“I wish I were a writer, but all I have is how I feel about the big, scary nightmares that face us, and a growing despair that we will continue to spiral down into the blackest pit of us and them, with only hollow lies to cling to. All the while without a clue as to who are we, and who are they.”
Webdiarist David Makinson was honest enough to admit he wasn’t sure how we should respond to September 11, 2001. His first contribution to Webdiary came after the Bali bombing, and he’s since been locked in debate with John Wojdylo about the threatened war on Iraq. He’s been working on a detailed piece about the state we’re in, the nature of our discourse about it, and the basis for his conviction that war on Iraq would be disastrous for a while now, and today I publish the result. Thanks David. You speak for many of us.
To begin, David’s first take on the state of the world after the Bali bombing, first published in Searching for hope (webdiaryOct15).
***
David Makinson
This is an extract from a letter I wrote to a friend (of socio-political bent) last night. I usually try to be constructive, but I cannot find it in me at the moment. I think I am beginning to despair.
It surprises no-one I suppose, but it still defies belief, that commentators from across the political spectrum are using (yes, “using”) the Bali atrocity to score points off their rival pontificators. It is deeply sickening.
So now it’s definitively established to those of the right that the bleeding hearts have been exposed as fools, whilst it’s equally clear to those of the left that here is proof-positive that the macho, militaristic posturings of the right continue to rain catastrophe upon us.
I want to scream: Wake up, people! These horrible events prove neither faction right. Surely it’s obvious by now that we’re all wrong? Our romanticised assessments of what we define as good and evil, and our yearnings for the simplicity of black and white solutions, are delusions. The world lurches from futile rhetoric to ineffective response and still our people are dying.
Unnecessary deaths. Politicians and commentators of all persuasions will seek to portray their particular cause as noble because we have lost our friends. We must reject this cynicism. Be clear that these poor, poor people died for nothing – a tragic symbol of an abject failure of leadership.
Politicians failed to protect them. The experts of right and left have had no effect. We must not reward them by jumping on any of their various bandwagons. Just cry and cry and cry for the wasted victims and the torment of their loved ones.
The left says our government’s public support of the US makes us a target. We sense the truth in this. The right says that it is folly to think that a passive stance will protect us. We sense the truth in this.
The right says a military solution is the only solution. They may be correct. The left says violence begets violence, and they too may be correct. Neither group can recognise the merits in each other’s case, and so the true, far more complex solution eludes us.
President Bush said, in the seeming long ago, “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”. Wrong, George. We’re against both of you. We wonder if perhaps you deserve each other, but we’re certain we have done nothing at all to deserve you. We, the cannon fodder, oppose you. We are the innocent people of Australia, the US, Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, the world, and we are opposed to you. It’s not as simple as us and them. It’s about all of us.
For myself, every instinct I have says we need to seek an active path of peaceful action and engagement if we are to have any chance of working through these troubles. I believe this is the test of courage we need to confront – to engage these people at the root of their grievances and hurts – both real and imagined.
I am not optimistic that we can pass this test. I fear our bravery does not run that deep. The pragmatist in me recognises that we will resort to force. We will dress this up in words of action and purpose, and imagine it a considered and effective response. We will convince ourselves it is necessary and just. It is neither – and it will not work.
It is a dark time. I fear for my children. I am conscious that I offer no solutions. Doubtless the right and the left will have many. Let us pray that somewhere amongst the dross is a kernel of constructive thought which can be built into hope.
***
Reflections on the dishonesty of debate, left or right, what Tolkien would make of things, and disbelief.
by David Makinson
I wish I were a writer. Then I could find the words that would get my message through with some approximation of what I actually mean. As it is, I struggle for expression, unlike so many of the talented people who contribute to this place. I lack their education, their wit and, occasionally, their knowledge, as some of them delight in pointing out.
It is like pulling teeth for me. And despite my very best efforts, I find I am consistently misinterpreted. So when I say no to your war, the reply is you advocate doing nothing, you seek to appease. I never said that. You did. I don’t know how to respond to your interpretation, unless it’s to defend the position you manufactured. But it’s your proposition, not mine. You defend it.
When I say I oppose unlimited mandatory detention of refugees the reply is that I have signed up for the open door brigade. I have no response other than simple denial. That’s not what I said. You made it up. If I respond you have succeeded in sidetracking the debate. Good writers seem to be able to do this at will.
I read the Devines, McGuinesses, Hendersons, Akermans, and Albrechtsons and I can only admire their skill. I wish I knew how to do this. A recent offering from McGuiness shows a man at the pinnacle of his art. WTO protesters think Bali victims deserved it. It’s wonderful. He just made it up. He said that, not the WTO protesters, but now they have to defend it. Truly, magnificently, awesome.
Yes, I wish I were a writer. But all I have is how I feel about the big, scary nightmares that face us, and a growing despair that we will continue to spiral down into the blackest pit of us and them, with only hollow lies to cling to. All the while without a clue as to who are we, and who are they.
***
A hypothesis: I suspect many of us have spent most of our lives completely asleep when it comes to matters of international politics. To our consternation, we now find ourselves at something of a loss as the world and times we live in start to slap us in the face on an almost daily basis. What’s that you say? Go back to sleep? Can’t. We wish we could. It keeps us awake, night after night.
***
The trigger for my own dormant sensibilities was the day the good ship Tampa came to the rescue of a leaking refugee boat. I think I discovered that day that I am an alien. Or living amongst aliens. Whatever – same result. “How can we not help these people?” I asked, perplexed.
“They will build a mosque next to your house and rape your children,” I was told. “You want to open up our borders to any and everyone.” No I don’t. You said that, not me. “Leave them out at sea. Push them back to Indonesia. Send them to Nauru.” You said that too.
And later – inevitably – they are terrorists. “How do you figure that one out?” I dared to ask. “You are condoning September 11!” the retort flashed back. No. You said that, not me.
It’s a great tool for those who would quash meaningful debate. Put up an absurd straw man argument and pin it to your opponents. So simple. More recently, our own Margo stood accused of blaming the Bali victims. But no, Bob said that, not Margo. But did it get Margo on the defensive? Did it ever. Even the writers themselves fall victim to the cheap trick. The politicians have learnt the writers tricks. Or perhaps it is vice versa, it matters little.
Alas, because I am no writer, I do not know how to respond to these cunningly manufactured assertions. Simple plain language rebuttals don’t seem to work, but I keep trying. In these pages I have been labelled everything from a Chamberlain to a Quisling. I am neither. Seemingly intelligent people conclude in one breath that I am a peacenik (which I am not) and in the next that I am a Nazi sympathiser (which I am not). They then seek to have me defend myself against their imagined positions (which I will not). Their arguments are so cunning they fly right above my head. Ah, I wish I could write like that.
[Aside: Just last night – not from a writer or a politician, but from someone whose opinion I value – “I sometimes think you support the terrorists.” Where that comes from, I cannot say. I certainly cannot defend the idea. No, dear. You said that, not me.]
***
Left, right, left, right
The world, we are told, has changed. No doubt this is correct. I wonder if this also applies to the world of politics. The old clarity of left and right has been looking shaky for some years now, and it starts to look as if the post September 11 world will kill it off once and for all. Certainly both right and left appear to have not a clue between them about how to deal with the global issues that confront us.
In correspondence post-Tampa with one of the right wing journalists I mentioned before, I was told that I was obviously a highly rational man, so why didn’t I accept his (very right wing) stance? I wrote back that I thought he had probably answered his own question, and the correspondence pretty much ceased thereafter. That writer’s articles continue to veer erratically between racism and bigotry.
Let’s cut to the chase. The trouble with most of the right wing positions are that they are just plain old fashioned stupid. They are self-destructive and just don’t stand up to any kind of reasoned scrutiny. Stupid and dangerous. “Ah ha! You are a bleeding heart lefty!” I hear the triumphant howls. No I am not. You said that, not me.
The trouble with the left wing, at least in the media, is that whilst they are sometimes good at diagnosing the problems, they remain entirely hopeless at proposing realistic solutions. This may (or may not) be intellectually OK, but is quite useless in practical terms. Because they propose no alternative to indefinite mandatory detention, they stand accused of opening the borders. Because they do not propose a response to terrorism they lay themselves open to the charge that they in fact advocate no response.
I think people are starting to wonder where they fit in the political spectrum. Are we of the right, or the left? I believe more and more people are rejecting both camps. Many of us despise both positions. The right is too automatic, too kneejerk, too close in its responses to the terrorists themselves. As you kill, so will you be killed. Contains circular reference – does not compute. It’s stupid for Osama Bin Laden, and it’s stupid for us. Bomb Iraq? The war on Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with stopping terrorism, you stupid, stupid bastards. The only question is whether your stupidity is sincere, which is horrifying, or contrived, which is terrifying.
The left just seems weak, bewildered and profoundly leaderless. Little wonder the right is in the ascendancy across the world. If the left truly believes in zero response to terrorism, or an open borders policy on refugees, let them say so. If that is indeed what they’re saying, then I am certainly not one of them. Those positions are almost as stupid as those of the right.
So we political refugees wonder if perhaps our new political home is in the centre. Or perhaps completely outside the traditional framework. I am certain increasing numbers of people are asking these questions. I don’t know if it even really matters, but I believe it might, because it may well provide a further push towards non-alignment in political affairs. I voted Green for the first time in the last election (admittedly out of desperation) but an intelligent independent viewpoint would certainly be attractive to more and more of us.
So what do we actually stand for? It’s very hard to find much certainty. I wonder if it is possible to define one’s position by what one clearly opposes. I am entirely clear on a number of those things. If I look at things from this perspective, I am clearly more opposed to the right wing and its bias to reaction over reason than I am to the left wing, whose bias to reason leads so often to inaction.
Why? Probably because the right wing is heavily armed and infinitely dangerous. In our times at least, the left is mostly harmless, to borrow from Douglas Adams. (The right will jump on this, pointing out exactly how dangerous the do-nothing left really is, but the proposition is weak at best).
I have been labelled recently in Webdiary as openly reflective. I think this is observant, and it has been very helpful to me in trying to sort out my head, so I thank Robin Ford. (See Seven precepts for disempowered people, webdiaryNov21.) Robin also turned me into an adjective, which is a novel experience!
The openly reflective description was not offered as a compliment, but more as a neutral perspective on the ultimate futility of the ongoing verbal stoush between John Wojdylo and myself. On that too, Robin is correct. It is advancing nothing, so I propose to stop (after one last go, naturally). I will thank John however in that he has also played a part in helping me to sort out my thinking and confirming my complete and irreversible opposition to his philosophy.
I choose to believe that he and I in fact share much common ground. We both want the elimination of terrorism and the reduction of threat across the world. I choose to believe that our dispute is not about the goals, but the tactics. I think John acknowledges this.
John and I will never agree on how to deal with these challenges, so I will continue to reject his position and his words of mass destruction as fundamentally dishonest, and he will continue to regard my arguments with contempt. (I know John denies this contempt, but John, believe me – it’s the way you tell it, mate).
John wrote recently: “Different tactics are possible, but these are just part of the same picture – of choosing either action or inaction.” I’ll try to put my position one last time, and then I’ll move on. Different tactics are possible YES. A thousand times, yes. It’s what I have been trying (and clearly failing) to say. But, it’s either action or inaction NO. A thousand times, no. This is where John’s analysis corrupts itself.
An analogy: It is bushfire season. The house has caught fire. John sets out with presumably good and brave intentions to quell the blaze, marching boldly up the driveway, tin can in hand, to douse the flames. He does not hear us chasing him, screaming for him to stop. “Stop, John! That can is full of gasoline!” The real tragedy is that because were all chasing John, none of us has the time to see if we can find a can of water or a hose.
You don’t put out fires with gasoline, and you don’t stop violence with bombs.
For the record, I agree with Robin Ford’s precepts. Robin and John are wrong about one thing however I am not in despair. I had my moments of despair post-Bali, but who didn’t? I am now focussed on hope for a brighter future, as despair will get us nowhere.
More John: “There are no “spaces between” – or third way – that we can escape into.” Wrong. It seems to me that John is the one who is in despair. Of course there are other paths we can choose to take. Always. Countless ranges of options and alternatives. If we could just for a moment stop fighting John and his ilk, we might just have the time to find the right way. In the end, John’s philosophy of it’s either bloodshed or it’s bloodshed is deeply and darkly hopeless. He offers no light, yet castigates those who would try to find the switch.
Robin, I actually hold increasing hope that reason will prevail and there will be no war on Iraq. I am doubtless kidding myself, but I earnestly hope that in my own very small way I am promoting this outcome. Some might say this is a complete waste of time, but it is born of hope, not despair, and I will keep trying.
In the end John’s position ain’t gonna change, and neither is mine, so I hereby declare peace. I will fight no more with John.
***
Incurable romantics and the Tolkienisation of the Right. (And where is Mount Doom?)
Welcome to Middle Earth. Here life is simple. There is Good, which is naturally very good and always good, and Evil, which is, as you would expect, entirely, and consistently, evil. Good stands for liberal Western democracies and freedom and justice for all. Good calls this its Values. Evil hates Good because of this.
They hate us because we are free, say the followers of Good.
Yes, say the spawn of Evil. We hate you because you are free, and it is therefore clear that we must crush you.
Of course, says Good. And because of this troublesome attitude, we will have to crush you first. And we will win.
Certainly you will win, says Evil. That is as it should be. But we will take you to the very lip of the fires of Mount Doom first, and countless supporters of both sides will be maimed and killed.
Yes. This is as it must be. Shall we begin? Slaughter of the innocents first, as ever. Your move, I believe.
Fortunately for us hobbits, we are on the side of the righteous. Middle Earth is comprised of some quite nice civilised bits, and citadels of pure evil, whose denizens hate us only because we are free. They have no other cause for their loathing. The very suggestion is treasonous, our leaders tell us. Are you sure you are really Good, because your questions make me think you might be a bit Evil, which means you are completely Evil, for there are no half measures in Middle Earth.
Also luckily for us, the citadels of pure evil are in far off places such as Mordor. But of late the Dark Lord has been sending out his Black Riders, and they are spreading evilness into the good bits of Middle Earth. This, remember, is because we are free.
This appears to be the world the right would have us believe in. Good and Evil. Pure and simple. No room for complexity, no need for shades of grey. Its black and white, light and darkness. You are with us, or you are with them. Tolkien did not need any annoying complications, or he might have added a few further plot nuances:
Who said it’s because weve got their bloody Ring? It’s because we are free. How many times do I have to tell you? That Ring is a Weapon Of Mass Destruction, got it? What’s that? We’ve got a few Rings of our own? What the hell has that got to do with the price of eggs? And who said we actually trained those nine Black Riders ourselves? Yes, I know Saruman was on our side once. And what was that about us controlling all the resources of Middle Earth? No, I don’t know why the dwarves hate the elves even though they are both Good. A fairer distribution of wealth? No special favours for our mates? Have you gone completely mad? Name, please. Did you say Gandalf the Grey? I see. Shut up, you are sounding Evil! Shut up!
Too many questions by far, but in Middle Earth you can still ask those questions, because (as you are constantly reminded) you are free. For now. In another fantasy realm, George W. Bush famously said There ought to be limits to freedom. Indeed.
Back to reality. The last few paragraphs are clearly preposterous. I imagine John Cleese as an enraged goblin. It would all be very funny if only it wasnt.
Tragically, a very large portion of the world’s population seems to think this way, and for many of them there is indeed a Mount Doom. But not for everyone is Mount Doom in Kabul or Baghdad. For many its on the other side of the planet, in a nice white neo-classical building that flies a banner of stars and stripes.
“Hah! You are anti-American!” No. You said that, not me. (And no, I am not anti-Tolkien, either).
My point: Day after day, our leaders feed us arrant nonsense. A romanticised, fairy tale world that just does not exist. These incurable romantics have a lot to answer for. I am sure they will be the death of us all in the end. Their hopelessly simplistic world view only works in fantasy. And it is deadly dangerous because even if they are sincere (and I am reasonably sure some of them are) they lay themselves open to manipulation by the hawks of the world the vested interests on all sides that will never seek a peaceful solution because, in the end, it does not suit them to do so.
And still a lot of us accept what we are told by people in authority or the media, even though we know all the while that they lie and lie and lie. More on this later. History suggests it was ever thus. It seems there is little real hope that we can fight this, but those who see what is happening have a duty to speak out or we will have no hope at all.
***
History – it teaches us nothing, it seems. Time will say nothing but I told you so, said W.H. Auden, with characteristic insight. Why do we not think? I cannot bear to see our leaders cloaking themselves in a flag as they denounce their critics as traitors. And I cannot bear to see how otherwise good people rally in blindness to the corruption that passes as patriotism in some societies. Quoting historical figures can be perilous when confronting the convictions of the righteous, but just to demonstrate that this has all happened before, I’ve included a selection of the sayings of the wise and not so wise over the ages. Just in case anyone thinks I am well read (I wish!) I found these by trawling the internet for a few minutes. If you don’t need further convincing you can skip this part.
***
Adolf Hitler: What luck for rulers that men do not think.
Julius Caesar: Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervour. For patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and patriotism, will offer up all of their rights to the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Julius Caesar.
Aleister Crowley: The deliberate antagonising of nations is the foulest of crimes. It is the Press of the warring nations that, by inflaming the passions of the ignorant, has set Europe by the ears. Had all men been educated and travelled, they would not have listened to those harpy-shrieks. Now the mischief is done, and it is for us to repair it as best we may. This must be our motto: “Humanity First.” [Note: I understand that the hopeful Mr Crowley may have been something of a witch or a wizard or some such. Evil, no doubt, perhaps even from Middle Earth, so my critics can have a field day this one. Go for it!]
Albert Einstein: He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilisation should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder.
Hermann Goering (at Nuremburg): Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
Howard Zinn: Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.
Arundhati Roy: Flags are bits of coloured cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people’s brains and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead.
I’ve saved the best for last: This from Mark Twain, discussing American wars in the Philippines and in Cuba:
“The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first…. The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: ‘It is unjust and dishonourable and there is no need for war’.
“Then the few will shout even louder…. Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it…
“Next, the statesmen will invent cheap lies…and each man will be glad of these lies and will study them because they soothe his conscience; and thus he will bye and bye convince himself that the war is just and he will thank God for a better sleep he enjoys by his self-deception.”
Right on the money. Truly, the more things change, the more they stay the same. But admiring Mr Twain’s skills of observation offers scant hope that human race is making any progress.
***
Never give up your disbelief
There has been much debate in Webdiary about the importance of belief. I argue that there is quite often a lot of common ground in the things we believe, but our responses to those inputs can be worlds apart. I resurrect this not to reignite that dispute, but as a convenient introduction to what I really want to talk about – disbelief. Specifically, I want to encourage it.
We are lied to all day every day. Lied to by politicians and militants of all persuasions. They are aided and abetted by a compliant and in many cases collaborative media. Does anybody doubt this? If you accept this proposition then your default position has to be one of disbelief. Disbelieve until its proved, and then disbelieve a bit more, because the proof itself must be questioned.
Your disbelief is your only defence.
I fell into this trap myself just the other day. My disbelief was suspended. I believed without hesitation that the latest Bin Laden tapes are genuine, and proof that our nemesis is still out there, plotting our downfall. Later that day someone asked me why I believed it. How do you know it’s not just a convenient ploy of our governments to keep us afraid? It is after all a time-honoured tactic of those who would lead us to war, they pressed.
I didn’t change my view. I still believe the tapes are for real, though I cannot explain why. My disbelief has failed me on this one, and I missed what in the circumstances is a reasonable question.
Interestingly, I think it is the great bulk of the middle class that most often fails, or forgets, to disbelieve. When I talk to my friends about these matters it’s clear that they have often accepted as cold facts the most outlandish of propositions. My friends are by and large very well educated and highly intelligent people (don’t tell them I said that!), but on these matters of global import they are simply ignorant. I do not use that word in a pejorative sense, but merely to describe a complete lack of knowledge. Naturally, their ignorance does not prevent them having strong convictions. Here are some of the things they have believed recently:
* They threw their children overboard.
* They tried to sink their own boat.
* We must attack Iraq because they attacked us on September 11 and in Bali and they will get us again.
* The Bali bombings justify our hard line stance on refugees.
* Saddam and Osama are in cahoots.
* They hate us because we are free.
Nearly all of these are now known to be lies of course, but in my circle of friends, each of these propositions was or is believed automatically, without question. When finally exposed as lies, the response is usually that it wasn’t that important, or it’s OK because all politicians lie.
And now we Webdiarists have our very own lie to ponder – Margo Kingston blames the Bali victims. Sorry Bob, we disbelieve.
I acknowledge that disbelief risks becoming circular. At some point we need to get to a common position and make some decisions. But we are a long, long way from that, so for now, please disbelieve. Disbelieve me too, but disbelieve.
One thing I really do want to ask people to disbelieve is the proposition that the war on Iraq and the carefully misnamed war on terror are in some way linked. The former is matter of expedience, the latter is an absolute necessity.
The true reasons for attacking Iraq lie in matters of corporations and profit, and personal ambitions. Only the romantics claim otherwise.
The reasons for eliminating terror are clear, and speak to simple self-preservation. Finding the right way to address this is possibly one of the central challenges we face. I see terrorism as something akin to AIDS – it is a deadly and virulent disease. I don’t know if this analogy is entirely apt, and there are those who would say with some justification that AIDS is a far, far greater problem, but it does take me to a place where I can say that, as with all diseases, prevention is better than cure. I think that is quite central to my philosophy, if I can lay claim to having so grand a thing.
As everybody knows, western governments have tried desperately to prove links between Iraq and September 11. Despite the application of astonishing amounts of intelligence resources, the link remains unproven. I urge continued disbelief. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Iraq had nothing to do with Bali. The only link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden is that they were both sponsored by the CIA! (I heard that one on a TV show recently, and in stuck in my memory – well it would, wouldnt it?). Iraq has never attacked or threatened us in any way, shape or form. It is never likely to. Yet we threaten them.
“You are pro-Saddam!” No. You said that, not me. The man is a devil. Find him and his cronies and execute them. I’ll even pull the trigger. Just stop punishing his victims – the people of Iraq.
It’s not my usual approach I know, but I am going to adopt the practices of other webdiarists here, and provide some independent support for my position.
***
Remember Rumsfeld’s declaration that the U.S. had “bulletproof evidence” of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? For a bulletproof story, there certainly are a lot of holes, including a report from Czech President Vaclav Havel that suggests there is no evidence, at least of the long-rumored meeting between one of the 9/11 hijackers and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. (Robert Jensen, University of Texas at Austin.)
Myth: Saddam Hussein is “a man who loves to link up with al-Qaeda.” (George W. Bush). Fact: Bush is desperately trying to make a connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks in the U.S. though none exists. As Daniel Benjamin, who served on the National Security Council (NSC) from 1994 to 1999, wrote on September 30 in the New York Times, “Iraq and al-Qaeda are not obvious allies. In fact, they are natural enemies.” An investigation by the NSC “found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship” between the two, Benjamin said. In fact, al-Qaeda militantly opposes the secular Iraqi government and Hussein’s Baath Party (Anthony Arnove.)
Obviously, one cannot prove the absence of connections. There are, however, good reasons for doubting any serious ties between the two. Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime has been ruthlessly secular and has had no love for fundamentalist groups. Al Qaeda, for its part, considers its task the overthrow of all governments in the region that are insufficiently Islamic, and certainly Hussein’s regime counts as such. (One might note that Iraq did not have diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime – in fact, the only countries that did have diplomatic relations with the Taliban were the U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan.)
Of course, hostile parties can sometimes be useful to one another against a common enemy, but no evidence has come to light of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq. Ever since September 11, U.S. officials have been frantically looking for some connection between the two.
War hawks leapt on the report that Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11 hijackers, met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent in April 2001. The Czech government, basing itself on the evidence of one informant – a student who said he recognized Atta’s photograph as someone he had seen with the Iraqi agent five months earlier – said it was 70 percent sure the story was accurate, but the former director of Czech intelligence noted that “These informants tend to tell you what you want to believe” and the head of Czech foreign intelligence was skeptical. The FBI (which ran down “hundreds of thousands of leads”) and the CIA concluded that the report was inaccurate; they found no evidence that Atta was in Prague on the relevant date and some evidence that he was in the United States (Washington Times, 6/19/02; Prague Post, 7/17/02;Washington Post, 5/1/02; Newsweek, 4/28/02 web exclusive; Newsweek, 8/19/02, p. 10; LA Times, 8/2/02).
On September 24, 2002, the British government released a 55 page dossier laying out its case against Iraq. The evidence was said to come from British intelligence and analysis agencies, but also from “access to intelligence from close allies” (page 9). Surely this includes the United States, and surely whatever hesitancy the United States government might have about revealing intelligence information publicly would not prevent it from sharing such information with its closest ally. The dossier presented zero evidence of any al Qaeda-Iraq links
In the last week of September in the face of international and domestic hesitancy regarding the rush to war, U.S. officials again raised the specter of al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein links. Rumsfeld said he had “bulletproof” evidence tying the two together, but, significantly, he did not present any of that evidence and admits that it wouldn’t hold up in a U.S. court of law.
There was one report, charged Rumsfeld, that Iraq provided “unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters”. The report apparently came from Abu Zubaydah, a high ranking al Qaeda prisoner who, according to an intelligence source cited by Newsday, “often has lied or provided deliberately misleading information.” As one U.S. official told USA Today, “detainees have a motive to lie to U.S. interrogators: to encourage a U.S. invasion of Iraq, the better to make the case that the United States is the mortal enemy of Muslim countries”.
The head of the Senate intelligence committee, Bob Graham, said he had seen nothing connecting al Qaeda and Iraq. Sen. Joseph Biden, who heard a classified CIA briefing on the matter, disputes Rumsfeld’s summary. Nebraska Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, commented that “To say, ‘Yes, I know there is evidence there, but I don’t want to tell you any more about it,’ that does not encourage any of us. Nor does it give the American public a heck of a lot of faith that, in fact, what anyone is saying is true.” Intelligence experts inside and outside the U.S. government expressed skepticism, and a Pentagon official called the new claims an “exaggeration.” And French intelligence has found not a trace of evidence of any link. (NYT, 9/28/02; Newsday, 9/27/02; USA Today, 9/27/02; Washington Post, 9/27/02; Financial Times, 10/6/02.)
This said, there is one connection between Iraq and al Qaeda; that an attack on Iraq may well play into al Qaeda’s hands by destabilizing much of the Middle East and, in the words of former General Wesley Clark, possibly “supercharge” recruiting for the terrorist network (NYT, 9/24/02). (Stephen Shalom and Michael Albert.)
***
The above extracts are all sourced from Znet, which is unashamedly left wing, so in the interests of objectivity, I trundled over to iraqwatch.org. We are often recommended to go to this site to get the real facts. The homepage says Iraq Watch is a comprehensive web site devoted to monitoring Iraq’s progress in building weapons of mass destruction. The agenda is at least clear. It’s political leanings seem to be some little distance away from where Znet sits ( to put it as politely as I can).
So what does Iraq Watch have to say?
A couple of extracts:
1. Excerpts from previous political updates, by subject: 10-22-02, Alleged links to terrorism
There is still no clear proof of an Iraqi link to the attacks on September 11, despite media reports of meetings between the September 11 terrorists and Iraqi agents. Nevertheless, in mid-March C.I.A. Director George J. Tenet specifically declined to rule out Iraqi involvement, citing Iraq’s and Al Qaeda’s “mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family”.
Unfortunately for the right, this is the best they’ve got. Here’s another, this time direct from a White House briefing.
BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER, PRESS SECRETARY, WHITE HOUSE
September 25, 2002
Excerpts
Q: We can go back to that in a minute. I have another question. Yesterday in the briefing, you said that the information you have has said al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about linkages between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein this morning. He said very definitively that, yes, he believes there are. And then the President said, talking about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the danger is that they work in concert. Is the President saying that they are working in concert, that there is a relationship? Do you have evidence that supports that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President is saying that’s the danger. The President has repeatedly said that the worst thing that could happen is for people – the world’s worst dictators with the world’s worst weapons of mass destruction to work in concert with terrorists such as al Qaeda, who have shown an ability to attack the United States. And that’s what the President has said.
Q: So why – when Rumsfeld was saying, yes, there is a linkage between the two, what is he talking about?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq. And the point is, in the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late. And we’ve seen that in the past. And so the risk is that al Qaeda operating in Iraq does present a security threat, and it’s cause for concern. And I think it’s very understandably so. If you’re searching, Campbell, again, for the smoking gun, again I say what Secretary Rumsfeld said – the problem with smoking guns is they only smoke after they’re fired.
Q: I’m not looking for a smoking gun. I’m just trying to figure out how you make that conclusion, because the British, the Russians, people on the Hill that you all have briefed about all this stuff say that there isn’t a linkage, that they don’t believe that al Qaeda is there working in conjunction in any way with Saddam Hussein. And there is a mountain of comments, both public and private statements that Osama bin Laden has made about Saddam, calling him a bad Muslim, suggesting that there would be no way that the two would ever connect. So I just – if there’s something, if you have some evidence that supports this, I’m just wondering why –
MR. FLEISCHER: What supports what I just said is that the President fears that the two can get together. That’s what the President has said, and that’s one of the reasons that he feels so strongly about the importance of fighting the war on terror.
Q: So does Rumsfeld have some information that the President doesn’t, that they are, in fact, working together now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I’m going to take a little more detailed look at anything that you’ve got there. I haven’t seen a verbatim quote, so I’ll take a look at that.
***
Ducking and diving. This is the sum of Washington’s case. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the president thinks it might happen. On this basis we are asked to sign up for a war. It is obscene.
You would reasonably expect the above two websites to disagree on just about everything, but on this Iraq Watch and Znet, it seems, are in complete agreement. No proof of any links between Iraq and September 11. Case closed. Why is this even a question of debate?
***
Iraq Watch has some great transcripts of Donald Rumsfeld interviews which everyone should read. Illuminating. Especially if your sense of humour is on the dark side. Oh, what the hell – he-ere’s Donny (courtesy of Iraq Watch):
Q: Mr. Secretary, are you even cleared to say that Saddam Hussein – or there’s no intelligence that you’ve seen that Saddam Hussein has a direct tie to September 11th?
Rumsfeld: I didn’t address that.
Q: And I’m asking that. Do you – have you seen any or is there any intelligence that Saddam Hussein has any ties to September 11th?
Rumsfeld: I think I’ve probably said what I’d like to say about al Qaeda and Iraq.
Q: Mr. Secretary, can we follow up on that just a little bit? Much of the criticism, congressional and others, domestically and overseas, is that neither you nor the president have proven the case, so to speak, about a possible attack on Iraq. Do you know something that we don’t know, that perhaps you’re not willing to share with us – but do you know possibly
Rumsfeld: I hope so! (Laughter.)
***
Another gem:
Q: And on one of your other issues, you say there’s credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven, the issue of safe haven.
Rumsfeld: Right.
Q: Is Iraq providing al Qaeda safe haven?
Rumsfeld: I guess that’s a question of semantics. I –
Q: Just to talk about it doesn’t mean you do it, I guess.
Rumsfeld: That’s possible, although we know there are al Qaeda in the country, and we know they’ve discussed with Iraq safe haven. Now whether the ones that are in the country are there under some sort of grant of safe haven or not is – happens to be a piece of intelligence that either we don’t have or we don’t want to talk about.
***
And another:
…Q: (Off mike) – about – on the one point, you said, I think, that you have solid evidence of the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq, including some in Baghdad. And when you said that, I wasn’t clear what time frame you were referring to, whether or not that is current. Do you currently believe they’re in Baghdad, or are you only talking about al Qaeda in the North in Kurdish-controlled areas?
Rumsfeld: Specifically not, with respect to the last part of your question. We’re not only talking about al Qaeda in the northern part.
Q: So you currently believe there are al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein-controlled areas.
Rumsfeld: I thought I said it precisely the way I wanted to. I can’t know whether, as we sit here talking, the information that was accurate when we got it is still accurate today.
***
Last one, I promise. A chilling pointer to an upcoming attraction – Axis of Evil: The Sequel
Q: And since you – I have a follow-up. Since you were willing to lay out some of the particulars about the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq, are you willing to tell us what evidence U.S. has of al Qaeda in Iran in recent intelligence
Rumsfeld: You know, I’ve been talking about this for weeks. There are al Qaeda in Iran! There are a lot of al Qaeda in Iran. Iran is providing haven. And they’re telling their people they’re not! The government is. And they’re not telling their people the truth. And they are there. And they do not like it when we say that. But they are.
***
Selective quotes? Well perhaps, but not particularly so. Please disbelieve me go check it out for yourselves.
Remember – disbelieve. We are being lied to.
A final note: For those who like me are compelled to try to convert people to the anti-war cause, there’s some helpful material at madre
***
I am off on holiday, so this is my last offering for a little while. Compliments of the season to one and all. Stay safe.