Torkham to Wagah

Sameer, Sadna, Tahmed,

What I find interesting is mainstream media`s begrudging admission that most of America is concerned and disturbed about the path that the Bush Adm. is forcing us on. As I wrote on another board, even CNN had to admit that ``60% of Americans supported war if weapons were discovered``. Thats a slowly increasing number which I suspect was scaled down. Ari Fleischer prefaced the weekend`s demos with the remark ``Dissent is an American tradition``, which I suspect was the B.A`s wayof patronizingly acknowledging the protest demos and at the same time defusing the dissenting nature of the march for mainsteam America.

Ironically it took BBC to present a decent survey of global protest and actually talk to the diverse communities of demonstrators. Note how while unlimited time is allotted to the chicken hawks, you are lucky if you hear a demonstrator`s soundbite? WHY is this?

CNN spun the weekend by having a talking head contextual the demos as par for the course; Americans have been known to oppose US secession from Britain, involvement in WWI and gasp! WWII, thereby, once viewed in hindsight, casting a doubtful light on protesters-didn`t WWII present a moral imperative for America? Whats funny about this is that Iraq doesnt present the same moral imperative for the BA because if it did, we would have cleared Hussein out of Iraq when he started mass murdering Kurds. And if memory serves, a Palestinian demo I participated in 10 years ago had a mournful delegation of Kurds marching behind us-my first exposure to Hussein`s brutality-I certainly did not know about this genocide from our good ol` media...

In addition, even fishpaper right wing press has

re: fishpaper newspaper press

Have started running editorials telling its working class readership (The New York Post: Rightwing middle class media elite telling the working class and immigrant pop. what to think) that we have come far beyond being angry about Pres Bush`s hook and crook ascension, the BA`s specTACular record of avoiding genuine military service, etc, etc, etc. What I`d like the Dems to do is to start impeachment proceedings-which they won`t of course, because of 9/11 and the impending doom we will wreak on Iraqi citizens....

SameerJB etc. - I might be repeating what someone already said (haven`t read the thread completely) but one reason given by anti-war sympathisers that I have talked to is this is seen as Bush`s own little vendetta unlike the action in Afghanistan which had widespread domestic and international support ... this would be a unilateral preemptive war ... a first strike ... many nations will ask (and are asking ... North Korea) who next ?

sameerJB #56
The reason why there are no pro-war rallies are not because of the majority being convinced about merits of the case, its because

1. The govt. is in favor of a war anyway, what is there to call attention to or rally about in favor

2. The Congress including the Democratic leadership has fallen in with the administration on its Iraq approach, the vote in Congress took place about 6 months ago, long before the public woke up to the issues, so the political leadership is not trying to score points off each other wrt Iraq, something like campaign reform, I suspect. The govt. is not the enemy of its people but its not a benign omniscient paternal entity, its composed of men, their limited visions and their special interests, and an alert public is an important component of democracy and the state to keep these men, their limited vision and their special interests in check.


3. The US media is also projecting war and its paraphernalia as a positive thing already, so what is there to rally about?

4. US public can`t see much further than its nose or its pay check or gas bills. These items will see delayed effects only after the action starts. But what will be the point in rallying against a war in the middle of a unwinnable war with uncertain endgame and soldiers in the thick of it with their morale at risk. That would certainly be unpatriotic. So if you want to rally, better do it now before the war.

``The sanctions as part of US foreign policy does not cost US tax dollars and US citizen lose one major justification although they are free to continue protest on moral grounds. ``

The loss of taxpayer dollars is only one consequence of US govt policy overseas. There is also openness or lack of to US business, public and government attitudes to US and US citizens abroad, these are hidden costs and consequences. The US spent $2B in arms and aid to Afghan mujahiddeen, it saved itself further expense by leaving in 1989 and not spending one red cent more, but what was the consequence of that saving? Propping up the Shah of Iran may not have cost much but what were the consequences? The creation of an enemy regime determinedly opposed to all US interests in the region, a role model for all anti-US schools of thought, a very longtern consequence indeed.


``The successful outcome of pro-war is a war with two options; either very bloody or not. Nobody wishes it to be very bloody. In the end it might cost much less in human cost if planning is good and Saddam support demoralizes quickly. ``

This belief that `nobody wishes it to be very bloody` and `good planning` is a fond hope, nothing more. Even the UN secretly published a report that 500,000 Iraqis may face hunger or death and widespread devastation and millions of refugees could result from the US war. Was there any reaction by the US govt. to such a report.

I donot see much questioning about snowballing or widening of conflict, Israel and other neighbours being drawn in, ethnic strife, Kurds demanding nationhood, conflcits over control of oilfields, problems with controlling Saddam`s residual Army, the possible use of nuclear weapons? How many things are thinking people taking on pure and blind trust here because of a general principle `noone wants a bloody war`? Everyone wants to win, and will pretty much do anything to win, not least the US Army.


The difference between a European/Western leader`s war tactics and a Middle Eastern leader`s tactics is not that the European/American leader is a kind man and the Middle Eastern is not a kind man, its the system of public scrutiny and the source of each`s power which is different, ie public opinion and institutions based on public opinion are the source of one`s power which also keep him in check and which donot exist at all to keep the Middle Eastern(for example) in check. The US/UK/France?etc are good people at home and were pretty cruel overseas because their public didnot pay enough attention to what they do/did abroad. Right now there is a legal proceeding for US pilots who mistakenly killed their Canadian colleagues in Afghanistan, and questions are being raised on targetting procedures and pilots` go-pills while there was no such legal proceeding or questions raised when US pilots mistakenly killed a larger number of their NAlliance colleagues. The reason is Canadian public will not stand for such `mistakes` resulting from faulty procedure, while the Afghan public is helpless to protest, much less ask for compensation or redressal.

Similarly, there is noone to create trouble for the US govt. if 100,000 Iraqis die of US bombing or hunger due to civil unrest instead of 1000. Where is anyone in the US administration even making a passing mention of their concern for the effects of war on the Iraqi people ?

Its for Americans to decide whether they want hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to sacrifice their lives for the sake of American prosperity(if thats the argument being made) or they want to make a big enough noise so that fewer die and the US doesnot get Iraq, West Asia and itself into a unholy morass of a war with unknown longterm consequences for the US public. The US govt. maynot be an enemy of the US people, but it is presently the self-declared enemy of the Iraqi state and its people.

As for US Army personnel, 10 years after the Gulf War a hundred thousand odd of them seem to be trying to get legal redressal for their disability resulting from the `Gulf War Syndrome`, something the US govt. seems very unsympathetic to them about.

I donot see any basis to be complacent about US govt. attitude to the human cost.

Sadna: Actually you have given the best answer to the question tahmed repeated from my previous post. Ana_dobarah also said the same thing on a chowk unplugged responding to my post.

US citizens have every right using their first amendment right to raise their concerns on any issue and they do it mostly during the elections although they often do not vote on the basis of foreign policy issues. I did not challenge the legality of antiwar protest anywhere for US citizen. My only observation was that majority stayed away as they do on every issue.

The reasons might be several but one of them is belief in the government as not the enemy of the people. One of the reason Saminashah pointed out is role of the media. However, it would be opening another can of worms in the middle of focused discussion related to antiwar point of view vis-a-vis Iraqi situation, though I agree with her about the role of the media.

Now, if US citizen have the right to protest or ask to spend their tax dollars more on humane and peaceful causes; those who disagree with it or satisfied with the government policies have the same first amendment rights. They should be heard in addition to Bush adminstration speaking for them. Would you like to see another day of protest rallies in support of Bush administration policies and accept it in the same way as you wish me to accept the rights of antiwar protests? It is a no-win situatioin. Ultimately, we would have to settle it on the democratic priciple of majority support. But I guarantee you, the issue of media bias and bully pulpit of administration would be mentioned as the reason for majority not opposing war. And we would remain trapped within this circle with going back to square one after every 10 interactions.

What is square one? Square one is to look at the successful outcomes of both opposing viewpoints. The outcome of antiwar is no war and the successful outcome of pro-war is war. I have been repeatedly making this point that no war is same as status quo because it satisfies the protesters who are not ready to protest for lifting of sanctions and saving another 500,000 children from death. The reason is same as outlined above. The sanctions as part of US foreign policy does not cost US tax dollars and US citizen lose one major justification although they are free to continue protest on moral grounds.

The successful outcome of pro-war is a war with two options; either very bloody or not. Nobody wishes it to be very bloody. In the end it might cost much less in human cost if planning is good and Saddam support demoralizes quickly. From there on, I am with you, Saminshah, tahmed, nasah and all well intentioned folks to see the miseries of Iraqi people coming to a quick close.

It should be the right of citizens of every country to voice their opinion about their national policies. Would Saddam also allow Iraqi people to raise their concerns freely, without the fear of losing head?

When you throw in the south Asian factor into the equation, it becomes a matter of preference. To be considered an American all the way and justify as an American, first amendment and spending of tax dollars is one option. Second is to consider how its effects will be felt by the people and nations of south Asia and the third is to strike a balance between both. I believe that remaining totally aloof from south Asia is unfair to chowk and large number of non-American interactors. Chowk is not read in Pakistan, India, Britain and Canada as presenting the views of average desi Americans. It is open to all..

Therefore south Asia should not be delinked from this discussion. That brings back to same four questions I raised in a previous reply to Saminshah, namely oil prices, democracy in Pakistan, its effect on fundamentalist tendencies and concern for Iraqi people. although one can throw in several other questions. I contended then and do it again right now that Pakistan comes out loser in a status quo - no war situation on all fronts.

As a purely American ground too, I wish to see consumer confidence going up so that economy can grow and poor third world countries can sell more of their sweat for survival. A faltering US economy drowns at least half the world population. From China to Indonesia to India all lose business with USA if consumers do not spend money here.

Speaking morally alone, no war is light year better than war but considering all the related issues, a sacrifice of a very noble principle now is better than sacrificing the livelihood of millions and of course, no resolution to the plight of Iraqi people.

Lastly, war is not imminent but fall of Saddam is imminent. Think about it!!! The democrats and other disliking Bush policies have a great opportunity to try to make Saddam fall before the breakout of war thus denying a big feather in the cap of President Bush. It is necessary to not do anything that makes Saddam more defiant. Actually he should be made 110 percent certain that his end is near through an all out assault on him. He must be made to leave under pressure before the war si a win-win situation for democrats, antiwar protesters and anti-Amrican crowd for the sake of anti-Americanism.

Many thanks to Saminshah, tahmed and Safwan Shah for taking part in a discussion decently.

Please put the head back on this chicken!

Ras

Sameer
There is one aspect not mentioned here. Its always taken as a matter of `patriotism` to accept and not question the US govt on their foreign policy pursuits. But does this hold true post Sept 11 when US citizens and their economy and NOT US soldiers or the US govt. `took the brunt` of the consequences of US govt. involvements overseas?

Shouldn`t citizens of the US consider it their patriotic duty towards their nation and other citizens to question their government on how and why their taxpayer dollars are going to be spent abroad, how the govt.s foreign policy will affect US citizens and the US economy? And what is the basis on which their sons, daughters and family members in the US Armed Forces are being asked to risk and probably give up their lives, is it merely for teh bottomlines of some oil tycoons who are also campaign funders.
Post-Sept 11 IMO a right to information about the consequences of foreign engagements MUST be asserted even by hyphenated first/second generation Americans.

CHOWK STAFF #49 Good to hear from you. Since you do not specify the points raised by any of us, and your views on them, I shall take the liberty of assuming that you agree on the important principle of freedom of expression and how the SOP (Single Option Poll) is inimical to that principle.
All chowk interactors, particularly long-time ones like myself, owe thanks to chowk for providing this free, convenient ``global south asian`` forum to give vent to our views. And the SOP on the Iraq war question is the only time I felt chowk erred on the side of suppression of free expression. However no one is perfect. And yet, the ability to recognize that one is not perfect, coupled with the capacity to listen to criticism and to change one`s behavior or views one considers that criticism to be valid, is perhaps even better than being perfect.
Cheers.

sameerjb #48 you write ``How come they always see USA government as bad and rest of the world good when world is full of bad governments and violators of all kind of human rights. ``
I think this is an important point that too many people from pakistan (and other countries) forget. And it is a point worth remembering. I think the US government functions better than any government I have come across (including the ``the thrashing we received in WWII cured our love of war`` German government, for example). And elected US officials are more open to listening to their constituents than most elected governments of the world. Certainly a lot more than dictatorships.
Saminasha #50 I hope you agree with sameerjb`s point that I re-printed above and my furtehr discussion on it.

TEARS,

It is hilarious to see the pakistanis sheding the camel tears for, what they believe to be, the soon to be dead of the iraquis. These are the very same people who have created the uncountables of pakistan. No one, not even a single poster has ever shed a tear, ever cared to put a number to the thousands of paki jihadists killed in kashmir and afghanistan. A nation that can create jihadic fodder cannot shed any real tears for others.

It is simply imitations of the white man who talks about the war and the possible dead. It is time that the people of pakistan open theor own eyes and recongines the uncountables, the thousands who get killed in foreign lands by the kafirs. Yes pakistanis are also humans.

Sameerji,
But why is it necessary for you to see an anti Saddam poster or placard when if given the air time, critics of an official war policy would maintain that again and again? Also, remember, that the critics of current US policy are the only people on the media who remind us that the US has been and continues to bomb Iraq in a stealthier manner-why is that not part of the mainstream coverage? I understand that there are constructive US policies and ones that are destructive. My point is to focus on the media and see what it is we are told/shown/presented with and what we are not. What is the responsibility of our media? It should be to present a diversity of opinions and positions including Frenchie in the street and Jessica Lange in DC and Lisa High School from Minneapolis, and Suheir Hammad from NYC and Dr. Physicist from MIT and so on...

Bravo SameerJB, Saminasha and tahmed32

You have raised and you have answered most of the open and not so open questions. All that is left is quibbling and we can avoid that easily.

As Chowk, we aim to strive and do the right thing. Striving we are and quite often we are not entirely wrong.

Some day, some of us will do more than Chowk has, can, could in the last five plus years. Whenever, wherever and by whoever, that happens, Chowk will be there to salute. Chowk will not change the world, ``you`` will - Chowk will just celebrate.

Much thanks for the sincere posts. We have all learned something.

SaminaShah Ji and tahmed Ji: Believe me, I care for 500,000 dead Iraqi children as much as you do. I do not wish to see another 500,000 dead children in tears to come. The anitwar fervor is not matched with equal passion for ending the misery through removing sanctions against Iraq which require removal of handful of Iraqis from the top. The point is that those handful of Iraqi leadership are not ready to sacrifice their power voluntarily for the sake of 500,000 children. They are as much guilty, if not more because these are their people, as the USA for the plight of Iraqi people. Yet, I did not see any anti Saddam posters and speeches on live broadcast of Washington peace rally on C-Span.

I consider myself progressive too. To me, progressive means believing in the progress and not a covert or balatant mean to express anti-Americanism. Nothing wrong with anti-Amricanism too as long as they call it anti-Americanism. Then, a debate is possible between anti and pro Amricanism. No nation in the history of the world has always been right and certainly not USA in recent times.

Where were peace activists for the last 10 years. Did they organize rallies for the removal of Saddam when USA was not threatening to go to war with Iraq? No, they did not. They were more interested against US pro-Israel policies, anti nuclear plants protests, saving rain forest and earth day celebrations. How come they always see USA government as bad and rest of the world good when world is full of bad governments and violators of all kind of human rights.

I regard Iraqi people more talented and educated than rest of the Arab world. I do not believe that by removing Saddam from power even by US forces will make Iraq a US puppet of Saudi Arabia kind. I am not at all worry about USA stealing all the Iraqi oil for free. Only way to save another 500,000 Iraqui children die in miserable circumstances is quick resolution of the problem. And when it comes to quick resolution, no other strategy is quicker than removing Saddam Hussein from power. Am I able to make myself clear?

Samina, I will fully support not 100,000 but million people rally at Washington mall as soon as Saddam Hussein is removed. A rally for lifting sanctions, restoring the basic human rights of Iraqi people, demanding US forces to come home and establishment of democratic institutions in Iraq in post Saddam Iraq is more intellectually and academically supported. Is there any country in the world whose political and national aspirations are in total control of USA because USA once forcefully removed a dictator from power. Not even tiny island nation of Granada.

Chowk is part of us. Any complain about their policy is nothing more than brotherly advice or mildly expressing opposing opinion. It is/ was not a protest. Chowks contributions easily outweigh any minor disagreement. So don`t worry and no need for chowk or anybody to be defensive about it.

I only wished for Pakistanis to prioritize their concerns. In my previous post, I laid out some of my concerns and glad that you agreed in support of rational against emotional. Iy is so stupid to see Pakistanis taking anti-Indian stand on this issue too, just to remain what Indians are not. I believe, Samina, you and nasah are taking a stand against US policies prematurely. There is always a right moment to take stand ( otherwise Muslims extremists always take their stand at the wrong time and place) and I believe the right moment has not arrived yet. President Bush and his associates must be extremely pleased to see the peaking of antiwar/ peace marches at the wrong time. On one side it wasted the resevoir of noble emotions and on the other gave moral support to Saddam to remain defiant. Guess, whose sufferings are extended by this move.

If US has planned to go in, the protest will not deter conservatives because the loss of some voters here would be amply made up in the south and western states.

I believe in making the difference, not wasting my sweat. I will sweat as much as possible, when I see that it can make a difference, i.e., immediately following Saddam`s removal.

Saminasha #46 I am glad we agree that Hussein is a scumbag. On the suffering of the Iraqi people you mention, Hussein and his henchmen claim that it is the US fault. The US maintains that it is Hussein`s fault, since the UN agreement permits him to exchange oil for medicine and things. Everyone agrees that Hussein maintains some a collection of huge palaces, and continues to maintain a huge army. I happen to believe that if Hussein really wanted, he could have prevented this suffering - surely if he can get material for his palaces and to maintain his army, it would be easier for him to seek medicine and nourishments.
However, it is not important what I think.
The important thing is: will the suffering of the Iraqi people increase or decrease with war and the removal of Saddam? If Afghanistan is any indication, I think war would ultimately benefit the Iraqis.
Incidentally, I hope you dont allow your opinion to be swayed by the street demonstrations, even if the demonstrators are fine New Hampshire conservatives. I try to base my opinions based on what my eyes and ears and brain that I possess, and so it doesnt matter to me that we have French intellectuals out on Champs Elyses.

Tahmed #45

In the past, I have not witnessed Chowk taking clear partisan stances in various international issues. I would argue that since this particular issue, waging war against a country that has lost 500, 000 children to lack of food, poisoned water supplies and dearth of medical supplies is not a noble act, no matter how distasteful Saddam Hussein is. If Chowk chooses to publicize a certain position they are joined by Canadians, the French, Russians, South Koreans, Japanese, Russians and the English. Even New Hampshire witnessed a demo- unheard of in the conservative history of that ornery state! How is posting International Answer`s info limiting free speech on Chowk, website of the chicken hawks? :) If memory serves me, the peacemakers on Chowk get their share of knocks...
Also Tahmed, you do know that none of us support Hussein.

SameerJi,

Admittedly, you raise some pertinent points, and I contend that it is this kind of dialogue that makes Chowk as rewarding as it is. Perhaps your comments will compel most reasonable Chowkies to look at the domestic policies that affect Pakistan a little more closely after being reminded.:) Btw, I remember at least two writers who submitted and published a strongly worded protest to Musharraf Sahib and Chowk posted it.

In addition, Chowk`s current stance is an important if it defines itself as an alternative and advocacy website. In the deluge of talking heads, propaganda soundbites and mainsteam media maintaining it`s apparatchikness to our current US administration, we need to support any medium of rational debate. If Chowk has alligned itself with progressive media, I`m sure most interactors will survive.

Thirdly, in claiming that Iraq is an issue only for the Ummah, you paint this issue with too broad a brushstroke-regardless of whether the Ummah is against the war on Iraq (which might be a bit contradictory since Hussein is considered a secularist dictator and has gone after the Islamacists), it is a matter of South Asian American conscience to advocate diplomatic avenues of negotiations rather than trumped up pretexts for war. Chowk also belongs to progressive South Asians who love reading your points of view (I do, anyway) but also find it necessary to engage in the critical debate that our govt. and mainstream media seems to deem pesky...our engagement in issues like Iraq also reminds people that there are other ways of looking at Middle Eastern, South Asian and American policy.