Doug, could you forward this on for me? i can' t seem to get it thru...
I wanted to throw in my two cents on Cooper's article, Cooper wrote:
So why is the left having such great difficulty responding properly to the current crisis? Why is a broad-based peace movement still struggling to be born? Why are we seeing such small and ineffective peace protests?
--I have no idea what he's referring to here.
One problem is that too much of the American left has spent the last year wandering in a political and moral desert. When this country came together in shock and solidarity after Sept. 11, a portion of the left effectively divorced itself from the American body politic. Steeped in four decades' worth of a crude anti-Americanism, it believed that the use of any American military power was and would always be immoral.
--I'm not sure what he means by 'immoral', but how about we believed that it was bound to be 1) part of a broader campaign to rebolster American hegemony and 2) cause more damage to the cause of world peace (including the ever bandied about yet vague notion of 'terrorism')
It couldn't accept, as other, more mature segments of the left did, that a proportionate American military response to Al Qaeda was not only justified but absolutely necessary--not as an act of revenge but as a measure of public safety. Any terrorist network that massacres massive numbers of civilians must be smashed.
--And we could argue that the likelihood of George Bush and the US state leading a campaign that would effectively eliminate the threat that an organization poses to the people of the US was nill or non-existent. Indeed, that was the argument put forth and one that has proven quite on the money, even if (incorrectly) one wanted to entirely isolate the present war mongering from the bombing of Afghanistani military and civilian targets.
Instead, the knee-jerk faction of the left came up with every possible bogus explanation for the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Some said Osama bin Laden was purely an American creation, that the U.S. somehow "deserved" this barbaric attack.
--actually the word "deserved" belongs in quotes here, since none of the people he is aiming this criticism at actually blamed the people of the US or sympathized with Bin Laden. They did make links to the likelihood of the US being targetted by terrorists and past policies. Then again so did numerous mainstream commentators who supported the bombing campaigns. I would think of Ahmed Rashid and lately the Canadian Prime minister Jean Chretien with his speech on world inequality and terrorism as two prime examples.
They refused to see the obvious: Sept. 11 was the handiwork of a conspiracy of bloodthirsty religious fascists.
--Leaving aside whether OBL is fascist, I don't know what capitalist class he is saving or what working class movement he is wiping out in Afghanistan, but who in the opposition to bombing Afghanistan does not see that OBL is not a friend of progressive people. These bizarre accusations with no reference. Do his claims apply to people like Rosa Parks or the Peaceful Tomorrows people? Were there *any* groups or individuals involved in the opposition to the bombing of Afghani civilians who were 'responsible' in his eyes?
Just days after the attack, with ground zero still moking and the search for bodies barely underway, this unhinged faction of the left was already in the streets of Washington protesting the "racist" American war, a war in which the first shot hadn't yet been fired.
--huh? days after the attack the left was walking around in the same stunned state as everyone else as I recall.
And just about every dark prediction made by this faction a year ago has proved false: The U.S. didn't get bogged down in Afghanistan. The Taliban weren't 10 feet tall, and they folded after five weeks, not 15 years.
--I recall Chomsky and Tariq Ali, probably the subject of the greatest venom from the 'responsible left' in the aftermath of 911, both predicted the Taliban would fall easily. *And* keep in mind it wasn't even a goal of the Bush administration, their fall was unplanned and not even necessarily desired.
-- American forces didn't carpet-bomb the Afghan countryside.
--wow...all those reports in the Boston Globe, NYT, Washington Post...the Nation...the Guardian (ok, the Guardian doesn't count, it's British)...Herrold's estimates...all just rubbish...
The post-Taliban government is better, not worse, than the one it replaced.
---the one in Kabul, probably. The one in the rest of the country...sorry, but the Mayor of Afghanistan has trouble controlling much of anything outside Kabul. Every major newspaper has had numerous reports on the chaos that reigns in the countryside of warlord fighting, looting, raping, killing...The NYT even reported a few weeks back about the reemergence of the Taliban in provinces where the warlords are out of control...
And not only were millions not killed, but some 1.7 million Afghan refugees have streamed back home to live under the U.S. "puppet government," the greatest inflow of refugees in decades.
--it is amazing that he could question for more than a second that this Karzai mayoral reign is anything but entirely dependent upon and indeed a puppet of the US. Is he reading anything other than Rumsfeld's press briefings? Does Cooper read the NYTimes anymore? Washington Post? LA Times?
Unfortunately, that same know-nothing part of the left is now trying to lead the movement against a war in Iraq. And so we are treated to the spectacle of former U.S. Atty. Gen. Ramsey Clark (founder of a group called the International Action Center) pleading on national television for peace in Iraq, but steadfastly refusing to criticize Hussein when asked his opinion of the man. Indeed, twice during that appearance, Clark referred to "poor, little Iraq." But then again, why be surprised by these words from a man who is a proud member of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic?
--let me get this clear, one interview with Ramsey Clark is the reason that we have not seen huge numbers protesting (yet)? I've never been entirely satisfied with Clark's Iraq statements, but then again, so what. He could state from the hilltops how much he hates Saddam, would that change anything? Would he be any less ignored or slandered in the media? Would, most critically, the anti-war movement be subject to any less slander in the media or outright dismissal as irrelevant? Give Clark some credit, when confronted with a hostile media, he talks to the public in plain language, he doesn't backtrack, stammer, throw out a bunch of 'but but but's or 'of course we love our president and our country, and we hate Saddam and he is a terrible threat..."...yada yada yada...
Fortunately, there are still a few progressives who can pat their heads and rub their stomachs at the same time, who can criticize Bush's single-minded push for war without becoming simple-mindedly soft on Hussein. And it is these people who should now step into the forefront of the peace movement and displace those who can only see evil in America.
--I doubt Clark is soft on Hussein. I do see him as focused on stopping the bombing and ending the sanctions. A lot more focused it strikes me than Cooper at this point.
To pose an effective, attractive and moral opposition to the administration's rush to war, one that resonates with the instincts and ideals of the American population, the full dimensions of the standoff with Iraq must be honestly acknowledged. Yes, Bush is exploiting war fever for domestic political purposes.
--hang on here, that is exactly what people like Peaceful Tomorrows, Rosa Clarks, Noam Chomsky's were saying about Afghanistan. So the Bush who dropped bombs on Afghanistan is either the same ol' Bush or an entirely new Bush...how to explain the disparity if the latter?
But it's also true that Hussein is a bloody tyrant and that the Iraqi people would be much better off without him;
--if he's overthrown by US forces, don't count on it. there is far more out there to suggest that they won't be better off.
he has violated many U.N. resolutions; he continues to try to develop horrific weapons of mass destruction; he cynically manipulated the U.N. weapons inspection program and might again attempt to do so if it is reinstated.
--this is just silly. He's violated UN resolutions. Who denies that, the question is, how is that related to whether or not the US bombs the bejeesus out of Bagdhad. He manipulated the UN weapons inspection...interesting I just listented to a speech by Seymour Hersh explaining how Scott Ritter was right to be offended by *our* manipulation of the inspections process. Does Coop read the Financial Times? And where does he get this silly stuff about the nuclear weapons? Just today on Pacfica it was reported that Bush's claim of an IGEA report foreseeing Iraqi nuclear capability in 6 months never existed! Ari F. claimed it was a mistaken reference to a report made in 1991 (?!!), but there were no IGEA reports in 1991 on this issue!
Furthermore, an effective peace movement must avoid linking opposition to the war in Iraq with opposition to the war against Al Qaeda. Just because Bush cynically folds one battle into the other is no license for the left to engage in the same moral dubiousness. The fight against Bin Laden's gang is necessary, and going to war against Iraq can only detract from it.
--this is assuming that the US is seriously interested in the terrorism problem, which would be a very hard argument to make a year later. Indeed, it would have been hard to make that argument convincingly a year ago. From the Bush perspective the fight against Bin Laden is the same as the Al Qaeda fight...the arguments that Cooper uses against those that opposed the bombing of Afghanistan can be used against Cooper at this point with regard to the Iraqi issue.
Likewise, an effective peace movement must get its story straight on sanctions. Clark calls them "genocidal." But the entire American left supported similar painful sanctions against the apartheid state of South Africa. If the left is not for war against Hussein and is also opposed to economic sanctions, what is it for?
--Wow. Cooper, a very bright man is really losing his persuasive capacities as he drifts rightward, much like Hitch I'm afraid. The ANC requested those sanctions! What is Cooper's response to people like Dennis Halliday? Is Halliday not mainstream enough for Cooper, or later persons charged with UN oversight of the sanctions program?
If the left is for containment instead of invasion, then isn't it the U.S. armed forces that must do the containing? And what about the Kurds who, under the umbrella of U.S. power, are now flourishing in one of the most open societies in the region? If, at the end of the day, Hussein does foil weapons inspections, what is to be done then?
--According to Scott Ritter the purpose of the weapons inspections, from the vantage of the US, has never been to get rid of weapons. Whatever is Cooper talking about here?
What are the responsibilities of the international community in countenancing or confronting a long-standing and dangerous dictator like Hussein?
--huh?
These are devilishly complex questions that deserve much more meditation, debate and elaboration than the sort of bumper-sticker answers provided by the White House.
--not that complicated...when people like scott ritter can get them clear...we on the left shouldn't be afraid of calling things as they actually exist....not as we would wish they existed.
Steve