From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: The Gulf "War", Chomsky, and the Washington Party Line
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:56:29 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <9207300656.AA24344@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU writes:


>While Net experience demonstrates that time is best spent in spreading
>information (e.g. co-moderating misc.activism.progressive), not
>endless debate, it is ocassionaly worth for the sake of the
>"bystanders" and observers to correct the record, if not to try to
>"convince" the authors.

 What this means is: "It is better to continue to propagate our version of
Truth than to attempt to deal with any concerns raised by those who would
dare to it."  In this instance at least, the poster does seek to correct the
"record" such as it is.  There is in fact, no "record" which he attempts to
correct--rather it is a continued exercise in Truth by Blatant Assertion,
which most of those familiar to the net are no doubt all too familiar with.
Nevertheless, let us soldier on.

>A recent "critique" of the _The Gulf "War" in Retrospect_ taken from
>Chomsky's _Aftermath: Voices from Below_ article in Z, is a case in point.

>(1) The mental acrobatics in response to Chomsky's observation that
>the Gulf "War" qualifies as "slaughter, not war" merit little
>attention aside from noting that even the most rabid flag-wavers are
>likely to be well-cognizant of the fact that what took place was
>indeed Slaughter, and that the mental contortions (e.g.  Chomsky's
>observation that destruction of sewage systems etc amount to
>biological warfare "contradicts" the earlier observation) are the
>result of the familiar mentality which sees "we" the State as always
>Good (or Well Meaning) and the subsequent necessity of protecting
>oneself from the most obvious but uncomfortable truths, including the
>self-evident Gulf Slaughter.

 In truth, all the acrobatics come from Chomsky's side of the debate.  He 
states that the Gulf War was not a war in that both sides were not shooting
at each other, but only one was.  This "rebuttal" has dropped that uncomfor-
table untruth, since only the blind might be excused for not noting that
the Iraqis did indeed shoot back.  The author took pains to describe certain
actions as terrorism, not warfare, and then in the same breath called them
a form of warfare, in a spectacular attempt to load his words with as much
emotionalism as possible without care to consistency.  While the War may
indeed be termed a slaughter with some degree of accuracy, one cannot simply
state that because it was A, it cannot be B.  The second half of the above
paragraph proceeds with some physcological meanderings which are as inaccurate
as they are distracting from the real issues.

>Some other points are well-worth addressing insofar as their
>distortion obscures the central issues for everyone.

>(2)

# [Chomsky writes:]
#>    "State Department reasoning was outlined with admirable clarity by 
#>    _New York Times_ chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman. 
#>    If the society suffers sufficient pain, Friedman explained, Iraqi 
#>    generals may topple Mr. Hussein, "and then Washington would have 
#>    the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam 
#>    Hussein." 

>Since this basic reality contradicts official Truth (which eminates
>from Washington -- parroted by the loyal press), we can dismiss this
>with no comment beyond well, it's just this one person saying this.
>Clearly, the only sufficient evidence of crime X would be Bush saying
>"We committed crime X" -- not the historical record in which
>Washington, time and time again, commites aggression and terrorism
>against regimes on the basis of whether or not they are sufficiently
>obedient, and on that basis (including Corporate interests etc) alone;
>while, time and time again, supporting vicious thugs -- Saddam
>Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeni, El Salvador, Guatemala, South Africa,
>Marcos ("we admire your dedication to democratic principles and values
>-- Vice President Geroge Bush to Phillippine Dictator Ferdinand
>Marcos), and the list goes on.

  In point of fact, this may well be true, and this poster has made no
attempt to say otherwise.  But it is also worth noting that, once again,
one statement by one man proves absolutely nothing.  The paragraph proceeds
on with a list of unsavory characters supported by various US governments
at one time or another.  He proceeds of course to ignore the other factors, 
of course:  Saddam was preferable to Khomeni, the government of El Salvador
while unsavory, was better then its opponents, that Washington supported
Corazon Aquino's defeat of Marcos in democratic elections (and against those
military factions who later opposed her), convinced South Africa to begin
to put an end to apartheid, arm-twisted the Isrealis to the peace table with
the Palestinians, and armed the guerillas of Afghanistan against
the Soviet puppet government.
     In short, while the US has perfomred many reprehensible acts, it has 
also performed many good ones, which are conveniently ignored by the 
"America is Evil" crowd.

  As a side note, "corporate interests" would have been better served by
letting Saddam be in Kuwait.  Oil is oil, no matter who sells it, and
indeed, the oil companies that the ignorant assert were so in favor of the
UN actions would have made far more money under high oil prices than low,
which any perusal of oil company profit statements during an "energy crisis"
would clearly indicate.  The risk undertaken by the Administration in
pursuing this policy were in violation of this simple economic reality.

>The documentation by Chomsky of Washington's refusal to deal with the
>Iraqi democratic opposition, for fear of a disloyal regime, in favor
>of their preference of allowing the vicious thug Saddam to stay in
>power there being no suitable "iron-fisted" and, crucially, loyal thug
>to take Saddam's place in clear view for Washington, and other
>irrelevant facts, can all be dismissed with no comment, since it is
>plaintly true that Washington couldn't possibly be that amoral, as
>evidenced by their repeated assertions that Bush and company are
>actually doing their best to further Demoracy, Human Rights and other
>High-Minded Goals.

  This is smoke screen.  My post at no point condoned this action by
Washington.  I repeat that the old-line politicos desire for "stability"--
while not entirely a bad goal--was nevertheless ill-advised in this case.

[repetitive diatribe deleted]

>This "pragmatism" aside, however, the very next instant we rebound to
>the original Party Line: "we" (Washington) are always doing good -- or
>else failing to do so due to "tragic mistakes" and "errors of
>judgement" -- in the name of Democracy and Freedom and Human Rights --
>never deliberatly acting in hostility to their principles "we" hold so
>dear, the vast historical records and facts be damned.

 Here it would appear that Chomsky demands no less of the leaders of the
US absolute perfection in picking sides, and generally ignores the
uncomfortable truth that world is not Black and White, and sometimes
the lesser of two evils is the only choice available--unless he truly
believes that the Iranians under the brutal rule of the Ayatollah were
truly better off than under the iron hand of the Shah.

>[The U.S. "wanting to protect friends" translates into: support for
>useful dictatorships (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) 

 Which, oddly enough, also have the support of their populations...at
least to the extent of working withing the system to change it.

>(not to mention
>transparent excuses to avoid a non-military solution to Hussein's
>aggression),

  To which there were none that would work.  Actually, as all well know,
there was one non-military way to end all this:  Saddam's withdrawal of
Kuwait.  By his words and actions it was made clear that he felt the US
would not attack--he had no intention of leaving.  Unless one believes
his "support" for the Palestinian cause--which was as nonsensical as the
idea of the US invading Iceland to demand Soviet withdrawal from the Baltic 
Republics.

> just as this same policy was demonstrated with brilliant
>clarity by Bush's long-time support for his buddy Saddam -- so long as
>he too was a *Useful* Brutal Murderous Dictator, not the complete
>opposite, the Disobedient Brutal Murderous Dictator whose citizens,
>long suffering underhim in no small part due to U.S. support, we must
>no slaugher in mass, to make sure the Lesson is clear worldwide to
>other of our Useful Dictators (or democrats contemplating "crossing"
>Washington's by putting domestic relief ahead of Washington's
>interests)]

  Once again truth by blatant assertion, and a complete refusal to see the
world in terms other than black and white.

>#  Ahh, the old, "They're being hypocritical" line.  The most important 
>#thing here is not that the US and the UN lived up to its creed, but 
>#has failed to do so before.  When a wrong is righted, even for base 
>#reasons, it is still righted. 

>There are two issues here: first, it should be transparent enough even
>to the Party Line loyalists that Chomsky is using this hypocrisy to
>point out the general "policy guidelines" just outlined above, which
>turn out to have little to do with Demoracy, Human Rights, Freedom,
>nor, in this case, with love of International Law. This observation
>which Chomsky makes is evidently basis to any understanding we might
>wish to have of U.S. foreign policy, if only we are willing to face
>the very unpleasant conclusions about the nature of the regimes which
>have long occupied Washington.

 The issue is the same.  Because Washington's motives were base ones,
the entire episode is to be regarded with scorn and to be attacked as
Evil.  Saddam's own base motives and similar Evil are of little consequence
beside this fact, at least to Chomsky and his supporters.
  Were the US to now play world policeman, installing "our" idea of
free and democratic government everywhere, these same people would be
screaming about US imperialism, despite the fact that that is what they
are indeed crying for.
  In attacking US actions in the gulf, Chomsky and his ilk pretend that
this took place in a vacuum, where no other considerations existed,
casting a blind eye to the fact that some good was done, and happy endings
are all too rare in the real world.

>The second issue raised is that the United Nations and International
>Law were in this case too make a mockery of, not using repeated U.S.
>vetoes of Security Council resolutins, but by bullying, buying, and
>generally railroading the U.N. into violating its own principles to
>rubber-stampt Washington's intentions of resolving the crisis by force
>-- the arena where the U.S. reigns supreme and here where in the New
>World Order "we" woule like all issues to be resolved -- 

 The only countries not supporting the UN resolutions with any degree
of regularity were Cuba and Yemen, not well known for the upstanding
moral views of their governments.  Many, many countries made contributions
to the Gulf War, none of which the US was in any position to coerce, bully
or bribe them out of.  Japan and Germany are but two examples, and can include
the Czech chemical warfare unit which was fortunately not needed.

>not sanctions
>and diplomacy, which are reserved for decent folks like South Africa,
>whose "military aggression and destabilization of its neighbors cost
>the region $10 billion in 1988 and over $60 billion and *1.5 million
>lives in the first nine years of this decade."* according to a U.N.
>study (which like the Greenpeace report we may dismiss without ever
>looking at since it contradicts doctrinal Truth, reality be damned),

 In fact anybody who cares to look can see the actions of South Africa.
This is simply a return to the "hypocrisy" argument already dealt with.
The rightness or wrongness of past activity by American governments has
NO BEARING on the rightness or wrongness of current courses of action.
Constant harping on this fact only serves to cloud that the actions in
the Gulf were fully justified by any rational measure, and painfully
obvious to any observer of history.


(6)# Note the shifting of blame.  While Saddam continues to flout the 
#agreements made at the cease-fire, violating them whenever he gets 
#the chance, the US is made responsible for all the suffering that 
#results.  The idea that Saddam's compliance with the UN resolutions 
#might end the embargo seems to continually escape the "bleeding 
#hearts and left-fascists." 

>By now the game is old: Our long-time support for this Murderous Thug
>and the suffering he inflicted; our blocking of a non-military
>resolution to the conflict so well documented in _Blocking the
>Diplomatic Track_, our letting Saddam stay in power, our turning away
>of the Iraqi democratic opposition, none of it is our falt, so it is
>unfair to "shift the blame" in these cases; or, in the case of the
>dictator we chose to keep in power hoping he has learned to be a Loyal
>Vicious Murderous Dictator again (or at least keeping out the
>unreliable Iraqi Democrats while we look for a Loyal Thug to replace
>him), if tens of thousands of Iraqi children starve -- even if this is
>a fate we could easily avoid were we to temporarily suspend our
>holding the population hostage, this too is clearly "not our fault" is
>it is yet again unfair to "shift the blame" to the global power that
>excerises supreme influence over the region, holds all the cards, and
>is fully capable of having prevented these devastations had it pursued
>policies vaguely reminiscent of it's rhetoric years ago, and is fully
>cabable of stopping the current suffering of Iraqi children (and men
>and women), who is clearly not to blame, since the Murderous Dictator
>we helped insure would stay in power for years could do something to
>stop this too, so it is irrelevant that the death of these children
>could be prevented by *us*, among other equally thought-out arguments.

  In short this tirade again strive to place the blame at the once
force which may actually have done anything at all to help, from the
same groups which screamed at the government not to involve itself
in Iraqi internal affairs, who absolve Saddam of all blame in this
human tragedy, which could have been avoided months ago by the simple
expedient of leaving Kuwait, a sovereign nation, and returning to his 
own borders.  Now, months later, with evidence of his total disregard
for anything resembling what we might call morality in the west piling
up in droves by the day, it is not his fault that UN inspectors are 
prevented from looking for evidence of nuclear weapons, and has continued
to crackdown on Shiites and Kurds, and generally violated every term
of the cease-fire possible.  This goes on to ignore the simple fact that
a continued embargo from day one would have had this same effect on the 
Iraqis, with the same effect on Saddam--that it is to say, none.  It should
be painfully obvious that ever were Iraq to sell its oil (and it has sufficient
cash to spend now, in reserve) it would not buy food for its people,
but arms for its armies, just as it has always done.


>[That the "effectiveness of weapons were accurately portrayed by the
>military" or the media in the made-for-TV war-games which so
>accurately explained that a whopping 7% of the bombs were "smart" and
>75% of the other bombs missed their targets -- is not worth addressing
>beyond this]

  This says absolutely nothing which any fool could not have seen.  The
media were happy to report on things they knew nothing about, and if
the military was not terribly interested in giving away highly useful
information to the Iraqi army via CNN, one wonders how they can be blamed.
The 75% figure is thin air, and not borne out by other accounts.  Any
who observe the military could have predicted the proportions with ease.
Tony Cordesman on ABC did just that.

  Chomsky and his apologists ignorance of matters military is woefully
apparent.

[long and almost humorous in its transparent attempt to cloud the real issue,
the Gulf War, paragraph on Central America deleted.  Chock-full of Blatant
assertions and outright untruths, it goes far to continue the underground
orbiting of the unfortunate Mr. Orwell, who would recognize it for what it
is, doublespeak of titanic proportions.

>The extent of the lies about Central America is such that Orwell would
>turn in his grave many times over, so there is little one can do but
>sigh and offer the several dozen files from the Automatic Archiver
>which, taken together, can finally document the truth and lift away
>the veil of lies. [file listing enlcosed, followed by how to use the
>GET command]

  While I may well read these, if only for the humorous conclusions they
will likely draw, they have nothing to do with Desert Storm or the events
in the gulf.  Simply more smoke screen to distract from unpleasant truths 
the "Americas is always Evil and Wrong" crowd.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm