Ruminatrix
...more recent posts
Sunday, Mar 23, 2003
This war needs an anti-anthem, singable in many languages if possible. Songs help crowds feel their own power. Anybody know of a good anti-war song other than Give Peace A Chance? Yesterday's NYC march was very impressive, with a calm crowd and the police much less jittery than in February. However "Whose Streets? Our Streets!" is not much of a slogan to shout out.
On the third day of the hostile takeover, awoke to sound of Phillip Knightly (in a 2002 interview) on the radio. His The First Casualty is perhaps the best book on the history of war-reporting. Twitchy from shortage of sleep, I'll keep it brief.
In the south Nasariyah and its bridge over the Euphrates taken; Basra too or nearly so, but it's a major population center so it's probably been handled with care. Some airfields and other sites in the western desert seized. This is probably to prevent the launch of any missiles in the direction of Israel and is undoubtedly a good idea. Bombing of the Ansar enclave along the Iranian border on the grounds that they are terrorist allies of -- oh never mind. A suicide car bomb in Halabja is blamed on Ansar.
As for the overall picture: the focus is on Baghdad and what will happen when the US/UK (aka "coalition") forces arrive at its outskirts. Four other points:
A) It's clear that the intense overnight/morning bombing was focussed on massive property damage. The BBC feed (URL changes) this morning said "Iraqi health minister says three people killed in overnight raids on Baghdad" and 250 injured. Even if it is based on incomplete information, that number is remarkably low. We are witnessing a new kind of psychological warfare at its most intense, attempting "all your base" demoralization. Can we imagine one of our cities undergoing such an ordeal in the pursuit of a political goal? Officials in Damascus must be considering changing the name of their party -- just to on the safe side.
B) Various press reports (WPost was first?) indicate that there are ongoing e-mail discussions with senior Iraqi officers. Disinformation or not? I reckon they are probably accurate and that more non-Republican Guard units will likely surrender as the coalition forces move north. There's no doubt that Iraqi staff officers must wonder when it's time to cut your losses -- and timing is everything in such matters.
C) So what sort of post-war regime does the US have in mind in Baghdad? I've avoided televised briefings as much as possible but US Central Command this morning said there will be "representative self-government" after the distribution of humanitarian aid, and moreover that "Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people." Interesting line for General Franks to take. BTW he also used the word "shock" to describe the bombing of Baghhdad but didn't append "awe". Must be a reader.
D) Contradictory reports over the whether Turkish troops have entered Kurdish areas and if so, how many. Ankara says it just wants to secure the border and prevent an influx of refugees. Kurds suspect otherwise and this continuing and recurring disagreement between Washington and Ankara is described in the NYT as "frustrating" and "infuriating" by unidentified US officials. Remember when the Russians went into eastern Bosnia at the last minute?
Gotta go march -- the first Amendment could lapse if not frequently and vigorously exercized.You never know these days.
It is now the second full day of the War in Iraq. I had to turn off the radio to get things done -- and forget about watching TV with its endless crawls and repeated video snippets. But it keeps pulling me back. I don't know how agonist files recaps three times a day, filtering dozens of sources. Must be out of his mind.
To triangulate from reliable sources, the least fanciful reports suggest that Allied troops have a) encircled the Faw peninsula and taken the port of Um Qasr, just across the border from Kuwait and b) started to move up past to the west of Basra. There's been very little resistance so far. Rumors about what's happening in the north of Iraq are of the "Special Forces Seize Oilfields" variety and not very credible. So will the Turkish Army move into the Mosul area, as the Ankara Parliament authorized them to do yesterday? Are any reporters filing from Southern Turkey?
There are hints of how disorganized and confused Iraqi resistance has been so far. A BBC radio correspondent -- I didn't catch his name -- described seeing astonished civilians driving near Basra who didn't know the war had begun. The night-time images of burning government buildings in Baghdad show all the streetlights turned on, as if they hadn't had time even to organize a blackout.
As far as we know (?), loss of life has probably been low so far. The siege of Baghdad is likely to be a different matter, as civilians and army units (of both sides) will be right on top of one another. Throughout history, sieges of cities have always been much worse for non-combatants than fighting "in the field." The aerial bombardment of cities, pioneered in the Spanish Civil War, has only made it worse. So-called precision weapons don't work at all in rubble. Will we see a humanitarian crisis with thousands of homeless refugees and injured? What's the plan for preventing the sort of vigilante revenge-killing we saw at the fall of Ceaucescu in Roumania in 1989?
But the whole world is watching and it doesn't necessarily interpret what it sees the same way as we do. Even if Americans lose interest once victory is declared, that won't be the case elsewhere.
The first new weasel word of the war: "decapitation" for the killing of a head of state. It is a poor choice of word when you are trying to convince your adversary to surrender. Why not just call it assassination -- or tyrannicide, if you prefer? Oops, that would echo JW Booth at Ford's theater: Sic semper tyrannis. Never mind.
As this lopsided war begins -- though I don't recall there ever being a formal, legal declaration of war -- I agree that opposition to it has to continue. It's even more important given that the media and entertainment businesses -- newspapers and entertainers alike -- can't afford to alienate too many of their customers. They have strong financial disincentives to rocking the boat. The same goes for many public officials. But citizens with nothing to sell are free to express their political opinions and should do so with vigor. And dissent has to go beyond uncovering disinformation and obfuscation by official sources -- it means ensuring that some social good comes out of this conflict.
Iraq is a basket case and the war against this regime will be brief unless Allied forces stay on long-term as an army of occupation. The administration knows this: reportedly, American troops are being told not to fly any flags at all since this would be considered provocative in other countries.
The implications for anti-war advocates? My feeling is that if the US and UK governments describe this as a war of liberation, they should be beholden by their own citizens to act as though they mean it. I am sceptical that setting up democratic institutions in Iraq can trump economic self-interest, but without continuous public pressure both from here and overseas, it has no chance at all. Everything in this government's past conduct (and their predecessors') suggests they would prefer a cabal or an authoritarian regime in Baghdad.
And while "we" impose democracy, why stop at the borders of Iraq? -- let's have it all over the middle east, please.
Hmm...In retrospect, wasn't it a little peculiar that Bush's Monday-night 48 hour ultimatum speech only demanded the removal of Saddam and his two sons? I mean, wouldn't you have expected a few Special Republican Guard and mukhabarat heads, Tikriti cousins or other senior Ba'ath officials to be on Bush's list?
In the context of psychological warfare operations (aka disinformation) already in progress, it's impossible to tell which of the various defection and desertion rumors flying around may be true. But it's conceivable that resistance by many regular Iraqi Army forces will indeed be minimal. At the very least, some units will likely surrender wholesale sooner than expected. Could there even be a coup in the offing? Just asking... And by the way, what's the US plan for housing all those Iraqi POWs?
I'm not at all a fan of his but check out Thomas Friedman's historical analogy for what will likely start in the next day or so:
Some 35 years ago Israel won a war in Six Days. It saw its victory as self-legitimating. Its neighbors saw it otherwise, and Israel has been trapped in the Seventh Day ever since — never quite able to transform its dramatic victory into a peace that would make Israelis feel more secure.The prospects for a Middle-East Marshall Plan don't look good: handouts and "hands-ups" are sooo last century. Friedman trusts that this government places a high value on building democratic institutions in the region. On what evidence? As for "the wisdom of their predecessors", I haven't heard any in this administration's rhetoric.
More than 50 years ago America won a war against European fascism, which it followed up with a Marshall Plan and nation-building, both a handout and a hand up — in a way that made Americans welcome across the world. Today is a D-Day for our generation. May our leaders have the wisdom of their predecessors from the Greatest Generation.
But the warning about the outcome of the Six-Day War -- a case of a truly defensive pre-emptive war if ever there was -- should be a sober reminder to Washington of the futility of unilateralism over the long haul...
Tuesday, Mar 18, 2003
Just back from a long weekend in New Orleans. Excellent food -- duck gumbo, turtle soup and rabbit stew in particular -- uptown at Jacques-imo (that's "jackomo") Cafe on Oak by the Maple Leaf Bar. Then in the Quarter, Susan Spicer's Bayona on Dauphine Street was pricier, delicious and features an outstanding wine list. Both are well worth a visit. For uplifting your way out of a hangover, the Gospel Brunch at the House of Blues is just the ticket, but foodwise it's just a buffet.
The recently opened D-Day Museum on Magazine is very well laid out and pretty much as free of jingoism as can be. NOLA was the home of the Higgins Boat Works which manufactured many of the landing craft used extensively in the Western European and Pacific theaters alike. So despite its name, the museum covers both. Only the Russian front is undercovered, perhaps but not so surprising for a museum focusing on the experiences of American veterans. Worth seeing.
Ignored the news for three whole days. (Nawlins is a very good place for this). Coming back to NYC to the news of diplomatic failure and imminent war and the "48-hour" ultimatum, my feeling is that we are at the beginning of a new lawless era in history, whatever the rhetoric of enforcement. Two years ago I couldn't have used the words "new era" without thinking of its optimistic connotations. But that is not the case today. More later.
Defense Department advisor Richard Perle says he may sue reporter Seymour Hersh over allegations of a possible conflict of interest. Summary: Perle is on the board of a company which stands to profit from a certain upcoming war (via "investing in companies which deal in technology, goods and services that are of value to national security and defense") and has allegedly been trying to get the Saudis to invest. The middle-man informant is fixer Adnan Khashoggi of BCCI/Iran-Contra fame. It's a murky tale and at some points Hersh -- or the protagonists' obfuscatory deal-maker spiel -- lost me. Maybe Conde Nast legal had something to do with its lack of narrative precision. Does anyone know anything more about Trireme Management Group? Are they interlocked with Carlyle by any chance? And who owns the construction companies who will get the contracts to rebuild after Mesopotamia is MOABed, anyway?
Dratfink has already linked Mailer's scathing Only in America(NYRB). Norman has come around to something like Gore Vidal's view that plutocracy has now superseded democracy in this land. The old man in rare top form... Hitchens' Perils of Partition (Atlantic) is less polemmical but excellent on the very long aftermath of colonialism and in India/Pakistan, Ireland, Cyprus, the Middle East and elsewhere and the metamorphosis of "divide and rule" into post-colonial fratricidal nationalisms.
Went on a job interview today. Out of practice and therefore nervous but once there found the process interesting. Although the stakes are real, there is a game-like quality to the interplay of revelation and concealment. It resembles an elaborate, bizarre form of courting:
Here's a question -- what precisely is the answer sought? Literal or metaphorical? How much to say, when to stop? Ah, that answer intrigued the interviewer, does one elaborate it? Do you have this type of experience? How much? And how would you cope with situation [x]? How did you hear about us? What's the most important thing in doing this type of work? Excuse me, I just have to ask my colleague something... Actually we don't have an opening in your field, a pity, because we would like to be able... We might hire you if you had experience in field [y], but you don't, so...etc. We'll keep this on file in case something comes up... Thank you and good luck...Despondent after, but just for a while... The inevitable second-guessing stage, the onrush of doubts and superstitions(Should I have applied earlier? Should I have worn something else? Rewritten the resume a ninth time? Worn the other shoes? Am I too old/young/fill in the blank?). A little later, and the going-through-it and the coming-out-the-other-side feel almost -- therapeutic. Pick yourself up, this is how you will cope next time, this is where you should steer things that way rather than this. And maybe it wasn't exactly what I wanted anyway. And so on.
The anticipation beforehand was worse.
Monday, Mar 10, 2003
The proposed new US/UK resolution in the UN Security Council this week (to "green-light" an invasion of Iraq) appears to be facing vetoes from Russia, China and France. I say appears since a few friends of mine theorize that we are in the middle of an elaborate good cop/bad cop ploy in which the French or Russians would jump in and mediate with Iraq at the last minute. This they're-all-in-on-it scenario might be more plausible if GWB hadn't already nailed his colors to the mast of regime change, which doesn't provide much incentive for Baghdad to co-operate.
A NYT columnist writes that if the US/UK proposal is vetoed (and so far they don't even have a majority of the fifteen votes): "This means that the UN as now constituted may continue humanitarian activity but need no longer function as the umbrella which strong nations restrain aggression."
What wishful thinking by Mr Safire! Let's eat our cake and have it too! Be in for humanitarian purposes and step out of it when security issues arise. This is nonsense, particularly since some sort of international (i.e. UN) mandate will be needed to provide legitimate authority in Iraq after the Ba'ath Party leaves office. And such mandates may be necessary elsewhere in the world, too -- in North Korea, even.
Ah, but note Safire's weasely qualifier "strong" before nations! First it suggests that weaker nations have no role to play in restraining aggression. And does he really think Russia and China are weak nations?
Prediction: Going in without a clear UN mandate will provoke exactly the sort of resolution condemning aggression that Mr Safire wishes to see passed, except that such a vote would be directed at the "coalition of the willing" itself.
...At which point Washington will be quick to blame the French Gremans, Russians and Chinese for destroying the UN and trashing international law.