Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Robots and Robber Barons
- The PSY Scandal: Singing about Killing People v. Constantly Doing It
- Study: World's Mighty Giants Dying off at Alarming Rate
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
- Study: World's Mighty Giants Dying off at Alarming Rate
- The Mass Media Favorites Fall Out of Favor
Popular content
Today's Top News
Neo-Hawks Rely on Distortion to Peddle War-for-Democracy
One of the most persuasive arguments for war in Iraq -- the only argument that still powers the blood-and-bucks guzzler that Iraq and Afghanistan have become -- was put forward by liberals turned neocon apologists. Members of the "I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club," as New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller called them (Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Berman), saw Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden as a new breed of fascists. Whether one had WMDs or not, whether the two conspired over 9/11 or not, whether American interests were threatened or not wasn't ultimately the reason to go after them. Destroying their totalitarian cult and replacing it with liberal democracy was.
As Friedman put it, he had no regrets for hoping to "remove the genocidal tyranny of Saddam Hussein and replace it with some kind of decent, pluralistic, representative government in the heart of the Arab world." To Berman, the goal of America's wars "is to cause people all over the Muslim world to abandon the cult of mass death and suicide. What would be a complete victory? The rise of liberal societies and liberal ideas." And Hitchens, the neo-hawks' Dr. Phil, argues that Abu Ghraib at its degrading worst under American occupation was "unarguably, the difference between night and day" when compared with what it was before: an "abattoir, a torture chamber, and a concentration camp."
Say what you will about the neo-hawks, they can make liberals seem pretty dishonest for chanting democracy over here while tolerating repression over there. They can -- if you buy into their distortions.
Distortion #1: The problem in the Islamic world was the totalitarian regime Saddam imposed, and the totalitarian regime bin Laden wants to impose or Iran has already imposed. It's not the totalitarian (or, in some milder cases, authoritarian) regimes the United States supports, militarily and financially, in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and that pearl of duplicity, Pakistan. The problem isn't the masses of people in those countries who daily suffer the oppression and corruption of those undemocratic regimes. It's those "terrorists" who would undermine those regimes -- that is, undermine America's proxies.
Distortion #2: It's moral and just to take a stand against oppression. Never mind that there was never a question to invade the Soviet Union when oppression there for half a century was more systematic, brutal and deadly than it ever was in Iraq or Afghanistan, and forget the supreme irony: that containment, not bombs, defeated the Soviets. Never mind that there's no question of spilling blood or bucks in the Congo, where 5 million people, if blacks count as people in America's moral calculus, have died from civil war since the mid-1990s.
Distortion #3: Warring for "some kind of decent, pluralistic, representative government in the heart of the Arab world" in the shadow of American guns is a noble and just mission, and not at all a recasting of a century of Western colonial presumptions the Arab world never asked for then, and doesn't trust now.
On June 15, 1938, The New York Times ran a nearly full-page editorial that took issue with the United States' Neutrality Act in the face of rising fascism in Europe. It was a convincing argument against isolationism and in defense of interventionism, but only in so far as it meant defending the Western, democratic way of life.
The perpetual war express that George Bush began, that John McCain hopes to ride on and that liberal neo-hawks still defend isn't about defending that way of life. It's not even about imposing "liberal societies and liberal ideas" anymore, as governance Iraq and Afghanistan constantly remind us (as I write this, a journalism student in Afghanistan faces the death penalty for downloading and distributing an article questioning why men, but not women, may practice polygamy under Islam). It's about imposing American hegemony by any means necessary.
Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer. Reach him at ptristam@att.net or through his personal Web site at www.pierretristam.com.
© 2008 News-Journal Corporation
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

8 Comments so far
Show AllThese confused and deluded neo-hawks almost make one long for the purity and simplicity of old-fashioned conservative colonialists. The old cons knew what they wanted -- they wanted more, more of what others possessed, especially the weak, and more of whatever they could take by force or by hook or crook.
But the neoliberal neo-hawks have felt compelled to employ specious utilitarian arguments concerning the free market, the invisible hand, and free trade that could reduce resistance to their plunder. These neo-hawks probably have similar motivations and desires to those of the old cons, but they have some psychological resistance to admitting it (e.g. guilt), so they must convince (fool) themselves as they try to convince (fool) others that the policies (plunder) are all for the others' (victims') own good.
I understand US strategy in Iraq has been the ethnic cleansing of Iraqi cities into etnic refugee camps. Apparently we have already forced Sunnis into some cities, Shiites into others, and placed Kurds into ethnic neighborhoods with walls around them.
Falluja, for example, was far more free under Saddam Hussein. We have built a barrier around the entire city and thoroughly search every vehicle entering. Every person going in or out must undergo a retinal eye scan. General Petraeus reportedly tells them, "For security, it's worth it."
So are we really there to start a democracy or bring absolute security (steal the oil) to all Iraqis at all times for the next 100 years?
And we laughed at those 'conspiracy nuts' who compared the tragedy of 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire which began Germany's descent from democracy to a fascist totalitarian state. I wonder who's laughing now?
I keep remembering those words as we complete our sinking into the morass of a fascist totalitarian state run by the rich.
Why bother repeating the right wing obfuscations?
These are their frames.
Our frame is justice, truth, honesty, liberty, equality in law, human rights and how the right wing violates those concepts.
andrew.herman -
As I understand things, cars are not allowed in Fallujah. Only residents are allowed in or out (reason for the eye scans).
No cars, no trade with outside world, no friends or relatives visiting.
Peace, US-style.
Well Pierre, welcome to the present. The Iraq war was about oil, control of access to the gulf and, yes, American hegemony.
Thanks for pointing out the foolishness of Friedman and Hitchens.
20, mostly Saudis, hijacked some planes and killed 3,000+ people in New York and Washington one day in September. America has responded by killing over 1,000,000 Iraqis and other Arabs over 5 years and want to continue to do this for another 50-100 years.
Enough is enough!
What I am curious about is this - if the likes of Thomas Friedman, Chris Hitchens, William Kristol, and the other members of the unsavoury pantheon of war loving neoconservatives support the madness in Iraq so much, why don't they just go over there and fight. It doesn't make much in the way of genuine logic that armchair enthusiasts of a war that has killed more innocents than a simple mind can fathom getting away with watching the carnage they have given their ideological blessings to on the silver screen. Better still, why dont they send their own children to fight their ideological battles with their sweat, tears and yes, blood, instead of relying on the hordes of underprivileged working class American soldiers, disproportionately drawn from the ranks of America's minorities and immigrant communities. Thus far the violent fiasco in Iraq has, for the overwhelming part, been the saga of the death of innocents and the military alike for the sake of the ideology of well heeled intellectuals shielded from the images of the carnage they supported. The blood of the working classes, the ideology of the bourgoise ?
Sounds like a depressingly recurrent theme ? I sure hope so.....
The oligarchy's Orwellian terrorist fearmongering is easy enough to comprehend. But why fall into their parameters of terrorism discussion if it's all about oil, Israel and war profiteering?