Hate Mail To The Editor
Hey guys,
I've been a long time reader of your material and must say I certainly appreciate your views. But as much as I agree with what you have to say, a question that has to be asked is how long will it take? How long will it take for any sort of social progress to finally take place? I've written to Billy before, and you said the only thing we can rely on is "the intelligence of the masses." As optimistic as that is, how can you truely believe it? Since the early 1900's, or even earlier, there has been largely only a two party system. How long will it take until people realize that there needs to be some serious social change. Sure, right now, with oil hungry Bush destroying the economy, waging war on the world, and robbing citizens, its not too hard to get people involved in politics and rally against the war...but how about after that? One day, these won't be the problems of the country anymore. Then how do you get people involved? I've long given up my optimism. The way I see it, people just don't give a fuck. Everyone's too busy getting drunk, partying, watching the game, shopping, and getting laid. Capitalism has already destroyed their souls. There are few people who I can sit and discuss shit like this with, but with most of the masses, it's "yea whatever, crazyass." I live and go to school in chicago, UIC, a very liberal and diverse campus. But even then, how can you make people get past their daily, shitty, chiche lives and think on a higher level? I see little hope for this, and as a result, have developed a complete hatred for all people and society, imediately judging or classifying someone upon meeting them. As much as I applaude your effort in doing what you do and spreading the word, how long do you think it will take, on a realistic and practical level, for people to realize we are being brainwashed and make some change?
- Nihar Bill's response can be found in this issue's On The Front Lines.
Anthony and Bill, First I would like to say I love the site. I remember when you sent me a link to the first edition... it has really blossomed since then (how the hell do you spell blossom anyways..?). I dont support the war in Iraq, but I also dont agree with all of the arguments that you give. I havent really kept track of where I disagree, so this letter will probably be less than conclusive or coherent, but I would rather write it than my sociology mid-term. I certainly agree that oil is the central motivation for the invasion of Iraq. Not because of the extensive connections between the Bush administration and the energy industry (see Adbusters article on "the revolving door" but I have no idea where you could find a copy), but because oil is the key everyone's national security. In a recent response to a different piece of "hate mail" Bill said: "Most likely, the imperialist US will systematically and violently convert Arab countries into client-states of global capitalism and milk them like cows for oil, without regard for their people. America will sit atop an empire of oil domination and exercise its power with military force, all in the name of “stopping terrorism.” I think you may have slightly missed the point here. I do not believe that the US has imperial aspirations all over the Mid-East because control of Iraq alone is enough to dominate the region with out more expensive wars. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and could possibly surpass Saudi Arabia after further exploration. Combine control of those reserves with our influence over the growing oil production of central Asia and the US would have a controlling interest in the prices and supply of crude oil. We would be able to debase OPEC and contain the re-emerging Russian oil industry without any more invasions. The problem with the plan is not only that it is rather immoral, but it is based on a number of very risky assumptions: that democracy could work in Iraq, that democracy could work anywhere in the Arab world without being anti-American, and hazardous guesses about the immediate military and political ramifications of the invasion of Iraq. I think it is equally as likely to see an Iraqi democracy as it is to see and Iraqi civil war and the collapse of regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. A more persuasive argument against warhawks might be that even if world domination through an oil monopoly is a legitimate goal, the current invasion of Iraq would be disastrous towards that end. As for France... well, I think France (Chirac) is as responsible for this mess as Bush is. It is my interpretation that Chirac is playing geo-political games with Bush at the expense of thousands of innocent lives. Saddam does need to be deposed because until he is gone and the government in Iraq is more suitable it would be irresponsible to end the sanctions. The sanctions however are an atrocious human rights violation and need to end immediately. The continuation of those sanctions until Saddams natural demise would be extremely more destructive to the Iraqi people than a brief but intense war. Had Chirac supported the US invasion it is reasonable to assume that Russia would have come along as well if for no other reason that oil politics, and the rest of the security council would have fallen in behind them. If there was unanimous UN support for the invasion then the negative impact on Iraq civilians and the rest of the Arab world would be minimized. Instead Chirac saw fit to force the US into a unilateral action that will destabilize the region and increase the casualties on both sides. Meanwhile, France becomes the leader of a new Europe united by Anti-Americanism (not hating us, hating our imperialist ambitions), and at the same time elevates his stock in the Arab world and gaining more political capital to use in the pursuit of oil concessions for Total. It may be right to resist the US and to punish the Administration for their unilateral tendencies, but I don’t think that Chirac chose the right forum. The invasion of Iraq is not solely about US imperial ambitions, and it would be even less so had the UN supported it from the beginning. There is potential to benefit the people of Iraq and around the region that has been lost by the diplomatic bungling of the west. Inspections do not work, if they did then Chirac's position would be slightly more understandable. Unfortunately the inspectors are undermanned for the task they have been assigned. There is no way for such a small number of men to cover the whole country, and even if they could the near complete lack of cooperation from Saddam et al. cripples them. My recollection of the date is fuzzy and frankly I dont feel like looking it up, but I believe is was in 1994 we discovered Saddam's nuclear weapons program. We only found it because of a defector, one who currently claims that we would be unable to find the rest of it because it has been compartmentalized and scattered. There are certainly aspects of nuke production that cannot be small or insignificant, but their results can be purchased allowing Saddam to hypothetically produce a nuclear weapon without detection. It’s not a likely scenario, but is it really worth risking? If we filled the country with inspectors and UN personnel so that it would be impossible for the regime to move any components I think we risk coming off as an occupying force. Before the current round of inspections no one thought Saddam had hundreds of long range and inaccurate missiles (the kind good for little more than WMD). The current inspections are only made possible by a missive US military threat, what is going to happen when that treat is removed by a pacifist security council resolution. With the current poor quality of cooperation that France and Russia are accepting as a sign of progress Saddam could string inspections out indefinitely. I am curious what scenario you think could neutralize the Ba'th regime's threat, and further, their rule, without war. North Korea is another failure of the Bush administration, in fact I think that the situation with DPRK is far more dangerous than Iraq now or in the future. The greatest failure though has been on behalf of the Chinese, South Korean, Japanese, and Australian governments. There is no reason why the US should be forced to negotiate bilaterally with DPRK when they are reviled for not taking a more unilateral stance on Iraq. In light of the failure of the regional governments to address the threat of DPRK we cannot simply allow it to fester. If nukes are produced, they will be sold and they will find their way to US targets. The failure of the previous negotiations completed by Clinton is due mostly to the Bush administration’s non-compliance, so there is no reason to believe that a economic package that was upheld would not be successful. I just realized this is a pretty long letter so I am going to stop writing now. I would enjoy your response and opinions, thanks. Hopfully I didn’t say anything too stupid or untenable. Drew Navikas
Drew: Thank you for your compliments and input. Although now the war has begun, it is no less important to keep talking about the issues. I have heard some say, including Senator John McCain, that now the time for debate and protest is over. I certainly hope that there is always time for debate in this country, even in the throes of the most serious war, lest we lose sight of the democratic principles we supposedly hold so dear. That said let me share my ideas on the issues you raised in your letter. First, I agree somewhat with the idea that no further invasions will take place in the Middle East in order to fortify US control of oil interests. If the US gains control of the Iraqi oil reserves, most of the oil in the Mid East will be in the hands of fairly US-friendly governments, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. I do not see the US invading these nations. Though these nations are members of OPEC, they are nearly client states of the United States. In any case, the invasion of Iraq will strengthen the control of the oil trade by the US. It is just part of the larger Bush oil plan, involving increased drilling at home, tighter control of non-Arab oil producing nations like Nigeria and Venezuela, and (as you pointed out) gaining influence over the oil reserves in central Asia. In the end, those oil-producing nations who are not under direct US or US corporate control will have their position weakened by increased American influence over the world’s oil supply. In effect, these nations will continue to be driven towards client status without an outright invasion. Subjugation without traditional invasion will become a trademark of the new imperialism. The US, however, as Bill said, will continue to use violence or the threat of violence throughout the Middle East to maintain their influence over nations like Saudi Arabia. Make no mistake, the presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, is not merely a launching pad to invade Iraq, but also a reminder to those very nations of who is truly in charge. America will continue to solidify its position in the region, utilizing violence, if not actual invasion. I believe you are correct in saying that Bush is interested in oil for the same reasons all modern leaders are interested in oil: it guarantees national security by giving a nation a stable supply of a valuable commodity. Yet, I also believe some crony-ism is at work here. Underneath almost each of Bush’s positions can be found hints of crony-ism. Take for instance drilling in ANWR. Although much oil lies under the preserve, it is only a small fraction of what the US consumes. It will not significantly decrease US dependence on foreign oil. Yet, the amount is enough to make oil company executives, many of whom personally know Bush, many millions. (Editor’s Note: The ANWR Drilling Plan was defeated by the Senate yesterday). Other examples can be found in his domestic policy. Support of standardized testing, privatization of SS, the rolling back of air pollution restrictions, and many other Bush positions can be explained through family ties (see Paul Krugman’s column in the NY Times for more in depth examination of these and other examples). With Iraq, it seems all too coincidental that Bush would try to invade a nation with such incredible oil reserves when he is a man with such close connections to the oil executives of America. Thus, I think it reasonable to assume some crony-ism is at work with Iraq. I totally agree with you on the dangers of post-war Iraq. I do not believe most Americans understand how volatile the situation will be. Many critics state that Iraq might not be ready for Western democracy because of the tenets of Islam, the lack of a civil republican tradition, or anti-Americanism. Yet, I think the most difficult obstacle to democracy in Iraq is the lack of economic stability, i.e. the continued exploitation of the nation by the West, which will surely not halt after the invasion. Economic stability has generally been the constant in the development of democracy; without it a desperate populace will likely turn to a charismatic leader. As for France, I must say that whatever Chirac’s motivation, I am glad he is out there to lend some support to the anti-war cause. It very well may be that the current trade contracts France and Germany have with Iraq are the driving force behind their stance on the war. Yet, a simpler reason could be, that unlike the thirty or so governments who have lent lip service to the war, French, German, and Russian leaders are actually listening to the overwhelming public opposition to the war within their countries. I must admit I do not really understand how France and other nations disagreeing with America on the war, actually made the situation worse and the war more about imperialist ambitions. I don’t think in such dire situations unity for unity’s sake is a compelling reason for throwing aside critical debate. To be honest, neither do I understand the oft repeated line that inspections do not work so we must try something else. Currently Saddam is in no position to attack with the UN crawling all over his country and the US military waiting. So my question is: why is a war necessary if Saddam is effectively castrated? Why not bolster inspections, increase diplomatic efforts to isolate and force Saddam into an ever weaker position internationally and domestically, and keep some semblance of military force on the ready? Yes, we run the risk of seeming like an occupying force, but we certainly will assume that distinction after we invade. The world is full of dangerous armed dictators, some of whom, including Saddam, the US has supported at one time or another. You point out North Korea as an example of a nation which is indeed more dangerous than Iraq. I agree, and, I am not as knowledgeable on the contemporary history of the situation there. I will point out, however, that it was one of the first acts of Bush’s presidency to cut off diplomatic efforts with North Korea, diplomatic efforts the Clinton administration had cultivated so carefully. It is my opinion (I don’t have the research to back it up yet) that Bush cut off negotiations with North Korea perhaps in part because he actually wanted to maintain North Korea as a nuclear threat in order to justify his Star Wars initiative. Returning to Iraq, my position on the matter would have to be coupled with a revamping of American diplomacy in the region and worldwide. We will seem like an evil occupying force to Arabs throughout the region as long as we come off as not giving a damn about the well-being of the Arab peoples. If we try to stem the tide of anti-Americanism through a progressive policy of international investment, multilateralism, multiculturalism, and genuine care for the impoverished peoples of the world, we may improve our image, allowing us to be actively engaged in making the world a safer place without coming off as merely concerned with capitalistic greed and domination. (One last thing: you mentioned Adbusters. Anyone out there who isn’t familiar with this publication, should keep their eyes open for one, because it’s a really interesting magazine. Penn State people can get one down at McLanahan’s.)
- Anthony
Hate Mail To The Editor is exactly what it sounds like. We at Brainbox thrive on reader commentary and are strong believers in debate and the essential plurality of beliefs that make up a successful democracy. Please send your thoughts on any political topic to billy@brainboxmag.com. Past installments can be viewed here.