Mar 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
If you want to know just how lacking in objectivity the BBC is on the war, check out Andrew Sullivan's weblog for continuous reports. Here's some of the latest:
The BBC was last night sensationally condemned for "one-sided" war coverage--by its own front line defence correspondent. Paul Adams attacks the Beeb for misreporting the Allied advance in a blistering memo leaked to The Sun....On Monday, he wrote from US Central Command in Qatar: "I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties'. "This is simply NOT TRUE...."
In one blast, he storms: "Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving ‘small victories at a very high price?' "The truth is exactly the opposite. "The gains are huge and the costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected."
The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as the "worst possible news for the armed forces". One listener asked: "How would the BBC have reported the Battle of the Somme in World War I when 25,000 men died on the first day?" [London Sun, 3/26/03]
Sullivan today also points to this letter to the Times of London complaining about the BBC--from former Labour Party officials. And he writes:
Remember one of the key elements, we're finding out, in this battle is the willingness of the Iraqi people to stand up to the Saddamite remnants. That willingness depends, in part, on their confidence that the allies are making progress. What the BBC is able to do, by broadcasting directly to these people, is to keep the Iraqi people's morale as far down as possible, thereby helping to make the war more bloody, thereby helping discredit it in retrospect. If you assume that almost all these reporters and editors are anti-war, this BBC strategy makes sense. They're a military player. And they are objectively pro-Saddam. [AndrewSullivan.com, 3/26/03]
Mar 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The purpose of the streets are for people to get from point A to point B--that is unless you are a "peace" protestor:Scores of protesters were arrested Thursday after they lay down on Fifth Avenue to block traffic in the latest of a series of ongoing demonstrations against the war.
Let's just hope that traffic didn't happen to include an ambulance rushing to an emergency. But then again, "peace" is not the primary result of these protests:
The traffic-blocking technique was used in recent antiwar protests in San Francisco, which led to thousands of arrests and complaints that police used excessive force. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Wednesday that antiwar protests were costing millions of dollars in overtime and drawing police resources away from crime-fighting and antiterrorism operations. "People are out to disrupt life in the city," Kelly said. "This is more than protest, more than free speech. We're talking about violating the law." [About 190 Arrested After Protests Block Fifth Ave, WNBC]
Free speech means freedom from
force by those who seek to prevent you from expressing your views. Conversely, free speech does not mean you are free to
force an unwilling audience to listen--which is precisely what the traffic -blocking peacemongers are doing. Just as you are free to expound your views, others are free not to listen. By violating the rights of others by physically blocking their movement, these "anti-war" protestors are enemies of the very freedom that underlies free speech, and upon which free-speech depends.
One's status as a so-called "idealistic" "protestor" does not make one above the law. Rather these protestors should be judged for what they are by their actions: as thugs out to disrupt the lives of others. It is high time that all of these peacemongers who block traffic and disrupt the lives of others should be made to
pay for their crimes.
Mar 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Almost a week into the invasion of Iraq, a coalition force that was deliberately kept smaller than some Pentagon officers recommended is fighting under constraints designed to minimize world condemnation and avoid alienating Iraqis the Bush administration wants to liberate. Coalition troops limit fire to avoid killing civilians, and forces deliberately steer clear of destroying electric plants and other infrastructure vital to daily life. There are already signs the limits are jeopardizing allied lives. Restrictions on the use of firepower against Iraqi defenders have prolonged battles, endangered supply lines and possibly contributed directly to casualties.
Army Apache helicopters, for example, encountered withering ground fire in a nighttime engagement Monday south of Baghdad, in part because the Apache crews were ordered not to attack the power grid in the area. Lights from streets and buildings made it easier for Iraqi gunners to spot the aircraft against the night sky. One Apache was downed, its two-man crew taken prisoner.
[...] Well aware of the coalition's self-imposed constraints, Iraqi forces are exploiting them, violating the laws of war by placing fighters among civilian populations, shedding uniforms for civilian clothes, using ambulances to send military messages and even firing on U.S. troops from hospitals and homes. [...] Tactics used by the Iraqis have included parking fighter jets in cemeteries, using civilian vessels to lay sea mines, signaling surrender and then opening fire, and using women and children as human shields to get closer to allied forces.... [USA Today, 3/26/03]
Mar 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
An editorial in today's New York Sun runs down the list:
On Friday in Athens, Greece, anti-war protesters hurled Molotov cocktails--gasoline-fueled firebombs--at the American embassy, according to reports in the European press. Also Friday, an anti-war protester threw a Molotov cocktail into a McDonald's hamburger stand in a suburb of Oslo, Norway, Agence France Presse reported. In San Francisco on Friday, police discovered a backpack full of what the San Francisco Chronicle described as "about a dozen bottles filled with gasoline and equipped with makeshift fuses," left where police had earlier clashed with anti-war protesters. Even here in New York, 17 police officers were injured in clashes Saturday with anti-war protesters. One was struck in the head with a brick, one was kicked in the face, and two were knocked off their horses, police said. [New York Sun, 3/26/03]
Mar 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
AMMAN, Jordan -- A group of American anti-war demonstrators, part of a Japanese human-shield delegation, returned from Iraq yesterday with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present, with Iraqis eager to tell of their welcome for American troops.
The Rev. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor of the Assyrian Church of the East, said the trip to Iraq "had shocked me back to reality."
Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera, he said, "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam [Hussein]'s bloody tyranny."
Mar 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Diplomatic sources at the U.N. say that while members of the Security Council were working hard to find a negotiated compromise that would reunite the fractured body behind a plan to send humanitarian aid to Iraq, Russia joined Syria in its refusal to even negotiate."The Russians definitely raised their objections up a notch," said one diplomat who participated in the talks.
He said that the Russians contended that the old program should remain intact, despite the fact that all U.N. personnel who ran it were evacuated from Iraq on the eve of the war. Most of all, he said, the Russians were worried about any indication that the old Iraqi regime is not recognized as the legitimate representative of Iraq. "Any reform in oil-for-food could indicate that Saddam's regime is illegitimate," the diplomat said....
Russia ... is concerned that any change might result in loss of oil contracts signed with Saddam's regime. Oil analysts also believe that as a major oil producing nation, Russia may worry about loss of revenue as result of the revamping of post-war Iraq's oil production, which would increase output and lower global oil prices. [New York Sun, 3/25/03]
So Russia is threatened by the idea of what might happen if dictatorship ceased to be considered a legitimate form of government. Perhaps it is an option Putin doesn't wish to close off for himself?Mar 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The US and Britain are calling this war a liberation of Iraq. That sets the expectation that the Iraqis will welcome us, as Italy welcomed American troops as they swept northward from Sicily.
Frankly I don't suspect that will happen. The Iraqi culture is Arab culture, i.e. it is in psychosis. I expect that most Iraqis, being Arab, will hate America. It won't look like a liberation but an occupation.
Nothing is wrong with an occupation in this situation. Except for when the British and American public are told to expect a liberation. Then a successful occupation will appear to be a failed liberation--and a failed war.Mar 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Here's wishful thinking for you:
There were many smiling faces in Ramallah on Monday as Palestinians celebrated the capture of American and British soldiers by the Iraqi army. "This is a big day for the Iraqi people and all the Arabs and Muslims," said a policeman at Yasser Arafat's battered headquarters.
[...] At Manara Square in the center of town, the mood was one of euphoria. "They have just shot down two Apache helicopters," an excited merchant shouted hysterically as he ran out of his shop. "This is unbelievable. The Americans are losing the war. Iraq is going to be Bush's Vietnam."
[...] "Oh beloved Saddam, bomb, bomb Tel Aviv," [a group of about 50 girls] chanted as passersby and shopkeepers greeted them with the traditional Islamic battle cry of Allahu akbar (God is great). As they marched through the streets, the girls, some younger than 10, urged Saddam to eliminate Israel: "Oh Saddam, we love you, why don't you annihilate all the Jews?"
[...] Many people said that for the first time since the war broke out, they are finally able to walk around with a sense of pride. "Until yesterday [Sunday], the feeling here was bad," said a journalist. "But when the pictures of the American prisoners and bodies of soldiers were shown on TV, there was a lot of excitement. It's very moving to watch Arab soldiers defeating American and British soldiers and killing them. Saddam is now more popular than ever. The people here adore him. The feeling here is that Saddam has restored Arab confidence and dignity." ...
[...] The sense of triumph and pride was also reflected in the Palestinian Authority media. "On the fourth day of the war, Iraq has presented to the Arabs and all the peoples of the world proof that it is possible to defeat the US," said Hasan al-Kashef, a respected columnist and senior PA official. "On this day, the Arabs and the rest of the world have come to learn that the US is not the almighty superpower that is capable of doing anything, any time. Iraq has proved that surrendering to the will of the US is the result of impotence, miscalculation, and a lack of will." [Jerusalem Post, 3/25/03]
In the future, we'll need to make sure our leaders remember not only the Palestinians' enmity but also the degree of irrationality that prevails in that culture.Mar 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A private hospital in central Harare was overflowing with the walking wounded, several of whom were sexually assaulted as the army laid into the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) following a two-day strike last week. "I was sleeping naked, and they took me and sexually assaulted me with AK47," said Sonia Kulinji, 47, whose house in an MDC stronghold was invaded by soldiers wielding pipes and weapons in an overnight raid. Doctors later confirmed she had sustained severe genital bruising. Another woman, Sharon Nel, 48, said she had prevented five uniformed men from raping her by shouting that she had AIDS. [from the Daily Telegraph, New York Sun, 3/24/03]
[T]wo opposition MPs were arrested and, according to Amnesty International, up to 500 people were being held on allegations that they participated in last week's strike....
The Zwakwana human rights monitoring group said that Harare emergency wards are treating people for broken bones, bruising and sexual assault after they were beaten with wire whips, iron bars, electrical cords and rifle butts by ruling party militias, uniformed soldiers and police reservists. Witnesses said they saw police and ruling party youth militias taking part in assaults. Staff members at one private clinic said its emergency services treated 200 people....
Speaking last Friday, Mr Mugabe ... warned opposition leaders that "those who play with fire will not only be burnt but consumed". [Guardian, 3/24/03]
Mar 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Iraqi opposition members are wondering why Iraqi television and radio stations are still on the air at this stage of the military campaign.Those outlets are allowing Saddam to disseminate propaganda to the Iraqi people.
But Secretary Rumsfeld said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that it would be risky to destroy the Iraqi media facilities because they are close to civilian populations. [New York Sun, 3/24/03]
This is scary--it shows that even Rumsfeld has accepted the irrational conditions placed upon this war. It's one thing not to cause unnecessary civilian casualties. It's another thing to refrain from taking necessary military action out of fear of harming civilians. Casualties of all sorts will be minimized if we win this war as soon as possible. But war is war. Bending over backwards not to offend like this does not buy goodwill; the ones who want to be liberated will recognize the necessity of military action, even if it puts their lives at risk--and the ones who don't want us there will find any excuse however trivial to oppose us, regardless of how few civilians we harm.
Comments Chip Joyce,
Doesn't it seem that our obsession not to harm civilians is jeopardizing the lives of our soldiers?
Here's my advocated principle: one American soldier's life trumps any number of foreign civilians. Civilians should not be targeted but they should be risked for the safety of American soldiers.
Our government exists to protect American citizens. When it sends soldiers to fight wars, it should hold them in higher regard than foreigners. Tough choices come with war. To choose otherwise is to unjustly sacrifice our brave soldiers. When it comes down to it, Iraqis are more responsible for their government than our soldiers are. [About the War, 3/24/03]
Mar 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Eugene McCarthy, speaking at an event titled "A Threat to Democracy: The Tyranny of the Two Party System," at Central Presbyterian Church in downtown St. Paul: "This is a faith-based war... The worst thing is faith-based religion." (Is there any other kind?) And we're supposed to believe this guy is an opponent of faith when he's speaking at a church, opposing the war with accusations that have no foundation in this-worldly reality? And is he ready to denounce faith-based pacifism as well?Mar 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak ..., listing mistakes he said had brought the Arabs to "this dangerous stage," started with Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which he said "opened the door wide for an intensive foreign presence in the region."
That was followed by "the absence of any real Iraqi efforts to address the crisis of trust" with its neighbors, Mubarak said in the nationally televised address.
"My hope is that the Iraqi government will realize the seriousness of the situation in which it put itself in--and us in--and that the different international forces will realize the dangerous repercussions of any military action on the safety and stability of the Middle East region as well as on the safety and stability of the world as a whole," Mubarak said. [Associated Press, 3/19/03]
Does he have a glimmer? Not really. He went on to reject the prospect of ousting Hussein, saying "the ruling regime is an internal affair that concerns every state taking into account its cultural, religious and social peculiarities and its political and economic development without external intervention to impose a certain type or model."
Wrong. Dictatorships quite simply have no right to exist and no legitimate claim to sovereignty; any free nation has a moral right to invade them and topple their governments.
Mubarak's statement merely betrays his own autocratic sympathies. We're taking notes.Mar 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
This is what the anti-war protestors tried to prevent:"You just arrived," [an Iraqi in liberated town] said. "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."
"For a long time we've been saying: 'Let them come'," his wife, Zahara, said. "Last night we were afraid, but we said: 'Never mind, as long as they get rid of him, as long as they overthrow him, no problem'." Their 29-year-old son was executed in July 2001, accused of harbouring warm feelings for Iran.
"He was a farmer, he had a car, he sold tomatoes, and we had a life that we were satisfied with," said Khlis. "He was in prison for a whole year, and I raised 75m dinars in bribes. It didn't work. The money was gone, and he was gone. They sent me a telegram. They gave me the body."
Mar 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The "Great Satan" has invaded Iraq but students at Tehran University seem pleased at the prospect.
"It will be a good thing to have American troops in Iraq. Perhaps that will bring change to Iran," said Namin, a lanky engineering student strolling to class.
"Maybe that will put more pressure on the regime here." Unlike fellow Muslims in the Middle East or their predecessors 23 years ago who seized the United States embassy, students today are not seething with anger against America and are unmoved by the government's daily references to "the enemy" in Washington. [Guardian, 3/21/03]
Mar 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
This in from Baltimore:
Americans who love Ben & Jerry's ice cream, but hate Ben & Jerry's politics, now have an alternative. The Star Spangled Ice Cream Company was founded by three veteran members of the vast rightwing conspiracy who previously knew absolutely nothing about making ice cream. Today, they begin offering consumers super premium ice cream in four politically incorrect flavors: I Hate the French Vanilla, Iraqi Road, Smaller Govern-mint, Nutty Environmentalist.
"We offer conservatives guilt-free ice cream," said Star Spangled Vice President Richard Lessner. "Our super premium ice cream is superior to Ben & Jerry's in flavor and value. Plus, a portion of every purchase of Star Spangled Ice Cream goes to charities that support the great men and women in America's Armed Forces. At last, conservative Americans have an alternative to supporting Ben & Jerry's wacko liberal political causes from world peace utopianism to radical environmentalism. Conservatives now can enjoy a top- end, gourmet ice cream while supporting patriotic causes they truly believe in." [PR Newswire, 3/17/03]
Mar 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
As a Canadian, I strongly condemn the decision of our prime minister, Jean Chretien, not to support America and its allies in the justified war against Iraq. By adhering to the U.N. charade, he effectively and shamefully placed Canada on the side of abject appeasers, anti-American leftists, brutal dictators, and Islamic terrorists.
History demonstrates that the root cause of war is dictatorship and its appeasement. Only a dictatorship can force its people to attack other countries. Only a dictatorship can extort money from its citizens to buy weapons of mass destruction and support terrorist organizations.
The United Nations is an inherently destructive organization -- the worst enemy of global peace and prosperity -- because it legitimizes dictatorships and grants them the power to undermine a free country's sovereignty and right to self-defense. The United Nations should be the next to go after Saddam Hussein.
America is on the side of peace and prosperity because it is on the side of liberty and the right to selfdefense, which includes the right to strike against threatening dictatorships, especially if they possess weapons of mass destruction. America is Canada's -- and the world's -- greatest benefactor. It deserves our wholehearted support and gratitude.Mar 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told the Security Council on Wednesday that no U.N. resolution authorized military action or "the violent overthrow of the leadership of a sovereign state." [Associated Press, 3/20/03]
Wrong. Iraqi sovereignty is a fiction. No government that rules its people by force has any legitimate claim to sovereignty; in fact, it is the obligation of its people to overthrow it. If they are unable, and if a foreign power has reason to help, it has every right to do so. The article continues:
... Declaring that military intervention "has no credibility," Germany's Joschka Fischer also stressed, "There is no basis in the U.N. Charter for a regime change with military means."
If that's true, then all it means is that the charter has to be changed. Any putative law that recognizes the legitimacy of dictatorships is an oppressive, unjust law that deserves no respect. When government becomes destructive of the ends for which it is established, as our founders wrote, it is the right of the people "to alter or abolish it."
There are also "no indisputable facts" to demonstrate that Iraq threatens the United States, [Ivanov] said. If there were, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush could exercise its right under the U.N. Charter to respond in self-defense.
What does "indisputable facts" mean? The fact that foreign powers are unwilling for their own political reasons to accept evidence put before them doesn't invalidate that evidence. Ivanov's standard means that we would have to wait until Manhattan was a smoking hole in the ground before we could act, and even then we wouldn't be allowed to do anything unless we had "indisputable" proof that Saddam Hussein had orchestrated the attack. But no further justification is needed for overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime than that he is a murderous dictator.
Does this mean we should go and overthrow every dictatorship in the world? It means that doing so is permissible--not that it is obligatory. Only someone on the false premise of altruism would confuse the two.Mar 20, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
There's drama and some heroism in this story of a Clinton-like opportunist who grasps a fact and is willing to hold to it against all comers:
Tony Blair secured the backing of Parliament last night to send British troops to war against Iraq. An anti-war motion was defeated in the Commons by 396 votes to 217, a majority of 179, despite a substantial Labour rebellion. As many as 139 Labour MPs voted for the rebel amendment....Opening the most critical Commons debate since he became Prime Minister, [Blair] indicated he was ready to resign if MPs voted against military action....
Mr Blair said Britain could not afford to back down in the face of the "clear and present danger" to its national security posed by Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction, particularly a "dirty" radiological bomb.
If troops were pulled back "at the point of reckoning", Saddam and other tyrants would know the will confronting them was decaying and feeble. To retreat now would "tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination, that Britain faltered.
"I would not be party to such a course," Mr Blair said. It was time "to show that at the moment of decision we have the courage to do the right thing". As he ended, many Tory MPs and Labour backbenchers, waved their order papers in admiration and support.
MPs on both sides of the Commons said it was the most powerful speech Mr Blair had delivered, and he departed from his prepared text to deliver an emotional, hand-written peroration appealing for backing for military action. [Daily Telegraph, 3/19/03]
I hold no brief for most of Blair's politics, nor for his attachment to the UN. But his backing of the US position in Iraq despite great opposition within his own party deserves much praise.
