Roundup: Historian's Take
This is where we place excerpts by historians writing about the news. On occasion this page also includes political scientists, economists, and law professors who write about history. We may from time to time even include English profs.
SOURCE: Sightings, the newsletter of the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School. (1-31-08)
The idea of a "new anti-Semitism" has ignited scholarly controversy in the United States for almost a decade now; many sources, a Nation article among them, call it a myth, while one book's subtitle calls it "The Current Crisis." If the original kind of anti-Semitism was a brand of racism that discriminated against Jews as individual people, the "new" anti-Semitism is characterized mainly by anti-Zionism and prejudice against Jews as a collective people. In a gross oversimplification, some explain that the target of the "old" anti-Semitism was the individual Jew, while the target of the new anti-Semitism is Israel. But while much of the American Jewish scholarly community is discussing whether and when anti-Israel discourse is anti-Semitic, and whether or not this anti-Semitism is "new," much of what everyone recognizes as anti-Semitism—without any qualifying age-adjectives—continues to occur unabated in the US.
Several recent and public anti-Semitic episodes demonstrate this strong continuation of the characteristics and motivations of the original sense of the word "anti-Semitism." For instance, anti-Semites continue to base their hatred on race and lineage and to use symbols, such as the swastika, to call attention to the Jew as a member of a biological group, and not a supporter of Israel. In November a clinical psychology professor at Columbia University's Teachers College discovered a large swastika spray-painted on her office door. Two times in the weeks before, she had received anti-Semitic flyers in her mailbox. Just before that, on October 10, a black professor at the college found a noose by her door. Almost all of the news coverage that mentioned the swastika also mentioned the noose, creating a parallel. Although Americans rarely characterize anti-Semitism as a species of racism, these events at Columbia and their subsequent news coverage indicate a distinctive racial component. Indeed, the swastika itself is a sign of racial categories. Hitler wanted to exterminate those with Jewish blood; he found cultural and religious categories irrelevant. The very fact that the symbol of the swastika still holds so much cultural power suggests that those race- or lineage-based categories still have powerful sway over our thinking.
Likewise, other contemporary events hardly fall into the category of a "new anti-Semitism" when they recapitulate the millennia-old trope of blaming Jews for the death of Jesus. In December ten young adults assaulted three New York subway riders because of their "Happy Hanukkah" exclamations. First the attackers hurled anti-Semitic slurs, and one reportedly remarked: "Oh, Hanukkah. That's the day that the Jews killed Jesus." Physical assault followed. (The silver lining to the story, however, is that a Muslim student from Bangladesh came to the defense of the three Jews.)
Along with continuing racial hatred and blame for Jesus' death, stereotypes of the Shylock-type Jew, money-obsessed and controlling, still have robust support in the United States. In November, before the two events described above, the Anti-Defamation League published its new poll on American anti-Semitism, concluding from its results that of 2,000 Americans randomly selected for the telephone poll, fifteen percent were "unquestionably anti-Semitic." This number has been almost unchanged since 2002, along with the contents of the poll, which asked respondents to agree or disagree with some stereotypical accusations leveled against Jews. In addition to reconfirming the "killers of Christ" prejudice (twenty-seven percent agreed), the most anti-Semitic respondents sang another familiar tune: "Jews wield too much power in the business world," "Jews have too much power in the US today," and "Jews have too much control and influence on Wall Street" were the statements most likely to elicit agreement (sixty-seven to eighty-four percent).
These results indicate the extent to which the very language of "old" and "new" is problematic. Such stark oppositions often function under the implicit assumption that the "new" somehow supercedes or replaces the "old," or that the "old" no longer occupies the place it once did (think of the contested history of Christian responses to the relationship between the "Old" and "New" Testaments). However, as recent events and the ADL poll demonstrate, the "old" anti-Semitism refuses to show signs of growing old at all, but seems to retain the same vigor it had several decades ago. Perhaps contemporary scholars should consider the possibility that by drawing attention to the "new" forms of anti-Semitism, they paradoxically allow the other, more deeply ingrained forms to abide. Instead of being categorized—misleadingly—as "old" or "new," all forms of anti-Semitism should be named and addressed as equally dangerous to the worth and dignity of human life.
References: You can see the complete results of the Anti-Defamation League's poll at http://www.adl.org.
Posted on: Friday, February 1, 2008 - 21:20
SOURCE: Counterpunch (1-29-08)
In the case of the presidency of JFK, it should be remembered that in his campaign against Richard Nixon he often attacked Nixon and the Eisenhower Administration from the right on national defense issues, even going as far as fabricating a so-called missile gap that had emerged between the US and the Soviet Union. Although not behind all of the planning for the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy did give half-hearted support to the operation. (The belief by many of these Bay of Pig veteran Cuban exiles and their rogue CIA handlers of a Kennedy betrayal may have led to the tragic blowback in Dallas in November 1963.) His macho cold-war posturing in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 almost resulted in a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union had it not been for the willingness of Khrushchev to back down. However, as a consequence, Kennedy developed into a more willing partner for nuclear disarmament.
Kennedy was also a very reluctant convert to civil rights, often appointing conservative federal judges to appease senior-ranking Southern Congressional Democrats. When the Freedom Riders gained international prominence in 1961 in their heroic efforts to integrate interstate travel in the Deep South against vicious racist violence, JFK and RFK's first concern was what damage such confrontations were doing to the US global reputation. After initially trying to stop further Freedom Rides, RFK attempted to negotiate some limited, but ultimately ineffective, protection for the non-violent integrated group of bus riders. Moreover, it wasn't until thousands of teenage African-Americans were being beaten, bitten by police dogs, and battered by fire hoses in Birmingham in May 1963 that JFK was moved to envision real civil rights legislation. In his most eloquent statement on the black freedom struggle, Kennedy addressed a national audience about the "moral issue" confronting the nation" "It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated."
Shortly after Kennedy finished his moving speech, Medgar Evers, the dynamic leader of the Mississippi NAACP, was shot down in his driveway. Obviously, there were those who were not prepared to grant any equal rights and equal opportunities to African-Americans. Throughout the rest of the 1960's, however, blacks and other minorities struggled for those rights, not just to expand the dreams of JFK and MLK, but to give meaning and dignity to the demands for equality. RFK found his own prophetic voice in the aftermath of the assassination of Dr. King, harnessing the hopes of a younger generation desirous of an end to racial injustice and to a lethal and immoral war. But only two months after Dr. King's murder, RFK was assassinated, ending for many the hope for real change.
Now, we are witnesses to the "audacity to hope" from Barack Obama. Obama claims that he wants to enlist us, like the Kennedys before him, in a crusade for "change we can believe in." Certainly, he has awakened a desire for something different, something better, as noted by Caroline Kennedy and numerous others from pundits to politicians to people on the street. Whether he can become an inspiring instrument for real change is open to question. What is clear, however, is that, like the Kennedys before him, he can never become that instrument unless there are massive social movements for change as there were in the 1960's....
Posted on: Friday, February 1, 2008 - 21:05
SOURCE: History and Policy (UK) (1-1-08)
Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959), a Polish-Jewish jurist, coined the term genocide in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944). He believed that each national, religious and racial group had a mission to fulfil and a cultural contribution to make to mankind. He defined genocide as 'the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group'. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) stated that: 'genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such'. These genocidal acts encompassed not only 'killing members of the group', but also 'causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group', 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', 'imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group' and 'forcibly transferring children of the group to another group'.
Many scholars have concurred that the twentieth century was the century of genocide. The state-sponsored mass murder of civilians in the First World War and the Second World War set a pattern to be repeated many times in different regions of the world in the second half of the century. Will the twenty-first century be any different? If genocides continue to take place, what should the response to them be?...
Gregory Stanton, President of Genocide Watch, argues that genocide is a process that develops in eight stages. He asserts that the stages are predictable and that preventive measures can be taken at each stage.
The first stage, classification, entails the distinction of people into different groups. This is a categorisation of 'them and us', based upon race, religion, nationality or ethnicity. The second stage, symbolisation, entails the naming of groups as 'other' and distinguishing them or marking them out from the rest of society. Symbols are often forced upon 'enemy' groups, such as the Yellow Star to be worn by German Jews under Nazi rule. The third stage is dehumanisation, the denial of the humanity of the target group. Its members are vilified as vermin, pests, diseases or even inanimate objects. This process of dehumanisation makes murder somehow more acceptable, legitimate or even necessary in the eyes of the perpetrators. The fourth stage is the organisation. Genocide is always intentional, planned and orchestrated from above, often executed by specially-trained militias. In Nazi-occupied Europe the SS-Einsatzgruppen were specially-trained killing squads who shot to death more than 1.5 million Jews in the Soviet Union. In Rwanda, the interhamwe militias perpetrated the mass killings, and in Darfur since 2004 the Janjaweed militias have done the same.
Polarisation is the fifth stage of the genocide process. Groups in society are separated, for example, by the banning of marriage or social interaction. The enemy group is alienated and isolated. As well as targeting members of the enemy group, extremists also target moderates from their own group, who are most likely to want to avoid genocide. Moderate leaders may be among the first to be arrested and murdered. The sixth stage is preparation. This involves the physical separation of members of the enemy group and/or their forced deportation. This segregation, confinement or removal to, or from, a particular area is a significant moment. The term 'ethnic cleansing' has been applied to this process. The seventh stage of the genocide process is the mass killings themselves. The perpetrators regard this as 'extermination', because the victims have been dehumanised in an earlier stage of the process. The eighth stage in the process of genocide is denial. The perpetrators deny their crimes and try to hide the evidence. They endeavour to prevent investigations of their crimes. Many perpetrators remain in power until forcibly removed. They go into exile unless and until they are caught and tried.
The fundamental problem with intervention at the early stages is that it is difficult for the international community to intervene in the domestic affairs of states. The necessary steps of prevention at early stages such as the promotion of universalistic institutions that transcend racial or ethnic divisions within a society or state, the banning or denial of symbolisation, the outlawing of hate propaganda and the banning of militias can only be achieved by the state itself. And the state, of course, may be unwilling to do this. So what can the international community do? Essentially, it must determine effective means of placing significant pressure on such states and escalate such pressure if the situation deteriorates....
Posted on: Friday, February 1, 2008 - 20:50
SOURCE: Times Union (1-31-08)
The last time the United States lulled itself into thinking that a military surge was working was January 1968, just before the Tet lunar New Year ushered in the Year of the Monkey. Gen. William Westmoreland, commanding America's half million troops in Vietnam, assured President Johnson that 65 percent of the South Vietnamese population was living in secure areas, with "victory in sight."
America was shocked when it got the news that early on the morning of Jan. 31, 1968, a hole had been blown in the wall of the United States Embassy in Saigon. The compound was occupied by Communist forces, while other targets throughout Saigon and a hundred other cities in South Vietnam were under attack.
The last of the communist offensive was repulsed by Feb. 23. That allowed the U.S. military to claim victory, but the Tet Offensive was a major blow. Only when the cable traffic was released after the war did we learn that U.S. commanders had contemplated using nuclear weapons to counter the attacks. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called it "a near thing," while advising Johnson that this "major, powerful nationwide assault has by no means run its course."
This was indeed the case when the Communists launched another mini-Tet offensive three months later, shelling Saigon with 122 mm Russian rockets and driving American casualties back toward their February level of 500 a week.
In March 1968, after squeaking out a narrow victory in the New Hampshire presidential primary over anti-war challenger Eugene McCarthy, Lyndon Johnson quit the race and partially halted the bombing of North Vietnam. In May, the Paris peace talks began, inaugurating the torturous process that would end, seven years later, with America's disorderly retreat from Vietnam.
Claims that victory is at hand in the Iraq war are as fatuous and unsubstantiated as Westmoreland's belief in 1968 that he was seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel." In spite of the optimistic talk coming from Baghdad that "civilian deaths have decreased by 62 percent," the metrics measuring progress in Iraq are no more believable than they were 40 years ago in Vietnam. In fact, America's military adventure in Iraq is even less sustainable than it was in Vietnam.
In 1968, the United States had a military draft and a surplus of 18-year-olds, and it had yet to commit any of its Reserve or National Guard units to the war. Today, the United States has 160,000 troops in Iraq, many of them reservist and national guard forces (not counting Blackwater and other hired guns). Regardless of the situation on the ground, these troops will soon be coming to the end of their 15-month tours of duty. There is no draft and no possibility of instituting one, and there are not enough fresh units to replace those in the field. The military is finding it hard to keep up enlistments, even with lowered standards, and junior officers are refusing to re-up....
Posted on: Friday, February 1, 2008 - 18:12
SOURCE: TomDispatch.com (1-29-08)
A January 21st Los Angeles Times Iraq piece by Ned Parker and Saif Rasheed led with an inter-tribal suicide bombing at a gathering in Fallujah in which members of the pro-American Anbar Awakening Council were killed. ("Asked why one member of his Albu Issa tribe would kill another, Aftan compared it to school shootings that happen in the United States.") Twenty-six paragraphs later, the story ended this way:
"The U.S. military also said in a statement that it had dropped 19,000 pounds of explosives on the farmland of Arab Jabour south of Baghdad. The strikes targeted buried bombs and weapons caches."In the last 10 days, the military has dropped nearly 100,000 pounds of explosives on the area, which has been a gateway for Sunni militants into Baghdad."
And here's paragraph 22 of a 34-paragraph January 22nd story by Stephen Farrell of the New York Times:
"The threat from buried bombs was well known before the [Arab Jabour] operation. To help clear the ground, the military had dropped nearly 100,000 pounds of bombs to destroy weapons caches and I.E.D.'s."
Farrell led his piece with news that an American soldier had died in Arab Jabour from an IED that blew up"an MRAP, the new Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected armored vehicle that the American military is counting on to reduce casualties from roadside bombs in Iraq."
Note that both pieces started with bombing news -- in one case a suicide bombing that killed several Iraqis; in another a roadside bombing that killed an American soldier and wounded others. But the major bombing story of these last days -- those 100,000 pounds of explosives that U.S. planes dropped in a small area south of Baghdad -- simply dangled unexplained off the far end of the Los Angeles Times piece; while, in the New York Times, it was buried inside a single sentence.
Neither paper has (as far as I know) returned to the subject, though this is undoubtedly the most extensive use of air power in Iraq since the Bush administration's invasion of 2003 and probably represents a genuine shifting of American military strategy in that country. Despite a few humdrum wire service pieces, no place else in the mainstream has bothered to cover the story adequately either.
For those who know something about the history of air power, which, since World War II, has been lodged at the heart of the American Way of War, that 100,000 figure might have rung a small bell.
On April 27, 1937, in the midst of the Spanish Civil War (a prelude to World War II), the planes of the German Condor Legion attacked the ancient Basque town of Guernica. They came in waves, first carpet bombing, then dropping thermite incendiaries. It was a market day and there may have been as many as 7,000-10,000 people, including refugees, in the town which was largely destroyed in the ensuing fire storm. More than 1,600 people may have died there (though some estimates are lower). The Germans reputedly dropped about 50 tons or 100,000 pounds of explosives on the town. In the seven decades between those two 100,000 figures lies a sad history of our age.
Arab Jabour, the Sunni farming community about 10 miles south of the Iraqi capital that was the target of the latest 100,000-pound barrage has recently been largely off-limits to American troops and their Iraqi allies. The American military now refers generically to all Sunni insurgents who resist them as"al Qaeda," so in situations like this it's hard to tell exactly who has held this territory.
At Guernica, as in Arab Jabour 71 years later, no reporters were present when the explosives rained down. In the Spanish situation, however, four reporters in the nearby city of Bilbao, including George Steer of the Times of London, promptly rushed to the scene of destruction. Steer's first piece for the Times (also printed in the New York Times) was headlined"The Tragedy of Guernica" and called the assault"unparalleled in military history." (Obviously, no such claims could be made for Arab Jabour today.) Steer made clear in his report that this had been an attack on a civilian population, essentially a terror bombing.
The self-evident barbarism of the event -- the first massively publicized bombing of a civilian population -- caused international horror. It was news across the planet. From it came perhaps the most famous painting of the last century, Picasso's Guernica, as well as innumerable novels, plays, poems, and other works of art.
As Ian Patterson writes in his book, Guernica and Total War:
"Many attacks since then, including the ones we have grown used to seeing in Iraq and the Middle East in recent years, have been on such a scale that Guernica's fate seems almost insignificant by comparison. But it's almost impossible to overestimate the outrage it caused in 1937… Accounts of the bombing were widely printed in the American press, and provoked a great deal of anger and indignation in most quarters…"
Those last two tag-on paragraphs in the Parker and Rasheed Los Angeles Times piece tell us much about the intervening 71 years, which included the German bombing of Rotterdam and the blitz of London as well as other English cities; the Japanese bombings of Shanghai and other Chinese cities; the Allied fire-bombing of German and Japanese cities; the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the Cold War era of mutually assured destruction (MAD) in which two superpowers threatened to use the ultimate in airborne explosives to incinerate the planet; the massive, years-long U.S. bombing campaigns against North Korea and later North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia; the American air power"victories" of Gulf War I and Afghanistan (2001); and the Bush administration's shock-and-awe, air-and-cruise-missile assault on Baghdad in March 2003, which, though meant to"decapitate" the regime of Saddam Hussein, killed not a single Iraqi governmental or Baath Party figure, only Iraqi civilians. In those seven decades, the death toll and damage caused by war -- on the ground and from the air -- has increasingly been delivered to civilian populations, while the United States has come to rely on its Air Force to impose its will in war.
One hundred thousand pounds of explosives delivered from the air is now, historically speaking, a relatively modest figure. During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a single air wing from the USS Kitty Hawk, an aircraft carrier stationed in the Persian Gulf, did that sort of damage in less than a day and it was a figure that, as again last week, the military was proud to publicize without fear of international outrage or the possibility that"barbarism" might come to mind:
"From Tuesday afternoon through early Wednesday the air wing flew 69 dedicated strike missions in Basra and in and around Baghdad, involving 27 F/A-18 Hornets and 12 Tomcats. They dropped nearly 100,000 pounds of ordnance, said Lt. Brook DeWalt, Kitty Hawk public affairs officer."
As far as we know, there were no reporters, Iraqi or Western, in Arab Jabour when the bombs fell and, Iraq being Iraq, no American reporters rushed there -- in person or by satellite phone -- to check out the damage. In Iraq and Afghanistan, when it comes to the mainstream media, bombing is generally only significant if it's of the roadside or suicide variety; if, that is, the"bombs" can be produced at approximately "the cost of a pizza" (as IEDs sometimes are), or if the vehicles delivering them are cars or simply fiendishly well-rigged human bodies. From the air, even 100,000 pounds of bombs just doesn't have the ring of something that matters.
Some of this, of course, comes from the Pentagon's success in creating a dismissive, sanitizing language in which to frame war from the air."Collateral damage" stands in for the civilian dead -- even though in much of modern war, the collateral damage could be considered the dead soldiers, not the ever rising percentage of civilian casualties. And death is, of course, delivered"precisely" by"precision-guided" weaponry. All this makes air war seem sterile, even virginal. Army Col. Terry Ferrell, for instance, described the air assaults in Arab Jabour in this disembodied way at a Baghdad news conference:
"The purpose of these particular strikes was to shape the battlefield and take out known threats before our ground troops move in. Our aim was to neutralize any advantage the enemy could claim with the use of IEDs and other weapons."
Reports -- often hard to assess for credibility -- have nonetheless seeped out of the region indicating that there were civilian casualties, possibly significant numbers of them; that bridges and roads were" cut off" and undoubtedly damaged; that farms and farmlands were damaged or destroyed. According to Hamza Hendawi of the Associated Press, for instance, Iraqi and American troops were said to have advanced into Arab Jabour, already much damaged from years of fighting, through"smoldering citrus groves."
But how could there not be civilian casualties and property damage? After all, the official explanation for this small-scale version of a"shock-and-awe" campaign in a tiny rural region was that American troops and allied Iraqi forces had been strangers to the area for a while, and that the air-delivered explosives were meant to damage local infrastructure -- by exploding roadside bombs and destroying weapons caches or booby traps inside existing structures. As that phrase"take out known threats before our ground troops move in" made clear, this was an attempt to minimize casualties among American (and allied Iraqi) troops by bringing massive amounts of firepower to bear in a situation in which local information was guaranteed to be sketchy at best. Given such a scenario, civilians will always suffer. And this, increasingly, is likely to be the American way of war in Iraq.
The ABCs of Air War in Iraq
So let's focus, for a moment, on American air power in Iraq and gather together a little basic information you're otherwise not likely to find in one place. In these last years, the Pentagon has invested billions of dollars in building up an air-power infrastructure in and around Iraq. As a start, it constructed one of its largest foreign bases anywhere on the planet about 80 kilometers north of Baghdad. Balad Air Base has been described by Newsweek as a"15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots," whose air fields handle 27,500 takeoffs and landings every month.
Reputedly"second only to London's Heathrow Airport in traffic worldwide," it is said to handle congestion similar to that of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. With about 140,000 tons a year of cargo moving through it, the base is"the busiest aerial port" in the global domains of the Department of Defense.
It is also simply massive, housing about 40,000 military personnel, private contractors of various sorts, and Pentagon civilian employees. It has its own bus routes, fast-food restaurants, sidewalks, and two PXs that are the size of K-Marts. It also has its own neighborhoods including, reported the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks,"KBR-land" for civilian contractors and"CJSOTF" (Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force),"home to a special operations unit [that] is hidden by especially high walls."
Radar traffic controllers at the base now commonly see"more than 550 aircraft operations in just one day." To the tune of billions of dollars, Balad's runways and other facilities have been, and continue to be, upgraded for years of further wear and tear. According to the military press, construction is to begin this month on a $30 million"state-of-the-art battlefield command and control system [at Balad] that will integrate air traffic management throughout Iraq."
National Public Radio's Defense Correspondent Guy Raz paid a visit to the base last year and termed it"a giant construction site… [T]he sounds of construction and the hum of generators seem to follow visitors everywhere. Seen from the sky at night, the base resembles Las Vegas: While the surrounding Iraqi villages get about 10 hours of electricity a day, the lights never go out at Balad Air Base."
This gargantuan feat of construction is designed for the military long haul. As Josh White of the Washington Postreported recently in a relatively rare (and bland) summary piece on the use of air power in Iraq, there were five times as many U.S. air strikes in 2007 as in 2006; and 2008 has, of course, started off with a literal bang from those 100,000 pounds of explosives dropped southeast of Baghdad. That poundage assumedly includes the 40,000 pounds of explosives that got modest headlines for being delivered in a mere 10 minutes in the Arab Jabour area the previous week, but not the 16,500 pounds of explosives that White reports being used north of Baghdad in approximately the same period; nor, evidently, another 15,000 pounds of explosives dropped on Arab Jabour more recently. (And none of these numbers seem to include Marine Corps figures for Iraq, which have evidently not been released.)
Who could forget all the attention that went into the President's surge strategy on the ground in the first half of last year? But which media outlet even noticed, until recently, what Bob Deans of Cox News Service has termed the "air surge" that accompanied those 30,000 surging troops into the Iraqi capital and environs? In that same period, air units were increasingly concentrated in and around Iraq. By mid-2007, for instance, the Associated Press was already reporting:
"[S]quadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq… Early this year, with little fanfare, the Air Force sent a squadron of A-10 ‘Warthog' attack planes -- a dozen or more aircraft -- to be based at Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq. At the same time it added a squadron of F-16C Fighting Falcons… at Balad."
Meanwhile, in the last year, aircraft-carrier battle groups have been stationed in greater numbers in the Persian Gulf and facilities at sites near Iraq like the huge al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar continue to be upgraded.
Even these increases do not tell the whole story of the expanding air war. Lolita Baldor of the Associated Press reported recently that"the military's reliance on unmanned aircraft that can watch, hunt and sometimes kill insurgents has soared to more than 500,000 hours in the air, largely in Iraq." The use of such unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), including Hellfire-missile armed Predators, doubled in the first ten months of 2007 -- with Predator air hours increasing from 2,000 to 4,300 in that period. The Army alone, according to Baldor, now has 361 drones in action in Iraq. The future promises much more of the same.
American military spokespeople and administration officials have, over the years, decried Iraqi and Afghan insurgents for"hiding" behind civilian populations -- in essence, accusing them of both immorality and cowardice. When such spokespeople do admit to inflicting" collateral damage" on civilian populations, they regularly blame the guerrillas for turning civilians into"shields." And all of this is regularly, dutifully reported in our press. On the other hand, no one in our world considers drone warfare in a similar context, though armed UAVs like the Predators and the newer, even more heavily armed Reapers are generally"flown" by pilots stationed at computer consoles in places like Nellis Air Force Base outside Las Vegas. It is from there that they release their missiles against"anti-Iraqi forces" or the Taliban, causing civilian deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
As one American pilot, who has fired Predator missiles from Nellis, put it:
"I go from the gym and step inside Afghanistan, or Iraq… It takes some getting used to it. At Nellis you have to remind yourself, 'I'm not at the Nellis Air Force Base. Whatever issues I had 30 minutes ago, like talking to my bank, aren't important anymore.'"
To American reporters, this seems neither cowardly, nor in any way barbaric, just plain old normal. Those pilots are not said to be"hiding" in distant deserts or among the civilian gamblers of Caesar's Palace.
Anyway, here's the simple calculus that goes with all this: Militarily, overstretched American forces simply cannot sustain the ground part of the surge for much longer. Most, if not all, of those 30,000 troops who surged into Iraq in the first half of 2007 will soon be coming home. But air power won't be. Air Force personnel are already on short, rotating tours of duty in the region. In Vietnam back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as ground troops were withdrawn, air power ramped up. This seems once again to be the pattern. There is every reason to believe that it represents the American future in Iraq.
From Barbarism to the Norm
The air war is simply not visible to most Americans who depend on the mainstream media. In part, this is because American reporters, who have covered every other sort of warfare in Iraq, simply refuse to look up.
It should be no surprise then that news of a future possible escalation of the air war was first raised by a journalist who had never set foot in Iraq and so couldn't look up. In a December 2005 piece entitled "Up in the Air,"New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh suggested that"a key element of [any] drawdown plans, not mentioned in the President's public statements, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower… The danger, military experts have told me, is that, while the number of American casualties would decrease as ground troops are withdrawn, the over-all level of violence and the number of Iraqi fatalities would increase unless there are stringent controls over who bombs what."
After Hersh broke his story, the silence was deafening. Only one reporter, as far as I know, has even gone up in a plane -- David S. Cloud of the New York Times, who flew in a B-1 from an unnamed"Middle Eastern airfield" on a mission over Afghanistan. Thomas Ricks traveled to Balad Air Base and did a superb report on it in 2006, but no reporter seems to have bothered to hang out with American pilots, nor have the results of bombing, missile-firing, or strafing been much recorded in our press. The air war is still largely relegated to passing mentions of air raids, based on Pentagon press releases or announcements, in summary pieces on the day's news from Iraq.
Given American military history since 1941, this is all something of a mystery. A Marine patrol rampaging through an Iraqi village can, indeed, be news; but American bombs or missiles turning part of a city into rubble or helicopter gunships riddling part of a neighborhood is, at best, tag-on, inside-the-fold material -- a paragraph or two, as in this AP report on the latest fighting in an undoubtedly well-populated part of the city of Mosul:
"An officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information, said three civilians were wounded and helicopters had bombarded buildings in the southeastern Sumar neighborhood, which has seen frequent attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces that have led to a series of raids."
The predictably devastating results of helicopters"bombarding" an urban neighborhood in a major Iraqi city, if reported at all, will be treated as just the normal" collateral damage" of war as we know it. In our world, what was once the barbarism of air war, its genuine horror, has been transformed into humdrum ordinariness (if, of course, you don't happen to be an Iraqi or an Afghan on the receiving end), the stuff of largely ignored Air Force news releases. It is as unremarkable (and as American) as apple pie, and nothing worth writing home to mom and the kids about.
Maybe then, it's time for Seymour Hersh to take another look. Or for the online world to take up the subject. Maybe, sooner or later, American mainstream journalists in Iraq (and editors back in the U.S.) will actually look up, notice those contrails in the skies, register those"precision" bombs and missiles landing, and consider whether it really is a ho-hum, no-news period when the U.S. Air Force looses 100,000 pounds of explosives on a farming district on the edge of Baghdad. Maybe artists will once again begin pouring their outrage over the very nature of air war into works of art, at least one of which will become iconic, and travel the world reminding us just what, almost five years later, the"liberation" of Iraq has really meant for Iraqis.
In the meantime, brace yourself. Air war is on the way.
Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project. His book, The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), has been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq.
[Note on Air-War Readings:The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a study in December 2007 on the air war in Iraq, which can be read by clicking here (PDF file). Figures on the rising intensity of air power in that country can be found there -- of a sort that the Washington Post only recently reported on. For some historical background on U.S. air power and the bombing of noncombatants, I suggest checking out Mark Selden's "A Forgotten Holocaust."
Those who, in these years, wanted to find out something substantive about the air war in Iraq had to look to independent sites on line. At Tomdispatch, I began writing on the air war in 2004. See, for instance, "Icarus (armed with Vipers) Over Iraq"; others have taken up the subject at this site since: See Dahr Jamail's "Living Under the Bombs"; Nick Turse's "Bombs Over Baghdad, The Pentagon's Secret Air War in Iraq" and "Did the U.S. Lie about Cluster Bomb Use in Iraq" (both of which involved the sort of reporting, long distance, that American journalists should have been doing in Iraq); and Michael Schwartz's "A Formula for Slaughter: The American Rules of Engagement from the Air," among other pieces. On the air war in Afghanistan, see my "'Accidents of War,' The Time Has Come for an Honest Discussion of Air Power."]
Posted on: Friday, February 1, 2008 - 17:33
SOURCE: Salon (2-1-08)
For much of January, one might have thought that the Republican candidates for president were already competing against a single opponent. Not one called Hillary or Barack, but with a moniker even more chilling in the eyes of hard-line Republicans: Islamic fascism.
The American public, worried about mortgages, recession and a seemingly interminable war in Iraq, was unimpressed -- those who fear-mongered the most about Muslim terrorists have faltered at the polls. Even the remaining front-runners, John McCain and Mitt Romney, have said bigoted things about Muslims and their religion. But Islamophobia as a campaign strategy has failed, and it may well come back to haunt the Republicans in the general election.
Back when the GOP presidential field was still flush with tough-talking right-wingers, no one was more outrageous in targeting Muslims than Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who suggested that Muslim terrorists inside America were plotting the imminent detonation of an atomic bomb on U.S. soil. How to prevent this Tom Clancy scenario? "If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo declared. "Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do."
That sort of wild-eyed bigotry only fuels the cycle of mistrust and vengeance. One can only imagine how much more difficulty Tancredo generated for U.S. diplomats attempting to explain to America's Muslim allies why a presidential candidate was talking about nuking Islam's holiest cities, the larger with a population nearly that of Houston.
But the failure of Islamophobia as a campaign strategy is no better illustrated than by the spectacular flame-out of Rudy Giuliani. Throughout his campaign (deep-sixed after his dismal showing in Tuesday's Florida primary), the former New York mayor evoked the Sept. 11 attacks at an absurd rate. Giuliani and his advisors appeared to revel in demonizing Muslims. They also reveled in their own ignorance -- never learning the difference between "Islamic" and "Muslim."
"Islamic" has to do with the religion founded by the prophet Mohammed. We speak of Islamic ethics or Islamic art, as things that derive from the religion. "Muslim," on the contrary, describes the believer. It would be perfectly all right to talk about Muslim terrorists, but calling them Islamic terrorists or Islamic fascists implies that the religion of Islam is somehow essentially connected to those extremist movements....
Posted on: Friday, February 1, 2008 - 16:35
SOURCE: International Herald Tribune (1-31-08)
Can sports make a nation?
That's a strange question. Americans love high-profile athletic events, as the current buildup to Super Bowl XLII illustrates. But nobody hangs America's future upon sports.
In Africa, though, it's quite common to do so. In a continent ravaged by political and ethnic violence, people often invoke sports - especially soccer - as force for national unity. And nobody does so more than the Ghanaians, who are hosts of the 16-country Africa Cup of Nations tournament at four sites around the country.
"We all speak football," one headline announced this week. "Football - A real source of unity," declared another. When Ghana celebrated a last-minute defeat over Guinea in the tournament's opening match, one commentator wrote, "there were no distinctions as to who belonged to which political party, religious sect, or ethnic division." Another editorialist compared Ghana's stability to the ethnic violence plaguing Kenya. "Is it because Kenya does not have an accomplished, unifying football team?" he asked.
As a rabid supporter of Ghana's "Black Stars" soccer team, I can appreciate the sentiment. But as a historian, I am also deeply worried by it. Over the last century, sports have rarely spawned true national harmony and reconciliation. Instead, they provide a convenient tool for one part of a nation - or, even, for one leader - to oppress the rest of it.
To take the most notorious example: Adolf Hitler used the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin to "unify" Germany - around the idea of Aryan superiority.
With the next Olympics slated for Beijing this summer, China has been jailing dissidents and pushing poor people from their homes to build stadiums.
Here in Africa, tyrants have often seized upon sports to bolster their power. Zaire's Mobotu, Nigeria's San Abacha, and especially Uganda's Idi Amin all poured vast resources into national sports programs. A former boxing and swimming champion, the 6-foot, 4-inch Amin lavished cash upon the country's star athletes. He also competed with them personally, knocking out one of the country's leading boxers and offering 10,000 shillings to anyone who could defeat him in the breast stroke. (Amin lost to a brave challenger, in 1976, and promptly paid up.)
Did these antics help Amin "unify" Uganda? Perhaps. More than anything else, however, they helped him solidify his dictatorial regime. ...
Posted on: Friday, February 1, 2008 - 16:25
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
