Reply
Wed 15 Mar, 2006 02:10 pm
Lessons of Iraq War Start With US History
by Howard Zinn
On the third anniversary of President Bush's Iraq debacle, it's important to consider why the administration so easily fooled so many people into supporting the war.
I believe there are two reasons, which go deep into our national culture.
One is an absence of historical perspective. The other is an inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism.
If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. But if we know some history, if we know how many times presidents have lied to us, we will not be fooled again.
President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846. It wasn't that Mexico "shed American blood upon the American soil" but that Polk, and the slave-owning aristocracy, coveted half of Mexico.
President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba, saying we wanted to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control, but the truth is that he really wanted Spain out of Cuba so that the island could be open to United Fruit and other American corporations. He also lied about the reasons for our war in the Philippines, claiming we only wanted to "civilize" the Filipinos, while the real reason was to own a valuable piece of real estate in the far Pacific, even if we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to accomplish that.
President Wilson lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying it was a war to "make the world safe for democracy," when it was really a war to make the world safe for the rising American power.
President Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was "a military target."
And everyone lied about Vietnam -- President Kennedy about the extent of our involvement, President Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin and President Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia. They all claimed the war was to keep South Vietnam free of communism, but really wanted to keep South Vietnam as an American outpost at the edge of the Asian continent.
President Reagan lied about the invasion of Grenada, claiming falsely that it was a threat to the United States.
The elder Bush lied about the invasion of Panama, leading to the death of thousands of ordinary citizens in that country. And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991 -- hardly to defend the integrity of Kuwait, rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East.
There is an even bigger lie: the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior.
If our starting point for evaluating the world around us is the firm belief that this nation is somehow endowed by Providence with unique qualities that make it morally superior to every other nation on Earth, then we are not likely to question the president when he says we are sending our troops here or there, or bombing this or that, in order to spread our values -- democracy, liberty, and let's not forget free enterprise -- to some God-forsaken (literally) place in the world.
But we must face some facts that disturb the idea of a uniquely virtuous nation.
We must face our long history of ethnic cleansing, in which the U.S. government drove millions of Indians off their land by means of massacres and forced evacuations.
We must face our long history, still not behind us, of slavery, segregation and racism.
And we must face the lingering memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It is not a history of which we can be proud.
Our leaders have taken it for granted, and planted the belief in the minds of many people that we are entitled, because of our moral superiority, to dominate the world. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties have embraced this notion.
But what is the idea of our moral superiority based on?
A more honest estimate of ourselves as a nation would prepare us all for the next barrage of lies that will accompany the next proposal to inflict our power on some other part of the world.
It might also inspire us to create a different history for ourselves, by taking our country away from the liars who govern it, and by rejecting nationalist arrogance, so that we can join people around the world in the common cause of peace and justice.
Howard Zinn, who served as a bombardier in the Air Force in World War II, is the author of "A People's History of the United States" (HarperCollins, 1995). He is also the co-author, with Anthony Arnove, of "Voices of a People's History of the United States" (Seven Stories Press, 2004).
© 2006 The Progressive
Asherman, why do you call it seditious clap-trap?
Can you point out some mistakes in that article?
detano inipo wrote:Asherman, why do you call it seditious clap-trap?
Can you point out some mistakes in that article?
still waiting, asherman.........(I imagine he is frantically searching for proof to denounce the article).
Do you ever post any of your own, original thoughts?
Asherman wrote:Seditious clap-trap.
Truth hurts, doesn't it Ash!!
Anon
Way to address the content of the post Brandon.
I expect you'll harrass McG next time he decides to post an article authored by someone else?
It's the starting point of a discussion that, clearly, you have no interest in debating. It's easier to write off the poster than to discuss the post.
Zinn makes some interesting comments, based upon fact. I imagine some have a problem with truth.
You're right, candidone1; it's easier to write off the poster than address the post.
"Seditious" to dispute a grandiose and smug and distorted view of a nation's history?
There may well be a case to be made that the article is overly black, and its view can certainly be disputed, but that it is claptrap is untrue. It is a valid viewpoint which could be defended easily.
To label it seditious is evidence of such unthinking rigidity and frightening blind and aggressive "patriotism" that one can only hope Asherman is a most unrepresentative voice.
dlowan wrote:"Seditious" to dispute a grandiose and smug and distorted view of a nation's history?
There may well be a case to be made that the article is overly black, and its view can certainly be disputed, but that it is claptrap is untrue. It is a valid viewpoint which could be defended easily.
To label it seditious is evidence of such unthinking rigidity and frightening blind and aggressive "patriotism" that one can only hope Asherman is a most unrepresentative voice.
D,
Unfortunately, the view is not overly black. All you have to do is follow any of the single incidents and they have basis in fact and truth! It's too bad, but this country has seldom known what the high road was!
Anon
candidone1 wrote:Way to address the content of the post Brandon.
I expect you'll harrass McG next time he decides to post an article authored by someone else?
It's the starting point of a discussion that, clearly, you have no interest in debating. It's easier to write off the poster than to discuss the post.
Usually, I respond to a posters assertions. In this case, I am not questioning what he is saying, merely noticing that he seems to have no original thoughts. I am not trying to infer from that that the ideas he presents are incorrect. When I want to allege that he is incorrect, I address "his" assertions directly. I have done so with this poster many times in the past, just not this time.
Everything we know has come to us from the media. Few of us have visited Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in person. Few of us have had lunch with Bush, Cheyney and Rumsfeld.
We learn things through the media. If we list a number of facts, does that mean we have no original thoughts?
Anyone who defends a corrupt administration is simply parroting Fox or some White House spokesman. Not much original thought there.
Ditto, detano inipo. But, did you not know that Brandon gets his info first hand? Oh yes. He has lunched with Bush, supped with Cheney.
But, his tactics are an effective way to avoid talking about the issues in the article for brandon, eh?
I suspect most Americans cannot grasp quite what their government is capable of, and has done to maintain their 'superior' way of life.
Where's the defense team: McGen, Asher, etc? Still looking up material for a rebuttal??
I await your responses........but meanwhile I've got other stuff to do. Chew on the article for awhile. Maybe an epiphany will happen. One can hope.
I thought Asherman summed it up nidely. I don't believe any more is neccessary.
detano inipo wrote:Everything we know has come to us from the media. Few of us have visited Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in person. Few of us have had lunch with Bush, Cheyney and Rumsfeld.
We learn things through the media. If we list a number of facts, does that mean we have no original thoughts?
Anyone who defends a corrupt administration is simply parroting Fox or some White House spokesman. Not much original thought there.
If one only posts articles written by others, and never one's original thoughts, it may mean that one doesn't have many. As for me parrotting some other conservatives, you have no idea whatsoever whether I am parrotting them, or have held this sort of opinion for many years. There is no more justification for you to allege that than if I said that you parrot the liberal media. As for the asministration being corrupt, please give an example of Bush's corruption, and some evidence that it's so. Please give just one example, and not a hundred vague claims.
brandon, I have not the time to make a list of Bush admin. corruption. Go to google and find 8 1/2 million sites that explain the corrupt government of today.
You may tell me that you personally spoke with each and all these crooks and they assured you that things are above board in Washington and you believe them.
Soon you will be alone in your support of these people.
This is the most corrupt administration in US history, still there are some Bush fans who don't get it.
.............................
google:
bush administration corruption
.
8,720,000 websites for: bush administration corruption.
I'm sorry I can't see too well for brandon's smokescreen. What was this thread about?
detano inipo wrote:
..This is the most corrupt administration in US history, still there are some Bush fans who don't get it....
Yet you are unable to produce one single example, as have been 99% of the other A2K libs who've made this assertion. In a debate, someone who says, "I could make my case easily, but I won't because it's too obvious," simply loses.
So strange that if it's the most corrupt administration in history, you respond indignantly when I ask for just one clear example. A debater who responds to a request that he back his assertions by telling his opponent to Google it, betrays a lack of comprehension of the concept of debate.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:I'm sorry I can't see too well for brandon's smokescreen. What was this thread about?
You're just some dweeb who hangs around these threads posting irrelevant jibes at your betters as they actually debate the topics.
A Powerful New Voting Block Emerges
The Antiwar Movement Becoming a Political Force That Cannot Be Ignored
by Kevin Zeese
A new national poll shows that a near majority of voters either strongly or somewhat agree with a pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates. This makes the antiwar movement's potential impact on elections larger than pro-gun, anti-abortion, or anti-gay marriage voters. Politicians will have to pay heed to this new political force.
The pledge states:
"I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or president who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression a public position in his or her campaign."
The national poll found that 45.9% of US voters agree - 20.1% strongly agree and 25.8% somewhat agree. Among Democrats 67.1% agreed - 33.3% strongly, 59.2% of Independents - 25.3% strongly and even 25.7% of Republicans agreed - 5.5% strongly. The poll was conducted by ICR Survey Research of Media, Pa., which also polls for ABC News, The Washington Post and many corporations and research organizations.
This poll demonstrates that antiwar voters are significant enough in size to effect the outcome of elections - if they become organized. Just like pro-gun groups have organized, pro-choice and pro-life groups have organized - now the antiwar constituency has been identified and the peace movement is ready to organize them. This will ensure that the antiwar movement will no longer be one that can be ignored.
A new group, VotersForPeace, has as its mission to educate, organize and activate voters who oppose the war. The group begins with grants totaling $1 million for 2006 and will organize voters not only to sign the pledge (you can do so at VotersForPeace.US), but also to influence Congress and provide voters with the information they need to understand the issues and be effective advocates.
Already many of the leading antiwar groups in the United States among them United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, Not In Our Name, Democracy Rising, Code Pink, AfterDowningStreet and Peace Majority are participating in the effort. The antiwar movement seems poised to focus their efforts on organizing peace voters into an effective political power.
VotersForPeace will educate voters through an ongoing web-based and print advertising campaign. In this effort the group is working across the political spectrum from the American Conservative to the Nation Magazine. The organization's goal is to organize two million voters in 2006 and five million by 2008.
Organized antiwar voters who pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates may force the Democrats in particular to develop a stronger position against the war. The Democrats may now realize that if they fail to represent the antiwar community voters will stay home or vote for alternative party and independent candidates.
Republicans are not free to ignore the antiwar constituency either. Not only do more that 25 percent of Republican voters oppose candidates who support the war, but the fastest growing group of voters - independents - overwhelmingly support the pledge. So, that all-important swing voter can cause Republicans to lose elections - and could become a new source of support for Democrats - or if both parties fail to support voters' wishes then candidates running independent of the two parties may find a new foundation on which to build an independent political movement.
This new politically focused effort comes at a time when the occupation of Iraq is losing public support. Only 37% of Americans believe the invasion of Iraq was worth it, 54% believe we should withdraw within a year, and only 22% believe the U.S. is sure to win (down from 79% in 2003) according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. A CBS poll found 70 per cent of Americans think the result of the war with Iraq was not worth the loss of American life and other costs. More and more Americans agree the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake. The antiwar voting block poll comes on the heels of poll by Le Moyne College and Zogby of veterans showing 72 percent favor withdrawal from Iraq within a year. And, a poll by the University of Maryland on January 31 that shows Iraqis want the U.S. to leave and 67% believe they will be better off when the U.S. leaves.
Polls show the Iraq occupation is not wanted by Iraqis or U.S. citizens, nor is it wanted by U.S. soldiers in Iraq or the foreign policy establishment in Washington, DC. This is the war nobody wants and now antiwar voters know they have the political power to end the war - as well as end the careers of politicians who support the occupation. Politicians who don't see this new electoral power coming may find themselves out of office. And, the military-industrial complex may find themselves overwhelmed by voters taking back their government and saying "no" to the permanent war economy.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace