than I, since English is my second language (I am Czech transplant living in my adopted country-Canada). My birth country has been throughout history "saved" many times from "evils" perceived by different "liberators" at different times, lucky for us dumb buggers, without cluster bombs, mother of all bombs or bunker busters. I am not even mentioning the "A" or "H" ones!
Come to think of it, Easter Sunday 1944 was the last time I did some serious praying in the basement of our Prague apartment building, during daytime bombing raid by American B-17s and I don't remember high-fiving my two brothers, overjoyed being liberated. As the consequence of second "liberation" by Warsaw Pact from ourselves in 1968, I have ended on this continent. Every country unless under foreign occupation (ex. Palestine) is responsible for its own government and deserves the one it has, if its people are not willing to sacrifice themselves to change it (ex . Czechoslovakia in 1938, 1948, 1968). That's my humble opinion.
"We spread liberty, or some deformed version of it abroad..."
I like that, it has a degree of cynicism that I admire and can only hope to achieve.
I have to disagree with the article in only one respect, there is a potential long-term payout for us. Correctly done, the entire middle-east dynamic can be flipped using Iraq as an example (not to mention, base); it badly needs flipping. I have no clue what the probability of "correctly done" is.
The entire region is so rotten.
...The sanctions regime controls the disposal of oil-generated revenue. It is the only thing standing in the way of completing the US-UK armed robbery that was the number one motivation for the invasion, whether Raimondo likes it or not.
And while we're at it, humanitarian supplies are something the US and UK militaries and agencies can bloody well provide – on their taxpayers' dime. They voted for the goons, now they can pay for the consequences without further whining and equivocating. ...
The mission statement of Antiwar.com reads:
"This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, 'greens,' and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism."
This being the case, and myself being a leftist devoted to your site as a resource and forum, I was dismayed by your harsh judgments on "the left" in your recent piece. Not only does your rhetoric resort to such callous terms which have been used to denounce opponents to the various war "efforts" ("Anti-Americans" itself among them) by the neoconservative right, but its central premise unwinds as one realises your attacks have less to do with the practicality of a UN versus an American occupying force and more to do with lambasting your traditional ideological opponents.
How you can simultaneously oppose American imperialism and then attempt to skewer the left for proposing a UN force simply because they are "anti-American" is quite ironic. You fail to address the obvious notion that some on the left may actually consider reconstruction by the UN to be something other than an imperial venture. To abandon a state riddled by war – just or not – to the throes of fate – such has been exhibited in Afghanistan, which your own "Afghanistan watch" has chronicled so thoroughly. The recognition that some outside influence must be involved in a "nation building" operation and that such an outside force is best not compromised by imperial interests leads one to conclude that the UN, while imperfect, is nevertheless the preferential route. This barely affects the United States any more than your presumed plan for complete withdrawal – and ensuant anarchy, may I add. How it is thus any more "anti-American" than your plan baffles me. ...
To be truly effective, Antiwar.com must strive to appeal to a broader component of the ideological spectrum.
Surely the salient point is that allowing the 'victors' to reap the spoils of war would only encourage their future adventures. It should be up to the people of Iraq to decide whether or not they want their oil industry to be privatised. The US and UK governments, as occupiers, are responsible for the well-being of the Iraqi people for as long as they remain in Iraq, if this means spending vast amounts of money on relieving the peoples distress then that is too bad, it goes with the territory, that's one of the main reasons libertarians were against this whole project in the first place. To pay for all the damage done by looting the oil wealth will make the situation incomparably worse.
Keep up the sterling work, your site is like an oasis in a media desert.
Garet Garrett Story
Wes W.: I just stumbled upon your site because of a google.com search on the name Garet Garrett. I found your story about Garrett to be quite interesting.
Mike Ewens (Student Coordinator and Summer Intern): I am not sure what the exact article is that you are speaking of... Considering that if one does a full google search of Antiwar.com for 'garet garrett' there are 145 results. However, I think that I can still address your general question.
WW: I see that your address is Antiwar.com. To me this is a little confusing because I thought that the pro-American way was one of a strong defense. Would you please explain this to me?
Mike Ewens: As you may know, Garet Garret was a member of the Old Right in the early part of the 20th century. This ideology has little to do with the new Right that was borne out of the National Review and is currently manifested in the neo-conservative movement (read neo-Wilsonian, globalist, etc.).
Garrett was a member of a conservative movement that fought against Roosevelt's New Deal and desire to enter America into World War II: i.e. the welfare-warfare state.
His gripe was against the growth of an America empire that threatened the liberties and freedoms of Americans. Namely, he understood Randolph Bourne's aphorism: "War is the health of the State." Garrett, like most of his contemporary conservatives, valued a small government, limited federal powers, and capitalism. Simply, the Old Right maintained that foreign policy must be inward-looking. Despite the negative connotations, the label "isolationist" fits his mentality quite well.
Now, does this equate with a pacifistic state (as you presuppose being antiwar means being "anti-defense.")? This couldn't be farther from the truth, for it is security that is foremost in our minds. The growth of an American empire through wars of "liberation" or humanitarian missions create a world where Americans are more susceptible to angered terrorists.
Thus, a foreign policy, such as one advocated by the Old Right, is defensive in nature because it recognizes that hegemony demands intrusive foreign bases, meddling in other nations' domestic policy and throwing foreign aid and friends today, who will tomorrow be deadly foes (read: Osama, Saddam, etc.).
All of these actions result in a lessening of security in America. We at Antiwar.com believe that a truly strong national defense is one based within our borders. Moreover, the current level of "defense" spending would be more than adequate to protect America's borders and assets.
WW: I have several old books by Garrett and Flynn. I am looking for other authors who write on similar subjects.
Mike Ewens: Antiwar.com's editorial director Justin Raimondo wrote a excellent book chronicling the history of the conservative movement: Reclaiming the American Right (1993). I would also recommend the following authors: Frank Chodorov, Albert Jay Nock, and H.L. Mencken – contemporaries of Garet Garrett – and Murray Rothbard, a modern libertarian writer who borrowed much of the Old Right's legacy.
Regarding "We're All Israelis Now – Except for the Palestinians" by Matthew Barganier:
I followed all of the links in Barganier's article but was totally shocked when I read the one that was used for the title of his piece: "We're all Israelis now." What on earth could have been Mr. Barganier's motivation for referencing such a contemptible piece of racist and inciteful writing? Mr. Tracinski's writing might well be thoroughly enjoyed by anti-Arab/ Muslim Racists and Haters, and habitual readers of JWR, but by including such an utterly repugnant reference in his own article Mr. Barganier has done himself a great disservice.
Matthew Barganier replies:
The links are references, not endorsements. I think my motivation for including that link was pretty clear – to give some idea of what the mantra "we're all Israelis now" actually means.
Regarding "Because They Can" by Merle Borg:
"Whatever it is, it won't last. America is too diverse to remain fascist. Fear can't be maintained forever. Even McArthy was only able to operate unchecked for three years. Our leaders may make it through the next election, but their advisers can't be with them 24/7. Someone will slip and expose himself as a snake handler and the very media that they now so skillfully manipulate will pick their bones clean."
Based upon what I see and hear from the American people, I see little evidence and have little hope that "gosh, things will turn out OK." The "war on terror" is an endless "war," just like the "war on drugs" and there's a much larger and even more highly paid constituency for the former. The general public hasn't a clue about what is actually going on and, even if they did, they'd be far more interested in the latest reality show on TV or the latest SUV. "Don't disturb my happy life with grim predictions." I've heard that over and over again.
The only thing that will wake them up is total disruption of their daily life. When they can't buy or can't afford food or shelter, can't get a job, can't fuel their car, etc., then and only then will they pay attention. It will take an economic collapse to wake people from their materialistic stupor. Throughout history, such factors have triggered major political change though not always for the better (see "Nazi Germany") . The national debt and the fedgov's massive deficit spending combined with the eventual collapse of the dollar as the world's primary currency might lead to such an awakening. However, will we necessarily end up with something better? Against the "it couldn't happen here" argument, read Leonard Peikoff's 1982 book, The Ominous Parallels – The End of Freedom in America in which he compares the US political and cultural trends up to 1982 with the fascist movements of Germany and Italy. And I think he'd have MUCH more material to work with today.
Do I have ANY hope that Joe Sixpack will suddenly wake up and reverse our slide to (further) tyranny? Nope!
Merle Borg replies:
I agree that things won't just work out, and am sorry my piece gave that impression. I am working on a article that will more accurately reflect the view that "terrorism" can only be dealt with by ending "Colonialism". America has now thought of Mideast oil as its own for several administrations. Bush2 isn't the first, he's just been more honest and crude about laying claim to it. As far as the media is concerned, of course it's drivel, but drivel sells. Would you rather have state controlled media? We get celebrity and scandal and sensationalism because we want these things, and yet we are the most advanced and successful nation on earth. The fascist right will be tossed out pretty soon, but they'll be back again. In the meanwhile, this war on terrorism will take on a more reasoned tone. It will certainly not be over. That's gonna take a few more generations. I'm kinda of the opinion that the rest of the world will get rich and shallow before we get poor and deep. Democracy and prosperity lower the bar, they don't raise it.
Regarding "Mad Dogs of War" by Justin Raimondo:
In his article Justin Raimondo refers to the "Clean Break" document. I wish that someone would quote Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 1996 address to a joint session of congress.
In the "Clean Break" document, the writers mention Netanyahu's planned trip to Washington. During this Washington trip, Netanyahu addressed congress.
The ideas that he proposed are now basically US foreign policy.
I do not know who wrote Netanyahu's speech; however, I would be unsurprised to learn that Perle vetted the speech. ...
Regarding "Living in a Soviet America" by Justin Raimondo:
Congratulations Justin at having recognized that the "Neo Cons" are not "Conservatives" at all. They are authoritarian Leftists. Communism was never merely about expropriation of Labor and Property. This was the method they used to force people into a collectivist culture which recognized as valid only the culture of Materialism which puts them in control. Its strategy was to abolish all privacy and control all thoughts, beliefs and activities thus extending the culture of industrial service to all aspects of life. It's also an aggressive response to the collapse of Moral Philosophy. If the Neo Cons were Conservatives they would start by encouraging respect and cooperation between Nations and not be in the business of abolishing local rule around the world.
The Constitution
I just wish the Democrats had spent half of the energy and passion fighting the war before it got started as they have opposing some these of these judicial nominees.
You could say the same thing about the impeachment of President Clinton, I wish they would have fought the war buildup with the same dedication and determination that they had that Clinton would never be punished. ...
I guess worrying about the Constitution isn’t as important as partisan politics.
~ William Clough, Carrollton, Illinois
I am appalled at the blatant disregard dictator Bush has for our Constitution’s separation of powers and the cowardly bootlicking of many democratic and most republican senators to allow a president that was not elected but appointed by one vote of the Supreme Court (he owns) to plunge not only this nation into another Vietnam quagmire, but start World War IV. ...
Mr. Bush believes he can bend public opinion using the repetition of lies, scare tactics, and hate mongering. Dictator Bush and his gang have improved on the tactics of 1930s Hitler in his rise to power by manipulating elections, the media and governments just like he did when his brother fixed the election in Florida by disenfranchising thousands and, so far, not using violence and suspending everybody's rights just those of some.
I am encouraged by the conviction of Ms. Garafalo, Mr. Martin Sheen, and many real patriots in their stand against tyranny. However, I don’t think this is will make much difference to a stubborn, self-righteous Bush. I suggest real sacrifice for those who practice their religion and believe in democracy:
1. Right now stop buying anything you do not absolutely need – drive the economy much lower than Bush can do by himself. Motivate his followers to choose between Gory Glory and their money. Use the money you save to pay off your credit.
2. Check on your congressmen and senators, if they are also in this 5th Reich, work for their opposition or a candidate in a different party in the next primary. Take 10% of the interest you saved in step 1. and donate to real people, not politicians, candidates.
3. Block or do not tune in to Fox News and other mouthpieces of Bush’s gang.
The costs already and the future costs of this war include your Social Security benefits, thousands of civilians as well as military in this country and aboard, the US Constitution, the souls of our children sent to do the dirty deed. ...
Imposed
"Democracy"
Our
occupation and the imposed "democracy" reminds me Napoleon's
ways. His Marshal Lefebre occupied a German city in 1806. The good Marshal
announced to all that "The French Army is here to bring you liberty,
equality and fraternity. But don't let it go to your heads or I'll have
you shot!"
Regarding "The Cost Of an Empire" by Carlton Meyer (G2Mil.com):
"The Cost Of Empire" was one of the best – and scariest – columns ever to appear on Antiwar.com. I think Carlton Meyer clearly outlines the decline of our Republic, in an essay which should be mandatory reading for every citizen. This quote, particularly, reads almost as an arbitrary act of terrorism by our US government, and the repercussions of resentment effect us all – except of course the Neo-cons, who probably have converted much of their wealth to euros.
"As a result, foreigners learned that property rights in the USA are no better than in other dictatorships, so hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign capital in US banks and stock brokerages has fled to Europe. In addition, America's tourism and airline industry is near collapse as insulted foreigners no longer spend their dollars in the USA, while US business suffers from boycotts overseas."
Thanks for the great work as always – shall I send my contribution in euros or devaluated dollars?
~ Douglas Herman