Posted July 17, 2003

Regarding Mike Ewens' reply to CP's letter posted July 10:

David Batlle, Austin, Texas: At first glance, this is a reasonable response. But if you consider that the Left worldwide, not just in America, is obsessed with Israeli actions, then you realize that Antiwar.com's explanation is merely evasion. Israel is considered by the Left as an extension of "western colonialism." And we know that the Left is at it's core anti-western. THAT, and little else, explains their obsession with Israel. Of course, Israelis themselves don't consider themselves anything but Israeli, and most of them consider the new Left to be anti-Semitic. They may be right.

Associate Editor Mike Ewens: We aren't the Left, we're the Right, so "their obsession" is not our obsession. We are very pro-Western, but unlike many on the Right, we don't think it can be imposed on other nations.

Why do you bring up the Left all the time? Sounds like Rush Limbaugh: instead of making an argument, he labels something "liberal," thinking he has proved his point. In fact, no point has been made.

DB: I'll drop the Leftist charge against you guys, even though on foreign policy you are identical. I've never opposed labels if they fit, however.

ME: Um, no. You obviously are ignorant of the Old Right. You have demonstrated how little you know of political ideology and Antiwar.com.

(From a previous email: 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: John T Flynn, 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.)

DB: But does that mean you'll also drop all the labels you tag people with? you can start with "neocon." Most people that agree with current U.S. policies HAVE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF THE TERM. ...

ME: That doesn't mean that the architects of the policies don't have a coherent, recognizable philosophy and can't be labeled neoconservatives. Our founding fathers were basically libertarians, although NO ONE HAD HEARD OF THEM TERM.

Neoconservative foreign policy has its roots in Wilsonian/ globalist/ social democratic thought. The Left likes this ideology so long as a Democrat is in office. We were against the war in Kosovo, Haiti, Gulf War I, Somalia, etc. Our opposition was principled.

Stand up for Our Soldiers

Whether you oppose or support the current war in Iraq (yes, the war continues), the fact that our troops are suffering in more ways than one is an outrage.

Let me start at the top of this obscene list of abuses:

Most days in Iraq, the temperature hovers around 115 degrees. Troops are being given inadequate water to drink. Would a gallon of water a day be sufficient for you in 115 degree sweltering heat?

MREs (meals-ready-to-eat) are being rationed. Some troops get only one or two meals a day. One soldier I personally know of has lost 45 pounds in the 3 1/2 months he has been fighting this war.

According to this same soldier, our troops are not being screened for possible heat stroke or other physical needs.

Basic hygiene products including toilet paper, are not being provided.

Already, our troops are suffering physically and mentally. They are under constant stress, not knowing who is friend or foe.

How is this morally or ethically acceptable? How can Bush make such a flippant, callous comment as "Bring 'em on," challenging the Iraqis to unleash their anger and frustration on our sons and daughters? Bush ordered our children to wage a battle on Iraq. Therefore, Bush is responsible for making sure they are adequately fed, hydrated and physically fit to fight his war, is he not? If not he, who bears that responsibility? Why is it that the defense contractors can be paid millions, while the troops on the battlefield must go hungry?

This is nothing short of a war crime.

I beg readers to please write, call or e-mail the President, our congresspersons and the media. Someone must protect our troops, since Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are busy cutting Veterans' benefits and are apparently uninterested in the soldiers' suffering. Please stand up for our soldiers. They are counting on us to wage this battle for them.

~ Sherry Seehof, California

Regarding "Democracy with Chinese Characteristics" by Sascha Matuszak:

It’s always amusing to read Sascha Matuszak's latest rant about China. Like most American hacks, he combines a self-righteous sneer with glib and superficial "analysis" in his diatribes. What Matuszak fails to understand is that Americans like himself have no moral or political legitimacy lecturing anybody (including China) about democracy, given the fact that his own nation has long ago hijacked ideals such as democracy and freedom to advance its bloody agenda around the world.

If Matuszak is interested in "promoting democracy," he should point his accusing finger at his own America which is currently ruled by a Right Wing regime that seized power through a stolen election in which thousands of minority voters were conveniently purged from voter registration lists in Florida. Better still, Matuszak should admit to the continuing role of his America in fomenting coups against democratically elected governments from Salvador Allende in Chile to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela today.

In terms of Tibet, it even more amusing to hear an American shedding crocodile tears about Tibet given the fact that America as a nation is based upon the continuing theft and occupation of Native, Hawaiian, and Mexican lands. If Matuszak loves referendums in Taiwan so much, perhaps he should advocate for referendums to allow indigenous Hawaiians and Mexicans on both sides of the border to determine the fate of the Hawaiian nation and Aztlan (aka the so-called American Southwest).

Matuszak's hypocrisy reaches a high point with his comments about India. His "democratic" India is currently waging bloody counterinsurgency wars against actual independence movements fighting Indian rule in Nagaland, Bodoland, Assam and of course Kashmir.

Where are champions of freedom and democracy like Matuszak when it comes to advocating for these more legitimate struggles that don't have the benefit of past CIA sponsorship or Hollywood groupies like the so-called "Free Tibet" organizations possesses? Where are champions of democracy like Matuszak when it comes to protesting India's tacit state sponsorship of ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Gujarat? Despite his limited phony "criticisms" of the US government, Matuszak is nothing more than an Imperialist American shill. Under the cover of democracy and freedom, Matuszak directs his vitriol against nations (like China) that just so happen to challenge American Empire and hegemony, while conveniently ignoring those atrocities committed by budding American regional allies like India.

Ultimately, the true sucker is anybody who believes that American interference in the affairs of other nations has anything to do with its lies about democracy and freedom, whether that be in Iraq or anywhere your murderous Empire rears its head.

~ DPT

Sascha Matuszak replies:

So let me get this straight, Paladin of Truth, by pointing out the oppressive aspects of China's political system, I am actually supporting Worldwide Hegemony via American Imperialism.

Would it change matters if I changed the title of my column to "A Turk in China" as I am half Turkish?

While you think up a deft response, I would like to point out that I write for Antiwar.com. Although I am flattered that you come to the site to read my imperialistic rants alone, I would ask you to read such luminous columns as "Behind the Headlines," "Balkan Express," "Eye on the Empire," "Collateral Damage," anything by Charley Reese, etc. They handle American Imperialism, I am charged with writing about CHINA.

And China, if you haven't noticed, likes to shut down newspapers if they write anything unflattering about the Mainland. Are you refuting any of that, or are you merely a Paladin of Relative Truth?

And my latest column was written before I received your letter.

Regarding "Protest Without a Purpose?" by Mac Beaulieu:

I must admit I enjoyed reading Mac Beaulieu's comments on our July 4 protest in Philadelphia. As the webmaster of justiceinjuly.org, I find it flattering that our protest was mentioned on Antiwar.com, even if the comments were overwhelmingly negative. At least they were funny.

Protests are messy events, even more so than barbecues (although the Green Party barbecue I hosted after the protest was pretty damn messy).

Like barbecues, protests are full of people you didn't know you invited and not nearly enough of those you begged to come.

It's true we had trouble focusing on a theme, but there really are a lot of things to protest. Antiwar.com has a pretty specific theme but I still often see lots of other stories. Today I see stories about ABC news coverage of Greece, election results from Kuwait, and Israel's trade relations with Europe. All interesting, and all connected with war in SOME way, but not necessarily more closely than "Cat Lovers Against the Bomb" are to other protest movements.

Our theme was basically that we are the defenders of the Constitution. While the document was being praised across the street, it's being shredded in Washington. All the wars, civil liberty infringements, and upward redistribution of wealth are basically connected by the fact that they occur in violation of the Constitution, which is why we had a giant puppet representing Bush shredding the Constitution at the entrance to the rally (shame that few noticed).

Certainly things went wrong and there's lots of room for improvement. We need to figure out how to invite in groups like ANSWER (because yes, they're damned good at what they do) and not get subsumed into them. We need to figure out how to attract people who only know they're against Bush, without excluding people who have a very specific reason to be. We need to try to teach people things they might not know without beating them over the head.

But this won't happen if every right-winger or middle-of-the-roader who comes to a protest decides that s/he's never coming back. We need the people who see our flaws and try to fix them with us. Protests have to get better, and to do that they need to get broader.

So I want to invite Mac and anyone else in Philadelphia who was disappointed with "Justice in July" – or even people who were happy with it – to come to Thursday's last meeting (check out justiceinjuly.org/meetings.html) and help us figure out what to do next. [Too late, meeting was held July 10. – SK]

And as a self-hating Philadelphian (like most Philadelphians), I have to say we did pretty well by getting 5000 people to turn out. Our last big rally (10,000 in February against the war) was spectacular by our standards, even if it was pretty small by other cities' standards. So we may not be the best, and we may not even be the city that tries harder, but at least we're a city that tries to try harder. So I hope the rest of the country won't give up on Philadelphia, and I hope Philadelphia won't give up on our little band of protesters.

~ Stephen Preston, webmaster, justiceinjuly.org

Regarding "No Exit?" by Justin Raimondo:

I couldn't agree with you more in that we need to GET OUT of Iraq and the Mideast. I took note of your reference to student loans and how Emperor George will not give troops a break.

Try this one on for size. The US government is giving former Iraqi military (that they cannot trust or will not have in the rebuilt Iraqi military) immediate pensions! For crying out loud! Most of our military is made up of the National Guard or the Reserves. We, including myself, have to wait until age 60 to draw retirement pay!

George is a one-termer I pray!

~ Ronnie Abrams

Regarding "Democratic Revolution – It's What's for Dinner" by Anthony Gancarski:

Though it is certainly true that none of the Arab monarchies will ever be able to mount any resistance against US imperialism, to imagine that the superpower which engineered the rise of Saddam Hussein through CIA intrigue, installed the Shah in a coup, instigated the war of the Mujahideen from July 1979 onward, among other exploits, is somehow carrying out a "democratic revolution" is highly naive.

Daniel Pipes has already announced that what is needed is an "Iraqi Chiang Kai-Shek." An experienced lobbyist for Saddam Hussein from the '80s like Pipes knows what he means when he speaks of this. Should it ever come to an invasion of China by Washington, expect to hear Pipes calling for a "Chinese Saddam Hussein." In the meantime, Saddam himself may well have been spirited off to Latin America in the way that many ex-Nazis were after World War II, despite all the rumors put out that Saddam is behind the resistance fighting going in Iraq, and anything may occur from there. With new coups and wars being prepared in Bolivia, Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina, among others, a trained one-time CIA-hand like Saddam could still be useful after being set in a residential Mexican villa somewhere.

Down the road, a new Venezuelan President may be sought by the Company much as they sought one for Iraq in the '60s. If such a rehash of Guatemala, 1954, plays itself out, you may expect the New York Times and NewsMax to gush about the "Democratic Revolution." No serious source should buy up to the propaganda.

~ Patrick McNally

Regarding "We've Been Neo-Conned" by Ron Paul:

Absolutely brilliant! I've followed Ron Paul for a number of years and continue to be impressed by his willingness to stand alone when necessary.

There are too few "Ron Pauls" in Congress. Every single word in this piece reflects my own thoughts on what is happening to America.

My own 3 children are Republican conservatives and believe in this administration. Their Mom doesn't even though she voted for both Bush I and Bush II. They call me "Commie Mommie" because I dissent.

Ron Paul I hope will stay the course.

~ Alma Jurgensen

"None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives – a name they gave themselves – diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government."

Are we getting close enough here that we can start talking about a conspiracy along the lines the John Birch Society has been trying to warn about for 45 years? To the extent that the plans of the conspiracy are talked about openly it is perhaps late to still use the term conspiracy now that the secrecy component of the definition is disappearing. However, the evil intent (sacrifice of individual liberty to the State) remains.

I applaud Mr. Paul for going this far, but sooner or later, to be successful in the fight, he is going to have to use the "C" word. Calling a conspiracy for what it is would be far more useful than say listing "neocon belief #17" which even if found true only further serves to have his position (along with anti-war.com) discounted as "the thinly veiled ravings of an anti-Semite."

~ Jim Capo, Coordinator, The John Birch Society, Greensboro, North Carolina

I agree with Ron Paul, but this statement I have problems with. A lot of Libertarians say this same type of thing, over and over and over again I hear it:

"Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America's best "traditions." I wonder where he learned early American history! It's obvious that Ledeen doesn't consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire."

Libertarians kill me on this fairytale they keep perpetuating along with almost all Americans. The so-called American revolutionaries basically almost completely ended up wiping off the face of the earth the Native American Indians. It was like an old fashion genocide, ok, back in the good old days. Amazingly, to me, Libertarians don't see any empire there. No empire to be found there, is there, no interventionism there? Don't get me me wrong I think limiting government is a noble cause, it just never really happened, although I'd really like to give you the credit.

Also I don't see how I would be any less free than I am today if the early American colonist hadn't taken up arms against King George and we were still an English colony today. So why Libertarians hold up the revolutionary war as their good little war like most other people today hold up World War II as their good little war, I'll never understand. Liberty-wise, whether I'm living in England or the United States today, there isn't any difference worth talking about.

The conquerors always erase the history of the conquered, to avoid responsibility and appear virtuous in the history books, and Libertarians do their part to help see to it that that historic trend remains undisturbed.

~ Doug Wiltfong

Regarding "Casualties in Iraq: The Human Costs of Occupation," edited by Mike Ewens:

What's with all these "non-hostile gunshot incidents"? I must have seen at least 10 of these "incidents" reported over the past few months. Are some of our guys taking their own lives? Or are many soldiers incredibly careless when cleaning their weapons?

Has anyone ever addressed the number of murders and suicides that have been plaguing US military bases over the past decade?

~ Patrick M.

Michael Ewens replies:

Unfortunately, the US military is the only known source of that information. Clearly they have an incentive not to release such data, however, I will keep my eyes open.

Debt of Honor

The famous statue of Liberty, the French gift to the US that became a symbol of American leadership in pursuit of Liberty was also a symbol of France's admiration and recognition of the fact that America became a world leader in promoting the values of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. Such a recognition from the land where these ideas were first formulated was a humble and honorable gesture. I think this gesture needs a reciprocity.

Today, under the neocon rule an unprecedented neglect and disrespect of the US Constitution and the international law that was created and promoted with the leadership of this very country is unfolded right before our eyes. And although it became disgustingly fashionable to insult our French friends and allies for the open opposition to our current policies, I think that with time this will change. I am positive that after the smoke that was created by neocons that hijacked my party's agenda (and I am a member of many a Republican organization including Republican Presidential Task Force and a Charter Member of Ronald Reagan Republican Center in Washington) will clear and they will be thrown out of their position of power, this country must turn its face to the French Republic and thank them for defending our common principles and, together with Germans, standing up to us in the moment of our national madness.

I think that once the American public will realize what a great service our French and German friends offered us, the proper way of commemorating this dramatic event and symbolically repaying this debt of honor will be found.

~ Alex Chaihorsky, Reno, Nevada

Regarding "Mourning in America" by Justin Raimondo:

While I may sympathize with some parts of your idealistic vision of America, I have to disagree sharply with the way you gloss over Manifest Destiny and western expansion. ...

In the past, you have articulated an eloquent libertarian argument for the Palestinians' right of self-defense to their property and homes against the intrusion of Zionist settlements and bulldozers (analogous to how the founding forefathers resisted the British Crown). And yet, when it comes to the matter of American-Indians, you use "Lockean" justification for their elimination. I fail to see the difference between that and any other imperialist or Zionist justification for conquest and colonization. You espouse the settlement of white colonists on virgin and pristine lands at the expense of the natives as a just and beautiful cause, but you lambaste the Israeli Zionists for their own attempts at development and colonization of Palestine. You vilify the atrocities of American natives and attribute it to "firewater" (drunk on terrorism perhaps) but why would you expect them to do otherwise – in the face of encroachment and displacement? You seem to exhibit more understanding for the Palestinians fighting against their own demise in the face of the Israeli juggernaut. Hell, why not just let the Chinese overrun Mongolia, Tibet, and Siberia then, just as the Americans overran much of Mexico? All in the name of Locke.

I won't even delve into other historical misrepresentations of American-Indians as nomads or the real reasons for why the Texans seceded from Mexico, etc., since previous responses have approached those issues already. But I will say this: while I have enjoyed reading most your articles in the past, Justin, and have respected your integrity and consistency on most antiwar issues, this article is definitely one of your more inconsistent and sloppier articles to date.

~ Joseph Hines

Regarding "Occupational Hazards of War Without End" by Christopher Deliso:

A very good article. The month came through wrong though. That said, as a 1964 length of service military retiree who has been BETRAYED, along with 432,000 other military retirees of that time, regarding monthly retired pay by a deceitful and lying US Government I would not expect the truth to be a part of this government.

Of the less than 30,000 from that group still living we have witnessed a disparity in retired pay of at least 1/4 from that of our ingrate successors. Congress changed a 170-year old law after we had done our time.

Also, Medicare did not even exist when I retired, but this same ungrateful Nation took our "earned" lifelong health care from us on attaining age 65 and no longer subject to recall to active duty.

What could a poor Iraqi expect from the same deceitful and lying government?

~ W.D. Gray, Illinois

I submit that you fail to make the critical distinction between "deception" and making predictions. The administration never made any predictions beyond a swift military victory. Officials were quite careful not to predict events months away that could be no more certain than a weather forecast. I think you heard what you expected to hear from politicians you are clearly disinclined to listen to in the first place, and now you're chasing shadows. The ambushes are no surprise to anyone who has ever served in uniform, and the servicemembers there now are taking it with professional equanimity. A death toll of 200, out of a quarter of a million in harm's way at some point or another, is an awesome historical precedent.

It is precisely this sort of alarmism that is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: cry out that it's Vietnam all over again, and soon you'll make it that way. The lack of public support weakened the government's commitment to our troops, and thus so many more did not come home. I left the Army recently for medical reasons, but my husband is in Baghdad, and he went to do a job far more important than yours, requiring vastly more courage and inner substance. Certainly I worry about his safety, but I worry more about what sentiments like yours will do to the government's resolve than I do about the insurgents. ...

~ Sara Townsley

Regarding "Howard Dean? Antiwar!?" by Anthony Gancarski:

Dean supporters are well aware of Dean’s stances. That’s why we support him. He is NOT an “antiwar” candidate. But he IS an “anti-reason” candidate. And reason stated that there was no compelling evidence of WMD, that there was no real need to go into Iraq, and if there was, then there was no reason to be going in alone. It’s folly to think this country would, could or should elect a truly “antiwar” candidate. That has never been a useful strategy. But electing someone who says these are the conditions under which we should go to war, and they weren’t met in Iraq shows someone who is careful, strategic, smart, and damn electable.

That’s why we support Dean.

~ Lisa Pease

Regarding David Batlle's letter posted July 10:

I am rather surprised that you simply accepted the claims by David Batlle. The Daily Telegraph article he cites is an obvious propaganda lie – to tell that, one doesn't need to know much about about Iraq, one can tell simply by its internal contradictions.

The article basically makes two claims:

- The increased infant mortality was only a propaganda ploy by the Iraqi regime, they faked it by "storing" dead babies over a longer period of time and releasing them all at once.

- The reason for the the increased infant mortality were not the sanctions, but insufficient subsidies for the Iraqi welfare state.

It shouldn't take Mr. Spock to see the logical contradiction between these two propositions. If there was increased infant mortality – for whatever reason – then there was obviously no need to fake it. You can't have it both ways.

It would be rather interesting to question those interviewees about their strange claims – but perhaps they would be as amazed as I am about these assertions (if they exist at all).

~ Gerhard Grasruck