February
21, 2006
John,
One
positive result of our exchange is that it has made very real to
me the
way in which the two of us can be in quite different worlds
about
some issue based on the information each has.
Hiroshima
is a case in point: the difference in valid information will
determine
whether our dropping atomic bombs in 1945 should be seen as
the
unnecessary taking of several hundreds of thousands of lives or
the
saving of several million.
I
shared with you what I have read about this, and you with me. But I
was
hardly born in 1945 and I am not conversant with the underlying
sources
of information. My point is not to go
over that issue again,
but to
say that valid information makes the difference between wise
policy
and criminal policy, for many people in our world today even
between
between life and death.
That
said, I want to go back to the issue I've spent a good part of
the
last ten years informing myself about: Iraq, 1991-2003.
I go
first to make sure I understand what you wrote me:
"DEMORALIZED
CIVILIAN POPULACE: It was true in the 1970s when it
caused
us the loss of the Vietnamese war, and it certainly seems to be
a
potential factor in the Iraq war of today."
I
believe you are saying that our disregard for civilian human life in
Vietnam
caused us to lose the war. It might
also in Iraq too. And if
that's
your view, we are in full agreement on this point.
I'd
call it an agreement based on practical consequences: Acts which
kill
civilians may demoralize a people, but they also lose us trust
and
credibility. In the long run we lose in
a guerrilla war.
We lose
trust and credibility -- lose hearts and minds -- lose the war
--
because people everywhere will react the same way to a deliberate
or
careless or collateral killing of a part of their family.
Do we
agree on this?
On to
my second point, directly connected with the first. Here is a
"thought
experiment" I invite you to do with me.
Imagine
for a minute that some people were able to divert the sewage
in King
County into the water supply. Let's
imagine they did it with
wrenches
and pipe -- not bombs -- and that in the process they did not
immediately
or directly harm anyone.
Now
let's imagine that hundreds of civilians -- those with the weakest
immune
systems, the very young, the sick and the old -- died as a
result. And let us imagine that the people who did
this knew it would
be the
result, wanted it to happen, did it to coerce us, and said so
publicly.
The
fact that they did not directly harm anyone by using bombs or
bullets
would not hide from us the fact that this was a criminal act.
We
would not just call it malicious destruction of property. We would
correctly
call it terrorism.
Do you
agree that if this happened here that's what it would be?
If not,
please tell me honestly why you wouldn't call it that.
Even if
Michael Brown and FEMA were criminally negligent in
responding,
would you not label this an act of terrorism?
If so,
isn't it clear that's how the Iraqi people must have felt in
1991
and after? For the first 12 years of
Saddam's rule they had no
political
rights. But they had 9,000 megawatts of
electrical
capacity,
plenty of free medicine, safe water, and a country where
obesity
was the major pediatric problem.
For the
next 12 years (after the Gulf War bombing and during
sanctions)
-- while they continued to have no political rights -- they
had 340
megawatts of electricity right after the war and never more
than
4000 up to now. As a direct result, the
untreated sewage from
Baghdad's
six million people (the population of our state) flowed raw
into
the Tigris River.
That
became the drinking water of everyone downstream. Just as
Baghdad
residents had to drink the water from those upstream. We knew
this
would happen because our Pentagon bombing planners told us so.
And we
knew it was deliberate because they told us why we did it: "to
accelerate
the effect of the sanctions."
(You've read
concernforiraq.org/infrastructure.)
So now I
ask you: How is this not terrorism?
You
said "TERRORISTS: There's a lot of
truth to the statement that
one
man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter."
That is
also my point: In our present intellectual and political
environment,
each party simply calls his enemy a terrorist.
Without a
meaningful
definition, it's impossible to discuss, to understand, or
do
anything but go to war when there's conflict.
Amnesty
International has a simple standard for what acts they label
terrorism:
if it involves the deliberate endangering or taking of
*civilian*
life to coerce or intimidate then it is called terrorism.
Amnesty
abides by this definition impartially.
It's also our legal
definition. If we believe in a rule of law, we must
abide by it too.
In Iraq
many people have seen their family members suffer and die as
the
result of the lack of what they had before the Gulf War: food,
medicine,
safe water, electricity. They may never
have heard of our
legal
definitions, but do you think that will matter to what they
think
of what we have done to them?
Finally,
here is my third point.
It is
actually what I call a meta-issue: An issue which affects all of
the
above and much, much more. It is the
issue: Where do we get our
information
and how much can we trust it.
You
wrote in your letter to the Seattle Times, "Saddam Hussein spent
the
bulk of the oil-for-food income on many luxurious palaces and
development
for weapons of mass destruction."
Do you
know how much the oil-for-food income was?
Do you know how
much of
it was available to Saddam Hussein as cash?
Do you know how
much he
spent on palaces? Do you know how much
he spent on developing
WMDs?
The
oil-for-food income was $64 billion total.
30% went to war
reparations,
13% to the Kurds, 4% to the UN for its Iraq programs, the
balance
went into an account from which only UN-(i.e., US-) approved
humanitarian
purchases could be made.
After
all of these deductions, the oil-for-food program provided $0.51
per
person per day over 6 years of its operation.
It was not
humanitarian
aid. It was Iraq's own money, limited
by us.
Saddam
Hussein had no cash available from the program. His palaces
came to
$0.04 per person per day by our own accounting. I have never
seen
any accounting of money he might have spent on WMD development
after
the Gulf War.
I once
got to ask Stansfield Turner (CIA director under Jimmy Carter)
about
children's deaths in Iraq; he said it was all because of
Saddam's
palaces. I once asked Robert McNamara
about 500,000 Iraqi
kids
deaths; he said that was "ridiculous."
My
point is that we may believe we "know" all kinds of things. Yet
what we
"know" may be very misleading and even untrue.
Most of
us get our information from the mainstream media. As you've
written,
we can say there's a liberal media (say the NY Times) and a
conservative
media (say the Wall St Journal or, if you like, Fox
News). My example of the reporting of half a
million Iraqi children's
deaths
in both examples is very telling.
It
tells me there is a US mass-media window onto the world: at the
left
edge of the window is the liberal point of view, at the right is
the
conservative. But what can be seen from
within that window does
not
include the deaths of half a million Iraqi kids.
The
reason is that this window is a limited opening to the world.
Many
views and much information gets excluded.
For example, it is not
a
problem to show angry Muslim crowds burning American flags. But
showing
an articulate Muslim explaining the source of that anger
towards
the US almost never happens.
That
would not be "blame America first" -- as some might say. It
would
be a willingness to report on facts that do not reflect well on
America
-- even if they made us uncomfortable -- if they are important
to our
understanding of the world . It would
reflect the importance
of
knowing what's happening in that wider world which cannot be seen
from
within the US mass-media window.
Here is
what I've learned from ten years working to educate myself
about
Iraq: most Americans are woefully uninformed about the most
basic
facts of our policy; many Americans do not want to know; and if
Americans
rely only on the mainstream media -- with very few
exceptions
-- they will not know.
It
seems to me that this is at the root of many of the problems we
face
today. And at the root of what needs to
be changed.
Your
response is very welcome.
Bert
February
22, 2006
Good
response. I'll get back to you. John
February 24, 2006
Bert
Sorry for the slow
response. My wife and I went to the
Home Show yesterday.
You wrote an interesting
response and caused me to consider some items in a different light.
Once again I have
responded in blue . . . below the appropriate paragraph.
John
One positive result of our exchange
is that it has made very real to
me the way in which the two of us
can be in quite different worlds
about some issue based on the
information each has.
Hiroshima is a case in point: the
difference in valid information will
determine whether our dropping
atomic bombs in 1945 should be seen as
the unnecessary taking of several
hundreds of thousands of lives or
the saving of several million.
I shared with you what I have read
about this, and you with me. But I
was hardly born in 1945 and I am
not conversant with the underlying
sources of information. My point is not to go over that issue again,
but to say that valid information
makes the difference between wise
policy and criminal policy, for
many people in our world today even
between life and death.
That said, I want to go back to the
issue I've spent a good part of
the last ten years informing myself
about: Iraq, 1991-2003.
I go first to make sure I
understand what you wrote me:
"DEMORALIZED CIVILIAN
POPULACE: It was true in the 1970s when it
caused us the loss of the
Vietnamese war, and it certainly seems to be
a potential factor in the Iraq war
of today."
I believe you are saying that our
disregard for civilian human life in
Vietnam caused us to lose the war. It might also in Iraq too. And if
that's your view, we are in full
agreement on this point.
That is not what I was
implying at all. We lost the war
because the people of the United States were demoralized by the left-wing
media, which was much more influential then because we didn’t have the
internet, and the 24/7 TV news stations.
The turning point was the Tet Offensive where the North Vietnamese lost
every battle. Had Kennedy not been
assassinated, perhaps it would have gone better. The press loved Kennedy, and seems to not fully appreciate
presidents from Texas.
I'd call it an agreement based on
practical consequences: Acts which
kill civilians may demoralize a
people, but they also lose us trust
and credibility. In the long run we lose in a guerrilla war.
We lose trust and credibility --
lose hearts and minds -- lose the war
-- because people everywhere will
react the same way to a deliberate
or careless or collateral killing
of a part of their family.
Do we agree on this?
Not entirely. Individuals
can, of course, vary all over the place.
How countries behave is complex.
A major factor seems to be how badly a people are beaten during war. The Japanese or the Germans
were subjected to massive bombings of there cities during WW II, but became
good friends during the occupation and afterward. I believe this happened because they were beaten so badly that
they were ready for peace at any cost.
Germany’s attitude was totally different following WW I. Most German people were not exposed to the
war, and certainly not the civilians, in general. And there was no occupation.
However, there was humiliation, which came in part from the sinking of
the German fleet. WW II came about
because the Germans were not ready for peace at any cost following WW I.
On to my second point, directly
connected with the first. Here is a
"thought experiment" I
invite you to do with me.
Imagine for a minute that some
people were able to divert the sewage
in King County into the water
supply. Let's imagine they did it with
wrenches and pipe -- not bombs --
and that in the process they did not
immediately or directly harm
anyone.
Now let's imagine that hundreds of
civilians -- those with the weakest
immune systems, the very young, the
sick and the old -- died as a
result. And let us imagine that the people who did this knew it would
be the result, wanted it to happen,
did it to coerce us, and said so
publicly.
The fact that they did not directly
harm anyone by using bombs or
bullets would not hide from us the
fact that this was a criminal act.
We would not just call it malicious
destruction of property. We would
correctly call it terrorism.
Do you agree that if this happened
here that's what it would be?
Of course it is
terrorism. Terrorism is a useful tool
in war. The fire bombings of cities in
WW II was terrorism, along with the use of atomic bombs. In war, there is no substitute for
victory. But the question needs to be
asked: To what level of terrorism do
our morals and conscience allow us to go???
If not, please tell me honestly why
you wouldn't call it that.
Even if Michael Brown and FEMA were
criminally negligent in
responding, would you not label
this an act of terrorism?
No. Terrorism is a deliberate act to kill
innocent civilians.
If so, isn't it clear that's how
the Iraqi people must have felt in
1991 and after? For the first 12 years of Saddam's rule they
had no
political rights. But they had 9,000 megawatts of electrical
capacity, plenty of free medicine,
safe water, and a country where
obesity was the major pediatric
problem.
I presume the power
plants were knocked out in 1991 in an effort to make Iraq pay the price
for attacking Kuwait. It also forces a
benevolent leader to focus on his problems at home as opposed to focusing on
the wealth of his neighbor. It is my
understanding that Saddam had a fair amount of popular support, and if true,
perhaps the attack on the power plants was justified. However, people from our culture may well have expected Saddam to
take the necessary steps to protect his people from the aftermath.
For the next 12 years (after the
Gulf War bombing and during
sanctions) -- while they continued
to have no political rights -- they
had 340 megawatts of electricity
right after the war and never more
than 4000 up to now. As a direct result, the untreated sewage
from
Baghdad's six million people (the
population of our state) flowed raw
into the Tigris River.
That became the drinking water of
everyone downstream. Just as
Baghdad residents had to drink the
water from those upstream. We knew
this would happen because our
Pentagon bombing planners told us so.
And we knew it was deliberate
because they told us why we did it: "to
accelerate the effect of the
sanctions." (You've read
concernforiraq.org/infrastructure.)
I went back and looked at
it again. I found numerous references
to the death of children after the fact, but none before the bombings of power
plants took place.
I’m not an expert on
bombing strategy. I can see some
mission planners agreeing to attack the power plants because that is going to
make life miserable for Iraqis on hot summer days with no air
conditioning. Perhaps I’m naïve, but I
can’t see people of our culture doing it because it’s going to cause the deaths
of a ½ million children. Perhaps you’ve gone through these documents thoroughly
. . . I have not. I did find references
to the value of attacks on military targets relative to unintended civilian
casualties, and the application of the “... proportionality rule.” [I would be interested in any thoughts you
may have on this subject.]
So now I ask you: How is this not
terrorism? [see
above]
You said "TERRORISTS: There's a lot of truth to the statement that
one man's terrorists is another
man's freedom fighter."
That is also my point: In our
present intellectual and political
environment, each party simply
calls his enemy a terrorist. Without a
meaningful definition, it's
impossible to discuss, to understand, or
do anything but go to war when
there's conflict.
Amnesty International has a simple
standard for what acts they label
terrorism: if it involves the
deliberate endangering or taking of
*civilian* life to coerce or
intimidate then it is called terrorism.
Amnesty abides by this definition
impartially. It's also our legal
definition. If we believe in a rule of law, we must
abide by it too.
Yes, but as I stated
above . . . it’s a useful tool of war.
Should it be used without moral guidelines??? Absolutely not. But there
are very few rules in all out warfare.
In Iraq many people have seen their
family members suffer and die as
the result of the lack of what they
had before the Gulf War: food,
medicine, safe water,
electricity. They may never have heard
of our
legal definitions, but do you think
that will matter to what they
think of what we have done to them?
Finally, here is my third point.
It is actually what I call a
meta-issue: An issue which affects all of
the above and much, much more. It is the issue: Where do we get our
information and how much can we
trust it.
You wrote in your letter to the
Seattle Times, "Saddam Hussein spent
the bulk of the oil-for-food income
on many luxurious palaces and
development for weapons of mass
destruction."
Do you know how much the
oil-for-food income was? Do you know
how
much of it was available to Saddam
Hussein as cash? Do you know how
much he spent on palaces? Do you know how much he spent on developing
WMDs?
The oil-for-food income was $64
billion total. 30% went to war
reparations, 13% to the Kurds, 4%
to the UN for its Iraq programs, the
balance went into an account from
which only UN-(i.e., US-) approved
humanitarian purchases could be
made. [30% +13% +4% = 47%. That
leaves 53%, or $33.3
billion.]
After all of these deductions, the
oil-for-food program provided $0.51
per person per day over 6 years of
its operation. It was not
humanitarian aid. It was Iraq's own money, limited by us.
Iraq’s money limited by
the U.N.: Using your figures, that’s
$6.7 billion. Perhaps better
appropriation of the funds would have resulted in a functioning power
plant. But using your earlier numbers
(53% of $64 billion) he would have $33.3 billion to spend. What happened to the other $26.7 billion??? He should have fixed the power plant.
I’m guessing here, but
it seems to me that the intention of the UN was not to cause the deaths of
thousands of Iraqis. I would expect
that they budgeted the money that a benevolent leader would need to take care
of 6 million people.
Saddam Hussein had no cash
available from the program. His palaces
came to $0.04 per person per day by
our own accounting. I have never
seen any accounting of money he
might have spent on WMD development
after the Gulf War.
I
know that they also found millions of dollars in green backs that could have
been used. This money probably came
from selling oil they smuggled to other countries.
I once got to ask Stansfield Turner
(CIA director under Jimmy Carter)
about children's deaths in Iraq; he
said it was all because of
Saddam's palaces. I once asked Robert McNamara about 500,000
Iraqi
kids deaths; he said that was
"ridiculous."
My point is that we may believe we
"know" all kinds of things.
Yet
what we "know" may be
very misleading and even untrue.
Most of us get our information from
the mainstream media. As you've
written, we can say there's a
liberal media (say the NY Times) and a
conservative media (say the Wall St
Journal or, if you like, Fox
News). My example of the reporting of half a million Iraqi children's
deaths in both examples is very
telling.
Fox news is one of my
sources, so I’m surprised to see you classify it as conservative. Of the programs that I watch, they have both
liberal and conservative representatives.
In my limited view, they seem to be living up to their . . . “fair &
balanced” . . . advertisement.
It tells me there is a US
mass-media window onto the world: at the
left edge of the window is the
liberal point of view, at the right is
the conservative. But what can be seen from within that window
does
not include the deaths of half a
million Iraqi kids.
You
have been tossing around the death of 500,000 children, and I haven’t
challenged it. I know some blog sites
have exaggerated the civilian deaths in the current war far above the UN
numbers. So just out of curiosity,
what is the reference for your ½ million?
I certainly haven’t seen it in the press, liberal or conservative.
After
typing the above paragraph, I thought maybe I should do a GOOGLE search
myself. I was specifically looking for
a UN reference, but I didn’t spend much time.
I did find the following reference that says that UNICEF confirmed the
500,000 number, but later disputed it.
There are also some numbers on mortality rates in the no-fly zone during
the sanctions. Please
take a look at this and give me your comment.
http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/Sanctions.htm
The reason is that this window is a
limited opening to the world.
Many views and much information
gets excluded. For example, it is not
a problem to show angry Muslim
crowds burning American flags. But
showing an articulate Muslim
explaining the source of that anger
towards the US almost never
happens.
I’ve been looking for an
articulate Muslim leader that speaks out against suicide bombers that target
women and children. Where is the
Islamic leader that calls for tolerance, and condemns the political cartoons by
Moslems that ridicule western religions?
That would not be "blame
America first" -- as some might say.
It
would be a willingness to report on
facts that do not reflect well on
America -- even if they made us
uncomfortable -- if they are important
to our understanding of the world
. It would reflect the importance
of knowing what's happening in that
wider world which cannot be seen
from within the US mass-media
window.
If it makes the Bush Administration
look bad, the liberal press does not hold back.
Here is what I've learned from ten
years working to educate myself
about Iraq: most Americans are
woefully uninformed about the most
basic facts of our policy; many
Americans do not want to know; and if
Americans rely only on the
mainstream media -- with very few
exceptions -- they will not know.
Five years into the
Vietnamese war, 25% of the American people did not know that we were at war.
It seems to me that this is at the
root of many of the problems we
face today. And at the root of what needs to be changed.
The
root of the problems: ???? You seem to
be blaming the media. BUT most of the
media favors the liberal left.
Your response is very welcome.
Bert
Hope I haven’t made any
stupid idiotic booboos. My spelling can
be terrible at times.
John