From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.desert-storm
Subject: The Gulf "War", Chomsky, and the Washington Party Line
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:56:16 GMT

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.

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.

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.

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.

A radical exception to this loyal Party-Line --  that Washington couldn't
possibly be an avid practitioner of international terrorism (against
disobedient or convenient targer of what-ever political colors), an
avid supporter of dictatorships so long as they are obedient, etc --
takes place of course when such examples as the preceding
long-standing support for Saddam's brutality against his own people
(or Kuwait's lesser but nonetheless considerable human rights abuses
against those living there), the support of Iran and Iraq in the
slaughter of hundreds of thousands of citizens and conscripts of those
countries, the support of countless other dictators, etc -- for then
we shift immediately to our solemn intonation of our need for
"pragmatism" and "moderation" ("useful terms meaning: "doing as we
please" Chomsky notes elsewhere") which translates into active support
of and often participation in mass-murder, torture, and general state
terrorism -- as the countless Iranians (including under "our SOB" the
Shah), Iraqis,  Panamanians, Salvadorans, and others no doubt
appreciate -- was purely our Prudent desire for "stability" (meaning:
any state of affairs in which things go the way Washington wants,
human rights, democracy, development, or anything else be damned).

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.

[The U.S. "wanting to protect friends" translates into: support for
useful dictatorships (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) (not to mention
transparent excuses to avoid a non-military solution to Hussein's
aggression), 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)]

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Equally elementary reasoning (however, running against the grain of
the Party Line, hence incomprehensible gibberish) applies to the
record of U.S. support for dictators and terrorism (including
participation in) against the wishes of the U.N., as contrasted with
the gushing praise in our Free Press of the U.N. when it served as a
useful pawn for Washington's aims:

#  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.

So Bush's U.N vetos of resolutions against U.S. aggression in Panama
and Israeli aggression in Lebanon merely highlight the realities of
what guides the minds and "hearts" in Washington, and these would be
little need for further discussion of this were absurd claims about
U.S. intentions left alone -- which of course the Loyalists, cheered
along by the large corporations in the business of selling
mass-audiences to clinet companies (the Free Press) and subservient to
the "news-makers", do not dream of doing.

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 -- 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),
-- since they have long fallen into the "Useful Murderous Dictator"
category (for similar reasons to why Saddam had been such; "deterring
Iraqi democracy" as Chomsky put it; the same applies to South Africa,
and anywhere else where control in the hands of *the people* poses
threats to U.S. hegemony and international corporate interests -- and
hence labeled "radical nationalism" which we must fear and oppose,
whatever it's political colors)

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(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.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[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]

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Naturaly, when international-terrorist Washington's war against
Nicaragua is condmned by the World Court, "our" [Washington's] deep
dedication to International Law shines thru, although the domestic
propaganda campaign has been so thorough that the instant reflexive
reponse is that *we* were the victims of evil terrorist agents -- 

(7)# Nicaragua's repudiation of leftist terror exports to other countries 
#has allowed US to start to flow again, as well as UN credits. 

In reality, when the decades-long U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship
collapsed in Nicaragua (the same Somoza who cooperated in the CIA
overthrow of Guatemalan democracy in 1954), Washington worked hard to
maintain the Dictator's dreaded National Guard for the usual reasons
("stalibity" etc) namely, to ensure that there would be no threat of a
deviation from the satellite status of Nicaragua and it's subservience
to U.S. corporate interests -- as is maintained so well in the
death-squad "democracies" of El Salvador and Guatemala where
Washington's concern for human rights shines through, or in Honduras
where farmers go hungry while land is used for it's natural purpose:
enriching U.S. corporations by using export-crops with some crumbs
going to local elites who benefit from the system which maintains the
vast majority in poverty and near-starvation.

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]

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism