Has the internet influenced world public opinion on the war? Webdiarist Peter Funnell thinks so.

It has extended the range and sophistication of communications exponentially. People are not just getting information about the war on Iraq, they are developing communities of interest around the globe to explore their knowledge and feelings, form opinions, support each other, and provide courage and understanding. The www has absolutely rubbished Bush, Blair and Howard over Iraq. It has neutralised spin. It can’t be controlled and people are finding ways to become very well informed. Every person can have a voice and as you say, “self select”, and that is incredibly democratic and inclusive.

Its impact on our political scene, when taken in conjunction with the marches will be severe. Consider this: The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have some things in common over war in Iraq. They are unable to convince all their Parliamentary members to go to war over Iraq. Not even UN approval can bring unanimous support by either party for their leaders.

Both now appear isolated from the majority of the Australian people. As a consequence, polling measures such as preference as leader and likelihood of winning an election are rendered useless. We have clearly crossed a new threshold in Australian politics. The marches were not like the Vietnam demonstrations, they were far more inclusive of our citizens. Only one conclusion is possible: Australians do not want to go to war in Iraq. Not at all.

Both leaders are dangerously exposed and vulnerable. Neither have an exit strategy from their poor judgement and inability to read the Australian people or their Parliamentary colleagues. Not even UN approval for war is important anymore for they have both advocated war on certain conditions.

I conclude that the www has matured as means of education and communication and community. Good thing too.

Today, your reactions to the musings of Webdiarists and me this week. It’s one of those weeks – far too many war emails (an unprecedented number) to even read them all. If you’ve written a corker and haven’t got a run, please resend – I’m about to draw a line under my emails and start afresh next week. I’ve just published Carmen Lawrence’s latest column, Why are Australians being sent to kill Iraqis? and Noel Hadjimichael’s ‘westie view’ of Hanson’s comeback The Perils of Pauline. My take on her comeback is in tomorrow’s Herald.

.

To begin, Webdiary’s emerging poet Michael Chong wrote a poem in response to this quote in the extract from ‘The Arrogance of Power’ by former US Senator Fulbright in The people’s instinct on the war: “We Americans [are] severely, if not uniquely, afflicted with a habit of policy making by analogy: North Vietnam’s involvement in South Vietnam, for example, is equated with Hitler’s invasion of Poland and a parley with the Viet Cong would represent ‘another Munich’.”

The Good, The Bad and the Hitlerite

by Michael Chong

“You, sir, are worse than Hitler” (The Simpsons)

Curious that the name Hitler still compels

The Aggressor’s moral arguments,

To polarise and to repel

The virtue of action from that of temperance.

*

Perhaps it’s the spectacle of evil’s great heights

To which the famous dictator had attained,

That can make the aggression’s transgressions look trite

And belittle its adversary’s complaint.

*

Further, villainy that is contrived

From analogies of deeds and names

Cannot be investigated, or be tried

Against facts or any contrary claims.

*

So those that prophesise

The doom of Hitler’s reincarnation

Also tend to emphasise

Swift and immediate retaliation.

*

But the name Hitler is meant to exemplify

Oppression’s grotesque aspiration,

Not some well known battle cry

For power’s latest ambition.

***

Black humour watch

Linda Ellington recommends bbspot for “State Department Warns Americans Not To Act Like Americans”

Recommendations

Margaret Curtain recommends Three mystery ships tracked over suspected Iraqi ‘weapons’ cargo. The Independent has followed it up today at independent.

Jozef Imrich recommends The War correspondent, on reporting war.

Mark White recommends A Rose By Another Other Name: The Bush Administration’s Dual Loyalties, by Kathleen and Bill Christison, former CIA political analysts. It begins: “Since the long-forgotten days when the State Department’s Middle East policy was run by a group of so-called Arabists, U.S. policy on Israel and the Arab world has increasingly become the purview of officials well known for tilting toward Israel.”

***

MURDOCH’S WAR (See Murdoch: Cheap oil the prize and Murdoch’s war: 175 generals on song)

Rod Sewell in Munich

It’s no surprise that Rupert is supporting the US line on Iraq: He’s negotiating to buy the DirecTV satellite TV. No need to upset Congress or the Government just because of a few dead Iraqis. Here as with everything else in this sorry little tale, nothing is as it appears.

***

Vivian van Gelder in New York, NY

Now that you’ve raised the Murdoch issue, can I put my two cents worth in? It’s something I’ve been looking into, and it’s something that makes my blood pressure sail through the stratosphere.

Since your readers picked up on Murdoch’s parrot-like newspaper editors, they might be interested to know that:

(1) vast numbers of Americans get all their news from his U.S. TV channel,

(2) unlike in most other countries this news channel has no counterweight – its popularity is such that all American media have to sing Rupert’s tune just to stay afloat, and

(3) so Rupert’s line is all the news Americans get …

I’m from Sydney and now live in New York. (I’ve been in the States for more than three years). If you’re here for more than five minutes it becomes obvious that objective journalism no longer exists in the American mainstream media. It all skews heavily to the ultraconservative right, while purporting to be “fair and balanced”. It addresses only one side of any argument (thanks in part to Ronald Reagan’s repeal in 1987 of an FCC rule that required equal time be given to each viewpoint on an issue). It’s always the right-wing side. (And still they scream here about the “liberal media”!)

According to what I’ve read on the subject, Murdoch’s Fox News (cable) channel is largely responsible for this state of affairs. Fox is notorious among the media-savvy as the mouthpiece of the Administration (and of the national Republican Party generally) and has been vocally and uniformly hysterical in its baying for war. It runs 24/7 panegyrics on Administration officials and its talking heads mercilessly rip apart any guest who dares to come on and oppose them. (See thismodernworld and scroll down to “Bully Bill” for just one example.)

Fox recently achieved its goal of grabbing the largest audience share of any news channel. This is significant, because most Americans do not get their news from newspapers. Most Americans have cable, too, since in most places you can’t get any TV reception without it. Which means that a substantial proportion of the American public gets its news from an ultra-right-wing propaganda machine. It also means that other channels follow suit to attract ratings and advertisers. And bingo, you’ve got wall-to-wall right-wing news.

Fox’s dishonest reporting has led huge numbers of Americans to mistakenly believe that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 11 September 2001. (Even the Administration hasn’t tried this one.) Its relentless pro-war propaganda has without a doubt had a significant impact on steering American public opinion in favour of war. Your average American, while certainly not an idiot, is definitely not media-savvy: American education is atrocious. (Come to that, how media savvy is your average Aussie these days?) If they are told something is “fair and balanced”, they will believe it. And they have, and this is largely why you have relatively high American support for war.

And for what? So Rupert Murdoch can make even more money. He may have done more than any other man on earth in getting the Administration as far as it has gotten with its ludicrous war-of-aggression plans, by ensuring it national support through unchallenged strategic misinformation. And it was our nation that produced this man, and unleashed him on the world. It’s like Rob Sitch’s Frontline, only it’s not funny.

PS: I went to the NYC peace rally last Saturday. It was huge, despite subzero temps. Most popular sentiment: “Regime change begins at home”.

***

John Nicolay (nom de plume)

Margo, you’re at it again! Take your opening sentence: “Rupert Murdoch is pro-war, and thinks a lower price for oil after Iraq is conquered will be better than a tax cut.”

What is the relationship between the first clause and the second clause, which you have joined with a neutral “and”? Obviously, you can’t *assert* that Mr. Murdoch has confessed to being pro-war because it will lower the price of oil, because that would be easily disprovable. You know well that in the piece you’re referring to he is quoted as saying that he is pro-war because he thinks that Bush is acting “very morally”.

So, you use the juxtaposition to insinuate a connection for which you have not the slightest evidence: Murdoch is pro-war *because* it will lower the price of oil. I believe the trade name for that technique is a “slur”.

It should go without saying, but probably can’t, that Mr. Murdoch’s observation is what any objective observer is likely to conclude: If war is successfully waged, the price of oil will drop, which has an economic benefit similar to a tax cut. What in god’s name is controversial about that? Would he be more virtuous if he *couldn’t* work out that 2 + 2 = 4?

Really, Margo, if you cut out the emotive hyperbole and seething prejudices from your writing on Iraq . . . what would be left?

THE PEOPLE’S INSTINCT (See The people’s instinct on the war)

Andrew O’Connell in Edinburgh

Growing up in country NSW I once saw a huge funnelweb which scared the life out of me. Instinctively, I picked up a rock, took aim and threw. I hit my target, but the rock also ripped open the spider’s nest. To a 10 year old it looked like I’d unleashed a swarm of hundreds of spiders spreading out in all directions. For years after I had nightmares where the spiders spewing out enveloped me, my family and everyone I knew. Ever since it’s become clear that Bush, Cheney and the charming Rumsfield have decided to invade Iraq regardless of the consequences, the same horrible dreams have come back to haunt my nights again.

***

Rean du Toit in Sydney

The whole building shakes, windows rattle. The loud roar of aircraft engines vibrate and howl under stress. Terrified children jump out of their beds and rush to the windows; an eerie, ghostly mist hangs low. There it is, a huge aeroplane, almost touching the treetops, swooping in low on its approach. The terrifying truth hits home, the day has arrived!

This is the first of the bombardment of 800 a day promised to hail all might and misery on us. I am sure I can see the white of the pilots eyes, maybe it is an Australian, no, he can’t be because he doesn’t look at all like David Boon or Paul Hogan. Not an American either because he doesn’t resemble John Travolta or Tom Cruise. It is more like the Angel of Death, angry eyes, hawkish nose and a little black beard, a fanatic! No, it can’t be, but gawd he looks just like Dizzy Gillespie at the end of his bowling approach, screaming in, ready to open the hatches and deliver a screeching, howling, and destructive dirty bomb.

Why this war? There is no oil in West Pymble. We aren’t hiding a smoking gun. When the weatherman last night promised a few showers it was as if George Bush declared that Saddam was not fair dinkum, we were the axis of terror and we were going to pay the full price, a zillion planes were going to howl down on us at dawn. The Sydney flight path had been decided, it was our destiny, doomsday!

I had immediately thought of phoning my mate Hajeeb, who had helped me with the concrete underpinning, and ask him if he maybe had a mobile number for Osama. Perhaps I could offer them shelter in my wine cellar and they could nuke that first flight when it roared overhead? (I wonder if terrorists drink Penfolds?) Perhaps the shed is a better place for them to hold up. It is certainly more comfortable than a cave at Tora Bora.

Ok, I give up, I should have attended the peace march, I hoist the white flag! I’ll make the coffee. I should have voted for that Danny Dingo bloke who leads the other mob, none of this would have happened, I should have trusted him; after all he is a cartoon character.

***

John Augustus

Disclosure: . I’m a Sydney medico and it was my first anti-war protest except for selfish draft avoidance during the Vietnam war.

You certainly well summarised the sorts of feelings in the crowd on Sunday. There was a lot of personal stuff like “Not in my name” – a response to dishonest Governments (well-proven with Tampa, SievX etc and the USA – where to begin!) who can’t be trusted to make moral decisions of behalf of citizens. That we are the aggressors here made this all the more important – nothing eases conscience about violence more than the belief that it is self-defence.

On a softer note, it was also important to let Government know that we are paying attention, that there is a limit to how much we will silently accept, and while war may even be inevitable, brakes need to be applied to the hawks in their planning and execution – doves keeping the hawks flight-path in check. The European response, as complicated and multi-layered as it is, seems to reflect this.

As to the BIG PICTURE, well, how difficult is it to think about war as being our natural state.

Thomas Merton’s book “Love and Living” includes a short essay on War. He cites the bombing of Dresden by the English and Americans to illustrate his points, noting that this bombing killed more than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, that it was not a military target, and was bombed for purely political reasons, a calculated atrocity, perpetrated for the effect that it might have on the Russian ally. It was rationalized as an inescapable necessity (Shock and awe).

The most obvious fact about war today is that while everyone claims to hate it, and all are unanimously agreed that it is our single greatest evil, there is little significant resistance to it except on the part of small minorities who, by the very fact of their protest, are dismissed as eccentric.

The awful fact is that though mankind fears war and seeks to avoid it, the fear is irrational and inefficacious. It can do nothing against a profound unconscious proclivity to violence which seems, in fact, to be one of the most mysterious characteristics of man, not only in his individuality, but in his collective and social life. War represents a vice that mankind would like to get rid of but which it cannot do without.

And the best, most obvious, most incontrovertible reason for war is of course “peace”. The motive for which men are led to fight today is that war is necessary to destroy those who threaten our peace! It should be clear from this that war is, in fact, totally irrational, and that it proceeds to its violent ritual with the chanting of perfect nonsense. Yet men not only accept this, they even go so far as to sacrifice their lives and their human dignity and to commit the most hideous atrocities, convinced that in doing so they are being noble, honest, self-sacrificing, and just.

Though sustaining itself by the massive pseudologic of its own, war is, in fact, a complete suspension of reason. This is at once its danger and the source of its immense attraction. War is by its nature supposed to be the “last resort” when , all reasoning having failed, men must turn to force to settle their differences.

The moral problem of war does not begin when men have finally resorted to force. The root problem of war is the occult determination to resort to force in any case, and the more or less conscious self-frustration of any show of “reason” in settling the problem that will eventually be decided by the ordeal of force. The awful danger of war is, then, not so much that force is used when reason has broken down but that reason unconsciously inhibits itself beforehand ( in all the trivialities of political and military gamesmanship) in order that it may break down, and in order that resort to force may become “inevitable’.

This demonic psychological mechanism behind war is at once the fault of everybody and of nobody. The individuals who make the actual decisions are convinced that they are acting seriously and responsibly, and indeed they can convincingly display the anguish they feel in their awful situation. The public applaud their sacrifice and clamor for guns and ammunition. And yet: when examined dispassionately by the historian, it may often be seen how “inevitable” wars could fairly easily have been avoided.

The real problem of war is, then, not to be found in this or that special way in which force is grossly abused, but in the instinct for violence and for resort to force which has become inveterate in the human race.

Is this something that man can learn to change? If so, how does he go about it? What should he do? Where can the study of this dreadful problem begin? Who can say?

Perhaps our first problem is to get rid of the illusion that we know the answer.

***

Roland Killick in Sydney

You ask “What is the instinct at the core of the world’s largest demonstrations against war on Iraq?” How about fear.

And what a comfortable way to assuage that fear by herding together with a whole bunch of warm human bodies to reaffirm a sentiment with which nobody will disagree – that peace is better than war which is bad, bad, bad. Not only that, but we had a nice outing and it didn’t cost much. It also allowed us to demonstrate our moral superiority as members of democratic, Western civilisation. We don’t agree with one nation invading another, so we are allowed to go walk about to vent our feelings.

It’s a pity people don’t turn out before events get beyond the point of no return. Not many marches about the starving North Koreans, or the Tibetans, or the innocents in the Cote d’Ivoire, or the pygmies being eaten in the Congo, or the atrocities and approaching famine in Zimbabwe, or the Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Rwanda, Pakistan, Burma and so on and so on.

Still, it’s not us white westerners (who ought to know better) with our superior civilisation doing it to them. It’s black on black, Arab against Arab, or oriental on oriental. Luckily, its not ethical for us to intervene in someone else’s problem, is it? Anyway what can you expect from people like that? (Oops, how dare I suggest that the teeniest bit of racial superiority motivates us.)

You write tellingly of “the complicity of western governments and companies in the rise of the monster they now seek to destroy”. How come you’ve suddenly left the people and journalists out of it? In fact, how dare you leave us out. How many lines did you write about the rise? How many people marched over the harbour bridge to protest the monster’s birth?

One thing I can’t understand is why everyone wants to cloud the current issue with layers of intellectual analysis. It seems pretty clear cut to me. Osama says that the Western economic system, unified by adherence to the United Nations System of National Accounts, is destroying the world and needs purging, presumably intending it to be replaced by an Islamic system not based on usury. He chooses America being the largest member, targeting the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon as potent symbols of all that he abhors. He encourages his followers to similar acts of destruction.

The US reacts more vehemently than history suggested they might and vows to stop this movement even if it takes years. In essence this means being a credible force in the Middle East and effectively controlling information flows. A good strategic start is to occupy the centre: following which the Wahabis, for they seem to pop up at the end of every terrorist data trail, can be dealt with.

That Saddam is not very nice is something which can be used to tactical advantage. The French and Russians can be bought off at the last minute by allowing their previous contracts with Iraq to stand. The Germans can be quietened down by arrangement with Krupps similar to those at the end of WW11. The 2 or 3 year occupation can be funded by selling oil. Controlling the price of oil will also help stabilise and expand the Western economic system, which will then pay for the military cost of war.

In this way, Osama will be defeated, his followers will be discouraged and controlled, and the superiority of “The Chicago School” reaffirmed.

Clearly, one fear is that those horrible foreigners will blow us up when we visit their towns or even worse, here on our own remote island. But I suspect there is a deeper fear whose expression is now forming. That is the fear that Osama may have a point.

We see governments running away from responsibility – by “outsourcing” (eg road building,) by changing statistics (eg unemployment), by marginalising issues, (eg dryland salinity.) Some of the most basic freedoms which we have taken for granted, such as habeas corpus, are removed overnight and our politicians have no compunction about lying to us.

Almost daily now we see people in positions of power taking sums of money home which are way beyond the aspirations of most people. We see companies being run for the benefits of a very few. There is no longer any correlation between the thing which we value and wealth. Globalisation based on currency exchange is now seen as a source of inequality rather than a living standards improver.

We feel the pressure of market forces give people a lower cost alternative for nothing (say EFTPOS,) then when everybody is hooked, whack a hefty great charge on it.

These things are not due to the venality of human beings. They are the result of human designed systems being worked to the limit. Just as the idealistic young journalist discovers the limitations of the newspaper business, (time limits, space limits, house style, editing etc) and the need to sell, (capture passing attention with those things which evolution has taught us to concentrating on – mangled bodies and sexual reproduction,) so too business is limited by the demands of the system: Make more money, make it faster, reduce short term costs. And the system which governs that has at its heart the USA. Which OBL wants to destroy.

Another fear we have is that our cherished human rights may just turn out to be just a nice philosophical idea with no basis in reality. Sure, democracy gives us a voice but not the right to be listened to. In the accelerated run of things, the government can do what it likes and gamble that by the next election we will have discounted our feelings about it.

To the postulate that human rights exist independently of human agreement, we have not articulated a satisfactory alternative, say a concord between a state and its citizens, to counter that fear. Indeed given the track record of politicians, it seems unlikely that we will get any – unless it helps them consolidate power.

One nauseating aspect of last weekend’s marches was the sight of our politicians clinging to the bandwagon with righteous indignation completely bereft of ideas either to ameliorate the present situation or to deter its repetition.

My own fear now is that I am beginning not to care any more. The US will enter Iraq whatever I think so why should I think? Hey, there might even be a job in it for me! And if it’s not Iraq its Korea. Or Afghanistan. I don’t care about Israel any more: they’ve had 50 years to make friends with their neighbours and if they haven’t learned the lessons of their past then bugger them. And the women of Islam: If you don’t like the rules, change them with your knives. As for Africa, I’ve been told often enough that it is a basket case and maybe I should side with the majority. I don’t care, let them slaughter each other. The people who sold them guns can answer to heaven – if there is a heaven. If I can convince some pension fund managers to give me a few million for my company before I scarper I will. It’s not like I’ll be getting any super when the time comes anyway.

But tell me Margo, just before I close down altogether, is there any point making an effort to vote in March? Is there anyone at all whose policies are worth spending any time examining? Even a little bit?

***

Uri Bushey in Denver, CO

As an American citizen, I am inclined to mirror many of the views expressed in your article – like many others, I am just not convinced that war is the correct and just option at this point in time.

As a citizen, I am offended by your corollary between the Israeli/Palestinian situation and the American/Iraqi situation. As an author of an editorial, your first responsibility is nonetheless to accuracy. There has been no confirmation – and only limited proof – that Israel has a nuclear bomb. If it did, the notion that it would use a nuclear attack in a disputed area in Israel is ludicrous – Israel itself (roughly 8000 square miles), including all disputed territory, is only two and a half times the size of Rhode Island.

Worse yet, you appear to justify the terrorist acts of the PA, the PLO, the Hezbollah, and their likes by stating: “Palestine is reduced to nothing but the willingness of its fighters to die in the cause”. Terrorists as freedom fighters? How can you justify the indiscriminate violence that causes “daily fear of death in the shops or on the bus”?

I may be against a war in Iraq, but I know the difference between terrorism and a plight for freedom from oppression. Please consider using a different metaphor in the future.

OIL

Hamish Tweedy

I just got through Jack Robertson’s piece What the third millennium doesn’t need: Yet more dinosaurs in power and thought it was fantastic. However my understanding of the oil industry is minuscule, so I need further explanation.

To precis what Jack said; increased energy consumption in the US means the US needs greater amounts of oil, Iraq has oil and a brutal dictator no one likes so the US have engineered a war with him, under the guise of disarmament, to depose him and secure their access to oil supplies (as opposed to French, German, Russian and Chinese access, because they already have access to Iraqs oil reserves).

I understand that OPEC (of which Iraq is a member) operates essentially as a cartel – members sit down around a table, look at demand and determine production and what price they can afford to charge. As Jack pointed out this is the money end of the oil business; production.

What I want Jack to explain is what constitutes control of or access to oil. Is it Jack’s assertion that the US will invade Iraq knock Saddam off (along with countless hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians) install a clean and friendly dictator and have their new ally either pull out of OPEC or exert sufficient influence on it to have it raise production in excess of demand and therefore depress the price?

This whole oil question has really given me the shits. I support a war on Iraq sanctioned by the UN, and the thought that my support will be used by the US to gain control of Iraqi oil makes me sick.

Margo: Hi Hamish. I’ve asked Jack to respond to your questions. Webdiarist Peter Kelly recommends The coming energy crisis?, which argues: “All warning signs that existed prior to the energy crises of 1973 and 1979 exist today. Various energy security measures indicate that the potential for an energy shortage is high.”

Anand Vishwanathan in Castle Hill, NSW recommends The scramble for oil, which argues that “the U.S.-led war on Iraq is an attempt to gain access to the country’s oil reserves, the second largest in the world, in the context of fast-depleting global oil resources”. Anand: “The appeared in “Frontline” magazine, published by “The Hindu” group of newspapers based in India. “The Hindu” group is known for thorough analysis and adherence to facts.”