hands across the sea

A great article. Thanks, Oldandknew.

Well, The Daily Mirror not just published the above article, but some weeks ago this one as a leading article by Matthew Norman

[quote]ANTI-USA? NO, I JUST HATE ALL THE AMERICANT
Jan 24 2003


THE thing many of us who are regarded as "anti-American" really hate about the USA isn't the greed, arrogance and materialism or the macho displays of military might, the boastfulness, the ignorance or even the fabled idiocy of its President.

It's the hypocrisy.

It's the outrage about foreign regimes ignoring human rights from a country in which young men are serving 50 years, under the "three strikes" rule, for stealing a slice of pizza or a CD.

It's the grandiose declarations about freedom from people who crush it elsewhere at will, as in Chile in the early 70s when an elected President was murdered in a CIA-backed coup and replaced by an American-backed fascist.

It's the endless, pious lecturing about democracy and equality from a regime that stole an election by denying blacks and Jews in Florida the right to vote.

It is, in short, the Grand Canyon-sized gulf between the worthy words and the rancid reality.

Every great empire that ever existed, the British included, did terrible things to gain wealth and power. But none ever cloaked its ambitions behind so much nauseating cant.

The true motives (oil, Bush's second term, diverting attention from al-Qaeda and North Korea, and so on) behind this coming assault on Baghdad have been rehearsed enough. So let's consider not the reasons for waging war but the method.

If it comes to it, the US (with minimal yapping and snapping from her trusty British bulldog) will use a massive concentration of aerial bombing.

It's called the Powell Doctrine after its inventor, Colin. You smash and demoralise the enemy with a barrage of cruise missiles and "smart" bombs until the people's spirit is as crushed as the army's.

That way, your own soldiers don't have to do any fighting.

It worked against Milosevic in Belgrade and it will probably work in Iraq, too, enabling US troops to walk into the cities unopposed.

But the human cost will be terrible. In former Yugoslavia, hospitals, schools and convoys of refugees were destroyed by bombs that are never quite as smart as the Pentagon suggests.

The "collateral damage", to use that chilling euphemism, was huge, as it was in Afghanistan where more civilians died in the failed hunt for bin Laden than perished in the Twin Towers. The use of the Powell Doctrine against Iraq will leave thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of innocents dead and badly wounded... incomparably more than would suffer in a ground invasion, in which troops fought with troops.

No one in their right mind wants to see our soldiers' lives endangered but they are trained and paid to fight, and there is something immoral about aerial warfare that offends some soldiers as much as peaceniks. It certainly disgusted French General Philippe Morillon during the Belgrade bombardment.

"What kind of soldier is it," he asked, "who is prepared to kill but not to die?"

What the Powell Doctrine - designed to avoid the body bags that fomented US public opinion against the Vietnam war - is really saying is this: it is better that 10,000 Iraqi doctors, nurses, street cleaners, geriatrics, mothers, schoolchildren, shopkeepers and new-born babies die than a single US soldier.

There's nothing new about this sort of gruesome calculation. When one of their soldiers was killed, the Romans would slaughter dozens of enemy troops in retaliation, while the Nazis would murder every civilian male in a village suspected of producing the killer.

But the Romans and the Nazis never had the US Constitution that George Bush swore to uphold. They also never had the soul-stirring Declaration of Independence, which tells the world: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Try explaining how "all men are created equal" ties in with the Powell Doctrine when the first stray "smart" bomb removes a hospital from the map of Baghdad.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/columnists/mattnorman/matthewnorman/page.cfm?objectid=12564795&method=full&siteid=50143[/quote]

Thanks, John. I haven't forgotten that the first into Afghanistan were your own SAS.

I have no doubt in military talents of General Powell, but the doctrine attributed to him is neither his, nor new. It was developed by the Italian general Giulio Douhet in '20s.

Source:My Class in US Army War College - 2002
I really see no reasons for American generals to care more of enemy's civilians than of their own soldiers... If they did so they would have no right to call themselves American generals.

Having read the 2 articles from the Daily Mirror, which for the most part is or can appear to be, a rather sensationalist journal, perhaps I can pass my thoughts around.

The article I've led you to is I believe written from the heart. An honest reaction to a devastating event.

The 2nd article, introed by Walter and from the same journal, is in my opinion a rather vitriolic piece that is intended to tear holes in the USA and the UK simply to sensationalise what is a very harrowing situation/subject. Yes there are bad mistakes, bad laws in both the UK and the USA. that are highlighted and could be changed. Death brought to us though by alien nationals is a different matter and retribution can't be ignored.
Two points come to my thoughts, #1 I am quite capable of screwing up my own life, I don't need some gunslinger from Araby to do it for me. #2 If it comes to war, gentlemen's agreements are null and void.

I don't advocate a war unless it is deemed totaly unadvoidable. but both of our countries have had death on our streets from terrorist. Our people, diplomats, joe public have been shot and killed overseas for no other reason than being an Aussie, a Limey or a Yank.
It's OK to be a terrorist, but if you are joe public it's tough luck.

John, we have not forgotten, not at all. It is just that some people, like me for instance, think that attacking Iraq will bring more terror to this country. You have to understand that we have been taught since elementary school that we were protected the Pacific and Atlantic on the main land - the contiguous US. Bush even referred to that in his press conference the other night.

This is a sorry statement I know but most of the world is used to terror attacks. We are just learning about terror attacks on our soil. And most importantly this seems to me to be shaping up just like Vietnam did. Remember the domino theory?

P.S. Last night I had an interesting conversation with a woman at the grocery store regarding this war. We both agreed terrorists will not try anything in Texas because some many Texans are armed and ignorant that they would chase them down without hesitation. Although one does have to remember Waco, TX, and Oklahoma, OK, and the Olympics at Atlanta, GA, and the anthrax that coincided with the 9/11 attacks. Those were home grown terrorists

I tend to be optimistic about possibility of serious terror attacks on the U.S. soil. It seems to me that the response of American people and government to events 09/11 showed to terrorists that they will not achieve any of their goals by means of killing Americans. On the contrary, GIs will come to their hideouts and the terror planners will be chased throughout the world, arrested and/or killed. This is the only way to treat the terrorists that makes it possible to put end to world terror. I pray for success of the glorious American Army and Air Force in their uneasy mission of replacing the Iraqi monster.

Joanne you can never forget what happened on that dreadfull day.
Yes of course 2 broad oceans and a huge land mass is or was a major deterrant to would be attackers. Suddenly the American mind was severely concentrated and fear generated. You weren't fireproof.
In Britain many still remember the traumas of ww2. My memory of ww2 is almost empty. Suffice it too say that we lived in London under the flightpaff of Lufftwaffer attack planes. Guns and bombs.
The people who perpetrated the domestic stuff must of seemed outrageous but at least it was home based and perhaps more controllable.
The vast majority over here may not approve of the proposed war, but the majority of Brits do understand what it's been like over there. We have, most of us, a good understanding of America and of Americans.

Believe it or not John I was raised by an English nanny and I have heard all the horror stories about London after WWII and the lack of food. In addition, my former father-in-law was in charge of the burial detail for American GIs in France and Gemany after WWII and he had many stories of starving people. One of the things I liked most about living in the D.C. metro area was the thought that in case of a nuclear war I would be vaporized immediately.

After death of Stalin no one really meant to start the nuclear war against USA (and Stalin merely lacked the necessary equipment to do this, in 1949-53 the Soviet Union had a sufficient retardation in number of nuclear devices, and did not have either ICBMs or strategic long-range bombers). The Carribean experiment of Khruschev was rather a Kim Jong Il-style escapade than a serious attempt to surprisingly attack the USA; OK, President John F. Kennedy did not permit this experiment to develop. So, you had no chance to get evaporated.

John, I've already discussed most of my feelings with you, but I think what many people don't realize is that the protest movement here is different from that during the Vietman war.

The military isn't being vilified; many protesters are ordinary citizens who truly love their country and are appalled at the cavalier way the Bush administration has diminished their rights under the Constitution.

Bush has added to the general distrust by making inappropriate appointments of people who are religious fundamentalists who have their own agenda as well as that of their church, first and foremost in their minds instead of the good of the majority of Americans.

We resent his arrogance toward the rest of the world as well as his own countrymen.

We are frightened at the possibly tragic consequences of a war in the middle east with the increased resentment of the US that is bound to result.

I appreciate the article and wish more people would consider those words when they attack the US. As war nears, there is more polarization between the right and the left, with rash statements being made--statements that are meant to insult instead of encourage thoughtful consideration.

European countries are just as guilty of dirty politics as the US and, to me at least, France is a chronic obstructionist. I've come to expect France to disagree with everything the US might be involved with--I guess they still have a Napolean complex. Yet, it is easy to understand why most of the world fears US motives, especially when a morally bankrupt and easily led president is in power.

Finally, I and many protesters are not against war under any circumstances. I respect those who are, but the rest of us see the need for war when a psychopath is in power and threatens his own people as well as his neighbors. If the UN could come to an agreement after finding Iraq hadn't complied with the requirements of the UN inspections team, and if they agreed to go to war with Iraq, I would cheer.

Power is such a dangerous thing. Power in the hands of someone like Bush is horrifying.

Unfortunately, UN is unable doing this. There are countries that have direct interests in keeping Saddam at power since their companies have multi-million oil contracts with Iraqi regime (examples: France, Russia). There are countries that fear the very precedent, their own leaders are illegitimate in western terms (example: Syria). There are countries that fear of granting the USA too many possibilities in modifying the world order (China, and once more, France).
Therefore, such a decision is impossible in principle, and U.S. is supposed to make decisions of its own, being supported only by their direct allies.

ditto diane

viet nam was different. this one is necessary i feel, before it's to late. it's a shame someone else isn't running the show in this country.

Diane == This time it's much more of a Joe Public anti war protest and much more world wide. There are times with the UN, differing nations, political ideologies, power mongers. that it's crazy time once again and the more they pontificate the more maddening it gets. It's like the blind leading the blind.
Even if this war starts and the Iraq's are beaten, then what. Who runs that country, who puts it on an even keel. The huge amounts of money, equipment and lives involved are very, very high.
WW2 cost plenty in all of those commodities and for years there were many countries living on a chocolate and cigarette economy.
De ja vu beckons and the gunslingers don't learn, nor do they listen too the wider view.