catapult magazine

What does being anti-war at this point mean? Now that we ARE at war, are you rooting for Iraq, the “underdog?” And if you are, does that mean you endorse Iraq’s methods of attack, the torture and killing of American soldiers? Do you want America to lose?

If this is the peace movement … what’s treason?

This will be a little random, since I’ve just skimmed the entire thread and have little bits from various places to respond to, if I can remember them all…

i agree that we shouldn’t judge countries based on an incident from generations ago, but i do think that we can learn a lot from patterns of behaviour-“dark incidents of the past” can reveal much, especially if they are recurring. and, I’m not sure that the US has given up it’s policies of “throwing money and weapons at situations in other regions” (see columbia and israel)

-i think being anti-war after a war has started means acknowledging that you disagree with the war and for what reasons, and praying for as few casualties as possible on either side, and for a quick resolution to the war (by victory or a withdrawl). I think it means also talking with people who are interested in the topic (on either side of the issue) and engaging in dialog about it, and in some cases, civil disobedience to show your opposition.

someone commented that “not everything American is evil,” and while that’s true, that doesn’t make everything American good, either, and it’s important to acknowledge both the bad and the good. This is another thing I find people seem to polarize on-it’s either “lefties hate America,” or “conservatives think that God is on their side in anything they do.” and in reality it’s another mixed bag.

-it seems the war is in the beginning stages of the end (thank God) and find myself echoing the feelings of some of the Iraqi’s I read about: joy at the removal from power of a brutal dictator, chagrin at the raising of and parading around of american flags by marines in baghdad, some suspicion of US intentions in the region, and relief that the “collateral damage” wasn’t greater (though it was still great: more than a thousand dead civilians, thousands injured, and i’d also count the thousands of dead men and boys who were forced to fight for saddam)…but now the proof of american intentions that everyone has been debating will hopefully become clearer. was it solely for freedom for the iraqi people and protection from saddam and his weapons? we’ll see how much control the coalition forces are willing to give up to international control and how much they clutch it to themselves, how much american companies stand to make on iraqi oil, and how much genuine representative government the iraqi people get (and how much puppet government).

for what it’s worth,
these are my thoughts at the moment.

Just a minor correction, if I was misunderstood: I don’t think the U.S. will stop using money to persuade, but I think it will become more involved now, i.e. the U.S. won’t just back out of Iraq after overthrowing Saddam and send big fat paychecks to a leader of their choosing (they won’t drop money on the people, either); they’ll more likely invest dollars in a long process of political structure-building in Iraq. There’s no doubt this is a change of policy for the U.S., partly because of its past mistakes in MERELY throwing money at the situation (that’s partly what kept Saddam in power in the first place: U.S. help in the Iran-Iraq war).

And I will say again that I agree wholeheartedly the U.N. should have taken a major role in this action, but it sort of “forgot” about the Iraqi crisis for 12 years until Bush brought it up and then some U.N. members asked for more time. Bush decided a long time ago that he would have to show the value of action by acting. Bush figured nothing would get done by talking and arguing with France (France’s mind was made up already; it deserves as much blame as the U.S. for being stubborn and letting diplomacy break down). And it could be argued that the only reason something was done at all during weapons inspections—that Saddam was somewhat compliant to weapons inspections—was because U.S. forces were piling up around Saddam’s borders.

And about how a war with Saddam Hussein has any connection to terrorism: In addition to the fact that Iraq had terrorist camps north of Baghdad, it is evident that Saddam Hussein used tactics of terror to lead the Iraqi people. Some Iraqis are still afraid that Saddam will get them if they’re seen going against him. There’s a strange image of Iraqis in Basra last week taking water from British and American forces while chanting pro-Saddam slogans loudly in front of the camera. An ABC journalist there said Iraqis who claimed they loved Saddam that day sheepishly apologized to him the next day, when they realized Saddam had lost his power and the U.S./British forces were not going to leave them again like they did in the Gulf War. What I’m saying is that I think Bush may be casting the parameters of what constitutes “terrorism” wide enough. If you want to change a region’s habit of using terror as a tactic, you have to show an even greater force, which the U.S. claims is a truly representative government with “free” elections. For too long, terror seemed the most effective way of governing in Iraq. It is the U.S.‘s task to persuade Iraqis, and the region, that terrorism gets you nowhere, but that democracy is a better way. We’ll see if the U.S. can pull it off.

Hold up grant. You’re not making a distinction between terror and terrorism. A government that uses terror to govern its country is something totally different than a non-governmental group blowing things up. I don’t want to go any further before we can make that distinction. This war was a war on a government that uses terror, but not a war on terrorism. Can we agree on that?

And I’ve already argued why Bush thinks changing the regime in Iraq might help the situation at home. As SARAH recognizes, there is a sort of terror in the U.S. because of what happened on September 11. Bush is hoping that making democratic inroads in the Mid-East will help defray the anti-American sentiment in that part of the world, thus reducing the chances of state-sponsored terrorism. It is a very risky business, but the other alternative is to stay out of other nation’s business, buckle down at home, and start kicking out any suspicious persons (I would argue, however, that the police action in Chicago occurred because the protestors did not use the system that is in place for protesting here in Chicago, i.e. applying for permits, letting the police force know so that they can close down streets etc.) . I don’t think Bush (or any of us) wants to go that route.

And an aside about talking about war as a Christian. I agree with what I think Rob was saying. Part of the apparent disconnect between our politics and our Christianity is that in a society of separation between church and state, we don’t feel a part of the political ideology of the U.S. This war does not feel like our war. These protestors are not our advocates. On top of that, I don’t feel connected to many churches, either. I don’t know what topics of discussion you have been reading, SandyWilbur, but I’ve seen ample evidence of people here on *cino asking how they can think about these events as Christians.

Bush obviously considers this particular war against a “government that uses terror” as part of a war on terrorism. If the use of terror has become a habit for a region (I know that’s very general, but I’m defining “terrorism” as an actual tactic which has grown since the early 70’s in the Mid-East), something must counteract it that does not operate strictly on tactics of terror. Something like a democratic system of governance. I think this is why Bush’s administration insists that the military campaign is not the end, but just the beginning of the important work that must be done in Iraq. If the U.S. leaves Iraq after a military victory, the U.S. has only shown that military might is what makes the U.S. so great. Bush does not believe military might is what makes the U.S. so great, so it’s important to display the true value of democracy over the use of terror.

Can we agree that the basic cause of Islamic terrorism is hate for the United States and for Israel? If we can agree on this, then we can disagree on how to get the Arabs to like us more.

Bush’s way to get the Middle East to like Americans is by replacing a hostile regime with a friendly one without gaining broad international support beforehand. I think this is misguided. Have I at least identified the basic conflict here?

Bush is a child of the enlightenment (though he hasn’t read Voltaire) in the sense that he believes Iraqis can be good if they are just given rational government. That if their lives get better, they won’t want to blow themselves up at US military checkpoints anymore. And that Iraq’s neighbors will see the rampant rationality in Iraq and will want to imitate it. It reminds me of Peter the Great ‘helping’ Russians become more European by forcing them to cut off their beards.

American commentators are comparing the toppling of the statue in Baghdad to the toppling of Lenin in Moscow or the breach of the Berlin Wall. In those cases, however, I don’t remember seeing US soldiers orchistrating those events. Iraq is a grand experiment, and like grant said, a risky one, expecially after the US has alienated so many of its historic allies.

grant—

i agree that saddam was pretending to play along with inspections (have they found anything yet, by the way? i haven’t heard) because of the fact that US troops were arriving in the region and Bush’s tough talk. But I also think that the same talk and attitude in the UN (by Bush) is largely to blame for the failure of diplomacy. When he said things like “we’ll fight whether we get UN support or not” I think it was counter-productive and took the focus off of Saddam (why do we call him by his first name?) — which is where it should have remained — and put the focus onto the fact that the US has just threatened to break international law, ignore the security council, and pretty much do as they please. I think it’s understandable why lines hardened (and Saddam loved it, I’m sure). But really, can you call what Bush attempted to do ‘diplomacy?’ Essentially, “I’m giving you a chance to agree with me and do what i say, and if you don’t, diplomacy has failed, and the UN is irrelevant.” gee, i guess we’d better.

do you think it’s appropriate for the US to try and exert influence by way of money, weapons, force, etc to bend things to their liking?

Somewhat relatedly, I think: I was pretty amazed to read in the post today that planned very shortly for iraq is translated broadcasts of all the big network news. is that really the most important priority here?

We need to tell our story our way if we want people to agree with us. In a way, the attitude behind translating network news is similar to that faux-diplomacy you mentioned before. You get your choice of seeing it our way or seeing it our way. For a country that champions freedom of the press, we sure doen’t seem to do much to encourage it.

Why do we call Saddam by his first name? Because if pronounced just slightly incorrectly (which we’re all prone to doing), it means “shoe shine boy” in Arabic.

Best example of this: Bush Sr. during the Persian Gulf War horribly mispronounced Saddam’s name on a routine basis. To us, it was a “Texan take” on a foreign name. To him, it was a message to Saddam Hussein.

Hmm. I guess that seems a little juvenile to me. Maybe he also drew an ugly picture of a face and then wrote SADDAM with an arrow pointing towards it.

While what you say is interesting, it’s certainly not why most of us refer to him by his first name. I think it’s curious.

I think it would be kind of good to start calling leaders by their first name. Tony thinks this. George did that. Makes them more human.