SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bilow who wrote (105451)7/15/2003 7:55:13 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Peaceful Warrior
_____________________________

by Chris Strohm and Ingrid Drake

Published on Monday, July 14, 2003 by TomPaine.com

As the U.S. occupation of Iraq extends with no end in sight, and the death toll for both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians continues to mount, more voices of dissent from military personnel and families are surfacing every day.

One of the most poignant so far comes from a young Marine who gave an interview with Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program the night before he was deployed to Iraq. He discussed his strong commitment to peace, and said the Bush administration was violating constitutional principles and misleading the country into an unjust war.

He was killed in late June, fighting a war he didn’t believe in.

Because the interview was given under the condition of anonymity, and out of respect for the current wishes of his family, the Marine will be identified in this story only as John (not his real name). John’s friends describe him as a passionate, intense person with an insatiable appetite for knowledge and a commitment to peace. He studied philosophy and peace with an emphasis on Middle Eastern affairs, particularly Iraq and Israel.

His friends say he went into the military under the Clinton administration to gain credibility, so that perhaps someday his beliefs on how to build a lasting peace in the Middle East would be taken seriously. In the months before his deployment, he helped organize anti-war campaigns, mainly working behind the scenes.

In his interview with Pacifica, John expressed outrage that a legitimate public debate on the war had not occurred. Many alternatives to combat were available, he explained, such as using money being spent for war to finance a grassroots Iraqi democracy movement that would rival the Baath regime, or promoting democracy throughout the Middle East to show people alternative forms of government.

"It is almost unimaginable to expect that this war is going to create a better peace for anybody with the exception of a very small percentage of people," he said.

He accused the administration of not talking honestly with the American public about potential consequences of a U.S. war on Iraq, such as the potential for urban combat, the psyche of the Iraqi people, the impact on the United Nations and the fate of the Middle East.

"This could have repercussions in terms of the war on terrorism," he said. "It could have repercussions on international diplomacy. It could have repercussions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It could have repercussions in terms of our ability to get anything else done in the United Nations. And even if... everything goes the way it's supposed to go, what does that mean for the world order? It says that we basically can do whatever we want to do whenever we want to do it because we are the world's sole superpower."

But even as he expressed doubts about the Bush administration’s decision, he spoke eloquently about his patriotism, and looked to the highest ideals of the country for inspiration:

"I believe in the United States. I believe in the Constitution. I think it's perhaps one of the greatest documents ever written. I believe in the idea that we the people are sovereign and we determine our own destiny. We have a democracy and the Bill of Rights and freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and due process. Until the world is such a place that we can really live without the military, individual Americans have to step up and they have to serve."

The Bush administration, he claimed, had not made a credible case for war with Iraq, and was violating constitutional principles by sending troops into combat. He spoke of the Declaration of Independence, and how its writers vowed to be free of England, where their lives were ruled and determined by one man. "The constant rhetoric of the administration is that there's going to be one person who decides when we go to war," he said, "and that is such a blatant violation of every constitutional principle that our founding fathers came up with."

"But even beyond that, it's ‘we the people’ that this nation is about," he continued. "It isn't about politics or personal agendas or political agendas or economic agendas. And I believe that this war is not the right thing for America because it hasn't yet been proven conclusively that there is a threat to ‘we the people’ -- and I think that is the sole determining factor as to whether or not this nation should ever go to war."

With chilling foresight, John predicted that much could go wrong in a war with Iraq, saying the outcomes outlined by the administration were based on highly optimistic and rosy scenarios. He said it was unlikely that Iraqis would cheer the arrival of a U.S. occupying force, and that long-term urban combat could be a likely outcome.

Yet he went to Iraq, believing it to be his duty. And continued, even in the midst of combat, to exercise his belief in nonviolent resolution. One of his commanders wrote a letter after his death explaining a situation in which John negotiated a peaceful settlement to a potentially deadly situation. A group of Baath Party officials were found inside a house. Because he spoke Arabic, John entered the house and talked with the officials until he negotiated a surrender. His actions potentially saved the lives of both U.S. soldiers and Iraqis.

In letters home, John described the peace movement as "awesome," and said he hoped it would grow larger, never relent against the Bush administration, and help bring an end to the war.

Around June 20, those letters stopped.

As of July 14, 32 American soldiers have died from hostile action since Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, according to the Pentagon. Forty-three other service members have died in incidents unrelated to hostilities.

Nancy Lessin, co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, says more people are becoming outraged now that the war against Iraq has turned into a highly risky occupation.

"Too many U.S. military personnel and way too many innocent Iraqis have been killed," she says. "And what we predicted to be true has come true, that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Everything we said was going to happen is coming to pass, and one of the most frightening aspects of this is that the people of this country haven't completely risen up in opposition to what's going on."

Her words are echoed, and answered, by John’s. Before he was deployed, John wrote a final letter as part of his will.

"That I have died means I have failed to achieve the one thing in life I truly longed to give the world -- peace," the letter reads. "The plight of human suffering consumed me and I dedicated much to trying to find the ideas that might lead humankind toward alleviating it for all. It was a quest which was inextricably intertwined with my quest for freedom. If you know anything about me you know that. Understand it and come to understand how the suffering of others tormented my soul. Then seek to honor my memory by trying to achieve what I could not."
______________________________________________

Chris Strohm is a freelance reporter and volunteer with the DC Independent Media Center. Ingrid Drake is a correspondent for Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program. Andrew Korfhage provided additional reporting for this article.

commondreams.org



To: Bilow who wrote (105451)7/15/2003 11:48:43 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Bomb Before You Buy
________________________

An Interview With Naomi Klein

by Scott Harris and Naomi Klein; Between The Lines; July 15, 2003

The military occupation of Iraq has not gone according to the plan made in Washington long before the war was launched against Saddam Hussein's government. Since President Bush declared major hostilities over in Iraq on May 1, more than 30 U.S. and British troops have been killed in an intensifying series of guerrilla attacks. With an average 13 engagements each day between U.S. soldiers and armed Iraqis hostile to the occupation, American military leaders are still reluctant to characterize the resistance as an organized effort. Instead, Pentagon and Bush administration officials maintain that groups attacking U.S. forces are remnants of Saddam's Baathist party or terrorists sympathetic to al Qaeda.

Fueling hostility toward the U.S. in Iraq are the increasing number of civilians being shot by jittery and exhausted American soldiers; the delay in establishing an Iraqi transition government; and the spotty restoration of electrical and water services. Recent statements made by L. Paul Bremer III, President Bush's administrator in Iraq -- that the U.S. will work to privatize Baghdad's state-owned industries -- has further antagonized many Iraqis.

Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with author and columnist Naomi Klein, who discusses her view that the Bush administration's economic plan for Iraq is but one element of a broader strategy to expand the power and wealth of U.S. based multinational corporations across the globe.

Naomi Klein: I think what’s clear is that by the time Iraqis have some semblance of a democratic process -- and who knows when that’s going to be, maybe it will be a year from now, maybe it will be two years from now -- whenever it is, it’s clear that all of the key economic decisions that are going to affect the ability of that new government to act in meaningful ways -- those decisions will all have already been made and contracts will be locked in, multi, multi-year contracts. So this is essentially, this is about democracy, I mean, Bush has said that the war wasn't really about weapons of mass destruction, it was actually about freedom and democracy. Well, this whole issue of privatization taking place before there is a democracy is an incredibly flagrant assault on the basic principles of self-determination. I think we have to be really careful when we say, "Oh, the reconstruction has been a crisis or it's been a disaster." Well, it's been a disaster for the Iraqi people but it hasn't been a disaster for Bechtel. In fact, what's happened is they've bombed the country into a blank slate where they are rebuilding it in the image that is exactly prescribed by the so-called Washington consensus and the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where all of the state industries, including oil, are going to be privatized.

At the same time, Paul Bremer, before he even had the lights back on in Baghdad declared that Iraq was "open for business," which meant that all of the foreign exports were pouring across the border. Iraqi companies that had been suffering under 13 years of sanctions and months of lootings and then blackouts because of a lack of electricity were told "welcome to the free market," now you can compete with these multinationals and of course, they're all closing down.

That's what I mean by a process that, say in the Soviet Union or Argentina took five years,. is happening in Iraq in two months. I think it's important I guess to look at such a naked exercise of so-called free market economics to see that they were never supposed to compete in the first place. I mean, the idea that they could have competed under these conditions is absolutely absurd and I think that it really does put the lie to the idea that there is a free market on the global scale.

Between The Lines: You have followed quite closely -- and in your most recent book -- wrote dispatches about the various forms that the movement that opposes corporate-led globalization has taken around the world. What can you tell us about the intersection between those groups opposing corporate-led globalization and the recent quite astonishing peace movement that took root on almost every continent of the world?

Naomi Klein: Well, I think there are lots of connections. I think that they aren't the same movement, but they're inseparable in so many ways. For instance, the coordinated peace demonstrations on Feb. 15 could never have happened without the networks that were created by the globalization movements, from the World Social Forums to Indy Media, which was really the voice of those demonstrations and allowed people to feel that they were part of something truly global, I think, in a really unique and unprecedented way.

But, I think the question of how do we deepen those connections through this period of ongoing wars and also occupation … and that's why I think it really is important to focus on what is actually happening with this so-called reconstruction or privatization disguised as reconstruction in Iraq. Because I think that Iraq is not a distraction or a sideline from the debate about the global economy and how it's progressing. I think it's the cutting edge of that debate in the sense that there is a global economic crisis, there is a recession and there is a growing skepticism and rejection of many of the policies that we've been talking about. In Latin America, for instance, there is huge opposition to the idea of a free trade agreement of the Americas but there has also been a steady stream of opposition to new privatizations. And what this means is that there's growing desperation from the companies that need growth to survive, which is every company, which is how capitalism works. Because of that we are seeing this phenomenon that I call, "bomb before you buy," which is a flip way of describing what happened in Iraq, but I think that we are frankly and sadly going to see more of it. So, I can't in my mind separate the debate about globalization or free trade from an analysis of war, because to me what we're actually seeing are wars being waged to pave the way for precisely the policies that we in the globalization movement have been opposing steadily for the past five years.

Between The Lines: Do you see the anti-globalization organizations and the peace groups focusing their attention now on the post-war situation in Iraq, the privatizations and the threat, as you say, that this could be the template -- the model for future engagements by the United States and their corporate sponsors?

Naomi Klein: I think it is starting to happen. But frankly if we're to be honest, I think we have to admit that we on the left are destabilized. I personally think more than anything else this is the Bush strategy, which is to behave so quixotically, so unpredictably -- basically to act like a crazy person (laughs) -- that basically all of your potential opposition is in a permanent state of destabilization, trying to figure out what the next move is going to be.

It's been really difficult to think strategically over the past year and a half. But I think that there's certainly consensus that we need to, that we need to somehow find our bearings and to understand that the fact that we're confused is not a coincidence, that it's a strategy.
______________

Naomi Klein is author of "Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate" published by Flamingo. Her previous bestselling book, "No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies" is published by Picador. Visit her website at www.nologo.org.

Scott Harris is the executive producer of Between The Lines. This interview excerpt was featured on the award-winning, nationally syndicated weekly radio newsmagazine, Between The Lines (http://www.btlonline.org), for the week ending July 18, 2003. AOL users: Click here!

zmag.org