Posted June 1, 2002

Zimbabwe/Europe

About Mr. Montgomery's article on immigration:

Even though my country has been an exporter of human resources for thousands of years and has not been a colonial power I would like to share some thoughts with the readers of Antiwar.com.

Let's examine the case of a British settler in Zimbabwe. His ancestors decided that their country was not good for them (political oppression, poorness, religious oppression) and they had to find another country. Thanks to the cannons of the British navy the population of the colony was never asked if they wanted the settler. The settler lived there and his offspring considered themselves Rhodesians. When there was an uprising for independence the black people made the argument "Even if you were born here and your family has been here for 200 years you don't belong here. You must return to your country and let us follow our destiny in our own country." The world's left considered this an unbeatable argument and they supported the decolonization of the world.

If you change in this story the British with a third worlder and Zimbabwe with Europe we have the same argument but this time the "racist" label is ready for the one who puts it. The people of Europe have the same right in the land that they have lived for hundreds or thousands of years as the the people of the former colonies had. If you support unconditional and unlimited immigration you must also support colonies.

And something last, you know very well that European countries are parliamentary type systems and not democracies. If there is not a plebiscite for a specific political question you can't know the Will of the people. And as far as I know there was never such an event anywhere in Europe. Why do you supporters of immigration fear so much the people? Why do you ignore democracy?

~ Ilias Polatidis

Christopher Montgomery replies:

Leaving to one side the questionable history (if anyone was leaving mid/late C19th Britain because they felt 'oppressed' it's difficult to see where exactly on the globe they were planning on heading for -- people emigrated, then as now, because they wanted better circumstance for themselves, not because of abstruse, anachronistic politics), Mr. Polatidis asks rhetorically, 'and is it not racist for the nationalist regime in power in Zimbabwe to consider their white fellow countrymen foreign?' Well, er, yes. He, however, proceeds to argue that since they got away with it -- and with the noxious approval of the 1st world left -- then we in Europe and North America should be able to get away with it too. I follow neither the logic nor the goal.

Proxies

[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of May 29, "A Victory for Peace":]

I too am relieved that the Joint Chiefs are showing some backbone concerning another attack on Iraq. I do have one question though. Where were these people when the US attacked Jugoslavia? Powell may have said that US GI's were not toy soldiers but played with, but they were played with anyway, weren't they ? My take goes like this: the Joint Chiefs, as well as Bush, don't have any allies ( no Brits, no NATO, no Arabs ) with them on this one. Western military casualties could be high, but more important, exclusively American. Civilian casualties could be high if Saddam retaliates against Israel. Iraqi casualties could be enormous.

Recent American military doctrine always includes a sizable proxy army to do the dirty work. If "advisors" and arms alone will do, then wonderful. If not then some troops as backup can be scraped up to "aid" the proxies ( Albanians, Colombians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Philippines etc. ). The object is, of course, to keep American casualties low while achieving the aims of our rulers. We have forgotten, in the military context, what real blood and real loss really looks like. The public would not stomach large numbers of American casualties. I dismiss Mr. Raimondo's take on the altruistic tendencies of the Joint Chiefs but I do believe their stand to be the only alternative to tendencies within the "beltway" that embrace aggression as a means to an end.

~ D. Stojanovic

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Kudos to Justin Raimondo for a well written column (5/29) on the War Party's apparent defeat on the question of whether or not to invade Iraq. Those of us who thought war against Iraq was inevitable have been reassured that there are still those in Washington D.C., and not just Colin Powell and the State Department, who put American First and not Israel first, and that's the U.S. military. One got a good laugh reading all the caterwauling from the neocons on their websites. They, apparently, are not gracious losers.

But because of that, I fear this apparent policy decision is just one battle and not the war itself. For the pressure put on Bush to send the country into war against Iraq will be even greater now than ever before. And it won't just be through the news media, the websites and the pundit talk shows, because Bush can ignore those things because most Americans ignore what the neocons say too. But he cannot ignore the threat of an independent political candidacy of John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

This real possibility of these two men joining together in an independent political party has always been in the minds of the neocons and the War Party, particularly those writers at the Weekly Standard. Now see how Rich Lowry was warming up to McCain, especially now that the campaign finance question has been settled to a certain extent. And they'll use this threat as leverage against the Bush administration. John O'Sullivan thinks Bush cannot be reelected unless Saddam Hussein is hanging from a lamppost in Baghdad. I wonder if Karl Rove feels the same way.

As I said before, luckily America has real, actual soldiers who know what war is about, know that it's hell and not a video game and resent beating treated like toys and play things by juvenile writers and ideological bureaucrats who don't. Men who know what it means to serve in foreign hellholes in blazing heat or icy cold, away from families and loved ones, surrounded by blood and guts, taking fire from a hostile enemy determined to kill them, should not be insulted by persons who would view war like fans at sporting event who sit far away from the action in a luxury skybox. Talk about being hostile to the military, some of the things Andrew Sullivan, Lowry and Derbyshire said border on the same kind of rhetoric used by Bill Clinton during the 1960s. And I'm glad that Justin pointed out the irony that this whole debate on Iraq parallels the debates that took place in the Clinton administration between Colin Powell and the rest of the military against the leftish warmongers like Albright, Holbrooke, Berger and Gore. We're viewing two sides of the same coin here.

It seems to me that the Bush foreign policy, really the whole administration, is a blank slate were policy is decided upon after the passionate struggles of many different interests or whomever seems to have the president's ear last. The struggle between the warmongers, globalists and Zionists on the one hand, and those who put America's interests first and those opposed to enlargement of the state through warfare will continue, I'm afraid, for the duration of the administration. It's important, that Antiwar.com and other such groups opposed to the Empire, must be on that slate to state our case and fight for what believe is the true America.

~ Sean Scallon, East Ellsworth, Wisconsin

Shirkers

Commenting on the message from "NL" which mentions the role "shirkers" play as the leading War Hawks in the US I should remind him that during "Desert Storm" Peter Jennings on his evening ABC newscast had his staff call leading CEOs to discover if they had any family members serving in the the Persian Gulf. They did not find a single one. This is to be expected since the military draft was ended our forces are composed of the nation's poor. In fact, the reason Washington can pursue the policies they do is because the Rich and Famous will never be endangered by them.

As a veteran of the rapidly diminishing group still surviving from World War II it surprises me that Antiwar.com and the other publications and groups opposing foreign military interventions have not exploited the weak link in the armor of the War Hawks which is most have a history of having avoided ever serving in an American uniform.

In my small way I hit upon this at every opportunity that presents itself. I too feel the joy of Justin Raimondo's column that these draft dodgers have recently experienced their first defeat when the military leaders at the Pentagon seem to have talked President Bush into not attacking Iraq soon or possibly never. The reasons given should be an example for all of us who are opposed to the creation of this New American Empire.

Reasons given are that Saddam just might use chemical and biological weapons if he was in danger of being replaced or killed. In fact, this is the rationale for the US Global Hegemonists not wanting any small nation to have such weaponry because if they did they would be less likely to be intimidated by US threats.

Remember the US has threatened to use nukes nearly two dozen times according to some peace activists but never against any nation having nukes in their respective arsenals. Both China and the Soviets were [threatened with nuclear attack when] they lacked nukes but never since acquiring them. Another reason given for not attacking Iraq right now is the fear of house to house fighting in Baghdad if we captured the city. As a vet I can think of no worse duty than to have a civilian population firing at you at every conceivable opportunity.

Another reason that worries the Pentagon is the idea of the US effecting a regime change by eliminating Saddam using dissidents. We should have learned by now from the experience with Mobutu in Zaire that he played the anti-Communist card so successfully that when he died he was worth a reported $8 billion, a gift from the US taxpayers. The Iraqi dissidents will fight their war against Saddam from the Clarendon, The Ritz and the Hotel Pierre and be quite comfortable on the US dole. There is also no reason to think that if Saddam is eliminated he would not be replaced with an even more hostile nationalist because any stooge we put in charge will be torn to shreds by the Iraqi people who have suffered far too much by US war crimes. Is there anyone in Washington who remembers we did effect a regime change in Iran in 1953 when the CIA kicked out the legal government and reinstalled the Shah. That worked for 25 years but then came the Ayatollah and the Iranians never will forget what we did to them.

In ending this perhaps we should ask those who support Washington's present policies to explain how we suddenly acquired a billion people on this planet who hate us? The answer is, of course, "It's our foreign policy, stupid."

~ DI

Wait Three Hundred Years

[Regarding Christopher Montgomery's reply to DB's letter of May 21:]

Fair enough, Chris. Now in the same vein lets wait three hundred years and see if the inhabitants of the West Bank, by then full of Israeli settlers, vote for Israeli or Palestinian representation.

~ DB

Holiday in Kansas

For what it's worth, my impression after five days "holiday" on the road in Kansas is that pro-war sentiment is changing into a more general malaise -- discontent and enormous anger that is directed at anyone or anything that doesn't look white bread, apple pie and/or motherhood....

The Ugly American is riding high in the saddle of tank armored SUVs. Mini-American flag stickers on Japanese/Korean made bumpers. One small town, Wakeeney, was armed to the gills. Police lay in wait to "capture" out of town lawbreakers. I was glad to get outta there.

Then there is the Cincinnati airport Kansan who was found with a small amount of marijuana and who admitted to carrying a "penknife." I guess he is still being held in prison for "shutting down the airport."

Maybe this is not quite a police state, but it's as close as I hope I ever come to living in one. It sure feels like one.

~ Debby R.

Veterans for Peace

I am so happy to see you feature an article about the Veterans for Peace water project in Iraq. I have been telling people about this since I learned about it last year. I have the utmost respect for this organization. I did some work with them to try to get volunteer speakers in the schools. Are you surprised that the schools were negative on this? Maybe I was naive, but I was quite taken aback.

~ Fran F., Pennsylvania