catapult magazine

GOERRING “Of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.
Naturally, the common people don’t want war — neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America; nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a Fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship.”

GILBERT: "There’s one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives. And in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

GOERRING: “Oh, that is all well and good. But voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

—From an interview during the Nuremburg trials (Goerring with psychologist Dr. Gustave Gilbert)

laryn, thanks for posting the url link. Sadly, I don’t have time to read it now and give you a more complete response, though I’m intrigued.

I’ll grant that the iraq/Sept 11 connection is questionable. Coughlin doesn’t seem to question the Iraq/al Qaeda link. He gives several examples of their cooperation.

Regardless, one of the things I found interesting is that Coughlin, who seems to have done a substantial amount of research in the Middle East, identified Saddam as a necessary part of any war on terrorism. Whether one questions the war on terrorism or not, can one deny that Saddam fits the bill (i.e. as a proponent of terrorism)? Perhaps you don’t find his track record grounds for our involvement in his disposition, but do you think he’s benign (this is a man who celebrated the death of thousands of innocent civilians)? In what way would you defend him?

anton, i don’t think you’ll find that i have defended saddam as a decent human being anywhere. what i have said is that the information and claims of the administration were lies (at worst) and misleading (at best).

i’ll be interested to hear further comments on the PNAC publication and the earlier article.

laryn, my apologies for misreading you. I meant to take issue primarily with your statement: “the iraq/al qaeda connection is nebulous at best.”

I suppose I didn’t understand why immediately after this statement you mentioned the PNAC article. It seemed to me that you undermined Iraq’s (read: Saddam’s) track record and placed the onus on the “who’s who of the current administration,” whose principles are enshrined in PNAC. In connection with this, it seemed as though you were saying that the war in Iraq cannot be justified (due to nebulous connections) and that the real reason for the war in Iraq has to do with America’s desire for military dominance (PNAC).

Hence, when I asked if you would really want to defend Saddam, I meant to question whether the war in Iraq really were unjustified. One might “defend” Saddam by arguing that although he’s got a terrible track record, he is still the legitimate authority in his country; we have no business intervening.

So I kick the question back for discussion. My question is whether, given increasing terrorist attacks on America (attacks that often focus on civilians to get attention, a tactic most of us probably find reprehensible) and Saddam’s involvement in terrorist activity (and his celebration of the deaths of civilians), the war in Iraq is justified because Saddam has disqualified himself as the legitimate authority. Perhaps the problem is that we’ve waited too long to oppose such tyrants. Now that we’ve lost 3,000+ civilians, we’ve awoken to the fact that we can no longer ignore terrorism and its increasing threat to civilians.

no problem. people often misread me. you are correct that i think the war was unjustified because of nebulous connections and the fact that it seems to have more to do with america’s desire for military dominance than with anything the administration claimed before the war.

please don’t assume that everyone who opposed the war defends saddam. it’s not “all or nothing”—it’s not either this war or “ignore terrorism”.

i fully supported efforts to remove saddam from power, i just didn’t support this specific effort—for the reasons in the paragraph above, because many innocent people were sure to suffer and die, and because it set a dangerous precedent. (And to get back on thread, because the administration created this sense of impending doom to manipulate people into supporting the war out of fear, on false pretenses).

What do you think about the PNAC document?

By the way, I may have misspoke by adding Powell’s name there—I’m not sure. His name doesn’t appear on the website, but the others do.

laryn, I think we are beginning to understand each other better. I’ll make sure to misread you more in the future! Okay, just kidding.

I respond in several ways. First, are the connections nebulous? I have agreed that the connection between Saddam and Sept 11th seem nebulous, but what about the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? If this connection is nebulous, why do you “fully support efforts to remove Saddam from power”? (There are other reasons, I’m just curious about why you support his removal.)

Second, what do you find objectionable about the “specific effort” to remove Saddam? President Bush, to my knowledge, has made a distinction between Saddam and Iraq, deposing Saddam but speaking highly of Iraqis.

Third, has the administration “created this sense of impending doom to manipulate people into supporting the war out of fear”? Coughlin accepted the threats of a dirty bomb and speaks of some of the administration’s confusion about the anthrax outbreak. Has Coughlin been taken in by the administration’s lies as well? What Coughlin might demonstrate is that the administration may be in actuality being more precautionary (in a positive sense) than we are giving them credit for. Sometimes we speak as though the government had sure and complete/comprehensive knowledge about the situation, and yet chooses to lie. Is it the case that are blatantly spreading lies, even though they know exactly what’s going on?

I don’t wish to be naive. To speak as though government has sure knowledge and chooses to lie is a bit naive. To say they “merely report the facts” is also naive. To say they clearly represent the information they have is also naive.

The “lies” we are so quick to judge as lies may in fact result partially from ignorance (incomplete intelligence), partially from a desire to keep some things confidential, partly doctoring, partly lying. It’s not so simple as we sometimes talk about it.

And to be sure, some fear was substantiated. I’m sure some would have talked about manipulating fear if the administration had talked about invading Afganistan prior to Sept 11. “Hijackers, coordinated assault….that’s nuts. Those fear mongering big wigs are at it again!” Let’s not forget the lessons.

anton,
the connections between saddam and al-qaeda are nebulous. i support the idea of removing saddam from power because he didn’t use his power appropriately—just because he wasn’t associated with al qaeda doesn’t mean he was a good leader, or treated his people well. to be honest i’m not sure i want to rehash all the ways i disagreed with how president bush went about this—there was a longer discussion as it was all playing out and most of those criticisms still stand.

you seem to trust coughlin, but i really don’t know much about him, except what his publicist put on his book’s dust jacket. has coughlin been taken in? could be. (i did a little googling and it turns out he’s got a history of being taken in…but i don’t really want to discuss coughlin).

i think it would have been manipulating fear to invade afghanistan prior to sept. 11—but they could have tightened security at airports, don’t you think?

anton, have you had a chance to read the PNAC document yet? vanlee, what did you think of the article you printed out? have you got one to suggest?

laryn, I still haven’t had the time to read PNAC. I haven’t had time for 90 pages of extra reading. I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring it.

I suppose in a sense I’ve been questioning whether Georring’s statement (below) applies to our situation.
“All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

For one, no one had to tell us we were being attacked. We were attacked. Americans wanted justice, and the fear of being attacked (at least initially) wasn’t fabricated by the administration but felt by the majority of Americans following Sept 11. The point I’m trying to make is that since the fear of Americans had real, concrete origins (3,000+ killed), Goerring’s quote doesn’t quite fit.

I think our discussion has moved to a consideration of whether or not the administration has been unduly directing and perpetuating the fear of Americans. Given the fact that Sept 11 constituted the biggest attack against the homeland in their history, this would be hard to prove.

Also, I just wanted to clarify, I have tried to say “I question” rather “I argue” because I’m still developing an informed opinion. Couglin (you’re right, I don’t completely trust him because I don’t know enough about him) does present evidence for a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The connection may be nebulous, as you assert without qualification. I had hoped you could provide some counterargument or offer an evaluation of hte evidence I cited. Instead, you undermined Coughlin. I agree…I don’t want to discuss Coughlin, but I haven’t been interested in Coughlin but in the evidence he presents. Pandering to my curiosity, I put it out there, and thus far no one has challenged it with contrary evidence.

At any rate, you already agree that Saddam should be deposed. Perhaps the connection is a moot point. That connection, or Saddam’s connection to terrorism in general, may be important to understanding the purpose of the war in Iraq. Perhaps there is a good reason why we are in Iraq.

Well, I’ve read the frickin’ New American Century document— I’m the one who first posted it on this site, though not for the same reason Laryn seems to be dragging it out. I think the way several of you have been using it is overly dramatic. This is not some tell-all document that finally reveals Bush’s hidden motives in Iraq. It is merely a helpful articulation of the Conservative Republican fear (pre-911) that Clinton’s demilitarization and unfocussed foreign policy might put the U.S. in jeopardy. Since the writers of the PNAC did not trust the U.N., they saw the U.S. as the only nation powerful enough to uphold democratic principles in the world. Unfortunately, the U.N.‘s response to Bush’s request for U.N. support in the actions taken against Saddam’s regime only proved what the PNAC people were afraid of. Knowing that he will not get support from the U.N., Bush is more willing to take full responsibility, as a nation, for promoting democracy and, according to the American belief system, therefore peace. Of course, I have a problem with the idea that a world made up of autonomous democratic nations will be a peaceful world—that just doesn’t seem to ring true with the vision of peace described by John in The Book of Revelation—but I can see why the PNAC people would see it that way.

I don’t see anything particularly dramatic about the PNAC document. It just explains some of the ideas and core beliefs behind some of the U.S. actions (just as a German or French document researching their own international relations policies would be a helpful articulation for understanding why those nations do what they do). After the Sept. 11 attacks, the American people were definitely more receptive to the ideas found in the PNAC document—remember how everyone kept saying “I feel like doing something, but I don’t know what?” That’s a much more powerful sentiment than the one Goerring was describing. If Bush didn’t act on that public sentiment, the people would most likely not have been satisfied with their president. I remember sensing a sigh of relief when Bush was at the WTC sight promising to make terrorism the new focus of his administration. This was a comfort to those in shock who didn’t want something like this to happen again. All the leaders who were considered “heroes” by the people after 9-11, Guiliani being the archetypal figure (this was affirmed even by David Letterman), were praised because they showed resolution in the midst of the conflict. Bush wanted to match Guiliani’s “heroism” with a resoluteness in the face of the terrorist threat. Bush put the conflict into terms that were understandable to a people that wanted to “do something” about the situation.

So, I think the NAZI connection still stands, only Goerring had it wrong. His comments show the NAZI regime’s own arrogance and self-aggrandizing belief that they were powerful enough to sway the people with their propaganda machines and use of force. If Goerring was really being honest, he would have had to admit that the people brought Hitler to power. The people made Hitler because they needed him to heal their wounded national pride after WWI. This realization only proves that the people’s power is very scary and that democracy can be a very dangerous thing.

And this is why we pull up old Nazi names and compare other world leaders to Hitler. We like to pass the blame for war-like tendencies on others. Surely war can’t be a desire of the human heart! It must be Hitler. Yeah, Hitler made me do it!

As good Western democrats, we refuse to blame the spirit of a people for leaders like Hitler because that makes democracy look dangerous. According to the perspective of a democratic society, great evils in the world must be attributed to leaders like Hitler because he dupes the masses and deceives people who otherwise have naturally good tendencies…
Yeah, right! Belief in the goodness of democracy depends on a belief in the natural goodness of mankind. If you don’t believe in the natural goodness of mankind, you most likely won’t agree with Goerring’s statements posted here.

We love to blame Hitlers and Goerrings (and, as we’ve seen, people like Goerring are happy to take the credit). We’ll even consult them and ponder their words to find out what unnatural evil could drive such men. This helps us separate ourselves from such vile creatures. But ex-Nazis like Goerring are the last people we should go to for advice about human nature!

Anton, (RE: ?no one had to tell us we were being attacked. We were attacked.? ), we were not attacked by Iraq. The administration made us believe we might be soon, and implied that we had been, but neither seems to have been the case.

As far as Coughlin?s evidence?the meeting of atta in Prague is understood (by everyone but dick cheney) to be a non-event, since atta was in the us at the time that supposedly occurred.
([link]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14901-2003Sep28.html[/link])
also, the training camp was in an area of iraq outside of saddam?s control.

The fact that saddam deserved deposition does not make the point of whether the administration lied us into the war a ?moot point.? I also am not content to try and salve our collective conscience by pretending that this was all done for humanitarian reasons.

Grant, sorry to have reposted something you already posted. I must have missed that one. I do think it is helpful in understanding this situation, however. Especially the eery line about how this would all be a very slow process unless there were a new Pearl Harbor-esque catastrophe to catalyze it. (Wasn?t it just hours after the sept.11 attacks that clark got a phone call from someone telling him he had to tie it to iraq when he spoke on cnn?)

Grant, the people may very well have wanted to ?do something? about the situation after 9/11. I don?t think that that fact ties into the war against Iraq. Are you suggesting that public opinion, before the administration began it?s disinformation campaign, would have supported going into iraq? I have to say, I doubt that. I think it took an organized campaign to convince people that they were under a threat of an imminent attack, the artificial connecting of iraq and 9/11, and an abuse of trust (I heard many times, ?he must have secret information that we common folk don?t know about?). In any case, the fact that the people wanted to do something doesn?t negate the fact that manipulation was used to get them to think they wanted to do exactly what the administration wanted to do.

I agree strongly with your point about people?s tendency towards evil. Definitely, people and democracies do a lot of evil things. But you might also agree, since the leaders are also fallen people, and since they are entrusted with much decision-making and power, their tendencies to evil can sometimes have greater effects than a person who is not in a position of authority or power.