PROTESTS GROW -- SO DOES SUPPORT FOR WAR
People protested the war in Iraq from coast to coast today, apparently to no avail. Some 70 percent of respondents to one survey expressed support for President Bush's handling of the crisis, according to NBC-TV.
Demonstrators complained that their rights were being violated, but in fact police and local authorities seemed to be giving them every opportunity to express their views. The greater problem seems to be that protestors are relying exclusively on marches and other public demonstrations, to the exclusion of political organizing.
Our political system pays little attention to street demonstrations unless they are absolutely enormous, and the peace parades are not in that category. For the most part, the demonstrations and parades are probably little more than the latest occupation of a protest community that springs into action at any suitable provocation. Politicians have little trouble ignoring it.
The current war cannot be stopped by street demonstrations of any size. People who are truly opposed to U.S. action abroad, who truly think that the U.S. can act only pursuant to a United Nations decision -- if then -- should go far beyond peace parades and organize a political movement dedicated to their principles. They should lay out these principles, hold candidate for office accountable, and otherwise engage in the daunting political tasks required to change national policy.
One doubts they are up to it.
Saturday, March 22, 2003
Friday, March 21, 2003
SPEAKING OF TYRANTS . . .
Saddam Hussein, in power for almost 20 years, is a newcomer compared to Fidel Castro, who has held Cuba in an iron grip for more than 40. The Castro regime's latest outrage demonstrates that freedom of speech is far closer to reality in Baghdad than in Havana.
Castro's agents recently have arrested at least 65 members of the opposition, including at least a dozen independent journalists, plus organizers of the Varela Project, a citizens' petition calling for freedom of speech and association, amnesty for political prisoners, and free elections. The Cuban National Assembly, a rubber stamp for the regime, has officially rejected the petitions.
The regime cited the dissidents' meetings with the chief U.S. diplomat in Cuba, James Cason, as evidence they are engaging in the crime of distributing "subversive" material from the U.S.
Former President Jimmy Carter called attention to the Varela Project during a trip to Cuba last year. Carter said this week he is "disappointed" by Cuba's handling of the petition project. Carter apparently was not asked to comment on the fact that the Cuban dissidents each face 10 years in prison.
Other American have been openly scornful of the brave attempt by Cubans to secure their rights. USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham, writing almost a year ago, said the Varela project was a "dead letter" and said democratic change in Cuba, if any, would have to be initiated by its leaders, not by dissidents. Wickham's disdain for an attempt to win basic human freedoms is chilling. (read his column here.)
Cuba's leaders have clearly given their answer -- they will not tolerate democratic change. Castro's intransigent attitude raises the question of the best American strategy for liberating the island nation. Perhaps the U.S. should offer normalization of trade relations in exchange for domestic liberalization. Or perhaps we will just have to wait until Castro shuffles off to join Saddam in some dictators' Valhalla, and someone less fearful of freedom comes into power.
Saddam Hussein, in power for almost 20 years, is a newcomer compared to Fidel Castro, who has held Cuba in an iron grip for more than 40. The Castro regime's latest outrage demonstrates that freedom of speech is far closer to reality in Baghdad than in Havana.
Castro's agents recently have arrested at least 65 members of the opposition, including at least a dozen independent journalists, plus organizers of the Varela Project, a citizens' petition calling for freedom of speech and association, amnesty for political prisoners, and free elections. The Cuban National Assembly, a rubber stamp for the regime, has officially rejected the petitions.
The regime cited the dissidents' meetings with the chief U.S. diplomat in Cuba, James Cason, as evidence they are engaging in the crime of distributing "subversive" material from the U.S.
Former President Jimmy Carter called attention to the Varela Project during a trip to Cuba last year. Carter said this week he is "disappointed" by Cuba's handling of the petition project. Carter apparently was not asked to comment on the fact that the Cuban dissidents each face 10 years in prison.
Other American have been openly scornful of the brave attempt by Cubans to secure their rights. USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham, writing almost a year ago, said the Varela project was a "dead letter" and said democratic change in Cuba, if any, would have to be initiated by its leaders, not by dissidents. Wickham's disdain for an attempt to win basic human freedoms is chilling. (read his column here.)
Cuba's leaders have clearly given their answer -- they will not tolerate democratic change. Castro's intransigent attitude raises the question of the best American strategy for liberating the island nation. Perhaps the U.S. should offer normalization of trade relations in exchange for domestic liberalization. Or perhaps we will just have to wait until Castro shuffles off to join Saddam in some dictators' Valhalla, and someone less fearful of freedom comes into power.
Thursday, March 20, 2003
ANTIWAR PROTESTORS MOBILIZE IN DC
Subway stops and other locations in the Washington, DC, area were the scene of hastily organized antiwar protests this morning in reaction to the opening shots of the Second Gulf War. Police have closed the square opposite the White House but are otherwise facilitating the protestors within the usual rules. So far, no one can complain that their rights of free speech have been violated.
The antiwar movement has strong support in the political sector, with Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and others offering caustic criticism of President Bush's policies. Daschle, who voted last year in favor of the resolution authorizing Bush to use force, is now castigating the Administration for failing "miserably" in its diplomatic efforts. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, is working the same line.
Democrats and their supporters in the media are on high alert for any attempt by the Republicans to shut them up. Today's Washington Post claims that the GOP plans to "hammer" the Democrats for their criticism, but if anything the Republican comments seem rather mild. The Republicans seem content to let the Democrats put themselves on the minority side of public opinion, which is running strongly in favor of Bush.
Perhaps they are hoping that the public will emulate the country music fans who reacted strongly to what they perceived as an unpatriotic comment by Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, who told an audience in London that the trio was "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." This did not play well with the flag-waving hard core of country music, which promptly began burning tickets to Dixie Chicks concerns and organizing demonstrations in which their CD's were run over by bulldozers. Dozens of country music stations have stopped playing their songs.
Oops. Ms. Maines now says her comment was "disrespecful" and was motivated by her concern for the children of Iraq, who have allegedly suffered during the sanctions since the first Gulf War (a claim that has never been documented, by the way). It will be interesting to see how long it will be before the fans forgive their waywardness.
Maybe they will write a song about it -- "We know we've strayed from the path that's true, but we're all together now for the red, white and blue."
Subway stops and other locations in the Washington, DC, area were the scene of hastily organized antiwar protests this morning in reaction to the opening shots of the Second Gulf War. Police have closed the square opposite the White House but are otherwise facilitating the protestors within the usual rules. So far, no one can complain that their rights of free speech have been violated.
The antiwar movement has strong support in the political sector, with Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and others offering caustic criticism of President Bush's policies. Daschle, who voted last year in favor of the resolution authorizing Bush to use force, is now castigating the Administration for failing "miserably" in its diplomatic efforts. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, is working the same line.
Democrats and their supporters in the media are on high alert for any attempt by the Republicans to shut them up. Today's Washington Post claims that the GOP plans to "hammer" the Democrats for their criticism, but if anything the Republican comments seem rather mild. The Republicans seem content to let the Democrats put themselves on the minority side of public opinion, which is running strongly in favor of Bush.
Perhaps they are hoping that the public will emulate the country music fans who reacted strongly to what they perceived as an unpatriotic comment by Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, who told an audience in London that the trio was "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." This did not play well with the flag-waving hard core of country music, which promptly began burning tickets to Dixie Chicks concerns and organizing demonstrations in which their CD's were run over by bulldozers. Dozens of country music stations have stopped playing their songs.
Oops. Ms. Maines now says her comment was "disrespecful" and was motivated by her concern for the children of Iraq, who have allegedly suffered during the sanctions since the first Gulf War (a claim that has never been documented, by the way). It will be interesting to see how long it will be before the fans forgive their waywardness.
Maybe they will write a song about it -- "We know we've strayed from the path that's true, but we're all together now for the red, white and blue."
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
FUZZY THINKING WEAKENS CASE AGAINST WAR
One of the great values of free speech is its ability to expose blowhards and fools. This is especially so at a time of great national crisis, such as now, with the nation on the brink of war.
President Bush has had a great advantage in the national debate over war because he has stuck to his basic position and expressed his views with steely determination. He has demanded "regime change" from the start and has never shrunk from the fact that "regime change" in Iraq can only be accomomplished through gunfire and bloodshed. He has backed his words with action.
As a result, according to polls cited by The Washington Post, some 70 percent of the citizens support his policy. Anti-war spokesperson, who have been far less clear about their objectives and means for accomplishing them, have failed to rally much public support.
One reason for their failure is that so much of what they have to say doesn't make sense. The Episcopal bishop of Washington, John Bryson Chane, recently laid out a six-point plan to liberate Iraq without war. His very first point was, "Remove Hussein and the Baath Party from power." He and Bush can agree on that! But how to do it? Why, the U.N. Security Council should establish an international tribunal to indict Hussein for war crimes! That, apparently, would cause him to be resign or be overthrown.
Not likely.
Bishop Chane went on to call for "coercive disarmament" carried out by U.N. inspectors backed by the U.S. military. "The force would accompany inspectors to conduct extremely intrusive inspections, retaliate against any interference and destroy any weapons of mass destruction it found. There should be unrestricted use of spy planes and expanded no-fly and no-drive zones."
Well, yes. That will probably start next week.
Less sophisticated thinkers than Bishop Chane will probably fail to see the difference between the overthrow of Saddam and his party, "extremely intrusive inspections" backed by troops . . . and outright war. It is highly unlikely that Saddam would see the difference, either.
People who seek to influence public opinion at a time like this have got to think and speak clearly. It is perfectly all right to be against war on moral grounds, or to say that the U.S. must not launch a war before it is attacked. But to suggest that the objective of regime change and disarmament can be accomplished without armed intervention is merely to invite disbelief and ridicule.
One of the great values of free speech is its ability to expose blowhards and fools. This is especially so at a time of great national crisis, such as now, with the nation on the brink of war.
President Bush has had a great advantage in the national debate over war because he has stuck to his basic position and expressed his views with steely determination. He has demanded "regime change" from the start and has never shrunk from the fact that "regime change" in Iraq can only be accomomplished through gunfire and bloodshed. He has backed his words with action.
As a result, according to polls cited by The Washington Post, some 70 percent of the citizens support his policy. Anti-war spokesperson, who have been far less clear about their objectives and means for accomplishing them, have failed to rally much public support.
One reason for their failure is that so much of what they have to say doesn't make sense. The Episcopal bishop of Washington, John Bryson Chane, recently laid out a six-point plan to liberate Iraq without war. His very first point was, "Remove Hussein and the Baath Party from power." He and Bush can agree on that! But how to do it? Why, the U.N. Security Council should establish an international tribunal to indict Hussein for war crimes! That, apparently, would cause him to be resign or be overthrown.
Not likely.
Bishop Chane went on to call for "coercive disarmament" carried out by U.N. inspectors backed by the U.S. military. "The force would accompany inspectors to conduct extremely intrusive inspections, retaliate against any interference and destroy any weapons of mass destruction it found. There should be unrestricted use of spy planes and expanded no-fly and no-drive zones."
Well, yes. That will probably start next week.
Less sophisticated thinkers than Bishop Chane will probably fail to see the difference between the overthrow of Saddam and his party, "extremely intrusive inspections" backed by troops . . . and outright war. It is highly unlikely that Saddam would see the difference, either.
People who seek to influence public opinion at a time like this have got to think and speak clearly. It is perfectly all right to be against war on moral grounds, or to say that the U.S. must not launch a war before it is attacked. But to suggest that the objective of regime change and disarmament can be accomplished without armed intervention is merely to invite disbelief and ridicule.
Monday, March 17, 2003
PUBLIC TO GET CLOSE LOOK AT WAR
When the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq begins later this week, the public in the United States and around the world will get an extraordinarily close-up look at military operations thanks to the presence of as many as 600 journalists assigned to units of all four military services. The Pentagon is betting that the coverage will give the public a favorable impression of the war.
The press contingent will be the largest in history and the most extensively deployed since the Second World War. Journalists assigned to units ("embedded" is the military buzzword) will accompany them on the lunge into Iraq and will face some restrictions on reporting but will have far more opportunities to report the sights and sounds of war than if they stayed in the rear.
The "embedding" policy was suggested in the first Persian Gulf War by officers who thought the journalists would have a better understanding of the conflict if they actually lived with the troops for a period of time before the shooting started. Senior commanders, however, still annoyed by hostile press coverage in Vietnam, refused to permit close coverage.
The Pentagon changed its tune this time around, and the "embedding" policy has already yielded a bonanza of sympathetic, up-close-and-personal coverage. Exactly what will happen when the war starts, and nerve gas shells -- the ones the UN can't find -- start raining down, is another matter.
Some journalists have insisted on attempting to maintain a separate, civilian identify, contrary to the advice of veteran war correspondent Joseph L. Galloway, who says that journalists ought to look as much like private soldiers as possible in order to avoid drawing the attention of enemy snipers.
"Those on the recent media exercise who declared that they had to look different, and donned brightly colored shirts and vests or stripped the camo cover off their Kevlar helmet and substituted white tape with a large Press emblazoned thereon," Galloway wrote recently, "are idiots. It is not worth dying to make a statement about your civilian status."
Some journalists camped out in the Kurdish-held region of northern Iraq will atempt to cover the war "unilaterally," without affiliation with an allied unit. Owing to Turkey's refusal to permit U.S. forces to transit its territory, the journalists may not have any choice but to be on their own. Some of them strike a hopeful note about their chances to see some action.
"I think we will have opportunities to hook up with forward units," said Karl Vick, a correspondent for The Washington Post. "The downside is that the American military shoots a lot of people. You might want to be on their side of the line when that happens."
The Pentagon is urging "unilateral" reporters not to "roam the battlefield" but isn't saying it will stop them from trying to do so. They may want to remember the example of CBS correspondent Bob Simon, who went off on his own in the first Gulf War and was captured by the Iraqis. They eventually let him go unharmed, but one can only wonder if Saddam's agents will be so forgiving this time around.
When the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq begins later this week, the public in the United States and around the world will get an extraordinarily close-up look at military operations thanks to the presence of as many as 600 journalists assigned to units of all four military services. The Pentagon is betting that the coverage will give the public a favorable impression of the war.
The press contingent will be the largest in history and the most extensively deployed since the Second World War. Journalists assigned to units ("embedded" is the military buzzword) will accompany them on the lunge into Iraq and will face some restrictions on reporting but will have far more opportunities to report the sights and sounds of war than if they stayed in the rear.
The "embedding" policy was suggested in the first Persian Gulf War by officers who thought the journalists would have a better understanding of the conflict if they actually lived with the troops for a period of time before the shooting started. Senior commanders, however, still annoyed by hostile press coverage in Vietnam, refused to permit close coverage.
The Pentagon changed its tune this time around, and the "embedding" policy has already yielded a bonanza of sympathetic, up-close-and-personal coverage. Exactly what will happen when the war starts, and nerve gas shells -- the ones the UN can't find -- start raining down, is another matter.
Some journalists have insisted on attempting to maintain a separate, civilian identify, contrary to the advice of veteran war correspondent Joseph L. Galloway, who says that journalists ought to look as much like private soldiers as possible in order to avoid drawing the attention of enemy snipers.
"Those on the recent media exercise who declared that they had to look different, and donned brightly colored shirts and vests or stripped the camo cover off their Kevlar helmet and substituted white tape with a large Press emblazoned thereon," Galloway wrote recently, "are idiots. It is not worth dying to make a statement about your civilian status."
Some journalists camped out in the Kurdish-held region of northern Iraq will atempt to cover the war "unilaterally," without affiliation with an allied unit. Owing to Turkey's refusal to permit U.S. forces to transit its territory, the journalists may not have any choice but to be on their own. Some of them strike a hopeful note about their chances to see some action.
"I think we will have opportunities to hook up with forward units," said Karl Vick, a correspondent for The Washington Post. "The downside is that the American military shoots a lot of people. You might want to be on their side of the line when that happens."
The Pentagon is urging "unilateral" reporters not to "roam the battlefield" but isn't saying it will stop them from trying to do so. They may want to remember the example of CBS correspondent Bob Simon, who went off on his own in the first Gulf War and was captured by the Iraqis. They eventually let him go unharmed, but one can only wonder if Saddam's agents will be so forgiving this time around.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)