April 11, 2003 PERMALINK
No Apologies
Save Your I-Told-You-So's
(posted April 11 12:45 AM ET)
(minor edit April 11 5:30 PM ET)
The I-Told-You-So's from the Right are coming in fast and furious.
Just one example.
Keith Olbermann -- who apparently got the Phil Donahue Lecture before signing up for another stint on MSNBC -- offered up this nugget of wisdom on Wed. night:
...without question, there are some newspaper columnists...who may have to call in sick tomorrow.
For example, Bob Herbert of "The New York Times," who wrote 24 days ago:
"We're about to watch the tragedy unfold. The president, who's wanted war with Iraq all along, has been unwilling to listen seriously to anyone with an opposing view."
Of course, Bob Herbert not only showed up for work the next day.
He shone some badly needed light on the Bushies poised to profit from this war.
That's a story that neither Olbermann, nor anyone else at NBC or MSNBC (both owned by General Electric), has covered, outside of the "resignation" of Richard Perle.
But all that doesn't address the question posed by Olbermann and others on the Right:
Should those opposed to the war be apologizing now?
Sharing the stage with Olbermann Wednesday was right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who said:
Robert Byrd, Helen Thomas, Scott Ritter...silly people like the Dixie Chicks or Jeanine Garofalo or the generals... who got it so wrong.
They owe an apology not just to the American people and especially to the American fighting men and women, but also to the administration...
...All these armchairs and all the retired generals ought to come out and say:
"Not only was I wrong, I was so wrong, I'm going to shut up for a couple of years and salute the people that had it right."
Well, what is it exactly that we all have been proven wrong about?
-- That this war was not about disarmament, but about establishing Pax Americana on the backs of dead Arabs, Muslims and US troops?
-- That this war wouldn't end with Iraq, and could soon lead to more misguided wars with neighboring countries?
-- That invasion and occupation will keep our troops in harm's way for an indefinite period of time, while fostering more terrorism against America?
-- That the Bush Administration has no interest in real democracy, and will ensure a government is created that will serve Bush Inc.'s interests?
-- That the policy of pre-emptive war may destabilize the world as other nations adopt it?
-- That there was a way to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMDs and work towards his removal without killing civilians, including children?
And what does Bob Herbert have to apologize for? In the column Olbermann cited, the "tragedy" Herbert lamented is:
...the consequences of a split in the trans-Atlantic alliance that has served the world well for better than half a century.
...that pre-emptive warfare will ultimately make the world more ÷ not less ÷ unstable.
We won't get definitive answers on these matters right away.
For example, who knew at the end of Gulf War I that US military bases Saudi Arabia would, in the words of Bill Bradley, "radicalize[] a generation of Muslims, helping to create the atmosphere for the emergence of Osama bin Laden."
We certainly don't have answers today.
All we know is: the war ain't over yet, religious rivalries are deadly in the south, tension is thick in the north, and Syria and Iran lurk on the horizon.
April 10, 2003 PERMALINK
What An Iraqi Wants
"I Want To Feel That I'm A Human Being"
(posted April 9 11:30 PM ET)
The Bushies finally got the pictures they wanted: cheering Iraqis embracing US troops, destroying a giant statue of Saddam.
Soon after, NBC's Tim Russert admonished:
...will these pictures now become the truth the Arab world will see, instead of the propaganda that's been spewing around?
But those pictures aren't telling the full truth.
Last night, CNN's Paula Zahn interviewed Cox News' Craig Nelson, who's reporting from Baghdad. Nelson said:
I think that the footage may be a little bit misleading.
There were probably two hundred to three hundred people there. There weren't thousands. This wasn't a "people power" moment...
This is a country...where there are many, many Iraqis that are relieved. They were ecstatic to see the Marines...
But there are also Iraqis that are extremely sad and very humiliated by the...experience...
They oppose Saddam Hussein in many cases.
But at the same time, the fact that it took an outside force, a Western army, to come in here and clean things up, is for them a very traumatic experience.
(His report didn't sink in. An hour later, Zahn ignored the complexity of the situation, opening a segment with:
So many powerful images came out of the war today.
The fall of Saddam's statute. Iraqis cheering in the streets. Iraqis beating Saddam's pictures with their shoes.
You would think...all the countries that argued against the war in Iraq might be changing their tunes, or are they?)
Let's be clear. It is glorious that those who opposed Saddam are now able to express their true feelings.
But at this moment, those in Baghdad are only as free as anarchy can allow.
Are the people of Umm Qasr free? Not according to NYT's Tom Friedman, who wrote yesterday that the city is "a scene of humiliation, not liberation."
While W. Post's Anthony Shadid positively noted that Iraqis in Baghdad debated openly for the first time in 35 years, many of the opinions remained anti-American.
They are deeply suspicious. Who can blame them for wanting to see the goods before rejoicing?
One Iraqi quoted by Shadid appeared to crystallize the sentiment:
We feel peaceful and we feel relieved, but we are still frightened by tomorrow.
We will see the American and British intentions over the next few months...
...I want to feel that I'm a human being, I want to feel that I'm free and that no one can take it away.
I want to work, so that my family has enough to live. I want to live like everyone else in this world who lives in peace.
That's where the bar must be set.
Not at how many statues we can destroy.
But at how many Iraqis will feel like human beings again.
April 9, 2003 PERMALINK
Watching Our Back
By Backing the UN
(posted April 9 12:45 AM ET)
Yesterday, LiberalOasis argued that Dems need to forcefully support a UN-led reconstruction and democratic transition for Iraq.
Let's clarify one point about that: the thrust of such an argument should not be tinged with anti-Americanism.
Instead, it should be rooted in America's national security interests.
Real democracy that enfranchises Arabs and Muslims, coupled with significant economic investment, is the only long-term way to extinguish the allure of terrorism.
Any government installed by the US will be seen as suspect by most Arabs and Muslims. That's not anti-American to say. That's just reality.
America simply hasn't earned anyone's trust in that part of the world.
You won't earn trust by steering fat contracts to your friends' companies. (See here, here, here and here.)
You won't earn trust by handpicking government officials, be they Americans or Iraqis.
The selective truth-telling on this matter by Bush and Blair has already started.
Yesterday's joint Bush-Blair statement read:
We support the formation of an Iraqi interim authority, run by Iraqis until a permanent government is established by the people of Iraq.
But they didn't bother to mention the new "governor" of southern Iraq, Lt. Gen. Rogers (Buck) Walters, who is serving under US Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance head Lt. Gen. Jay Garner.
The statement continued:
The interim authority will be established first and foremost by the Iraqi people, with the help of the members of the coalition...
Apparently "help" from coalition members means fighting over the future of Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile (for 40 years) who heads the Iraqi National Congress (initially set up by the CIA).
The Pentagon loves Chalabi. The State Dept., the CIA and Tony Blair don't.
In Dubya's world, the Pentagon wins that match-up.
On Sunday, Chalabi was shuttled into southern Iraq by the US, giving him an apparent "head start" over other opposition leaders in the post-war jockeying, despite a lack of grassroots Iraqi support.
So much for "first and foremost by the Iraqi people."
Finally, you won't earn trust by turning Iraq into a playground for right-wing policy wonks to experiment with.
Already, the US tried to make severely thirsty Iraqis pay for water, just so they'd "hustle" for work and get ready for a free-market system. (The Brits got the US to shelve the idea).
(Apparently, no one recalls the riot that occurred when the US company Bechtel tried to privatize the water system in Bolivia. 10,000 protested the plan to "lease the rain.")
After the Iraqi water scheme, Nathan Newman observed Iraq is "to be a showcase for rightwing economics types to experiment and roll back any idea of a welfare state in Îthe new Middle East.'"
He's not kidding. The WSJ reported yesterday:
During lunch last week at [power restaurant] the Palm, [influential right-winger] Grover Norquist stopped by the table of [music industry lobbyist] Hillary Rosen.
"I need your help," he said cheerfully. "I'm working on intellectual-property laws for a free Iraq."
We would earn trust by setting aside our own political agendas, and allowing the only international body we got to take the lead.
This is not because the UN is a flawless body.
Like any large institution, (including the US government or any huge corporation), messy machinations, inefficiencies, inconsistent follow-through, and ulterior motives of its members mar its processes.
But the UN, more than anything else, is the extension of the global community -- giving it moral authority and political neutrality.
The Dems must oppose Bush now, and make the case for the UN and for working with the world.
Not multilateralism for multilateralism's sake.
But for the sake of credible democracy and our own national security.
April 8, 2003 PERMALINK
A Line In The Sand
(posted April 8 12 AM ET)
(minor edits April 8 11:30 AM ET)
I vote for the Democratic party. They want the U.N. to be strong.
-- Phil Ochs, "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" (1966)
The Dems were split on war with Iraq, and therefore unable to speak in a clear voice, which has hurt their political rep.
They need to undo the damage by speaking in a clear voice about post-war Iraq.
The distinction with Dubya should be a simple one.
We want a multilateral, UN-led reconstruction that will lead to a credible democracy in Iraq, serving as a role model for the region.
Bush wants a selfish, short-sighted unilateral occupation, which will alienate the world, breed resentment and feed Al Qaeda.
It's evident what path we're on: a condescending relegation of the UN to an advisory role.
Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who is not as rhetorically crafty as Bushies like Paul Wolfowitz, said on Sunday:
We're working out a situation whereby the United Nations can have a role as a partner, but not the managing partner.
Colin "Bloody Hands" Powell, said yesterday:
The coalition, having spent the treasure, having taken the political risk and having paid the cost in lives, must have a leading role...
(So all that stuff about this war being authorized by UN Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441, you can forget it.)
And today's Tony Blair meeting in Northern Ireland is unlikely to result in any concession to the UN beyond token gestures (as Blair has shown he is quite useless as a UN liaison).
We are seeing rumblings from some Dems, most notably Sens. Carl Levin (anti-war resolution) and Joe Biden (pro).
They are the leading Dems on defense and foreign policy respectively, and their voices are significant.
But this needs to be a defining issue for the party, with consistent, repeated messages from Daschle, Pelosi and the presidential candidates.
When the occupation goes awry, when our troops unnecessarily remain in harm's way, when GOP donor companies get their share of the oil meant for the Iraqi people, when geopolitical tensions boil instead of cool, Dems need to be able to credibly say: "Elect us in '04, we know how to get us out of this mess."
That means sticking your neck out now and laying out the vision. Not waiting for the bad things to happen.
Opposing a US-imposed interim Iraqi authority -- as damaging to the credibility of future democracy -- is a good place to start.
It's not as politically risky as it might sound (too wonky to raise much public ire), and it would signal the Washington media that you're drawing a serious line in the political sand.
For the longer-term agenda, there's much to lift from this Nation piece by Win Without War's David Cortright.
The Dems have shown backbone as of late on the domestic front. It's long past time to show it on the global stage.
