|
|||||||||
Posted September 5, 2003
I appreciate the "Casualties in Iraq" page on your website. By providing the casualty figures and links to other sources on Iraq, you perform a great service to your readers.
This morning I read that two more soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Sunday. Having just looked at the "Casualties in Iraq" page, I wondered what the current casualty figures were for Afghanistan. Is there somewhere that information could be readily found? We don't hear much news these days on that other country we steamrollered in the War on Terrorism.
Keep up the good work, I start every day with the news and opinions made available on Antiwar.com.
Mike Ewens replies:
The AP reports: In all, 35 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 162 wounded in action in Afghanistan, the military said.
Things are heating up in Afghanistan now. You ought to start a new tally "Casualties of Afghan War." We just lost two more American soldiers there; the total is now 35 according to today's report in the New York Times. The people should know what our military adventures are costing, don't you think?
~
Daniel Zamos
Mike Ewens replies:
Good idea... if you are willing to keep track of the numbers and make a webpage, I can post it. Unfortunately, I have little spare time to take up another project.
"Candidate Dean Is a Warmonger"
... You really shouldn't allow someone so ignorant of political vocabulary to write for Antiwar.com. You would think that Matthew Barganier doesn't know the difference between "nation building" (fostering progressive development in friendly countries) from "empire building" (exploiting other countries through war and authoritarian oppression).
He says:
"When Dean says, 'Our long range foreign policy ought to embrace nation building, not run from it,' surely he means, 'The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.' He just can't say so directly. Dishonesty is the new truth.
"Unfortunately, we're not all Straussians yet, so finding each other in a crowd is still difficult. If Dean is not lying, then supporting him would be a mistake. Of course, given the alternatives, who cares? At least Dean could give us a little suspense."
Presumably in his rather twisted way he's indicating that Dean would be leading us into war with his foreign policy stance. Well, if he said "empire building," I'd agree. What he said was:
"I disagree with the fundamental assumptions underlying Bush's foreign policy, which has been at its core isolationist and seeks to avoid nation building.
"The greatest advance in American foreign policy in the last century was the Marshall Plan. Europe's 1,000-year history of nearly continuous war is instead today dominated by an economic union, which would not have been possible without the investment of billions of American taxpayers dollars. We have been paid back many times over in trade dollars, and more importantly, in American lives which have not been lost to yet another European war.
"Our long range foreign policy ought to embrace nation building, not run from it. The most successful countries are those with democracies bolstered by a strong middle class that embraces the full political and economic participation of women. We need a solid game plan to [build] those countries that are not democratic, that treat women as second class citizens and that lack a strong middle class."
Yes, indeedy, Mr. Barganier. Dean is scary. He wants to invest millions into human rights instead of human slaughter.
But wait! To have found that quote, Barganier must have read it in context. So he is just fighting fire with fire. His Straussian efforts intend to scare the pacifists with the idea that if Bush is espousing economic development as a way to peace, then he must be planning all-out war! I get it.
Not.
Next time, give Barganier an extension on his deadline so he can write something more worthy.
Matthew Barganier replies:
Yes, I know the difference between progressive “nation-building” and bad old “empire-building”; it just doesn’t make any difference to me. Both involve meddling in other countries’ affairs, increased burdens on American taxpayers, and various unintended consequences. But not once did I refer to Howard Dean as an “imperialist.” He is, by his own admission, a proponent of military aid and intervention. He wants to keep US forces in Iraq—where the real war is just beginning—indefinitely. He wants to continue sending my money to subsidize Israeli depredations. He wants to send US troops into bloodbaths where no American interests are at stake. Canonization proceedings closed.
But while Dean is no saint, he hardly merits damnation (yet). Your devotion to his cult of personality caused you to miss a subtle point in my essay: I don’t find your Dear Leader as frightful as my colleagues do. Oh, he’s an interventionist through and through, all right, but if you put a knife to my throat and forced me to choose between Dean and Bush, or Dean and Lieberman, I’d pull the Dean lever and hope that congressional Republicans would oppose his every move. Feel free to quote me on that in your campaign literature.
All that’s left to rebut in your amusing diatribe is the notion that I deliberately twisted your candidate’s words. First, I included a link to his whole statement on nation-building, so context was only a click away. Second, your extended quotation only reaffirms what my snippet indicated, i.e., that Dean supports nation-building. Finally, I did not imply that this statement alone proved he would invade every country on earth. I simply set it against George Washington’s thoughts on the subject and found the Vermonter’s wisdom inferior to the Virginian’s.
Mike Ewens Replies
Easan Katir: As a conscientious objector to war in the '60s, a lifelong vegetarian as part of a nonviolent life, and many years teaching the principle of 'ahimsa', I applaud your website. Thank you for publishing it.
It might be worth your considering to not repeat the anti-Hindu bias in the media. Hindu Dharma holds as a core concept nonviolence, and freed their nation from oppression through nonviolent means. India has never invaded another country. Observant Hindus even carry the principle of nonviolence to non-injury by word or thought!
In contrast, if one looks at the 28 conflicts currently hot on the planet today, 26 of them involve Muslims. One could reasonably say there is a pattern here. The religion of Islam enshrines violence and conquest as a virtue, along with revenge.
Associate Editor Mike Ewens: Using your reasoning, I could state the following:
"The majority (let's say 3 out of 5) of the men in American jails are black. Therefore, there is something inherent about the black male that leads to such a propensity towards crime."
Clearly, this reasoning is fallacious because of it panoply of assumptions. Perhaps the 26 out of 28 "hotspots" you speak of are Muslim because that is where is the US previously and unjustly intervened, leading to further US intervention to slow the "blowback." You argue that it must have something to do with religion, thus ignoring equally plausible explanations.
Easan Katir: The Ayodya issue in India is a prime example. Muslims razed a Hindu shrine and built a mosque over it. There are hundreds of examples of this throughout India. At Somnath, on the western coast, a temple was destroyed by Muslim invaders no less than 7 times. Each time the Hindus patiently rebuilt.
What
the British press labels "Hindu fundamentalism" is simply the
right to practice religion without car bombings, without mosques blaring
loudspeaker prayers to Hindu neighborhoods at 4 am, a few things like
that. ...
Mike Ewens: The Israeli government uses this rhetoric when justifying its invasions of Palestinian land and "collateral damage" of innocents. It is also the reasoning Hamas and similar organizations use to justify their own slaying of innocents. Simply, some Muslims violate the rights of some Hindus, and many conclude that all Muslims violate the rights of all Hindus. I would advise ignoring hasty generalizations such as "Muslims do X" and "Hindus don't do Y," for it only leads down a dangerous slippery slope: a tit for tat of "collateral damage."
I'm an author with a couple books in print (penguinputnam): In Search of Captain and Cosmic Banditos. I run a website – aweisbecker.com – in which I have a newsletter with 8,000 plus subscribers. I often delve into world affairs, especially regarding Bush and his lies. I recently stated the following in my newsletter:
"On the other hand, if I were to point out the fact that the day after 9-11, Bush had 40 or so members of the bin Laden family whisked out of the United States by military aircraft and private jets without questioning them; if I were to wonder about why Bush would do this, given it's possible that the bin Laden family just might know something about the terrorist's whereabouts, or at least about his habits and cohorts, or at the very least supply a psychological profile of the evil lunatic's; and if I were to point out that the Bush family made millions doing business with the bin Ladens in Saudi Arabia and just maybe finds this, at best, a bit embarrassing."
Okay. Problem is that several of my Bush supporter subscribers wanted to know where I got this info – I believe it's on the public record somewhere but I can't remember where. Can you help? I'm trying my best to have an effect and there are folks who will listen – to their credit, they want to know the genesis of this.
Can you help? ...
Mike Ewens replies:
I would check out http://whatreallyhappened.com – he has a lot of "info" on such topics.
LA Times
When you feature stories from the LA Times, upon clicking the link the reader gets a screen asking them to register. I think this is bad for the cause. The link should go straight to the story, or there just shouldn't be links to the LA Times. Thanks for listening.
~ Dave Charleville, Victor, Idaho
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
Sorry about that. The LA Times used to issue registration-free URLs, but has changed in the last few days. In most cases, we will no longer link directly to the LA Times, but will find the articles elsewhere.
I agree with most of your articles but this time Mr. Dean is right. The US just can't leave Iraq now. The US had disbanded the Iraqi police, the army and the civil administration. There is a chaos situation over there. The US is morally obligated to fix it because Washington started this mess. The Iraqi people is suffering for a war they did not start. Sorry for the American tax payers, but the US has to reconstruct the infrastructure that the Coalition forces destroy it. It is a very simple concept: if you broke something you fix it. It is not whether you are an Empire builder or Neocon, it is about decency.
The Iraqi people need peace and security to stop the looting and killings or before they start a civil war and ending like in the Balkans, Shias against Sunnis or Kurds against Turks. The only ones in World who can provide for these forces are the US. Furthermore, why should other countries send their sons and daughters to fix a problem they didn't start. And if you thought that the Japanese Army is going to help the Americans soon, well you probably have to wait a couple of years before they find a secure place to send their troops. Yes, Justin is completely right that you care for the Americans in Iraq but America started the problem and must fix it. Dean seems to be a decent man, so he is willing to take the responsibility to fix the Bush administration mess.
My opinion is that only when the law and order, and the basic infrastructure is up running again the American can start to leave Iraq. The sooner you send more troops and start pouring more money in the reconstruction, the sooner you would be able to leave Iraq with the respect of the rest of World and the feeling of doing the right thing.
Finally, Perle and other Neocons are advocating the same thing you are proposing, a quick withdraw from Iraq because they simply don't care about the consequences. And also, they probably would need these combat troops for their next military adventure in N. Korea.
I think you have been writing faster than you think lately. In your enthusiasm to disabuse yourself of any support for Dean, you have committed the error of adopting the regime line that attacks on an invasion force's military (ours) are "terrorism." Terrorism is publicly directed violence, not attacks against the military. The attack in Najaf is terrorism, whoever committed it. Attacks on US soldiers, whether "sitting ducks" or not, are definitely not terrorism. This is the classic Israeli line in dealing with Palestinian resistance in the Occupied Territories, and now you have fulfilled the Zionists fond dreams in getting even critics of US policy to buy into their rhetoric with regard to US actions of the same type. Shame. ...
To all you Dean supporters who wrote in and busted Justin's balls over his criticism of the "antiwar governor":
Dean was nothing more than a dark horse candidate whose only chance was to throw a Hail Mary pass. That Hail Mary pass was declaring himself against the war in Iraq at a time other Democrats were trying to sit on the fence between supporting and questioning it. I remember seeing this guy many, many months ago on C-span meeting in obscure towns with small turnouts. He was a long shot from the get go.
In truth, the same guy whose chief fundraiser is an ex-AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) leader named Steve Grossman, hints that we may need to take preemptive action against Iran and that Bush it too soft on Syria and Libya amongst other tidbits. And of course he seems to think its great that we should be sending American soldiers into the Liberia mess. And this interventionist talk comes from the same guy who apparently was unable to pass a physical to soldier himself into Vietnam but was able to shortly afterwards become a Colorado ski bum.
Howard Dean took a wild shot at becoming the candidate against the war because he had nothing else to get him from the back of the pack towards the front. There is nothing else in his history or statements to suggest he is against US interventionism abroad nor will he take any actions to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict other than to yap about Palestinian terrorism.
Congratulations, you have been suckered.
I've read Antiwar.com every day for over a year now, "from cover to cover" most days. I really respect your views and your thoroughness. What I don't understand is why no mention whatsoever in support of Dennis Kucinich, who Ralph Nader has supported and who is the only real voice against the war in Iraq. Indeed, against all war. He is the candidate with real conviction.
If you're going to come out against Dean and say what I felt and thought from the beginning about him, then I think you should print some comparisons and show Dennis Kucinich. He is the ONLY candidate I would be excited about supporting with all my heart. The rest are just politicians. I have been very active in politics since 1976 and just can't stand to see the Dems making such a ridiculous mistake.
~ Paula Little, Garland, Texas
Whew! After going through the latest 'Backtalk' I wasn't sure you guys would make it out alive. These rabid Dean supporters are just that, rabid. I've had sneaking doubts about Dean for awhile, I think Justin's take on the poseur is just about right. ...
As far as candidates are concerned, I feel Kucinich is probably the best of the field. Until the Republicans can transform themselves from neo to paleo, I can never go that way again. Though I feel much more comfortable with the Greens and Libertarians, they must first have at least a possibility at success (not very likely with the self-serving duocracy now in place). It is getting so that I think I would much rather have our system adjusted to a proportional representation scheme. On the one hand it would provide a greater range of voices to be heard and, on the other hand, the beauty of proportional representation is that it would tend to make steamrollering a much more difficult proposition. The 'fault' that people continue to bring up (it would make it more difficult to pass legislation) I tend to think is one of its greatest virtues. As the old saying goes, "No man or his property is safe while Congress is in session," would be somewhat mitigated by a variety of voices; gridlock is sometimes the best form of government.
Thank you for your article!
It is crucial people wake up to the reality of who Dean is.
We heard him speak here in Portland, Oregon about 2 weeks ago and it was absolutely clear he was part of the Machine, with NO care for people or the planet. The saddest part was the 3000+ Sheep4Dean that populated the event.
I was embarrassed for Portland. I know we have a huge anti-Bush movement, but how can people be so fooled into thinking he's actually different than Bush? Major brainwashing going on. In any case, I passed out 100+ (wish I'd had more) comparison sheets of Dean vs. Kucinich on major issues, to help educate people about the SAD truth about their candidate.
I trust you know of Dennis Kucinich. In your article you said we'd need a third party candidate, but at this point I disagree. Kucinich has been endorsed by Ralph Nader who has urged Greens to vote for Kucinich.
He is a Democrat, and the ONLY candidate who is truly antiwar. I'm sure you would agree with his stances on foreign relations. ...
I read your recent op-ed on Dean with great interest. I myself was also initially taken in by Dean, who is not even a true social progressive (he signed Vermont's civil unions legislation in a closed door session), and is almost right of Lieberman on many economic (passed draconian welfare reform laws in Vermont), environmental (he was praised by Vermont businesses for helping them to "navigate" Vermont's stringent environmental laws), and international (as you so deftly point out) issues. Even on the issue of health care, his supporters are misled; his plan would still leave a large number of adult Americans uninsured and would only tinker around the margins without challenging the health insurance companies and HMOs for profit that are driving up our health care costs to such extreme heights.
In your letter, you mention possibly voting for Ralph Nader. Did you know that Nader has stated that if Congressman Dennis Kucinich wins the Democratic Party nomination, he will not run? I am a Green who has temporarily put on Democrat clothing in order to vote for Kucinich in the primary election and who is working hard for this true "Peace Candidate." Rep. Kucinich, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus with Barbara Lee, led 2/3 of the Democrats in the Congress to vote against going to war in Iraq and would make nonviolence an organizing principle both domestically and in our international policy by establishing a Department of Peace. Kucinich is unafraid to challenge the Bush administration's war mongering, and unafraid to challenge the Corporations who benefit by it. While a Congressman, he marched in anti-WTO protests and has promised to pull out of both NAFTA and the WTO as one of his first Presidential acts. I welcome you to learn more about him and his record, which is consistent with his progressive platform, at www.kucinich.us.
~ Shivaun Nestor, San Francisco, California
I would just like to congratulate Mr. Justin Raimondo on yet again another brilliant article. I feel just as deceived and betrayed finding out more and more on Dean real motives. I thought I had a true antiwar. candidate running for president. Now I share the same feelings as Mr. Raimondo. "Wake me when it's over."
~ Awane Jones, political science student at Concordia University
Curmudgeon that you are, you've hit the nail on the head, called a spade a spade and avoided, early on, the confusion that nearly derailed and in fact delayed horribly the US's final pullout from Southeast Asia, some 30-ish years ago.
I was surprised to hear one of my friends tell me the other day that "all they have to do is wave a flag at me and I'm ready to join up" – because in all other things he has a healthy distrust of the government – until I realized that by the time Vietnam was pretty much over, he was only 10 years old.
That time was, for me, the defining period of my life in many important ways, but I keep forgetting not everyone has the direct experience of having lived through it.
Here's the point: every single US president after Truman kept us in Vietnam because he couldn't find a face-saving strategy to get us out, or because he foolishly believed the war could be won and the people converted into peaceful, Anglo-loving folks through the careful application of brute force.
Not one of them had a true understanding of the Vietnamese, their history or their natural desire to rule themselves after several hundred years of foreign occupation.
In the end, the US had to pull out anyway, humiliatingly and without any real help ever having been given to our "allies" that lasted beyond the dust of our departure. And the years of sickness and death, the destruction of our national pride and self respect, and having presented ourselves on the world stage – not as the Peace Corps-helpful people most of us want to believe we are, but instead as savage brutes who know only one approach to relationships – are legacies our nation carries to this day.
In that light, whiny complaints that we can't or shouldn't pull out now because it might make us look bad avoid the fact that we already look bad, and that there is honestly no way to turn this sow's ear into a silk purse.
We shouldn't waste our time trying. Thanks, Justin. Get us out, now.
~ John McGill, East Glacier, Montana
In reading the August 30th Backtalk page, I cannot help feeling that Justin Raimondo failed to persuade any of those readers who challenged his recent essay the Dean Deception.
Let's say you snuck into a construction site, hopped onto the largest bull dozer there, and drove it around for kicks, and then ran over someone. You stop the dozer. At first this was good fun, but now you know you've made a mistake. What should you do?
Dean says leave the dozer where it is. This will help the victim because while your dozer is on top of them no other dozer will come by and run them over again.
Raimondo says, for gosh sakes, drive the dozer away from there as quickly as possible. The victim take care of himself.
In this analogy, the action Dean suggests is clearly absurd. But wanting to help the victim is not. Raimondo's suggestion is pragmatic, and perhaps really the best America can do. But it does seem very self-serving. I can understand Americans of good conscience wanting to clean up the mess America made, and even being willing to pay for it, and I can see that desire being, in some sense, contrary to the libertarian ideal. And so Raimondo's position looks extreme. But American military might is not the tool with which to help Iraqis.
So, to both sides: please, move the dozer off the victim first. Argue later about how best to make amends.
~ Doug Barrett, Edmonton, Canada
We are really on the Right. I know, it's scary. In fact, I voted for Bush (I wanted the tax cut.... ooops!), our editorial director gave the nomination speech for Pat Buchanan and other members of the staff are registered Republicans. Overall, we are basically just a bunch of noninterventionist libertarians.
The following piece is the best guide to our overall ideology: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html.
~ Mike Ewens