Today's episode of the audio program the World is especially great. (The show is always good, and frequently fabulous). If you're not a regular listener by either radio or web, I recommend that you start listening.
In the first segment, a Baghdad correspondent said that Iraqis who object to the occupation have always been very polite about it, but the situation of the US military attacking the people of Falluja has changed the tone: now locals are visibly disgusted by the presense of the US military. (File under 'Bad Signs.')
There was a segment about the Japanese government being annoyed that the recently freed Japanese hostages aren't quite as thankful as they should have been, which segwayed into a strange argument that the hostage crisis demonstrates that Japan needs to give up its self-defense-only constitution and build its military, because the hostage crisis showed that Japan can't protect its people. (!!!!!) Because a big military has nothing better to do than run around Iraq with the three that were hostages, who were an anti war activist, a humanitarian worker, and a journalist?? Because the US has the world's largest military, and that kept Americans safe from the September 11th attackers??? (What is this man smoking?)
Later, "Rami Khouri of Lebanon's English language newspaper, The Daily Star, and Italian journalist Ennio Caretto" (audio file) spoke about the differing coverage between the US and elsewhere. Caretto's comment that the war is much bloodier, more realistic, and crueler on European TV than in the US. American audiences see a much tidier, sanitized version of the war.
Doesn't it make sense that Europeans are opposed to the war because they're getting different information about it than we are? It certainly does.
Yesterday's episode featured a great interview with Rony Brauman of Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders)(audio file). Brauman notes that the U.S. military created humanitarian crises in places such as Basra by disrupting local supplies, and then used the disruption to justify further desired military action. He has written an essay discussing the difficult situation humanitarian organizations are placed in when the language of humanitarian aid is coopted for purely political, non-humanitarian purposes. It's worth listening to.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Brutality
It's strange to be back, wallowing in the ego, pride, illogical rationalizations, and impassioned testimony about the use of violence against us and against others after a break from it. It seems even more ridiculous after time away.
During my vacation, there was only one moment when politics & violence came up in discussion with one of the few strangers we encountered while camping in the backcountry. Just in passing, a healthy young man who had broken away from his companions for some exploration chatted with us about conditions in the area, and then made passing reference to our country's 'disastrous' foreign policy, and a short comment that US chances for success will be determined by 'whether or not we are willing to be brutal enough.'
S and I shrugged this comment off and went back to discussing local conditions, partly because the youth didn't sound like he meant it. (There's a lot of repeating phrases heard on TV in our culture, and it sounded like this could be one such senseless repetition.) But also, it would be hard to discuss without appearing to come down hard on our upbeat new acquaintance. Brutality is the wrong answer to just about every worthwhile question associated with Iraq.
How brutal does the US have to be to Iraqis to:
-make up for intelligence failures relating to an Afghan group?
-avenge the September 11th attacks against an innocent people with no connection to the attacks?
-find non-existent weapons of mass destruction?
-liberate them?
-convince them that foreign occupation is very similar to liberation?
-get consent to privatizing all Iraqi natural resources and industries?
-force a "lite" version of Democracy on them, when they want the real thing?
-create internal "national" unity, even though the 'nation' was forced together by the British?***
-make them like us?
Brutality just isn't an appropriate means to succeed in these goals except for unity, but not in a good way: there is now an increasing national unity against U.S. occupation, but nothing else.
Occupation doesn't lead to 'winning hearts and minds,' a precursor to many of the US' other aims. It can't. It isn't. It won't. New approaches are required. We could try, for example, listening to the Iraqis. (!!!!)
It's strange to be back, wallowing in the ego, pride, illogical rationalizations, and impassioned testimony about the use of violence against us and against others after a break from it. It seems even more ridiculous after time away.
During my vacation, there was only one moment when politics & violence came up in discussion with one of the few strangers we encountered while camping in the backcountry. Just in passing, a healthy young man who had broken away from his companions for some exploration chatted with us about conditions in the area, and then made passing reference to our country's 'disastrous' foreign policy, and a short comment that US chances for success will be determined by 'whether or not we are willing to be brutal enough.'
S and I shrugged this comment off and went back to discussing local conditions, partly because the youth didn't sound like he meant it. (There's a lot of repeating phrases heard on TV in our culture, and it sounded like this could be one such senseless repetition.) But also, it would be hard to discuss without appearing to come down hard on our upbeat new acquaintance. Brutality is the wrong answer to just about every worthwhile question associated with Iraq.
How brutal does the US have to be to Iraqis to:
-make up for intelligence failures relating to an Afghan group?
-avenge the September 11th attacks against an innocent people with no connection to the attacks?
-find non-existent weapons of mass destruction?
-liberate them?
-convince them that foreign occupation is very similar to liberation?
-get consent to privatizing all Iraqi natural resources and industries?
-force a "lite" version of Democracy on them, when they want the real thing?
-create internal "national" unity, even though the 'nation' was forced together by the British?***
-make them like us?
Brutality just isn't an appropriate means to succeed in these goals except for unity, but not in a good way: there is now an increasing national unity against U.S. occupation, but nothing else.
Occupation doesn't lead to 'winning hearts and minds,' a precursor to many of the US' other aims. It can't. It isn't. It won't. New approaches are required. We could try, for example, listening to the Iraqis. (!!!!)
The best news summary of what occurred while I was out of town is "Did the US miscalculate in Iraq?
Iraqi officials, British commanders say US has mishandled the situation in Iraq," by Tom Regan (csmonitor.com, 04/12/04). I highly recommend this article and many links provided within the text.
Iraqi officials, British commanders say US has mishandled the situation in Iraq," by Tom Regan (csmonitor.com, 04/12/04). I highly recommend this article and many links provided within the text.