Peaceniks

Regarding ... [Justin Raimondo's] 15 October column, "The Peaceniks":

You write:

"I am not one to downplay the overseas crimes of the US government [no, you sure as hell aren't, and hence this whole column rings a tad odd; but to continue...], but this struck me as a moral outrage: to equate the US government, in this instance, with Osama Bin Laden is not only counterintuitive (for any normal person) but also grossly immoral. Even as the US government wages a futile and counterproductive war against the Afghan people, its spokespersons go out of their way to emphasize that they are not targeting civilians, and there can be no doubt that the military has been given orders to avoid civilian casualties at almost any cost."

Ah, but the issue of putative "moral equivalence", as you well know, has not to do with the current action in Afghanistan, but rather the cumulative actions of the U.S. over decades, as well as of policies leading up to 9/11 (and of course still in existence). And on that score said equivalence is debatable – in no way clear-cut or a matter of one side being "grossly immoral" and the other benign.

Further, you write:

"But what about Bin Laden? What is to happen to him? Should he and his minions face justice for murdering all those innocent people? We get no answers from ANSWER on this score."

And indeed why should we? Virtually 100% of the population, as well as our political leaders, are brimming with variously aggressive military "answers"; it is not a question of whether someone is going to get their asses kicked, only when, how, for how long, with what total force, and involving how much "collateral damage" (quite possibly extending to the greater part of central Asia and the Middle East, or even beyond, before this is over). And at this moment I am not saying that military answers are a bad thing; only that they are inevitable and, as such, the need for more such "answers" from the answer people is not very great, wouldn't you say? Yes, of course whoever is guilty of this heinous crime (bin Laden or other) should be hung up by their toenails; do you really need to hear another voice saying that?

For God's sake, why not give some benefit of the doubt to the utterly marginalized few who would offer any resistance at all to the rampant jingoism? It smells like a latent right-wing revulsion for all things left suddenly got activated – bigtime – and you just had to fire off a gratuitous, rabid assault. By the time you started mumbling about "commie agitprop," there was little doubt that something like that had kicked-in.

You mock leftish expressions of disapproval of the gigantic munitions business – the idea that "wars profit the evil capitalists" – saying "will somebody please explain this to those stock market gremlins who have been pulling the market down? ... This was said after a week in which the stock market had taken the single biggest week-long dive in its history." Yes, indeedy. And you well know that that huge market index hit had nothing to do with the matter of the immense profitability of war materiel production. What you may not be aware of is the probable relation of the current action in Afghanistan to both oil and opium, and profits therefrom (literature and references on request; I will not try to explain further here).

Not that you didn't make some good points, and a few funny ones, many of which, believe it or not, I agreed with. You are correct about the fundamental hatred of America (and often, though you did not mention it, the West in general, white men, etc.) held by those on the hard-core left; this hatred is easily as insidious as the mindless flag-worshipping (and warmongering) of "patriots." But the overall effect of your column, and its savagery toward something that really need not be savaged, was disappointing.

Although my own little effort at building a left/right bridge has fallen flat (don't ask), such a concordance might still have a role in averting catastrophe. But it will never happen as long as we are grinding out attack-dog rhetoric like this 15 October column of yours.

~ Alan Lewis, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a.k.a. the People's Republic of Ann Arbor

Justin Raimondo replies:

Justin Raimondo replies: I have answered – or, at least, dealt with – a lot of your concerns in today’s column [Wednesday, October 17], but before I deal with the rest: thanks for writing such an intelligent letter. A lot of the response to my "Peaceniks" column was kneejerk "yo momma!" and obviously written by boorish idiots incapable of self-reflection.

You mistook my attack on the Left for blaming war on capitalism in general for "mocking leftish expressions of disapproval of the gigantic munitions business." Some capitalists profit from war: but capitalism as a system is dissolved and violated during wartime, when the State centralizes and controls the economy, taxing us, regulating us, and invading every aspect of our lives in the name of "national security." War, as the Old Right publicist John T. Flynn used to point out, is the one condition which can get conservatives to support huge spending bills and the growth of government power.

The attempt to explain US military action as the result of a nefarious conspiracy to control oil, opium, or whatever is not very convincing at a time when the wreckage of the World Trade Center is still smoking.

Yes, I do try to be funny, in these generally humorless times, and I’m glad if I can bring a smile to someone’s face. But I must disagree with your contention that I savaged something that needn’t have been savaged. If anything, I was being soft on the Left: I omitted a lot that was even more damaging. Because I’m really such a nice guy, you understand….

Seriously, I don’t agree that I was being unnecessarily harsh: this needed to be said, and I am not alone in my discontent with the state of the "peace" movement. I received scores of letters on this subject. I also disagree that "as long as we are grinding our attack dog rhetoric" a broad alliance against US intervention in the region can never happen. The opposite is true: the left will isolate itself completely on this issue, and no self-respecting conservative or even moderate would even go near it until the questions raised in my piece are thrashed out and settled. What is needed is a full debate on the question of what is the proper strategic orientation to take toward this war: do we seek justice with peace, or abjure all retaliation? In my view, we ought to seek to limit the war to a police action as much as possible – and agitate ceaselessly against its expansion into anything bigger. This, I believe, is both the moral position to take and a winning strategy. I am all for unity -- but we need to have that debate.

---

Relief From Drivel

Thanks for setting up this site. It's such a relief from the drivel on TV and in the papers.

The master of propaganda, Goebbels, said that arguments must be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. He said that truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology, and that hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals.

And what have we got? Intelligence-insulting meaningless rhetoric about a "war against terrorism" against people who "hate our freedoms" – catchy slogans for the millions of uncritical people munching chips as they watch it all on TV. And how effective it was to pin the attacks on one man – Osama bin Laden – from day one! Who needs proof when people are in a state of shock?

Demonisation is part of the game too, hence all the insulting talk about 'towel-heads' and 'rag-heads'. Excuse me, but what ever happened to the formerly PC mortal sin of harassment on the grounds of race or ethnicity? This sudden turn in 'values' is Orwellian.

~ Antonia F.

---

Where Is Our Vice President?

I along with many others just want to know where is our vice president? Why can't we see him or hear from him? Something seems very wrong about his silence.

~ Campbell

---

The Mission

What is the mission here? It is obvious from reading your rhetoric that your bias is with the Arab-side of the Israel conflict and you will do whatever you can to justify your positions in light of that. If I am not mistaken, your point is that we should deal with bin Laden and then go about our business and try to force Israel into agreement with the Palestinians. Once that is accomplished, the Arab states are all going to magically love the West, or at least drop their hatred of us, and the terrorism threat will cure itself. What you fail to see, and you might want to present as a balanced case are:

Without being able to focus their populations on hate for Israel, isn't there a distinct chance of internal uprising?

~ Perry G.

The "Backtalk" editor replies:

Antiwar.com is devoted to the cause of American military non-interventionism. In the Middle East, a non-interventionist policy would include ending the embargo on Iraq, ending US funding of foreign militaries, and returning US troops to the United States. It would not include trying to "force Israel into agreement with the Palestinians."

---

Muddy Water

I'm writing on behalf of all the Muslims in Malaysia. We think that the strikes on Afghanistan by the United States and Britain were not acceptable not only for Muslims, but all the major races in Malaysia.

Bear in mind that using a war to stop a war is not acceptable. It is something like washing a dirty cloth with muddy water. We think that the war is unfair. The US and Britain (big guys) are fighting with Afghanistan, which is a crippled little boy.

In my opinion, the US's acts against Afghanistan are not a good idea because all the Muslim communities in the world will hate the country because of the attacks. Furthermore, how can they (US) wage war only on Afghanistan, which for them is the country of the terrorists, but not on Israel, who is killing many Palestinians. Although our government supports US strikes against Afghanistan, we won't be on the US's side if the strikes includes civilians' lives.

I can say here that before the acts taken on Afghanistan, I liked Americans, but now I personally hate the country because of what they have done to the innocent Afghan civilians. We must stop the US from continuing their war on Afghanistan. For me, the US just want to test their weapons and military systems, not to fight the terrorists. Last but not least, the US's decision on attempting war against the other Muslim countries is not an intelligent idea. They are fools if they do that.

My words to the US:

You are the real terrorists, not Muslims. You call your army heroes but ... [people] fighting to save [their] own country are the real heroes. Where is your 'face' when you fight a crippled boy with only a knife and you are using bombs and missiles?

War is not the way to stop terrorism.

~ Setokun

---

Aloha

[Regarding Scott McConnell's column of October 9, "The Push for a Wider War":]

Against the background of Andrew Sullivan`s article, may I offer you an excerpt from a sermon of Rev. Abraham Akaka, (the elder brother of current Hawaii senator Akaka) at: http://www.sfo.com/~goldengate/ppunahoualoha.htm

It is part of a sermon he gave on the occasion of Hawaii`s statehood in 1959, but its message remains timeless. Would that our world leaders and all people of all nations had the spirit of Aloha.

~ Ann A., former Hawaii resident, Japan

---

Cluster Bombs

"I thought" – [is] an expression used by a person who is usually proven wrong. But, "I thought" that, after that fiasco of a war chasing the Iraqis, many of those damned cluster bombs were found by children – and adults who should have known better – and said bomblets ended up killing and maiming countless innocents, long after the official murders had stopped. Further, "I thought" that such bombs were outlawed by civilized countries. But, returning to the opening remark, "I thought" means that I am wrong, right?

~ Sheldon B.